IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7080-d835003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment and Preliminary Cost Evaluation of a Smart Packaging System

Author

Listed:
  • Marina Stramarkou

    (School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece
    Achaika Plastics S.A., GR-25100 Egion, Achaia, Greece
    Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, National Centre for Scientific Research (NCSR) “Demokritos”, GR-15341 Athens, Greece)

  • Christos Boukouvalas

    (School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Sokratis E. Koskinakis

    (School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Olga Serifi

    (School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece)

  • Vasilis Bekiris

    (Achaika Plastics S.A., GR-25100 Egion, Achaia, Greece)

  • Christos Tsamis

    (Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, National Centre for Scientific Research (NCSR) “Demokritos”, GR-15341 Athens, Greece)

  • Magdalini Krokida

    (School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece)

Abstract

Smart food packaging (SP) is an innovative packaging system that can extend the shelf life of the product and reduce food waste. The objective of the study is the estimation of the environmental and economic sustainability of the overall life cycle of a SP including a chemical sensor able to detect modifications in the concentration of CO 2 , which is an indicator of food spoilage, and encapsulated oregano essential oil (OEO), capable of inhibiting the microbial growth. For this purpose, a life cycle assessment (LCA), following the ISO 14040 series and ReCiPe methodology, and an economic evaluation of SP, were performed. The environmental footprint (EF) of SP was compared to that of a conventional packaging (CP) in terms of packaging production, use and end of life (EoL) of both the packaging and the contained food product. The results demonstrated that the production of SP burdened by 67% the impact category of climate change. However, when adapting four use and EoL scenarios, namely the CP generates 30% food waste, whereas SP can generate 5% (optimistic scenario), 10% (realistic) or 20% (conservative) waste, SP proved to be environmentally superior in most impact categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina Stramarkou & Christos Boukouvalas & Sokratis E. Koskinakis & Olga Serifi & Vasilis Bekiris & Christos Tsamis & Magdalini Krokida, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment and Preliminary Cost Evaluation of a Smart Packaging System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7080-:d:835003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7080/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7080/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    2. Yahong Dong & Md. Uzzal Hossain & Hongyang Li & Peng Liu, 2021. "Developing Conversion Factors of LCIA Methods for Comparison of LCA Results in the Construction Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Gudrun Obersteiner & Marta Cociancig & Sandra Luck & Johannes Mayerhofer, 2021. "Impact of Optimized Packaging on Food Waste Prevention Potential among Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza & Alexandre Souza & Mateus Ferreira Chagas & Thayse Aparecida Dourado Hernandes & Otávio Cavalett, 2022. "Addressing the contributions of electricity from biomass in Brazil in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals using life cycle assessment methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 980-995, June.
    2. Alper Bayram & Antonino Marvuglia & Maria Myridinas & Marta Porcel, 2022. "Increasing Biowaste and Manure in Biogas Feedstock Composition in Luxembourg: Insights from an Agent-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Igor Catão Martins Vaz & Rodrigo Novais Istchuk & Tânia Mara Sebben Oneda & Enedir Ghisi, 2023. "Sustainable Rainwater Management and Life Cycle Assessment: Challenges and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Marwa B. Hannouf & Alejandro Padilla‐Rivera & Getachew Assefa & Ian Gates, 2023. "Methodological framework to find links between life cycle sustainability assessment categories and the UN Sustainable Development Goals based on literature," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 707-725, June.
    5. Sara González-García & Fernando Almeida & Miguel Brandão, 2023. "Do Carbon Footprint Estimates Depend on the LCA Modelling Approach Adopted? A Case Study of Bread Wheat Grown in a Crop-Rotation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    6. Bianca Köck & Anton Friedl & Sebastián Serna Loaiza & Walter Wukovits & Bettina Mihalyi-Schneider, 2023. "Automation of Life Cycle Assessment—A Critical Review of Developments in the Field of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-40, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7080-:d:835003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.