Objectives: The aim was a comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) and beverage carton (BC, associated with Tetra Pak), for a 200 ml portion of medical nutrition using the example of Omanda AG. The results should help decision-makers, clinics and manufacturers to make an ecologically optimized packaging choice.
Methods: The LCA was carried out with the help of OpenLCA and the Ecoinvent database (version 3.10). Three defined comparisons were examined:
Comparison 1: Considers only the raw materials of the packaging (PET vs. PP vs. BC), without transportation or further packaging.
Comparison 2: Compares PET with powder content vs. PET with liquid content, each with a production site in the EU and in Switzerland (CH). As the study is designed for sales in Switzerland, production in EU creates a longer transportation route.
Comparison 3: Examines PET (liquid, CH, recycled), PP (liquid, EU, no recycling) and BC (liquid, EU, no recycling) as a case study for Omanda AG.
Raw material manufacture, production and disposal were examined. The functional unit was a 200 ml portion. The Global Warming Potential (GWP100) served as the environmental indicator.
Results: In the material analysis (comparison 1), the beverage carton showed the best result with ~85% lower" /> Introduction: The demand for medical nutrition (food for special medical purposes) is constantly increasing, as is the need for environmentally friendly packaging solutions. Against this background, three types of packaging were examined with regard to their ecological footprint.
Objectives: The aim was a comparative life cycle analysis (LCA) of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) and beverage carton (BC, associated with Tetra Pak), for a 200 ml portion of medical nutrition using the example of Omanda AG. The results should help decision-makers, clinics and manufacturers to make an ecologically optimized packaging choice.
Methods: The LCA was carried out with the help of OpenLCA and the Ecoinvent database (version 3.10). Three defined comparisons were examined:
Comparison 1: Considers only the raw materials of the packaging (PET vs. PP vs. BC), without transportation or further packaging.
Comparison 2: Compares PET with powder content vs. PET with liquid content, each with a production site in the EU and in Switzerland (CH). As the study is designed for sales in Switzerland, production in EU creates a longer transportation route.
Comparison 3: Examines PET (liquid, CH, recycled), PP (liquid, EU, no recycling) and BC (liquid, EU, no recycling) as a case study for Omanda AG.
Raw material manufacture, production and disposal were examined. The functional unit was a 200 ml portion. The Global Warming Potential (GWP100) served as the environmental indicator.
Results: In the material analysis (comparison 1), the beverage carton showed the best result with ~85% lower" />
| {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].zeitschrift}} {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].untertitel}}, {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].verlag}} Heft {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].monat}}-{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].jahr}}, Jahrgang ({{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].jahrgang}}) ISSN {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].issn}} Seite(n) {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].seite}} DOI: {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].doi}} CareLit-Dokument-Nr: {{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].dokument_nr}} Login für Volltext kostenlos registrieren |
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].abstract}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].apa}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].vancouver}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].harvard}}