Advertisement

Mapping of main research lines concerning life cycle studies on packaging systems in Brazil and in the world

  • Murillo Vetroni Barros
  • Rodrigo Salvador
  • Cassiano Moro Piekarski
  • Antonio Carlos de Francisco
LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

Abstract

Purpose

This article aims to conduct a systematic literature review on the life cycle assessment of packaging in the world and in Brazil. Packaging plays an important role in the preservation and protection of products, and it is an issue of concern all over the world. Many environmental concerns lie on packaging, and life cycle assessment (LCA) is said to be the most comprehensive and complete tool for assessing environmental profiles.

Methods

The Methodi Ordinatio was used to assist identifying high impact research. The EndNote software was used for reference management and the VOSviewer for clustering terms and authors. The main research themes, institutions, authors, software tools used for impact assessment, and journals were identified in order to draw on the main aspects of the referred body of literature and present an insight on its trends.

Results and discussion

The line of study has not shown many solid patterns concerning either global or Brazilian research on LCA of packaging, so far. Nevertheless, most research has been dedicated to the food and beverage industries and European countries are leading this theme’s development. Research history shows that recycling has comprised one of the first concerns, whereas the search for alternative materials and end-of-life routes play an important role in the present and future of LCA of packaging. Brazil is the most prominent developing country in this field, featuring among the main contributors to the theme globally.

Conclusions

There is evidence that the referred body of literature has been increasingly receiving contributions both globally and in Brazil. However, it is not sufficient to state that there are solidly established either drifts or trends, as many research features change over time. The joint interest of public and private sectors can boost this study’s theme’s development and unveil novel alternatives for reducing environmental impacts of packaging systems.

Keywords

LCA Life cycle assessment Package Packaging Review Sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Editor of the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment and the reviewers for efficient handling and valuable comments improving this research on earlier versions of the paper.

Funding information

This research was financially supported by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1573_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Graph 1 (XLSX 13 kb)
11367_2018_1573_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Graph 2 (XLSX 13 kb)
11367_2018_1573_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Graph 3 (XLSX 13 kb)
11367_2018_1573_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Graph 4 (XLSX 13 kb)
11367_2018_1573_MOESM5_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Graph 5 (XLSX 12 kb)
11367_2018_1573_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Graph 6 (XLSX 12 kb)

References

  1. Accorsi R, Cascini A, Cholette S, Manzini R, Mora C (2014) Economic and environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: a food catering supply chain case study. Int J Prod Econ 152:88–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht S, Brandstetter P, Beck T, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Gronman K, Baitz M, Deimling S, Sandilands J, Fischer M (2013) An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1549–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amienyo D, Azapagic A (2014) Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J Clean Prod 72:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amienyo D, Azapagic A (2016) Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(4):492–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amienyo D, Camilleri C, Azapagic A (2014) Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J Clean Prod 72:110–119Google Scholar
  6. Amienyo D, Gujba H, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson K, Ohlsson T, Olsson P (1998) Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study. J Clean Prod 6(3–4):277–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00027-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrae ASG, Andersen O (2011) Life cycle assessment of integrated circuit packaging technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(3):258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F (2003) Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(2):92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y, Shechter M (2000) Application of a comparative multidimensional life cycle analysis in solid waste management policy: the case of soft drink containers. Environ Sci Pol 3(2–3):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertoluci G, Leroy Y, Olsson A (2014) Exploring the environmental impacts of olive packaging solutions for the European food market. J Clean Prod 64:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bocken NMP, Allwood JM, Willey AR, King JMH (2012) Development of a tool for rapidly assessing the implementation difficulty and emissions benefits of innovations. Technovation 32(1):19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonamente E, Scrucca F, Rinaldi S, Merico MC, Asdrubali F, Lamastra L (2016) Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: carbon and water footprint assessment. Sci Total Environ 560-561:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borghi AD, Gallo M, Strazza C, Borghi MD (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Büsser S, Jungbluth N (2009) The role of flexible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(Suppl. 1):80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci 62(7):1382–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cordella M, Tugnoli A, Spadoni G, Santarelli F, Zangrando T (2008) LCA of an Italian lager beer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dam YKV (1996) Environmental assessment of packaging: the consumer point of view. Environ Manag 20(5):607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eide MH (2002) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falkenstein EV, Wellenreuther F, Detzel A (2010) LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be drawn? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(9):938–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. FAO (2014) Appropriate food packaging solutions for developing countries. Rome. Accessed 14 March 2018. Available on: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3684e.pdf
  22. Gasol CM, Farreny R, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J (2008) Life cycle assessment comparison among different reuse intensities for industrial wooden containers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gatti JB, Queiroz GC, Garcia EEC (2008) Recycling of aluminum can in terms of life cycle inventory (LCI). Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glanzel W, Schoepflin U (1999) A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Inf Process Manag 35(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. González-García S, Silva FJ, Moreira MT, Pascual RC, Lozano RG, Gabarrell X, Pons JRI, Feijoo G (2011) Combined application of LCA and eco-design for the sustainable production of wood boxes for wine bottles storage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(3):224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutierrez MM, Meleddu M, Piga A (2017) Food losses, shelf life extension and environmental impact of a packaged cheesecake: a life cycle assessment. Food Res Int 91:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hischier R, Althaus HJ, Werner F (2005) Developments in wood and packaging materials life cycle inventories in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingrao C, Lo Giudice A, Bacenetti J, Khaneghah AM, Sant'Ana AS, Rana R, Siracusa V (2015) Foamy polystyrene trays for fresh-meat packaging: life-cycle inventory data collection and environmental impact assessment. Food Res Int 76:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ingrao C, Gigli M, Siracusa V (2017) An attributional life cycle assessment application experience to highlight environmental hotspots in the production of foamy polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging usage. J Clean Prod 150:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ISO Norm 14040:2006 (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and framework. Environmental management (ISO) 2006aGoogle Scholar
  32. ISO Norm 14044:2006 (2006) Life cycle assessment: Requirement and guidelines. Environmental management (ISO) 2006bGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuta CC, Koch DG, Hildebrandt CC, Janzen DC (1995) Improvement of products and packaging through the use of life cycle analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 14(3–4):185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laso J, Margallo M, Fullana P, Bala A, Gazulla C, Irabien Á, Aldaco R (2017) When product diversification influences life cycle impact assessment: a case study of canned anchovy. Sci Total Environ 581-582:629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leis CM, Nogueira AR, Kulay L, Tadini CC (2017) Environmental and energy analysis of biopolymer film based on cassava starch in Brazil. J Clean Prod 143:76–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Licciardello F (2017) Packaging, blessing in disguise. Review on its diverse contribution to food sustainability. Trends Food Sci Technol 65:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lorite GS, Rocha JM, Miilumaki N, Saavalainen P, Selkala T, Morales-Cid G, Goncalves MP, Pongracz E, Rocha CMR, Toth G (2017) Evaluation of physicochemical/microbial properties and life cycle assessment (LCA) of PLA-based nanocomposite active packaging. Lwt-Food Sci Technol 75:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luz LM, de Francisco AC, Piekarski CM (2015) Proposed model for assessing the contribution of the indicators obtained from the analysis of life-cycle inventory to the generation of industry innovation. J Clean Prod 96:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R (2009) Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 17(13):1183–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manfredi M, Vignali G (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of hot filling and aseptic packaging systems used for beverages. J Food Eng 147:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meneses M, Pasqualino J, Castells F (2012) Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: the effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. J Environ Manag 107:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Monte M, Padoano E, Pozzetto D (2005) Alternative coffee packaging: an analysis from a life cycle point of view. J Food Eng 66(4):405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mourad AL, Garcia EEC, Vilela GB, Von Zuben F (2008a) Environmental effects from a recycling rate increase of cardboard of aseptic packaging system for milk using life cycle approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mourad AL, Garcia EEC, Vilela GB, Von Zuben F (2008b) Influence of recycling rate increase of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(4):678–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mourad AL, Silva HLG, Nogueira JCB (2012) Carton for beverage-a decade of process efficiency improvements enhancing its environmental profile. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(2):176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mourad AL, Silva HLG, Nogueira JCB (2014) Life cycle assessment of cellulose packaging materials production: folding box board and kraftliner paper. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):968–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oliveira MC, Magrini A (2017) Life cycle assessment of lubricant oil plastic containers in Brazil. Sustainability 9(4):576–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pagani RN, Kovaleski JL, Resende LM (2015) Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and year of publication. Scientometrics 105:2109–2135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1744-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pasqualino J, Meneses M, Castells F (2011) The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. J Food Eng 103(4):357–365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Doc 25(4):348–349Google Scholar
  51. Romero-Hernández O, Hernandez SR, Munoz D, Detta-Silveira E, Palacios-Brun A, Laguna A (2009) Environmental implications and market analysis of soft drink packaging systems in Mexico. A waste management approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross S, Evans D (2003) The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. J Clean Prod 11(5):561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rossi V, Cleeve-Edwards N, Lundquist L, Schenker U, Dubois C, Humbert S, Jolliet O (2015) Life cycle assessment of end-of-life options for two biodegradable packaging materials: sound application of the European waste hierarchy. J Clean Prod 86:132–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saibuatrong W, Cheroennet N, Suwanmanee U (2017) Life cycle assessment focusing on the waste management of conventional and bio-based garbage bags. J Clean Prod 158:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saraiva AB, Pacheco EBAV, Gomes GM, Visconte LLY, Bernardo CA, Simoes CL, Soares AG (2016) Comparative lifecycle assessment of mango packaging made from a polyethylene/natural fiber-composite and from cardboard material. J Clean Prod 139:1168–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Siracusa V, Ingrao C, Giudice AL, Mbohwa C, Rosa MD (2014) Environmental assessment of a multilayer polymer bag for food packaging and preservation: an LCA approach. Food Res Int 62:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Talve S (2001) Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(5):293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Comparative LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable for food packaging. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verghese KL, Horne R, Carre A (2010) PIQET: the design and development of an online 'streamlined' LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(6):608–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wikstrom F, Williams H, Verghese K, Clune S (2014) The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies - a neglected topic. J Clean Prod 73:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams H, Wikström F (2011) Environmental impact of packaging and food losses in a life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis of five food items. J Clean Prod 19(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams H, Wikstrom F, Lofgren M (2008) A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. J Clean Prod 16(7):853–859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xie M, Li L, Qiao Q, Sun Q, Sun T (2011) A comparative study on milk packaging using life cycle assessment: from PA-PE-Al laminate and polyethylene in China. J Clean Prod 19(17–18):2100–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zabaniotou A, Kassidi E (2003) Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper. J Clean Prod 11(5):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP)Federal University of Technology-Parana (UTFPR)Ponta GrossaBrazil
  2. 2.Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Department of Production EngineeringFederal University of Technology-Parana (UTFPR)Ponta GrossaBrazil

Personalised recommendations