Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Comparative life cycle assessment of beverages packages in Palestine

Yahya Saleh
Industrial Engineering Department, An-Najah National University, P.O. Box 7, Nablus, Palestine

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Palestine has been encountering a serious problem represented in continuing and unfair depletion of its
Received 6 November 2015 natural resources especially water and energy. The causes of such a problem are attributed to many
Received in revised form sources including some Palestinian industries which adversely contribute to the shortages of these re-
14 April 2016
sources and consequently result in some negative environmental impacts. Among these industries are
Accepted 15 May 2016
the beverages bottling and their packaging materials industries working in Palestine. This study aims at
Available online 24 May 2016
evaluating and comparing the potential environmental impacts of glass, aluminum (Al), and poly-
ethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging materials of certain sizes of beverages using life cycle assessment
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
(LCA) methodology based on the International Standardization Organization (ISO) standards. More
Packaging materials of beverages specifically, the LCA study is conducted on the 300 ml glass bottles, the 330 ml Al-cans, and the 2000 ml
Water consumption PET bottles produced, consumed and disposed in West Bank in Palestine. Based on life cycle inventory
Non-renewable energy analysis of data obtained from local sources, seven significant weighted environmental impact cate-
Human toxicity gories, in accordance with Impact 2002þ method, are considered in conducting the life cycle impact
Solid waste assessment. Such categories include water consumption, non-renewable energy, solid waste, human
toxicity, terrestrial acidification, global warming potential and respiratory effects. The comparative LCA
study reveals that, in the Palestinian context, the 2000 ml PET beverages bottles have the least envi-
ronmental impact, while the 330 ml Al beverages cans come second after the PET bottles, whereas the
300 ml glass bottles are found to have the highest environmental impact. In addition, as revealed by the
results of sensitivity analysis, the resulted environmental impacts could be significantly reduced via
increasing the respective recycling rates of the three investigated packaging materials.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During the last few decades, environmental awareness has
increased due to growing evidence of adverse effects of industrial
(Fernandez-García et al., 2015), agricultural (Casanova-Pelaez et al.,
2015) and domestic pollution (Pan and Wang, 2012) and depletion
of scarce resources (Banos et al., 2011). This awareness has fueled
the movement in governments and “green movement” among civil
organizations towards environmental protection of air and climate,
water (Montoya et al., 2016), land, energy resources (Montoya et al.,
2014; Hernandez-Escobedo et al., 2015), humans (Gazquez et al.,
2016), animals (Sanchez-Muros et al., 2014) and plants
(Manzano-Agugliaro and Canero-Leon, 2010). To solve global
environmental problems, one needs coordinated actions between
countries to preserve special areas like Amazon environment
(Cama et al., 2013) but also in other areas as Middle East countries
E-mail address: ysaleh@najah.edu.
(Juaidi et al., 2016) where the energy balance makes highest
pollution. Every year new environmental regulations and standards
are issued by governments and environmental agencies to oblige
various industries to minimize pollution (Choi, 1995). Not only
quality and functionality of products are important to customers,
environmental friendliness of those products is becoming impor-
tant also. Thus, products will be expected not only to be designed
for manufacturability, reliability and serviceability, but also for
recyclability, while minimizing energy, water and material use as
well as minimizing the wastes generated to the environment dur-
ing their entire life cycles. One way to start minimizing different
environmental burdens associated with industry is to investigate
how the manufacturing and processing operations of the products
affect the environment. Such operations represent the different
stages of a product's life cycle including raw material extraction,
material processing, product manufacturing and use, recycling,
disposal and transportation.
In 1993, a methodology called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was
developed to study thoroughly all possible direct and indirect

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.080
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 29

environmental effects attributed to the entire life cycle stages of the
product based on a “cradle to grave” approach (Westkamper et al.,
2000). LCA has been employed by many people in different
geographical areas in the world in conducting comparative envi-
ronmental analysis among products, services and systems per-
forming one identical function. However, environmental
awareness, regulation and control on the environmental impacts
resulting from industries are still immature in many developing
countries. Among those is Palestine, which has a special particu-
larity in this context, where its environment (in its general mean-
ing) is exposed to adverse impacts due to different human activities
taken place in the region. The increasing growth of the Palestinian
population accompanied by increasing demands on essential nat-
ural resources as well as the Israeli harmful daily practices on the
land exacerbate the environmental problem. On the other hand,
many industries working in Palestine negatively contribute to this
environmental problem through producing products from mate-
rials demanding large amounts of essential resources (water, en-
ergy, land) vital for Palestinians survival, and generating large
amounts of harmful solid wastes and emissions polluting the at-
mosphere in the region. The absence of real governmental and
environmental regulations and information as well as the lack of
expertise and negligence in applying contemporary environmental
impact assessment tools to assess the environmental impacts of
products make the environmental problem more
challenging (Shaheen, 2013). Table 1 gives a summary of the cur-
rent status of some environmental components in West Bank in
Palestine (Saleh, 2015).
LCA has been considered a very successful tool in assessing the
environmental impacts of products and services since it deploys a
comprehensive “cradle-to-grave” methodological approach in
assessment covering the entire life cycle of the products under
investigation. The results of applying the LCA methodology
have proved to be effective in conducting the analysis compara-
tively rather than individually. In other words, comparing the
environmental impacts of different products performing the same
function through LCA is more meaningful in accurately assessing
identical products rather than individual ones. Among many ex-
amples are toilet papers and air (vacuum) driers which are two
different systems performing the same function (drying washed
hands of toilet users) while their environmental impacts over
their respective life cycles are different. A similar interesting
example is the application of different types of packaging mate-
rials (glass, metal, plastic, carton) used for packaging same prod-
ucts (milk, mineral water, beverages, oil, ... etc). Packaging of
products is very important for holding and protecting products
from contamination and spoilage during transportation, handling,
storage and usage. During production and disposal of such pack-
aging materials, diverse adverse environmental impacts occur
which are represented mainly by natural resources depletion
(water, energy), harmful solid wastes generation and polluting
emissions to the air. Since these natural resources are becoming
more scarce and expensive to be obtained in Palestine, there is a
dire need to search for effective practical solutions to minimize
the environmental impacts of packaging materials over their
entire life cycles. To this end, LCA methodology is employed to
conduct a comparative life cycle assessment on packaging mate-
rials of beverages in Palestine. More specifically, the LCA study
aims at evaluating and comparing the potential environmental
impacts of glass, aluminum (Al), and polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) packaging materials of certain sizes of beverages using life
cycle assessment (LCA) methodology in accordance with relevant
International Standardization Organization (ISO) standard.
Namely, the LCA study is conducted on the 300 ml glass bottles,
the 330 ml Al-cans, and the 2000 ml PET bottles which are pro-
duced by Palestinian beverage manufacturers and bottling com-
panies, and are consumed and disposed by Palestinian consumers
living in Palestine. Environmental impact categories included in
this study are identified according to inventory results and are
prioritized according to their environmental importance in

Table 1
Current status of relevant environmental categories in West Bank in Palestine for the years 2011e2013.

Environmental Current status description Some important quantitative statistics

item

Water Availability and adequacy of fresh water resources with enough
quantities and proper qualities in Palestine are considered as one of the
most serious problems of environment. This requires immediate
corrective actions. Also, the absence of successful wastewater
management is considered one of the main root causes of water
problem in Palestine. In particular, untreated wastewater intrudes to
groundwater aquifers, contaminates and deteriorates the quality of
water.
Solid waste Solid wastes are badly treated in Palestine. As a result, solid wastes
represent a main source for the pollution of water resources, soil, air,
coast, as well as disfiguring the beauty of nature. Moreover, the risks of
possible leakage of hazardous substances worsen the problem as
leakages threaten the public health.
Industrial waste The existing industries in Palestine are still undeveloped and are
categorized as small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Such industries
are located in residential, agricultural and industrial zones. Several
environmental problems exist in such areas including solid wastes
generation as well as gas emissions. Generated solid wastes are usually
treated by municipalities through incineration and landfills.
Recycling A limited proportion of steel and glass scrap of generated solid waste is
recycled. Scavengers can be found in the dumping sited especially at the
dumping sites of Israeli wastes. Most of the domestic waste is organic;
however, composting of waste is not largely practiced on a good scale.
Energy Palestine has a very small production of energy in terms of biomass,
solar and electricity. Most of the consumed energy is imported from
outside. About 95% of electricity consumption is imported from Israel at
high prices. Also, petroleum products are purchased from Israel.
 Annual available water quantity in West Bank equals 139.7 millions
m3/year.
 Needed quantities of domestic water in West Bank equal
128.2 million m3.
 Deficit in domestic supply in the West Bank equals 65.9 millions m3/
year.
 Numbers of localities and population in West Bank having no
wastewater networks are 453 and 1,453,519; respectively.
 Daily average of generated waste in the educational establishments in
West Bank is 39.675 ton/day.
 Daily average of generated waste in the health care centers in West
Bank is 10.733 ton/day.
 Daily average of generated industrial solid waste in West Bank is
364.84 ton/day.
 No concrete statistics could be obtained regarding recycling plants in
Palestine. Nevertheless, one company, called the Palestinian
Recycling Company (TADWEER) was established in 2010 for solid
waste recycling with a 500 tons/day in West Bank.
 Average prices of energy: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) (1.51$/kg),
Kerosene 1.71$/L), Coal (1.85$/kg), Gasoline (1.84$/L). Diesel (1.71$/
L), Oils and Lubricants (3.91$/kg).
 Quantity of electricity purchases in the West Bank is 3,401,247 MWh.

Source: Saleh (2015).

30 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42
Palestine. Seven significant weighted environmental impact cat-
egories are considered in this study, according to Impact
2002þ method (Humbert et al., 2012; Jolliet et al., 2003),
including water consumption, non-renewable energy, solid
wastes, human toxicity, terrestrial acidification, global warming
potential and respiratory effects. The literature is very rich with
many previous LCA studies which have addressed the environ-
mental impacts of packaging for beverages. The results of this LCA
study contribute to the current literature through presenting the
environmental impacts attributed to life cycles of different pack-
ages for beverages in a country in which environmental awareness
is still immature yet. Besides, this study has been based on col-
lecting the primary needed data from actual local Palestinian
manufacturers and disposal facilities of packages utilized in Pal-
estinian beverage industries. In the ultimate goal, the presentation
of this LCA study might widen the window's opening towards
utilizing the LCA methodology in conducting comparative envi-
ronmental impact assessments of other products, services and
systems in Palestine. Further, this study could be used by many
stakeholders in beverage packaging industries to make more
environmentally-friendly decisions as its results are based on
actual data collected from local plants, and hence, the results
actually represent those plants' environmental reality.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section two pre-
sents some relevant literature review about employing LCA in
different packaging applications and products. Section three out-
lines the ISO-based LCA methodology adopted in conducting this
study. Comparative environmental results based on life cycle in-
ventory (LCI) and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phases are
presented and discussed in Section four. The last section; Section
five, summarizes the conclusions derived from this study.
2. Literature review
LCA is heavily used for comparative analysis of alternative
products, systems and services to help decide which product
changes are preferred from an environmental perspective
(Westkamper et al., 2000). Different products, processes, as well as
materials have been assessed using LCA tool in various industrial
application areas. Harry Teasley at the Coca-Cola Co., around 1970,
created the first LCA study (Duda and Shaw, 1997). The company
was interested in comparing between internal production and
external sourcing for its glass bottles. The company also was
considering recycling its returnable bottles with disposable cans
and was examining a new plastic bottle for its soft drinks. Rapidly
developing public concern about the environment prompted Coca-
Cola to explore the ecological impacts of its packaging choices. Over
their life cycles, the study revealed that plastic bottles use less
hydrocarbon resources than glass bottles. Since plastics are made
from hydrocarbons, this result was unexpected and gave the
company confidence to proceed with the development of today's
widely-used plastic bottles (Duda and Shaw, 1997).
Mata and Costa (2001) carried out another LCA glass study to
assess the environmental impacts of the returnable and non-
returnable glass beer bottles where the data were obtained from
two Portuguese beer producers. The potential ecological and eco-
toxically effects of the emissions were taken into consideration in
the environmental impact assessment. Impact categories included
the contribution to ecological and human health, global warming,
stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, and
photochemical ozone creation. The study revealed that the use of
returnable and non-returnable beer bottles are correlated with the
number of returning cycles of returnable bottles. Another LCA study
on beer has been conducted by Koroneos et al. (2005) to assess the
environmental impacts associated with production and
distribution of beer in Greece. The main output of this study is that
earth toxicity and smog formation are the most impact categories
attributed to beer production and distribution.
Jorgelina Pasqualino et al. (2011) conducted an LCA on the
packaging materials used for juice, beer and water in the Spanish
market. Their study encompasses the entire life cycles of packaging
materials from the production till the disposal. The study revealed
that recycling is the most environmentally-friendly option of
packaging disposal. In addition, they found that aseptic carton and
plastic packaging have the minimum environmental impacts.
Another study by Banar and Cokaygil (2008) investigated the
comparative environmental profiles of beverages glass bottles and
cartons using SimaPro LCA software. Acidification/eutrophication,
climate change, fossil fuels and eco-toxicity environmental impact
categories were considered in the assessment. The analysis showed
that glass bottles are more mischievous to environment compared
to cartons. Related to packaging materials of carbonated soft drinks,
Ghosh et al. (2012) implemented an LCA study on PepsiCo-USA
beverage packaging. The study revealed that increasing the recy-
cling rates of light weighted PET bottles is very effective in reducing
their associated environmental impacts. Apart from beverages,
Manfredi and Vignali (2014), conducted an LCA on glass jars used
for packaging tomato puree. Due to the high consumption of en-
ergy, the study showed that packaging is the main stage in the life
cycle that negatively contributes to environmental impacts. In
addition, the study suggested that using light primary packaging
for tomato puree is the most environmentally-friendly option to
ensure more sustainability.
Many LCA studies have been implemented on plastic materials,
mainly in the field of packaging systems of various types of prod-
ucts. Song et al. (1999) implemented an LCA study on PET bottles.
For each stage of PET bottles life cycle, energy consumptions as well
as emissions released were determined. A nonlinear mathematical
model for the collection process of PET bottles was developed
including all possible recycling alternatives, where the model
contains several adjustable parameters representing each alterna-
tive step of the recycling routes. Both environmentally-friendly
recycling routes were identified and determined via optimization
and sensitivity analyses. One more study by Song and Hyun (1999)
considered the various waste management scenarios of PET using
LCA methodology. More specifically, over the entire life cycle of PET
bottles, energy and material balances were identified taking into
consideration all the energy consumed and emissions released
which were casted into one mathematical model. The developed
model helped determine the environmental burdens of the
considered waste management alternatives to come up with the
best alternative management scenario. Another LCA study on PET
bottles including open-loop recycling was conducted by Yasuoka
(2002). Over the entire life cycle of PET bottles from extraction of
raw materials up to the disposal of waste, the total volume of
greenhouse gas (CO2, NOx, and SOx) emissions were calculated. The
study came up with two main conclusions, namely, incineration of
PET bottles, the corresponding latent energy of PET bottles is
recovered while a huge amounts of CO2 and NOx are discharged to
atmosphere. And, increasing the recycling rates of PET waste pallets
would substantially decrease the total volume of CO2 and NOx
emissions to the atmosphere.
Komly et al. (2011) developed a multi-objective optimization
model of the PET waste management system to assess its life cycle
potential environmental impacts. Optimal allocation of PET bottles
between valorization paths could be identified based on a generic
algorithm. Another study considered the comparative assessment
via LCA applied on two alternative recycling methods of post-
consumer PET bottles (Chilton et al., 2010). Particularly, the life
cycles of the recycling method and incineration method of PET
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42
bottles were assessed environmentally using LCA methodology.
The recycling option proved to outperform the incineration one due
to releasing less atmospheric emissions to air. One more study by
Papong et al. (2014) considered the comparative LCA profiles of
polylactic acid (PLA) and PET drinking water bottles in Thailand.
The results of this study showed that PLA bottles are better than
PET ones in terms of less contribution to global warming, less de-
pendency on fossil energy and less human toxicity. Within the
Palestinian context, a recent study by Saleh (2015) considered the
comparative life cycle environmental assessment of two container
systems used for holding and storing olive oil in Palestine. Namely,
tin and plastic containers were assessed via LCA. The life cycle
impact assessment included five significant environmental impact
categories (water, energy, solid waste, dust and noise). Within the
boundaries of the study, tin containers outperform plastic ones in
terms of having less overall environmental impacts.
Almeida et al. (2010) conducted an LCA to compare the envi-
ronmental impacts of PET bottles and aluminum cans used for
beverage packaging in Brazil. The study showed that despite the
exceptional potential for aluminum recycling in Brazil, the PET
bottles outperform the aluminum cans in terms of incurring less
environmental impacts. Minghui Xie et al. (2011) compared the
environmental life cycle impacts of two milk packaging systems;
the PAePEeAl laminate and polyethylene, using Eco-Indicator 99.
The results showed that the PAePEeAl laminate packaging has
slightly higher environmental impacts compared to polyethylene.
In addition, extraction of raw materials was found to be the highest
in contributing to environmental impacts, except for disposal,
across the entire life cycle of packaging. Another study by Amienyo
et al. (2013) presented the results of an LCA study conducted on
carbonated soft drinks in UK. Different packaging systems used for
carbonated drinks were considered: glass bottles (750 ml),
aluminum cans (330 ml) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles (500 and 2000 ml). The LCA software tools CCaLC v2.0 and
GaBi 4.3 have been used for modeling and CML 2001 method have
been used for environmental impacts. It was found that the drink
packaged in 2000 ml PET bottles are the most sustainable option for
most impacts while glass bottles are the worst option. In a recent
study by Manfredi and Vignali (2015), the environmental perfor-
mance of hot filling systems and aseptic packaging systems used for
beverages were assessed via LCA methodology. The study proved
that the aseptic packaging system was found to have lower overall
environmental impact compared to hot filling system. This is
mainly attributed to the higher weight of PET bottles used in the
hot filling system involving higher filling temperatures.
Since many LCA studies have been conducted to compare the
environmental profiles of different packaging materials used for
beverages, Falkenstein et al. (2010) were motivated to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of those existing LCA studies. Their
evaluation paper represents a thorough analysis to give a struc-
tured overview of LCAs on beverage packaging systems. The au-
thors discussed the possibility of generalizing the conclusions of
the LCAs of beverage packaging systems, their environmental per-
formance, validity and limitations of those studies.
3. Methodology
The methodological technical framework for LCA consists of four
components, each having a very important role in the assessment.
They are interrelated throughout the entire assessment and in
accordance with the current terminology of the ISO standards (ISO,
2000, 2006a, 2006b). These components are goal and scope defi-
nition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation,
as shown in Fig. 1. The following sections present the results of each
of the main components of LCA methodology applied to the three
31
Goal and Scope
Definition (ISO 14041)
Interpretation Inventory Analysis
(ISO 14043) (ISO 14041)
Impact Assessment
(ISO 14042)
Classification
Characterization
Normalization
Weighting
Fig. 1. The essential components of LCA and their interrelationship.
beverages packaging systems under study, which are the glass
bottles, Al cans, and PET bottles.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Goal and scope definition
At the commencement of an LCA, the goal and scope of the study
are clearly defined. The goal states unambiguously the intended
application, purpose of the study; the target audience, which the
results are intended for; the product or function that is studied; and
the scope of the study. When defining the scope, consideration of
the functional unit and system boundaries are some of the covered
issues. In accordance with that, this study aims (goal of the study) at
identifying and comparing the environmental impacts associated
with each of the main primary packaging systems (intended appli-
cation) scoping (scope of the study) the 300 ml glass bottles, 330 Al
cans and 2000 ml PET bottles, used for holding beverages (product)
in West Bank in Palestine. The weight of an empty 300 ml glass
bottles is 220 g, the weight of an empty 330 ml Al-can is 14.00 g and
the weight of an empty 2000 ml PET bottle is 54 g. To facilitate the
analysis, the study was limited to these sizes of bottles and cans
(system boundaries) mainly due the availability of production and
environmental data of these sizes as obtained from the targeted
local Palestinian companies.
Figs. 2e4, respectively, depict the system boundaries for the
three considered packaging systems and sizes (300 ml glass bottles,
330 ml Al cans and 2000 ml PET bottles). Many data categories
were used as a basis for the LCA calculations and comparisons
between the packaging systems. These categories included: inputs
from nature (resources, fuels), outputs to nature (emissions to air,
emissions to water, solid wastes), products (main products: pri-
mary packages of beverages, auxiliary products: caps and labels).
Data related to the environmental impact categories collected
from production sites of local industries, whereas some data were
collected from published national and international studies and
sources. The territorial coverage of the study was limited to people
living in West Bank. Hence, the results of the study are valid for this
geographical area in Palestine, and through all next presentations,
Palestine means West Bank in the context of this study. It is
envisaged that the results from this work would be used in other
future studies into more detailed questions regarding packaging of
beverages. For beverages industries and their packaging materials
32 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

Sources

Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Energy, Raw material Solid wastes
Material extraction

Emissions to air
Raw material Emissions to water
Energy,
processing Solid wastes
Material

Manufacturing of Emissions to air

Energy, Emissions to water
glass bottles
Material Solid wastes

Filling with
Emissions to air
Energy, carbonated soft drink
Emissions to water
Material
Solid wastes

Recycle

Energy, Distribution Emissions to air

Material Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Use (Consumption)
Energy,
Material
Reuse
Emissions to air
Disposal
Emissions to water
Solid wastes

System Boundary
Waste

Fig. 2. System boundary of glass bottles packaging system.

suppliers, this study would provide them with input to policy
development concerning the design and manufacture of primary
packaging of their products.
Without loss of generality, the comparative environmental LCA
will be based on a functional unit of 1000 L of beverages, regardless
of their flavor, that can be carried by glass bottles, Al cans and PET
bottles. The common factor between the three primary packaging
systems (glass, Al, and PET) is their ability to contain the beverage.
Therefore, the primary packaging function of each system is to
contain the beverage safely until reaching the consumer.
It should be made clear here that the examined function in this
study is not the product itself (beverage), but the package of the
product. Therefore, the study does not discriminate on different
flavors of beverages. In any life cycle study, it is not possible or
necessarily desirable to include all stages and variants of the life
cycle of the system study. Not inclusion of all stages of life cycle is
attributed to the unavailability of data sources related to the
excluded stages of the life cycle.
In addition, expanding the scope of the study will of course
expand the time needed to complete the study due to the time
consuming activities involved in data collection. However, the el-
ements included in and excluded from this study are shown in
Table 2.
4.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) is concerned with the collec-
tion, analysis, and validation of data that quantify the appropriate
inputs and outputs of a product system. The results include all
environmental inventories (inventory table), which are associated
with the products under study. LCI data regarding the three
investigated packaging materials (glass, Al, PET) were collected
from different local beverages industries working in Palestine. The
computations of LCI data for the three packaging materials were
carried out using the EXCEL software package. The computations
encompassed all production, rejection and environmental data for
the three packaging materials. Allocation of different LCI quantities
between the three investigated packages was based on the volume
of beverage contained in these packages in the covered periods of
time.
4.2.1. LCI of 300 ml glass bottles
The environmental burdens associated with the 300 ml glass
bottle packaging system over its entire life cycle, covering all unit
processes modeled were analyzed. Estimated and measured values
of inputs and outputs for the life cycle model were developed from
historical records obtained from the targeted industries in West
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 33

Sources

Emissions to air
Energy, Raw material
Emissions to water
Material extraction
Solid wastes

Raw material Emissions to air

Energy, processing Emissions to water
Material
Solid wastes

Manufacturing of Al
Energy, cans Emissions to air
Material Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Filling with
Energy, carbonated soft drink Emissions to air
Material Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Distribution
Energy,
Material Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Recycle Solid wastes
Use (Consumption)
Energy,
Material

Emissions to air
Disposal Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Waste
System Boundary
11

Fig. 3. System boundary of Al-cans packaging system.

Bank. Table 3 summarizes the LCI associated with the 300 ml glass
bottles per 1000 L of beverages. This table presents all environ-
mental burdens over the entire life cycle model including the
consumption of water, energy, materials, and the emissions and
wastes generated from the unit processes of the model as accu-
mulated from different unit processes of the model. The environ-
mental burdens are presented in International System (SI) of units.
Recycling of glass bottles is highly-recommended in many
countries as it results in energy savings used for producing glass
bottles (WRAP, 2006; Edgar et al., 2008). More specifically, making
one ton of glass bottles from their virgin sources requires energy of
about (7.33 GJ) compared to about (1.27 GJ) to produce the same
quantity from recycled glass cullet; which means an energy saving
of about 83% (DECCW, 2010).
4.2.2. LCI of 330 ml Al-cans
Relevant LCI data are presented with respect to the previously
defined functional unit, which is 1000 L of beverages for Al-can in
Table 4. Data includes all accumulated environmental burdens
associated with different unit processes of the life cycle model of
this packaging system. These environmental burdens include wa-
ter, energy, and materials consumption as well as the resulted
emissions and wastes from the model. The environmental burdens
are presented in the SI units. In addition, making one ton of Al-cans
from its virgin source (bauxite) requires about (241.6 GJ) of energy.
In contrast, producing the same amount of Al-cans from recycled
aluminum requires about (8.44 GJ) of energy, an energy saving of
96% (Nori, 2000).
4.2.3. LCI of 2000 ml PET bottles
The LCI of all environmental burdens associated with the
2000 ml PET bottles packaging system is presented with respect to
the 1000 L functional unit are presented in Table 5. The environ-
mental burdens include consumption of water, energy, and mate-
rials as well as the emissions and wastes generated from different
unit processes. These environmental burdens are presented in SI
34 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

Sources

Emissions to air
Energy, Raw material
Emissions to water
Material extraction
Solid wastes

Raw material Emissions to air

Energy, processing Emissions to water
Material
Solid wastes

Manufacturing of PET
Energy,
bottles Emissions to air
Material
Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Filling with
Energy, carbonated soft drink
Emissions to air
Material Emissions to water
Solid wastes
Recycle

Energy, Distribution
Material
Emissions to air
Emissions to water
Solid wastes
Use (Consumption)
Energy,
Material

Disposal Emissions to air

Emissions to water
Solid wastes

Waste
System Boundary

Fig. 4. System boundary of PET bottles packaging system.

units. Besides, making one ton of PET bottles from its virgin source
(ethyl glycol and terephthalic acid) requires about (74.9 GJ) of
energy (Nori, 2000). In contrast, producing the same amount of PET
bottles from recycled PET requires about (25.3 GJ) of energy, an
energy saving of 66% (Nori, 2000). Moreover, the value of CO2
emissions generated as a result of incinerating 1 kg of PET is esti-
mated to be 2.3 kg (Hekkert and Worrell, 1999). Table 6 summarizes
the energy requirements needed to produce the primary packaging
materials of glass, aluminum, and PET with respect to the 1000 L.
The table illustrates the energy requirements needed to produce
the packaging material from both the virgin sources as well as from
the recycled material needed for 1000 L functional unit. The tabu-
lated results are computed based on weights of packaging material
needed to produce packages holding 1000 L of beverage and based

Table 2
Elements included and excluded from the LCA study.

Included in study Excluded from study

Product
 Primary packaging of beverages including auxiliary  Secondary and tertiary packaging materials of primary
materials of caps and labels. packages.
 Beverages.
Life cycle stages
 Life cycle stages from the point of manufacturing of the  Life cycle stages from raw material extraction from its
package (glass, Al, and PET) from its direct raw material sources, transport, and processing into the direct raw
(glass preforms, Al sheets, and PET preforms) materials of primary packages.
respectively, through filling, distribution, use, and
disposal.
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 35

Table 3 Table 5
LCI of the 300 ml glass bottle per 1000 L of beverages for the year 2014.a LCI of the 2000 ml PET bottles per 1000 L of beverages for the year 2014.a

Environmental burden Unit Value Environmental burden Unit Value

Water consumed m3 9.228 Water consumed M3 2.236

Energy consumed MJ 9266.3 Energy consumed MJ 334.4
Solid wastes generated and disposed Solid wastes generated and disposed (Plastic) kg 24.16
 Glass kg 718.2 Solid wastes recycled (Plastic) kg 0
 Metal (caps) kg 3.2 Current recycling rate % 0%b
Solid wastes recycled Atmospheric emissions released
 Glass kg 11.64  CO2 kg 16.91
 Metals (caps) kg 2.8  NO2 kg 0.095
Current recycling rate % 2%b  Petroleum mix kg 0.38
Atmospheric emissions released  Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) kg 0.38
 CO2 kg 640.661  CO kg 0.133
 NO2 kg 6.666 a
Source: Four Palestinian Beverages and Packaging Materials Companies in West
 Petroleum mix kg 0.1815
Bank.
 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) kg 0.192 b
The current recycling rate ¼ [(0)/(24.16)]  100% ¼ 0%.
 CO kg 0.640
 SO2 kg 2.052
 Dust (Silica particles) kg 0.329 categories for this study are chosen to include, according to Impact
 HCl kg 0.333
2002þ method, water consumption, non-renewable energy, solid
 HF kg 0.0067
Heavy metals (V, Ni, Cr, Se, Pb, Cd) kg 0.0048 waste, human toxicity, terrestrial acidification, global warming
a
potential and respiratory effects. From the data and the impact
Source: Four Palestinian Beverages and Packaging Materials Companies in West
Bank.
models currently available (namely, Impact 2002þ), these seven
b
The current recycling rate ¼ [(11.64 þ 2.8)/(718.2 þ 3.2)]  100% ¼ 2%. categories are chosen on the basis that they were the most relevant
to the systems undergoing comparison. It is worthy to mention
here that solid wastes impact category is not a formal category in
Table 4 IMPACT 2002þ, however, due to its importance in the Palestinian
LCI of 330 ml Al-cans per 1000 L of beverages for the year 2014.a context and the availability of their LCI data, it is included as a
Environmental burden Unit Value separate impact category in this study. Table 7 describes the
adopted impact categories.
Water consumed m3 28.80
Energy consumed MJ 12230.6
Solid wastes generated and disposed 4.3.1. Classification
 Al (cans, lids) kg 42.65 In this phase, the impact categories are defined and the ex-
 Other materials kg 0.97
Solid wastes recycled
changes from the inventory are assigned to impact categories
 Al (bright, printed) kg 37.08 reflecting their ability to contribute to different problem areas
 Other materials kg 0.00 (“what was the problem for this environmental exchange?”). Table 8
Current recycling rate % 85%b illustrates the quantitative classification of the LCI data for the
Atmospheric emissions released
three investigated packaging systems with the selected midpoint
 CO2 kg 80.324
 NO2 kg 1.310 impact categories. The correlation between the LCI data elements
 Petroleum mix kg 0.0504 and the impact categories are indicated by (X). Also, the damage
 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) kg 0.0532 categories are indicated for each midpoint impact category.
 CO kg 0.1851
 SO2 kg 0.0014
 NO kg 0.0007 4.3.2. Characterization
a In this phase, the contribution(s) of each exchange is modeled
Source: Four Palestinian Beverages and Packaging Materials Companies in West
Bank. quantitatively and the contributions aggregated within each impact
b
The current recycling rate ¼ [(37.08 þ 0)/(42.65 þ 0.97)]  100% ¼ 85%. category, converting the classified inventory into a profile of envi-
ronmental impact potentials, resource consumptions and possibly
working environment impact potentials (“how big was the prob-
on the values in Hekkert and Worrell (1999) and Nori (2000). It is lem?”). The characterization step is implemented by multiplying
obvious from the tabulated values that Al has the largest saving of the emitted quantities with equivalence factors of reach impact
energy followed by PET if produced from recycled material, category. The calculation created the environmental profile of each
whereas the glass needs more energy to be produced from recycled system under consideration. Table 9 summarizes the characterized
glass compared to virgin sources. The energy needed for producing adopted impact categories for the three investigated packaging
packaging material from its virgin sources is the highest for Al, systems as obtained from the aggregation and conversion of rele-
followed by glass, and then by PET. Meanwhile, it is the highest for vant characterization factors of each impact category with the LCI
glass, followed by PET, and Al when being produced from its results, as well as the recycling and raw material extraction rates of
recycled materials. each system as illustrated previously.

4.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) 4.3.3. Normalization

The primary aim of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is to
identify and establish a linkage between the product's life cycle and
the potential environmental impacts associated with it. The impact
categories were selected based on the LCI results and on the sig-
nificance of these categories in the Palestinian context. Based on
the LCI results, the relevant environmental indicators and impact
The aim of normalization is to better understand the order of
magnitude for each indicator of a system under study. It can pro-
vide information on the relative significance of the indicator re-
sults. In this study, it is found helpful to express the contribution of
the functional unit to each impact category relative to per Pales-
tinian capita level considering the latest estimate available of Pal-
estinian population in West Bank which is 2,880,745 capita (PCBS,
36 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

May 2015). Within normalization, all LCI and LCIA results of the In ISO 2000, the normalization step is considered as an optional
functional unit are expressed as fractions of a well-defined refer- element of LCIA (ISO, 2000 cited in Grant et al., 2001). Note that the
ence contribution of a given community over a given period of time. normalization is not a measure of impact severity or importance,
but merely a common reference point. Table 10 summarizes the
Table 6 adopted impact categories associated with their normalized data
Energy requirements to produce primary packages per 1000 L of beverages.
per Palestinian capita based on data availability of these categories.
Packaging system Required energy (MJ) Energy saving (%) The fractions of the considered packaging systems contribution to
to produce primary package from the total values of impact categories of Palestine are presented. For
Virgin sources Recycled energy sources, only the values of impact categories of electricity
(Material extraction) sources could be obtained. It is imperative to mention that the adopted
Glass 5375 931 83% contributors of impact categories are assumed to have independent
Aluminum 10,250 385 96.5% contributing effects on various impact categories, so they are
PET 2022 683 66%
counted in different impact categories and considered in their
Sources: Hekkert and Worrell (1999), Nori (2000) and DECCW (2010). calculations.

Table 7
Environmental impact categories of the study.

Environmental impact Description

category

Water consumption Water has generally been classed as an abiotic resource for input to production processes, however, water differs from
other abiotic resources in a number of aspects, the most important being the requirement of water for ecosystem
functioning. No methodology has yet addressed the issues of water use in LCA. However, water usage is very important
in the Palestinian context. Therefore, all forms of fresh water consumption were considered in this study.
Non-renewable energy Energy takes into account the energy demand per functional unit for the systems undergoing comparison. Energy from
different sources is considered: electricity, natural gas, fuel (diesel), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and kerosene. Also,
embodied energy is of interest in the Palestinian context.
Solid waste Solid waste is considered as a useful quantitative indicator for measuring amounts that are finally disposed of at landfill.
Solid waste is very important in the Palestinian context since it can be considered as a measurement for the strategy of
waste reduction targets in Palestine.
Human toxicity This impact category is one of the most impact categories to handle. However, in this study, the human toxicity was
decided to be calculated as the sum of the total atmospheric emissions of each packaging system because each emission
has its own contributing mechanism to human toxicity either in acute or chronic basis. Namely, Petroleum Mix and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are the contributors to human toxicity, measured in kg ethylene eq./kg of
contributor.
Terrestrial acidification Acidification is caused by releases of protons in the terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. In this study, the contributors to
acidification were SO2, NO2, NO, HCl, and HF, where acidification potential was calculated in SO2 e equivalents based on
the appropriate conversion factors between different substances
Global warming potential The contributors to global warming were found to be CO2 and NO2 where the global warming is calculated in CO2 e
equivalents for a time horizon of 20 years associated with proper conversion factor of NO2 to the CO2 equivalents.
Respiratory effects This refers to respiratory effects caused by inorganic substances and CO. In this study, only the glass bottles have
respiratory effects caused by dust (silica particles) and some heavy metals, while the Al cans and PET bottles result in no
respiratory effects. However, CO causes respiratory effects in the three packaging systems.

Table 8
Classification of LCI results to midpoint impact categories.

LCI results Midpoint impact category

Water consumption (m3) Non-renewable Solid Human toxicity Terrestrial Global warming Respiratory effectsb
energy (MJ) wastea (kg) (kg ethylene-eq) acidification potential (kg CO2-eq.) (kg into air)
(kg SO2-eq)

Water X
Energy X
Solid wastes X
CO2 X
NO2 X X
NO X
Petroleum mix X
Volatile organic X
compounds (VOCs)
CO X
SO2 X
HCl X
HF X
Dust (silica particles) X
Heavy metals X
(V, Ni, Cr, Se, Pb, Cd)
Damage category Ecosystem Quality, Resources Ecosystem Human Ecosystem Climate Change Human Health
Resources, Human Health Quality Health Quality (Life Support System)
a
Solid waste is added is a separate impact category to other IMPACT 2002þ categories.
b
To simplify calculations, respiratory effects are calculated simply by adding the amounts of dust (silica particles) to heavy metals. CO-related respiratory effects are
computed separately.
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 37

Table 9
Characterized impact categories of packaging systems per 1000 L of beverages for the year 2014.c

Pack. system Impact category

Water Non-renewable energy (MJ) Solid wastes (kg) Human toxicity Terrestrial Global warming Respiratory
consumption (kg ethylene equiv.) acidification potential effects (kg)
Non-renewable Energy needed for
(m3) (kg SO2-equiv.) (kg CO2 equiv.)
energy (MJ) producing packaging from (MJ)

Virgin Recycled Disposed Recycled

sources materials (kg) (kg)

300 ml 9.228 9266.3 5375 931 721.4 14.44 0.149 7.022 2573.8 0.334a
glass bottles 0.640b
330 ml Al-cans 28.8 12230.6 10,250 385 43.62 37.08 0.041 0.919 460.22 0.1815b
2000 ml PET 2.236 334.4 2022 683 24.16 0 0.303 0.067 44.46 0.133b
bottles
Total 40.264 21831.3 17,647 1999 789.18 51.52 0.493 8.008 3078.48 0.334a
0.9545b
a
kg of dust (silica particles) and heavy metals.
b
kg of CO.
c
Source: Four Palestinian Beverages and Packaging Materials Companies in West Bank.

4.3.4. Weighting
In this phase, weights are assigned to the different impact
categories and resource consumption, to reflect the relative
importance of these categories. Weighting steps are based on
value-choices not on natural sciences. Different researchers, in-
stitutions and societies may have different preferences in choosing
their weights. Therefore, it is possible that different parties will
obtain different weighting results based on the same indicator
results or normalized indicator results (ISO, 2000). However, many
studies in literature have been devoted to developing algorithms of
optimizing the weights in LCIA. The reader is encouraged to refer
to some of those studies including but not limited to, Komly et al.
(2011, 2012), Adedeji (2006), Rowley and Peters (2009) and
Ahmadi and Barna (2015). Since optimization of LCIA weights is
beyond the main scope of this study, an anonymous survey for
allocating a score on a scale from 0 to 10 was considered in the
weighting phase. More specifically, a group of environmental sci-
ence researchers and practitioners in Palestine were asked to
provide their scoring for each of the considered environmental
impact category. Then, the reported scores were arranged ac-
cording to their importance where water consumption got score 9,
non-renewable energy got score 8, solid waste got score 7, human
toxicity got score 5, terrestrial acidification got score 3, global
warming potential got score 1 and respiratory effects got score 4.
Table 11 illustrates the weighted values of the impact categories
for each packaging system. These values are obtained by multi-
plying the values of the impact categories with their associated
weights where the values become dimensionless. The total score
for each packaging system is obtained by adding up all weighted
values across the impact categories.
4.4. Interpretation
In the interpretation stage of LCA the significant information
extracted from the LCA inventory and impact assessment results
are checked to see if it could be used to answer the questions of the
goals set out in the goal and scope definition of the study. A series of
checks (identification of significant issues and sensitivity analyses)

Table 10
Impact categories used and normalized data per Palestinian capita for the years 2013 and 2014.a

Impact Basic unit Major contributors Damage category Total impact for Fraction of packaging Impact per Palestinian capita
category Palestine (unit per year) systems from total for per year for the year 2014
(From 2013's statistics) the year 2014

Water total M3 All forms of fresh water Depletion of water 270,000 millions 1.49  1010 93,726
consumption consumption supply resources, and
natural water flows,
ecosystem quality,
human health
Non-renewable MJ Electricity, gas, oil, fuel, Depletion of energy 2004 millions 17.24  106 696
energy LPG, and kerosene resources
reserves, raw material
processing energy, and
recycling energy
Solid waste kg All solid wastes from Ecosystem quality 872.298 millions 0.904  106 303
production both
disposed and recycled
Human toxicity kg ethylene-eq. Petroleum mix, volatile Human health Not available Can not be determined Can not be determined
organic compounds
Terrestrial kg SO2-eq. SO2, NO2, NO, HCl, HF Ecosystem quality Not available Can not be determined Can not be determined
acidification
Global kg CO2-eq. CO2, NO2 Climate change (life Not available Can not be determined Can not be determined
warming support system)
potential
Respiratory kg into air Dust (silica particles), Human health Not available Can not be determined Can not be determined
effects Heavy metals, CO
a
Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for May 2015.
38 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

Table 11
Weighted values of impact categories of the investigated systems per 1000 L of beverages for the year 2014.a

Packaging system Impact category

Water Non-renewable energy (MJ) Solid waste Human toxicity Terrestrial Global warming Respiratory
consumption (kg ethylene equiv.) acidification potential effects (kg)
Non-renewable Energy needed for producing
(m3) (kg SO2-equiv.) (kg CO2 equiv.)
energy (MJ) packaging form (MJ)

Virgin Recycled Disposed Recycled

sources materials (kg) (kg)

300 ml glass bottles 9.228 9266.3 5375 931 721.4 14.44 0.149 7.022 2573.8 0.334a
0.640b
330 ml Al-cans 28.8 12230.6 10,250 385 43.62 37.08 0.041 0.919 460.22 0.1815b
2000 ml PET bottles 2.236 334.4 2022 683 24.16 0 0.303 0.067 44.46 0.133b
Total 40.264 21831.3 17,647 1999 789.18 51.52 0.493 8.008 3078.48 0.334a
0.9545b
Weight 9 8 8 8 7 7 5 3 1 4
Weighted values of impact
categories (Dimensionless)
Weighted values of 83.052 74130.4 43,000 7448 5050 101.1 0.745 21.066 2573.8 1.336c
300 ml glass bottles 2.416b
Weighted values of 259.2 97844.8 82,000 3080 305.3 259.6 0.205 2.757 460.22 0.726b
330 ml Al-cans
Weighted values of 20.124 2675.2 16,176 5464 169.1 0 1.515 0.201 44.46 0.532b
2000 ml PET bottles
Weighted Total 362.376 174650.4 141,176 15,992 5524.4 360.7 2.465 24.024 3078.48 1.336c
3.818b
Overall weighted
scores for each
packaging system
(Dimensionless)
Score of 300 ml glass bottles 132,412
Score of 330 ml Al-cans 184,213
Score of 2000 ml PET bottles 24,551
Score of all packaging systems 341,176
a
kg of dust (silica particles) and heavy metals.
b
kg of CO.
c
Source: Four Palestinian Beverages and Packaging Materials Companies in West Bank.

are used in the interpretation to determine if significant issues,
which were identified in the inventory and impact assessment
were supportable, given the data accuracy and boundary conditions
and assumptions made throughout the study.
4.4.1. Identification of significant issues
The environmental issues that are discussed are the previously-
considered impact categories: water consumption, non-renewable
energy, solid waste, human toxicity, terrestrial acidification, global
warming potential and respiratory effects. For each of these impact
categories, the weighted results are compared between the three
investigated packaging systems. Fig. 5 illustrates the comparison
between the three investigated packaging systems by presenting
the weighted percentages of their impact categories for the energy
values. Since these values are much larger than other impact cat-
egories, their impact values were graphed separately to facilitate
comparison between the three packaging systems.
As illustrated in Fig. 5, when compared with glass and PET
packaging systems, the Al system exhibits the highest weighted
values of total required non-renewable energy over the life cycle
Further, glass system (followed by Al and then PET) is the
highest in contributing to global warming potential, and it (fol-
lowed by Al and then PET) dominates the other two system in
contributing to terrestrial acidification. PET is found to be the
highest contributor to human toxicity followed by glass and then by
Al, whereas Al is found to be the highest contributor to respiratory
effects (CO) followed by glass and then by PET. Collectively, PET
packaging system has the least contribution to all investigated
impact categories when compared with the other two packaging
systems of glass and Al, except for human toxicity.
The environmental score for each packaging system was calcu-
lated by adding up the weighted environmental values for all
EVS: energy of virgin sources
ERS: energy of recycled sources
120000
100000
Impact Value

80000
model. Also, the energy required to extract the raw materials from
60000 Glass
its virgin sources is the highest for Al cans and that required from
recycled sources is the highest for glass bottles. Overall, PET ex- 40000 Al
hibits the lowest energy values needed compared to glass bottles PET
20000
and Al-cans.
The comparisons for other impact categories are illustrated in 0
Fig. 6. Al system has the highest water consumption, followed by Energy EVS ERS
glass, and PET. On the other hand, glass system (followed by Al and Energy Category
then PET) dominates the other two systems in generating the
disposed solid wastes, whereas Al system (followed by glass and then Fig. 5. Comparison of energy weighted impact categories between the investigated
systems.
PET) dominates the other two systems in the recycled solid wastes.
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 39

Fig. 6. Comparison of non-energy weighted impact categories between the investigated systems.

respective impact categories. Fig. 7 shows the accumulated weighted 4.4.2. Sensitivity analysis
environmental scores of the three investigated packaging systems. As Three sensitivity analyses are undertaken because they are
illustrated in the figure, PET has the least environmental score, fol- critical to the data quality and consequently to the outcomes of the
lowed by Al, while glass has the largest environmental score. study. The sensitivity analyses investigated the effect of different
40 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42

Fig. 7. Weighted environmental scores of the packaging systems.

recycling rates of the three considered packaging systems on the
impact categories and consequently on the total environmental
score of each packaging system.
 Effect of Varying Glass Recycling Rate on Total Environmental Score
The first sensitivity analysis investigates the effect of varying the
recycling rate on the weighted impact categories of glass bottles. In
this analysis, different recycling rates, except the current one (2.0%),
were considered where the effect of varying the recycling rate was
represented qualitatively and quantitatively for each impact cate-
gories, and the total environmental score for the glass system was
determined.
Table 12 illustrates the effect of changing the recycling rate of
glass bottles on the impact categories. The weighted values are
generated for each recycling rate where either increasing or
decreasing on the impact value are, respectively, indicated by (þ)
and () signs. The (N) sign means that the recycling rate has no
effect on the impact category. The total environmental score is
calculated by adding up the weighted values for each recycling rate.
All numbers are rounded to the largest integer. It is found that
increasing the recycling rate results into a decrease in the energy
needed to extract raw material from its virgin sources and a
decrease in the disposed solid wastes. Moreover, increasing the
recycling rate, results into increase in the energy required to pro-
cess the raw material from the recycled sources and in the solid
wastes recycled quantities.
Fig. 8 illustrates the effect of varying (increasing) the recycling
rate on the total environmental score of the 300 ml glass bottles. It
is clear that the total environmental score of 300 ml glass bottles
decreases as the recycling rate of these bottles increases. This is true
because the energy required to process raw materials from the
Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis of glass bottles recycling rate and total environmental score
(thousands).
recycled sources is less than that required to extract the same
quantity from its virgin sources. Eventually, recycling of glass bot-
tles is highly encouraged in this case.
 Effect of Varying Al-Recycling Rate on Total Environmental Score
In this sensitivity analysis study, the effect of recycling rate of Al-
cans on the impact categories and the total environmental score of
330 ml Al-cans was investigated. The current recycling rate of Al-
cans is 85%, where the rest (15%) of Al-cans are disposed in landfills.
Table 13 illustrates the effect of changing the recycling rate of Al-
cans on the impact categories and the total environmental score.
The same computational methodology applied for and terminology
used in the glass packaging system is used to generate the weighted
impact categories associated with each recycling rate. The total
environmental score is computed by adding up the weighted values
for each recycling rate. All numbers are rounded up to the highest
integer. Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of varying the recycling rate of
Al-cans on the total environmental score of the 330 ml Al-cans. It is
obvious that the total environmental score of 330 ml Al-cans de-
creases as the Al-cans recycling rate increases and, hence, recycling
of Al cans is highly encouraged in this case.
 Effect of Varying PET Recycling Rate on Total Environmental Score
The last sensitivity analysis examined the effect of varying
recycling rate of PET bottles on the impact categories and the total
environmental score for the 2000 ml PET bottles adopting the same
computation procedure used in the two previous sensitivity studies
of glass and Al. Table 14 illustrates the effect of changing the
recycling rate of PET bottles on the impact categories for different

Table 12
Effect of varying recycling rate of glass bottles on impact categories (rounded up to the largest integer).

Recycling rate (%) Weighted values Respiratory effects Total score

Resources Solid wastes Human toxicity Terrestrial acidification GWP

Water Energy EVS ERS Disposed Recycled

2.0 Effect N N N N N N N N N N N
Value 83 74,130 43,000 7448 5050 101 1 21 2574 4 13,241
22% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 83 74,130 34,400 8938 4040 121 1 21 2574 4 124,312
42% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 83 74,130 25,800 10,427 3030 141 1 21 2574 4 116,211
62% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 83 74,130 17,200 11,917 2020 162 1 21 2574 4 108,112
82% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 83 74,130 8600 13,406 1010 182 1 21 2574 4 100,011
 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42 41

Table 13
Effect of varying recycling rate of Al-cans on impact categories (rounded up to the largest integer).

Recycling rate (%) Weighted values Respiratory effects Total score

Resources Solid wastes Human toxicity Terrestrial acidification GWP

Water Energy EVS ERS Disposed Recycled

85% Effect N N N N N N N N N N N
Value 259 97,845 82,000 3080 305 260 0 3 460 1 184,213
100% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 259 97,845 69,700 3542 259 299 0 3 460 1 172,368
70% Effect N N þ  þ  N N N N þ
Value 259 97,845 94,300 2618 351 221 0 3 460 1 196,058
50% Effect N N þ  þ  N N N N þ
Value 259 97,845 110,700 2002 412 169 0 3 460 1 211,851
30% Effect N N þ  þ  N N N N þ
Value 259 97,845 127,100 1386 473 117 0 3 460 1 227,644

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis of Al recycling rate and the total environmental score Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis of PET recycling rate and the total environmental score
(thousands). (thousands).

recycling rates. The current recycling rate of 2000 ml PET bottles is

0.00%, where the PET bottles are disposed in landfills. All numbers
are rounded up to the highest integer. Fig. 10 presents the effect of
varying the recycling rate of PET bottles on the total environmental
score of the 2000 ml PET bottles. Obviously, the total environmental
score of the 2000 ml PET bottles decreases as the recycling rate of
these bottles increases and, hence, recycling of PET bottles is highly
encouraged.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to assess and compare the environ-
mental profiles of three beverage packaging systems used in West
Bank in Palestine, namely, 2000 ml PET bottles, 330 ml Al-cans and
300 ml glass bottles, through employing LCA methodology based
on the ISO standards. The pertinent life cycle inventories (for the
year 2014) were collected from four local Palestinian beverages and
packaging materials manufacturing companies working in West
Bank in Palestine.
Within the Palestinian context, in compliance with Impact
2002þ method, seven significant weighted environmental impact
categories were considered in life cycle impact assessment. Spe-
cifically, the categories were water consumption, non-renewable
energy consumption, solid waste, human toxicity, terrestrial acid-
ification, global warming potential and respiratory effects. Within
the limitations of this LCA study, the PET bottles were found to

Table 14
Effect of varying recycling rate of PET bottles on impact categories (rounded up to the largest integer).

Recycling rate (%) Weighted values Respiratory effects Total score

Resources Solid wastes Human toxicity Terrestrial acidification GWP

Water Energy EVS ERS Disposed Recycled

0% Effect N N N N N N N N N N N
Value 20 2675 16,176 5464 169 0 2 0 44 1 24,551
30% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 20 2675 11,323 7103 118 0 1.5 0 45 1 21,287
50% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 20 2675 8088 8196 85 0 1.5 0 45 1 19,112
70% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 20 2675 4853 9289 51 0 1.5 0 45 1 16,936
90% Effect N N  þ  þ N N N N 
Value 20 2675 1618 10,382 17 0 1.5 0 45 1 14,760
42 Y. Saleh / Journal of Cleaner Production 131 (2016) 28e42
outperform the Al cans and glass bottles in terms of scoring the
lowest total weighted environmental score. Al cans came in the
second rank after PET whereas glass bottles have the highest total
weighted environmental score. The sensitivity analyses of the three
packaging systems revealed that the total weighted environmental
score of all packaging systems decreases as the recycling rate of
packaging materials increases. Eventually, recycling alternative is
highly encouraged for glass bottles, Al cans and PET bottles to
reduce their respective total environmental scores.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the four local Palestinian bev-
erages and packaging materials manufacturing companies for their
help in providing the needed data which facilitated the imple-
mentation of this study. Top management of these companies
preferred no disclosure of their names as well as the names of their
companies due to some internal confidentiality regulations.
References
Adedeji, A., 2006. Optimum design of an expanded cumulative exergy consumption
in a strawable-walled building. Niger. J. Constr. Technol. Manag. 7 (1), 146e156.
Ahmadi, A., Barna, L., 2015. A process modeling-life cycle assessment-multi objec-
tive optimization tool for the eco-design of conventional treatment processes of
potable water. J. Clean. Prod. 100 (1), 116e125.
Almeida, C., Rodrigues, A., Bonilla, S., Giannetti, B., 2010. Emergy as a tool for eco-
design: evaluating materials selection for beverage packages in Brazil. J. Clean.
Prod. 18 (1), 32e43.
Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H., Azapagic, A., 2013. Life cycle environmental
impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 77e92.
Banar, M., Cokaygil, Z., 2008. A comparative life cycle analysis of two different juice
packages. Environ. Eng. Sci. 25 (4), 549e556.
Banos, R., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Montoya, F.G., Gil, C., Alcayde, A., Gomez, J., 2011.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4), 1753e1766.
Cama, A., Montoya, F.G., Go mez, J., De La Cruz, J., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2013.
Integration of communication technologies in sensor networks to monitor the
Amazon environment. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 32e42.
Casanova-Pelaez, P.J., Palomar-Carnicero, J.M., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Cruz-
Peragon, F., 2015. Olive cake improvement for bioenergy: the drying kinetics.
Int. J. Green Energy 12 (6), 559e569.
Chilton, T., Burnley, S., Nesaratnam, S., 2010. A life cycle assessment of the closed-
loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 54 (12), 1241e1249.
Choi, A., 1995. A Screening Method for Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Industrial
Material (Master thesis). University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)-New South
Wales, June 2010. Environmental Benefits of Recycling: Appendix 5-Glass
Containers, Sheet and Laminated Glass. Available at: www.environment.nsw.
gov.au.
Duda, M., Shaw, J.S., 1997. From Cradle to Grave: Measuring Products' Environ-
mental Impact e Global Warming e Climate Change. USA Today (Society for the
Advancement of Education), May, Cover Story.
Edgar, R., Holcroft, H., Pudner, M., Hardcastle, G., 2008. UK Glass Manufacture: a
Mass Balance Study. Enviro Wise. Available at: http://www.britglass.org.uk/
publications/uk-glass-manufacture-a-mass-balance-study-2008.
Falkenstein, E., Wellenreuther, F., Detzel, A., 2010. LCA studies comparing beverage
cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be drawn? Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 15 (9), 938e945.
Fernandez-García, A., Rojas, E., Pe rez, M., Silva, R., Quetzalcoatl Herna ndez-
Escobedo, Q., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2015. A parabolic-trough collector for
cleaner industrial process heat. J. Clean. Prod. 89, 272e285.
Gazquez, J.A., Castellano, N.N., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2016. Intelligent low cost
telecontrol system for agricultural vehicles in harmful environments. J. Clean.
Prod. 113, 204e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.015.
Ghosh, T., Cashman, S., Socci, E., Sauer, B., Sep., 26, 2012. Life cycle assessment of
PepsiCo USA beverage packaging. In: LCA XII Conference. Tacoma, WA, USA.
Grant, T., James, K., Lundie, S., Sonneveld, K., 2001. Stage 2 Report for Life Cycle
Assessment for Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria.
In: Stage 2 of the National Project on Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Man-
agement Systems for Domestic Paper and Packaging. Melbourne, Australia.
Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., 1999. Technology Characterization for Natural Organic
Materials: Input Data for Western European MARKAL. Department of Science,
Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hernandez-Escobedo, Q., Rodriguez-Garcia, E., Saldana-Flores, R., Fernandez-
Garcia, A., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2015. Solar energy resource assessment in
Mexican states along the Gulf of Mexico. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43,
216e238.
Humbert, S., Schryver, A., Bengoa, X., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2012. A User Guide for
the Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology IMPACT 2002þ. Available:
http://www.quantisintl.com/pdf/IMPACT2002_UserGuide_for_vQ2.21.pdf.
Retrieved: 28.08.15.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2000. Life Cycle Interpreta-
tion: Draft International Standard (14043). Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006a. Life Cycle Impact
Assessment: Draft International Standard (ISO 14042). Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006b. Principles and
Framework of Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040). Geneva, Switzerland.
Jolliet, O., Margani, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rabitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R.,
2003. IMPACT 2002þ: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 324e330.
Jorgelina Pasqualino, J., Meneses, M., Castells, F., 2011. The carbon footprint and
energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. J. Food Eng.
103 (4), 357e365.
Juaidi, A., Montoya, F.G., Gazquez, J.A., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2016. An overview of
energy balance compared to sustainable energy in United Arab Emirates.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1195e1209.
Komly, C.E., Azzaro-Pantel, C.E., Hubert, C., Archambaul, A.V., 2011. Multicriteria
optimization strategy of waste management system based on a parametrizable
life cycle assessment approach. In: Ecotech and Tools Conference e 30th Nov. to
2nd Dec., France.
Komly, C.E., Azzaro-Pantel, C.E., Hubert, C., Archambaul, A.V., 2012. Multiobjective
waste management optimization strategy coupling life cycle assessment and
genetic algorithms: application to PET bottles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 69,
66e81.
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005. Life
cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4), 433e439.
Manfredi, M., Vignali, G., 2014. Life cycle assessment of a packaged tomato puree: a
comparison of environmental impacts produced by different life cycle phases.
J. Clean. Prod. 73, 275e284.
Manfredi, M., Vignali, G., 2015. .Comparative life cycle assessment of hot filling and
aseptic packaging systems used for beverages. J. Food Eng. 147, 39e48.
Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Canero-Leon, R., 2010. Economics and environmental
analysis of Mediterranean greenhouse crops. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5 (22),
3009e3016.
Mata, M., Costa, A., 2001. Life cycle assessment of different reuse percentages for
glass beer bottles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6 (5), 307e319.
Minghui Xie, M., Li, L., Qiao, Q., Sun, Q., Sun, T., 2011. A comparative study on milk
packaging using life cycle assessment: from PA-PE-Al laminate and poly-
ethylene in China. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (17e18), 2100e2106.
Montoya, F.G., Aguilera, M., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2014. Renewable energy pro-
duction in Spain: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 509e531.
Montoya, F.G., Banos, R., Merono, J.E., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2016. The research of
water use in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4719e4732.
Nori, V., 2000. Waste Management to Curb Global Warming. In: Joint Environ-
mental Education Program (JEEP) Newsletter, vol. 3(2). Lund University,
Sweden.
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), May 2015. Statistics and Publications.
Available at: http://www.pcbs.gov.ps.
Pan, K., Wang, W.-X., 2012. Trace metal contamination in estuarine and coastal
environments in China. Sci. Total Environ. 421e422 (3), 16.
Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., Wenunun, T., Chomi-In, T.,
Nithitanakul, M., Sarobol, E., 2014. Comparative assessment of the environ-
mental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 65 (15), 539e550.
Rowley, H.V., Peters, G.M., 2009. Multi-criteria methods for the aggregation of life
cycle impacts. In: 6th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, 16e19
Feb., Melbourne, Australia.
Saleh, Y., 2015. Life cycle assessment of olive oil tin and plastic containers. An-Najah
Univ. J. Res. (Nat. Sci.) 29, 1e24.
Sanchez-Muros, M.-J., Barroso, F.G., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., 2014. Insect meal as
renewable source of food animal feeding: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 16e27.
Shaheen, L., 2013. Rapid urbanization and the challenge of sustainable urban
development in Palestinian cities. Word Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 75.
Song, H., Moon, K., Hyun, J., 1999. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study on the various
recycle routes of PET bottles. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 16 (2), 202e207.
Song, H.-S., Hyun, J.C., 1999. A study on the comparison of the various waste
management scenarios for PET bottles using the life cycle assessment (LCA)
methodology. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 27 (3), 267e284.
Waste and Resource Action Program (WRAP), 2006. Environmental Benefits of
Recycling e an International Review of Life Cycle Comparisons for Key Materials
in the UK Recycling Sector. Banbury, Oxon, UK.
Westkamper, E., Alting, L., Arndt, G., 2000. Life cycle management and management
and assessment: approaches and visions towards sustainable manufacturing.
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 49 (2), 501e526.
Yasuoka, H., 2002. Life Cycle Assessment of PET Bottle Including Open-loop Recy-
cling. In: Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kobe University, Japan, vol. 44,
pp. 139e149.