IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12644-d933775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: Polystyrene or Polypropylene Packaging Crates to Reduce Citrus Loss and Waste in Transportation?

Author

Listed:
  • Emad Alzubi

    (Transport Systems and Logistics Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Keetmanstr. 3-9, 47058 Duisburg, Germany)

  • Ahmed Kassem

    (Transport Systems and Logistics Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Keetmanstr. 3-9, 47058 Duisburg, Germany
    Logistics and Supply Chain Management Department, College of International Transport and Logistics, Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Campus Abu-Qir, Alexandria 21625, Egypt)

  • Bernd Noche

    (Transport Systems and Logistics Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Keetmanstr. 3-9, 47058 Duisburg, Germany)

Abstract

Packaging plays a key role in preserving food products during transportation. Therefore, selecting proper packaging crates to transport fruits from farms to the market can dramatically reduce loss and waste. This study aims to evaluate the environmental impact of two packaging alternatives when transporting citrus products in Jordan using the loss ratio, as an indicator to select the best packaging, based on the traveled distances. The research team tracked transportation trucks from several farms to the market. In addition, data were collected from the department of statistics in Jordan to build the model using OpenLCA Software with defined system boundaries. However, the results revealed that polypropylene crates performed better than polystyrene crates. Citrus loss during transportation was cut by at least 60% when using polypropylene crates. The use of polypropylene crates reduced product damages by handling better the vibration and load stress, especially with increased transport distances to the “Central Market of fruits and vegetables”. Different impact categories were evaluated. We selected 3 categories based on the hotspot analysis performed: climate change, resource depletion, and water resource depletion. Farm waste has the highest impact with ranges of 58–69%, 77–85%, and 77–81%, respectively. Other impactful waste is waste from packaging and inedible parts; they influence the impact categories up to 23%, 11%, and 17%, in the same order. In terms of environmental impact, the polypropylene crates have fewer impacts since they are reusable and recyclable at the end of the product life cycle. Therefore, we recommend adopting polypropylene crates when transporting citrus products to the market. As a future research direction, the study suggests performing a similar analysis to evaluate the effect of packaging crates on other agricultural products in Jordan.

Suggested Citation

  • Emad Alzubi & Ahmed Kassem & Bernd Noche, 2022. "A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: Polystyrene or Polypropylene Packaging Crates to Reduce Citrus Loss and Waste in Transportation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12644-:d:933775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12644/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12644/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. Viswanadham & S. Kameshwaran, 2013. "The Supply Chain Ecosystem Framework," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Ecosystem-Aware Global Supply Chain Management, chapter 2, pages 17-44, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Eriksson, Mattias & Strid, Ingrid & Hansson, Per-Anders, 2014. "Waste of organic and conventional meat and dairy products—A case study from Swedish retail," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 44-52.
    3. N Viswanadham & S Kameshwaran, 2013. "Ecosystem-Aware Global Supply Chain Management," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8802.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emad Alzubi & Bernd Noche, 2022. "A Multi-Objective Model to Find the Sustainable Location for Citrus Hub," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Haiping Ren & Rui Chen, 2023. "Porcelain Supply Chain Coordination Considering the Preferences of Consumers against the Background of E-Commerce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-19, June.

    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. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Bianca Cezara Archip & Ioan Banatean-Dunea & Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2023. "Determinants of Food Waste in Cluj-Napoca (Romania): A Community-Based System Dynamics Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-22, January.
    3. EiÄ aitÄ—, Ovidija & Baležentis, Tomas & RibaÅ¡auskienÄ—, Erika & MorkÅ«nas, Mangirdas & MelnikienÄ—, Rasa & Å treimikienÄ—, Dalia, 2022. "Food waste in the retail sector: A survey-based evidence from Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. João Pinto & Rui Boavida-Dias & Henrique A. Matos & João Azevedo, 2022. "Analysis of the Food Loss and Waste Valorisation of Animal By-Products from the Retail Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-27, February.
    5. Pauline Bergström & Christopher Malefors & Ingrid Strid & Ole Jørgen Hanssen & Mattias Eriksson, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment of Food Redistribution Initiatives in Sweden," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-27, March.
    6. Beullens, Patrick & Ghiami, Yousef, 2022. "Waste reduction in the supply chain of a deteriorating food item – Impact of supply structure on retailer performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 1017-1034.
    7. Emad Alzubi & Bernd Noche, 2022. "A Multi-Objective Model to Find the Sustainable Location for Citrus Hub," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Eriksson, Mattias & Ghosh, Ranjan & Mattsson, Lisa & Ismatov, Alisher, 2017. "Take-back agreements in the perspective of food waste generation at the supplier-retailer interface," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 83-93.
    9. Ioannis Mallidis & Nikolaos Sariannidis & Dimitrios Vlachos & Volha Yakavenka & Georgia Aifadopoulou & Konstantinos Zopounidis, 2022. "Optimal inventory control policies for avoiding food waste," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 685-701, March.
    10. Cicatiello, Clara & Franco, Silvio & Pancino, Barbara & Blasi, Emanuele & Falasconi, Luca, 2017. "The dark side of retail food waste: Evidences from in-store data," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 273-281.
    11. Scholz, Katharina & Eriksson, Mattias & Strid, Ingrid, 2015. "Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-65.
    12. de Souza, Michele & Pereira, Giancarlo Medeiros & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Trento, Luiz Reni & Borchardt, Miriam & Zvirtes, Leandro, 2021. "A digitally enabled circular economy for mitigating food waste: Understanding innovative marketing strategies in the context of an emerging economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Elżbieta Goryńska-Goldmann & Michał Gazdecki & Krystyna Rejman & Sylwia Łaba & Joanna Kobus-Cisowska & Krystian Szczepański, 2021. "Magnitude, Causes and Scope for Reducing Food Losses in the Baking and Confectionery Industry—A Multi-Method Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, September.

    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:19:p:12644-:d:933775. 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.