Title/Titre :
Speakers/
Intervenants :
Intervenants :
Franklin Associates Life Cycle Assessment for
Wine Packaging
David Bellmore, Scholle Packaging
Key results from the 2006 and 2008 Franklin Associates’ studies:
Sources:
Franklin Associates,
Associates October 2006
2006, Tetra Pak study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Container Systems for Wine
Franklin Associates, November 2008, Scholle Packaging study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Two Three-Liter Bag-InBox Wine Packaging Systems
More results from the 2006 and 2008 Franklin Associates’ studies:
Bag-in-Box
B
i B Systems
S t
HyBar / FlexiTech (3-L)
DuraShield / FlexiTech (3-L)
Paperboard Systems
Tetra Brik (1-L)
Tetra Prisma (1-L)
Tetra Prisma (500-mL)
Tetra Prisma (250-mL)
Tetra Prisma ((200-mL))
PET Systems
PET bottle (750-mL)
PET bottle (187-mL)
Glass Systems
Gl
Glass
b l (750-mL)
bottle
(750 L)
Glass bottle (187-mL)
Energy Requirements
(million BTUs per
1,000 liters of wine)
Solid Waste
(pounds per
1,000 liters of wine)
Global Warming Potential
(pounds of CO2 equivalents per
1,000 liters of wine)
3.38
3.43
143
143
248
256
3 26
3.26
3.77
4.84
5.38
5.29
143
158
196
244
244
333
378
484
557
571
8.17
15.4
286
593
922
1,699
10.8
10
8
16.7
1,545
1
545
1,988
1,916
1
916
2,690
Sources:
Franklin Associates,
Associates October 2006
2006, Tetra Pak study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Container Systems for Wine
Franklin Associates, November 2008, Scholle Packaging study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Two Three-Liter Bag-InBox Wine Packaging Systems
Total weight from the 2006 and 2008 Franklin Associates’ studies:
B i B Systems
Bag-in-Box
S t
HyBar / FlexiTech (3-L)
DuraShield / FlexiTech (3-L)
Paperboard Systems
Tetra Brik (1-L)
Tetra Prisma (1-L)
Tetra Prisma (500-mL)
Tetra Prisma (250-mL)
Tetra Prisma (200-mL)
PET Systems
PET bottle (750-mL)
PET bottle (187-mL)
Glass Systems
Glass bottle (750-mL)
Glass bottle (187-mL)
(187 mL)
Primary Packaging
Weight (grams)
Secondary and Tertiary
Packaging Weight (grams)
Total Weight per
Container (grams)
Total Weight per
Liter (grams / liter)
191.9
191.9
45.0
45.0
236.9
236.9
79.0
79.0
33.58
36.68
22.48
12.00
8.52
23.2
27.2
15.9
12.5
11.1
56.7
63.9
38.4
24.5
19.6
56.7
63.9
76.8
98.0
98.0
58.59
24.11
28.6
20.4
87.2
44.6
116
239
527
151 91
151.91
47.7
10 9
10.9
574
163
765
872
Sources:
Franklin Associates,
Associates October 2006
2006, Tetra Pak study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Container Systems for Wine
Franklin Associates, November 2008, Scholle Packaging study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Two Three-Liter Bag-InBox Wine Packaging Systems
Bag‐in‐Box’s Global Warming Potential versus Packaging Volume:
Sources:
Franklin Associates, October 2006, Tetra Pak study titled Life Cycle Inventory of Container Systems for Wine
Summary of Results
Summary of Results
1. General trend:
BIB =< Paperboard < PET < Glass
BIB =< Paperboard < PET < Glass 2. Why?
Mass / weight
Volume