Egg – Carton Redesign

ENGS 171 Final Project

May 28, 2008

G. Owen Cadwalader
Prabhu
Prabhu Perumalsamy
Shreyan Poudyal
Akash Shah
Table of Contents
Index of Tables ................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4
Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)......................................................................................... 5
Boundaries ...................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5
LCA – Polystyrene...................................................................................................... 6
LCA - Paper ................................................................................................................ 9
LCA - Polyethylene .................................................................................................. 12
Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................ 15
Per Carton Impact ..................................................................................................... 15
Overall Impact .......................................................................................................... 15
Possible Solutions ............................................................................................................. 15
Our Solution...................................................................................................................... 17
Egg-Carton Redesign .................................................................................................... 17
Solution Pathway #1: The Personal Reusable Egg-Carton....................................... 21
Solution Pathway #2: The McNamara Dairy Model ................................................ 22
Survey and Results........................................................................................................ 23
Process Flow ................................................................................................................. 24
Stella Model .................................................................................................................. 26
Discussion and Results of Model.............................................................................. 26
LCA: Two Different Levels of Ecological Design ....................................................... 29
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 32
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 33

Index of Tables

Table 1: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Conventional Air Pollutants .................... 7
Table 2: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................... 7
Table 3: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption ............................... 7
Table 5: Paper LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................. 10
Table 6: Paper LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption....................................... 10
Table 7: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Conventional Air Pollutants ................ 12
Table 8: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................. 13
Table 9: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption ........................... 13
Table 10: Per Carton Impacts of Each Material................................................................ 15
Table 11: Overall Total Impacts of Each Material (Relative to Use) ............................... 15
Table 12: Stella Model Results – Reservoirs and Flows .................................................. 29
Table 13: Comparison of Overall Impacts........................................................................ 32

2
Table of Figures

Figure 1: Polystyrene Energy Use Breakdown by Sector................................................... 8

Figure 2: Polystyrene CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector ............................................. 8
Figure 3: Paper Energy Use Breakdown by Sector .......................................................... 11
Figure 4: Paper CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector ..................................................... 11
Figure 5: Polyethylene Energy Use Breakdown by Sector............................................... 14
Figure 6: Polyethylene CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector ......................................... 14
Figure 7: DfE Pollution Prevention Hierarchy of Possible Solutions............................... 16
Figure 8: Reusable Carton Design .................................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Closed Carton with View of Snap Closures...................................................... 18
Figure 10: Stamped Information....................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Stackable Cartons ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 12: Side View of Open Container ......................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Wide Open View of Carton and Clear Cover.................................................. 21
Figure 14: Survey Results................................................................................................. 24
Figure 15: Process Flow of Egg-Cartons According to Our Proposed Solution .............. 25
Figure 16: Stella Model of Our Proposed Solution .......................................................... 26
Figure 17: Stella Model Results – Reservoirs................................................................... 28
Figure 18: Stella Model Results – Flows.......................................................................... 28
Figure 19: Comparative Study of Conventional Air Pollutants........................................ 30
Figure 20: Comparative Study of CO2 Emissions ............................................................ 31
Figure 21: Comparative Study of Total Energy Used ...................................................... 31

3
Introduction
This project aims to assess the environmental impact of the polyethylene, paper,

and polystyrene foam based egg cartons used by the food markets and consumers and

provide a conclusive solution that will reduce the impacts of these egg cartons. The

project consists of three stages – life cycle assessment (LCA) of each packaging material,

comparative study of their impacts, and a solution to reduce the environmental impacts of

egg cartons.

The use of plastics and polystyrene foam has been on the rise and has been used

to pack food, store it and prevent it from contamination. Egg cartons typically available

in the markets are made up of reclaimed (pre-consumer recycled) paper, clear plastic, and

polystyrene foam. We have performed life cycle assessments for each of type of carton to

evaluate the energy consumption, end-of-life, and emissions from each carton. Our

process was based loosely on a previous European study of egg cartons (Zabaniotou and

Kassidi 549-559). To obtain total environmental impact on a national scale, we used the

average number of shell eggs consumed per person in the US.

To reduce the environmental impact of egg cartons we chose to redesign the egg

carton and the system of distribution from the deepest ecology that we could without

drastically changing human choices. We designed a polyethylene reusable egg carton that

will be returned to the producer after the consumer has used it. The carton will then be

washed, re-packed with eggs, and returned to the store. We used Stella to model the flow

of cartons from the producer to the store to the consumer and back in order to determine

the number of reusable cartons that must be produced each year. We created a design for

a reusable polyethylene egg carton in Solid Works that will be three times the thickness

4
of the currently available disposable egg cartons. Using this system the environmental

impact of egg cartons in the US will be reduced by ~2/3 in terms of energy use, green

house gas emissions, and air pollutants.

Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)

Boundaries

We have evaluated the life cycle of each of the three materials that egg cartons are

made from: polystyrene foam, paper, and polyethylene. The boundaries of the life cycle

we have evaluated are quite broad. We have taken into account everything from the

cradle (material mining or collection), through the manufacturing of the product, and to

the grave (the effects of disposal on the environment.) This broad life cycle gives us the

ability to truly assess an egg carton’s impact on the environment from the beginning of its

manufacturing process to its disposal.

Methodology

Our method for life cycle assessment involved using the Carnegie Mellon University

Green Design Institute’s life cycle assessment website ("Economic Input-Output Life

Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)."). Here, we were able to assess the impact of a certain

material from the cradle to the grave. We looked at impacts of greenhouse gas emissions,

energy, toxic releases, and conventional air pollutants. All were quantified on a monetary

basis; meaning for $1 million dollars of a material the impact in each sector is shown. We

then converted $1 million dollars of material to impact per carton by finding the

wholesale price of each egg carton ("Egg Cartons at a Discount, Egg Trays, Egg Boxes,

5
Poultry Supplies, Incubators, Waterers, and Feeders."). Finally we found the average

number of shell eggs consumed by an American ("President's Council on Food Safety --

Egg Safety, From Production to Consumption: An Action Plan to Eliminate Salmonella

Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs."), estimated the number of cartons of each type by

finding the ratio at Shaw’s food store, and determined total impact of each carton type.

Americans eat an average of 234 eggs per years and 70% of those are shell eggs,

which are sold in cartons. If each container holds a dozen eggs, approximately 4.1 billion

egg cartons are sold each year in the United States. From a survey at Shaw’s in West

Lebanon, we found that 52% of the cartons were paper, 40% were polyethylene, and 8%

were polystyrene. We believe that the stock of eggs at Shaw’s is a good representation of

the ratio of different eggs cartons sold in the United States.

LCA – Polystyrene

The environmental impacts of polystyrene foam are listed in following tables. Power

generation and supply during manufacturing creates the largest impact by far for

conventional air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy. The largest impact for

toxic releases is foam product manufacturing. Since the major impacts come from the

manufacturing process any reduction in manufacturing would be environmentally

beneficial.

Conventional Air Pollutants SO2 CO NOx VOC Lead PM10

g/carton g/carton g/carton g/carton g/carton g/carton
Total for all sectors 0.392 1.597 0.376 0.372 0.000 0.074
Power generation and supply 0.293 0.014 0.132 0.001 0.000 0.006
Petrochemical manufacturing 0.017 0.005 0.013 0.041 0.000 0.001
Petroleum refineries 0.011 0.006 0.003 0.009 0.000 0.001
Oil and gas extraction 0.009 0.016 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.000
Other basic inorganic
chemical manufacturing 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
Synthetic dye and pigment 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

6
 manufacturing
Other miscellaneous chemical
product manufacturing 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000
Support activities for oil and
gas operations 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.001
Truck transportation 0.003 0.926 0.067 0.069 0.000 0.002

Rail transportation 0.003 0.006 0.051 0.002 0.000 0.001

Table 1: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Conventional Air Pollutants
("Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

Green House Gases GWP CO2 CH4 N 2O CFCs

g/carton g/carton g/carton g/carton g/carton
Total for all sectors 183.885 148.395 19.013 12.363 4.037
Power generation and supply 53.820 53.235 0.000 0.000 0.647
Other basic organic chemical
manufacturing 16.107 11.076 0.000 5.031 0.000
Truck transportation 13.124 12.929 0.020 0.180 0.000
Plastics material and resin
manufacturing 9.360 9.360 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oil and gas extraction 8.853 1.486 7.371 0.000 0.000
Waste management and remediation
services 7.137 1.129 6.006 0.009 0.000
Petroleum refineries 6.806 6.767 0.038 0.000 0.000
Foam product manufacturing 5.012 5.012 0.000 0.000 0.000
Grain farming 4.368 0.380 0.176 3.803 0.000
Petrochemical manufacturing 4.329 4.329 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 2: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
("Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

Energy Total Electricity Coal Natural Gas LPG

MJ/carton MJ/carton MJ/carton MJ/carton MJ/carton
Total for all sectors 2.282 0.442 0.610 1.051 0.121
Power generation and supply 0.638 0.000 0.505 0.113 0.000
Other basic organic chemical
manufacturing 0.199 0.045 0.031 0.141 0.009
Plastics material and resin
manufacturing 0.186 0.037 0.012 0.150 0.009
Foam product manufacturing 0.136 0.152 0.000 0.048 0.009
Petroleum refineries 0.127 0.008 0.000 0.061 0.057
Truck transportation 0.094 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000
Table 3: Polystyrene LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption ("Economic
Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

7
 Energy Use (Total: 692 TJ/year in US)

Power generation and supply

Other basic organic chemical

manufacturing
Plastics material and resin manufacturing

Foam product manufacturing

Petroleum refineries

Truck transportation

Other

Figure 1: Polystyrene Energy Use Breakdown by Sector

CO2 Emissions (Total: 55,800 MT of CO2 Equivalent/year in

the US)

Power generation and supply

Other basic organic chemical

manufacturing
Truck transportation

Plastics material and resin

manufacturing
Oil and gas extraction

Other

Figure 2: Polystyrene CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector

8
LCA - Paper

From the Life Cycle Assessment for paper containers, we can see that a major

portion of the impact is due to Paper and Paperboard Mills and Power Generation

activities. Per year, according to our estimates, more than 2 billion paper cartons are sold.

The major portion of the impact caused by paper cartons is in terms of greenhouse gas

emissions, energy consumption, and toxic release is due to Paper and Paperboard Mills.

The principal agent for conventional air pollutants is Power Generation. In addition,

Truck Transportation contributed a lot of the CO and Nitrous Oxide emissions per year.

The totals for each sector were as follows, for a year:

Conventional Air Pollutants: 3884 MT/year of Carbon monoxide

Greenhouse Gases: 364,553 MT/year of Carbon dioxide

Energy: 5383 TJ/year Total Energy Consumed

Toxic Releases: 388 MT/year Total Released into the Air

The impacts caused by each carton are shown in the following tables for the three major

sectors:

CONVENTIONAL AIR POLLUTANTS

SO2 mt CO mt NOx mt VOC mt Lead mt PM10 mt
(g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton)
Total for all sectors 0.411 1.824 0.390 0.258 0.000 0.155
Power generation and
supply 0.267 0.013 0.121 0.001 0.000 0.006
Paperboard container
manufacturing 0.061 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
Paper and paperboard
mills 0.028 0.187 0.039 0.015 0.000 0.021
Adhesive manufacturing 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
Synthetic dye and
pigment manufacturing 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Other basic inorganic
chemical manufacturing 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oil and gas extraction 0.004 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.000

9
 CONVENTIONAL AIR POLLUTANTS Continued
SO2 mt CO mt NOx mt VOC mt Lead mt PM10 mt
(g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton)
Petroleum refineries 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000
Truck transportation 0.002 0.796 0.057 0.059 0.000 0.001
Rail transportation 0.002 0.005 0.045 0.002 0.000 0.001
Other 0.027 0.803 0.120 0.171 0.000 0.124
Table 4: Paper LCA per carton based on Conventional Air Pollutants ("Economic
Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

GREENHOUSE GASES
Sector GWP CO2 CH4 N 2O CFCs
(g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton)
Total for all sectors 192.000 171.200 13.712 4.304 1.840
Paper and paperboard mills 64.120 64.120 0.000 0.000 0.000
Power generation and supply 49.309 48.716 0.000 0.000 0.593
Paperboard container manufacturing 11.336 11.336 0.000 0.000 0.000
Truck transportation 11.276 11.104 0.017 0.155 0.000
Waste management and remediation
services 5.508 0.871 4.631 0.007 0.000
Oil and gas extraction 3.991 0.670 3.321 0.000 0.000
Pulp mills 3.473 3.473 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pipeline transportation 2.702 1.300 1.402 0.000 0.000
Grain farming 2.548 0.222 0.103 2.223 0.000
Coal mining 2.517 0.168 2.349 0.000 0.000
Other 35.220 29.221 1.889 1.919 1.247

Table 5: Paper LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

("Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

ENERGY
Natural
Sector Total Electricity Coal Gas LPG
(MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton)
Total for all sectors 2.528 0.118 0.752 1.112 0.053
Paper and paperboard mills 0.991 0.060 0.252 0.508 0.007
Power generation and supply 0.585 0.000 0.463 0.104 0.000
Paperboard container
manufacturing 0.236 0.024 0.000 0.146 0.002
Truck transportation 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000
Pulp mills 0.069 0.002 0.000 0.054 0.001
Other 0.567 0.031 0.037 0.299 0.043

Table 6: Paper LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption ("Economic Input-
Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

10
 Energy Consumption Per Year for Total Production
Total Number of Cartons: 2.1 Billion
Annual Energy Consumption: 5383 TJ

3% 3%
9% Paper and paperboard mills
22%
Power generation and supply

Paperboard container
23%
manufacturing
Truck transportation

Pulp mills

Other
40%

Figure 3: Paper Energy Use Breakdown by Sector

CO2 Emission per year for Total Production

Total Number of Cartons: 2.1 Billion
Annual CO2 Output: 364553 MT

Paper and paperboard mills

6% 1%
7%
Power generation and supply
20%

Paperboard container
28% manufacturing
Truck transportation

Waste management and

remediation services
Other
38%

Figure 4: Paper CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector

11
 LCA - Polyethylene

The major impact of polyethylene in terms of air pollutants is from the release of

SO2 and CO from power generation and supply and truck transportation respectively.

0.89 grams per carton of SO2 and released from power generation and supply and 2.33

grams per carton of CO are released from truck transportation. CO2 is the most

significant greenhouse gas emission for the egg carton life-cycle. A total of 359.48 grams

per cartons are released during the life-cycle of each carton. Power generation and supply

is the stage of the life-cycle which emits the most CO2, 161.88 grams per carton, and

plastics material and resin manufacturing and truck transportation are also significant

factors, emitting 35.83 and 32.41 grams per carton respectively. The total energy use per

carton is 5.47 MJ, and the majority of the power is derived from electricity, coal, and

natural gas. Power generation and supply accounts for 1.95 MJ per carton and is the life-

cycle stage, which uses the most power.

CONVENTIONAL AIR POLLUTANTS

SO2 CO NOx VOC Lead PM10
Sector (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton)
Total for all sectors 1.083 3.321 0.901 0.813 0.000 0.115
Power generation and supply 0.889 0.044 0.403 0.004 0.000 0.019
Petrochemical manufacturing 0.040 0.013 0.030 0.095 0.000 0.002
Petroleum refineries 0.021 0.012 0.005 0.017 0.000 0.002
Oil and gas extraction 0.018 0.031 0.014 0.021 0.000 0.001
Plastics bottle manufacturing 0.013 0.000 0.002 0.030 0.000 0.001
Synthetic dye and pigment
manufacturing 0.011 0.021 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.001
Other basic inorganic
chemical manufacturing 0.009 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001
Support activities for oil and
gas operations 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.001
Truck transportation 0.007 2.326 0.168 0.173 0.000 0.004
Rail transportation 0.006 0.013 0.114 0.005 0.000 0.003

Table 7: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Conventional Air Pollutants

("Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

12
 GREENHOUSE GASES
GWP CO2 CH4 N 2O CFCs
Sector (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton) (g/carton)
Total for all sectors 414.200 359.480 35.112 11.590 6.764
Power generation and supply 164.160 161.880 0.000 0.000 1.972
Plastics material and resin
manufacturing 35.834 35.834 0.000 0.000 0.000
Truck transportation 32.946 32.414 0.050 0.452 0.000
Other basic organic chemical
manufacturing 18.544 12.768 0.000 5.776 0.000
Plastics bottle manufacturing 17.480 17.480 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oil and gas extraction 17.404 2.918 14.478 0.000 0.000
Petroleum refineries 12.958 12.882 0.071 0.000 0.000
Waste management and
remediation services 10.830 1.714 9.120 0.013 0.000
Petrochemical manufacturing 10.184 10.184 0.000 0.000 0.000
Paper and paperboard mills 8.702 8.702 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 8: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

("Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

ENERGY
Natural
Total Electricity Coal Gas LPG
Sector (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton) (MJ/carton)
Total for all sectors 5.472 1.423 1.748 2.234 0.26
Power generation and
supply 1.946 0.000 1.543 0.345 0.00
Plastics material and
resin manufacturing 0.711 0.140 0.046 0.574 0.03
Plastics bottle
manufacturing 0.589 0.904 0.000 0.166 0.03
Petroleum refineries 0.241 0.016 0.000 0.117 0.11
Truck transportation 0.236 0.003 0.000 0.005 0.00

Table 9: Polyethylene LCA per carton based on Energy Consumption ("Economic

Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA).")

13
 Yearly Total Energy (8963 TJ over 1.6B cartons)

32%
36%

4%
4%
11% 13%

Power generation and supply Plastics material and resin manufacturing

Plastics bottle manufacturing Petroleum refineries
Truck transportation Other

Figure 5: Polyethylene Energy Use Breakdown by Sector

Yearly CO2 (588,826 mt over 1.6B cartons)

27%

44%

1%
5%
4%
9%
10%

Power generation and supply Plastics material and resin manufacturing

Truck transportation Other basic organic chemical manufacturing

Plastics bottle manufacturing Oil and gas extraction

Other

Figure 6: Polyethylene CO2 Emissions Breakdown by Sector

14
Summary of Environmental Impacts

Per Carton Impact

Per Carton Impact

SO2 NOx CO2 Total Energy

g/carton g/carton g/carton MJ/carton
Polystyrene 0.39 0.37 148 2.3
Polyethylene 1.08 0.9 359.5 5.47
Paper 0.41 0.39 171.2 2.5
Table 10: Per Carton Impacts of Each Material

Overall Impact

Total Impact

SO2 NOx CO2 Total Energy

mt/year mt/year mt/year TJ/year
Polystyrene 119 114 45000 692
Polyethylene 1773 1475 588828 8963
Paper 875 831 364553 5383
Table 11: Overall Total Impacts of Each Material (Relative to Use)

Possible Solutions
Possible solutions to lower the impacts are listed below from a shallow redesign

to deep ecological redesign:-

1. Switch to all polystyrene foam

2. Redesign disposable egg cartons (less material)

3. Redesign process from store to home

4. Redesign process from distributor to store

5. Design re-usable packaging

15
6. Use egg beaters instead of shell eggs

7. Don’t package shell eggs for sale

8. Eat Less Eggs

9. Keep a chicken in each home

10. Don’t eat eggs

The hierarchy of the possible solutions according to DfE criteria is as follows:

Avoidance
▪ Don’t eat eggs ▪ Sell unpackaged eggs ▪ Keep a chicken
Reduction
▪ Eat fewer eggs ▪ Use egg beaters
Re-use
▪ Design re-usable cartons
Recycling
▪ Design recyclable cartons
Burning

Treatment

Disposal
▪ Less
Material

Figure 7: DfE Pollution Prevention Hierarchy of Possible Solutions

Not eating eggs, or eating less eggs, and keeping a chicken at home, are

behavioral solutions that we cannot change through product manufacturing. Not

packaging eggs at all is impractical because they will likely break. Eating egg beaters do

16
not have the same taste and therefore most people would not choose to eat them.

Therefore we decided to design reusable egg cartons.

Our Solution
Our solution to decrease the impact on the environment involves eliminating

disposable egg cartons. Customers will be able to purchase a reusable egg carton at the

store. This carton, made of recycled material, will be sturdy enough to withstand multiple

uses. There are two distinct ways to do this: one of them is to have personal reusable egg

containers that get refilled at the store by the consumer and the other one is a reusable

egg container that gets refilled at the supplier. Our approaches to these two possible

solution methods are discussed in detail as follows.

Egg-Carton Redesign

Figure 8: Reusable Carton Design

17
 The reusable carton we have designed will be made of recycled polyethylene, has

overall dimensions of 11.2 in. wide by 3.75 in. deep and 2.5 in. tall, and holds one dozen

eggs. These dimensions are nearly identical to existing egg cartons which will enable the

cartons to be manufactured with existing processes using the same energy per gram as

existing polyethylene cartons. The dimensions also allow consumers to store the cartons

in the existing egg carton shelf in their fridge and stores to stock the same number of

carton on their shelves as before. The weight of the new carton is 140 grams, which is

approximately three times the weight of existing tri-fold polyethylene cartons. The

weight gain is caused by the increased thickness of the carton walls, which will allow it

to be more durable. Because the new reusable carton uses the same material and

manufacturing process as the polyethylene cartons we analyzed previously, our LCA for

the reusable carton is based on ratio of weights of the new carton and existing

polyethylene carton because we assume that the impact per gram of carton will be the

same.

Figure 9: Closed Carton with View of Snap Closures

The reusable carton design presents several advantages over existing

polyethylene, polystyrene, and paper cartons. The new carton is thicker and more

18
durable, meaning it can be washed, sterilized, and reused. We estimate that each carton

will undergo 25 reuses in its life-cycle and that most cartons we be discarded due to

staining rather than breakage. The new carton is designed as a bi-fold, with just a top and

a bottom, rather than the more common tri-fold design. The top of the carton is made

from clear polyethylene, which will allow consumers to check for cracked eggs in the

store without having to take the time to open the carton. The bottom may be left clear, or

dyed to differentiate between different egg suppliers or sizes, which will also save the

consumer time in the store. The bottom of each egg cup is also curved to match the top of

the egg carton so that the cartons may be stacked without shifting. This is useful for

transporting the eggs safely and storing them on store shelves.

Figure 10: Stamped Information

19
 Figure 11: Stackable Cartons

In addition, the top and bottom of the carton are made from the same material,

recycled polyethylene, so they can be recycled together without any sorting at the

recycling plant. All the necessary information, such as supplier name, egg size, and

recycling information are stamped in to the plastic during manufacturing. This means that

the cartons do not require stickers or paper inserts that are currently used in polyethylene

cartons. This saves effort in sorting and removing the paper inserts, and it also means

there are no adhesives that can contaminate a batch in the recycling process.

Figure 12: Side View of Open Container

20
 Figure 13: Wide Open View of Carton and Clear Cover

Solution Pathway #1: The Personal Reusable Egg-Carton

The customers will also be able to pick out eggs from a larger crate at the store,

allowing them to ‘choose’ their eggs, much like fruits or vegetables. When the customer

returns to the store for their next purchase, they will bring their egg carton with them, and

be able to purchase eggs without having to buy another carton. If a customer forgets to

bring theirs, they can purchase a new egg carton which can later be returned to the store

for a partial refund.

21
 To reduce the waste material generated when eggs are transported to the store by

the distributor, larger reusable crates will be designed that will allow egg vendors to

receive eggs in large quantities without having to impact the environment. From our LCA

analysis, we found that a major portion of the impacts were due to truck transportation, so

a method by which we can reduce truck transportation is also desired. By using larger

stackable crates for transportation to the store, there will be a reduction in the number of

trips that trucks will make, which will ultimately decrease the overall CO2 emission.

Solution Pathway #2: The McNamara Dairy Model

Another possible solution is to use reusable egg cartons from the start (i.e. poultry

farmers) and have them distributed to the stores where they can be purchased and later

returned for a refund. The customer will pay a surcharge for pre-packaged egg cartons

each time they buy eggs at the store. When they return the empty cartons at the store

during their next visit, the amount they paid extra will be reimbursed. Much like the glass

milk bottle system implemented by McNamara Dairy which can be returned to the store

for a $1 refund, this will allow us to do away with disposable egg containers and save a

lot of energy use and reduce environmental degradation. This solution will require a

larger number of egg-cartons to be manufactured in the beginning when compared to the

total circulation to account for delays along the route, but, in the long run, it will prove to

be very effective.

22
Survey and Results

The implementation of reusable egg containers depends heavily on consumer

behavior and whether or not consumers will be willing to adopt this new system. To

account for consumer behavior, we conducted a survey among Thayer students, staff and

faculty and asked them to pick one out of the following 3 options:

1. Would you prefer to buy your own re-usable egg-carton that you refill by hand at

the grocery store, much like bringing your own shopping bag and picking out

produce?

2. Would you prefer to come to the grocery store pay a deposit and just grab a pre-

packed carton of eggs, then you would return the egg-cartons the next time you go

to the grocery store, much like the McNamara dairy glass bottles?

3. No Preference

Out of 59 responses, 16 people preferred Option 1, 38 preferred Option 2 and 5

people stated no preference over the two. The results of the survey are summarized in the

following chart:

23
 Survey Results
8%

27% Option 1: Buy your own

reusable egg container

Option 2: Buy a pre-packaged

egg container that can be
returned for a refund

No Preference

64%

Figure 14: Survey Results

From the survey we carried out to assess consumer reaction to our proposed

solution, we found that 64% of our respondents were willing to adopt the second option.

Our new system would have to account for the lag in transport from the store to the

consumer, as well as the time that the egg-cartons will spend in the homes of the

customers before they get returned to the store; and will eventually need to be transported

to the distribution center, cleaned and packaged.

Process Flow

Our proposed system consists of 3 major entities: Supplier, Store and Consumer.

In order for the system to operate, the supplier will provide eggs to the store in pre-

packaged egg-cartons and consumers will buy the eggs from the store. Once they need

another carton or cartons, the consumer will return the empty cartons to the store, which

will send them back to the supplier, where they will get cleaned and re-packaged.

24
The following diagram shows the anticipated flow of egg-cartons:

Store
Supplier

: Full Carton

: Empty Carton

Consumer

Figure 15: Process Flow of Egg-Cartons According to Our Proposed

Solution

Based on our survey results, it became clear that the consumers would prefer a

system where the egg cartons would come pre-packaged with the type of eggs they

wanted. Initially, when the consumer will come into the store to purchase their eggs, they

will need to pay some deposit for the carton that their eggs came in. The cartons will then

get returned to the store. Returned cartons will then be transported from the store back to

25
the supplier, and will be cleaned, re-packaged and then sent back to the store. We

anticipate that our new carton will be able to withstand an average of 25 uses. However,

there will be certain losses along the way – with some containers getting damaged in

transit, and some containers never being returned by the consumer despite the fact that

they have paid for it. Therefore, there are additional flows to the preceding figure, and a

certain amount of loss associated with both.

In order to account for these different flows, we constructed a model using

Stella® and carried out a simulation for 5 years. The details of the Stella model behavior

are given in the following section.

Stella Model

Figure 16: Stella Model of Our Proposed Solution

Discussion and Results of Model

The purpose of the Stella model is to determine how many eggs cartons are

initially needed in inventory and how many new cartons needed need to be introduced in

to the process flow each month in order to meet consumer demand. Using the fact that

26
each person in the United States eats 234 eggs each year, of which 70% are sold in

cartons, we determined that each American eats about 13.6 cartons of eggs per year, or

about one per month.

The time interval for the model is therefore in months and we broke the carton

supply process into 12 yearly cycles. The goal is to determine initial inventory and new

carton production that will allow the system to meet monthly consumer demand, which is

342 million cartons per month. This value is given to the Sales flow in the model. The

model also assumes that some eggs break or spoil while in the store and that these cartons

are returned directly to the supplier. 2.5% of egg cartons in store inventory are assumed

to be returned each month. Another assumption is that consumers dispose of 10% of the

cartons they buy and return 90%. There are also delays built into the system. Egg cartons

stay in story inventory for two weeks on average and consumers keep purchased cartons

in their homes for six weeks on average before returning them. The final assumption is

that the egg suppliers dispose of 4% of the returned cartons each month, which

corresponds to 25 uses per carton.

The results of the model are shown in the following figures and table. To achieve

the results, we adjusted the initial inventories and new carton flow iteratively until the

system achieved steady state while achieving the goal of delivering 342 million egg

cartons per month to consumers. We found that for the system to function the egg

supplier needs an initial inventory of 513 million cartons and the store needs an initial

inventory of 342 million cartons. This amount is 2.5 times the monthly consumer

demand. To account for prematurely destroyed cartons and disposal after 25 uses, about

30 million new cartons each month need to be produced and introduced in the system.

27
Figure 17: Stella Model Results – Reservoirs

Figure 18: Stella Model Results – Flows

28
Months Egg Supplier Store Consumer New Cartons Old Cartons Return Disposal Sales
0 513,000,000 342,000,000 0 30,135,125 0 0 0 663,061,224
6 195,799,337 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
12 195,799,338 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
18 195,799,339 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
24 195,799,341 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
30 195,799,342 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
36 195,799,343 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
42 195,799,344 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
48 195,799,345 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
54 195,799,347 176,629,320 501,681,339 30,135,125 13,012,895 325,322,370 17,122,230 342,444,600
Final 195,799,348 176,629,320 501,681,339
Table 12: Stella Model Results – Reservoirs and Flows

LCA: Two Different Levels of Ecological Design

We decided to examine the life cycle of two methods for redesigning egg

containers. The first is switching to 100% polystyrene foam containers, which is the

shallowest ecological redesign and there would be no effort to redesign manufacturing or

production. Production of polystyrene foam egg containers would have to increase more

than 5 fold. The second method is the deepest ecological change based on what the

consumer wanted according to our survey.

As discussed above, the Stella model showed that in a system where a re-usable

container was used 25 times the US would have to produce 30.1 million cartons/month or

361 million cartons/year to satisfy the average yearly consumption of eggs in the US. As

discussed earlier in the current system of disposable containers, the US consumes ~4.1

billion egg cartons a year. These numbers were used to calculate the total emissions of

CO2, NOx, SO2, and the total energy required to produce cartons in a 100% polystyrene

foam system and a polyethylene reusable container system. These were compared to the

total impact of the current system. The data is shown below in the following figures and

tables. The comparisons are amazingly consistent throughout the categories. In all

29
categories the 100% polystyrene foam system is about 2/3 of the impact as the current

system, and the reusable polyethylene container system is about 1/3 the impact of the

current system.

3,000

2,500

2,000 Current Disposable Containers

(mt/yr.) 1,500 All Polystyrene Foam

(disposable)
Polyethelyne (re-usable)
1,000

500

0
SO2 (mt/yr) NOx (mt/yr)

Figure 19: Comparative Study of Conventional Air Pollutants

The preceding figure shows the air pollution impact from the current system of

egg containers, a system using 100% polystyrene foam, and a system of re-usable

polyethylene containers and our reusable container performs better than the other two.

The following figure shows the CO2 greenhouse gas impact from the current

system of egg containers, a system using 100% polystyrene foam, and a system of re-

usable polyethylene containers. Our reusable container does better than the two others

again.

30
 1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000 Current Disposable Containers
600,000
All Polystyrene Foam
(mt/yr.) 500,000 (disposable)
400,000 Polyethelyne (re-usable)
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
CO2 (mt/yr)

Figure 20: Comparative Study of CO2 Emissions

The following figure shows total energy used during the production of the current

system of egg containers, a system using 100% polystyrene foam, and a system of re-

usable polyethylene containers. Again, our reusable container uses less energy when

compared to the other two.

16,000

14,000

12,000
Current Disposable Containers
10,000
All Polystyrene Foam
(TJ/yr.) 8,000 (disposable)
Polyethelyne (re-usable)
6,000

4,000

2,000

0
Total Energy (TJ/yr)

Figure 21: Comparative Study of Total Energy Used

31
 The following table shows the environmental impact of the three systems of egg

containers studied. The polyethylene re-usable containers are ~1/3 of the impact of the

current system in all sectors.

Comparison of Overall Impacts

SO2 NOx CO2 Total Energy
(mt/yr) (mt/yr) (mt/yr) (TJ/yr)
Current Disposable Containers 2,767 2,420 998,381 15,038
All Polystyrene Foam (disposable) 1,599 1,517 606,800 9,430
Polyethylene (re-usable) 1,172 976 390,009 5,934

Table 13: Comparison of Overall Impacts

Conclusion
We have evaluated the current situation of egg-cartons in the United States and

assessed the environmental impacts associated with their production and use. Upon

looking at our findings, it became clear that a reusable egg-carton was the most

environmentally friendly route to take. We have designed a new egg-carton made of more

sturdy material that will be able to withstand an average of 25 uses and will help to

reduce the environmental impacts of the current system by about 2/3. In addition, we

have also proposed a plan for implementation after carrying out a survey of consumer

preference. Implementation of this new method will be the most important and difficult

part of our proposed solution, as consumer behavior needs to change a lot in order for this

method to be successful. However, through extensive awareness campaigns and other

efforts to inform the consumer of the dangerous impacts that disposable egg-cartons pose

towards the environment, the switch to reusable egg-cartons should be quite smooth and

unproblematic.

32
Works Cited
"Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)." 5/28/2008
<http://www.eiolca.net/use.html>.

"Egg Cartons at a Discount, Egg Trays, Egg Boxes, Poultry Supplies, Incubators,
Waterers, and Feeders." 5/28/2008 <http://www.eggcartons.com/>.

"President's Council on Food Safety -- Egg Safety, From Production to Consumption: An

Action Plan to Eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs." 5/28/2008
<http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/ceggs.html#intro>.

Zabaniotou, A., and E. Kassidi. "Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Egg Packaging made
from Polystyrene and Recycled Paper." Journal of Cleaner Production, 11.5 (2003):
549-59.

33