Life cycle carbon analysis of packaging products containing nonwood residues: A case study on linerboard and corrugating medium
Source abstract
Abstract
Circularity is creating momentum toward utilizing waste feedstock in a myriad of applications. The paper industry is not an exception to this trend, and packaging products made from agricultural or agro-industrial residues are receiving more attention now than ever. Additionally, negative consumer perceptions of tree felling are accelerating the acceptance of these fibers. Nevertheless, adopting these residues raises the issue of whether they constitute a better alternative to fight climate change than wood. Answering this question is imperative to ensure that pledges to reduce carbon footprints across the industry are fulfilled. This paper aims to estimate the carbon footprint of corrugating medium and linerboard containing wheat straw and sugarcane bagasse pulp compared to analogous wood-based materials. The goal was also to understand how methodological decisions to allocate emissions to nonwood residues can affect the results. This study includes a life cycle carbon analysis spanning from cradle to grave, which comprises stages for residue production, pulping, paper-making, waste management, and corresponding transportation. For the proposed case study, the results suggest that straw- and bagasse-based medium and linerboard can present a higher carbon footprint than products made from virgin and recycled wood fibers. The main driver is the production of nonwood chemimechanical pulp. In addition, the lower capacity of nonwood residues to be recycled increases the overall impact. Finally, decisions around emissions allocation highly influence the results. This study helps mitigate part of the uncertainty around the environmental sustainability of corrugating medium and linerboard made from the selected nonwood residues.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Recycling and Waste Management Techniques · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Material Properties and Processing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Canopyplanet.org, “Ecopaper database,” Canopy, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Available [Online] https://epd.canopyplanet.org/<01May2023>.
2. The Two Sides Team, “U.S. forests are a renewable natural resource that is continuously replenished through sustainable forest management and natural regeneration,” Two Sides North America, Dayton, OH, USA. Available [Online] https://twosidesna.org/unitedstates-forests-renewable-natural/<30Jan2024>.
3. Greene, J., “Pulp & paper products consume 50% of harvested timber in US,” Fisher International, Charlotte, NC, USA, 12 August 2020. Available [Online] https://www.fisheri.com/blog/pulp-paper-products-consume <25April2023>.
4. Jefferies, H.M. and Leslie, T., “Historical perspective on the relationship between demand and forest productivity in the US south,” Forest2Market, Charlotte, NC, USA, 26 July 2017. Available [Online] https://www.forest2market.com/hubfs/2016_Website/Documents/20170726_Forest2Market_Historical_Perspective_US_ South.pdf <25April2023>.
5. Fisher International, “FisherSolve® Next,” Database, Fisher International, Charlotte, NC, USA.
6. Hart, P., TAPPI J. 19(1): 41(2020). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ19.1.41.10.32964/TJ19.1.41 ↗
7. Sun, M., Wang, Y., and Shi, L., Sci. Total Environ. 616-617: 753(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.250.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.250 ↗
8. Ma, X., Zhai, Y., Zhang, R., et al., J. Cleaner Prod. 233: 23(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.069.10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.069 ↗
9. Kissinger, M., Fix, J., and Rees, W.E., Ecol. Econ. 62(3-4): 552(2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.019.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.019 ↗
10. Gao, J., Ti, C., and Chen, N., BioResources 10(1): 548(2015). https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.1.548-565.10.15376/biores.10.4.6548-6564 ↗
11. Man, Y., Li, J., Hong, M., et al., Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 131: 109998(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109998.10.1016/j.rser.2020.109998 ↗
12. Sun, M., Xu, X., Wang, C., et al., J. Cleaner Prod. 259: 120702(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120702.10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120702 ↗
13. Kiatkittipong, W., Wongsuchoto, P., and Pavasant, P., Waste Manage. 29(5): 1628(2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.006.10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.006 ↗
14. Poopak, S. and Agamuthu, P., Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10(24): 4860(2011).
15. Fangmongkol, K. and Gheewala, S.H., J. Sustain. Energy Environ. 11: 61(2020).
16. NREL, “U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. Available [Online] https://www.nrel.gov/lci/ <31Jan2024>.10.2172/15004558 ↗
17. Ecoinvent, “Ecoinvent Database,” Ecoinvent, Zurich, Switzerland. Available [Online] https://ecoinvent.org/database/ <31Jan2024>.10.3370/lca.19.215 ↗
18. Nemecek, T. and Kägi, T., “Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems,” Ecoinvent Report No. 15,” Ecoinvent, Zurich/Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2007. Available [Online] https://db.ecoinvent.org/reports/15_Agriculture.pdf <30Jan2024>.
19. Hsu, D.D., Inman, D., Heath, G., et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(13): 5289(2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/es100186h.10.1021/es100186h ↗
20. Azuaje, I., Forfora, N., Ortega, R., et al., “Life cycle assessment of alternative fibers,” Sustainable and Alternative Fibers Initiative (SAFI) Consortium report, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2022.
21. Renouf, M.A., Pagan, R.J., and Wegener, M.K., Int J. Life Cycle Assess. 16: 125(2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0233-y.10.1007/s11367-010-0233-y ↗
22. Chang, S.J., “To burn or not to burn: Bagasse that is,” Presentation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States, 2015. Available [Online] https://www.swst.org/wp/meetings/AM15/pdfs/presentations/chang.pdf <20Jan2024>.
23. Lois-Correa, J.A., Ing., Invest. Tecnol. 13(4): 417(2012).https://doi.org/10.22201/fi.25940732e.2012.13n4.040.10.22201/fi.25940732e.2012.13n4.040 ↗
24. EPA, “Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI),” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available [Online] https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tool-reduction-and-assessment-chemicals-and-other-environmental-impacts-traci <30Jan2024>.10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9 ↗
25. Kinstrey, R.B. and White, D., “Pulp and paper industry energy band-width study,” American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2006.
26. EPA, “Paper and paperboard: Material specific data,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available [Online] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/paper-and-paperboard-material-specific-data <05May2023>.
27. Nagy, J.D., TAPPI J. 78(10): 240(1995).
28. Jirarotepinyo, N., Nguyen, J., Jameel, H., et al., “The impact of multiple recycle loops on the yield and properties of softwood kraft fibers and of non-wood fibers for packaging,” TAPPI PEERS Conf., TAPPI Press, Peachtree Corners, GA, USA, 2022.10.2139/ssrn.4402263 ↗
29. Gaudreault, C., “Methods for open-loop recycling allocation in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of paper products,” Technical Bulletin No. 1003, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Cary, NC, USA, 2012.