Life Cycle Assessment of POLYLACTIDE (PLA)

Mis en ligne par Fanny Crocquevieille
Type: 
ACV complète disponible sur le web
Comparative: 
oui
Année de publication: 
2006
Langue: 
Anglais
Code: 
Package/Container (not paper specific)
Code: 
Food, Plants
Produit: 
emballage alimentaire
Sources et qualité
Qualité de l'étude: 
ACV détaillée
Revue Critique?: 
Oui
Cohérence avec la série de normes ISO 14040/44?: 
Oui
Nom(s) du(des) commanditaire(s): 
IFEU GmbH,
Type du(des) commanditaire(s) : 
Union, Federation
Nom(s) de(s) auteur(s): 
Andreas Detzel
Nom(s) de(s) auteur(s): 
Martina Krüger
Objectifs et frontières du système
Unité fonctionnelle: 
1000 units of 500 ml clam shells which are in- tended to be filled with cold foodstuff, for instance take-away salad, and are available for the consumer at the point-of-sale.
Objectifs, hypothèses et limites: 
Compare PLA clam shell's packaging with PP,PET and OPS solution.

The comparison of the PLA packaging system with the alternative systems revealed that:
• The PLA system shows advantages compared to all three packaging systems using conventional polymers, in the categories Fossil Resource Consumption, Global Warming and Summer Smog. Similar results regarding Human Toxicity (Carcinogenic Risk) are of limited reliability due to existing data quality issues.
• For the remaining impact categories, comparisons of the PLA system with the alter- native systems do not show a clear trend. The LCA results for Acidification, Terres- trial Eutrophication and Human Toxicity (PM10) show disadvantages of PLA when compared to PS and PP systems.
• Comparing PLA with PET, PLA only shows disadvantages for terrestrial and aquatic Eutrophication. However, the latter observation has been found to depend on the choice of PET inventory dataset.
• For Aquatic Eutrophication PLA shows environmental advantages if compared to PP and disadvantages in comparison with PS and PET.

Tags:



Nouveaux membres

  • SheritaGreen456
  • lloydbrigham3112136
  • TryComia
  • DarrickHyday
  • JacobPiply