2/1/2010
Lecture 4: Environmental issues, LCA analysis, l i packaging k i ergonomics i
Sören Östlund
After Lecture 4 you should be able to • discuss different environmental aspects of packages k • describe the components of packaging ergonomics
1
2/1/2010
Literature • Pocket book of packaging – page 4‐43 • Ch. 66 in the Ljungberg textbook ‐ Packaging Ergonomics
Development of environmentally acceptable packaging Guiding principles • Reduce d – Minimum use of material consistent with the basic function of packaging
• Reuse – Where practical
• Recycle – Material collected for further use – Fleece clothes made from PET bottles
• Recover – Energy can be recovered from waste
2
2/1/2010
Nomenclature material recycling
organic recycling
recycling
energy‐ recovery
reuse
recovery
Reduced packaging weight
Percentage (by weight)
63 common product in grocery shops, 1993‐2002
REDUCTION OF WEIGHT
3
2/1/2010
Collecting and regenerating of packaging materials is a complex process • Metals – Identifying, sorting and recycling comparatively easy Identifying sorting and recycling comparatively easy
• Glass – Easy, but different colours make it difficult to get uncontaminated feedstock
• Paper – Reasonably efficient sorting systems are in place
• Plastics – More serious recycling problems, many plastics are not mutually compatible
Is the Tetra Brik aseptic package an environmentally friendly package?
4
2/1/2010
Food Packaging
size
material
Environment
emptying
price
hygienic
length of product life
waste
Packaging ‐ a part of a system ‐
Product
Distribution Environment
Packaging
5
2/1/2010
LCA – Life Cycle Analysis A tool for judging the environmental impact of a package (product) The lif Th life cycle l describe d ib a products d t life lif from f cradle dl to t grave, from the energy and materials are extracted from the nature to they are restored in the nature again.
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) • Different types of life cycle analysis – LCI – Life Cycle Inventory (A compilation of the flow of materials and energy during the life cycle of a product. No judgement of the environmental impact is made.) – LCA – Life Cycle Analysis (LCI followed by judgement of the environmental impact )
6
2/1/2010
System dependent Reliability of the environmental analysis is dependent of • border of the system • used data • used model
When is LCA used? Compare two different packaging
Finding ”hot spots”
Compare two different scenarios
Rearrange sub‐processes
Energy recovery (combustion) Material recycling Waste handling
7
2/1/2010
Example of Life Cycle Inventory Framställning av polystyrengranuler
Transport
Simplified process tree f for yoghurt plastic cups h l i
Tillverkning g av polystyrenbägare
Framställning av polystyrengranuler
Transport
Transportförpackning
Inpackning
Tillverkning av polystyrenlock
Transport
Transport
Transportförpackning
Uppackning
Tillverkning av aluminiumfolie
Transport Tillverkning av aluminiumoblat
Transport
Fyllning Butiksförpackning
Inpackning
Transportförpackning Transport Butiksförpackning Uppackning Transportförpackning Butik Transport Användning Restprodukthantering
Yoghurt packaging g CO2‐equivalent/functional un it g CO2-ekv. / f.e
Förpackningarnas påverkan till växthuseffekten Carbon Footprint 2 50E+05 2,50E+05 2,00E+05 1,50E+05 1,00E+05 5,00E+04 0,00E+00
Plastic cup PS-bägare
Gable top Takås förp.
8
2/1/2010
Energy contents Yoghurt Gable top packaging Size: 1 liter Product: Yoghurt
71% 18% 11%
Consumer package
Spillage
Yoghurt
Energy consumption Yoghurt packaging
3500 3000
MJ/f.u.
2500
LCA Functional unit = 1000 l
2000 1500 1000 500 0 Plastic cup
Gable top
9
2/1/2010
Yoghurt spillage 12 home
Cup, 500 g Gable top, 1 l p,
product spillage (%)
10
retailer wholesaler+filler
8 6 4 2 0 Plastic cup
Gable top
Milk spillage 1 litre milk 5000 kJ energy
Based on demography and distribution system the milk spillage is ca 250 ‐ 1500 kJ, or 5 – 30 % of the milk content
Based on packaging system 400 ‐ 600 kJ, or 8 ‐ 12% of milk content
10
2/1/2010
Prevention by Source Reduction ‐the paradox‐ Environmental impact Excess negative impact on the environment Minimum impact on the environment
‐5%
+5%
Underestimated packaging design
Overestimated packaging design
Minimum adequate amount of material
Amount of packaging material by weight/volume
Effect of Declining Size of Households Packaging per Person [kg/year] 120 90 70
A person living alone has roughly double the environmental impact of a person living in a large household. One person in a large household uses only 60 % of the materials and 40 % of the energy used by a person who lives alone.
Source: Incpen
11
2/1/2010
Environmental labeling Objective: to encourage the demand and assortment of products/services that have a less negative impact on the environment than other products ISO 14024 ‐ type I Voluntary environmental labeling based on a number of criteria
ISO 14021 ‐ type II Manufacturers own statements on the environmental properties of a product
ISO 14025 ‐ type III Results stated in the form of an EPD (EPD = Environmental Product Information) that is certified by an independent organization. Contains different types of information about a product basInnehåller olika typer av information om en produkt som är baserad på LCA.
http://www.miljomarkarna.se/
Swedish requirements of recovery and recycling recovery p g Aluminium packages Paper, paperboard, corrugated Plastics (excl. PET drink packages) Steel Glass Drink packages metal ‐ ” ‐ plastics Wood Other (per material)
recycling 70 % 65 % 70 % 30% 70 % 70 % 90 % 90 % 70 % 15 % 30 % 15 %
12
2/1/2010
Which types of materials have fulfilled the Swedish requirement for reuse of materials? Recovery and recycling 2005 On the market
700000
Material usage
600000 Total recovery and recycling
65%
tons
500000 400000
72% 70%
300000
75%
200000
70% 95%
64%
11%
100000 0 Plastics
Paper and board
70%
Metal Type of packaing
Glass
Wood
70%
User friendly‐packaging Packaging Ergonomics
13
2/1/2010
Trends • • • • •
Aging population Si l h Single households h ld Short‐of‐time behaviour Meals outside of the home Packages that makes life easier for the user
User‐package interface • This simplified model for the user‐package interface illustrates schematically how the various interface illustrates schematically how the various abilities of a user meet the characteristics (and thus demands) of a package, with various results The abilities of the user Package use/handling situations /h dli i i The properties of the package
?
+
14
2/1/2010
Who is the customer ‐ user? • Employees in different sections of a value chain and consumers, • • • • • • •
Filling, packing, sorting and Palletising Pulling/pushing Order picking, packing, carrying Carrying, opening, replenishing, waste handling Opening emptying re closing storing waste handling Opening, emptying, re‐closing, storing, waste handling Material separation
Easy improvements Retail packages
Packaging
Packaging material
User abilities
size
Work situation
Packaging Auxilliary means
design
Ease of opening Shelving
Information Opening devices (tear strip perforation etc ) (tear strip, perforation, etc.)
Contents P d ti Production
15
2/1/2010
Bar code location Manual registration It is placed at a corner and partly in the welded joint
It is covered by the seal
The surface is too rough
Work places
16
2/1/2010
Harmonized legislation Influence on the area of packaging •
Legislation on product safety, guidelines on ergonomics and environmental matters – all have bearing on a user‐packaging interface, both for consumer packaging and for packaging in the workplace k i df k i i th k l
Weight less than 15 kg
Weight between 15 and 25 kg
Weight more than 25 kg
These symbols serve as a warning to people handling a package. The aim is for all packages to be marked with easily understandable weight information to reduce the risk of occupational injury. Source:www.tya.se
Text size Arial 9‐24
Understanding the Customer
Understanding the Customer
Understanding the Customer
Understanding the Customer
Understanding the Customer Understanding the Customer
17
2/1/2010
Explain
Examples of packages that represents different properties of good usability
18
2/1/2010
Window carton
Tubes possible to empty up to 98%
19
2/1/2010
After Lecture 4 you should be able to • discuss different environmental aspects of packages k • describe the components of packaging ergonomics
Design Project Design in organic materials (paper, b d and board d polymers) l ) a package k f a for food product that is today primarily packed in tin cans or glass jars.
20
2/1/2010
Consider ….
as well as manufacturing and costs
Assessment • Preliminary design review not later than F id 5 M h 2010 Friday, 5 March, 2010 • Oral presentation on Friday, 12 March, 2010 • Short report not later than 20 March, 2010
21
2/1/2010
Grading • Combination of technical content (60 %), short paper (20 %) and oral presentation (20 %). (20 %) d l t ti (20 %) • The grade will be given as a score between ‐3 and 6 that will be added to the score on the written exam (if passed). • Thus, the design project can increase as well Thus the design project can increase as well as decrease the final grade on the course.
Additional information • Teams of 3(2) students • Sources of information – Lack of information – Make assumptions – Ask
• Software for strength and stiffness analysis Software for strength and stiffness analysis – Billerud Box Design – Optipack – Laminate theory
22
