Life Cycle Assessment of Delivery Packages in China - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3711 – 3719

The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2016

Life cycle assessment of delivery packages in China Yi Yia, Ziyi Wanga, Ronald Wennerstena, Qie Suna* a

Shandong University, Jinan and 250061, China

Abstract With the rapid development of E-Commerce, the express industry is also undergoing unprecedented growth. Research on the express industry in terms of consumption of materials and energy can help the government to develop policies and regulations for the long-term development of the industry and help people to improve their awareness of energy conservation and environment protection. The study used life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to examine the environmental impacts and energy consumption of delivery packages used for express purposes, which mainly include corrugated boxes, plastic bags and tapes for binding and sealing purposes. The results showed that production and usage stage consume most energy and create most environmental impacts. 1-layer box use less materials and energy and thus can replace 2-layer box to reduce environmental impacts. Recycling is the best method for handling waste packages among various treatment methods. © Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ©2017 2016The The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of ICAE Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.

Keywords:LCA; Packaging consumable; Energy consumption; Environmental impacts

1. Introduction With the fast development of E-commerce in China, the express industry is also undergoing unprecedented growth. However, the more people choose to shop online, the more delivery packages, including the materials and associated energy, are need. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, people used 2.96 billion plastic woven bags, 8.26 billion plastic bags, 9.9 billion corrugated boxes, 16.95 billion meter of tape and 2.97 billion fillers, mainly air bubble film (ABF), in 2015 [1]. The mass use of packaging materials will also create giant volume of waste due to improper treatment. For example, in Xian city, 40% of corrugated boxes are not recycled every year, while 3000 ton of plastic bags and tapes and 20 ton of air bubble film (ABF) are thrown away [2]. Researchers have been increasingly devoted themselves into the study on the express industry concerning the package materials and related environmental impacts. Shaikh et al. (2003) suggested that

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-531-88399000-2306. E-mail address: [email protected].

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.860

3712

Yi Yi et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3711 – 3719

paper and corrugated boxes from cotton plant stalks are effective for packaging fruits like oranges [3]. Liang and Cheng (2007) analyzed the production of corrugated paper box [4]. Chen (2014) summarized the designs of delivery packages and analysed the possibility of reutilization and disassembling of different package designs [5]. Regarding the materials used for making delivery boxes, Koskela eta al. (2014) found that recycle corrugated cardboard boxes are more environmental friendly than reusable plastic crate [6] Fei Li et al. (2015) discussed the potential of using nano-cellulose to produce delivery packages, which is a type of environmental friendly material and could facilitate the re-utilization of delivery packages [7]. Zhang & Liang (2016) design an application in mobile phone to improve delivery packages’ recoverability rate [8]. Silva et al. (2013) compared the disposable and returnable packages in Brazil and reported that returnable packages outperform in both environmental impacts and material consumption [9]. In addition, Singh (2014) argued that it is important to standardise packages for delivering fruits and showed the benefits regarding safety and fruit quality. To summarise, most existing studies focused on the materials and design of delivery packages and only a few studies examine delivery packages regarding their environmental performances, which are related to specific types of materials. However, there has been few studies systematically evaluate delivery packages in terms of material and energy consumption, as well as related. (In general, we say material and energy consumption, and related impacts; however, what we should say here depends on what you studied and how the results are presented.) Therefore, this study aims to study the material and energy consumption of delivery packages from a life cycle perspective regarding material and energy consumption and environmental impacts. 2. Methodology In China, the main types of delivery packages include corrugated boxes and plastic bags. Additional materials like tape and ABF used to seal packages and to protect fragile goods from being broken are also included in the assessment. The original data on the details of delivery boxes and bags were obtained from an on-site survey in Shandong University in Jinan city, China, and it includes a total of over 2000 delivery boxes and bags [10]. The study implemented the LCA model in SimaPro 8. According to the survey, Shanghai has the largest number of delivery packages to Jinan, accounting for roughly 40% in the total. Therefore, the study chose Shanghai as the starting city in the transportation process. In addition, a few more assumptions were made to facilitate the assessment, and they include: x Delivery companies purchase packaging materials, including boxes and bags, from local producers. x Waste packaging materials are disposed in the same waste treatment plant in Jinan. x Other additives for producing and disposing packages are ignored. x Electricity consumption is the only type of energy carrier in production procedure and the study paid attention to only the machine power


Fig. 1. System boundary of the LCA study

Figure 1 shows the system boundary of the analysis, which refers to the life cycle of delivery packages, namely production, utilisation and waste disposal. As the focus of this study is on how delivery packages are used to serve the growth in E-commerce, the extraction of raw materials is excluded from the system. The main materials used for producing packaging boxes and bags include bags, tape, ABF and boxes. Appendix A.1.-3. show the production processes of corrugated boxes, plastic bags and tapes, while the production process of ABF is omitted since it is quite similar to that of tapes [11]. According to the survey performed by the study and the requirement of sentivity analysis , the average sizes and functional units of the materials used for one delivery package is shown in Table 1. Table 1 the average sizes and functional units of packaging materials Material

Corrugated box

Plastic Bag

Size Weight (functional units)

25cm*18.5cm*12.5cm 160g

38cm*28cm 10g

3713

3714


3. Results and discussion The study mainly focused on the environmental impacts and energy consumption of delivery packages. 3.1. Environmental impact The study adopted the CML-IA baseline methods to analyse the environmental impacts, which include global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and photochemical oxidation potential (Table 2). As tapes and ABFs are not separately used in the process, their related energy consumption and environmental impacts are integrated into the impacts of boxes and bags, according to the results obtained in the survey. Most global warming potential comes from transport process. The remaining contributions come from incineration and product process of corrugated board. Transportation, which represents vehicle exhaust, is the mainly contributions to acidification. In the life cycle of box, incineration contributes most part to photochemical oxidation. As for bag, production process and transport stage make most photochemical oxidation. Production stage of delivery packages contributions most to eutrophication. Eutrophication potential that is contributed by production of electricity is 75% of total eutrophication impact. Global warming is most prominent environmental impact in these four environmental impacts. Producing boxes makes more photochemical oxidation potential than acidification potential and eutrophication potential. And according to the survey, more than 60% packages were boxes in one day in receiving packages place. The environmental impact that caused by boxes are much more than bags on matter of per box or all packages. Table 2 Environmental impact potential Categories (plastic bag)

Amount

Unit

Global warming Acidification Photochemical oxidation Eutrophication

0.0822 0.565 0.0251 0.0675

kg CO2-eq g SO2-eq g C2H4-eq g PO4-eq

Categories (corrugated box)

Amount

Unit

0.754 4.83 6.23 0.463

kg CO2-eq g SO2-eq g C2H4-eq g PO4-eq

Global warming Acidification Photochemical oxidation Eutrophication

3.2. Energy consumption The study adopted the method Cumulative Energy Demand (V1.09) to calculate the energy consumption of delivery packages. The study found that the energy consumption for producing a corrugated box and a plastic bag is 10.7 MJ and 1.42MJ, respectively. Production stage and usage stage of packaging materials consume nearly 79% energy. Energy consumption of box shows that production of raw materials consumes 38% energy, and electricity consumes 60% energy too. In disposal stage of bag, recycle and incineration get extra energy, which is 25% of total consumption energy.


Energy consumption of bag shows that production of raw materials consumes 49% energy, and electricity consumes 49% energy too. In disposal stage of plastic bag, recycle and incineration get extra energy, which is 4% of total consumption energy. 3.3. Sensitivity analysis 3.3.1. Difference between 1 layer and 2 layer corrugated boxes Roughly 70% of corrugated boxes are made of 2-layer paperboards and 30% are made of 1-layer paperboards in China. However, But 1-layer boxes are more popular in America and Japan [12].The above results are based on 2-layer paperboards and the study hereby also involve 1-layer paperboards into the assessment. The weight of 1-layer corrugated box is 96g. In addition, it is assumed that the two kinds of boxes would use the same volume of tape and ABF.

Fig. 2. (a) 1 layer paperboard; (b) 2 layers paperboard

Appendix B.1 and Appendix B.2 show the differences between two kinds of corrugated boxes. Popularize 1 layer box could reduce much environmental impact, save much raw materials and energy. When researchers collected average data of corrugated box in the college, there were both 1-layer paperboard and two layers paperboard. But the study assumed all box use 2-layer paperboard when input average data. The study compares two kinds of box, most of results shows the relationship of 60%. Actually the rate of change of environmental impact, energy consumption should less than 40%. Regardless the durability of 1-layer boxes, it can save a significant amount of energy and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing 2-layer boxes with 1-layer ones. Most results shows the relationship of 60%. Actually the rate of change of environmental impact, energy and exergy consumption should less than 40%. Under ensuring transportation safety precondition, reduce emission and saving energy effect is evident when using more 1 layer corrugated boxes. 3.3.2. Different disposal ways of packaging materials The study researched two disposal way, which are landfill and recycle, and compared with realistic handling packages disposal to analyse their environmental impact and energy consumption. x Corrugated boxes Compared with recycle, incineration contributes more global warming potential, photochemical oxidation potential and eutrophication potential (Appendix C.1). Recycle makes more acidification potential because recycle board paper participate in reproducing new box and it makes more acidification potential. As for energy consumption, recycle only consumes 83.6% energy of incineration’s energy consumption, even incineration can generate additional energy (Appendix C.2). x Plastic bags Incineration contributes more environmental impact than other disposal ways (Appendix C.3). Recycle waste bag can reutilize plastic bag to make production drawdown and weaken environmental impact. Similar situation occurs in energy consumption of bag that is shown in appendix C.4. Recycle decreases 62% energy consumption of bag.

3715

3716


4. Conclusion Researchers analyse environmental impact and energy consumption of life cycle of packaging materials in China. Packaging materials’ global warming potential is much more than other environmental impact. Acidification potential makes secondly large environmental impact. Packaging materials consume most energy in production and usage stage. The entire life cycle of corrugated box or plastic bag consumes 10.7MJ or 1.42MJ. Using more 1 layer paperboard to product box can decrease much more environmental impact and energy consumption. Recycle reduces raw materials and some recycle materials could be used to produce new packages material, which would decline environmental impact and energy consumption. Therefore, recycle is the best way to treat waste materials. References [1] Amazing waste of Chinese express package: annual consumption of 16.95-billion-meter tapes and 9.9-billion corrugated boxes. china.cankaoxiaoxi.com. 2016. Available at: http://china.cankaoxiaoxi.com/bd/20160330/1113455.shtml. (In Chinese). [2] Zhang Y, Zhang P. Where million express package waste have gone? Shangdong Business Daily. 2015.12.14http://60.216.0.164:99/html/2015-12/14/content_182176.htm. (In Chinese). [3] Shaikh AJ, Varadarajan PV, Ladaniya MS, Singh S. Paper and Corrugated Boxes from Cotton Plant Stalks for Effective Packaging of Oranges. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 2003; 62:8. [4] Hong L, Cheng L. Discussion on Corrugated Paper Box Technics Packaging Engineer. 2007; 28(12):5. [5] Yingyan C. Innovation Design on Express Packaging in the Concept of Sustainable Development. Packaging Engineer. 2014; 35(24):4. [6] Koskela S, Dahlbo H, Judl J, Korhonen M-R, Niininen M. Reusable plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 83(30):8. [7] Li F, Mascheroni E, Piergiovanni L. The Potential of NanoCellulose in the Packaging Field: A Review. Packaging Technology and Science. 2015; 28(6):475-508. Doi: 10.1002/pts.2121. [8] Zhang Y LZ. application study of express package recycling app in college students online shopping. value engineering. 2016; 06. Doi: 10.14018/j.cnki.cn13-1085/n.2016.06.069. [9] Silva DAL, Santos Renó GW, Sevegnani G, Sevegnani TB, Serra Truzzi OM. Comparison of disposable and returnable packaging: a case study of reverse logistics in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013; 47:377-87. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.057. [10] Sun L. Life Cycle Assessment of Delivery Packaging: Shandong University; 2015. (In Chinese). [11] A O, H NP, M NM. Life cycle assessment of paperboard packaging produced in Thailand. 2002:10. [12] Wang Z. Current Situation, Questions and Comments about Paperboard box in China. Shanghai Packaging. 2009; (03).

Qie Sun PhD in Industrial Ecology, KTH, Sweden. He has the background of Economics, Management and Environmental Engineering. Together with Ronald Wennersten and other colleague, they are working with Energy Systems, especially on energy transition in urban cities. In addition, his research interests cover many other disciplines, e.g. Industrial Ecology, Environmental Economics, Climate Change and Sustainable Urbanization.


Appendix A. A.1. Production process of corrugated box

A.2. Technical process of plastic bag

3717

3718


A.3. Technical process of tapes

Appendix B. B.1. Energy consumption comparison between 1layer corrugated box and 2 layers corrugated box Impact category

Unit

Life Cycle of 2 Layer Corrugated Box

Life Cycle of 1 Layer Corrugated Box

Non-renewable, fossil

MJ

6.725407

4.035244

Non-renewable, nuclear

MJ

0.197945

0.118767

Renewable, biomass

MJ

0.004813

0.002888

Renewable, wind, solar, geothe

MJ

1.138254

0.682952

Renewable, water

MJ

0.024641

0.015385

B.2. Environmental impact comparison between 1layer corrugated box and 2 layers corrugated box Impact category

Unit

2-Layer Corrugated Box

1-Layer Corrugated Box

Global warming (GWP100a)

kg CO2 eq

0.573748

0.352969

Photochemical oxidation

kg C2H4 eq

0.005699

0.003046

Acidification

kg SO2 eq

0.003897

0.002338

kg PO4--- eq

0.000242

0.000145

Eutrophication

3719


Appendix C. C.1. Environmental impact comparison of different disposal way of corrugated box Impact category

Unit

Recycle Box

Global warming (GWP100a) Photochemical oxidation

kg CO2 eq

0.515777

kg C2H4 eq

Acidification

kg SO2 eq

Eutrophication

kg PO4--- eq

Incineration Box 0.578878

Life Cycle of Corrugated Box 0.573748

0.000161

0.01862

0.005699

0.00428

0.003733

0.003897

0.00021

0.000256

0.000242

C.2. Energy consumption comparison of different disposal way of corrugated box. Impact category

Unit

Recycle Box

Incineration Box

Life Cycle of Corrugated Box


MJ

6.589743

6.783548

6.725407


MJ

0.075378

0.250475

0.197945

Renewable, biomass

MJ

0.001828

0.006092

0.004813

Renewable, wind, solar

MJ

0.432258

1.440824

1.138254

Renewable, water

MJ

0.013834

0.029273

0.024641

C.3. Environmental impact comparison of different disposal way of plastic bag. Impact category Global (GWP100a)

warming

Unit kg CO2 eq

Recycle Bag 0.035003

Incineration Bag

Life Cycle of Plastic Bag

0.053348

0.04601 1.43E-05

Photochemical oxidation

kg C2H4 eq

1.16E-05

1.61E-05

Acidification

kg SO2 eq

0.000317

0.000373

0.00035

Eutrophication

kg PO4--- eq

1.45E-05

1.76E-05

1.64E-05

C.4. Energy consumption comparison of different disposal way of plastic bag Impact category

Unit

Recycle Bag

Incineration Bag

Life Cycle of Plastic Bag


MJ

0.458856

1.199092

0.902997


MJ

7.94E-05

8.22E-05

8.11E-05

Renewable, biomass

MJ

3.92E-09

2.11E-05

1.26E-05

Renewable, wind, solar,

MJ

3.59E-06

0.000108

6.6E-05

Renewable, water

MJ

1.75E-05

0.00099

0.000601