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

Marina Stramarkou, Christos Boukouvalas, Sokratis E. Koskinakis, Olga Serifi, Vasilis Bekiris, Christos Tsamis and Magdalini Krokida
Additional contact information
Marina Stramarkou: School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Zografou Campus, GR-15780 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

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 12, 1-22

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.

Keywords: environmental footprint; climate change; intelligent packaging; active packaging; CO 2 sensor; carbon footprint; midpoint impact categories (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7080/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7080/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7080-:d:835003

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().