Show simple item record

Guidance for Improving Life-Cycle Design and Management of Milk Packaging

dc.contributor.authorKeoleian, Gregory A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSpitzley, David V.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T20:23:18Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T20:23:18Z
dc.date.issued1999-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationKeoleian, Gregory A.; Spitzley, David V. (1999). "Guidance for Improving Life-Cycle Design and Management of Milk Packaging." Journal of Industrial Ecology 3(1): 111-126. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73503>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1088-1980en_US
dc.identifier.issn1530-9290en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73503
dc.description.abstractLife-cycle inventory and cost-analysis tools applied to milk packaging offer guidelines for achieving better environmental design and management of these systems. Life-cycle solid waste, energy, and costs were analyzed for seven systems including single-use and refillable glass bottles, single-use and refillable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, paperboard gable-top cartons, linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) flexible pouches, and polycarbonate refillable bottles on a basis of 1,000 gal of milk delivered. In addition, performance requirements were also investigated that highlighted potential barriers and trade-offs for environmentally preferable alternatives. Sensitivity analyses, indicated that material production energy, postconsumer solid waste, and empty container costs were key parameters for predicting life-cycle burdens and costs. Recent trends in recycling rates, tipping fees, and recycled materials market value had minimal effect on the results. Inventory model results for life-cycle solid waste and energy indicated the same rank order as results from previously published life-cycle inventory studies of container systems. Refillable HDPE and polycarbonate, and the flexible pouch were identified as the most environmentally preferable with respect to life-cycle energy and solid waste. The greater market penetration of these containers may be limited by performance issues such as empty container storage, handling requirements, and deposit fees for refillables, and resealability and puncture resistance for the pouch.en_US
dc.format.extent198706 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherMIT Pressen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale Universityen_US
dc.subject.otherLife-cycle Costsen_US
dc.subject.otherLife-cycle Designen_US
dc.subject.otherLife-cycle Energyen_US
dc.subject.otherMilk Packagingen_US
dc.subject.otherPerformance Evaluationen_US
dc.subject.otherSolid Wasteen_US
dc.titleGuidance for Improving Life-Cycle Design and Management of Milk Packagingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumCenter for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherBattelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73503/1/108819899569322.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1162/108819899569322en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Industrial Ecologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBioCycle. 1994 1997 The state of garbage: BioCycle nationwide survey. BioCycle.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoustead, I. 1997. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry, Report 13: Polycarbonate Brussels: Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoustead, I. 1995. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry, report 8: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Brussels: Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe Technical and Environmental Centre.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoustead, I. and B. R. Yaros 1994. Electricity supply industry in North America. Resources Conservation and Recycling 12: 121 – 134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCalder Dairy. 1997. Personal communication. Lincoln Park, MI.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDairy Industries International 1994. NCF Sligo launches first 1.5 L carton. Dairy Industries International 59 ( 6 ): 47.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeloitte and Touche 1991. Energy and environmental impact profiles in Canada of tetra brik aseptic carton and glass bottle packaging systems, Deloitte and Touche.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDexheimer, E. 1993. Fighting the light: Campaign aims to sell more milk packaged in paperboard. Dairy Foods Magazine 94 ( 9 ): 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDostal & Lowey 1997. Personal communication. Menomonee Falls, Wis.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDover, S., E. Madden, M. Common, and S. Boyden 1993. Milk packaging in Australia: A case study in environmental priorities. Resources Conservation and Recycling 9: 61 – 73.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEPIC. 1997. The evolution of milk packaging and the ef fect on solid waste in Ontario from 1968 to 1995 Mississauga, Ontario: Environment and Plastics Industry Council.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceErickson, G. 1988. Milk in bag finds niche; saves. Packaging 33: 8 – 10.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranklin Associates. 1990. Comparative energy evaluation of plastic products and their alternatives for the building and construction and transportation industries Prairie Village, KS: Franklin Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranklin Associates. 1991. Resource and environmental profile analysis of high-density polyethylene and bleached paperboard gable milk containers, Prairie Village, KS: Franklin Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranklin Associates. 1992. Appendix A: Energy requirements and environmental emissions for fuel consumption, Prairie Village, KS: Franklin Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranklin Associates. 1994. The role of recycling in integrated solid waste management to the year 2000 Stamford, CT: Keep America Beautiful, Inc.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarborSide Research. 1994. Estimated price per ton of common packages.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeoleian, G. A. 1997. Unpublished data.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeoleian, G. A., J. Koch, and D. Menerey 1995. Life cycle design framework and demonstration projects: Profiles of AT&T and AlliedSignal, EPA/600/R-95/107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeoleian, G. A. and J. S. McDaniel 1997. Life cycle design of instrument panels: A common sense approach. SAE International Congress and Exposition. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeoleian, G. A. and D. Menerey 1993. Life cycle design guidance manual: Environmental requirements and the product system U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeoleian, G. A., D. V. Spitzley, and J. McDaniel 1997. Life cycle design of milk and juice packaging, EPA 600/R-97/082 (NTIS 1–800-553-6847). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKooijman, J. M. 1993. Environmental assessment of packaging: Sense and sensibility. Environmental Management 17 ( 5 ): 575 – 586.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKuta, C. C., D. G. Koch, C. C. Hildebrandt, and D. C. Janzen 1995. Improvement of products and packaging through the use of life cycle analysis. Resources Conservation and Recycling 14: 185 – 198.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLundholm, M. P. and G. Sundstrom 1985. Tetra brik aseptic environmental profile: Resource and environmental impact of tetra brik aseptic carton and of refillable glass bottles Malmo, Sweden: Tetra.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMidwest Research Institute. 1976. Resource and environmental profile analysis of five milk container systems, with selected health and economic considerations Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOberwise Dairy. 1997. Personal communication. Aurora, IL.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePorter, W. J. 1993. Recycling at the crossroads Sterling, VA: Porter and Associates.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePPI. 1995. Life-cycle inventory analysis: Thermoplastic resin fabrication conversion processes, a preliminary study Polymer Processing Institute at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRecycling Times. 1995 Include data on previous year. The Markets Page. Waste Age's Recycling Times.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSaphire, D. 1994. Case reopened: Reassessing refillable bottles. New York: INFORM.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSETAC. 1993. Workshop report–guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A code of practice, Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSfiligoj, E. 1994. Spouting off. Beverage World ( October ): 233.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStanpac, Inc. 1997. Personal communication. Lewiston, N.Y.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart's Dairy. 1997. Personal communication. Saratoga Springs, N.Y.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwiss FOEFL. 1991. Ecobalance of packaging materials state of 1990 Berne, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwiss FOEFL. 1996. Ökoinventare fÜr Verpackungen, Berne, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSwope, T. 1995. New wine from old bottles. The Environmental Magazine 6 ( 4 ): 32 – 35.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUrbanski, A. 1991. Torn between two bottles; Ocean Spray test markets two beverage package sizes. Food & Beverage Marketing 10 ( 11 ): 38.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. EPA. 1995. Life cycle impact assessment: A conceptual framework, key issues, and summary of existing methods, EPA-452/R-95–002. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. EPA. 1997. Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United States: 1996 update, EPA530-R-97-015. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Dam, Y. K. 1996. Environmental assessment of packaging: The consumer point of view. Environmental Management 20 ( 5 ): 607 – 614.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.