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

CSS Publication Number: 
CSS99-04
Abstract: 

Life-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, singleuse 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.

Keyword: 
life-cycle costs
life-cycle design
life-cycle energy
milk packaging
performance evaluation
solid waste
Publication Type: 
Journal Article
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Persistent URL: 
DOI: 10.1162/108819899569322
Full Citation: 
Keoleian, Gregory A. and David V. Spitzley. 1999. Guidance for Improving Life-cycle Design and Management of Milk Packaging. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 3(1): 111-126.
Admin Content
Publication Status: 
Published