Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Food Packaging using Lifecycle Assessment

Ik Kim

Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Food Packaging using Lifecycle Assessment

Ik Kim *

Contact

Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Food Packaging using Lifecycle Assessment

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

TCWZ1

Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Food Packaging using Lifecycle Assessment Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Abstract

Rising consumption of packaged instant foods has escalated environmental problems caused by packaging waste. Using lifecycle assessment (LCA) methodology, this study measures the benefits of applying green packaging technology to ramen noodle packaging in South Korea in 2015. Our LCA method observes the procedures and requirements of the International Organization for Standardization 14044 and the European Community Product Environmental Footprint Guide (ECPEF). Results show that the use of ink and liquefied natural gas used to produce food packaging cause the main environmental impact. Reducing the number of colors on the packaging is the most feasible way to mitigate environmental consequences. Also, up to 16,900 South Koreans could have reduced exposure to human toxicity (non-cancer) if all ramen packaging in South Korea in 2015 had fewer colors.

References

19 Cites in Article

Reference Format

Joongmin Shin,Susan Selke (2014). Food Packaging.
Tae-Han Song,Young-Du Kim (2018). A Study on the effectiveness of Maritime Traffic Safety Audit Scheme through Case Analysis.
Moe (2018). Press releases: Start the assessment of the circulation utilization of products such as PET bottles.
Atfis (2017). Major Statistics of Food Industry in 2017.
Hans-Jürgen Klüppel (2006). The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines.
(2006). Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Critical review processes and reviewer competencies: Additional requirements and guidelines to ISO 14044:2006.
Y Lee (2013). Blog: Understanding smart technology – and ourselves.
S Rozalia (2016). Printing on Polymers: Fundamentals and Applications.
W Durling (2009). Flexible Packaging Printing Processes Overview, Consumer Packaging Solutions for Barrier Performance Course.
Ec,Commission (2013). 4 Life Cycle Assessment.
Pe (2019). Eco-profiles.
Martin Baitz,Tim Becker,Marc- Wolf,Cecilia Colodel,Sebastian Schulz,Daniel Coen,Nashua Suzaly,Raphaela Spykman,Rieke Schulte,Anita Hallmann,Fabian Bosch,Jakob Leweke,Matthias Rudolf,Timo Haertl,Lionel Thellier,May Ang,Steffen Schoell,John Parker,Thilo Kupfer (2019). 24 Years Intersectoral LCA Database Development, Growth, and Update: from PE/Thinkstep-GaBi to Sphera-MLC.
M Wolf,R Pant,K Chomkhamsri,S Sala,D Pennington (2012). The international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook.
Emilia Moreno-Ruiz,Lucia Valsasina,Carl Vadenbo,Avraam Symeonidis (2019). ecoinvent – An Introduction to the LCI Database and the Organization Behind it.
P Fantke (2018). USEtox 2.0 Documentation (Version 1.1.
M Paracchini,S Condé,R D’andrimont,B Eiselt,O Fernandez Ugalde,E Gervasini,A Jones,V Kovacevic,R Oppermann,A Orgiazzi,M Van Der Velde,C Polce,C Rega,C Van Swaay,P Voříšek (2014). The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes at the EU level.
Dean Gerstein (2019). "A compilation of gambling-related resources available online," and the Alberta Gaming Research Institute, <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/">http://www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/</ext-link> (last accessed May 30, 2007).
B Henrikke,R Tomas (1994). A comparison of three methods for impact analysis and evaluation.
J Kim (2015). Processed Food Market Status.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Ik Kim. 2019. "Evaluating the Environmental Footprint of Food Packaging using Lifecycle Assessment". Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - H: Environment & Environmental geology GJSFR-H Volume 19 (GJSFR Volume 19 Issue H2).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJSFR Volume 19 Issue H2

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJSFR-H Classification FOR Code: 050299

Submission ReceivedJune 2, 2019
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted June 29, 2019
Published July 11, 2019

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

July 23, 2019

Language

English

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 175

Country: South Korea

Subject: Global Journal of Science Frontier Research

Authors: Ik Kim (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 312

Total Views (Real + Logic): 1052

Total Downloads (simulated): 74

Publish Date: 2019 07, Thu

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 35 views
Month 2: 30 views
Month 3: 31 views
Month 4: 27 views
Month 5: 34 views
Month 6: 35 views
Month 7: 33 views
Month 8: 38 views
Month 9: 56 views
Month 10: 27 views
Month 11: 24 views
Month 12: 25 views
Month 13: 16 views
Month 14: 32 views
Month 15: 47 views
Month 16: 42 views
Month 17: 24 views
Month 18: 17 views
Month 19: 25 views
Month 20: 35 views
Month 21: 21 views
Month 22: 25 views
Month 23: 38 views
Month 24: 31 views
Month 25: 28 views
Month 26: 28 views
Month 27: 33 views
Month 28: 25 views
Month 29: 29 views
Month 30: 32 views
Month 31: 40 views
Month 32: 43 views
Month 33: 29 views
Month 34: 25 views
Month 35: 44 views
Month 36: 47 views
Month 37: 50 views
Month 38: 48 views
Month 39: 19 views
Month 40: 14 views
Month 41: 31 views
Month 42: 18 views
Month 43: 20 views
Month 44: 25 views
Month 45: 19 views
Month 46: 27 views
Month 47: 24 views
Month 48: 17 views
Month 49: 38 views
Month 50: 16 views
Month 51: 24 views
Month 52: 33 views
Month 53: 30 views
Month 54: 35 views
Month 55: 31 views
Month 56: 35 views
Month 57: 24 views
Month 58: 26 views
Month 59: 31 views
Month 60: 13 views
Month 61: 35 views
Month 62: 28 views
Month 63: 42 views
Month 64: 25 views
Month 65: 38 views
Month 66: 35 views
Month 67: 16 views
Month 68: 33 views
Month 69: 32 views
Month 70: 32 views
Month 71: 43 views
Month 72: 39 views
Month 73: 28 views
Month 74: 45 views
Month 75: 42 views
Month 76: 19 views
Month 77: 43 views
Month 78: 36 views
Month 79: 87 views
Month 80: 48 views
Month 81: 47 views
Month 82: 37 views
Month 83: 47 views
Month 84: 34 views
Month 85: 50 views
Month 86: 53 views
Month 87: 24 views

Total Views: 1.1K

Total Downloads: 74

All Trends