Sustainability in Beverage Packaging Technology: Life Cycle Analysis and Waste Management Scenarios

Abstract

Due to increasing environmental concerns and the constant development of the bottling industry, research into the environmental impact of beverage packaging processes is crucial. The aim of this article is to determine the environmental impact, in selected aspects, of automated beverage bottling and packaging processes using life cycle analysis (LCA). The analysis covers key process stages, such as filling, packaging and internal transport, in the context of raw material consumption, but also energy and waste generation. This work focuses primarily on the impact of changing the raw material used for bottle and shrink film production on the environmental impact of the studied technical facility within the adopted system boundaries and on analyzing scenarios for the management of these post-consumer materials. This research has shown that the stage associated with the greatest negative environmental impact is the shrinking of the film around the bottles. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that recycling plastic film and bottle waste is a more environmentally friendly solution than landfill disposal. The analysis shows that using recycled materials in the tested production line allows for the reduction of harmful emissions and a reduction in the overall environmental footprint of the tested system.

1. Introduction

The constant economic development around the world has forced the entire industry, including the food industry, to make real changes in terms of the consumption of raw materials and energy. Processes involving the packaging of food and beverages play an important role in human life. In addition to making life easier, they are also associated with the production of waste, which, if not properly managed, contributes to a negative impact on the environment. At present, it is necessary to constantly monitor the changes implemented in the food industry to verify their real impact on the environment. In the case of bottles, durability, low production costs and lightness make polyethylene terephthalate (PET) a more popular material for beverage packaging than glass bottles or aluminum cans [1,2,3]. It is also worth emphasizing that it is a fully recyclable material. That is why considerable attention is given to recycling used bottles rather than disposing of them in landfills. According to Sumonrat and Gheewala [1] in 2020, one of the main applications of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) is beverage bottles. In the correct transport of beverage bottles, heat-shrinkable film plays an important role, which is also used in large quantities by the industry. Previously used polyethylene films have begun to be replaced by films with an admixture of 50% recycled polyethylene. Polymers, due to their structure being based on long hydrocarbon chains, are highly resistant to natural decomposition mechanisms, which is why they can remain in the environment for a long time [4]. Polyethylene packaging films, although valued for their high mechanical strength, are difficult to degrade after use, contributing to the growing problem of plastic waste. Their low susceptibility to biological and chemical decomposition promotes the formation of microplastics, which can negatively affect ecosystems and living organisms [5,6].

An important element in the environmental research on artificial materials is the analysis of the impact of their post-consumer management on the environment. The recycling of plastics plays a key role in the circular economy model, which aims to reduce the amount of waste and effectively use available resources. Recycling includes various technologies, each of which has its advantages and limitations. Mechanical recycling is currently the most used method. This type of recycling is characterized by low energy consumption, relatively low costs and the possibility of obtaining high-quality secondary raw materials [7]. On the other hand, chemical recycling, despite the potential for deeper processing, is associated with higher costs, greater energy demand and the need to use specialist infrastructure [8,9,10]. Another type of end-of-life waste management is landfilling. Landfills go through five processing stages, during which leachates and gases are generated because of biological, chemical and physical processes. Plastics undergo initial aerobic biodegradation and then decompose further in anaerobic conditions, often leading to the formation of nano-plastics. This degradation, despite the lack of light and oxygen, is supported by variable temperature conditions, pH and mechanical and microbiological factors. The final fate of plastic in landfills remains problematic, especially since it can lead to the emission of harmful products and the destabilization of the landfill structure [11,12,13].

The available literature includes numerous studies on the environmental impact of various plastics used in packaging. Singh et al. [14] developed a three-stage, biodegradable production chain: a new additive, linear and low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) granulate with an additive and LLDPE film. LCA showed that the largest environmental footprint is created during the production of the additive and the most beneficial energy source is natural gas, while coal and grid energy are the most burdensome. Papong et al. [15] analyzed the life cycle of cassava polylactic acid (PLA) bottles, considering all stages—from cultivation to disposal. The results of the analysis were compared with those of PET bottles. The analysis showed that cassava PLA has a lower impact on global warming, fossil energy consumption and toxicity and integration with a biogas plant additionally improves environmental efficiency. Dolci et al. [16] analyzed 53 LCA studies comparing the environmental impact of packaging made from different materials. They found that consumer perceptions often do not match LCA results—conventional plastics are not always the most harmful. Bioplastics, paper and metals have environmental potential but require process optimization and better end-of-life scenarios, and recycling plastics can significantly improve their sustainability. In their previous publication, Walichnowska et al. [17] conducted a life cycle analysis of the technological processes for packaging bottles in shrink film, comparing the environmental impact of the film with and without recyclate. Laboratory tests confirmed that the film with the addition of recycled material retains similar performance properties, and the LCA showed a significant reduction in the impact on human health, ecosystems and resource consumption by an average of 70%. Papo and Corona [18] conducted an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle recycling in the study, considering environmental, economic and social aspects. The results showed significant environmental benefits and slightly lower material costs but higher production costs and higher social risks outside the recycling country. A systems approach was also developed to better analyze complex processes in the circular economy. Boutros et al. [19] compared the environmental impact of the life cycle of two carbonated drink packagings, a PET bottle and a returnable glass bottle, using the LCA method in SimaPro with the ecoinvent database. The analysis showed that PET has a lower environmental impact, unless its open-air burning is considered, in which case glass is more beneficial. The water footprint was also considered, which was lower for PET. The results emphasize the importance of local waste management scenarios and their impact on the final environmental assessment. Valentini and Dorigato [20] compared the environmental impact of plastic and paper packaging for pasta. Paper reduces emissions in categories such as global warming, but increases the impact on eutrophication due to its greater mass. Sealed packaging for long pasta proved to be approx. 30% less harmful to the environment. Overall, the benefits of replacing plastic with paper are limited. As we can see in the available literature, many scientists conduct environmental analyses within the scope of packaging made of different materials. Inspired by previous research, in our article we want to present an analysis of a technological system based on the production of plastic packaging. We want to determine how the potential impact of the studied system on the environment changes depending on the material used and the method used for end-of-life waste management of the film and bottles which is necessary for packaging beverages in packs. The novelty of the presented approach is that it is a comprehensive approach to the environmental impact in the context of variable technological parameters such as the share of recyclate in materials and scenarios of end-of-life waste management of waste in the form of bottles and heat-shrinkable film. In previous studies, analyses focused primarily on individual packaging units, such as bottles for beverages or foil packaging for pasta. In our study, we analyzed a process in which the final product was a multipack containing both the bottle and foil packaging.

Packaging is the most widespread use of plastics worldwide; furthermore, as reported by Chairat et al. [1] almost half of plastic waste is packaging. That is why it is so important to analyze not only the impact of the packaging itself but also the technological processes in which it is created. With the above in mind, it is considered reasonable to conduct in-depth research on the environmental assessment of the automated beverage bottling and packaging process. This analysis should include not only a comparison of the impact of using different types of raw materials—both primary and recycled—but also the identification of the process stages characterized by the highest energy consumption and the greatest environmental burden. Such an approach will allow for the indication of key areas requiring optimization and the development of strategies aimed at reducing emissions and other negative impacts on the environment. As a result, the knowledge obtained can provide a basis for making more sustainable technological and environmental decisions in the packaging industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Environmental Analysis of the Variants of the Studied System

The aim of this research is to comprehensively compare the environmental impact of the technological system covering the key stages of the beverage bottling and packaging process, including the following stages: transporting preforms, blowing bottles, rinsing bottles, filling bottles with the beverage, capping bottles, labeling bottles, transporting to the packer, wrapping bottle groups with shrink film, sealing the film in a heat tunnel, cooling and transporting multipacks to the palletizer. By conducting a detailed environmental analysis, it will not only be possible to determine the total environmental impact of the entire system, but also to indicate the most energy-intensive and emission-intensive stages, which can become the target of optimization activities towards increasing the efficiency and sustainability of production. As part of this work, two variants of the technological system were compared to determine how its environmental harmfulness changed depending on the type of film used and the type of bottles. In the next stage, the post-consumer management scenarios of these two elements were analyzed, comparing the impact of the entire system in the case of landfill and recycling. This analysis allows for the assessment of which approach generates a lower environmental burden and to what extent the method of waste handling affects the final ecological balance of the process. This study was based on four stages of life cycle analysis, which are described in the further parts of this study in accordance with the guidelines of the standards ISO 14040 [21] and 14044 [22].

2.1.1. Purpose and Scope of Variant Analysis

To assess the environmental impact of the technological system covering the stages from the delivery of preforms to the creation of packs ready for transportation (Figure 1), an LCA was carried out. The main objective of the analysis was to compare the impact of the system adopted for testing depending on the materials used (recycled and virgin). Outside the boundaries of the tested system, the stages of palletization, distribution and final waste management were considered. The gate-to-gate analysis only covers a selected stage of the product life cycle—usually the production process within the boundaries of a single plant. SimaPro 9.6.0.1 software was used to conduct the analysis.

The aim of the inventory analysis was to collect and systematize data according to the functional unit (FU), which for this study was 1000 cases in the format of eight bottles of 1.5 L. The data obtained from the company where the processes were carried out were largely used. However, in the absence of such data, secondary data from the Ecoinvent database (version 3.8) and the available literature sources were used. In the Ecoinvent database, the allocation method based on “Cut-off, U” was used, and the Polish energy mix was assumed as the source of electric energy. In the conducted life cycle analysis, the emission allocation according to the cut-off principle was used, which is often recommended in the assessment of plastics related to recycling [23,24]. This means that all environmental burdens related to selective collection, sorting, washing, drying and the regranulation of waste were attributed exclusively to the recycling scenario, while the benefit corresponding to the unproduced primary mass was deducted from this balance. In this study, certain limitations should be emphasized, including primarily the fact that the data on energy and raw material consumption came from a specific company and the fact that the Polish national mix was used for calculations, in which approx. 30% of energy comes from renewable sources.

2.1.2. Life Cycle Inventory

This article analyses two variants of the system, differing in the type of preforms and heat-shrinkable film used for packaging bottles. In variant A, a preform based on virgin polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and a heat-shrinkable film based on virgin low-density polyethylene (LDPE) with a thickness of 0.040 mm were used, while in variant B, a preform based on recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) and a heat-shrinkable film of the same thickness with a 50% addition of recyclate (rLDPE) were used. In addition to these raw materials, the processes also used biaxially oriented polypropylene film (BOPP) for the bottle label and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for the bottle cap (

Table 1. Materials and energy composition of the system under study for analyzed variants.

Elements Analyzed in the System	Unit	Variant A	Variant B
PET	kg/FU	320	-
rPET		-	320
LDPE		18	-
rLDPE		-	18
BOPP film for label		3.6
HDPE for bottle cap		9
Energy from Polish electricity mix	kWh/FU	155

FU—1000 packs, each containing eight bottles of 1.5 L.

). In both cases, the process was powered from the domestic energy mix. This analysis of the studied variants excludes the transport of both the raw and secondary materials used in production, as well as the transport of consumables. The method of post-consumer management will be analyzed in the next point after determining the variant that is characterized by a potentially lower impact on the environment.

2.1.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

To determine the environmental impact, the Recipe 2016 method was used, which is a common technique in life cycle analysis (LCA). It allows for the conversion of data from the life cycle inventory (LCI) into unified environmental indicators, considered at two levels of detail: intermediate (midpoint) and final (endpoint) categories. At the midpoint level, ReCiPe 2016 assesses a range of environmental impact categories, including, among others, greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change, the acidification of the environment, eutrophication, the use of fossil fuels and the impact of toxic substances on people and nature. On the other hand, the endpoint level groups this data into three key areas: human health, the state of ecosystems and the use of natural resources. This approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of the system being studied, and also facilitates the comparison of different solution variants [25,26,27]. This analysis uses the ReCiPe 2016 endpoint approach, which aggregates results into three main categories: human health impacts, ecosystem quality and resource depletion. A default hierarchical perspective (H) was used based on scientific consensus and assuming medium-term time horizons.

2.1.4. Interpretation

This stage concerns a detailed interpretation of results and a comparison of the individual impacts of the studied variants on the environment. The analysis carried out allowed us to indicate the most environmentally beneficial solution and to identify potential areas for optimization described in point 3.

2.2. Environmental Analysis of End-of-Life Scenarios for the Management of Bottles and Shrink Wrap

As part of the comparison of post-consumer scenarios for the management of film and bottles, the boundaries of the system under study were defined from the stage of the technological processes leading to the creation of beverage packs to the end of their life cycle (Figure 2). After reaching the consumer and fulfilling its transport function, the pack is thrown into containers with mixed waste or waste for recycling. According to Hou et al. [26], in the next step, the waste is transported to landfills or material recovery plants, where the recycling process takes place. This article analyzes two scenarios of the post-consumer management of bottles (rPET) and thermo-shrinkable film (rLDPE): scenario I—recycling and scenario II—landfill. To compare these scenarios, as in the case of variants, LCA was conducted using the SimaPro program and the ReCiPe 2016 method.

In the scenario analysis, the same functional unit (FU) was assumed in the form of 1000 cases of eight bottles of 1.5 L each. The energy consumption and the consumption of all component materials are presented in

Table 2. Materials and energy composition of the system under study for the analyzed scenarios.

Elements Analyzed in the System	Unit	Scenario I	Scenario II
rPET	kg/FU	320
rLDPE		18
BOPP film for label		3.6
HDPE for bottle cap		9
Energy from Polish electricity mix	kWh/FU	155
End-of-life scenarios	-	recycling	landfill

FU—1000 packs, each containing eight bottles of 1.5 L.

. The only difference between the adopted scenarios lies in the end-of-life stage.

3. Results and Discussion

Analysis of data obtained from the industry regarding the energy consumption of the individual stages of the production process showed that the most energy-consuming stage was shrinking the film around the bottles using a heating tunnel. This process, carried out together with the line responsible for delivering bottles arranged in the form of packs, generates as much as 45% of the total energy consumption in the analyzed system. Such a high share of this stage in the energy balance results mainly from the intensive consumption of the thermal and mechanical energy needed for transport, forming product groups and their thermal welding. This clearly indicates the need to optimize this area, both in terms of energy efficiency and the possibility of using alternative, less energy-intensive methods of bulk packaging. To optimize this stage, we can consider using more efficient technologies, such as heat tunnels with better insulation equipped with precise temperature control and heat recovery systems. Another important option is the use of films with lower shrink temperatures (such changes are already occurring—films with recyclate often require a lower sealing temperature due to their lower quality). This allows for shorter processing times and lower operating temperatures.

3.1. Results for the Environmental Analysis of the Tested Variants of the Tested System

The conducted environmental analysis allowed us to obtain results in the scope of the environmental impact of the analyzed variants of the studied systems.

Table 3. Results of environmental analysis of variants.

Impact Category	Unit	Variant A	Variant B
Global warming, Human health	DALY	0.00109	0.0002
Stratospheric ozone depletion	DALY	3.40 × 10−6	2.32 × 10−8
Ionizing radiation	DALY	3.06 × 10−7	3.66 × 10−8
Ozone formation, Human health	DALY	2.14 × 10−6	3.22 × 10−7
Fine particulate matter formation	DALY	8.86 × 10−4	2.03 × 10−4
Human carcinogenic toxicity	DALY	1.16 × 10−4	3.69 × 10−5
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	DALY	1.31 × 10−4	5.91 × 10−5
Water consumption, Human health	DALY	2.56 × 10−5	1.30 × 10−6
Global warming, Terrestrial ecosystems	species.yr	3.30 × 10−6	5.82 × 10−7
Global warming, Freshwater ecosystems	species.yr	9.01 × 10−11	1.59 × 10−11
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems	species.yr	3.18 × 10−7	6.02 × 10−8
Terrestrial acidification	species.yr	7.34 × 10−7	1.94 × 10−7
Freshwater eutrophication	species.yr	2.73 × 10−7	1.49 × 10−7
Marine eutrophication	species.yr	6.31 × 10−11	2.48 × 10−11
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	species.yr	2.49 × 10−8	9.47 × 10−9
Freshwater ecotoxicity	species.yr	8.61 × 10−9	3.96 × 10−9
Marine ecotoxicity	species.yr	1.90 × 10−9	8.69 × 10−10
Land use	species.yr	6.95 × 10−8	1.81 × 10−8
Water consumption, Terrestrial ecosystem	species.yr	1.70 × 10−7	1.6 × 10−8
Water consumption, Aquatic ecosystems	species.yr	9.38 × 10−12	8.75 × 10−13
Mineral resource scarcity	USD2013	0.264	0.00792
Fossil resource scarcity	USD2013	208	14.8

DALY—Disability-Adjusted Life Years; species.yr—local species loss integrated over time; USD2013—US Dollars, 2013 value.

presents the obtained results, which indicate that variant A has a potentially greater negative impact on the environment than variant B. Variant B, based on the use of recycled materials, results in a significant reduction in environmental burdens in all analyzed categories. In relation to the group of indicators which are related to human health and the state of ecosystems, a reduction in impact is observed at a level of approx. 80%. Significant differences were observed in the category of natural resource consumption, where the implementation of variant B brought the most measurable environmental benefits. The fossil resources deficit indicator is reduced from USD 208 to USD 14.8, while the mineral resources deficiency indicator drops from USD 0.264 to USD 0.00792. This means a reduction in the environmental impact of these areas by over 90%, confirming the high efficiency of recycled materials in the context of protecting non-renewable resources.

The overall impact on the environment for each of the variants considered results, to the greatest extent, from the burdens associated with the potential impact on human health. This means that of all the impact categories assessed, it is health aspects—such as exposure to toxic substances, air pollution or emissions of harmful chemical compounds—that have the largest share in the overall impact of a given scenario on the environment (Figure 3).

3.2. Results for the Environmental Analysis of End-of-Life Scenarios of the Studied System

The conducted analysis allows us to state that recycling as a method of the post-consumer management of bottles and heat-shrinkable film contributes to reducing the potential negative impact of the studied technological system on the environment. In all impact categories within the scope of human health, the ecosystems and resources scenario I with recycling showed a potentially smaller harmful impact on the environment (

Table 4. Results of environmental analysis of scenarios.

Impact Category	Unit	Scenario I	Scenario II
Global warming, Human health	DALY	0.00020	0.00022
Stratospheric ozone depletion	DALY	2.39 × 10−8	2.50 × 10−8
Ionizing radiation	DALY	3.73 × 10−8	3.85 × 10−8
Ozone formation, Human health	DALY	3.30 × 10−7	3.45 × 10−7
Fine particulate matter formation	DALY	2.05 × 10−4	2.07 × 10−4
Human carcinogenic toxicity	DALY	3.76 × 10−5	3.87 × 10−5
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	DALY	8.84 × 10−5	1.41 × 10−4
Water consumption, Human health	DALY	1.30 × 10−6	1.31 × 10−6
Global warming, Terrestrial ecosystems	species.yr	6.43 × 10−7	6.82 × 10−7
Global warming, Freshwater ecosystems	species.yr	1.76 × 10−11	1.86 × 10−11
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems	species.yr	6.23 × 10−8	6.35 × 10−8
Terrestrial acidification	species.yr	1.96 × 10−7	1.97 × 10−7
Freshwater eutrophication	species.yr	7.69 × 10−7	1.16 × 10−6
Marine eutrophication	species.yr	6.84 × 10−10	1.10 × 10−9
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	species.yr	9.53 × 10−9	9.57 × 10−9
Freshwater ecotoxicity	species.yr	1.73 × 10−8	2.58 × 10−8
Marine ecotoxicity	species.yr	3.71 × 10−9	5.53 × 10−9
Land use	species.yr	2.03 × 10−8	2.16 × 10−8
Water consumption, Terrestrial ecosystem	species.yr	2.07 × 10−8	2.07 × 10−8
Water consumption, Aquatic ecosystems	species.yr	4.27 × 10−13	4.29 × 10−13
Mineral resource scarcity	USD2013	0.010	0.011
Fossil resource scarcity	USD2013	15.22	15.56

DALY—Disability-Adjusted Life Years; species.yr—local species loss integrated over time; USD2013—US Dollars, 2013 value.

). In most impact categories, the differences between the scenarios are within the range of 2–10% in favor of recycling, indicating its effectiveness in reducing the burden on the environment. However, in some areas, such as human non-carcinogenic toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication and marine ecotoxicity, much larger differences were noted—from 32% to 39%—clearly illustrating the advantage of recycling in the context of environmental protection. According to Moazzem [27] recycling scenarios can help reduce environmental impacts. This is due to the benefits of replacing virgin material production and reducing the burden of landfilling.

As shown in Figure 4, scenario I is characterized by a lower level of harmfulness in terms of impact on human health—this value is lower by about 0.000075 DALY compared to the alternative scenario. A similar trend is observed in the category of impact on ecosystems, where the difference is about 0.00000045 species.yr, and in the category of resources, where a reduction in environmental costs by about 0.34 USD is noted. This indicates a clear advantage of the scenario with recycling in terms of reducing the negative impact on the environment.

The analysis showed that the total environmental impact of the options analyzed resulted primarily from factors related to the impact on human health. Similar conclusions have also been presented in the literature on the subject. Bałazińska et al. [28] also showed that the total environmental impact of the considered plastic management scenarios was mostly related to the impact on human health.

Landfilling waste, compared to recycling, leads to its slow degradation, during which harmful compounds are released, including methane—a greenhouse gas with a high potential for climate warming. Alternatively, recycling allows us to reduce CO₂ emissions and limit the use of non-renewable raw materials by replacing the production of new materials with their secondary equivalent. Although plastic recycling as a form of post-consumer waste management demonstrated significantly lower environmental impacts in all three categories assessed, it still presents several significant technological challenges. These include, above all, difficulties related to the complex recycling process, unstable quality of the obtained secondary raw material, the need to improve the mechanical properties of the material after processing as well as the need to increase its barrier properties, especially in the context of packaging applications [29,30,31]. Another limitation to effective recycling is the lack of appropriate logistics and technological systems in many parts of the world. In many regions, there is a lack of infrastructure enabling the effective collection and processing of plastic waste, which leads to its mass storage in landfills or its entry into aquatic ecosystems. The quality of the secondary raw material also remains a significant problem—the presence of contaminants and material mixtures significantly hinders the recovery process and reduces the efficiency of recycling. In addition, the low level of environmental education and the lack of appropriate consumer habits negatively affect the effectiveness of selective waste collection systems [32,33,34]. It should also be emphasized that the recycling process involves a significant demand for energy. When it comes from a domestic energy mix based mainly on non-renewable sources, it can lead to a significant burden on the environment [35,36,37]. For this reason, an important direction of development activities is the use of renewable energy sources to power recycling installations to reduce the negative environmental impact associated with the processing of film waste.

4. Conclusions

The aim of the analysis was to check the harmfulness of the technological line depending on the materials used to produce bottles and film and also the waste management of multipacks. The analysis of the tested technological system allowed the following conclusions to be drawn:

• The implementation of recycled materials and the recycling process itself as a method of managing post-consumer materials such as bottles or shrink wrap reduce the potential negative impact on the environment;
• In the tested process system, replacing bottles and heat-shrinkable film with recycled materials reduces its harmfulness to human health and ecosystems by over 80%, and in the case of resources, by over 90%;
• Studies have shown that recycling plastic film waste is a more environmentally friendly solution than landfilling it;
• The use of LCA can be a valuable tool in assessing the environmental impact of packaging production processes, enabling the achievement of specific and measurable benefits in terms of identifying and minimizing their impact on the environment.

In summary, recycling is an important element in the sustainable management of plastic waste. It has measurable benefits for the environment; it affects not only the reduction in pollutant emissions but also the amount of primary raw materials used. Further actions should focus on increasing the share of recycled materials in production processes. This study did not include an analysis of the economic potential of individual waste management scenarios. However, this topic may be an important direction for future research analyses.