The significance of environmental attributes as indicators of the life cycle environmental impacts of packaging and food service ware
Open accessAbstract
The environmental impacts of packaging and food service ware (FSW) are increasingly the subject of government policy, public discourse, and industry commitments. While some consideration is given to reducing the impacts of packaging across its entire life cycle, most of the focus is on packaging waste or feedstock substitution. Efforts typically focus on specific packaging characteristics, or material attributes, commonly perceived to be environmentally preferable. This article summarizes an extensive meta-review of existing published literature that was performed to determine whether the material attributes recyclability, recycled content, compostability, and biobased, commonly considered to be environmentally beneficial, correlate with lower net environmental impacts across the full life cycle of the packaging and FSW. Seventy-one unique life cycle assessment (LCA) studies that quantify the environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of packaging and FSW were analyzed. These studies included over 5000 comparisons for 13 impact categories commonly analyzed in LCA studies. The results from the meta-review identified a number of instances where material attributes do not correlate with environmental benefits for packaging and FSW. Rather, other characteristics such as material choice or mass of the packaging/FSW products can have higher influence in determining life cycle impacts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When comparing petroleum-based and bio-based packaging and food service ware, the bio-based products exhibit lower global warming potential and fossil energy consumption but unfavorable environmental impacts in many areas, such as ozone depletion, acidification, water consumption, and eutrophication.
“When comparing petroleum- vs. bio-based packaging and food service ware, the latter exhibits lower global warming potential and fossil energy consumption but unfavorable environmental impacts in many areas, such as ozone depletion, acidification, water consumption, and eutrophication.”
From Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Vendries et al., 2020
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBio-based materials do not always exhibit positively in every environmental aspect.
“Another example is a recent study that reveals bio-based materials do not always exhibit positively in every environmental aspect (Vendries et al., 2020).”
From Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Vendries et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- A Review of Public Policies Relating to the Use of Environmental Labelling and Information Schemes (ELIS); OECD Environment Working Papers 105; 2016; Vol. 105. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm0p34bk7hb-en. · DOI
- Federal Trade Commission. Part VII, 16 CFR Part 260: Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims; Final Rule. Federal Register 2012, 77 (197), 62122-62132.
- Curran, M. A., Ed.; Wiley/Scrivener: Hoboken, N.J, 2012.
- Toniolo, S.; Mazzi, A.; Pieretto, C.; Scipioni, A. Allocation Strategies in Comparative Life Cycle Assessment for Recycling: Considerations from Case Studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2017, 117, 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.011. · DOI
- Johnson, J. X.; McMillan, C. A.; Keoleian, G. A. Evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment Recycling Allocation Methods: The Case Study of Aluminum. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2013, n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12050. · DOI
- Haneef, M.; Ceseracciu, L.; Canale, C.; Bayer, I. S.; Heredia-Guerrero, J. A.; Athanassiou, A. Advanced Materials From Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Properties. Scientific Reports 2017, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41292. · DOI
- Hottle, T. A.; Bilec, M. M.; Landis, A. E. Sustainability Assessments of Bio-Based Polymers. Polymer Degradation and Stability 2013, 98 (9), 1898-1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.06.016. · DOI
- Kendall, A. A Life Cycle Assessment of Biopolymer Production from Material Recovery Facility Residuals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2012, 61 (Supplement C), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.01.008. · DOI
- Koller, M.; Sandholzer, D.; Salerno, A.; Braunegg, G.; Narodoslawsky, M. Biopolymer from Industrial Residues: Life Cycle Assessment of Poly (Hydroxyalkanoates) from Whey. Resources, conservation and recycling 2013, 73, 64-71.
- Schiffman, R. Packing Materials Grown from Mushrooms. New Scientist 2013, 218 (2921), 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(13)61485-2. · DOI
- Zampori, L.; Dotelli, G. Design of a Sustainable Packaging in the Food Sector by Applying LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2014, 19 (1), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0618-9. · DOI
- Markwardt, S.; Wellenreuther, F. Sensitivity Analysis as a Tool to Extend the Applicability of LCA Findings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2016, 21 (8), 1148- 1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1094-9. · DOI
- Hottle, T. A.; Bilec, M. M.; Brown, N. R.; Landis, A. E. Toward Zero Waste: Composting and Recycling for Sustainable Venue Based Events. Waste Management 2015, 38, 86-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.019. · DOI
- Meeks, D.; Hottle, T.; Bilec, M. M.; Landis, A. E. Compostable Biopolymer Use in the Real World: Stakeholder Interviews to Better Understand the Motivations and Realities of Use and Disposal in the US. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2015, 105, 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.022. · DOI
- Yates, M. R.; Barlow, C. Y. Life Cycle Assessments of Biodegradable, Commercial Biopolymers-A Critical Review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2013, 78, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.06.010. · DOI
- Hottle, T. A.; Bilec, M. M.; Landis, A. E. Biopolymer Production and End of Life Comparisons Using Life Cycle Assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2017, 122, 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.002. · DOI
- Hermann, B. G.; Blok, K.; Patel, M. K. Twisting Biomaterials around Your Little Finger: Environmental Impacts of Bio-Based Wrappings. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010, 15 (4), 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0155-8. · DOI
- Kolstad, J. J.; Vink, E. T. H.; De Wilde, B.; Debeer, L. Assessment of Anaerobic Degradation of Ingeo TM Polylactides under Accelerated Landfill Conditions. Polymer Degradation and Stability 2012, 97 (7), 1131-1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.04.003. · DOI
- Papong, S.; Malakul, P.; Trungkavashirakun, R.; Wenunun, P.; Chom-in, T.; Nithitanakul, M.; Sarobol, E. Comparative Assessment of the Environmental Profile of PLA and PET Drinking Water Bottles from a Life Cycle Perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014, 65, 539-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.030. · DOI
- Leejarkpai, T.; Mungcharoen, T.; Suwanmanee, U. Comparative Assessment of Global Warming Impact and Eco-Efficiency of PS (Polystyrene), PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) and PLA (Polylactic Acid) Boxes. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016, 125, 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.029. · DOI
- Krause, M. J.; Townsend, T. G. Life-Cycle Assumptions of Landfilled Polylactic Acid Underpredict Methane Generation. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2016, 3 (4), 166-169. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00068. · DOI
- Ingwersen, W. W.; Subramanian, V. Guidance for Product Category Rule Development: Process, Outcome, and next Steps. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2014, 19 (3), 532-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0659-0. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Circular Bioeconomy Concepts—A Perspective
Tan, E. C. D., & Lamers, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Sustainability · doi:10.3389/frsus.2021.701509 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vendries, J., Sauer, B., Hawkins, T. R., Allaway, D., Canepa, P., Rivin, J., & Mistry, M.
- Affiliations
- Eastern Research Group (United States) (US)
- Argonne National Laboratory (US)
- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mistry, Minal
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2020-04-03
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5356-5364
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W3014673085
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.osti.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Department of Environmental Quality, State of Oregon
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- packaging, life cycle environmental impact, material properties, recyclability, recycled content, compostability, bio-based materials, packaging waste, material selection, environmental indicators
- MeSH terms
- Environment, Food Services, Product Packaging, Recycling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
