Keteki Anand , Andrés Martinez Arce , George Bishop , David Styles , Colin Fitzpatrick
{"title":"A tasty solution to packaging waste? Life cycle assessment of edible coffee cups","authors":"Keteki Anand , Andrés Martinez Arce , George Bishop , David Styles , Colin Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Edible cups have been proposed as a solution to littering and plastic pollution arising from disposal of 500 billion beverage cups each year. We applied life cycle assessment and a littering indicator to benchmark the environmental performance of edible cups against mainstream cup types made from paper, polylactic acid (PLA), polystyrene (PS) and reusable cups made from polypropylene (PP) and steel. Various end-of-life treatment scenarios were analysed. Across most impact categories, edible cups incur the largest burdens, and reusable cups the smallest (if reused at least 54 times). Under default assumptions, per cup use, climate change burdens ranged from 0.004 to 0.1 kg CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent, eutrophication burdens ranged from 6.26 × 10<sup>–6</sup> to 4.21 × 10<sup>–4</sup> kg N, fossil resource depletion burdens ranged from 0.05 to 0.284 MJ and water depletion burdens ranged from 0.002 to 0.437 m<sup>3</sup>. However, if edible cups are eaten after use <em>and</em> substitute a similar snack then their use could incur negligible environmental impact. Furthermore, edible cups demonstrate low littering potential and thus could play a role in transition towards more sustainable coffee consumption.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"201 ","pages":"Article 107320"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344923004548/pdfft?md5=e41daa312f22b544bb09f40c78669a36&pid=1-s2.0-S0921344923004548-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344923004548","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Edible cups have been proposed as a solution to littering and plastic pollution arising from disposal of 500 billion beverage cups each year. We applied life cycle assessment and a littering indicator to benchmark the environmental performance of edible cups against mainstream cup types made from paper, polylactic acid (PLA), polystyrene (PS) and reusable cups made from polypropylene (PP) and steel. Various end-of-life treatment scenarios were analysed. Across most impact categories, edible cups incur the largest burdens, and reusable cups the smallest (if reused at least 54 times). Under default assumptions, per cup use, climate change burdens ranged from 0.004 to 0.1 kg CO2 equivalent, eutrophication burdens ranged from 6.26 × 10–6 to 4.21 × 10–4 kg N, fossil resource depletion burdens ranged from 0.05 to 0.284 MJ and water depletion burdens ranged from 0.002 to 0.437 m3. However, if edible cups are eaten after use and substitute a similar snack then their use could incur negligible environmental impact. Furthermore, edible cups demonstrate low littering potential and thus could play a role in transition towards more sustainable coffee consumption.
期刊介绍:
The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns.
Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.