LCA of Glass Bottle vs PET Bottle
This study evaluates the environmental impacts caused by drinking water consumption in Barcelona (Spain) using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology.
The water bottling plants in scenario 1 and scenario 2 has a production capacity of 200 m3 of bottled drinking water per day.
1) mineral water in plastic bottles, and
2) mineral water in a glass bottle.
 |
| LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle |
The results showed that the consumption of tap water was the most preferred alternative, whereas bottled water showed the worst results due to higher raw materials and energy input required for the manufacture of bottles, especially in the case of glass bottles.
However, even though tap water meets the standards set by regulations, over the last few decades an increasing trend to replace tap water with bottled water has been observed in most European countries (Doria, 2006).
Conventional water treatment includes coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, adsorption and disinfection.
Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, reverse osmosis can be applied to separate solutes from water through membranes, and improve water quality.
Thanks to technological advances, reverse osmosis is also available at the household level, where it is mainly used to treat water for drinking and cooking.
Domestic reverse osmosis improves water quality and organoleptic characteristics, thereby increasing consumer confidence in tap water.
In LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle perspective, it can help reduce the environmental impact associated with bottled water consumption.
The bottled water industry is generally identified as having a negative environmental impact, due to the excessive use of energy and resources in the bottle-making process.
For a long time, bottled water was only available in glass containers; but currently polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is widely used for packaging.
Thus, the most important impacts are associated with bottle production, transportation and disposal of solid waste resulting from packaging (Lagioia et al., 2012; McRandle, 2004; Papong et al., 2014).
Previous research researches, which contrasted the environmental impacts of faucet water and mineral water, explained that faucet water from traditional consuming sprinkle therapy constantly had the very best environmental performance, also in situation of high energy-consuming innovations for consuming sprinkle therapy (e.g. turn around osmosis) (Fantin et alia., 2014; Lagioia et alia., 2012; Nessi et alia., 2012).
To the very best of our understanding, there are no research researches which contrast turn around osmosis at the therapy grow with residential turn around osmosis as well as with traditional sprinkle therapy and bottled mineral sprinkle.
The objective of this examine is to contrast the environmental impacts and expenses connected with various consuming sprinkle usage options.
To this finish, a LCA of glass bottle and PET bottle was performed thinking about the complying with situations: 1) faucet water from traditional consuming sprinkle treatment; 2) faucet water from traditional consuming sprinkle therapy with turn around osmosis at the therapy plant; 3) faucet water from traditional consuming sprinkle therapy with residential turn around osmosis.
Likewise, mineral sprinkle in PET containers (situation 4) and mineral sprinkle in glass containers (situation 5) were considered, because they are commonly utilized by customers.
LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle essentially makes up mass and power equilibriums used to the examined system, bonus an evaluation of prospective environmental impacts relates to the inputs and outcomes.
Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, it helps to identify “hotspots” of potential environmental impacts dand sets the basis for improvement in further research.
Their contribution to the overall impact is negligible, as they are made from environmentally friendly materials (i.e. coconut shells) (Bhatnagar et al., 2010; Vanderheyden and Aerts, 2014). d) Regarding bottled water alternatives, the absorption of mineral water (by pumping), raw materials and energy consumption for making bottles (PET and glass) are considered.
The distribution of bottled water is not taken into account, because local transportation makes a small contribution to the overall environmental impact (Pasqualino et al., 2011). e) System boundary exclude const phase
Result
The results obtained highlight that bottled water (either in PET or in glass bottles) requires more material
- PET bottles 130 kg / m3
- glass bottles 154 kg / m3
Energy use is rather than tap water
- PET bottle 1000 MJ / m3
- glass bottles 4900 MJ / m3
which has an average material and energy input of about 0.5e1.3 kg / m3 and 2e3 MJ / m3 water, respectively.
The raw materials needed for the bottles manufacturing accounts for the main impact of bottled mineral water (about 90% of the impact across all indicators), while energy consumption accounts for 5e10% of the impact across all indicators, which is consistent with previous research (Papong et al., 2014).
As shown in Fig. 1, the environmental impact of mineral water in glass bottles (scenario 2) was higher than in PET bottles (scenario 1) for all categories analyzed, with the exception of Global Warming and the Potential of Photochemical Oxidation.
As far as Abiotic Thinning, Oxidation, Eutrophication and the Potential of Ozone Layer Depletion, the higher impact of glass bottles compared to PET bottles is due to the amount of packaging material required per cubic meter of water (125 and 20 kg / m3 of water in a glass and PET bottles, respectively), according to Lagioia et al. (2012).
With regard to Global Warming and the Potential of Photochemical Oxidation, the higher impact of PET bottles compared to glass bottles is due to the emission of CO2, sulfur oxides and nitrogen during PET production. Taking into account the high contribution of bottle materials, PET recycling and reuse of glass bottles will be carried out
reduced the overall impact by about 30% in both scenarios (Fig. 1). Previous studies have shown that the use of biopolymers such as polylactic acids (PLA) can also reduce the impact caused by bottle production (Lagioia et al., 2012; Papong et al., 2014).
However, due to the experimental nature of biopolymers, debate about the environmental convenience of effective PLA production is still open, given its limited use and the difficulties of recycling and disposal (Lagioia et al., 2012; Nessi et al., 2012).
Mineral water causes the highest impact, especially in the case of using glass bottles, even if reused.
Sensitivity
Regarding the energy consumption of mineral water in glass bottles (scenario 2), the results show that increasing energy consumption to 30 kWh / m3 will increase all environments in the dictatorship by 1e37%, depending on the impact category.
Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, reducing energy consumption to 10 kWh / m3 would reduce the potential environmental impact by 4% compared to the base case (12 kWh / m3). In both cases, the potential environmental impact caused by mineral water in glass bottles remains higher than in PET bottles, except for Global Warming and Photochemical Oxidation Potential, the same as for the base case.
Regarding the plastic bottle recycling rate in scenario 1, the results show how by increasing the percentage of bottles recycled, all potential environmental impacts were reduced from 5 to 230% for 75 and 100% recycling compared to the base case (50%).
This is mainly due to the savings in energy and raw materials for PET production. Conversely, when the recycling rate is reduced to 25%, all potential environmental impacts are increased by 54% compared to the base case (50%).
Again, the potential environmental impact caused by mineral water in PET bottles remains lower than in glass bottles, except for Global Warming and Photochemical Oxidation Potential, the same as for the base case.
Economic
Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, mineral water in PET bottles (267 euros / m3) and mineral water in glass bottles (600 euros / m3), which are the most expensive alternatives.
In addition, the cost per cubic meter of mineral water in glass bottles is about 2.2 times higher than mineral water in PET bottles; while the cost per cubic
Conclusion
The greatest environmental impact was discovered for the bottled mineral water, which is likewise one of the most costly. Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, mineral water in a glass bottle revealed the most awful outcomes.
This is primarily because of the high usage of basic materials and power for the produce of containers. In LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle perspective, the greater weight of glass containers each quantity of sprinkle compared with PET containers.
Additionally, if the transport of bottled consuming water is thought about, the ecological effect will be greater. Base on LCA of glass bottle vs PET bottle, mineral water is typically much a lot extra enjoyable in organoleptic terms compared to faucet water
Also read: Stages of a Life Cycle Assessment of PET Bottle
Source: Garfi et.al. 2016. Life cycle assessment of drinking water: Comparing conventional water treatment, reverse osmosis and mineral water in glass and plastic bottles. Elsevier