LCA of Glass Versus PET Mineral Water Bottles: An Italian Case Study
Open accessAbstract
Due to the serious problem of plastic pollution in aquatic environment, many people reject plastic packaging in favour of glass containers which are considered more sustainable. To avoid misjudgements, the sustainability assessment of packaging alternatives should be carried out with a life cycle thinking approach. In this regard, the study presents a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two alternative packaging systems for drinking water: reusable glass bottles and polyethylene (PET) bottles. The case study was performed considering the real data of an Italian mineral water company that bottles and distributes both natural and sparkling water. The environmental impacts of the two packaging systems were estimated with the ReCiPe 2016 (H) evaluation method adopting both midpoint and endpoint approaches. The results showed that the PET bottle is the most sustainable alternative for natural water for many impact categories; while, in the case of sparkling water, the environmental impacts of the two packaging systems are similar and the most environmentally sound solution can vary depending on the impact category. The following are the most significant aspects of the analysis: (1) the number of reuses of a single glass bottle; (2) the distribution distance. Their variation can determine which packaging is the most sustainable. Therefore, a life cycle assessment approach is needed for each specific case.
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?
PET bottles have the lowest environmental impact compared with alternative packaging options.
“Recent research suggests that PET bottles have the lowest environmental impact compared with alternative packaging options.”
From Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based Overview of Economic Viability, Environmental Impact, and Social Equity (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The Introduction (p. 2) says PET appears to generate fewer impacts than PLA or aluminium beverage bottles, and the Conclusions (p. 11) find PET preferable to reusable glass for natural water in this case study. But the same Conclusions say the preferred option for sparkling water varies by impact category and that no packaging system is universally most sustainable. The claim omits those conditions and overgeneralizes the result. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level
Huijbregts, M. A. J., Steinmann, Z. J. N., Elshout, P. M. F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A., & van Zelm, R. (2017) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y · Cited by 4,485 · see citing works
Schwarz, A., Ligthart, T. N., Boukris, E., & van Harmelen, T. (2019) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.029 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
Food packaging and sustainability – Consumer perception vs. correlated scientific facts: A review
Otto, S., Strenger, M., Maier-Nöth, A., & Schmid, M. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126733 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Sustainability of reusable packaging–Current situation and trends
Coelho, P. M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R., & Worrell, E. (2020) · Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X · doi:10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Boesen, S., Bey, N., & Niero, M. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.055 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal
Pasqualino, J., Meneses, M., & Castells, F. (2010) · Journal of Food Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.005 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Simon, B., Amor, B., & Földényi, R. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.008 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Garfí, M., Cadena, E., Sanchez-Ramos, D., & Ferrer, I. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.218 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Stefanini, R., Borghesi, G., Ronzano, A., & Vignali, G. (2020) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-020-01804-x · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Tamburini, E., Costa, S., Summa, D., Battistella, L., Fano, E. A., & Castaldelli, G. (2021) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.110974 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Gardas, B. B., Raut, R. D., & Narkhede, B. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.113 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK
Amienyo, D., Camilleri, C., & Azapagic, A. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.044 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative systems for wine packaging in Italy
Ferrara, C., & Feo, G. D. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120888 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citationCleary, J. (2013) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.009 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Linking LCA literature with circular economy value creation: A review on beverage packaging
Sazdovski, I., Bala, A., & Fullana–i–Palmer, P. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145322 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Comparative life cycle assessment of beverages packages in Palestine
Saleh, Y. A. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.080 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Life Cycle Assessment of Bottled Water: A Case Study of Green2O Products
Horowitz, N., Frago, J., & Mu, D. (2018) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Kouloumpis, V., Pell, R. S., Correa-Cano, M. E., & Yan, X. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138681 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Kang, D., Auras, R. A., & Singh, J. (2016) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.011 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Fantin, V., Scalbi, S., Ottaviano, G., & Masoni, P. (2014) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.115 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Feo, G. D., & Ferrara, C. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.205 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citationMaterial selection for environmental responsibility: the case of soft drinks packaging in Brazil
Almeida, C. M. V. B., Rodrigues, A. J. M., Agostinho, F., & Giannetti, B. F. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.130 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Leivas, R., Laso, J., Abejón, R., Margallo, M., & García, R. A. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137576 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Reusing glass bottles in Italy: A life cycle assessment evaluation
Tua, C., Grosso, M., & Rigamonti, L. (2020) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.094 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Reimagining the milk supply chain: Reusable vessels for bulk delivery
Błażejewski, T., Walker, S., Muazu, R. I., et al. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.030 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Embodied energy in beverage packaging
Camaratta, R., Volkmer, T. M., & Osório, A. G. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110172 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parag, Y., Elimelech, E., & Opher, T. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15129760 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ferrara, C., De Feo, G., & Picone, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Salerno (IT)
- Department of Industrial Engineering (DIIN), University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II, 132–84084 Fisciano, Italy
- Venue
- Recycling
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-07-15
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 50
- ISSN
- 2313-4321 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3177604948
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Recycling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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 › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- glass bottles, PET bottles, mineral water packaging, reusable packaging, plastic pollution, natural waters, sparkling water, packaging sustainability, distance between distributions
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
