Research Report no D2.5.1
Helsinki 2012
Sirkka Koskela
Helena Dahlbo
Jáchym Judl
Marja-Riitta Korhonen
SYKE - Finnish Environment Institute
Mervi Niininen
Stora Enso Oyj
LCA comparison of two systems
for bread packaging and distribution
CLEEN LTD
ETELÄRANTA 10
P.O. BOX 10
FI-00130 HELSINKI
FINLAND
www.cleen.fi
ISBN 978-952-5947-28-1
Cover photo © Pirjo Ferin, 2008
1-2
CLEEN Ltd.
Research report no D2.5.1
Sirkka Koskela, Helena Dahlbo, Jáchym Judl,
Marja-Riitta Korhonen and Mervi Niininen
LCA comparison of two systems for bread packaging and
distribution
CLEEN Ltd
Helsinki 2012
1-3
Report Title: LCA comparison of two systems for bread packaging and distribution
Key words: Life cycle assessment, corrugated cardboard, plastics, packaging,
transportation
Abstract
The goal of the study was to compare the life cycle environmental impacts of two different
product systems for bread packaging and distribution. The main difference between the
systems was the type of material used for the distribution crates, either plastic or
corrugated cardboard (CCB). The focus of the study was on the distribution of bread from
the bakery to retailers, however, the product systems did include the manufacturing of all
packaging materials for the bread, bread making (including agriculture) and the waste
management of bread residues and crates. The functional unit of the product systems was
8 loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box.
The climate change impacts of one crate containing 8 loaves of bread was 4.8 kg CO 2-eq
for the plastic crate system, 4.50 for the lighter CCB box system and 4.52 kg CO2-eq for
the heavier box system. The contribution of bread to the total climate impacts was high in
the plastic crate system (72%), but even higher in the CCB box systems (77%).
Transportation made the second highest contribution to climate impacts.
The LCA study showed that the CCB box system has the potential to be a more
environmentally friendly option than the plastic crate system based on the defined
boundaries and assumptions. The environmental impacts of manufacturing one plastic
crate are higher than those of one CCB box, but the fact that crates are reused many times
decreases the impacts significantly. However, the recycling of CCB in coreboard
production results in lower overall impacts than the plastic crate system.
Transportation made a significant contribution to the environmental impacts, thus, transport
distances, modes of transport and load were the most important variables. The plastic
crate system entails more transportation due to the backhauling of the crates for washing
and reuse in the bakery.
The study includes a number of uncertainties, most of which are very common in all LCA
studies. The uncertainties are very similar in both of the compared delivery systems.
Therefore the relative differences between the results of the systems can be considered a
good approximation. However, the accuracy of the results could be improved by focusing
on more detailed transport modelling. Sequestration of carbon should also be included in
the calculations, because it is an important part of the life cycle of fibre based products, but
only after a scientific consensus has been reached regarding its application.
Helsinki, September 2012
1-4
Table of contents
1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 2
2
Goal and scope definition ............................................................................ 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
Goal of the study .............................................................................................. 2
Scope of the study............................................................................................ 2
Data quality requirements ................................................................................ 4
Sensitivity check............................................................................................... 5
Life cycle inventory ....................................................................................... 5
3.1 Plastic crate system ......................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Modelling the system ................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Product system ............................................................................................ 5
3.1.3 Inventory data .............................................................................................. 6
3.1.4 Avoided emissions ....................................................................................... 8
3.2 Corrugated cardboard (CCB) box system ....................................................... 8
3.2.1 Product system ............................................................................................ 8
3.2.2 Inventory data .............................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 Avoided emissions ..................................................................................... 10
3.3 Transport modelling ....................................................................................... 11
3.4 LCI results ....................................................................................................... 13
4
Life cycle impact assessment .................................................................... 14
4.1
4.2
Calculation procedures .................................................................................. 14
Comparative results ....................................................................................... 15
5
Comparison of two different allocation methods using an avoided
emissions approach ................................................................................... 20
6
Sensitivity analysis ..................................................................................... 21
7
Discussion and conclusions ...................................................................... 22
Appendices ........................................................................................................ 27
Appendix 1. Unit processes .................................................................................... 27
Appendix 2. Crate circulations ............................................................................... 29
Appendix 3. LCI results ........................................................................................... 30
Appendix 4. LCIA results ........................................................................................ 33
Appendix 5. LCIA - relative contributions .............................................................. 35
Appendix 6. Cumulative energy demand ............................................................... 37
Appendix 7. Open-loop allocation .......................................................................... 38
Critical review statement................................................................................... 39
1
1 Introduction
Packed bread is usually delivered to retailers in plastic crates. Most of the crates, which are
purchased simultaneously, will come to the end of their lives at the same time. At this point
companies have to consider either to replace the plastic crate system or purchase new
crates made of entirely different materials. It is important to know how life cycle
environmental impacts will change if the plastic crates are replaced, for instance, by
corrugated cardboard (CCB) boxes. This was the starting point for this study, in which we
compared the environmental impacts of two bread distribution systems, one utilizing plastic
crates and another CCB boxes.
This report documents all data and results of the LCA comparison as well as other relevant
information. The LCA was conducted according to ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and the
ILCD (International Reference Life Cycle Data System) handbook (2010), which is a detailed
guide for Life Cycle Assessment.
The LCA comparison study was conducted by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and
Stora Enso Oyj. VAASAN Oy and Inex Partners Oy provided background information. The
study was carried out within the Measurement, Monitoring and Environmental Efficiency
Assessment (MMEA) research program managed by CLEEN Ltd. (Cluster for Energy and
Environment)1, and funded by TEKES (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation)2, Stora Enso Oyj and SYKE.
Senior Researcher Sirkka Koskela (SYKE) was responsible for leading the study.
Furthermore, the SYKE team consisted of Senior Researcher Helena Dahlbo, Researchers
Jáchym Judl and Marja-Riitta Korhonen. Senior Specialist Mervi Niininen was responsible for
Stora Enso Oyj’s contribution to the study.
2 Goal and scope definition
2.1 Goal of the study
The goal of the study was to compare the life cycle environmental impacts of two different
product systems for bread distribution from the bakery to consumers. The main difference in
the systems was the type of material used for the distribution crates, either plastic or CCB
(corrugated cardboard) (Fig. 1). The product systems (referred to as the plastic crate system
and the CCB box system) included the life cycles of both the bread and the crates/boxes.
However, the study mainly focused on the distribution system and its impacts rather than the
impacts of the delivered goods. On behalf of companies involved in bread manufacturing, the
study tried to establish which crate material would be more favourable from an environmental
perspective in this specific distribution system.
2.2 Scope of the study
The results of the comparison have been published in this LCA report for use in the decision
making procedures of companies involved in bread production.
1
2
http://www.cleen.fi/en/
www.tekes.fi/en/
2
The function of the studied systems is to distribute bread from bakery to consumers. The
product systems included the manufacturing of all packaging materials for the bread, bread
making (including agriculture), the distribution of bread from bakery to retailers using
crates/boxes, and the waste management of bread residues and crates/boxes. The
functional unit of the product systems was 8 loaves of bread delivered in one
crate/box (Fig. 2). However, the study focused on the comparison of the two different
crate/box materials, hence the bread related life cycle phases have been excluded in most
results presented in this document. The system flowcharts are presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
Figure 1. Examples of corrugated cardboard (CCB) boxes and plastic crates. Note that the
pictured CCB boxes are not identical to the ones assessed in the study.
Figure 2. Illustration of the functional unit: 8 loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box.
The weight of one plastic crate is 1.450 g with inside dimensions of 560x360x125 mm. It is
made of high density polyethylene (HDPE). The CCB box weights 190 g and 215 g and its
dimensions are 540x330x110 mm. The weight of an average loaf of bread is 340 g (2.720 g
in one crate/box). The weight of one plastic bag used for the bread packaging is 2 g (16 g in
one crate/box). Different dimensions of a crate/box indicate different capacities. However, in
the study it was assumed that all the crates/boxes carry the same load, 8 loaves of bread
with a specific size and shape, therefore they perform the same function in the studied
3
systems. Equal functionality of the two crates/boxes was confirmed in a transport trial with
CCB boxes carried out by VAASAN Oy (Hartman 2012).
The impact categories analysed in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) were: climate
change; terrestrial acidification; freshwater eutrophication; photochemical oxidant formation;
particulate matter formation; fossil depletion and cumulative energy demand (CED). For
calculating the environmental impacts of the systems, characterisation and normalisation
factors (European reference area) were taken from the ReCiPe method (2011), which has
been developed for life cycle impact assessments (Goedkoop et al. 2009).
2.3 Data quality requirements
Time-related coverage
This study investigated the current bread delivery system, therefore the most up-to-date data
as possible were used. Primary data (delivery, parts of plastic crate/CCB manufacturing
data) covered years 2009-2010. Secondary data from generic databases and other studies
represent the newest available data.
Geographical coverage
The study concerns the bread delivery system from Estonia to Finland. Data related to the
main crate/box materials were collected from Finland and the Baltic countries. The origin of
oil used for plastic crate could not be traced due to the utilisation of a generic database.
Technological coverage
Site-specific technology data coverage is high for the crate/box manufacturing and
represents the current production situation.
Precision
The aim was to obtain data with as high precision as possible. Site-specific data have high
precision, but generic data may have large uncertainties.
Completeness
The majority of the collected data for both product systems cover the main conventional
emissions. Biogenic CO2 emissions were not included, because there is currently no
scientific consensus on how they should be assessed in the forest system.
Representativeness
This study represents only this specific bread delivery system.
Consistency
The consistency is very high, because the methodologies (data collection, impact
assessment method, transport calculations, benefits of recovery) have been applied equally
in both systems under the comparison.
4
Reproducibility
Data used for the CCB manufacturing and recycling are confidential. If this data were made
available, the study would be reproducible.
Sources of the data
The main sources of data are site-specific manufacturing data, generic data of LCI
databases, previous studies and expert judgements.
Uncertainties in the information
There are many kinds of uncertainties in the study related to collected data and the methods
used. The highest uncertainties are related to the data from generic databases, other studies
and expert judgements, but their level of uncertainties are very difficult to estimate. Impact
assessment has modelling uncertainties which are also difficult to estimate. However, for the
impact categories used in this study, the characterisation models are quite well established.
2.4 Sensitivity check
A sensitivity analysis was performed concerning the number of uses for plastic crates. The
final results also include a sensitivity analysis for two different weights of the CCB boxes.
Additionally, we calculated and compared the climate impacts of the systems using two
allocation methods (ISO TR 14049 and monetary allocation). Allocation was used to examine
the benefits of recycling in the CCB system.
3 Life cycle inventory
3.1 Plastic crate system
3.1.1 Modelling the system
The matrix-based life cycle inventory method implemented in a spreadsheet was used to
construct the product systems (provided as a supporting document). The method was first
introduced by Heijungs (1994) and further described by Suh and Huppes (2005). It operates
with a set of linear equations which describe the analysed system. This approach is suitable
for modelling the analysed systems in relatively high detail. The method is also well suited for
modelling various transport solutions.
3.1.2 Product system
The study covered the entire life cycle of producing a plastic crate containing 8 loaves of
bread, distribution to retailers and finally to recovery as energy or material. For the
consumption phase only the amount and treatment of uneaten bread was considered. The
flowchart of the plastic crate system is illustrated in Fig. 3.
In the system, the plastic crates are manufactured in Finland and the plastic bags for bread
are produced in Lithuania, which are then transported to Tallinn, Estonia, where loaves of
bread are baked and packed in bags and crates. Packed bread is then transported in crates
from Tallinn (via Helsinki) to Kotka, where the main distribution centre is located. From there
it continues to local distribution centres and further to retailers and consumers. At the retailer
5
some bread remains unsold and this residue can be landfilled, composted or used
elsewhere, for instance donated to charity or used for bioethanol production. Similarly, the
consumer’s uneaten bread will be landfilled or composted.
From retailers empty crates are transported back to the main distribution centre for washing
and then back to the bakery in Tallinn where they will be reused. In reality, the empty crates
are washed in bakeries but in the model we assumed that all washing takes place at the
main distribution centre. Obsolete and broken crates are recovered either as material (20%)
for manufacturing plastic profiles (which in reality are used to replace impregnated wood
planks in building sector) or energy (80%). In the system, electricity is consumed in the
manufacturing of crates and plastic bags and also when the crates are washed, otherwise
electricity consumption is embodied in the process data e.g. electricity used in bread baking
is embodied in the bread baking module. Detergent is used when the crates are washed, and
plastics (HDPE, PP) are used as raw materials for the crates and bags.
The main modes of transport are taken into account in the calculations and they are marked
with arrows in Fig. 3. Transports that are neglected are marked with dotted arrows (as well
as electricity flows).
upstream
agriculture
bakery
PP
bread
packaging
steel
main distribution
center
crate
washing
local distribution
centers
LPG
bread waste
mgmt.
composting
landfilling
other use
water
electricity
LT
retail
detergent
customer
upstream
HDPE
plastic crate
electricity
FIN
avoided production
energy recovery
heat
material recovery
of HDPE
impregnated
wood
bread distribution
flows of substances for plastic crate washing
plastic crate transportation flow
biowaste collection (wasted bread)
electricity flow, Finland
consumer shopping transport (not included)
bread packaging transportation
avoinded heat/product flow
electricity flow, Lithuania
Figure 3. Plastic crate product system flowchart. Abbreviations: HDPE = high density
polyethylene, PP = polypropylene, LT = Lithuania, FIN = Finland, LPG = liquefied petroleum
gas.
3.1.3 Inventory data
In this section, the life cycle stages and main data sources of the plastic crate system are
presented. Detailed descriptions of the processes and data sources are available in
Appendix 1. Process data (raw material and electricity consumption; and transport distances)
for manufacturing the plastic crate were obtained from a Finnish bakery operator VAASAN
Oy (Hartman 2011a). Both the raw material i.e. high density polyethylene (HDPE) and the
crates are produced in Finland. To produce one crate, which carries 8 loaves of bread, 1.45
kg of HDPE and 2.3 kWh of electricity is consumed. Site specific production data for HDPE
6
were not available hence the Ecoinvent data were used (Ecoinvent 2010). For the electricity
used in the crate production the Finnish electricity mix from the Ecoinvent database was
applied.
One plastic crate is estimated to be used on average 700 times during its lifetime (13.75
years, see Appendix 2 for the calculation procedure) on the delivery route studied. Our
product system includes the impacts from one use of the crate on the delivery route. Hence
only 1/700 of the emissions generated from producing one plastic crate are included in our
system. Likewise, at the end of life of the crate 1/700 of the emissions and energy generated
by the waste management processes for one crate are included in the system.
Plastic bag production takes place in Lithuania. To produce one plastic bag 0.00409 kg
polypropylene (PP) granulates, 0.0002 kg iron wire (for the clip) and 0.006135 kWh of
electricity are needed (Hartman 2011a).
Inventory data for bread baking were also gathered even though this was not the focus of the
study. The weight of an average loaf of bread is 340 g (Hartman 2011b). Emission data for
bread baking were acquired from the Mittatikku project (Mittatikku 2006). The data represent
bread production from rye3 grown in Finland and include all phases from agriculture to
bakery. The data also include the electricity needed for bread production.
When the crates have been used they are brought back to the main distribution centre for
washing. The plastic crates are washed after every use. In the washing process water,
detergent, electricity and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are needed. For one crate 0.00045
m3 (=0.45 l) of tap water is consumed (Hartman 2011b), but the consumption of water (as a
resource) is not included in our assessment. In Finland, as well as in the whole of
Scandinavia, water resources are vast. Therefore, the consumption of water is currently not a
critical issue in Finland. However, emissions from treating and heating the washing water are
included. The washing process requires 5.3 g (= 0.068 kWh) of LPG per crate for heating the
water and 0.048 kWh of electricity per crate for electric motors (Hartman 2011b). Detergent
used in washing (0.19 ml/crate, Hartman 2011b) includes two active ingredients,
nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in proportions of 15-30% of NTA and
5-15% of NaOH (Hartman 2011b; Product Information 2001; Safety data sheet 2006). In the
washing process, 0.0718 g of NaOH and 0.0395 g of EDTA were used per crate (Hartman
2011b). The washing mainly removes dust from the crates and the detergents used for do
not washing include phosphorus. Hence it can be concluded that eutrophying phosphorus
emissions are not generated, and therefore their emissions to water from the washing
process are not included.
Waste management in the product system is divided into two parts. First there is the waste
management of discarded bread and secondly the waste management of obsolete and
broken crates. Loss of bread at the retailers and by consumers is 0.06% (= 21.15 g per
bread) (Salminen 2011; Foodspill 2010; THL 2011). This bread waste is assumed to be
either landfilled or composted. From retailers 45% of unsold bread ends up in landfills and
45% in composting. The remaining 10% goes to other uses (see Section 3.1.2). From
consumers 60% of uneaten bread is assumed to be landfilled and 40% composted. Emission
data for waste management were obtained from Myllymaa et al. (2008a).
3
Wheat bread was replaced by rye bread due to the lack of data for wheat production.
7
The data and methodology for the calculation of transport impacts is described in the Section
3.3.
3.1.4 Avoided emissions
When the crates return to the main distribution centre for washing, obsolete and broken
crates are separated from those that can be washed and reused. 20% of the obsolete crates
are transported 150 km to be recovered as material in a process producing plastic profiles.
The profiles are used instead of impregnated wood, the production of which was considered
to be a process avoided by plastic recycling. Emission data for these processes were
obtained from Korhonen & Dahlbo (2007). Around 80% of the obsolete crates are collected
as energy waste, crushed, transported (on average 150 km) and energy is recovered using
an incinerator/boiler (in figures referred to as crate incineration). The bread manufacturer
could not specify the type of boiler used; hence we assumed that the combustion of one kg
of plastic produces 33 MJ of heat (based on the lowest heating value of plastic waste,
Statistics Finland 2011). This heat was assumed to replace separate production of heat for
which an emission factor of 62.77 kg CO2/GJ was used (average emission factor for
separate production of heat, Motiva 2004).
3.2 Corrugated cardboard (CCB) box system
3.2.1 Product system
All life cycle stages connected to bread are the same in the CCB box system as in they are in
the plastic crate system (i.e. bread production, primary packaging production, bread-related
transport, bread waste management).
The corrugated cardboard (CCB) box product system includes all processes from
manufacturing a CCB box containing 8 loaves of bread, delivering it to retailers and finally to
disposal and/or recycling. From the consumption phase, only the amount and treatment of
uneaten bread were considered. The only difference between this product system and the
plastic crate product system is in the material used to manufacture the transport case, i.e. the
use of cardboard boxes rather than plastic crates. Due to the different materials, boxes and
crates have different reusability, which causes differences in the end-of-life treatment and to
some extent the transport phases of the product system. However, the delivery and the endof-life treatment for bread remain the same.
A flowchart of the CCB box product system is illustrated in Fig. 4. The bag for the bread is
manufactured in Lithuania. The sheets of CCB are manufactured in Latvia where they are
also cut into individual box sheets known as CCB blanks and transported to Tallinn. At the
bakery, the boxes are assembled from the blanks and then the bread is baked, bagged and
boxed. The boxes are then transported from Tallinn (via Helsinki) to Kotka, where the main
distribution centre is located, and from there they continue to local distribution centres and
onwards to retailers. At the retailer some bread remains unsold, thus this residue can either
be landfilled, composted or used elsewhere, for instance donated to charity or used for
bioethanol production. Similarly, the consumer’s uneaten bread will be landfilled or
composted. From the retailer, empty CCB boxes are collected and transported to recycling
plants. Recycled CCB boxes are used in the manufacturing of coreboard.
8
upstream
agriculture
main distribution
center
bakery
PP
bread
packaging
steel
local distribution
centers
bread waste
mgmt.
composting
landfilling
other use
electricity
LT
retail
customer
upstream
avoided production
blanks
CCB
material revocery
of CCB
bread distribution
biowaste collection (wasted bread)
empty runs (return trips)
consumer shopping transport (not included)
bread packaging transportation
avoinded virgin fluting flow
electricity flow, Lithuania
CCB transportation flow
virgin fluting
Figure 4. Corrugated cardboard (CCB) box product system flowchart. Abbreviations: PP =
polypropylene, LT = Lithuania.
In the system, electricity use is separately modelled only in the plastic bag manufacturing
phase. However, electricity is also embodied in the blank manufacturing and bread
production modules. The main modes of transport are taken into account in the calculations
and they are marked with arrows in the figure. Transport routes and energy flows that have
been neglected are marked with dotted arrows.
3.2.2 Inventory data
In this section, the inventory data for the CCB product system are presented. Summarised
information about the unit processes can be found in Appendix 1. Many unit processes in this
system are similar to those in the plastic crate system hence only differences between the
two systems are presented here. In this study two different CCB boxes were analysed. The
weights of the analyzed CCB boxes are 190g and 215g, respectively. The reason for the
difference is the different materials of the blanks used to make the boxes.
CCB is made from a combination of two sheets of paper called liners glued to a corrugated
inner medium. These three layers of paper are combined in a way that gives the overall
structure greater strength than that of each individual layer (Fig. 5).
Liner
Corrugated medium
Liner
Figure 5. The structure of cardboard blank in a CCB box.
In this study the corrugated inner medium in CCB is fluting made from virgin fibres. Liners
can be produced from virgin fibres (kraftliner) or from recycled fibres (testliner). The CCB
structure in the 190 g and 215 g boxes are testliner/fluting/testliner and
testliner/fluting/kraftliner, respectively.
9
Inventory data for manufacturing blanks and CCB boxes were provided by Stora Enso Oyj
(Niininen 2011) including information on the main raw materials, electricity and glue for box
assembly. The plastic bag manufacturing and bread production phases are identical to the
plastic crate system (see Section 3.1.3)
The waste management phase for the used CCB boxes differs from that of the plastic crates.
CCB boxes collected from retailers are not reused like plastic crates; instead they are
recycled into coreboard. Data for manufacturing coreboard from used CCB boxes were
obtained from Stora Enso Oyj (Niininen 2011). The benefits of recycling were calculated
using an avoided emissions approach (see Section 3.2.3) and two allocation methods
described in Section 5.
The data and methodology for the calculation of transport impacts is described in Section
3.3.
3.2.3 Avoided emissions
After a fibre-based product has been used, fibres can be recycled up to four to six times,
after which they are no longer strong enough for paper and board production. Nevertheless,
the fibres can still be used for energy generation to replace fossil fuels. Modelling of the
recycling loops and final incineration of the fibres may be meaningful for a large scale, i.e.
when the entire fibre pool in a certain area (e.g. in Europe) can be considered. However, at
the product level the actual products in each recycling loop should be known, which is hardly
ever possible. As a consequence fibre recycling is most often modelled to cover only the first
recycling loop.
For CCB boxes collected from retailers, the recycling rate is currently 100% (Lök 2011). It
can be assumed that recyclable fibre is a co-product of the system and a methodological
choice must be made concerning what the benefits of recycling are. There are several ways
of incorporating the recycled fibre into calculations and allocating the environmental load of
manufacturing to the reusable part of the fibre.
A transparent way of calculating the benefits of recycling is by using the system expansion
(avoided emissions approach), where the avoided emissions (benefits) gained by recycling
CCB to a secondary product are included in the studied system. The emissions potentially
avoided by recycling are assessed from the differences between similar products
manufactured either from virgin fibres or from recycled fibres. In 2010, 79% of all recycled
corrugated containers were used for coreboard manufacturing in Finland (Jokela 2012). Thus
coreboard manufacturing is the most representative recycling option for used CCB boxes
and is hence considered the secondary product. In practice, coreboard is mostly
manufactured using recycled fibres rather than virgin fibres. However, we assumed that if
virgin fibres were used they would be virgin fluting, which due to its fibre properties is the
most suitable for coreboard manufacturing. Thus the emissions avoided by recycling were
calculated as the difference between the emissions of manufacturing coreboard with virgin
fluting and the emissions of manufacturing coreboard using recycled CCB. The emissions of
the coreboard process remain the same although the raw material changes. Zero emissions
from the CCB system are allocated to the recycled fibre; hence the avoided emissions
gained by recycling are the emissions from producing the fluting replaced by recycled CCB.
For producing one ton of coreboard, 935 kg of recycled CCB and alternatively 780 kg of
fluting is needed. Site specific data was used for coreboard manufacturing. The coreboard
10
mill in question represents 64% of the total coreboard production capacity in Finland (Pöyry
Paper Machine Database 2012). Other methodological approaches to examine the benefits
of recycling and its impact on the results are ISO TR 14049 allocation (ISO 2000) and
monetary value allocation. A comparison between results calculated according to these
allocation methods and those calculated according to the avoided emissions approach is
covered in Section 5.
3.3 Transport modelling
The transportation of bread from the bakery first to the main distribution centre, then to the
local distribution centres, and finally to retailers are the same in both systems. After this
stage the transportation in each system is different. The empty CCB boxes are collected from
retailers by lorries with a capacity of 9 tons, with an assumed 50% load and 50 km transport
distance (LIPASTO 2009). Additionally, for transportation of the collected CCB material to
coreboard manufacturing a distance of 250 km was applied, based on the average
transportation distance of recovered packaging for coreboard manufacturing in 2010
(Niininen 2011). In the CCB system, blanks are manufactured in Riga, Latvia, and they are
transported a distance of 310 km to Tallinn. This transportation data were included in the
CCB production data.
The data for delivery transport distances were obtained from Hartman (2011b, 2012). Vehicle
types were selected according to information provided by the participating companies (Tab.
1).
Table 1. Transport distances and vehicle type used in the model.
Load
Route
Distance
Vehicle type
HDPE granulate
production site  crate manufacturing site
140 km
lorry 16-32 t
CCB blanks
production site (Latvia) bakery
310 km
lorry 16-32 t
crate
production site  bakery
100 km
80 km
10 km
semi trailer combination
ferry (RoRo 18 kn)
semi trailer combination
plastic bag
production site  bakery
300 km
lorry 16-32 t
bread
bakery  port of Tallinn
Tallinn  Helsinki
Helsinki  main distr. centre
main distr. centre  local distr. centre
local distr. centre  retail
10 km
80 km
130 km
333 km
162 km
semi trailer combination
ferry (RoRo 18 kn)
semi trailer combination
full trailer combination
heavy delivery lorry
crate backhaul
same distances and vehicle type as for bread delivery
empty runs
(CCB case)
same distances and vehicle type as for bread delivery
obsolete crate
collection
retail  incineration/recycling
150 km
heavy delivery lorry
CCB collection
retail  recycling
250 km
heavy delivery lorry
11
Typically in LCA, transport emissions are calculated with a weight-limited approach. This
means that inventory data for the transport process of an average vehicle, with an average
load, is presented per tonne-kilometre (tkm). This data is multiplied by the mass of analyzed
product (plus primary and secondary packaging) and the distance. This approach, however,
does not take the volumes of the transported loads into consideration. This might be a crucial
issue for products which are light but large in volume, such as the empty plastic crates in our
study. Therefore we implemented another way of calculating transport emissions in this
study.
We followed the methodology from Lipasto (2009) (a calculation system for traffic exhaust
emissions and energy consumption in Finland), which allows the calculation of a unit
emission profile (and fuel consumption) for a defined vehicle of a specific load. The Lipasto
database has a significant advantage over generic LCI databases, such as the Ecoinvent
database, which usually only provide the unit emission profiles for average vehicles with
average loads. The Lipasto database, on the other hand, contains only exhaust emissions,
but not upstream emissions (e.g. production of fuel). In order to include upstream emissions,
we combined exhaust unit emission profiles with datasets from the Ecoinvent database
(2011) for the production and distribution of diesel fuel; the manufacturing, maintenance and
end-of-life of a vehicle; as well as the construction, maintenance and end-of-life of the road
infrastructure. For the last two (vehicle and road infrastructure) we used the default
Ecoinvent values used in generic transport datasets for similar types of vehicles.
In the bread distribution system, various types of vehicles are used (Tab. 2). For each type of
vehicle, we first calculated the maximum weight of the load. As the basis for this calculation
we considered that 80 crates/boxes can be fitted on one EUR-palette (personal
communication, Hartmann 2012). Each type of vehicle has a specific loading capacity, for
example the semi trailer combination can take up to 26 palettes of bread. This number was
scaled up for the full trailer combination (41 palettes). Due to a lack of data, we assumed that
the load of a heavy delivery lorry (in %) is the same as the semi-trailer combination.
Table 2. Input data for Lipasto calculations.
Specific load
Vehicle type
Palettes per
vehicle
plastic crate
system
out
1
in
2
215 g CCB
system
190 g CCB
system
out
in
out
in
semi trailer combination
gross vehicle mass 40t
pay load capacity 25t
26 palettes
8.75 t
3.02 t
6.18 t
empty
6.12 t
empty
41 palettes
13.79 t
4.76 t
9.74 t
empty
9.66 t
empty
approx.
9 pallets
3.15 t
1.08 t
2.22 t
empty
2.21 t
empty
full trailer combination
gross vehicle mass 60t
pay load capacity 40t
heavy delivery lorry
gross vehicle mass 15t
pay load capacity 9t
1
2
out = outbound traffic (vehicle loaded with bread) in = inbound traffic (vehicle returning without bread)
12
The calculation of a unit emission profile for each vehicle and route (highway, urban) for a
specific load was done according to the following equation:
[
(
)]
(Eq. 1)
where
lx = specific load of the defined vehicle (t);
lc = payload capacity of the defined vehicle (t);
ex = emissions per tonne kilometre of the defined vehicle with specific load lx (g/tkm);
ea = emissions per tonne kilometre of the defined vehicle when empty (g/tkm);
eb = emissions per tonne kilometre of the defined vehicle when fully loaded (g/tkm).
The values of ea and eb were obtained from the Lipasto database. Emissions included CO,
HC, NOx, PM, CH4, N2O, NH3, SO2, CO2, CO2-eq. and fuel consumption of the vehicle per
tonne kilometre.
The Lipasto database was also used for calculating emissions from the ferry transport
between Tallinn and Helsinki (RoRo ship). Due to the specifics of our case study, we
calculated ferry emissions for trailer kilometre according to the advice of the developer of the
Lipasto database (Mäkelä 2012). This results in the same emissions for both compared
systems. The only difference is that 20% of the lorries driving back to the bakery carry loads
for other customers, and were therefore excluded from the system calculation. Unit
emissions from the RoRo ship were treated in the same way as those of the vehicles. They
were combined with Ecoinvent data for barge manufacture, maintenance and end-of-life.
The Ecoinvent unit process lorry 16-32t, EURO4 was also used in the model in order to
calculate the emissions for the transportation of the HDPE from the supplier to the crate
factory and for the plastic bread bag from the factory to the bakery.
3.4 LCI results
The LCI results were calculated per functional unit, which in this case was 8 loaves of bread
delivered in one crate/box. The results are given for each of the life cycle stages separately:
crate/CCB manufacturing, bread production (including agriculture), transportation (including
empty runs) and waste management. Emissions from the recycling of CCB boxes are also
reported. The following most relevant fossil fuel resources (coal, gas, oil and peat) and
emissions are included in the inventory (Appendix 3): carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO),
non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), particles and nitrogen (N), as well as
phosphorus (P) into water.
Biogenic carbon dioxide emissions were set to zero because the same amount of CO 2 is
taken up by forests as is released back to atmosphere at the end-of-life stage of a woodbased product.
13
4 Life cycle impact assessment
4.1 Calculation procedures
After the goal and scope of the study have been determined and the inventory data have
been collected, the next step is to interpret a long list of emissions and other interventions to
identify potential impacts on the environment. The ReCiPe (mid point) methodology
(Goedkoop et al. 2009, ReCiPe 2011) for life cycle impact assessment was used in this study
to help with interpretation.
Generally, the first step in LCIA is classification of inventory data, meaning that
emissions/interventions are connected to one or several impact categories. The second step
is characterisation. In characterisation, the values of emissions and other environmental
interventions are multiplied by corresponding characterisation factors. Due to multiplication
the values of interventions are converted into the same unit expressing the effects of a
chosen indicator within each impact category. Thus, the impact category indicator results can
be summarised within each impact category. Characterisation factors are defined separately
for each environmental intervention on the basis of scientific knowledge about the
contribution of environmental interventions to the effects included in the impact categories.
In this study, the following impact categories were used for calculating category indicator
results: climate change, terrestrial acidification, fresh water eutrophication, photochemical
oxidant formation, particulate matter formation, fossil depletion and cumulative energy
demand. The data on emissions associated with these conventional impact categories are
mostly readily available and reliable and characterisation models are well established. The
methodological basis for these impact categories can be found in the ReCiPe methodology.
All impact categories related to human toxicity or ecotoxicity were left out primarily due to the
lack of complete and consistent data for the relevant emissions of metals and hazardous
organic compounds to air, water and soil. It was assumed that ozone depleting substances
or ionising radiation were not produced in the studied systems. Impact categories connected
to land use or water depletion were not considered relevant for the study in which transport
plays a major role.4 Marine eutrophication is not relevant for the geographical area of the
study, since the Baltic Sea is more similar to freshwater than seawater.
ReCiPe characterisation factors were used for all impact categories, except fresh water
eutrophication. Due to the lack of characterisation factors for nitrogen releases to fresh water
in ReCiPe, we applied the Finnish factors for nitrogen and phosphorus releases (Seppälä et
al. 2009).
According to the ISO standard 14044 voluntary steps in LCIA are normalisation and
weighting. Normalisation means proportioning the magnitude of the category indicator results
to a reference value representing the impacts of, for example, an area or region. In
normalisation the indicator result is divided by a reference value, hence a value is produced
describing the contribution of the studied system to the reference system's impacts. Through
weighting all normalised results can be combined to a single impact score. In this study
4
Note: Land use and water depletion are important impact categories in bread production, but in this study
the focus was not on the delivered product but rather on secondary packaging and distribution.
14
normalisation was calculated in relation to European reference values (Wegener Sleeswijk et
al. 2008, LCA ReCiPe 2010), but weighting was not carried out.
Normalised results were not calculated for fresh water eutrophication impacts because
ReCiPe characterisation factors were not used for this impact category.
4.2 Comparative results
First, the LCA results of the product systems are presented as characterised values of each
impact category (Fig. 6 and 7). Afterwards the focus is on the distribution systems so bread
(i.e. life cycle of bread from agriculture to bakery, packaging material, mass of bread in
transportation, and waste management for bread) has been excluded from the results.
However, it is important to note that the functional unit is still the same even if all life cycles
concerning bread have been omitted.
climate change
5
crate incineration
bread waste mgmt.
ferry transport, both ways (total)
transport, return trips
transport, distribution (crate/box)
transport, distribution (bread)
bread prod.
crate washing
crate/box mfg.
bread packaging mfg.
crate/box recycling
kg CO2-eq.
4
3
2
1
0
-1
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
Figure 6. Climate change impacts for the three systems analyzed. FU=8 loaves of bread
delivered in one crate/box.
The climate change impacts of one crate containing 8 loaves are 4.8 kg CO 2-eq for the
plastic crate system, 4.52 for the heavier CCB box system and 4.50 kg CO 2-eq for the lighter
CCB box system. The contribution of bread to the total climate impacts is high in the plastic
crate system (71%) and even higher in the CCB box systems (77%). Transportation makes
the second highest contribution to the climate impacts.
The benefits of recycling CCB boxes are shown as negative values originating from the
avoided emissions of using recycled CCB instead of virgin fibre in coreboard manufacturing
(see Section 3.2.3). The benefits of recycling plastic crates are very low (per functional unit)
and therefore are not visible as negative values in the results.
Plastic crates are used 700 times on average, therefore emissions from manufacturing them
are much lower (divided by the number of uses) compared to if they were used just once.
15
freshwater eutrophication
terrestrial acidification
0.025
0.005
0.020
0.004
crate incineration
bread waste mgmt.
ferry transport, both ways (total)
transport, distribution (crate/box)
0.015
kg PO4 -eq.
kg SO2-eq.
transport, return trips
0.010
0.003
bread prod.
crate washing
0.002
crate/box mfg.
0.005
0.001
0.000
0.000
-0.005
transport, distribution (bread)
bread packaging mfg.
crate/box recycling
-0.001
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
photochemical oxidant formation
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
particulate matter formation
0.018
0.006
0.016
0.005
0.014
0.004
kg PM 10-eq.
kg NMVOC-eq.
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
-0.002
-0.001
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
Figure 7. Terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, photochemical oxidant formation
and particulate matter formation according to the life cycle stages of the three systems
analyzed. FU=8 loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box.
The greatest contributors to the impact categories terrestrial acidification, freshwater
eutrophication, photochemical oxidant formation and particulate matter are bread and
transportation. It is obvious that in eutrophication the contribution of bread arises from the
primary production of grain. As for climate impacts, the recycling of CCB slightly decreases
the environmental impacts in these categories also.
16
climate change
terrestrial acidification
0.008
1.2
crate incineration
roro transport
1.0
transport (return trips)
0.006
transport (distribution, crate/box)
transport (distribution, bread)
kg SO2-eq.
kg CO2-eq.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.004
crate washing
crate/box manuf.
crate/box recycling
0.002
0.2
0.000
0.0
-0.002
-0.2
plastic crate
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
terrestrial acidification
climate change
freshwater eutrophication
photochemical oxidant formation
0.012
0.0005
0.010
0.0004
0.008
kg NMVOC-eq.
kg PO4-eq.
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.0000
0.000
-0.002
-0.0001
plastic crate
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
particulate matter formation
190 g CCB
fossil depletion
0.0040
0.5
0.4
0.0030
0.3
kg oil-eq.
kg PM10-eq.
215 g CCB
photochemical oxidant formation
freshwater eutrophication
0.0020
0.2
0.0010
0.1
0.0000
0.0
-0.0010
-0.1
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
particulate matter formation
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
fossil depletion
Figure 8. Climate change, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, photochemical
oxidant formation, particulate matter formation and fossil depletion by life cycle stages
(without bread baking, its packaging and disposal) for each of the three systems. FU=8
loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box.
Note: Credits from plastic crate recycling are not visible in the figure because they are very small (per one use of crate).
In Fig. 8 and 9 the comparative results are presented without bread-related processes (bread
baking, its packaging and disposal).
The total energy requirements of the analysed systems were calculated according to the
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) methodology (Ecoinvent 2011). Cumulative energy
demand is calculated as the sum of all energy inputs, including feedstock energy. Specific
characterisation factors (based on a lower heating value) are defined in the methodology for
each type of energy (e.g. hard coal, crude oil in ground, peat). We used SimaPro software
17
(PRé 2011) to calculate the CED. Results of this analysis are presented in Fig. 9. Energy
demand during bread production (Grönroos et al. 2006) is presented in a separate table
because it was not possible to define the kind of energy used in the whole value chain. A
table including all values is presented in Appendix 6.
70
60.49 MJ
58.68 MJ
Total CED
57.19 MJ
non renewable - fossil
60
non renewable - nuclear
non renewable - biomass
50
renewable - biomass
renewable - wind, solar, geothermal
MJ
40
renewable - water
30
16.24 MJ
14.43 MJ
12.94 MJ
plastic
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
20
10
0
-10
plastic
215 g CCB
Total CED
190 g CCB
CED after excluding bread-related processes
Figure 9. Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) in MJ per functional unit. Negative values
represent avoided energy consumption. Total CED values are presented on the left. CED
values after excluding bread-related processes are shown separately. The CED values are
shown above each column in the figure.
Note: Energy from peat is included in the category non-renewable fossil energy according to CED methodology. The category biomass
under non renewable energy represents energy from primary forests. These are categorised within the CED framework as nonrenewable energy sources.
In all impact categories, the CCB box systems are more environmentally friendly than the
plastic crate system. Comparing the systems without bread related life cycle stages, the
potential impacts of the CCB box systems are 72 - 80% of those of the plastic crate system
depending on the impact category, and for freshwater eutrophication they are 91 and 95 %.
18
100%
crate incineration
roro transport
transport (return trips)
transport (distribution, crate/box)
transport (distribution, bread)
crate washing
crate/box manuf.
crate/box recycling
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
climate change
terrestrial
acidification
freshwater
eutrophication
photochemical
oxidant formation
particulate matter
formation
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
plastic crate
-20%
fossil depletion
Figure 10. Relative contributions (%) of life cycle stages to impacts of the plastic crate and
CCB box systems. The overall impact in each impact category has been set to 100%. For all
impact categories, recycling decreases impacts and therefore its contribution appears below
the y-axis, i.e. it is negative. FU=8 loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box (bread related
life cycle stages excluded).
When bread-related processes are excluded from the results of the product systems the
impacts of transportation (mostly in bread distribution) are the most dominant in all impact
categories for both systems (Fig. 10). The impacts of CCB manufacturing are the second
most dominant for the CCB box system.
6.0E-13
5.0E-13
4.0E-13
3.0E-13
2.0E-13
1.0E-13
0.0E+00
plastic 215 g
crate CCB
190 g plastic 215 g
CCB crate CCB
climate change
190 g plastic 215 g
CCB crate CCB
190 g plastic 215 g
CCB crate CCB
terrestrial acidification photochemical oxidant
formation
190 g plastic 215 g
CCB crate CCB
particulate matter
formation
190 g
CCB
fossil depletion
Figure 11. Normalised results of impact categories (bread related impacts excluded). FU=8
loaves of bread delivered in one crate/box.
Normalised results (excluding bread) describe the contribution of impact category results in a
larger context. In this study, European reference values were used for each impact category.
The normalised results indicate that the plastic crate system makes a greater contribution to
19
the impacts in Europe than the CCB systems (Fig. 11). For both systems, the lowest
contribution is to climate change impacts and the highest to fossil depletion.
5 Comparison of two different allocation methods using
an avoided emissions approach
There are several ways of treating the recycled fibre and allocating the environmental load of
manufacturing to the reusable part of the fibre. We used the system expansion approach,
otherwise known as the avoided emission approach, for the basic calculation and the
following two allocation methods to examine the benefits of recycling and the impact of the
different approaches on the results:
-
ISO TR 14049 allocation (ISO 2000), and
monetary value allocation.
Allocation means partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system
between the product system under study and one or more other product systems (ISO
14040, 14044). When recyclable materials are produced in the product system and are used
in other systems (e.g. recycled fibre is used to produce other fibre products), it is acceptable
to share the environmental burdens between these products and product systems. According
to ISO standards 14040, 14044, if allocation cannot be avoided by e.g. system expansion
described in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.3, the system should be partitioned between its different
products or functions in a way that reflects the physical relationships between them. If
physical relationships cannot be established, other relationships, such as economic values
may be used.
Firstly, we used so called open-loop allocation, meaning that a part of the emission load is
allocated to the recycled fibre leaving the system, thereby providing benefits for the studied
product system by producing raw material for another product system. In the methodology,
the recycling rates of the primary and the secondary product and the yield of repulped fibres
for recycled products in both cases were considered (ISO/TR 14049). The principles of openloop allocation and its application to the CCB box system are presented in Appendix 7. As a
result, in this study, 60% of the inputs and outputs from CCB manufacturing are allocated to
the recycled fibre that is produced in the system. It should be noted that only the inputs and
outputs of CCB production are allocated, and other life cycle phases are allocated fully to the
studied CCB box.
Secondly, we allocated using economic values. The price of CCB was estimated to be 1.4
relative to the price of coreboard 1 (Niininen 2011). From these values we calculated that
42% of the inputs and outputs from CCB manufacturing are allocated to the recycled fibre
that is produced in the system. Here also only the inputs and outputs of CCB production are
allocated, and other life cycle phases are allocated fully to the studied CCB box.
System expansion is a transparent way of calculating the benefits of recycling and it is also
recommended in the standards for LCA (ISO 14044) to be used in order to avoid allocation.
Hence we used the results from the system expansion approach as the basic results for our
product system.
20
5
kg CO2 -eq.
4
3
2
1
0
215 g CCB
ISO allocation
190 g CCB
ISO allocation
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
215 g CCB
monetary allocation monetary allocation system expansion
190 g CCB
system expansion
Figure 12. Climate change impacts for each CCB box (215 g or 190 g) with different
allocations methods. FU=8 loaves of bread delivered in one CCB box.
In our study, the effects of different allocation procedures on the total results are illustrated
using climate impact category results (Fig. 12). The results from ISO, monetary allocation
and the avoided emissions approach do not differ significantly from each other.
6 Sensitivity analysis
The results of LCA studies depend greatly on the assumptions made at the beginning of the
study and also during the study. The meaning of sensitivity and also uncertainty analysis is to
reveal the most significant uncertainties and critical assumptions that affect the results and
thus conclusions. In our systems transport has a very important role in the results and it
would be justified to conduct a sensitivity analysis for transport distances. However, in our
specific study the distances cannot be changed arbitrarily, because many other variables
should also be changed in order to illustrate reality. Therefore this kind of sensitivity analysis
was not conducted in this study.
Change in number of uses of plastic crates
In this study, it was calculated that plastic crates are used 700 times on average (Appendix
2). It was important to find out whether an increase or a decrease in the number of uses
affects the results of the whole study. A calculation was made with the number of uses of the
crates ranging from 10 to 700. The results show that for a range of uses from 10 to 100 times
the impacts of manufacturing decreased notably, but there after the differences were not
significant (Fig. 13). In the range of hundreds of uses only a minor impact on the overall
results of the system was observed. This is due to the fact that the manufacturing of the crate
plays a very small role in the system as a whole.
21
0.45
0.40
kg CO2-eq.
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
10 20 30 40 50
100
150
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
rotations
Figure 13. Relationship between climate change impacts of manufacturing of one crate and
the number of its rotations.
7 Discussion and conclusions
This LCA study showed that for delivering 8 loaves of bread in one crate/box the CCB box
systems are more environmentally friendly options than the plastic crate system in all impact
categories based on the defined boundaries and assumptions. Cumulative energy demands
are slightly lower (27%) for the heavier CCB box system and significantly lower (40%) for the
lighter CCB box compared to the plastic crate system (bread-related processes excluded).
Differences arise from the life cycle phases related to crates or boxes (i.e. manufacturing,
use, recycling, disposal), as all other life cycle phases (related to the product delivered) are
the same.
The study proved that the environmental impacts of the delivered product have a significant
effect on the total impacts of the distribution system. In the plastic crate and CCB systems,
the product (8 loaves of bread) contributed 36 – 92% of the total impact category results. In
the delivery phase of the systems the other significant contributor is naturally transportation;
distances, modes of transport and particularly load are the most important factors. The
greatest differences between the impacts of transportation are caused by the different
weights of the crates/boxes and the circulation of plastic crates.
It should be noted that the delivery network in our systems covered the whole of Finland and
the distances are very long due to the fact that Finland is sparsely populated. Local bakeries
could decrease the amount of transportation, but such a decentralised system would have
different impacts and the overall outcome cannot be evaluated without a comprehensive
analysis. Therefore a sensitivity analysis related to transportation was not conducted in this
study.
The environmental impacts of manufacturing one plastic crate are higher than those of one
CCB box, but the fact that crates are reused many times decreases the impacts significantly.
As a result of the reuse of crates the impacts from manufacturing a plastic crate are lower
than those of a CCB box. In our system, however, the recycling of CCB to coreboard
production changes the overall impacts more in favour of CCB. Also in the future demand for
recycled corrugated boxes is expected to be high, because there is continuous demand for
22
recycled fibres. Corrugated boxes from retailers and industry are very often collected
separately, which ensures the high purity and quality of fibres.
In the use phase (i.e. delivery network) CCB boxes perform better, because plastic crates
need washing after every use which causes impacts on the environment. However, the
significance of washing on the total impacts is very low. Our sensitivity analysis shows that
decreasing, or increasing, the number of times the plastic crates are used has only a very
small impact on the overall results of the system (unless the number of uses is extremely
low), due to the fact that the manufacturing of the crate plays only a very minor role in the
whole system. The modelled end-of-life recovery solutions for the plastic crate (20% material
recovery, 80% energy recovery) and the CCB box (100% material recovery) are based on
the current situation. Due to the minor role of the end-of-life phase for the overall impacts
(especially in the plastic crate system), changes in the recovery alternatives would not
change the result of the comparison.
The comparison of the different impact category results (excluding bread) to the European
reference values shows that fossil fuel use in the product systems makes the highest
contribution to the European impacts. Climate change impacts make the lowest contribution
in both systems. The plastic crate system contributes more than the two CCB systems in all
impact categories.
In our basic calculation, we complied with the recommendations of LCA standards and used
system expansion (avoided emissions approach) rather than allocation procedures to
estimate the benefits of recycling. However, our comparison showed that the climate impacts
of ISO TR 14049 and monetary allocation did not differ much from each other, nor from the
basic calculation.
Carbon sequestration in forest is an important part of the life cycle for fibre based products.
This is also the case with CCB boxes which are partly made of virgin fibres sourced from
Finnish forests. There are models attempting to link carbon sequestration in forests to
product carbon footprints but they contain high uncertainties. Unfortunately no scientific
consensus has been reached on how to incorporate CO2 removal by forests into product
specific assessment. Therefore a conventional approach is applied in this report and no
benefit from carbon sequestration is allocated to CCB boxes – even though the potential of
doing so is well recognised.
The study includes a number of uncertainties, most of which are very common in all LCA
studies e.g. use of generic data and model uncertainties. In our comparison uncertainties are
very equal in both delivery systems. Therefore we conclude that the relative differences
between the results of the systems can be considered a good approximation. However, the
accuracy of the results could be improved by focusing on more detailed transport modelling.
We also propose that after a scientific consensus has been reached, sequestration of carbon
should be included in the calculations.
23
References
Ecoinvent Database v.2.2.
http://www.ecoinvent.ch
2010.
Swiss
Centre
for
Life
Cycle
Inventories.
FOODSPILL 2010. Foodspill-project - Ruokahävikin määrä ja vähentämiskeinot
elintarvikeketjussa:
https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/mtt/elintarvikeketjut/vastuullinenelintarviketalous/foodspi
ll (Accessed 17.2.2012)
Goedkoop M.J., Heijungs R, Huijbregts M., De Schryver A. Struijs J., Van Zelm R. ReCiPe
2009. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation; 6
January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net
Grönroos J., Seppälä J., Voutilainen P., Seuri P., Koikkalainen K. Energy use in conventional
and organic milk and rye bread production in Finland. 2006. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment (117):109-118.
Hartman, R. 2011a. VAASAN Oy. Personal communication. Data from VAASAN Oy supplier.
Spring 2011.
Hartman, R. 2011b. VAASAN Oy. Personal communication. Spring 2011.
Hartman, R. 2012. VAASAN Oy. Personal communication by email. April 2012.
Heijungs, R. 1994. A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products.
Ecol Econ 10(1):69–81
ILCD Handbook 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System, ILCD, Handbook.
European Comission, Joint Research Centre.
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-General-guide-for-LCA-DETAILonline-12March2010.pdf [Accessed 17.2.2012]
IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance and
Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 5: Waste.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and
guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 2000. TR 14049. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Examples of
application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis.
Jokela, E. 2012. Suomen Aaltopahviyhdistys ry. A personal communication by email.
Korhonen, M.-R. & Dahlbo, H. 2007. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by recycling
plastics
and
textiles
into
products.
The
Finnish
Environment
30/2007.
http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=249187&lan=en
LCA ReCiPe midpoint normalisation 2000 (2010). Revised version 1.1; 23 September 2010.
http://www.globright.nl/LCA_normalisation_revised_2010.htm [Accessed 20.5.2011]
24
LIPASTO 2009. A calculation system for traffic exhaust emissions and energy consumption
in
Finland.
http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/tavaraliikennee/vesiliikennee/roroe.htm
[Accessed 17.5.2011]
Lök, K. 2011. Stora Enso Oyj. A personal communication by email.
Mittatikku 2006. MITTATIKKU: Laskenta ja data. Luonnos versio 7.4.2006.
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=49403&lan=fi [Accessed 17.2.2012]
Motiva 2004. Yksittäisen kohteen CO2-päästöjen laskentaohjeistus sekä käytettävät CO2päästökertoimet. (Guidance and CO2-emission factors for calculating CO2-emissions from a
single object).In Finnish.
Myllymaa, T., Moliis, K., Tohka, A., Isoaho, S., Zevenhoven, M., Ollikainen, M. and Dahlbo,
H. 2008a. Jätteiden kierrätyksen ja polton ympäristövaikutukset ja kustannukset – jätehuollon
vaihtoehtojen tarkastelu alueellisesta näkökulmasta. (Environmental impacts and costs of
recycling and incineration of waste – The alternatives of regional waste management).
Suomen ympäristö 39/2008.
Myllymaa, T., Moliis, K., Tohka, A., Rantanen, P., Ollikainen, M. and Dahlbo, H. 2008b.
Jätteiden kierrätyksen ja polton Käsittelyketjujen ympäristökuormitus ja kustannukset.
Inventaarioraportti. (Environmental loads and costs of waste recycling and incineration
processes. Inventory report.) Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 28/2008.
Mäkelä, K. 2012. VTT. Personal communication by email. Spring 2012.
Niininen, M. 2011. Stora Enso Oyj. Several personal communications by email and
telephone during the project in 2011.
PRé, 2011. SimaPro, Available at: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/ [Accessed 13.3.2012].
Pöyry Paper Machine Database [Accessed 11.4.2012]
ReCiPe 2011. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/ [Accessed 8.7.2011]
Saarinen, M., Kurppa, S., Nissinen, A. & Mäkelä, J. (toim.) 2011. Aterioiden ja asumisen
valinnat kulutuksen ympäristövaikutusten ytimessä - ConsEnv-hankkeen loppuraportti.
ConsEnv-hankeken loppuraportti. (Environmental impacts of consumers’ choice of food
products and housing. Final report of the ConsEnv project). The Finnish Environment
14/2011. http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=386813&lan=fi [Accessed 17.2.2012]
Salminen, T. 2011. S-Group. Personal communication by email. Spring 2011.
Seppälä J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J-M., Härmä, T.,
Korhonen, M-R., Saarinen, M., Virtanen, Y. 2009. Suomen kansantalouden materiaalivirtojen
ympäristövaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla. Suomen ympäristö 20/2009. Suomen
ympäristökeskus. Helsinki
Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod
13(7):687–697
SYKE 2008. Unpublished calculations for POLKU-project. (Polttokelpoisten jätteiden
hyödyntäminen ympäristö- ja kustannusvaikutusten kannalta)
25
Statistics
Finland
2011.
Fuel
classification
and
http://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/khkaasut_polttoaineluokitus.html
emission
coefficients.
THL 2011. National Institute for Health and Welfare. Ruoankulutus Suomessa 1950-2007:
http://www.ktl.fi/portal/suomi/tietoa_terveydesta/elintavat/ravitsemus/kalvosarjoja/ruoankulutu
ksen_trendit/ruoankulutus_1950-2007/ (Accessed 15.1.2011)
Wegener Sleeswijk A, Van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008)
Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European
economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Tot Environ 390 (1): 227-240
26
Appendices
Appendix 1. Unit processes
Description of unit processes used in this study.
Module
Description of unit process
Data source
bread
All phases from agriculture to bakery. Updated nutrient
leaching & eutrophication of waters and electricity in
Finland.
Mittatikku 2006
landfilling
Biowaste disposed of at landfill. Recovery rate of 60%
and oxidation rate of 10% for methane included. No
energy recovery of LFG. Only methane emissions
included.
Saarinen et al. 2011,
IPCC 2000
composting
Composting in a tunnel or drum. Emissions from energy
use and the composting process. Methane, dinitrogen
oxide and ammonia emissions included.
Myllymaa et al. 2008b
bag transportation
transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO4, RER, [tkm]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
Both cases
semi trailer combination
(gross vehicle mass 40t, payload capacity 25t) [tkm]
full trailer combination
bread transportation
(gross vehicle mass 60t, payload capacity 40t) [tkm]
Lipasto database 2009
heavy delivery lorry
(gross vehicle mass 15t, payload capacity 9t) [tkm]
RoRo, 18 kn, trailer capacity 150, [g/tkm]
Lipasto database 2009
Plastic crate
electricity mix, FI, [kWh],
electricity, FIN (default)
Represents emissions of Finnish electricity mix, includes
imports, excludes distribution and losses
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
HDPE
polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant, RER [kg]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
PP
polypropylene, granulate, at plant, RER [kg]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
Clip
pig iron, at plant, RER [kg]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
NaOH
sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant,
RER, [kg]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
EDTA
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, at plant, RER, [kg]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
LPG
liquefied petroleum gas, at service station, CH
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
material recovery of
plastic
Granulation of crates, production of colouring/UV
protection agent and manufacturing of plastic profiles.
Carbon dioxide, methane and dinitrogen oxide emissions
included.
Korhonen & Dahlbo
2007
avoided production of
impregnated wood
Manufacturing of impregnated wood planks (including
forestry, saw mill, production of impregnation agent and
pressure impregnation of wood). Carbon dioxide,
methane and dinitrogen oxide emissions included.
Korhonen & Dahlbo
2007
energy recovery of
plastic
Combustion of plastic in a boiler for energy waste. Lower
heating value 33 MJ/kg plastic. Carbon dioxide, methane
and dinitrogen oxide emissions included.
Statistics Finland 2011,
Myllymaa et al. 2008b
27
avoided heat
production
Average separate heat production, emission factor 62.77
kg CO2/GJ
Motiva 2004
HDPE transportation
transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO4, RER, [tkm]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO4, RER, [tkm]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
semi trailer combination
(gross vehicle mass 40t, payload capacity 25t) [tkm]
crate transportation
full trailer combination
(gross vehicle mass 60t, payload capacity 40t) [tkm]
Lipasto database 2009
heavy delivery lorry
(gross vehicle mass 15t, payload capacity 9t) [tkm]
RoRo, 18 kn, trailer capacity 150, [g/tkm]
plastic crate collection
heavy delivery lorry
(gross vehicle mass 15t, payload capacity 9t) [tkm]
Lipasto database 2009
Lipasto database 2009
CCB
blank and CCB
Includes emissions from blank and corrugated cardboard
box manufacturing. Cradle-to-gate data starting from raw
material extraction from nature (wood, chemicals, fuels,
external energy). Data covers also all transportation to
manufacturing sites, transportation of CCB sheets and
blanks and ends at box machine located at bakery.
Niininen 2011
material recovery of
CCB
core board manufacturing; Cradle-to-gate data.
Niininen 2011
avoided virgin
production
fluting manufacturing; Cradle-to-gate data.
Niininen 2011
transport, lorry 16-32t, EURO4, RER, [tkm]
Ecoinvent data v.2.2
semi trailer combination
(gross vehicle mass 40t, payload capacity 25t) [tkm]
CCB transportation
full trailer combination
(gross vehicle mass 60t, payload capacity 40t) [tkm]
Lipasto database 2009
heavy delivery lorry
(gross vehicle mass 15t, payload capacity 9t) [tkm]
RoRo, 18 kn, trailer capacity 150, [g/tkm]
CCB box collection
heavy delivery lorry
(gross vehicle mass 15t, payload capacity 9t) [tkm]
28
Lipasto database 2009
Lipasto database 2009
Appendix 2. Crate circulations
Data used calculating the number of uses for plastic crates is partly based on confidential
information of the bakery company (Hartman 2012).
The number of circulations of one crate
 The number of circulations of one crate per year
 The duration of one circulation
61.54
4.87 days
The lifetime of one crate
 average lifetime of one crate
13.75 years
The number of uses of one crate for an average route
For the whole pool of crates used by the bakery company
 61.54 circulations * 13.75 years = 846 number of uses
The number of uses of one crate for the route modelled in our case study
For the specific route modelled in our system the circulation of a crate takes one day longer
than for the average route, hence
The duration of one circulation
The number of circulations per year
5.87 days
51.1 circulations
 51.5 circulations * 13.75 years = 703 number of uses
 we use a rounded figure 700 number of uses
29
Appendix 3. LCI results
Main LCI results according to life cycle stage, presented in kg per 8 loaves of bread.
bread
packaging
1
mfg.
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread prod.
transport,
distribution
(bread)
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
transport,
return trips
ferry transport,
both ways
(total)
bread
waste
3
mgmt.
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
plastic crate
6.78E-2
4.83E-3
2.27E-2
2.03E+0
4.18E-1
2.20E-1
3.30E-1
1.41E-1
9.97E-4
4.65E-4
-5.61E-5
3.24E+00
215 g CCB
6.94E-2
2.39E-1
-
2.03E+0
3.46E-1
2.38E-2
2.54E-1
1.13E-1
9.97E-4
-
-1.16E-1
2.96E+00
190 g CCB
6.94E-2
2.13E-1
-
2.03E+0
3.46E-1
2.10E-2
2.54E-1
1.13E-1
9.97E-4
-
-1.02E-1
2.95E+00
plastic crate
4.21E-4
3.31E-5
8.59E-5
2.64E-3
3.46E-4
1.82E-4
2.40E-4
8.29E-5
n/a
3.03E-7
-1.30E-7
4.03E-03
215 g CCB
4.23E-4
3.50E-4
-
2.64E-3
3.05E-4
2.49E-5
1.84E-4
6.64E-5
n/a
-
-6.34E-5
3.93E-03
190 g CCB
4.23E-4
3.10E-4
-
2.64E-3
3.05E-4
2.20E-5
1.84E-4
6.64E-5
n/a
-
-5.60E-5
3.89E-03
plastic crate
2.61E-4
2.61E-5
9.86E-6
1.80E-3
7.37E-4
3.88E-4
4.35E-4
1.29E-4
2.34E-6
1.79E-7
-
3.78E-03
215 g CCB
2.12E-7
1.38E-5
-
4.60E-3
1.31E-5
8.45E-7
9.73E-6
3.05E-6
5.01E-5
-
-5.24E-6
4.68E-03
190 g CCB
2.12E-7
1.22E-5
-
4.60E-3
1.31E-5
7.47E-7
9.73E-6
3.05E-6
5.01E-5
-
-4.63E-6
4.68E-03
plastic crate
1.55E-4
1.22E-5
4.96E-5
2.56E-3
5.72E-4
3.01E-4
4.35E-4
1.25E-3
n/a
2.09E-7
-
5.33E-03
215 g CCB
1.56E-4
8.87E-4
-
2.56E-3
4.85E-4
3.17E-5
3.47E-4
9.97E-4
n/a
-
-3.74E-4
5.09E-03
190 g CCB
1.56E-4
8.20E-4
-
2.56E-3
4.85E-4
2.80E-5
3.47E-4
9.97E-4
n/a
-
-3.31E-4
5.06E-03
plastic crate
1.42E-4
1.20E-5
4.80E-5
5.36E-3
2.62E-3
1.38E-3
2.22E-3
2.61E-3
1.82E-5
1.03E-6
-
1.44E-02
215 g CCB
1.51E-4
6.41E-4
-
5.36E-3
2.27E-3
1.53E-4
1.66E-3
2.09E-3
1.82E-5
-
-2.85E-4
1.20E-02
190 g CCB
1.51E-4
5.70E-4
-
5.36E-3
2.27E-3
1.35E-4
1.66E-3
2.09E-3
1.82E-5
-
-2.51E-4
1.20E-02
plastic crate
2.61E-4
2.61E-5
9.86E-6
1.80E-3
7.37E-4
3.88E-4
4.35E-4
1.29E-4
2.34E-6
1.79E-7
-
3.78E-03
215 g CCB
2.63E-4
3.55E-4
-
1.80E-3
5.43E-4
2.99E-5
4.03E-4
1.03E-4
2.34E-6
-
-5.94E-5
3.44E-03
190 g CCB
2.63E-4
3.14E-4
-
1.80E-3
5.43E-4
2.64E-5
4.03E-4
1.03E-4
2.34E-6
-
-5.25E-5
3.40E-03
plastic crate
1.19E-4
9.22E-6
1.70E-5
1.90E-4
2.86E-4
1.51E-4
1.87E-4
4.73E-5
n/a
8.73E-8
-
1.01E-03
215 g CCB
1.21E-4
6.59E-5
-
1.90E-4
2.63E-4
2.07E-5
1.02E-4
3.79E-5
n/a
-
-1.32E-6
7.99E-04
190 g CCB
1.21E-4
5.84E-5
-
1.90E-4
2.63E-4
1.83E-5
1.02E-4
3.79E-5
n/a
-
-1.16E-6
7.90E-04
kg
CO2, fossil
CH4, fossil
N2O
SOX
NOX
CO, fossil
NMVOC
1
2
mfg. = manufacturing, 2 prod. = production, 3 mgmt. = management, 4 n/a = not available
30
Continuation of the previous table.
bread
packaging
mfg.1
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread prod.2
transport,
distribution
(bread)
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
transport,
return trips
ferry
transport,
both ways
(total)
bread waste
mgmt.3
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
plastic crate
4.03E-5
3.37E-6
2.93E-5
n/a
2.34E-4
1.23E-4
1.43E-4
1.23E-4
n/a
5.67E-8
-
6.96E-04
215 g CCB
4.14E-5
9.59E-5
-
n/a
1.92E-4
1.39E-5
1.25E-4
9.80E-5
n/a
-
-5.59E-5
5.11E-04
190 g CCB
4.14E-5
8.54E-5
-
n/a
1.92E-4
1.23E-5
1.25E-4
9.80E-5
n/a
-
-4.94E-5
5.06E-04
plastic crate
3.62E-8
4.61E-9
3.88E-8
5.93E-3
5.86E-7
3.08E-7
4.28E-7
1.53E-7
n/a
1.98E-10
-
5.93E-03
215 g CCB
3.79E-8
1.14E-5
-
5.93E-3
5.08E-7
3.39E-8
3.25E-7
1.22E-7
n/a
-
-9.16E-6
5.93E-03
190 g CCB
3.79E-8
1.01E-5
-
5.93E-3
5.08E-7
3.00E-8
3.25E-7
1.22E-7
n/a
-
-8.10E-6
5.93E-03
plastic crate
1.39E-6
4.24E-10
6.76E-9
5.44E-4
5.87E-8
3.09E-8
4.18E-8
1.39E-8
n/a
2.00E-11
-
5.46E-04
215 g CCB
1.39E-6
1.87E-6
-
5.44E-4
5.16E-8
3.64E-9
3.64E-8
1.11E-8
n/a
-
-1.46E-6
5.93E-03
190 g CCB
1.39E-6
1.65E-6
-
5.44E-4
5.16E-8
3.22E-9
3.64E-8
1.11E-8
n/a
-
-1.29E-6
5.46E-04
kg
Particles
N, to water
P, to water
1
mfg. = manufacturing, 2 prod. = production, 3 mgmt. = management, 4 n/a = not available
Note: a detailed inventory was not available for some unit processes such as bread production, bread waste management or plastic crate recycling.
avoided consumption of fossil fuels due to recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
31
Main fossil fuel resources requirements according to life cycle stage, presented in kg per 8 loaves of bread.
bread
packaging
1
mfg.
ferry transport,
both ways (total)
bread waste
3
mgmt.
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
plastic crate
2.33E-4
1.78E-4
2.75E-3
n/a
8.91E-3
4.69E-3
5.66E-3
1.31E-3
n/a
1.48E-6
n/a
2.37E-02
215 g CCB
2.64E-4
2.92E-2
-
n/a
8.28E-3
6.10E-4
4.20E-3
1.05E-3
n/a
-
-2.47E-3
4.12E-02
190 g CCB
2.64E-4
2.70E-2
-
n/a
8.28E-3
5.39E-4
4.20E-3
1.05E-3
n/a
-
-2.18E-3
3.92E-02
plastic crate
4.70E-3
6.12E-4
5.91E-3
n/a
1.24E-2
6.52E-3
7.26E-3
1.01E-3
n/a
1.07E-6
-
3.84E-02
215 g CCB
4.76E-3
1.11E-2
-
n/a
1.19E-2
9.02E-4
7.11E-3
8.04E-4
n/a
-
-4.41E-3
3.22E-02
190 g CCB
4.76E-3
9.86E-3
-
n/a
1.19E-2
7.97E-4
7.11E-3
8.04E-4
n/a
-
-3.90E-3
3.13E-02
plastic crate
1.59E-5
4.94E-6
7.28E-5
n/a
1.21E-4
6.35E-5
7.08E-5
9.80E-6
n/a
5.44E-9
n/a
3.58E-04
215 g CCB
1.65E-5
1.30E-4
-
n/a
1.16E-4
8.79E-6
6.82E-5
7.84E-6
n/a
-
-5.38E-5
2.94E-04
190 g CCB
1.65E-5
1.15E-4
-
n/a
1.16E-4
7.77E-6
6.82E-5
7.84E-6
n/a
-
-4.76E-5
2.84E-04
plastic crate
2.10E-2
1.64E-3
2.43E-3
n/a
1.08E-2
5.66E-3
7.39E-3
2.22E-3
n/a
2.95E-6
-
5.11E-02
215 g CCB
2.10E-2
3.97E-2
-
n/a
9.62E-3
7.39E-4
6.15E-3
1.78E-3
n/a
-
-1.93E-3
7.70E-02
190 g CCB
2.10E-2
3.51E-2
-
n/a
9.62E-3
6.53E-4
6.15E-3
1.78E-3
n/a
-
-1.71E-3
7.26E-02
plastic crate
3.45E-2
1.97E-3
5.99E-3
n/a
1.29E-1
6.79E-2
1.02E-1
4.27E-2
n/a
5.34E-5
n/a
3.84E-01
215 g CCB
3.50E-2
2.32E-2
-
n/a
1.07E-1
7.31E-3
7.62E-2
3.42E-2
n/a
-
-2.20E-2
2.61E-01
190 g CCB
3.50E-2
2.07E-2
-
n/a
1.07E-1
6.46E-3
7.62E-2
3.42E-2
n/a
-
-1.95E-2
2.60E-01
plastic crate
3.45E-5
2.58E-4
3.71E-3
n/a
6.02E-6
aggregated value for all transport processes
n/a
-1.22E-06
n/a
4.01E-03
Peat, in ground (kg) 215 g CCB
3.45E-5
2.44E-2
-
n/a
4.80E-6
aggregated value for all transport processes
n/a
-
-4.68E-02
-2.23E-02
190 g CCB
3.45E-5
2.16E-2
-
n/a
4.77E-6
aggregated value for all transport processes
n/a
-
-4.13E-02
-1.97E-02
Brown coal
kg
Hard coal
kg
Off-gas, coal mine
Nm3
Natural gas
Nm3
Crude oil *
kg
1
transport,
transport, transport,
bread
crate/box
crate
distribution distribution
return
mfg.
washing prod.2
(bread)
(crate/box)
trips
mfg. = manufacturing, 2 prod. = production, 3 mgmt. = management, 4 n/a = not available
Note: a detailed inventory was not available for some unit processes such as bread production, bread waste management or plastic crate recycling.
avoided impacts from recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
32
Appendix 4. LCIA results
climate change
LCIA results with and without bread by life cycle stages.
bread
packaging
1
mfg.
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread
2
prod.
transport,
distribution
(bread)
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
transport,
return trips
ferry transport,
both ways
(total)
bread
waste
3
mgmt.
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
7.85E-2
5.70E-3
2.53E-2
3.47E+0
4.32E-1
2.28E-1
3.40E-1
1.44E-1
7.53E-2
7.23E-4
-5.95E-5
4.80E+0
with bread
plastic crate
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
freshwater
eutrophication
terrestrial acidification
without bread
with bread
plastic crate
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
without bread
with bread
plastic crate
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
photochemical oxidant
formation
without bread
1
with bread
plastic crate
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
without bread
2
-
1.00E+0
2.00E+0
-
4.00E+0
5.00E+0
6.00E+0
7.00E+0
-
9.00E+0
1.00E+1
4.40E+1
7.85E-2
2.52E-1
-
3.47E+0
3.58E-1
2.47E-2
2.62E-1
1.15E-1
7.53E-2
-
-1.20E-1
4.52E+0
-
2.52E-1
-
-
3.58E-1
2.47E-2
2.62E-1
1.15E-1
-
-
-1.20E-1
8.92E-1
7.85E-2
2.25E-1
-
3.47E+0
3.58E-1
2.18E-2
2.62E-1
1.15E-1
7.53E-2
-
-1.06E-1
4.50E+0
-
2.25E-1
-
-
3.58E-1
2.18E-2
2.62E-1
1.15E-1
-
-
-1.06E-1
8.76E-1
2.36E-4
1.90E-5
8.02E-5
1.30E-2
2.18E-3
1.15E-3
1.76E-3
2.72E-3
1.02E-5
8.18E-7
-
2.11E-2
-
1.90E-5
8.02E-5
-
2.18E-3
1.15E-3
1.76E-3
2.72E-3
-
8.18E-7
-
7.90E-3
2.36E-4
1.35E-3
-
1.30E-2
1.88E-3
1.27E-4
1.32E-3
2.18E-3
1.02E-5
-
-5.42E-4
1.95E-2
-
1.35E-3
-
-
1.88E-3
1.27E-4
1.32E-3
2.18E-3
-
-
-5.42E-4
6.31E-3
2.36E-4
1.23E-3
-
1.30E-2
1.88E-3
1.12E-4
1.32E-3
2.18E-3
1.02E-5
-
-4.79E-4
1.94E-2
-
1.23E-3
-
-
1.88E-3
1.12E-4
1.32E-3
2.18E-3
-
-
-4.79E-4
6.24E-3
1.27E-5
2.19E-6
2.89E-5
4.35E-3
1.52E-4
7.98E-5
1.01E-4
5.14E-5
2.73E-7
3.44E-8
-
4.78E-3
-
2.19E-6
2.89E-5
-
1.52E-4
7.98E-5
1.01E-4
5.14E-5
-
3.44E-8
-
4.15E-4
1.27E-5
1.24E-4
-
4.35E-3
1.40E-4
1.03E-5
8.79E-5
4.11E-5
2.73E-7
-
-1.01E-5
4.76E-3
-
1.24E-4
-
-
1.40E-4
1.03E-5
8.79E-5
4.11E-5
-
-
-1.01E-5
3.93E-4
1.27E-5
1.10E-4
-
4.35E-3
1.40E-4
9.06E-6
8.79E-5
4.11E-5
2.73E-7
-
-8.91E-6
4.74E-3
-
1.10E-4
-
-
1.40E-4
9.06E-6
8.79E-5
4.11E-5
-
-
-8.91E-6
3.79E-4
2.93E-4
2.39E-5
7.26E-5
5.86E-3
3.14E-3
1.66E-3
2.56E-3
2.78E-3
4.32E-5
1.19E-6
-1.32E-9
1.64E-2
-
2.39E-5
7.26E-5
-
3.14E-3
1.66E-3
2.56E-3
2.78E-3
-
1.19E-6
-1.32E-9
1.02E-2
2.93E-4
8.14E-4
-
5.86E-3
2.68E-3
1.80E-4
1.88E-3
2.23E-3
4.32E-5
-
-3.22E-4
1.37E-2
-
8.14E-4
-
-
2.68E-3
1.80E-4
1.88E-3
2.23E-3
-
-
-3.22E-4
7.47E-3
2.93E-4
7.27E-4
-
5.86E-3
2.68E-3
1.59E-4
1.88E-3
2.23E-3
4.32E-5
-
-2.84E-4
1.36E-2
-
7.27E-4
-
-
2.68E-3
1.59E-4
1.88E-3
2.23E-3
-
-
-2.84E-4
7.40E-3
3
mfg. = manufacturing, prod. = production, mgmt. = management
avoided impacts from recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
33
fossil depletion
particulate matter
formation
Continuation of the previous table.
1
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
bread
packaging
mfg.
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread
prod.
transport,
distribution
(bread)
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
transport,
return trips
ferry transport,
both ways
(total)
bread
waste
mgmt.
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
1.03E-4
8.45E-6
4.99E-5
2.66E-3
9.28E-4
4.89E-4
7.20E-4
9.46E-4
4.01E-6
3.27E-7
-
5.90E-3
-
8.45E-6
4.99E-5
-
9.28E-4
4.89E-4
7.20E-4
9.46E-4
-
3.27E-7
-
3.14E-3
1.03E-4
4.22E-4
-
2.66E-3
7.90E-4
5.39E-5
5.61E-4
7.57E-4
4.01E-6
-
-1.94E-4
5.15E-3
-
4.22E-4
-
-
7.90E-4
5.39E-5
5.61E-4
7.57E-4
-
-
-1.94E-4
2.39E-3
1.03E-4
3.82E-4
-
2.66E-3
7.90E-4
4.77E-5
5.61E-4
7.57E-4
4.01E-6
-
-1.71E-4
5.13E-3
-
3.82E-4
-
-
7.90E-4
4.77E-5
5.61E-4
7.57E-4
-
-
-1.71E-4
2.37E-3
5.90E-2
3.97E-3
1.22E-2
-
1.58E-1
8.33E-2
1.22E-1
4.94E-2
-
6.17E-5
-
4.88E-1
-
3.97E-3
1.22E-2
-
1.58E-1
8.33E-2
1.22E-1
4.94E-2
-
6.17E-5
-
4.29E-1
5.90E-2
7.36E-2
-
-
1.33E-1
9.20E-3
9.30E-2
3.95E-2
-
-
-2.84E-2
3.79E-1
-
7.36E-2
-
-
1.33E-1
9.20E-3
9.30E-2
3.95E-2
-
-
-2.84E-2
3.20E-1
5.90E-2
6.56E-2
-
-
1.33E-1
8.13E-3
9.30E-2
3.95E-2
-
-
-2.51E-2
3.73E-1
-
6.56E-2
-
-
1.33E-1
8.13E-3
9.30E-2
3.95E-2
-
-
-2.51E-2
3.14E-1
mfg. = manufacturing, 2 prod. = production, 3 mgmt. = management
avoided impacts from recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
34
Appendix 5. LCIA - relative contributions
photochemical oxidant
formation
freshwater
eutrophication
terrestrial acidification
climate change
LCIA, relative contributions (%) of life cycle stages to each impact category.
1
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
plastic crate
215 g CCB
190 g CCB
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
with bread
without bread
bread
packaging
mfg.
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread
prod.
transport,
distribution
(bread)
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
1.64 %
0.12 %
0.53 %
72.31 %
9.01 %
4.74 %
-
2.27 %
4.55 %
-
9.09 %
11.36 %
1.74 %
5.58 %
-
76.84 %
7.93 %
0.55 %
-
28.25 %
-
-
40.11 %
2.77 %
1.75 %
4.99 %
-
77.12 %
7.96 %
0.49 %
-
25.63 %
-
-
40.87 %
2.49 %
1.12 %
0.09 %
0.38 %
61.40 %
10.31 %
5.43 %
-
0.24 %
1.01 %
-
27.54 %
14.50 %
1.21 %
6.92 %
-
66.39 %
9.64 %
0.65 %
ferry transport,
both ways
(total)
bread
waste
mgmt.
7.08 %
3.00 %
13.64 %
15.91 %
5.80 %
29.36 %
5.82 %
29.91 %
8.33 %
22.26 %
transport,
return trips
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
1.57 %
0.02 %
< -0.01%
100 %
-
20.45 %
22.73 %
100 %
2.55 %
1.67 %
-
-2.65%
100 %
12.91 %
-
-
-13.40%
100 %
2.56 %
1.67 %
-
-2.35%
100 %
13.15 %
-
-
-12.07%
100 %
12.89 %
0.05 %
< 0.01 %
-
100 %
34.43 %
-
0.01 %
-
100 %
6.77 %
11.15 %
0.05 %
-
-2.78%
100 %
-
21.40 %
-
-
29.80 %
2.01 %
20.92 %
34.47 %
-
-
-8.59%
100 %
1.21 %
6.34 %
-
66.63 %
9.67 %
0.58 %
6.79 %
11.19 %
0.05 %
-
-2.46%
100 %
-
19.75 %
-
-
30.14 %
1.79 %
21.15 %
34.85 %
-
-
-7.67%
100 %
0.27 %
0.05 %
0.61 %
91.04 %
3.17 %
1.67 %
2.12 %
1.07 %
0.01 %
< 0.01 %
-
100 %
-
0.53 %
6.96 %
-
36.50 %
19.22 %
24.41 %
12.37 %
-
0.01 %
-
100 %
0.27 %
2.61 %
-
91.46 %
2.95 %
0.22 %
1.85 %
0.86 %
0.01 %
-
-0.21%
100 %
-
31.51 %
-
-
35.67 %
2.61 %
22.34 %
10.44 %
-
-
-2.56%
100 %
0.27 %
2.31 %
-
91.73 %
2.96 %
0.19 %
1.85 %
0.87 %
0.01 %
-
-0.19%
100 %
-
28.93 %
-
-
37.02 %
2.39 %
23.18 %
10.84 %
-
-
-2.35%
100 %
1.78 %
0.15 %
0.44 %
35.68 %
19.13 %
10.07 %
15.55 %
16.93 %
0.26 %
0.01 %
< -0.01%
100 %
-
0.23 %
0.71 %
-
30.72 %
16.17 %
24.98 %
27.18 %
-
0.01 %
< -0.01%
100 %
2.14 %
5.95 %
-
42.91 %
19.64 %
1.32 %
13.79 %
16.29 %
0.32 %
-
-2.35%
100 %
-
10.90 %
-
-
35.95 %
2.41 %
25.24 %
29.81 %
-
-
-4.31%
100 %
2.15 %
5.34 %
-
43.13 %
19.74 %
1.17 %
13.86 %
16.37 %
0.32 %
-
-2.09%
100 %
-
9.83 %
-
-
36.29 %
2.15 %
25.48 %
30.10 %
-
-
-3.84%
100 %
mfg. = manufacturing, 2 prod. = production, 3 mgmt. = management
avoided impacts from recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
35
fossil depletion
particulate matter
formation
Continuation of the previous table.
1
plastic crate
bread
packaging
mfg.
crate/box
mfg.
crate
washing
bread
prod.
transport,
distribution
(bread)
1.74 %
0.14 %
0.85 %
45.00 %
-
0.27 %
1.59 %
-
1.99 %
8.19 %
-
-
17.66 %
-
2.00 %
7.45 %
-
16.14 %
12.08 %
-
with bread
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
without bread
plastic crate
with bread
without bread
with bread
215 g CCB
without bread
with bread
190 g CCB
without bread
2
transport,
distribution
(crate/box)
transport,
return trips
ferry transport,
both ways
(total)
bread
waste
mgmt.
crate
incineration
crate/box
recycling
SUM
15.72 %
8.28 %
12.19 %
16.02 %
0.07 %
0.01 %
-
100 %
29.55 %
15.56 %
22.91 %
30.11 %
-
0.01 %
-
100 %
51.55 %
15.34 %
1.05 %
10.88 %
14.68 %
0.08 %
-
-3.76%
100 %
-
33.07 %
2.26 %
23.46 %
31.66 %
-
-
-8.10%
100 %
-
51.79 %
15.41 %
0.93 %
10.93 %
14.75 %
0.08 %
-
-3.33%
100 %
-
-
33.40 %
2.02 %
23.70 %
31.98 %
-
-
-7.23%
100 %
0.81 %
2.49 %
-
32.41 %
17.06 %
25.02 %
10.11 %
-
0.01 %
-
100 %
0.93 %
2.83 %
-
36.86 %
19.40 %
28.46 %
11.50 %
-
0.01 %
-
100 %
15.58 %
19.44 %
-
-
35.07 %
2.43 %
24.55 %
10.43 %
-
-
-7.50%
100 %
-
23.03 %
-
-
41.55 %
2.88 %
29.08 %
12.36 %
-
-
-8.89%
100 %
15.82 %
17.59 %
-
-
35.62 %
2.18 %
24.93 %
10.59 %
-
-
-6.73%
100 %
-
20.90 %
-
-
42.31 %
2.59 %
29.62 %
12.58 %
-
-
-8.00%
100 %
3
mfg. = manufacturing, prod. = production, mgmt. = management
avoided impacts from recycling of plastic crate/CCB box
36
Appendix 6. Cumulative energy demand
Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) figures. All values are presented in MJ per functional
unit.
type of energy source (MJ)
plastic crate system
non renewable
unidentified (bread)
fossil
4.17E+01
-
215 g CCB system
190 g CCB system
complete
system
system
without
bread
complete
system
system
without
bread
4.17E+01
-
4.17E+01
-
consumed
1.67E+01
1.43E+01
1.70E+01
1.46E+01
1.66E+01
1.42E+01
avoided
-1.36E-04
-1.36E-04
-1.07E+00
-1.07E+00
-9.48E-01
-9.48E-01
consumed
1.66E+00
1.52E+00
1.47E+00
1.33E+00
1.28E+00
1.13E+00
avoided
-5.23E-05
-5.23E-05
-2.53E-01
-2.53E-01
-2.24E-01
-2.24E-01
consumed
3.46E-05
3.44E-05
5.83E-04
5.83E-04
4.65E-04
4.65E-04
avoided
-2.76E-11
-2.76E-11
-3.57E-07
-3.57E-07
-3.16E-07
-3.16E-07
60.06
15.82
58.85
14.61
58.38
14.15
nuclear
biomass
total non renewable
biomass
renewable
complete
system
system
without
bread
wind, solar
geothermal
consumed
1.45E-01
1.39E-01
3.86E+00
3.85E+00
2.41E+00
2.40E+00
avoided
-3.38E-05
-3.38E-05
-4.25E+00
-4.25E+00
-3.76E+00
-3.76E+00
consumed
8.16E-03
8.11E-03
1.20E-02
1.19E-02
7.90E-03
7.84E-03
avoided
-1.04E-07
-1.04E-07
-8.50E-04
-8.50E-04
-7.52E-04
-7.52E-04
consumed
2.82E-01
2.71E-01
2.66E-01
2.56E-01
1.99E-01
1.88E-01
avoided
-9.99E-06
-9.99E-06
-5.41E-02
-5.41E-02
-4.78E-02
-4.78E-02
total renewable
0.44
0.42
-0.17
-0.19
-1.19
-1.20
Total CED
60.49
16.24
58.68
14.43
57.19
12.94
water
Note: The positive values represent the energy which is consumed/accumulated in the system while the negative values represent
energy consumption which is avoided by plastic crate incineration (heat generation) and recycling, and CCB recycling (avoided fluting
production).
Energy from peat is included according to CED methodology in the category non-renewable fossil energy.
The category biomass under non-renewable energy represents energy from primary forests. These are categorised within the CED
framework as a non-renewable energy source.
37
Appendix 7. Open-loop allocation
The calculation is based on the open-loop recycling example that can be found in ISO/TR
14049:2000 (8.3.3. Open-loop recycling). Example for corrugated cardboard (CCB).
Total number of uses (u) for the fibre originating from the corrugated cardboard
manufacturing process:
[(
In which
)
(
)
(
(
)
)],
z1 = 1 (recycling rate of CCB boxes from retailers)
u12 = 1 (recycled to coreboard)
y2 = 0.9 (the yield of repulped fibres for recycled products)
u13 = 0.7 (coreboard recycled again to recyclable products)
y3 = 0.9 (the yield of repulped fibres for recycled products)
z3=x3 = 0 (the fraction of recycled product that is recycled in a closed loop
u = 1 + 1 · [(1 · 0.9) + (0.7 · 0.9) · (1 / (1 - (0 · 0.9)))] = 2.53
→ u = 2.53
Now u is known, and an allocation factor for CCB can be calculated
(
)
(
)
= (1 – 1) + (1 / 2.53) = 0.395
And an allocation factor for recycled products (coreboard, going out from the system) is:
(
)
= 1 · (2.53-1)/2.53 = 1.53/2.53 = 0.604
→ 39.5% of emissions originating from CCB manufacturing are allocated to the primary
product (CCB) and 60.4% to the recycled product (coreboard)
38
Critical review statement
A critical review was conducted for the study by the Swedish Environmental Research
Institute (IVL). The critical review statement is attached to the report below.
39