Frans Silvenius, Luke

1. The role of
package design in
reducing the
environmental
impacts of
packaging
Pakkaa tulevaisuuteen
15.2.2022,
Frans Silvenius, Pooja Yadav,
Juha-Matti Katajajuuri & Ilkka
Leinonen
Luonnonvarakeskus

2. Goal of the
study
• The goal of the study was to investigate the environmental impacts
of some novel packaging materials (biodegradable in nature), and
compare the results to conventional plastic packaging.
• Another goal was to investigate the impacts of environmentally
friendly package design on carbon footprint of the package by using
methods
- To reduce the amount of packaging materials
- To replace fossil based plastics materials by the fibre-based materials
- To develop new materials for packages
- And at the end find holistically environmentally better new packaging
options
• The packaging change was assumed not to affect on the amount of
food waste.
2

3. Demo Cases
and
Methodological
Issues

4. Selecting the demo
cases
• The demo cases consist of different packaging alternatives
– Conventional, fossil-based plastics multilayer
– Conventional, fossil-based plastics recyclable
– Fibre-based, in use
– New bio-based materials
• The shelf life time is the same – so it is assumed that there
is no differences between food waste

5. Energy
Transportations
Raw material acquisition
(wood)
Production of
conventional
fossil plastics
New biobased
materials +
bioplastics
Fiber based material
Conversion processes
and production of films
PLA dispersion
Bio-PE/PP
Packing
Meat
supply
chain
Consumer/collection +
possible food waste
Open loop material and
energy recovery
Deep collaboration with VTT and
Luke
Littering
Figure 1: System boudary of cold cut meat
Case.

6. Materials and weights of the cold cut meat
cases
Weight,
bottom lid
Materials,
bottom lid
Weight, upper
lid
Materials,
upper lid
Conventional
plastic-based
11,5 g PE/PET 2,5 g PE/PET
Recyclable
plastic-based
8,2 g PP/EVOH 2,3 g PP/EVOH
Current fibre-
based
6,45 g Paper/PE/PET/
EVOH
3,3 g Paper/PE/PET/
EVOH
New bio-based
material 1
5,1 g Paper, fibrill
cellulose,
bioPBSA
2,6 g Fibr. Cellulose,
bio. PBSA
New bio-based
material 2
3,8 g Paper, fibrill
cellulose,
modified PLA
2,6 g Fibr. Cellulose,
bio. PBSA

7. Conversion and films primary data
PET, PE, PP from Plastics Europe
EVOH from PE International, paper primary data and Ecoinvent
Fibrillated cellulose from VTT:s carbon footprint study
Other new bio-based and fossil materials from literature and Ecoinvent
Introduction: Main Data sources

8. End-of-
Life
• Scenario one: Energy recovery for all materials.
• Scenario two: Recycling rate of fibres 100 % and recyclable
plastics, plastics energy recovery 100 % for multilayer plastics
• Replaced energy Finnish average heat energy and electricity.
• Emissions on incineration based on the carbon contents of the
materials.
• Recycling for fibres and plastics modelled assumed that
recycled material replaced virgin material - losses taken into
account. Change of properties of the recycled materials not
taken into account

9. Results

10. 10 Figure 2: Results of carbon footprint assessments for cold cut meat
packaging. CH for biogenic carbon 0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Conventional plastic-
based raw material
Current fibre-based
packaging
Recyclable plastic-based
packaging
Stucture 1 Stucture 2
Results, kgCO2-ekv/kg meat
Energy recovery Recycling

11. -0.200
-0.100
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
Plastic raw Materials Fibre raw Materials Paper Processing End-of-life Emisions End-of-life Credits
Climate Impact: Cold Cut Meat Packaging
Figure 3: Climate Impact of Packaging of Cold Cut Meat,
kgCO2-eq./kg meat. CF for biogenic carbon 0

12. Main Results
• Recyclable plastic alternative has in this investigation lower climate
impact than multi-layer plastic because of recyclability.
• New material-based packaging with modified PLA has lowest climate
impact.
• Current fibre-based packaging has two times lower climate impact than
conventional plastic-based and lower than recyclable plastic-based
alternative with incineration scenario.
• The main emission sources are production and end-of-life of virgin
plastics.
• CO2-emissions for end-of-life of fibers are biogenic, and CO2-emissions
for end-of-life of plastics are fossil in incineration scenario.
• The CO2-emission factor for production chain and energy recovery of
fibres is lower than for plastics.

13. Significance of end-of-life scenario
• When incineration scenario is used, carbon footprint is lower for
fibre-based packaging than plastic-based ones.
• When recycling scenario is used, recyclable plastic-based
alternative has lower climate impact than current fibre-based
alternative.
– This is because plastic part of fibre-based alternative is not recyclable so
that the end-of-life scenario for them is incineration. Otherwise the result
would be different.
– It must be kept in mind that 100% recycling rate for plastics and fibres in this
scenario is higher than in practise. It must be kept in mind that now the
environmental credits are given 100% for recycling of plastics and fibres
(assumed to replace virgin plastics and fiber) with only 20 % loss for
plastics. So it has not been taken into account the change of properties of
the recycled plastic and fibre materiasl.

14. Conclusions

15. Conclusion
s
• According to the results it is possible to influence remarkably on environmental
impact of packaging by design.
• The results are highly dependent on the selected packaging materials and their
amounts and dependent on chosen assessment methodologies especially for
end-of life scenario – that is why the two plastic-based alternative have very
different results.
• The main reason of package is to protect food that gives limitations for
packaging solutions, unnecessary food loss should be avoided always.
• The whole life-cycle should be included, when doing LCA of packages.
• Including different end-of-life scenarios is good, when there exists several end-
of-life possibilities.