The University of Manchester Research

Environmental impacts of takeaway food containers

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.220

Document VersionFinal published version

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):Gallego Schmid, A., Fernandez Mendoza, J. M., & Azapagic, A. (2019). Environmental impacts of takeaway foodcontainers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.220

Published in:Journal of Cleaner Production

Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscriptor Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use thepublisher's definitive version.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by theauthors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s TakedownProcedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact uml.scholarlycommunications@manchester.ac.uk providingrelevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:21. Sep. 2020

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Environmental impacts of takeaway food containers

Alejandro Gallego-Schmid a, b, *, Joan Manuel F. Mendoza a, Adisa Azapagic a

a Sustainable Industrial Systems, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, The Mill, Sackville Street,Manchester, M13 9PL, UKb Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, HG1, Pariser Building,Sackville Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 11 September 2018Received in revised form21 November 2018Accepted 23 November 2018Available online 24 November 2018

Keywords:AluminiumGlobal warmingFast foodPackagingPolypropyleneExtruded polystyrene

* Corresponding author. Tyndall Centre for ClimateMechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The UnPariser Building, Sackville Street, Manchester, M13 9P

E-mail addresses: alejandro.gallegoschmigallegoschmid@manchester.ac.uk (A. Gallego-Schmid)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.2200959-6526/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevie

a b s t r a c t

The consumption of takeaway food is increasing worldwide. Single-use containers used for takeawayfood represent a significant source of waste and environmental impacts due to their low recyclability.Consequently, it is important to identify the best available alternatives and improvement opportunitiesto reduce the environmental impacts of fast-food containers. For these purposes, this study estimatesand compares for the first time the life cycle impacts of three most widely-used types of takeawaycontainer: aluminium, polypropylene and extruded polystyrene. These are also compared to reusablepolypropylene containers. The findings suggest that single-use polypropylene containers are the worstoption for seven out of 12 impacts considered, including global warming potential. They are followed bythe aluminium alternative with five highest impacts, including depletion of ozone layer and humantoxicity. Overall, extruded polystyrene containers have the lowest impacts due to the lower material andelectricity requirements in their manufacture. They are also the best option when compared to reusedtakeaway polypropylene containers, unless the latter are reused 3e39 times. The number of uses neededfor the reusable “Tupperware” polypropylene food savers is even higher, ranging from 16 to 208 times,with terrestrial ecotoxicity being always higher than for extruded polystyrene, regardless of the numberof uses. However, extruded polystyrene containers are currently not recycled and cannot be considered asustainable option. If they were recycled in accordance with the European Union 2025 policy on wastepackaging, most of their impacts would be reduced by >18%, while also reducing littering and negativeeffects on marine organisms. Most of the impacts of the other two types of container would also bereduced (>20%) through increased recycling. Implementing the European Union 2025 policy on recyclingof waste packaging would reduce all the impacts by 2%e60%, including a 33% reduction in globalwarming potential. Based on 2025 million takeaway containers used annually in the European Union, thelatter would save 61,700 t CO2 eq./yr, equivalent to the emissions of 55,000 light-duty vehicles. Theoutcomes of this study will be of interest to packaging manufacturers, food outlets, policy makers andconsumers.© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Consumption of fast food is increasing rapidly as a consequenceof modern lifestyles (Razza et al., 2009). Fast food is defined as thesale of food and drink for immediate consumption after purchase(Market Line, 2012), either at the food outlets or elsewhere (e.g.

Change Research, School ofiversity of Manchester, HG1,L, UK.d@gmail.com, alejandro..

r Ltd. This is an open access article

home and work). If it is consumed away from the food outlet, it isknown as takeaway or take-out food. The takeaway food markethas been growing fast due to the convenience and competitivepricing. According to TechNavio (2016), the global delivery andtakeaway food market, which was valued at $89 billion in 2015, isexpected to grow by 2.7% annually to over $102 billion by 2020.

The increasing importance of the takeaway food sector hasgiven rise to various sustainability concerns, including food safety(Meldrum et al., 2009) and labour issues (Schmitt and Jones, 2013).However, there are also important environmental sustainabilityissues associatedwith the takeaway food supply chain. One of theseis the use of non-reusable containers with a low recyclability

under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Fig. 1. Types of food containers considered in the study. A: Aluminium takeawaycontainer; B: Extruded polystyrene takeaway container; C: Polypropylene takeawaycontainer; D: Polypropylene reusable food saver (Tupperware). [Dimensions (mm):Aluminium: 195x105x48; EPS: 170x133x75); PP (standard size: 160x105x48.].

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427418

potential (MacKerron, 2015). Based on previous studies (AFCMA,2004; Alupro, 2016; Cassidy and Elyashiv-Barad, 2007), the esti-mates in the current research suggests that over 7.5 billionextruded polystyrene (EPS) containers are used annually in the USAand more than 1.8 billion aluminium containers in the UK. Thisresults in the annual consumption of 58,500 t of EPS in USA and13,680 t of aluminium in the UK. Taking into account their extrac-tion and processing, this is equivalent to the emissions of 297Mtand 167Mt of CO2 eq. per year, respectively.

The environmental concerns associated with the use of thesecontainers have been highlighted in several studies (Aarnio andH€am€al€ainen, 2008; Mason et al., 2004; Shokri et al., 2014). How-ever, most focused on waste generation and management ratherthan applying a full life cycle perspective. At present, there are nolife cycle assessment (LCA) studies of takeaway containers. Relatedstudies have analysed the environmental impacts associated withthe use of biodegradable materials (e.g. Madival et al., 2009; Razzaet al., 2009; Suwanmanee et al., 2013). Other studies consideredreusable cups (e.g. Potting and van der Harst, 2015; Vercalsterenet al., 2010; Woods and Bakshi, 2014). Furthermore, Rieradevallet al. (2000) discussed the implementation of eco-design criteriato fast-food packaging.

One of the most critical environmental aspects related to single-use takeaway containers is waste generation. In an attempt toaddress this issue, consumers are being encouraged by somegroups (e.g. Takeout without, 2016; Tiffin Project Foundation, 2012)to bring their own reusable food container from home and refusesingle-use containers used by fast-food outlets. Some companieshave also started to offer discounts to customers for bringingreusable cups or selling its side dishes in reusable containers (e.g.Mohan, 2010; Starbucks, 2016). In some countries, policy makersare also considering taxation of single-use food containers. Forexample, the UK government has recently issued a call for evidenceto justify the use of taxation aimed at reducing the demand forsingle-use plastics, such as takeaway boxes (HM treasury, 2018).However, while it is intuitively plausible that reusable food con-tainers are environmentally better than their single-use counter-parts, as far as the authors are aware, no study has yet quantifiedthe actual environmental implications of different takeaway foodcontainers and how they compare with their reusable alternatives.Therefore, this paper assesses for the first time life cycle environ-mental impacts of three types of container typically used by take-away food outlets to serve hot food e aluminium, EPS andpolypropylene (PP) e in comparison with reused takeaway PPcontainers and “Tupperware” food savers (also made of PP) used bymany consumers worldwide. The number of times the reusablecontainers should be reused to balance out the impacts of single-use containers is also considered.

The geographical area selected for this study is the EuropeanUnion (EU) because the number of takeaway outlets has increasedrapidly in recent years and is expected to grow even faster in thefuture (Accorsi et al., 2014; Daedal Research, 2014). The UK, Ger-many, France, Italy and Spain are among the top 13 world con-sumers of takeaway food, with an expenditure of V9.9 billion in2014, expected to increase by 17% by 2019 (Lago et al., 2011; Riera,2015). The focus on the EU is also due to the European Commissionrecently adopting an ambitious circular economy package, whichincludes revised legislative proposals for packaging waste,encouraging the recycling of aluminium and plastic packaging thatwill also affect takeaway containers (European Commission,2015a,b). Therefore, there is a need to quantify the impacts asso-ciated with packaging in the takeaway food sector at EU level, aswell as the effect of future waste management legislation. Hence,this paper also assesses the environmental effects of current andfuture end-of-life scenarios for takeaway containers at EU level. The

results of this study will be of interest to EU policy makers, foodpackagingmanufacturers, fast-food outlets and consumers, helpingthem to identify environmentally most sustainable food containeroptions and make informed choices.

2. Methods

The environmental impacts of the containers have been esti-mated using LCA, which has been carried out in accordance withthe ISO 14040/44 (ISO, 2006a,b) guidelines. The next section de-scribes the goal and scope of the study, followed by the inventorydata and the impact assessment methodology applied in the study.

2.1. Goal and scope of the study

The goals of this study are:

i) to estimate and compare the environmental impacts of threecommonly-used takeaway food containers: aluminium, EPSand PP;

ii) to assess the environmental implications of reusing PPtakeaway containers and using reusable PP food savers(Tupperware) instead of single-use containers; and

iii) to evaluate the environmental effects of different end-of-lifemanagement options for the takeaway containers at the EUlevel.

The functional unit for the first two goals of the study is definedas “production, use and disposal of a container storing a meal for oneperson”. The volume of the container considered is 670ml. Thisrepresents an average across the takeaway containers, determinedthrough own fieldwork and information provided by manufac-turers. For the end-of-life options, the functional unit correspondsto the “total number of takeaway containers used annually in the EU”.

The containers considered in the study are shown in Fig. 1.Aluminium and EPS containers have been chosen for study as theyare used most commonly (Rieradevall et al., 2000). As shown inFig. 1A, in addition to the aluminium body, the aluminiumcontainer also has a paper lid. In the EPS container, the body and thelid are integrated and made of a single material (Fig. 1B). Light-weight PP containers are also used widely in the takeaway in-dustry and they are more robust and durable than the other twotypes (Fig. 1C). Consequently, even if it is usually considered asingle-use product, environmentally-conscious customers may opt

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427 419

to reuse it. This is not possible for the EPS and aluminium con-tainers as they are not sturdy enough and cannot be cleaned easily.Nevertheless, to make PP containers comparable with the othertwo types, they are assumed in the base case to be used only once(study goal i)). The environmental implications of their reuse areexplored as part of the study goal ii), together with the use ofreusable Tupperware food savers. The latter have been selected forstudy as they are used widely in Europe (Gallego-Schmid et al.,2018). Tupperware food savers are commonly made of PP becauseother common plastics have lower resistance to high temperatures(Fellows and Axtell, 1993).

Although paper and cardboard takeaway containers are alsoused, they are much less common as they are less suitable for ‘wet’food (e.g. served with a sauce). Hence, they are not considered inthe study.

The scope of the study and the system boundaries are depictedin Fig. 2. As shown, the following stages have been considered:

� Raw materials:o polypropylene (PP) and silicone;o aluminium;o polystyrene (PS); ando cardboard, paper and polyethylene (PE) (for packaging and forthe lid of the aluminium container)

Fig. 2. System boundaries for the different types of container conside

� Production: thermoforming and extrusion for PP, silicone, PEand PS, aluminium sheet rolling and metal stamping, PE coatingof paper and packaging

� Use: manual and automatic washing (only for reusablecontainers)

� End-of-life: wastewater treatment and disposal of post-consumer waste and;

� Transport:o packaging and raw materials to the production site;o containers to food outlet; ando production and end-of-life waste to waste managementfacility.

For the reusable Tupperware food saver, transport of consumerto and from the retailer to buy the container and to and from thefood outlet is excluded. The main reason is the uncertainty relatedto consumer behaviour and to the allocation of the impacts to thefood container relative to other items and activities.

2.2. Inventory data

The inventory data are detailed in Table 1. These have beencalculated through directmeasurements (weighing of components)and primary production data obtained from major producers.

red in the study. [PP: polypropylene; EPS: extruded polystyrene].

Table 1Life cycle inventory data for takeaway containers.

Life cycle stage Aluminiumcontainer

Extruded polystyrenecontainer

Polypropylenecontainer

Polypropylene food saver (Tupperware)

Raw materialsPolypropylene (g) e e 31.5 132.8Aluminium (g) 7.6 e e e

Polystyrene (g) e 7.8 e e

Silicone (g) e e e 8.5Paper (g) 6.6 e e e

Polyethylene (lid) (g) 0.3 e e e

PackagingCardboard (g) 1.5 1.8 2.1 7.7Polyethylene (g) 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.3

Productiona

Extrusion: electricity (J) e 28.1 57.5 258.4Thermoforming: electricity (J) e 28.0 112.6 506.1Sheet rolling: electricity (J) 15.0 e e e

Sheet rolling: heat (J) 14.5 e e e

Metal stamping: electricity (J) 47.4 e e e

Metal stamping: heat (J) 42.9 e e e

Paper lid production: heat (J) 0.01 e e e

Paper lid production: electricity (J) 4.2 e e e

Packaging: heat (J) 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.3Packaging: electricity (J) 0.7 0.9 1.1 3.8

TransportRaw materials: transport to factory (kg.km) 2.4 1.5 5.0 22.4Container: factory to Shanghai port (kg.km) 2.4 e 5.0 22.4Container: Shanghai to Rotterdam (kg.km) 314.3 e 656.4 2911.2Container: Rotterdam to Munich (kgt.km) 13.4 e 27.9 123.8Container: factory to Munich (kg.km) e 4.8 e e

Container: Munich-retailer (kg.km) 2.4 1.5 5.0 22.4End-of-life: transport waste treatment (kg.km) 0.8 0.5 1.7 7.5

Use (machine dishwashing)Electricity (J) e e 57.5 57.5Soap (g) e e 0.2 0.2Salt (g) e e 0.2 0.2Rising agent (g) e e 0.03 0.03Water (L) e e 0.2 0.2

Use (manual washing)Heat: electricity (J) e e 9.5 9.5Heat: natural gas (J) e e 23.4 23.4Heat: oil (J) e e 3.2 3.2Heat: solar thermal (J) e e 1.0 1.0Water (L) e e 1.4 1.4Soap (g) e e 0.5 0.5

End-of-life waste managementRecycling: plastics (g) e e 3.4 14.4Recycling: aluminium (g) 4.1 e e e

Recycling: cardboard (g) 1.3 1.5 1.8 6.5Incineration: plastics (g) e 3.9 13.8 58.4Incineration: cardboard (g) 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.6Landfilling: plastics (g) 0.06 4.0 14.3 68.5Landfilling: aluminium (g) 3.5 e e e

Landfilling: cardboard (g) 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.5

a Electricity mix in 2015: EU28 for EPS and China for the other three types of container. Heat: natural gas.

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427420

Ecoinvent v3.3 (Ecoinvent Centre, 2016) has been used as the pri-mary source of background data and any data gaps have been filledusing the GaBi database (Thinkstep, 2016) and literature.

2.2.1. Raw materials and production of containersThe aluminium container is composed of the aluminium body

and a paper lid with a thin polyethylene coating on the internalside. An average weight has been considered based on the samplesobtained from food outlets and different sellers in Europe (EAFA,2016a). Ecoinvent data for sheet rolling for the production of thealuminium foil and impact extrusion for shaping the container havebeen used. Data for liquid packaging board have been used tomodel the production of the paper lid (Vercalsteren et al., 2010;Ligthart and Ansems, 2007; Rieradevall et al., 2000). The packagingdata for the containers have been obtained from an aluminium

container vendor (Papstar, 2016a). The containers are assumed tobe produced in China, the main producer of aluminium foil in theWorld (Pani, 2015; Xie et al., 2011).

Polystyrene containers used in the takeaway industry are nor-mally made of extruded polystyrene (Glenn et al., 2001; Marinet al., 2004). The average weight of EPS containers has been esti-mated based on the data obtained from food outlets and differentproducers in Europe (FPA, 2016). The data for the EPS productionhave been sourced from Ecoinvent while the amount of blowingagent (butane) is from Ingrao et al. (2015). The packaging data forthe containers have been obtained from an EPS container vendor(Papstar, 2016b). The production of EPS is assumed to be in Europebecause the leading producers are located in the Netherlands,Luxemburg, Belgium or Germany (Plastics Europe, 2015; van derHarst et al., 2014).

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427 421

For the PP containers (takeaway and reusable Tupperware foodsavers), primary production data have been obtained from a majorproducer, including the amount and type of raw and packagingmaterials and a detailed description of production (Table 1). A sil-icone rubber is also used in food-savers as part of the lid to ensuretight closure. Both PP and silicone are extruded and thermoformedto obtain the desired shape. According to Suwanmanee et al. (2013),most of the manufacturing of plastic containers is located in SouthEast Asia. Therefore, the production of PP containers is consideredto be located in China and its electricity grid mix has been used inLCA modelling.

2.2.2. UseNo impacts have been considered for the single-use takeaway

containers. For the reused PP takeaway containers and Tupperwarefood savers, the impacts of their cleaning, either in a dishwasher orby hand, have been considered. The inventory data for this arebased on Gallego-Schmid et al. (2018), recalculated for the size ofthe container considered here (from 1100 to 670ml).

1 The total number of servings reported in the quoted studies is 1638 million forthe year 2014. They forecast an increase to 1760 million by 2019, a growth of 1.5%per annum. The same annual increase rate has been applied in the current study forthe period 2019e2025, to obtain the total value of 1916 million in 2025.

2.2.3. End-of-life waste management

2.2.3.1. Single containers. The assumptions for end-of-life man-agement of each type of the container can be found in Table 1. The‘net scrap’ approach has been applied for recycling (Bergsma andSevenster, 2013). This means that the system has been creditedonly for the percentage of recycled material that exceeds therecycled content in the original raw materials. For example,aluminium is initially made up of 32% recycled and 68% virginmetal, but 54% is recycled at the end-of-life of the container.Therefore the system has been credited for recycling 22% ofaluminium (54% minus 32%) at the end of its life. The impact fromthe recycling process are also included. The system has also beencredited for the electricity generated by incineration of waste ma-terials. The EU electricity mix in year 2014 (ENTSO-E, 2016) hasbeen used for these purposes. Data for all waste and wastewatertreatments have been sourced from Ecoinvent, except for PP recy-cling, which are from Schmidt (2012).

The following assumptions have been made for end-of-life ofdifferent materials:

� for PP, data for non-bottle rigid PP packaging treatment in theEU28 have been considered: 44% incineration with energy re-covery, 11% recycling and 45% for landfilling (Lhote, 2011);

� for aluminium, 54% of the aluminium has been considered berecycled and 46% landfilled (Eurostat, 2016; EAFA, 2016b);

� EPS containers are generally not recycled and are either land-filled or incinerated (Belley et al., 2011; Davis and Song, 2006;Ingrao et al., 2015). Considering the data for plastic packagingwaste treatment in Europe that is not recycled, it has beenassumed that 50% goes to landfilling and 50% to incinerationwith energy recovery (Eurostat, 2016);

� the strong bond between cellulose fibre board and the poly-ethylene coating make the paper lids in the aluminiumcontainer difficult to recycle (Mitchell et al., 2014). According toEurostat (2016), 54% of the paper packaging that is not recycledis incinerated and 46% landfilled; these values have beenassumed here for the paper lid;

� for the cardboard packaging of the containers, end-of-lifepackaging data for the EU28 have been assumed: 85% recy-cling, 8% incineration with energy recovery and 7% landfilling(Eurostat, 2016); and

� for the silicone (in Tupperware) and polyethylene (in pack-aging), 100% landfilling has been assumed.

2.2.3.2. Waste management at the EU level. The EuropeanCommission (2015b) has proposed that 75% of aluminium and55% of plastic packaging waste should be recycled by 2025. This isin line with the EU's approach to waste management based on thewaste hierarchy (European Parliament, 2008), which sets thefollowing priority order for waste: prevention, reuse, recycling,recovery and, as the least preferred option, disposal (which in-cludes landfilling and incinerationwithout energy recovery). Basedon these, the following scenarios have been considered for the end-of-life waste management of the takeaway containers:

� current situation;� best case: implementation at the EU28 level of the best currentend-of-life waste management in an EU country according tothe EU waste hierarchy;

� EU 2025 proposal: the implementation in EU28 of waste man-agement proposed by the European Commission for 2025(European Commission, 2015b); and

� worst case: for comparison, the implementation at the EU28level of the worst current end-of-life management in an EUcountry according to the EU waste hierarchy.

The specific data for each container are described below and aresummarised in Table 2:

� Aluminium containers: Two scenarios has been analysed withthe increase in the recycling rate from the current 54%e75% and89%. The first increase is the EU's proposed goal for 2025(European Commission, 2015b) and the second is the currentrecycling rate of aluminium packaging in Germany, the highestamong all 10 EU countries with available data (Eurostat, 2016).Finally, as the worst scenario, the current 22% recycling ratio ofthe Czech Republic has been considered (Eurostat, 2016).

� EPS containers: Two scenarios of 100% incineration with energyrecovery (currently in Austria and Sweden) and 100% landfilling(Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania and Malta) have beenassessed (Eurostat, 2016). A third scenario of 55% recycling and45% incineration with energy recovery has been consideredbased on the EU proposal for plastic packaging in 2025(European Commission, 2015b).

� PP containers: Similar to the aluminium containers, the best andworst current performance at country level and the proposal forthe EU by 2025 have been considered as alternative scenarios.According to the priority order of the EU waste hierarchy, Ger-many has the best treatment ratios for non-bottle rigid PPpackaging (30% recycling, 69% incinerationwith energy recoveryand 1% landfilling) and the UK has the worst (2% recycling, 8%incinerationwith energy recovery and 90% landfilling) out of thefive countries (France, Germany, Poland, Spain and UK) withavailable data (Lhote, 2011). The third scenario is the same as forEPS: 55% recycling and 45% incineration by 2025, based on theEuropean Commission's (2015b) proposal.

Estimating the number of different types of container used inthe EU is a challenge as no specific data are available. Nevertheless,based on data from previous studies (Lago et al., 2011; Riera, 2015),estimates in this study1 suggest that the total number of takeawayfood servings in the top five EU consumer countries (UK, Germany,France, Italy and Spain) will reach 1916million by 2025. For the rest

Table 2End-of-life scenarios for the takeaway containers in the European Union (EU28)a.

Current situation Best case Worst case EU 2025 proposal

Aluminium R: 54%, L: 46%b R: 89%, L: 11%b R: 22%, L: 78%b R: 75%, L: 15%d

PP R: 11%, I: 44%, L: 45%c R: 30%, I: 69%, L: 1%c R: 2%, I: 8%, L: 90%c R: 55%, I: 45%d

EPS I: 50%, L: 50%b I: 100%b L: 100%b R: 55%, I: 45%d

a R: recycling, I: incineration with energy recovery, L: landfilling.b Eurostat (2016).c Lhote (2011).d European Commission (2015b).

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427422

of the EU countries, no data are available and hence some as-sumptions have to be made to obtain the total number of con-tainers in use. Taking a conservative approach, it has been supposedthat the remaining EU countries consume in total a third of thetakeaway meals consumed in the top five countries, i.e. a total of639 million. Therefore, the total for the whole EU in 2025 has beenestimated at 2556 million takeaway food servings. Assuming anequal share of the three types of container, the total number of eachtype used annually in the EU is estimated at around 850 million.However, this would imply that no other types of container areused. Therefore, the analysis considers an exploratory range of500e850million units/yr, with an average of 675million for each ofthe three types of container. It should be noted that these figuresare estimates rather than necessarily the actual figures. Neverthe-less, they represent best approximations available currently and areaimed at understanding the magnitude of the impacts related tothe use of takeaway containers in the EU.

2.2.4. TransportThe following distances and transport means have been

considered:

� For the raw materials and packaging, distances in Ecoinventhave been assumed. If not specified in the database, a distance of150 km to the factory in 16e32 t Euro 3 trucks has beenconsidered.

� The aluminium and PP containers are shipped from China toEurope by a transoceanic tanker, assuming a distance of19,500 km from Shanghai to Rotterdam (World Ship Council,2016). Afterwards, the containers are transported by 16e32 tEuro 6 truck to a distribution centre located in Munich, thecentral geographical location of Europe (829 km). Commondistances of 150 km have been assumed for transport of thecontainers from the production site to the port in Shanghai(truck 16e32 t Euro 3) and from a distribution centre to retailer(16e32 t Euro 6 truck).

� An average transport distance of 500 km has been assumed forthe EPS containers in Europe, from the factory to the distributioncentre in Munich (16e32 t Euro 6 truck).

� For waste treatment, a distance of 50 km in a 16e32 t Euro 6truck has been assumed for all the containers.

2.3. Impact assessment

GaBi v6.5 software (Thinkstep, 2016) has been used tomodel thesystem. The environmental impacts have been calculated followingthe CML 2001 (January 2016 version) mid-point impact assessmentmethod (Guin�ee et al., 2001). The following impacts are considered:abiotic depletion potential of elements (ADPe.), abiotic depletionpotential of fossil resources (ADPf.), acidification potential (AP),eutrophication potential (EP), global warming potential (GWP),human toxicity potential (HTP), marine aquatic ecotoxicity poten-tial (MAETP), freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP),

ozone depletion potential (ODP), photochemical oxidants creationpotential (POCP), terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP) and theprimary energy demand (PED).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Non-reusable takeaway containers

As can be seen in Fig. 3, the aluminium container has the highestimpacts for five categories: ADPe, HTP, MAETP, ODP and TETP. Theseare, respectively, between 2e23 and 4e28 times higher than for thePP and EPS. The PP container is the most impactful for the otherseven impacts, largely due to the production of PP and its eventuallandfilling. These impacts are 2e3 times greater than for thealuminium and 3e6 higher than for the EPS containers.

The results in Fig. 3 also show that the EPS is the best optionacross the impact categories. Against the aluminium container, itsimpacts are 7%e28 times lower and against the PP, 25% to six timesbetter. This is due to a lower amount of EPS needed to manufacturethe container compared to PP (four times) and less energy requiredfor the production of EPS in comparison with aluminium. Thesefindings go against the ongoing debate on the negative impacts ofEPS containers and their ban in India, China, Taiwan and in severalcities in the USA and UK, based on concerns about food health andsafety, inefficient recycling, low degradability and contribution tomarine pollution (Barnes et al., 2011). However, these bans remaincontroversial and some of them have been revoked through lawsuits by packaging manufacturers (Bapasola, 2015; Mueller, 2015).Regarding health and safety, Cohen et al. (2002) found that the riskof migration of styrene from EPS to packaged food are quite low andof no concern. These findings are in agreement with the EuropeanFood Safety Authority (EFSA) which stated that EPS is safe for usefor contact with food (European Commission, 2011). In relation torecyclability, manufacturers argue that EPS is technically recy-clable; however, in practice, due to low cost-effectiveness, therecycling rate is negligible (Razza et al., 2015). Because of itslightness e EPS is 95% air by weight e vast amounts need to becollected and compressed, or “densified,” before being shipped to arecycler (MacKerron, 2015). Therefore, large investments in com-pactors and logistical systems are necessary to achieve significantpercentages of recycling. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of(theoretically) increasing the recycling rate of EPS at the EU levelare considered in section 0 to gauge the magnitude of environ-mental savings that could be achieved. Finally, the low degrad-ability and contribution to marine debris are clearly related. TheEPS containers, due to their lightness, can easily be blown away,contributing to urban and riverine litter (Rubio, 2014). Owing totheir low degradability, EPS waste remains in the environment andcan end up in marine environments. For example, Fok and Cheung(2015) found that 92% of the microplastics collected on 25 beachesalong the Hong Kong coastline was EPS. Aquatic organisms caningest these microplastics or become entangled in larger parts ofplastic (Stefatos et al., 1999; Sutherland et al., 2010) with

Fig. 3. Life cycle environmental impacts of single-use containers. [All impacts expressed per 670ml container. The values on top of each bar represent the total impact after therecycling credits and for relevant impacts should be multiplied by the factor shown in brackets to obtain the original values. EPS: extruded polystyrene. PP: polypropylene. ADPe:abiotic depletion potential of elements, ADPf: abiotic depletion potential of fossil resources, AP: acidification potential, EP: eutrophication potential, GWP: global warming potential,HTP: human toxicity potential, MAETP: marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential, FAETP: freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential, ODP: ozone layer depletion potential, POCP:photochemical ozone creation potential, TETP: terrestrial ecotoxicity potential, PED: primary energy demand and DCB: dichlorobenzene.].

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427 423

detrimental consequences for marine life. Thus, despite its lowerlife cycle environmental impacts relative to the other containers,EPS cannot be considered a sustainable packaging option unless itsend-of-life management can be improved significantly.

3.1.1. Contribution analysis and improvement opportunitiesAs indicated in Fig. 3, the extraction and refining of aluminium

are the main contributors (>48%) to 11 of the 12 impacts of thealuminium container. These are mainly associated with the gen-eration of electricity used in the refining process (ADPe, ADPf, AP,EP, GWP, PED) and the emissions of carbon monoxide (POCP),hydrogen fluoride (MAETP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(HTP) and heavy metals (FETP) from the aluminium extraction andrefining process. The production process of the PE-coated paper lidis the main contributor to ODP (86%) due to the emissions of halon1301 in the coating process. The stamping of the aluminium foil toobtain the desired shape contributes 24% to both aquatic toxicities,mainly due to the electricity consumed in the process. Finally, end-of-life treatment has a positive impact on all impact categories(between 2 and 23% reduction), mainly due to the system creditsassociated with aluminium recycling. For further details on the lifecycle stages that contribute most to the impacts of the aluminiumcontainer, see Table S1 the Supporting Information (SI).

The production of EPS in the raw materials stage contributesmore than half of ADPf, AP, GWP, POCP and PED of the EPScontainer. It also has a significant contribution (>20%) to HTP,MAETP, ODP and TETP. The consumption of fuel oil and electricityand the emissions of CO2, SO2 and non-methane volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) are the main cause of these impacts. Theextrusion and thermoforming processes in the production stage arethemain contributors to six of the impact categories (>33%), mainlydue to electricity consumption. Transport has no significant influ-ence in any category (<9%). Finally, the end-of-life stage contributessignificantly to EP (62%) and FAETP (46%) and, to a lesser extent, toHTP (28%), GWP (20%) and MAETP (16%). The increase of organic

carbon in the leachates associatedwith EPS landfilling is what leadsto the high EP and the emissions of CO2 while heavy metals due toincineration contribute to GWP, FAETP, HTP and MAETP.

The raw materials stage is also the main contributor (>43%) toADPf, PED, POCP and GWP of PP containers, mainly due to theconsumption of fuel oil and the emissions of VOCs and CO2 in the PPproduction process. The manufacture of the container is the maincontributor (>42%) to ADPe, AP and TETP. All these impacts aremainly related to the generation of the electricity consumed in theextrusion and thermoforming processes. Transport only contrib-utes significantly (>35%) to ADPe. due to the metals used in thebattery of the trucks and ODP, related to halogenated gases used asfire suppressants in pipelines. In the end-of-life stage, only land-filling contributes significantly to EP (69%), FAETP (56%), HTP (39%)and MAETP (37%). However, this stage also has a positive effect onseven categories (5%e21%) due to the systems credits for PPincineration and recycling.

In summary, the findings suggest that the raw materials,container production and end-of-life contribute significantly tomost impacts. To address these, different improvement opportu-nities could implemented. In the raw materials stage, these includeproduct light-weighting and increasing the recycled content in thecontainers. However, manufacturers claim that the containerthickness has already been reduced significantly and further light-weighting can compromise the function of the containers (EAA,2016; Ingrao et al., 2015; Tupperware, 2016). Regarding theincreased recycled content, recycled plastics are not commonlyused in food packaging because of concerns about food safety andhygiene standards (Mudgal et al., 2011). This restriction does notapply to aluminium, but there have not been significant changes inthe amount of recycled aluminium (30%) in recent years (EAA,2013; EAA, 2008).

There are fewer improvement opportunities in the manufactureof containers. Production processes, such as plastics extrusion andthermoforming or aluminium sheet rolling and stamping, are

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427424

mature and no significant advancement is expected in the future.However, the end-of-life stage is where the most feasible oppor-tunities for improvements are expected in the short to mediumterms for the three types of containers. These are considered foreach container at EU level in section 0. Prior to that, the impacts ofthe three non-reusable containers are compared to the reusable PPcontainers (takeaway and Tupperware).

3.2. Reusable vs non-reusable containers

In order to compare reusable and non-reusable containers, theconcept of “transition point” has been applied. The transition pointis defined as the point where a system starts to perform better thanthe system with which it is being compared (Ligthart and Ansems,2007). This can be determined by varying certain variables of in-terest. In this study, the variable of interest is the number of timesboth types of PP container (takeaway and Tupperware) have to bereused to balance out the impacts of the single-use aluminium andEPS containers.

Table 3 shows the transition points. It can be seen that theTupperware container has to be reused eight times to equal theimpacts of the aluminium containers for half of the impacts cate-gories considered, 11 times for GWP and up to 16 to balance out allthe impacts. The number of reuses needed increases even morewith respect to the EPS containers. The Tupperware should bereused 18 times to equal the GWP of EPS and 24 times to balanceout half of the impacts categories. As Tupperware containers can bereused on average 43 times before they need to be discarded(Gallego-Schmid et al., 2018; Harnoto, 2013), they could balance outall the impacts of the aluminium container and most of the EPScontainer. The only exception for the latter are ADPe, for which 208reuses would be required and TETP, which can never be better thanfor the EPS container. The reason for these two exceptions is thehigh impacts from the use of electricity to heat the water forwashing the reusable containers.

The results are more favourable for the reused PP takeawaycontainers which match all the impacts of the aluminium optiononly after four reuses, with GWP requiring only three reuses. Theyalso balance out most of the impacts of the EPS containers afternine reuses; for GWP, this reduces to four times. This level of reuseis more realistic for consumers than the number of uses requiredfor the Tupperware. Furthermore, this type of plastic container isalready in use by food outlets, making it easier for businesses toencourage their reuse, while reducing the total cost of containersthey need to purchase, improving their environmental credentialsat no extra cost and securing customer loyalty.

However, there are various practical and legal obstacles to a

Table 3Number of uses of polypropylene (PP) reusable containers needed to equal the impacts

Impacta PP food saver (Tupperware) vs aluminium PP food saver (Tupperware)

ADPe. 3 208ADPf. 16 18AP 8 29EP 14 18FAETP 12 39GWP 11 18HTP 2 37MAETP 4 24ODP 1 27POCP 9 16TETP 8 eb

PED 10 19

a For the impacts nomenclature, see Fig. 3.b EPS container performs always better than the reusable containers for TETP.

widespread use of reusable containers. One of these is the incon-venience requiring consumers to carry the container to the foodoutlet and to clean it afterwards. Only committed or incentivised(e.g. food discounts) consumers could achieve the number of reusesnecessary to balance out the impacts of single-use containers,especially those made of EPS. Another problem is the portion sizese this can be dealt with more easily if the reused containers areprovided by the food outlet but less so if consumers bring their ownreusable containers which would invariably be of different sizes.Another issue is related to possible legal challenges, for example,due to food poisoning. This could be either due to food contami-nation at the outlet or due to the inadequate cleaning of the con-tainers by the consumer, but it would be difficult to prove who isresponsible. Thus, these and other related barriers should beconsidered as part of future research to identify the best wayforward.

In addition, other improvement opportunities should also beconsidered. One of these includes better end-of-life management ofsingle-use waste containers. This is discussed further in the nextsection, with the focus on the EU level to determine the magnitudeof potential environmental improvements.

3.3. End-of-life scenarios at the EU level

As indicated in Fig. 4 and Table S5 in the SI, implementing the EUproposal for recycling 75% of aluminium and 55% of plastic pack-aging waste by 2025 (Table 2) would reduce all the impacts by 2%(ODP) to 60% (EP and FAETP). For GWP, the reductionwould amountto 33%, saving 61,700 t CO2 eq./yr if a total of 2025 million/yr ofcontainers are assumed with an equal share of each type (45,700and 77,300 t CO2 eq. for 1500 and 2550 million/yr, respectively).These savings are equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissionsgenerated annually by around 55,000 (40,500-69,000) light-dutyvehicles (Winkler et al., 2014).

The implementation of the “Best” scenario (highest recyclingrates practiced currently in some EU countries; see Table 2) wouldimprove seven impact categories on the EU 2025 proposal, but thedifferences between the two scenarios are relatively small (3e18percentage points). However the EU 2025 scenario would lead tohigher reductions in APDf, AP, GWP, POCP and PED. Finally, theimplementation of the worst scenario (lowest recycling in some EUcountries) would increase all impacts by 2% (GWP) to 62% (EP)compared to the current situation.

Fig. 4 also shows the contribution of different waste manage-ment options to the total impacts for each scenario. It can be seenthat EPS containers generally contribute the least to the total im-pacts. Aluminium containers are the main cause of ADPe, HTP, ODP,

of single-use containers (aluminium and extruded polystyrene (EPS)).

vs EPS Reusable takeaway PP vs aluminium Reusable takeaway PP vs EPS

1 324 42 73 43 93 41 91 61 32 42 eb

3 5

Fig. 4. Annual environmental impacts of aluminium (Al), extruded polystyrene (EPS) and polypropylene (PP) containers in the EU28 considering different end-of-life scenarios.[Basis: 675 million/yr of each type of container (total of 2025 million), with the error bars showing the range from 500 to 850 million/yr (total 1500e2550 million). R: recycling; L:landfilling; I: Incineration with energy recovery. For the description of the scenarios, see Table 2 and for the impacts nomenclature, see Fig. 3.].

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427 425

MAETP and TETP for all scenarios while PP containers contributemost to ADPf, AP, GWP, POCP and PED; for EP and FAETP, the highestcontributor depends on the scenario.

With reference to the specific types of container, increasing therecycling rate of aluminium would result in significant environ-mental improvements (Table S6 in the SI). For every 10% increase inthe amount of aluminium recycled, the impacts would be reducedby 6%e19%, with the highest reductions found for TETP (14%) andHTP (19%). These savings are due to the credits for avoiding the useof virgin aluminium and the reduced amount of waste landfilled.For the GWP, increasing the current EU aluminium recycling ratefrom 54% to 75%, as per the EU 2025 proposal, would save 11,600 tCO2 eq. per 675 million of aluminium containers annually, repre-senting a reduction of 23% on the current situation. Increasing therecycling to 89%, the best current recycling rate in the EU, wouldreduce the impact by 38%, saving 19,400 t CO2 eq./yr. On the otherhand, if aluminium is recycled in all EU countries at the same rate asin the country with the lowest recycling rate (22%), the impactswould increase by 19%e60% compared to the current situation,with an increase in GWP of 35%.

In the case of EPS, landfilling all containers in the worst case orincinerating them in the best scenario shows no significant effecton the impacts compared to the current situation (Table S7 in theSI). The only exceptions are EP, ODP and GWP. For the EP, 100%incineration reduces the impact by 69%, mainly because of theavoidance of the organic carbon in landfill leachates. Incinerationalso reduces ODP (by 15%) due to the credits for the avoided naturalgas displaced by the heat recovered from the incinerator. This is inturn associated with the reduced use of halogens as fire suppres-sants in gas pipelines. For the rest of the impacts, 100% incinerationimproves the current situation by 3%e7%, except for FAETP, HTP andTETP which are not affected by the changes in the rate of inciner-ation (or landfilling). Finally, in the 100% landfilling scenario, GWPis reduced by 18%, principally due to the reduction in CO2 emissionsfrom EPS incineration.

Implementing the EU 2025 proposal of 55% EPS recycling and45% incineration would improve the impacts by more than 18% forten of the categories considered. The highest reductions are foundfor ADPf., GWP, POCP and PED, the categories most influenced bythe production of EPS, benefiting from the credits for the avoided

virgin material. GWP would be reduced by 9600 t CO2 eq./yr.However, as discussed in section 3.1, achieving these recycling rateswill require large investment in compactors and logistical systemsas well as consumer engagement.

Finally, if in the worst case 90% of PP containers are landfilled, asopposed to 45% at present, all the impacts but GWP are increased(Table S8), with EP, FAETP and ODP being most affected (>31%).GWP is reduced by 9% (8800 t CO2 eq.) because of the reducedemissions of CO2 from incineration. The best case and the EU 2025scenarios each lead to significant reductions (>52%) in EP, FAETP,HTP, MAETP, related to the avoidance of landfilling and leachates ofheavy metals and organic carbon. The best case, with a higherpercentage of incineration (69%), has the lowest ADPe., ODP andTETP, mainly due to the credits for energy recovery. However, thereductions in GWP are minimal (<1%) because of the CO2 emissionsfrom incineration of plastics. The EU 2025 scenario, with a signifi-cant percentage of recycling (55%), would lead to the highest re-ductions (>38%) in ADPf., EP, GWP, POCP and PED, mainly due to thecredits for the avoidance of virgin PP. For the GWP, the totalreduction of 40,500 t CO2 eq. per 675 million containers is equiv-alent to avoiding the annual emissions of 36,500 light-dutyvehicles.

4. Conclusions

This study has presented for the first time life cycle environ-mental impacts of most-commonly used takeaway containers:aluminium, EPS and PP. The results suggest that the use ofaluminium containers leads to the highest depletion of elementsand ozone layer as well as human, marine and terrestrial toxicities.The PP container is the worst alternative for the other seven impactcategories considered.

The best option among the three is the EPS container with thelowest impacts across the 12 categories. Against the aluminiumcontainer, its impacts are 7%e28 times lower and against the PP,25% to six times better. The EPS is also the best option whencompared to reusable takeaway PP containers, unless these arereused 3e39 times, depending on the impact. The number of usesfor the reusable PP Tupperware food savers is even higher, rangingfrom 16 to 208 times, with terrestrial ecotoxicity being always

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427426

higher than for the EPS, regardless of the number of uses. Therefore,these LCA findings show clearly that single-use plastic containersare not necessarily the worst option environmentally as the goingdebates would suggest.

However, EPS containers cause other environmental impactswhich cannot be assessed through LCA, including littering andnegative effects on marine organisms. These impacts could be alle-viated by recycling of EPS which, although technically possible, isnegligible in the EU due to high costs. This goes against the circulareconomyprinciples that theEU is trying toapply topackaging so thatfuture efforts should be focused on improving end-of-life manage-ment of EPS containers to reduce their impacts on the environment.The results of this research show that reductions in most impactsgreater than 18% would be possible if EPS were to be recycled inaccordance with the EU 2025 policy on waste packaging.

The impacts would also be reduced if the recycling rates foraluminium and PP containers were increased to 75% and 55%,respectively, as proposed by the EU. For the former, every 10% in-crease in recycling would decrease the impacts by 6%e19%. In thecase of the PP containers, the savings would be greater than 38% forfossil fuels, primaryenergy, eutrophication, photochemical oxidantsand greenhouse gases. The total reduction in the latter wouldamount to 41,000 t CO2 eq. per 675million containers used annually.

Considering the total number of single-use containers of 2025million used annually in the EU, implementing the EU 2020 pro-posal for recycling of plastic packaging waste would reduce all theimpacts by 2%e60%. For GWP, the reduction would amount to 33%,saving 61,700 t CO2 eq./yr, equivalent to the greenhouse gas emis-sions generated annually by 55,000 light-duty vehicles.

Future studies should assess the impacts of other materials usedfor takeaway containers, such as cardboard or other types of plas-tics (e.g. polyethylene terephthalate or polylactic acid). Furtherresearch should also consider how principles of eco-design andcircular economy could be applied to improve the environmentalperformance of fast-food containers. Studies of consumer accep-tance of reusable containers would also help towards a more sus-tainable use of takeaway food containers. Future work should alsowork towards identifying most appropriate fiscal and other policyinstruments and incentives for reducing the use of throw-awaycontainers as well as for increasing their reuse and recycling.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sci-ences Research Council (EPSRC, Gr. no. EEP/K011820/1) and theSustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester.The authors gratefully acknowledge this funding.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.220.

References

Aarnio, T., H€am€al€ainen, A., 2008. Challenges in packaging waste management: acase study in the fast food industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (4), 612e621.

Accorsi, R., Cascini, A., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Mora, C., 2014. Economic andenvironmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: a food catering sup-ply chain case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 88e101.

AFCMA, 2004. Aluminium foil containers. Available at: http://www.afcma.org/uploads/downloads/welcome_to_aluminum.pdf. (Accessed 10 September2018).

Alupro, 2016. Aluminium packaging: foil containers. Available at: http://www.alupro.org.uk/aluminium-packaging-foil-containers/. (Accessed 10 September2018).

Bapasola, A., 2015. Posting the bans: can we ban EPS packaging? Available at: http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p¼4196. (Accessed 10 September 2018).

Barnes, M., Chan-Halbrendt, C., Zhang, Q., Abejon, N., 2011. Consumer preferenceand willingness to pay for non-plastic food containers in Honolulu, USA.J. Environ. Protect. 2, 1264e1273.

Belley, C., Michaud, R., Cl�ement, �E., Samson, R., M�enard, J.F., 2011. Comparative LifeCycle Assessment Report of Food Packaging Products. Report of CIRAIG (Inter-university Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Ser-vices), Montreal (Canada), p. 47.

Bergsma, G., Sevenster, M., 2013. End-of-life Best Approach for Allocating RecyclingBenefits in LCAs of Metal Packaging. CE Delft, Delft (The Netherlands), p. 25.

Cassidy, K., Elyashiv-Barad, S., 2007. US FDA's revised consumption factor forpolystyrene used in food-contact applications. Food Addit. Contam. 24 (9),1026e1031.

Cohen, J.T., Carlson, G., Charnley, G., Coggon, D., Delzell, E., Graham, J.D., Greim, H.,Krewski, D., Medinsky, M., Monson, R., Paustenbach, D., Petersen, B.,Rappaport, S., Rhomberg, L., Barry Ryan, P., Thompson, K., 2002.A comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated withoccupational and environmental exposure to styrene. J. Toxicol. Environ. HealthB Crit. Rev. 5 (1e2), 1e263.

Daedal Research, 2014. Global Takeaway Food Delivery Market - Focus on OnlineChannel (2014-2019). Daedal Research, New Delhi (India), p. 97.

Davis, G., Song, J.H., 2006. Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials fromcrops and their impact on waste management. Ind. Crop. Prod. 23 (2), 147e161.

EAA, 2008. Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry.Data for Year 2005. European Aluminium Association, Brussels (Belgium), p. 73.

EAA, 2013. Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry.Data for Year 2010. European Aluminium Association, Brussels (Belgium), p. 78.

EAA, 2016. Aluminium foil. Available at: http://european-aluminium.eu/about-aluminium/aluminium-in-use/packaging/. (Accessed 31 January 2016).

EAFA, 2016a. Container group members of the European aluminium association.Available at: http://www.alufoil.org/container-group.html. (Accessed 10September 2018).

EAFA, 2016b. Recycling & recovery of aluminium foil containing packaging. Avail-able at: http://www.alufoil.org/recycling-recovery-new.html. (Accessed 10September 2018).

Ecoinvent Centre, 2016. Ecoinvent Dataset V 3.3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle In-ventories. Ecoinvent, Dübendorf (Switzerland).

ENTSO-E, 2016. ENTSO-E Yearly Statistics & Adequacy Retrospect 2014. EuropeanNetwork of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, Brussels (Belgium),p. 68.

European Commission, 2011. Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plasticmaterials and articles intended to come into contact with food as monomer. Off.J. Eur. Union. L 12, 1e89, 15.01.2011.

European Commission, 2015a. Communication from the Commission from to theEuropean Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions. Closingthe Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. European Commission,Brussels (Belgium), p. 22.

European Commission, 2015b. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliamentand to the Council Amending Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and PackagingWaste. European Commission, Brussels (Belgium), p. 16.

European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament andthe Council of 19 November 2008 onwaste and repealing certain directives. Off.J. Eur. Union L 312, 3e30, 22.11.2008.

Eurostat, 2016. Packaging waste statistics. Available in: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset¼env_waspac&lang¼en. (Accessed 21 January2017).

Fellows, P., Axtell, B., 1993. Appropriate Food Packaging. TOOL Publications,Amsterdam (The Netherlands), p. 138.

FPA, 2016. Members of food packaging association. Available at: http://foodservicepackaging.org.uk/members/. (Accessed 10 September 2018).

Fok, L., Cheung, P.K., 2015. Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: a hotspot ofmicroplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bulletin. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 99 (1e2), 112e118.

Gallego-Schmid, A., Mendoza, J.M.F., Azapagic, A., 2018. Improving the environ-mental sustainability of reusable food containers in Europe. Sci. Total Environ.628, 979e989.

Glenn, G.M., Orts, W.J., Nobes, G.A.R., 2001. Starch, fiber and CaCO3 effects on thephysical properties of foams made by a baking process. Ind. Crop. Prod. 14 (3),201e212.

Guin�ee, J.B., Gorr�ee, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, G.R., van Oers, R.L.,Wegener, L., Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., de Haes, H.A. Udo, de Bruijn, H., vanDuin, H.R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment, an Operational Guideto the ISO Standards. Part 2a: Guide. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht(the Netherlands).

Harnoto, M.F., 2013. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Compostable andReusable Takeout Clamshells at the University of California, Berkeley. Universityof California, Berkeley (USA), p. 24.

HM treasury, 2018. Tackling the Plastic Problem. Using the Tax System or Charges toAddress Single-use Plastic Waste. HM treasury, London (UK), p. 22.

Ingrao, C., Lo Giudice, A., Bacenetti, J., Mousavi Khaneghah, A., Sant'Ana, A.D.S.,Rana, R., Siracusa, V., 2015. Foamy polystyrene trays for fresh-meat packaging:life-cycle inventory data collection and environmental impact assessment. FoodRes. Int. 76 (3), 418e426.

ISO, 2006a. ISO14040:2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -Principles and Framework. ISO standards, Geneva (Switzerland), p. 20.

ISO, 2006b. ISO14044:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment eRequirements and Guidelines. ISO standards, Geneva (Switzerland), p. 46.

A. Gallego-Schmid et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 211 (2019) 417e427 427

Lago, J.A., Rodríguez, M., Lamas, A., 2011. El consumo de comida r�apida. Situaci�on enel mundo y acercamiento auton�omico. EAE Business School, Madrid (Spain),p. 38.

Lhote, S., 2011. The Recycling and Recovery of Polyolefin Waste in Europe. Contri-bution to Identiplast 2011 Congress, Madrid (Spain), 03rd October 2011.

Ligthart, T.N., Ansems, A.M.M., 2007. Single Use Cups or Reusable (Coffee) DrinkingSystems: an Environmental Comparison. TNO Built Environment and Geo-sciences, Delft (The Netherlands), p. 158.

MacKerron, 2015. Waste and Opportunity 2015: Environmental Progress andChallenges in Food, Beverage, and Consumer Goods Packaging. The NaturalResources Defence Council and As You Sow, Oakland (USA), p. 62.

Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R., 2009. Assessment of the environ-mental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell container using LCA methodology.J. Clean. Prod. 17 (13), 1183e1194.

Marin, R., Paparian, M., Moulton-Patterson, L., Peace, C., Mul�e, R., Washington, C.,Leary, M., 2004. Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California. Integrated WasteManagement Board, Sacramento (USA), p. 25.

Market Line, 2012. Fast Food in the United Kingdom. Market Line, London (UK),p. 36.

Mason, I.G., Oberender, A., Brooking, A.K., 2004. Source separation and potential re-use of resource residuals at a university campus. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40 (2),155e172.

Meldrum, R.J., Little, C.L., Sagoo, S., Mithani, V., McLauchlin, J., de Pinna, E., 2009.Assessment of the microbiological safety of salad vegetables and sauces fromkebab take-away restaurants in the United Kingdom. Food Microbiol. 26 (6),573e577.

Mitchell, J., Vandeperre, L., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., Tarverdi, K., Cheeseman, C., 2014.Recycling disposable cups into paper plastic composites. Waste Manag. 34 (11),2113e2119.

Mohan, A.M., 2010. KFC's sustainable sides container is 'sogood. Available at: http://www.greenerpackage.com/reusability/kfc%E2%80%99s_sustainable_sides_container_sogood. (Accessed 10 September 2018).

Mudgal, S., Lyons, L., Bain, J., Dias, D., Faninger, T., Johansson, L., Dolley, P., Shields, L.,Bowyer, C., 2011. Plastic Waste in the Environment. BIO Intelligence Service andAEA Technology report, Paris, p. 171.

Mueller, B., 2015. Judge strikes down New York city's ban on foam food containers.Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/judge-strikes-down-new-york-citys-ban-on-foam-food-containers.html. (Accessed 10September 2018).

Pani, B.S., 2015. The economics of SME aluminium foil production. Available at:http://blog.alcircle.com/2015/05/18/economics-sme-aluminium-foil-production/. . (Accessed 10 September 2018).

Papstar, 2016a. Recipientes con tapas para insertar de cart�on con laminaci�on de PEcuadrado. Available at: http://www.papstar-shop.es/Envases-para-alimentos/Envases-de-aluminio/Recipientes-con-tapas-para-insertar-de-carton-con-lamination-de-PE-cuadrado-0-7.htm?shop¼papstar&SessionId¼&a¼article&ProdNr¼14517&t¼20002&c¼20039&p¼20 039. (Accessed 10 September 2018).

Papstar, 2016b. Envases para comida con tapa-bisagra incorporada de P.S.E. sincompartimento. Available at: http://www.papstar-shop.es/Envases-para-alimentos/Enva ses-para-comida-para-llevar-y-Hamburguesas/Envases-para-comida-con-tapabisagra-inc orporada-de-P-S-E-sin-compartimentos-7.htm?shop¼papstar&a¼articleProdNr¼12043&t ¼20002&c¼20335&p¼20335.(Accessed 10 September 2018).

Potting, J., van der Harst, E., 2015. Facility arrangements and the environmentalperformance of disposable and reusable cups. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (8),1143e1154.

Razza, F., Fieschi, M., Innocenti, F.D., Bastioli, C., 2009. Compostable cutlery andwaste management: an LCA approach. Waste Manag. 29 (4), 1424e1433.

Razza, F., Innocenti, F.D., Dobon, A., Aliaga, C., S�anchez, C., Hortal, M., 2015. Envi-ronmental profile of a bio-based and biodegradable foamed packaging

prototype in comparison with the current benchmark. J. Clean. Prod. 102 (1),493e500.

Riera, M., 2015. El gasto de comida r�apida en Espa~na. Situaci�on internacional,evoluci�on esperada y revisi�on de la situaci�on nacional y auton�omica. EAEBusiness School, Madrid (Spain), p. 35.

Rieradevall, J., Domenech, X., Bala, A., Gazulla, C., 2000. Ecodise~no de envases. Elsector de la comida r�apida. Elisava Edicions, Barcelona (Spain), p. 132.

Rubio, M.R., 2014. Foam of contention: dealing with polystyrene wastes. Availableat: http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p¼2898. (Accessed 31 January 2017).

Schmidt, J.H., 2012. Plastberegner.dk-LCA tool for plastics converters in Denmark.In: Documentation of the Tool and Database, vol. 2. -0 LCA consultants, Aalborg(Denmark), p. 126.

Schmitt, J., Jones, J., 2013. Slow Progress for Fast-food Workers. Available at: http://http://cepr.net/documents/publications/fast-food-workers-2013-08.pdf.(Accessed 31 January 2017).

Shokri, A., Oglethorpe, D., Nabhani, F., 2014. Evaluating sustainability in the UK fastfood supply chain: review of dimensions, awareness and practice. J. Manuf.Technol. Manag. 25 (8), 1224e1244.

Starbucks, 2016. Starbucks Global Responsibility Report 2015. Starbucks, Seattle(USA), p. 14.

Stefatos, A., Charalampakis, M., Papatheodorou, G., Ferentinos, G., 1999. Marinedebris on the seafloor of the Mediterranean Sea: examples from two enclosedgulfs in Western Greece. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 36, 389e393.

Sutherland, W.J., Clout, M., Cot�e, I.M., Daszak, P., Depledge, M.H., Fellman, L.,Fleishman, E., Garthwaite, R., Gibbons, D.W., De Lurio, J., Impey, A.J., Lickorish, F.,Lindenmayer, D., Madgwick, J., Margerison, C., Maynard, T., Peck, L.S., Pretty, J.,Prior, S., Redford, K.H., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Spalding, M., Watkinson, A.R., 2010.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 1e7.

Suwanmanee, U., Varabuntoonvit, V., Chaiwutthinan, P., Tajan, M., Mungcharoen, T.,Leejarkpai, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment of single use thermoform boxes madefrom polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid, (PLA), and PLA/starch: cradle to con-sumer gate. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2), 401e417.

Takeout without, 2016. Takeout without campaign. Available at: http://takeoutwithout.org/. . (Accessed 10 September 2018).

TechNavio, 2016. Global Delivery and Takeaway Food Market 2016-2020. TechNavio,Elmhurst (USA), p. 64.

Thinkstep, 2016. GaBi 7.3 Database. Thinkstep, Leinfelden-Echterdingen (Germany).Tiffin Project Foundation, 2012. The Tiffin Project. Available at: http://

thetiffinproject.com/. (Accessed 10 September 2018).Tupperware, 2016. 2013-2015 Sustainability Report. Tupperware Brands, Orlando

(USA), p. 39.van der Harst, E., Potting, J., Kroeze, C., 2014. Multiple data sets and modelling

choices in a comparative LCA of disposable beverage cups. Sci. Total Environ.494e495, 129e143.

Vercalsteren, A., Spirinckx, C., Geerken, T., 2010. Life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency analysis of drinking cups used at public events. Int. J. Life CycleAssess. 15, 221e230.

Winkler, S.L., Wallington, T.J., Maas, H., Hass, H., 2014. Light-duty vehicle CO2 targetsconsistent with 450 ppm CO2 stabilization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (11),6453e6460.

Woods, L., Bakshi, B.R., 2014. Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: guidance in lifecycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties forthe US consumer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (4), 931e940.

World Ship Council, 2016. Top 50 world containers ports. Available at: http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world-container-ports. (Accessed 31 January 2017).

Xie, M., Li, L., Qiao, Q., Sun, Q., Sun, T., 2011. A comparative study on milk packagingusing life cycle assessment: from PA-PE-Al laminate and polyethylene in China.J. Clean. Prod. 19 (17e18), 2100e2106.