Environmental assessment of a multilayer polymer bag for food

packaging and preservation: An LCA approach

Valentina Siracusa
a,1
, Carlo Ingrao
b,
, Agata Lo Giudice
c,2
, Charles Mbohwa
c,2
, Marco Dalla Rosa
d,3
a
Department of Industrial Engineering (DII), University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (DICA), University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy
c
Department of Quality and Operations Management, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, APB Campus, P. O. Box 524, Auckland Park 2006,
Johannesburg, South Africa
d
Alma Mater Studiorum, Department of Food Science, University of Bologna, Piazza Goidanich, 60, 47521 Cesena (FC), Italy
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 December 2013
Accepted 11 February 2014
Available online 26 February 2014
Keywords:
Life Cycle Assessment
Environmental sustainability
Food packaging
Improvement hypothesis
Multilayer polymer lm
A screening of LCA for the evaluation of the damage arising fromthe life cycle of a bi-layer lmbag for food pack-
aging was carried out. Such packages are made of lms obtained matching a layer of PA (Polyamide) with one of
LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene) and are mainly used for vacuumor modied atmosphere packaging and pres-
ervation of food. The study was conducted in accordance with the ISO standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006
choosing, as the functional unit, 1 m
2
of plastic lm delivered to the food production and packaging rms. The
system boundaries go from cradle to factory-gate and include the phases of: the raw materials production and
processing for the bag manufacturing; and the bag delivering to the food production and packaging plant.
The damage assessment showed that the most impacting phases are the production of the Polyamide (PA6) and
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) granules due to the consumption of primary resources, such as natural gas and
crude oil, in the amount of 53.55 dm
3
and 132.42 g respectively, and to the emission in air of 295.73 g of carbon
dioxide, 617 mg of nitrogen oxides, 12.1 mg of particulates, 349 mg of sulphur dioxide and 2.51 mg of aromatic
hydrocarbons. The most affected damage category is Resources, followed by Climate Change, Human Health, and
Ecosystem Quality.
For minimising the total damage associated with the life cycle of the examined bag, the lm thickness thinning
and the use of a recycled PA granule were considered: the assessment showed that the two proposals allowed
a reduction of about 25% and 15% (respectively) of the damage assessed.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Asustainable productionof goods involves the denition andthe de-
sign of all their life cycle phases, as the technologies and the materials
used for the production may adversely affect the environmental quality
of the other phases, such as the use and the end of life. In this context,
the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology can be used in parallel
with the design for nding and assessing technical solutions which
can be adopted in the production for reducing the impacts due to the
above-mentioned other phases. For better understanding this, it is
enough to observe, for instance, that: using low-thickness multilayer
lms and PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) bottles, respectively
for food and beverages packaging, allows for a reduction of the
environmental cost due to the phases of transportation to the food pro-
duction and packaging plant, handling and dismantling; equipping a
building envelope with a high thermal resistance insulating material
leads to a reduction of the environmental impacts linked to the heating
and cooling phase, such as CO
2
-emissions and fossil fuel consumption.
For better understanding LCA, environmental impact and sustainable
development are believed to be the two key-concepts of this methodol-
ogy. The rst because the methodology application involves the quanti-
cation of the environmental impacts associated with each phase
characterizing the life cycle of a given product or process. The second
because, once the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is done, the pos-
sible improvement solutions can be evaluated, in order to guarantee the
environmental sustainability of the product throughout its life cycle
(Heijungs et al., 1992; Lo Giudice, Mbohwa, Clasadonte, & Ingrao,
2013; Lo Giudice, Mbohwa, Clasadonte, & Ingrao, 2014; Roy et al.,
2009; Zua &Arana, 2008). Inother words, the aimis to achieve the bal-
ance, between technological innovation and environmental protection,
which sustainable development is based on (Chandra, 1991; Schmincke
& Grahl, 2007). Packaging systems are designed for maintaining the
benets of food processing after the process is complete, enabling
Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 392 0749606.
E-mail addresses: vsiracus@dmfci.unict.it (V. Siracusa), ing.ingrao@gmail.com
(C. Ingrao), agatalogiudice@libero.it (A. Lo Giudice), cmbohwa@uj.ac.za (C. Mbohwa),
marco.dallarosa@unibo.it (M. Dalla Rosa).
1
Tel.: +39 095 7382755.
2
Tel.: +27 11 5591205.
3
Tel.: +39 0547 338147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.02.010
0963-9969/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Research International
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ f oodr es
foods to travel safely for long distances from their point of origin and
still be wholesome at the time of consumption (Marsh & Bugusu,
2007). Froman environmental perspective, they affect, more or less sig-
nicantly, the life cycle of a food because of the impacts linked to their
production, transportation and disposal (Andersson & Ohlsson, 1999;
Andersson, Ohlsson, & Olsson, 1998; Banar & okaygil, 2009; Deckers,
Meinders, Meuffels, Ram, & Stevels, 2000; Humbert, Rossi, Margni,
Jolliet, & Loerincik, 2009; Keoleian, Phipps, Dritz, & Brachfeld, 2004).
For this reason, a package design must be carried out considering the is-
sues not only of cost, shelf-life, safety and practicality, but also of envi-
ronmental sustainability (Leceta et al., 2013; Zampori & Dotelli, 2014).
In this context, LCA can be applied as a design-support tool for
highlighting environmental criticalities and improvement solutions in
the life cycle of packages, thereby promoting the use of more eco-
friendly products. Over the years, this methodology has proved in fact
to be a valuable tool for analysing environmental considerations of
product and service systems which need to be part of decision making
process towards sustainability (Gonzlez Garca, Hospido, Moreira,
Romero, & Feijoo, 2009). In this regard, the present work aims at inves-
tigating, from an environmental point of view, the packaging eld and,
in particular, the one of multilayer lms. In recent years, these lms
have gained importance in many applications, especially in the food in-
dustry, where they are mainly applied for packaging food-products,
such as fresh pasta, meat, cheese and cut vegetables, so that their
shelf-life can be extended (Vidal et al., 2007). The study deals with a
bi-layer lm bag for food packaging and preservation with the aim of
assessing the environmental impacts due to its from-cradle-to-gate
life cycle and the solutions needed for reducing them. For this purpose,
LCA was considered a valid tool to be used because, as dened by the In-
ternational Organization for Standardization in the ISO 14040:2006
(ISO, 2006a), it is the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs
and the potential environmental impacts of a product system through-
out its life cycle. The lms composing the bag in question are made of
layers of PA (Polyamide) and LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene) and
are mainly used for vacuum or modied atmosphere packaging and
preservation of food, such as meat, cheese, sh and fresh pasta. The
study is the result of a collaboration with a Firm, located in the Northern
Italy, working in this eld and sensitive to environmental issues, which
provided the research group with all the necessary technical support
and supplied all the requested data about the bag production. Further-
more, the study arises froma previous one presented at the 11th Inter-
national Congress on Engineering and Food Science (Siracusa, Dalla
Rosa, Romani, Rocculi, & Tylewicz, 2011) regarding the application of
LCA for investigating the multilayer polymer packaging-lmproduction
eld and, in particular, for assessing the damage reduction when using a
recycled material. According to the authors, this hypothesis turned out
to be effective, in terms of purpose achievement and environmental
sustainability level increase and was tentatively applied to both the
LDPE and PA granules using a 50% recycled material. In the occasion of
writing the present paper, this percentage was reconsidered since be-
lieved to be too optimistic and then it was lowered to 25%, deciding to
better apply it only to the PA layer, since not in contact with the food in-
side. Different percentages are applicable nowadays in the use of
recycled polymers for food packaging-system manufacturing, i.e. 10%,
25%, 50%, 75% and 100%, depending on the given application. For in-
stance, Chytiri et al. (2008) used 50% and 100% recycled LDPE for testing
radiolysis products and sensory changes of ve-layer food-packaging
lms. In the present case, a 25% recycle was environmentally assessed
since, according to the Firm technicians, it is, currently, the only one to
be compatible with the type of package, with the function it has to per-
form and with the current manufacturing technology. The Firm has in
fact already begun using this percentage after having developed appro-
priate tests for verifying its technical feasibility. Both of the two studies
analyse the same type of product, in terms of manufacturing technique
and input materials. They also present the same functional unit, quality
and type of inventory data, LCIA development criteria and method. On
the contrary, the system boundaries are different as, in the present
study, they go frombag cradle to bag manufacturing plant gate, without
encompassing the end of life phase. Finally, in the present case, the LCIA
results were reported and discussed with a higher rank of detail and the
lm thickness reduction was evaluated as improvement solution to-
gether with the recycled granule use.
2. The use of LCA in the food-packaging eld
According to Meneses, Pasqualino, and Catells (2012), food products
today are offeredtoconsumers ina wide range of packagingalternatives
in terms of materials used, forms and sizes. There are a number of im-
portant factors to be considered in the food packaging eld, such as
foodquality and freshness conservation, a pleasant image, goodmarket-
ing appeal, correct product identication, storage and distribution
convenience (Meneses et al., 2012; Williams &Wilkstrm; 2011). Addi-
tionally, a package should be designed considering also the environ-
mental issues associated with its life cycle. For this purpose, LCA could
be used during the design phase for having a complete and detailed
view of the main environmental hotpots related to the life cycle of a
given packaging system.
One of the rst studies concerning the application of LCA on food
packaging was developed by Zabaniotou and Kassidi (2003) for com-
paring, from an environmental point of view, the use of polystyrene
(PS) and recycled paper in the production of six-egg packages. Accord-
ing to the authors, at that time, LCA had not reached yet its full potential
in environmental decision-making, but it was considered a useful tool
for lots of applications, such as product development, environmental
policy setting and different products environmental comparative as-
sessment. Since then, LCA has been gaining more and more importance
as a support-tool in the process of decision-making when a product's
environmental aspects are taken into account. Simultaneously, the ap-
plication of LCA for the environmental assessment of food packaging
systems has been increasing so much that packaging has become in
fact one of the most investigated elds from an LCA perspective. For in-
stance, in 2009, Busser and Jungbluth (2009) assessed the environmen-
tal performance of exible packaging in the life cycle of food-products,
such as coffee and butter, whilst Humbert et al. (2009) developed a
study regarding the application of LCAfor comparing glass jars and plas-
tic pots, commonly used for the baby food packaging. Two years later,
Silvenius et al. (2011) applied LCA to packed-food products developing
a series of case studies where environmental impacts of different food
packaging options were investigated. According to Williams and
Wilkstrm (2011), a package can be difcult to empty and thereby it
can cause food losses. From this concept, the authors developed a
study for modelling the balance between food losses and packaging sys-
tems environmental impacts. Recently, Zampori and Dotelli (2014), fo-
cussed on the application of LCA to two different packaging systems of a
poultry product, considering, in particular, a polystyrene-based tray and
an aluminium bowl. It's a common knowledge that different materials
canbe used inthis eld depending on the type of food whichis intended
to be packed and preserved. Among them, biodegradable polymers are
worth to be mentioned since their use has recorded a signicant in-
crease over the years. It should be noted for instance that Vidal et al.
(2007) applied LCA for evaluating the environmental sustainability of
biodegradable multilayer lms, composed of two external layers of
PLA (polylactide acid) and an inner one of modied starch with
polycaprolactone (PCL). This lm-type was compared with a conven-
tional one characterized by the following stratigraphy: polypropylene
(PP)Polyamide (PA6)polypropylene (PP). For this assessment, cli-
mate change, fossil fuel depletion, acidication and eutrophication
were chosen as the most signicant environmental impact categories.
Six years later, the Journal of Cleaner Production published the paper
of Leceta, Guerrero, Cabezudo, and de la Caba (2013) dealing with a
comparative LCA of two different food-packaging systems, namely a
commercial food packaging based on polypropylene (PP) and a new
152 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
biodegradable chitosan-based lm. The last two papers were useful for
better interpreting the results obtained from the present study, as
highlighted in the comparative analysis reported in Section 4.2 Life
Cycle Interpretation. The paper developed by Siracusa, Rocculi,
Romani, and Dalla Rosa (2008) is also worth to be mentioned since be-
lieved to be very useful for entering into the merits of the production
and use of biodegradable materials. In their manuscript, the authors de-
veloped in fact a reviewaiming at offering a complete state of the art on
biodegradable polymer packages for food applications. Regarding the
food packaging and preservation technologies, it was decided to men-
tion and discuss in brief the work developed by Pardo and Zua
(2011) about the application of LCA for dening and presenting envi-
ronmental criteria usable when selecting preservation methods for
foods. For this study, four thermal and non-thermal techniques, such
as autoclave pasteurization, microwaves, High Hydrostatic Pressure
(HPP) and modied atmosphere packaging (MAP), were examined. A
realistic shelf-life period was considered for guaranteeing the food-
content commercial purpose, thereby dening a 30-day threshold. It
should be noted that MAP is a food preservation technology which
can be usedin combination with multilayer-lmpackages. LCIAshowed
that lower water requirements were observed for non-thermal technol-
ogies (MAP, HPP) when compared to equivalent thermal processes.
MAP was found to be the most sustainable solution when a shelf life pe-
riod below30 days is required. The study highlighted the importance of
resorting to low environmental impact food preservation technologies
maintaining food safety by reasonable periods of time. From this point
of view, the results of this paper are believed to give strength to the
goal and the outcomes applicability of the present study. If such tech-
nologies, MAP for instance, were combined in fact with low-impact
packaging systems, an increase of the entire food packaging and preser-
vation solution environmental sustainability would be recorded. In
addition to this, if the food contained was produced using lowenviron-
mental impact processes andproducts, the entire packed-food would be
more eco-friendly.
That is why it is important to identify how the different stages in the
life cycle of foodcontribute tothe environmental impact sothat more sus-
tainable production can be developed and users can be encouraged to
consume in a more environmentally friendly way (Meneses et al., 2012).
In this regard, thanks to the above-mentioned studies, it was possi-
ble to observe that the contribution due to packaging phase, in terms
of environmental impact, can be reduced adopting solutions oriented
towards materials use and energy consumption optimisation. Further-
more, it was observed that multilayer lm packaging production has
been already environmentally assessed in a number of studies, but not
as done in the present assessment in terms of type of package (bag)
and of lm stratigraphy. It is believed that this aspect highlights the
originality of the subject of the present assessment, adding value to
the whole study.
3. Materials and methods
As reported in the Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment (Guine
et al., 2002), LCA is a methodology for the comprehensive assessment
of the environmental impact associated with a product or process
throughout its life cycle (from extraction of raw materials to product
disposal at the endof use). The study was developedaccording to the re-
quirements of the ISO standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 (ISO,
2006b) dividing it in the following phases: Goal and scope denition,
whichincludes the purpose of the study, the description of the expected
product of the study, system boundaries, functional unit (FU) and as-
sumptions; Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis: this phase involves the
compilation and quantication of both input and output ows and in-
cludes data collection and analysis; Life Cycle Impact Assessment
(LCIA): thanks to this phase, based on the inventory analysis results, it
is possible to qualify, quantify and weigh the main environmental im-
pacts linked to a product life cycle; and Life Cycle Interpretation, in
which the results from the impact assessment and the inventory analy-
sis are analysed and interpreted for establishing recommendations ori-
ented to the total damage reduction. In accordance with the ISO
standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006, the phase of Life Cycle Impact
Assessment was carried out including both the mandatory elements
(Classication, Characterization and Damage Evaluation) and the
optional ones (Normalization and Weighing). In this way, results
could be expressed with equivalent numerical parameters (points) so
as to be able to represent quantitatively the environmental effects of
the analysed system. Damage and impact categories, processes, and
both emitted-substances and used-resources can be easily compared
to each other based on the damage unit-point. All the on-site collected
data (primary data) were uploadedinto SimaPro 7.1 software (SimaPro,
2006) accessing the Ecoinvent v.2.2 database (Ecoinvent, 2010) (see
Section 3.2 for further details). For the development of the LCIA phase,
choosing the method to use from the most common ones was difcult,
since each of them has good characteristics but, at the same time, some
limits (Udo de Haes et al., 1999). In addition, they were all not perfectly
suitable for the Italian context in which the system under study is
placed. After developing a detailed analysis, the Impact 2002+method
was chosen for the assessment. According to the ILCD Handbook
Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies
for use in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (ILCD handbook, 2010), it pro-
poses a feasible implementation of a combined midpoint/damage ap-
proach, linking all types of Life Cycle Inventory results (elementary
ows and other interventions) via 14 midpoint categories to four dam-
age categories. Furthermore, the method calculates the non-renewable
energy consumption, which represents a fundamental aspect of such
studies and it recognises carbon dioxide as having the greatest respon-
sibility for the greenhouse effect, considering it as a characterization of
Climate Change (Jolliet et al., 2003). Finally, its set-up is believed to be
more comprehensible for insiders and it is also more accessible with re-
spect to other methods. In Table 1 the distinction between the damage
and the impact categories, provided by Impact 2002+, is reported: the
impact categories represent the negative effects to the environment,
through which the damage, due to an emitted substance or a used re-
source, occurs. The damage categories are obtained by grouping the im-
pact categories and they represent the environmental damage areas
(Jolliet et al., 2003).
3.1. Goal and scope
For its correct development, any LCA analysis must be preceded by
an explicit statement of the study's goal and scope that, as stated by
the ISOstandards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006, must be clearly dened
and be consistent with the application intended (Baldo, Marino, &Rossi,
2008). Inparticular, the goal of anLCAstudy must state, unambiguously,
Table 1
Impact and damage categories contemplated in Impact 2002+.
Damage category Impact category
Human Health Carcinogens
Non-carcinogens
Respiratory inorganics
Respiratory organics
Ionizing radiations
Ozone layer depletion
Ecosystem Quality Aquatic eco-toxicity
Terrestrial eco-toxicity
Terrestrial acidication/nitrication
Aquatic acidication
Aquatic eutrophication
Land occupation
Climate Change Global warming
Resources Non-renewable energy
Mineral extraction
153 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
what the applicationand the motivationof the study andthe type of tar-
get audience are.
In this context, the goal of this study is to apply the LCAmethodology
for identifying and analysing the main environmental impacts associat-
ed withthe fromcradle to gate life cycle of a vacuumbag used for food
packaging and preservation under ambient or refrigerated condition of
storage. Furthermore, the study will allow the identication of mea-
sures, techniques and strategies oriented to obtain an eco-designed
bag using fewer resources and producing less waste and emissions
throughout its whole life cycle, whilst maintaining the food quality to
desired levels. The study arises with the purpose of pure scientic re-
search and targets people working in the LCA sector, as well as in the
food packaging one, in order to inform them about the environmental
impacts linked to such products and to indicate the improvement solu-
tions for reducing them. In this context, this study can contribute to in-
creasing the knowledge on LCAin this eld allowing useful comparisons
with products of equal manufacture and function. The results from
some of the studies mentioned in Section 2 will be briey discussed in
Section 4.2 and compared to those obtained from the present analysis.
Furthermore, the development of this study was the occasion that the
Firmhad for re-examining the merits of the environmental issues asso-
ciated not only with the production but also with the life cycle of its
products. This allowed the Firm itself to identify not only the environ-
mental hotspots of the whole packaging production system, but also
the ways that can be used for minimising them. A number of multi-
layer packaging products could be studied and solutions produced.
This study focussed on a type of food packaging bag, produced by
thermo-sealing two bi-layer lms, with a total thickness of 85 m.
This product was chosen because it represents the core-business of
the Firm's entire food packaging production. Such products are com-
monly used for the vacuumand modied atmosphere packaging of dif-
ferent kinds of fresh food. The outer layer in oriented PA provides high
mechanical strength and creates a high barrier to oxygen, main gases
and aromas. This layer is characterized by a certain brilliance and trans-
parency which allows consumer to verify the quality of the food at the
time of purchasing. The PE layer provides anexcellent performance dur-
ing the thermo-sealing phase and is a high barrier to the passage of
moisture.
3.1.1. Functional unit (FU) and system boundaries
In order to provide a reference to link all input and output data and
to assure the results comparability, according to the ISO 14040:2006
and 14044:2006, it is necessary to choose a functional unit (FU). In the
present study, it was identied with 1 m
2
of plastic lm delivered to
food production and packaging companies. Regarding the system
boundaries, they were appropriately dened so as to create a process-
model as close as possible to reality. The following phases were includ-
ed: a) production of the raw materials used for the bag production; b) bag
production; and c) the transportation to the food production and packag-
ing plant. On the contrary, it was decided to exclude the use of the bag
for packaging the food, because no environmental impacts are believed
to be attributable to this phase. As a matter of fact, once transported to
Fig. 1. System boundaries.
154 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
the food production and packaging plant, the package enters into the
packed-food production as an input material at all effects. It is used as
such, consequently accounting for all the environmental impacts linked
to its life cycle. The food content production was excluded, because the
package can be for any type of food. Moreover, the transportation of the
packed-food from the production and packaging plant to the distribu-
tion centres and then to the nal user have not been taken into account,
because considered not easy to quantify due to their location variability.
The polymer granule production, through the recycle of the lms
matching and thermo-sealing process waste, was taken into account in-
cluding the transportation to the respective recycling plants. On the
contrary, the granules processing for producing garbage bags were ex-
cluded for avoiding an excessive expansion of the system boundaries.
Regarding the bag end-of-life, as observed by the Firmtechnicians, con-
trary to what happens to the scrap produced during the heat sealing
process, in this case, the environmental management system provides
that the bag is disposed of in a local sanitary landll. This is because
the prolonged contact with the oily substances, as typical for the food
normally contained, leads to the exclusion of the recycling treatment.
According to Siracusa et al. (2011), the landll scenario is contributing
only for 4.8%andsoit is believed not a signicant source of environmen-
tal impact compared to the bag production. The lowpercentage indicat-
ed above is attributable to the fact that the environmental impacts
associated with the landll plant, considering its shelf-life and the
tons of municipal waste that it is used for, is proportioned to the bag
considered. For this reason, the endof life was excludedfromthe system
boundaries, thereby focussing attention on the most impacting phases.
3.2. Inventory analysis and data collection
This phase analysis quanties the use of resources and materials and
the consumption of energy, as well as the involved transportations
associated witha product life cycle (LoGiudice et al., 2013). For a correct
development of the inventory analysis, the bag production process was
studied in detail (Fig. 1). This was possible thanks to the support of the
Firminvolved which not only provided all the necessary data and infor-
mation, but also allowed the researchers to visit the production plant
and interview the Technical Department staff. This allowed the under-
standing of the multilayer lms packaging production process and the
development of a study of better scientic value and reliability. All the
main activities and materials within the system boundaries were indi-
cated, including those not belonging to the bag production process.
For this phase, since a particular specialised production system was
assessed, great importance was given to using primary data, in other
words specic data supplied by the Firm. The processes used for
representing the consumption of resources, materials and energy, as
well as the use of transport means, were extrapolated from Ecoinvent
v.2.2, because believed to be a reliable background data source. The
data collection was carried out continuously accessing the Ecoinvent
v.2.2 database within the SimaPro software in the 7.1 version for verify-
ing what processes and raw materials were necessary to be created
since not already existing. From this analysis, it was resulted that all
data needed was already included within Ecoinvent, thereby avoiding
creating new items or making assumptions and hypothesis for using
background data within the database. As shown in Fig. 1, the bag is pro-
duced by heat-sealing two lms, previously obtained by matching a
layer of PE with one of PA; such layers have different thickness and sur-
face weight (PE: 65 m, 64.4 g/m
2
bag; PA: 20 m, 23 g/m
2
bag). Further-
more, in Fig. 2, a detail of the involved transports is reported.
Eachthin lm(layer) is produced by granule extrusion: suchprocess
implies a scrap of about 5% which is puried and reused by the Firm it-
self. Once the bi-layer lm is produced by at-head extrusion, generat-
ing 5% scrap, the next step is the thermo-seal. This process is realized by
high efciency machines in order to reduce the scrapto between 2%and
LD-PE granule
PA granule
PA layer
PE layer
FOOD PRODUCTION AND
PACKAGING COMPANIES
SCRAP (5 %) to external
recycling factory
SCRAP (2 - 2.5 %) to external
recycling factory
Plant for the envelope production by
PA-LDPE films heat-sealing
Granule extrusion
SCRAP (5%)
Layers matching
PA-PE film
FINISHED-BAG
Fig. 2. Bag production process ow chart.
155 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
2.5%. For both processes, the generated scrap is stored in roll-off boxes
and transported by truck to local mixed plastic recycling plants where
it is re-processed for producing garbage bags. The production of the
PA-PE type stratigraphy lms and of the bags is done in two different
Firms. The average transportation distance for the granules from the
production site to the extrusion plant where the layers are produced
and matched is 700 km. The transportation distance of the bi-layer
lms to the thermo-sealing plant where the bags are produced is
500 km. Once the bag is manufactured, it is sold to food producers and
used for the food packaging: in this study, for taking into account the
contribution of transportation, a value calculated as weighted average
was used. This was done considering all the distances, between the
bag manufacturing plant and those of production and packaging of
food, not only in terms of travelled kilometres, but also in terms of fre-
quency of travelling resulting in an average weighted value of about
850 km. The transportation of other items, such as the packed-food
fromthe food production and packaging plant to the distribution plants
and then to the end-consumers have not been taken into account, since
they are outside of the systemboundaries. The scrap due to both phases
of production and of thermo-sealing is re-processed at the recycling
plants located at 20 km and 35 km from the respective factories. In
Tables 25 the main input data is listed: it is observed in particular
that the indicated extrusion process contains the auxiliaries and energy
demand for both layer production and thermo-seal.
For both granules, the (Internal Purication and Re-processing)
(IPR) was separately implemented considering the consumption of
0.275 l of water and of 0.0192 kWh of electric energy for grinding,
cleaning and drying 0.05 kg of plastic waste before reprocessing.
3.2.1. Input data and damage allocation
All the input and output ows were allocated on the various phases
of the plastic bag production using appropriately dened procedures
and tools: as a matter of fact, interviews to the Firm's technicians during
the bag production-site investigation were made and check-lists were
used for recording data and information. Additionally, once the system
boundaries were dened, a further cut-off was applied assuring as
muchas possible the maximumlevel of detail. All the processes andma-
terials considered signicant in contributing to the total damage associ-
ated with the bag production and delivering were in fact accounted for
based on the environmental impacts expected. Only the processes and
materials contributing more than 2.5% were in fact taken into account.
In this way, it was possible to include those processes, such as the elec-
tricity consumption for thermo-sealing and some transports, because,
though resulting far less impacting than the others, they were believed
important since contributing to the study consistency. With regard to
the total damage, because of the absence of co-products in all the phases
of the examined packaging system production, in accordance with the
ISO standards 14040:2006 and 14044:2006, no allocation was done.
100% of the total damage corresponds in fact to 1 m
2
of bag produced,
namely 82.7 g.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The total damage associated with the bag from-cradle-to-gate life
cycle corresponds to 1.577E5 points (pt) and it is, principally, due to
Table 2
Input data for the bag production and delivering.
Input ow Physical amount Measure unit Comment
Reference ow 1 p 1 p represents 1 m
2
of bag. Such bag weighs 82.7 g
Resources
Water, process, well in ground 0.0102 kg
Main processes and transports
Bi-layer lm production 1.024 m
2
The lm production process was created in a separate le, choosing 1 m
2
as FU.
Then, it was computed within the life cycle of the bag, associating the amount
required for its production.
The value was calculated taking into account the waste produced during the
thermal sealing.
Thermo-seal 0.0213 kWh The reported value corresponds to the electric energy required in this phase.
Transport of 0.0683 kg km The scrap to the recycling treatment plant (d = 35 km)
44.75 The bi-layer lm to the thermo-seal plant (d = 500 km)
70.34 The bag to the food production and packaging plant (d = 850 km)
Waste treatments
Scrap from thermo-seal (to external recycling plant) 1.98 g This scrap is treated as the one coming from the lm's production process
Table 3
Input data for layer (lms) matching process.
Input ow Physical amount Measure unit Comment
Reference ow 1 m
2
1 m
2
of bi-layer lm weighs 82.7 g
Main materials, processes and transports
LDPE layer (produced) 64.4 g After being separately represented, choosing 1 kg of layer as FU, both
the alongside processes were computed in the bi-layer lmproduction
with association of the corresponding requirements, inclusive of the
scrap produced during the extrusion phase.
PA layer (produced) 23 g
Extrusion of plastic lms 87.4 g The value, reported alongside, corresponds to the amount of lm,
processed by extrusion.
Transport 0.094 kg km Transportation of the scrap to the recycling plant (d = 20 km)
Waste treatments
Scrap from layer matching (to external recycling plant) 4.7 g The scrap material produced in this phase is disposed of in a recycling
plant: the re-obtained granule is commonly usedfor producing garbage
bags.
156 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
the layer production and matching and, in particular, to the production
of the granules to be extruded. Regarding the damage categories
consideredby Impact 2002+, the total damage is distributed as follows:
1) 49.1% Resources; 2) 30.2% Climate Change; 3) 19% Human Health; and
4) 1.7% Ecosystem Quality. In Table 6, each damage category is allocated
a corresponding weighing point and the damage assessment value with
the relative measurement unit.
The substances causing the most impacts are listed in Table 7: the
amounts indicated are referred to 1 m
2
of bag produced.
Details of the processes mostly causing the consumption and the
emission of the resources and substances listed in Table 7 are reported
in Tables 8 and 9. In these tables, A is used for labelling the lm pro-
duction from layer matching (LD-PE and PA), whilst (LD-PE)
p
and
(PA)
p
indicate, respectively, the production of Low-Density Polyethyl-
ene and Polyamide granules. For a better comprehension of the devel-
oped study, it should be noted that, since the extrusion phase is the
same for both the phases of layer production and matching, for the
LCIA development method, the percentage reported alongside to the
item Extrusion is equal to the sum of the two contributions reported
in Table 8.
Therefore, fromTable 8, it results that the granule production causes
the consumption of primary resources, suchas natural gas and crude oil,
in the amount of 53.55 dm
3
and 132.42 g respectively, and the emission
in air of: 295.73 g of carbon dioxide; 617 mg of nitrogen oxides; 12.1 mg
of particulates; 349 mg of sulphur dioxide; and 2.51 mg of aromatic
hydrocarbons.
The impact categories, which the above-listed substances and re-
sources belong to, are those causing the highest damages. They are
listed in Table 10, indicating for each of themthe corresponding charac-
terization value and the weighing point.
4.2. Life Cycle Interpretation
The study showed that the criticality of the analysed systemis repre-
sented by the production of LDPE and PA granules to be extruded for
the layer production. This result is clearly highlighted in Fig. 3, in
which the damage-ows, arising from the processes characterizing the
from-cradle-to-gate life of the examined bag, are reported.
Furthermore, it can be said that: the most environmental impacts
are due to the granule production, as well as its processing phases to
the ends of the bag production; the most affected damage category is
Resources; the most signicant impact categories for the environmen-
tal assessment are Non-Renewable Energy (NRE), Global Warming
(GW) and Respiratory Inorganics (RI); in all the three above-
mentioned impact categories, the main contributions are due to the to
the granule production and extrusion for the PA-PE layer production;
transportations mainly affect the damage category EcosystemQuality.
Comparing these results with those fromVidal et al. and Leceta et al.,
although different methods are used for the LCIA, it can be noted that in
all the three studies, including the present, the most signicant impact
categories related to the use of synthetic-polymer lms are referred
to: Resources depletion coming fromthe use of fossil fuels for producing
the energy process-demand; and Climate Change, because of the global
warming due in turn to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The
present study further highlighted respiratory inorganics as one of the
most signicant impact categories affecting Human Health because of
the emission of particulates with a grain size less than 2.5 m due to
the LDPE granule requirement production and processing. Lastly, the
comparison developed, besides highlighting that the present study out-
comes are in agreement with literature data, allowed for asserting that
the use of biodegradable polymers does not mean producing 100% sus-
tainable food packages. From Leceta et al., according to the normalized
impact values, it resulted in fact that chitosan-based lms are more
impacting than the PP-based ones for all the impact categories, consid-
ered by the method (Ecoindicator 99) used for the LCIA development,
Table 4
Input data for the PE lm production.
Input ow Physical amount Measure unit Comment
Reference ow 1 kg Film
Raw materials
PE granule 1.05 kg
Main processes and transports
Extrusion of
plastic lms
1.05 kg
Transport 735 kg km Transport of the granule
to the extrusion plant
(distance = 700 km).
Waste treatments
LD-PE scrap 0.05 kg Internal Purication and
Re-processing (IPR)
Table 5
Input data for the PA lm production.
Input ow Physical amount Measure unit Comment
Reference ow 1 kg Film
Raw materials
PA granule 1.05 kg
Main processes and transports
Extrusion of
plastic lms
1.05 kg
Transport 735 kg km Transport of the granule
to the extrusion plant
(distance = 700 km).
Waste treatments
PA scrap 0.05 kg Internal Purication and
Re-processing (IPR)
Table 6
Weighing points and the damage assessment values for each damage category.
Damage category Weighing points Damage assessment Units
Resources 7.743E6 11.8 MJ primary
Climate Change 4.763E6 0.472 kg
eq
CO
2
Human Health 2.996 E6 2.13E7 DALY
Ecosystem Quality 2.681E7 0.0348 PDF m
2
yr
DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Year): a measure of the overall severity of a disease,
expressed as the number of years lost due to illness, disability or premature death.
PDF (Potential Damage Fraction): the fraction of species that have a highprobability of not
surviving in the affected area due to unfavourable living conditions.
Table 7
Substances emission and resource consumption.
Substance Emission compartment Amount Units
Resources
Gas natural in ground 66.4 dm
3
Oil, crude, 42.7 MJ per kg, in ground 74.2 g
Oil, crude, in ground 76.7 g
Climate Change
Carbon dioxide Air 207 g
Carbon dioxide, fossil Air 254 g
Human Health
Nitrogen oxides Air 945 mg
Particulates b 2.5 m Air 40.8 mg
Sulphur dioxide Air 655 mg
Hydrocarbons, aromatic Air 3.28 mg
Ecosystem Quality
Nitrogen oxides Air 945 g
Zinc Soil 157 mg
Aluminium Soil 699 mg
157 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
except for fossil fuels and carcinogens. For these two, PP lm is more
contributing to damage, because of resource extraction and processing;
in particular, the damage associated with carcinogens is principally due
to PP-granule production. Similarly, in the present paper, as shown in
Table 7, the production of the LDPE granulate in the amount needed
for the lm production causes the emission of aromatic hydrocarbons
affecting Human Health through carcinogens. However, it should be ob-
served that the damage corresponding to carcinogens is one of the low-
est among all the impact categories considered by Impact 2002+: it is
equal in fact to about 5E6 points. For this reason, this category was
not considered signicant for the present assessment and so not report-
ed in Table 10. Finally, Leceta et al. reported that the damage on Climate
Change is quite the same between chitosan-based and synthetic poly-
mers. Regarding the main results from Vidal et al, it can be said that
acidication and eutrophication are more affected by the biodegradable
polymer lm; the impact on fossil fuel depletion due to the two lm-
types is quite comparable; andconventional lms are most contributing
to global warming. The comparative analysis of the two studies was use-
ful because it also highlighted that the gap, in terms of environmental
impacts between conventional and biodegradable lms, appears not
to be so relevant. Therefore, improvement solutions can be found for re-
ducing this gap and making conventional packaging environmentally
comparable to the biodegradable ones. For instance, if food shelf-life
was not too much extended for marketing reasons, packaging material
use could be optimised. If recycled polymers were used the impacts
due to the production phase would proportionally decrease. If packages
would be produced so as to be recyclable after disposal, the impacts due
to the end of life would be reduced. In addition to this, renewable
energy could be used for supplying the energy requirements of most
processes in the packaging system life cycle, thereby reducing the im-
pacts in terms of global warming and fossil fuel consumption.
4.3. Life Cycle Improvement Assessment
Based on LCIA results, the solution of reducing the thickness of the
lm layers was considered, since it is expected to allow a reduction of
the amount of granules to be produced and of the total damage associ-
ated with the bag's life cycle. This solution would not cause any change
in the production line, because no different industrial machinery would
be required, but mainly in the amount of rawmaterials transported and
used for the lm manufacturing plant. Therefore, specic laboratory
tests were developed for verifying this solution technical feasibility
assessing, in particular, the possible changes occurring in the lm per-
meability and mechanical behaviour after the lm thickness was
reduced. The obtained qualitative and quantitative results are not re-
ported for reasons of condentiality. By conducting such analysis, it
was established that it was possible to reduce the layer of the lm, but
only up to 65 m guaranteeing food well-preservation for its entire
shelf-life and, so, avoiding food losses. Further thickness reduction
wouldaffect the bag's properties compromising the its quality and func-
tionality and, also, causing the food content deterioration. The analysis
highlighted that the bag made by 85 m thick lm is oversized for the
function that has to perform and represents a waste of raw materials
and money. This, in a time of such economic and environmental crisis,
cannot be tolerated and needs to be avoided. Therefore it was decided
to implement the suggestion to use a lm with a thickness of 65 m,
Table 8
Detail of the processes mostly causing the consumption and the emission of the resources and substances listed in Table 7.
Resource/substance Amount Units Due to For (%) And, in particular, to For (%)
Gas natural in ground 66.4 dm
3
A 98.6 (LD-PE)
p
81.8
Oil, crude, 42.7 MJ per kg, in ground 74.2 g 100 (PA)
p
100
Oil, crude, in ground 76.7 g 88.3 (LD-PE)
p
85.97
Carbon dioxide 207 g 93.23 (PA)
p
100
Carbon dioxide, fossil 254 g 88.58 (LD-PE)
p
45.67
Extrusion 40.74
Nitrogen oxides 945 mg 84.55 (PA)
p
44.3
(LD-PE)
p
32.92
Extrusion 18.52
Particulates b 2.5 m 40.8 mg 87.74 Extrusion 58.1
(LD-PE)
p
33.79
Sulphur dioxide 655 mg 95.42 (LD-PE)
p
55.84
Extrusion 40.16
Hydrocarbons, aromatic 3.28 mg 98.17 (LD-PE)
p
77.95
Table 9
Detail of the processes mostly causing the consumption and the emission of the resources and substances listed in Table 7 (Table 8 continuation).
Resource/substance Amount Units Due to For (%) And, in particular, to For (%)
Zinc 157 mg A 44.84 Transport of the two granules (PA and PE) to the
extrusion and matching plant
67.89
Extrusion 32.1
Transport of the produced bag to the food
production and packaging factory
32.55
Transport of the two layers matched lm to the
bag manufacturing plant
20.7
Aluminium 699 mg A 49.21 Extrusion 67.15
Transport of the two granules (PA and PE) to the
extrusion and matching plant
32.56
Thermo-sealing phase electric energy demand 22.46
Transport of the produced bag to the food production
and packaging factory
17.31
Transport of the two layers matched lm to the bag
manufacturing plant
10.9
158 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
composed by PE for 76% and by PA for 24%. For assuring the quality and
reliability of the results, a comparison was developed using the same
functional unit, system boundaries and quality of data. Fig. 4 shows
that the thickness reduction causes a reduction of the total environmen-
tal damage by 25.3%: from 1.577E5 pt to 1.178E5 pt. The damage
difference in favour to the bag of 65 mthickness lmis classied as fol-
lows: Resources: due to the reduced consumption of natural gas and
crude oil for the production of PA and PE pellets used for the lm pro-
duction; Climate Change: due to the lower carbon dioxide emissions
during the production of PA and PE resin; Human Health: due to lower
nitrogen oxide emissions during the production of PA and PE resins;
and Ecosystem Quality: due to lower nitrogen oxide emissions arising
from the production of PA and PE resins and lower emission of zinc in
soil due to transportation of the resins to the lm extrusion plant.
Finally, the use of a 25% recycled PA-granule was applied and
environmentally assessed compared to the initial study. For doing so,
the bag production process was rst updated (according to the Firm
practices) considering the new amounts of virgin and recycled plastic
materials as well as their supply to the lm manufacturing plant in
terms of travelled distance and, then, transported-amount (kg km).
It should be observed that the total damage decreases from 1.577E5
to 1.333E5 points (Fig. 5), thereby being reduced by quite more
than 15%. This solution, though allowing for increasing the environmen-
tal sustainability level associated withthe bag life cycle, results to be less
effective compared to the one regarding the lmthinning. This is mainly
because of the electricity used in the PA-waste recycling treatment and
also of the transportation of the recycled granule to the lmproduction
factory. This is due in turn to a 10% increase of the distance compared to
the one travelled for the virgin PA-granule supply.
Table 10
Weighing points and the characterization values for each of the impact categories causing
the greatest damage.
Impact category Weighing points Characterization Unit of measurement
Non-renewable energy 7.75E5 11.8 MJ primary
Global warming 4.77E5 0.472 kg
eq
CO
2
Respiratory inorganic 2.41E5 0.000244 kg
eq
P.M.
2.5
Fig. 3. Life cycle of the bag: damage ow Impact 2002+.
Fig. 4. Bag types comparison. Personal elaboration of the impact assessment results (Im-
pact 2002+).
159 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
5. Conclusions
The study had the aimof reporting anddiscussing anLCAapplication
in the food production and packaging eld. The conclusions are specic
to the examined case, the obtained results, as well as the bag production
technologies and the input data. The accessibility and availability of the
study Firm was of fundamental importance for the correct study devel-
opment. Without its technical support, it would not have been possible
to study the merits of the bag manufacturing process and to collect on-
site specic data. The study allowed to demonstrate what we already
expected, namely that the total damage, due to the bag production,
can be reduced by thinning the thickness of the lms. In particular,
the use of 65 m thick lms would lead to a reduction of the total dam-
age by about 25%: the eventual production and marketing of this type of
bag would prove the Firm's interest of making a signicant mark in
implementing environmental sustainability.
Furthermore, it is believed that the present study outcomes can be
used by the Firm for orienting its internal policy towards the develop-
ment of more and more innovative and efcient technologies for opti-
mizing the granule use, also in terms of recycled fraction percentage
producing more eco-friendly packaging systems. In this context, it
would be important and interesting at the same time to entice the
Firmto use the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results as a starting
point for obtaining the Environmental Product Declaration(EPD), one of
the most common and used type III environmental declarations, for
both the types of bag. By doing so, the Firmwill provide buyers and con-
sumers with the right tools for being informed about the environmental
performances of the above-mentioned bags during their whole life cy-
cles. This will enable them to make more sustainable choices. Beside,
this approach could help increasing the awareness regarding the impor-
tance of manufacturing products as environmentally sustainable as pos-
sible. This can be achieved using less primary resources and raw
materials, recycling the internal scrap, generating less waste and emis-
sionof gaseous substances in air, water and soil. This awareness will fur-
ther promote new studies oriented to economicalenvironmental
improvements in food products. This will also assist to eco-develop
new more efcient production and consumption concepts character-
ized by lower environmental impacts. The production of eco-design
goods is the key to remove the link between economic growth and re-
sources consumption.
Contribution of authors
This paper has been thought, discussed and written by the ve
authors and it is the results of their common commitment. In particular,
C. Ingrao, A. Lo Giudice andV. Siracusa have contributedto bibliographical
research, data collectionclassicationevaluation, LCA development. C.
Mbohwa and M. Dalla Rosa have contributed to planning andnal review
of the research study.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to warmly thank the Firm for the interest and the
willingness in assisting themproviding all the technical support and the
data needed for the study development.
References
Andersson, K., & Ohlsson, T. (1999). Including environmental aspects in production devel-
opment: A case study of tomato ketchup. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 32,
134141.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., & Olsson, P. (1998). Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of to-
mato ketchup: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 6, 277288.
Baldo, G. L., Marino, M., & Rossi, S. (2008). Analisi del ciclo di vita LCA. Milano (Italy):
Edizione Ambiente.
Banar, M., & okaygil, Z. (2009). A life cycle comparison of alternative cheese packages.
CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water, 37, 136141.
Busser, S., & Jungbluth, N. (2009). The role of exible packaging in the life cycle of coffee
and butter. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 8091.
Chandra, D. N. (1991). Design for environment ability, proceedings of the design theory and
methodology. Miami (Florida): ASME.
Chytiri, S., Goulas, A. E., Badeka, A., Riganakos, K. A., Petridis, D., & Kontominas, M. G.
(2008). Determination of radiolysis products in gamma-irradiated multilayer barrier
for food packaging lms containing a middle layer of recycled LDPE. Radiations Physic
and Chemistry, 77, 10391045.
Deckers, E., Meinders, H., Meuffels, M., Ram, B., & Stevels, A. (2000). Greening your busi-
ness. The Netherlands: Philips Electronics NV, Corporate Environmental & Energy
Ofce.
Ecoinvent (2010). The Swiss centre for life cycle inventories. (Ecoinvent v2.1).
Gonzlez Garca, S., Hospido, A., Moreira, M. T., Romero, J., & Feijoo, G. (2009). Environ-
mental impact assessment of total chlorin free pulp from Eucaliptus globulus in Spain.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 10101016.
Guine, J. B., Gorre, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., et al. (2002).
Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in per-
spective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientic backgroundDordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Heijungs, R., Guine, J. B., Huppes, G., Lamkreijer, R. M., Udo de Haes, H. A., Wegener
Sleeswijk, A., et al. (1992). Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide
(Part 1) and backgrounds (Part 2), by CML, TNO and B&G. Leiden, English version, The
Netherlands.
Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., & Loerincik, Y. (2009). Life cycle assessment of
two baby food packaging alternatives: Glass jars vs. plastic pots. International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 95106.
ILCD handbook (2010). Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodolo-
gies for use in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Italy: Ispra.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006). Environmental management
Life cycle assessment Principles and framework ISO 14040.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006). Environmental management
Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines ISO 14044.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., et al. (2003). IMPACT
2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 8, 324330.
Keoleian, G. A., Phipps, A. W., Dritz, T., & Brachfeld, D. (2004). Life cycle environmental
performance and improvement of a yogurt product delivery system. Packaging
Technology and Science, 17, 85103.
Leceta, I., Guerrero, P., Cabezudo, S., & de la Caba, K. (2013). Environmental assessment of
chitosan-based lms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41, 312318.
Lo Giudice, A., Mbohwa, C., Clasadonte, M. T., & Ingrao, C. (2013). Environmental assess-
ment of the citrus fruit production in Sicily using LCA. Italian Journal of Food
Science, 25, 202212.
Lo Giudice, A., Mbohwa, C., Clasadonte, M. T., & Ingrao, C. (2014). Life cycle assessment in-
terpretation and improvement of the Sicilian artichokes production. International
Journal of Environmental Research, 8, 305316.
Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging Roles, materials, and environmental is-
sues. Journal of Food Science, 72, 3955.
Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., & Catells, F. (2012). Environmental assessment of the milk life
cycle: The effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data.
Journal of Environmental Management, 107, 7683.
Pardo, G., & Zua, J. (2011). Life cycle assessment of food-preservation technologies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 198207.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. (2009). A reviewof life
cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 110.
Schmincke, E., & Grahl, B. (2007). The part of LCA in ISO type III environmental declara-
tions. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12, 3845.
Silvenius, F., Katajajuuri, J., Grnman, K., Soukka, R., Koivupuro, H., & Virtanen, Y. (2011).
Role of packaging in LCA of food products in toward life cycle sustainability. Re-
trieved May 17, 2013, from. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-
1899-9/page/1
SimaPro (2006). LCA software and database manual. The Netherlands: Pr Consultants BV,
Amersfoort.
Fig. 5. Assessing 25% recycle in the bag production process compared to the initial study.
Personal elaboration of the impact assessment results (Impact 2002+).
160 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161
Siracusa, V., Dalla Rosa, M., Romani, S., Rocculi, P., & Tylewicz, U. (2011). Life cycle assess-
ment of multilayer polymer lm used on food packaging lm. Procedia Food Science,
1, 634643.
Siracusa, V., Rocculi, P., Romani, S., & Dalla Rosa, M. (2008). Biodegradable poly-
mers for food packaging: A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19,
634643.
Udo de Haes, H. A., Jolliet, O., Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Krewitt, W., & Muller-Wenk, R.
(1999). SETAC-Europe: Second working group on LCIA (WIA-2): Best available prac-
tice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assess-
ment: Background document for the second working group on life cycle impact
assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
4, 167174.
Vidal, R., Martinez, P., Mulet, E., Gonzalez, R., Lopez-Mesa, B., Fowler, P., et al. (2007). En-
vironmental assessment of biodegradable multilayer lm derived from carbohydrate
polymers. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15, 159168.
Williams, H., & Wilkstrm, F. (2011). Environmental impact of packaging and food losses
in a life cycle perspective: A comparative analysis of ve food items. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19, 4348.
Zabaniotou, A., & Kassidi, E. (2003). Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made
from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 549559.
Zampori, L., & Dotelli, G. (2014). Design of a sustainable packaging in the food sector by
applying LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 206217.
Zua, J., & Arana, L. (2008). Life cycle assessment to eco-design food products: Industrial
cooked dish case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 19151921.
161 V. Siracusa et al. / Food Research International 62 (2014) 151161