CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Environmental Impact and SustainabilityAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactMunicipal Solid Waste Management

Environmental life cycle assessment of single-use and reusable food takeaway containers

Open access
Kadabinakatti, Sharanappagouda, Shinde, Amar·2025·Acta Periodica Technologica
DOI 10.2298/apt250512018k
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rapid growth of the food delivery industry has significantly increased the consumption of takeaway containers. The present study conducted a comparative life cycle assessment of four commonly used 750 ml food containers: Single-use polypropylene (PP), single-use aluminum foil (AF), reusable PP, and reusable stainless steel (SS). This volume aligns with the most commonly used container sizes in the Indian food delivery sector. These containers are widely used for delivering popular Indian dishes like biryani, pulao, and fried rice. The assessment covers the entire life cycle, including extraction and processing of raw materials, production, use, transportation, cleaning (for reusable containers), and end-of-life recycling. The data on material inputs, energy consumption, material loss, and recycling efficiency were compiled, and GaBi software was used to quantify global warming potential (GWP). A functional unit of ?one use of the container? was adopted to ensure fair comparison, and system boundaries included dishwashing and avoided virgin material due to re-cycling. The results showed that the reusable containers must be used at least 3-5 times to surpass the impact of the single-use containers. The reusable container used only once has 3 times higher GWP. However, with 10, 30, and 100 uses, the GWP declined sharply. Most of the GWP impact stems from production, with minor contributions from transport and washing. The recycling at the end-of-life offsets up to 80-90% of production impact. The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, industries, and consumers for promoting low-carbon and sustainable food packaging systems.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cradle-to-grave LCA compares 750 ml single-use PP, single-use aluminum foil, reusable PP, and reusable stainless-steel takeaway containers in an Indian urban context, using GWP as the impact indicator. Reusable containers generally need only a few uses to become environmentally preferable, but retention time and return logistics strongly affect their performance.

Key findings

  • Single-use PP has 52.4 g CO₂-eq/use; reusable PP used once has 181.6 g CO₂-eq/use, falling to 45 g at 5 uses, 26 g at 10 uses, 14.3 g at 30 uses, and 10.2 g at 100 uses. The paper states reusable containers must be used at least 3–5 times to surpass single-use containers.
  • Single-use aluminum foil has 25.6 g CO₂-eq/use; reusable stainless steel used once has 41 g CO₂-eq/use, with GWP reductions of 51%, 73%, and 80% at 10, 30, and 100 uses, respectively.
  • Production dominates GWP across containers, while transport and washing are minor; end-of-life recycling offsets up to 80–90% of production impact.
  • Retention time matters: in the 1-week functional unit, reusable PP shows higher GWP under 1-day and 2-day retention scenarios than single-use PP, but over 2 weeks its impact drops significantly. Waste per use is 3.5 times higher for reusable PP used once than single-use PP, and 17 times higher for reusable SS used once than single-use AF.

Methods

  • The study follows ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006, using GaBi software and CML 2001 to calculate 100-year GWP, with a functional unit of “one use of the container.”
  • Four 750 ml containers are modeled: single-use PP (29.54 g), reusable PP (105.15 g), single-use aluminum foil with paper lid (12.01 g), and reusable stainless steel (207.24 g).
  • Primary data were collected from Udupi, Karnataka, India, using the southern regional electricity grid mix; reusable containers are assessed at 10, 30, and 100 uses, plus retention-time scenarios S0, S1, and S2.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study assumes 100% of used containers are recycled at end-of-life, although in reality some are landfilled, incinerated, or improperly disposed; incineration was excluded due to unavailable reliable inventory data.
  • Stated: the paper lid is assumed incinerated with no recycling credits due to data limitations, and the highest potential reuse count for reusable containers is not available.
  • Evident: the analysis is limited to GWP as the sole impact category, uses Udupi as a proxy for urban India, and does not include economic, social, or policy-intervention modeling such as deposit refund schemes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2298/apt250512018k

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 16 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    The return rate of used containers can vary significantly based on incentives, convenience, and customer awareness.

    “The return rate of used containers can vary significantly based on incentives, convenience, and customer awareness (14,15).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14] Coelho, P.M.; Corona, B.; ten Klooster, R.; Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging-Current situation and trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.: X, 2020, 6, 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037. source
    • cites [15] Cottafava, D.; Costamagna, M.; Baricco, M.; Corazza, L.; Miceli, D.; Riccardo, L.E. Assessment of the environmental break-even point for deposit return systems through an LCA analysis of single-use and reusable cups. Sustain Prod Consum, 2021, 27, 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.002. source

      The Abstract discusses encouraging deposit return systems, and Section 2.4.3 models cups being dispersed rather than reused. Neither passage addresses whether incentives, convenience, or customer awareness cause return rates to vary; searches for those factors and for return rates found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    With 10, 30, and 100 uses, the GWP of reusable containers declined sharply.

    “However, with 10, 30, and 100 uses, the GWP declined sharply.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    The recycling at the end-of-life offsets up to 80-90% of production impact.

    “The recycling at the end-of-life offsets up to 80-90% of production impact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: 100% of used containers are recycled at end-of-life.
  • Findingown data

    The reusable containers must be used at least 3-5 times to surpass the impact of the single-use containers.

    “The results showed that the reusable containers must be used at least 3-5 times to surpass the impact of the single-use containers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: 100% of used containers are recycled at end-of-life.
  • Findingown data

    The reusable container used only once has a 3 times higher GWP than the single-use container.

    “The reusable container used only once has a 3 times higher GWP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 15

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Reusable PP crates are environmentally friendly after 20 rotations.

    “The results showed that reusable PP crates are environmentally friendly after 20 rotations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Accorsi, R., Battarra, I.; Guidani, B.; Manzini, R.; Ronzoni, M.; Volpe, L. Augmented spatial LCA for comparing reusable and recyclable food packaging containers networks. J. Clean. Prod., 2022, 375, 134027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134027. source

      The indexed Abstract gives a different threshold: considering GWP20, reusable PP crates are environmentally friendly after only 15 rotations, not 20. Although they would also meet that criterion at 20 rotations, the cited result does not place the threshold there. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Reusable PET and glass cups should be used at least 18 and 35 times to surpass the disposable PP cups, respectively.

    “According to the study, the reusable PET and glass cups should be used at least 18 and 35 times to surpass the disposable PP cups, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Cottafava, D.; Costamagna, M.; Baricco, M.; Corazza, L.; Miceli, D.; Riccardo, L.E. Assessment of the environmental break-even point for deposit return systems through an LCA analysis of single-use and reusable cups. Sustain Prod Consum, 2021, 27, 228-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.002. source

      Table 3 (section 625) gives break-even points of 18 uses for reusable PET cups and 35 for reusable glass cups relative to single-use PP cups, but those figures apply specifically to the climate-change (CC) impact category under the stated washing and end-of-life assumptions. The unqualified claim implies they surpass PP cups generally; the paper reports that single-use PP remains the better option for some other impact categories. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Reusable lunch boxes with 20 uses can reduce climate change impacts by 59% compared to disposable lunch boxes.

    “According to the study, the reusable lunch boxes with 20 uses can reduce climate change impacts by 59% compared to disposable lunch boxes, however, the reusable lunch boxes are 3.3% expensive than the disposable lunch boxes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Aggarwal, R. Comparative life cycle assessment of reusable and single use take-away lunch boxes used in student restaurants. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2024, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100223. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The GWP of a single-use container is 1.3 times higher than 10 uses of the container.

    “The results showed that the GWP of a single-use container is 1.3 times higher than 10 uses of the container, and the reusable containers should be used at least six times to surpass the impact of the single-use container.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Yadav, P.; Silvenius, F.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Leinonen, I. Life cycle assessment of reusable plastic food packaging. J. Clean. Prod., 2024, 448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141529. source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Reusable containers should be used at least six times to surpass the impact of the single-use container.

    “The results showed that the GWP of a single-use container is 1.3 times higher than 10 uses of the container, and the reusable containers should be used at least six times to surpass the impact of the single-use container.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Yadav, P.; Silvenius, F.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Leinonen, I. Life cycle assessment of reusable plastic food packaging. J. Clean. Prod., 2024, 448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141529. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The life cycle environmental footprint of secondary aluminum depends on end-of-life recycling efficiency and regional electricity mix.

    “Although aluminum is infinitely recyclable, the life cycle environmental footprint of secondary aluminum depends on end-of-life recycling efficiency and regional electricity mix (7,8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] Al-Alimi, S.; Yusuf, N.K.; Ghaleb, A.M.; Lajis, M.A.; Shamsudin, S.; Zhou, W.; Altharan, Y.M.; Abdulwahab, H.S.; Saif, Y.; Didane, D.H.; S T T, I.; Adam, A. Recycling aluminium for sustainable development: A review of different processing technologies in green manufacturing. Results in Engineering. 2024, 102566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102566. source
    • cites [8] Altharan, Y.M.; Shamsudin, S.; Al-Alimi, S.; Saif, Y.; Zhou, W. A review on solid-state recycling of aluminum machining chips and their morphology effect on recycled part quality. Heliyon. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34433. source

      The Introduction (page not provided) says aluminum is 100% recyclable and links losses during remelting to greater energy use and environmental impact. This supports the recycling-efficiency part of the claim, but the passages found do not address regional electricity mix as a determinant of the life-cycle footprint. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: Aluminum production is highly energy and emissions-intensive due to the electricity required for smelting.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most of the GWP impact stems from production, with minor contributions from transport and washing.

    “Most of the GWP impact stems from production, with minor contributions from transport and washing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    When a reusable PP container is used five times, its GWP falls to 45 g CO2-eq/use, which is lower than that of a single-use PP container.

    “When a reusable PP container is used five times, its GWP falls to 45 g CO 2 -eq/use, which is lower than that of a single-use PP container.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    SS containers are much heavier and involve more material per container than single-use AF containers.

    “This is primarily because SS containers are much heavier and involve more material per container.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Transport impacts are minimal and fairly consistent across different scenarios.

    “Transport impacts are also minimal and fairly consistent across different scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Washing and transport impact rise slightly with use frequency but remain marginal compared to the production stage.

    “Washing and transport impact rise slightly with use frequency but remain marginal in comparison to the production stage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The majority of the GWP impact of a single-use PP container is driven by production processes, with minimal contributions from transport.

    “The majority of the GWP impact of a single-use PP container is driven by production processes, with minimal contributions from transport.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The reusable SS container weighs 207.24 g and is constructed from steel.

    “The reusable SS container, the heaviest among the options at 207.24 g, is constructed from steel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Stainless steel containers can be used hundreds of times and are fully recyclable at the end-of-life.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The single-use PP container is made entirely of polypropylene and weighs 29.54 g.

    “As shown in Table 1, the single-use PP container is made entirely of polypropylene and weighs 29.54 g.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The reusable PP container is composed of polypropylene and weighs 105.15 g.

    “The reusable PP container is also composed of polypropylene but is significantly heavier at 105.15 g.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Currently, only 20% of waste packaging materials are recycled worldwide.

    “Zhuo et al. (6) presented a review of the recent studies on takeaway packaging waste and revealed that currently, only 20% of waste packaging materials are recycled worldwide.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Zhuo, Y.; He, J.T., Li, W.; Deng, J.; Lin, Q.L. A review on takeaway packaging waste: Types, ecological impact, and disposal route. Environ. Pollut.. 2023, 337,122518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122518. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Single-use PP containers are typically discarded after one use, which leads to plastic waste generation.

    “However, these containers are typically discarded after one use, which leads to the plastic waste generation (1)(2)(3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites (1)(2)(3)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Reusable PP containers are manufactured with more material and higher durability, which enables multiple cycles of use.

    “On the other hand, reusable PP containers are manufactured with more material and higher durability, which enables multiple cycles of use (4)(5)(6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites (4)(5)(6)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    If 5% of customers make trips solely to return used containers, the reusable system has higher life cycle GHG emissions and primary energy use than single-use.

    “According to the study, if 5% of customers make trips solely to return used containers, the reusable system has higher life cycle GHG emissions and primary energy use than single-use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Hitt, C.; Douglas, J.; Keoleian, G. Parametric life cycle assessment modeling of reusable and single-use restaurant food container systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 2023, 190, 106862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106862 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Most comparative LCA studies of takeaway containers are region-specific, with limited studies in developing countries.

    “However, most of the comparative studies are region-specific, with limited studies in developing countries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Several studies have focused on PP containers and have a limited focus on commonly used aluminum foil and stainless-steel containers.

    “Several studies have focused on PP containers and have a limited focus on commonly used aluminum foil and stainless-steel containers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Reusability alone does not guarantee environmental benefits; the actual practice of repeated use is crucial.

    “This analysis demonstrates that reusability alone does not guarantee the environmental benefits; rather, the actual practice of repeated use is crucial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The southern regional electricity grid mix is more accurate for Udupi than the national average.

    “This regional electricity profile is more accurate for Udupi than the national average.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Udupi is a suitable and realistic proxy for modeling an urban Indian context.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    No recycling credits were applied to the lid component due to the unavailability of reliable inventory data.

    “No recycling credits were applied to the lid component due to the unavailability of reliable inventory data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The GWP impact of producing a reusable container is not offset by repeated use, making it less sustainable compared to a single-use PP container.

    “A GWP impact of producing a reusable container is not offset by repeated use, making it less sustainable compared to a single-use PP container.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The methodology of the present study follows ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006.

    “The methodology of the present study follows the International Standardization Organization (ISO) 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 (17)(18)(19).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites (17)(18)(19)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The lower waste of AF containers could be due to the thinner gauge and lower material density of AF containers used in the food industry.

    “This could be due to the thinner gauge and lower material density of AF containers used in the food industry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The CML (2001) methodology was used to calculate GWP impacts over a 100-year time horizon.

    “The CML (2001) methodology was used to calculate GWP impacts over a 100-year time horizon.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Incineration was excluded from the scope of this study due to the unavailability of reliable inventory data.

    “However, incineration was excluded from the scope of this study due to the unavailability of reliable inventory data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Ease of cleaning, durability, and lightweight materials can further enhance the environmental performance of reusable containers.

    “Furthermore, the ease of cleaning, durability, and lightweight materials can further enhance the environmental performance of reusable containers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lower waste generation can ease the burden on municipal waste collection and disposal systems.

    “Lower waste generation can ease the burden on municipal waste collection and disposal systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 750 ml volume aligns with the most commonly used container sizes in the Indian food delivery sector.

    “This volume aligns with the most commonly used container sizes in the Indian food delivery sector.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Udupi is a suitable and realistic proxy for modeling an urban Indian context.

    “Therefore, Udupi is considered a suitable and realistic proxy for modeling an urban Indian context in this study.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    100% of used containers are recycled at end-of-life.

    “The study assumes that 100% of the used containers are recycled at end-of-life.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Paper lids are incinerated, in line with prevalent municipal solid waste practices for composite materials.

    “Conservatively, it was assumed that these lids are incinerated, in line with prevalent municipal solid waste practices for composite materials.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Stainless steel containers can be used hundreds of times and are fully recyclable at the end-of-life.

    “Stainless steel containers can be used hundreds of times and are fully recyclable at the end-of-life.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aluminum production is highly energy and emissions-intensive due to the electricity required for smelting.

    “The electricity required for the smelting process makes aluminum production highly energy and emissions-intensive.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each retention time scenario assumes a weekly food delivery frequency of seven meals.

    “Each scenario assumes a weekly food delivery frequency of seven meals.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In practice, restaurants are assumed to be responsible for the collection and redistribution of containers.

    “In practice, restaurants are assumed to be responsible for the collection and redistribution of containers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aluminum is energy-intensive to produce.

    “Although aluminum is a lighter material in some forms, it is energy-intensive to produce.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Contaminated aluminum foil containers are often excluded from recycling streams due to food residues.

    “Moreover, contaminated AF containers are often excluded from recycling streams due to food residues.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Polypropylene containers have better compatibility with plastic recycling streams despite being heavier.

    “In contrast, PP containers have better compatibility with plastic recycling streams despite being heavier.”
11 of 11

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Universal recycling assumption conflicts with incinerated lids

    Minor

    The paper assumes that 100% of used containers are recycled, but later says the paper lids of the aluminum-foil containers are incinerated. Those lids are included in the described containers.

  • Steel contribution analysis calls the reusable container PP

    Minor

    The contribution analysis identifies the container as reusable PP, then interprets its recycling benefit as steel recovery. Figure 6 identifies the reusable container in this comparison as stainless steel.

  • Two different goals are both labeled SDG 12

    Minor

    The same sentence labels both Sustainable Consumption and Production and Climate Action as SDG 12.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Related

Authors
Kadabinakatti, S., & Shinde, A.
Affiliations
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
ORCID
Venue
Acta Periodica Technologica
Publisher
National Library of Serbia
Published
2025
Issue
56
Pages
251-265
ISSN
  • 1450-7188 (ISSN-L)
  • 2406-095X
DOI
10.2298/apt250512018k
OpenAlex
W4411452225
Semantic Scholar
b2b816cd9cd9b8f683148194922b556bc343852f
Cited by
0
References
19
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Acta periodica technologica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
Keywords
single-use packaging, reusable containers, polypropylene, aluminum foil, stainless steel containers, food delivery industry, global warming potential, recycling, sustainable food packaging

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-18.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-18.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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