Methods for the Assessment of Environmental Sustainability of Packaging a Review
1 Introduction
Packaging plays a very significant role in product protection for delivery phases (Fadiji et al. 2019). In the manufacturing manufacture, commodity delivery concerns internal logistics and external logistics, extended to providers, material suppliers, and sales (McDonald 2016). A packaging organization consists of three levels known as primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging. Primary packaging is the first packet to protect the product. Secondary packaging is used to protect the chief packaging. Lastly, the 3rd level concerns the packaging organisation used for bulk treatment in warehousing and transportation. Third packaging affects the logistics efficiency in supply chains inducing unlike requirements on the handling equipment, vehicles, etc. (Jahre and Hatteland 2004). In the context of household appliances and electronic devices, the 3rd packaging concerns pallets with plastic films or coil containers. Even if the principal purpose of a packaging system is product protection, the marketing requirements can bear on the packaging of consumer goods (Favier, Celhay, and Pantin-Sohier 2019). The manufacturing delocalisation and the worldwide market place accept increased exponentially the transportation of appurtenances betwixt customers, producers, and stop-users (Meherishi, Narayana, and Ranjani 2019). The impacts of the packaging materials accept gained importance in terms of toll and environmental issues due to the increasing demand for protective solutions in product delivery (Pålsson and Hellström 2016). The waste related to packaging is a relevant problem in several countries such as Europe where: 'Packaging waste is a growing and important waste stream, which accounts for between 15% and 20% of total municipal solid waste in unlike countries' (OECD 2011).
The virtually used materials for the packaging of electronics and household appliances are the corrugated paper board (Frank 2014), carte du jour, wood, and plastics such as Polyurethane (EPU), Polyethylene (EPE), Polypropylene (EPP), and expanded polystyrene (EPS). Roughly eighty% of the volume of all newspaper packaging used in the United states of america is in the course of corrugated boxes (Leatherdale 2005). Corrugated and honeycomb paperboard materials have been widely used too for their cushioning property (Zhang et al. 2012). Because the interior parts of the packaging, Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), Polyurethane (EPU), Polyethylene (EPE) and Polypropylene (EPP) are the well-nigh popular cushioning materials thanks to their lightweight and excellent cushioning capabilities. Despite their functionality, the widespread utilise of these polymeric materials with fossil origin is nether investigation in the literature (Gong et al. 2020). Moreover, plastic production is responsible for a significant amount of waste related to several industrial sectors. In Europe, the Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPW) directive regulates the reduction of environmental impacts in this context. The initiative of the European Commission (EC) requires an ecology responsibility in packaging design through green policies. This regulation forces enterprises to study eco-sustainable solutions for packaging to reduce relative resource consumption and environmental impacts. Therefore, several scholars accept been studying recyclable, lightweight, recycled, and renewable packaging solutions to achieve an surround-friendly improvement. Equally a solution, bio-based materials are proposed instead of petrochemical-based plastics for packaging (Curling et al. 2017; Shanmugam et al. 2019). Still, the applications of bio-based and modelled pulp solutions are limited past the relative toll and investment of the production equipment and machines involved. Therefore, these solutions are used more frequently and suitable in the packaging of small-medium sized products.
Simply in the by few years, the strategic role of packaging design has been recognised both in theory and in do. Equally Betancur-Muñoz et al. (2014) claimed in their study, the packaging blueprint has been more often than not focused in the accomplishment of some specific objectives: toll; space-saving; material reduction, and quality bug avoidance (Netake et al. 2019). This design approach does not consider that the packaging is too utilised to handle, transport, distribute and promote the production. Present, the role of packaging in industrial management continues to rise due to increased logistic costs, improved packaging applied science, and enhanced environmental regulation. Therefore, a great interest is now focused on improving production-packaging operations by minimising the volume of material used and rationalising the number and types of packaging operations.
An approach proposed by Lee and Lye (2003), called 'Design for transmission Packaging (DFPkg)', was based on Blueprint for Associates (DfA) guidelines, since the activities related with packaging could exist considered as assembly activities seeing that all the packed pieces are part of a unique system. In full general, DfA methods seek to guide the design process to facilitate and optimise the assembly reliability in order to better the quality of the product and the surround of the assembly arrangement (Molloy, Warman, and Tilley 1998). An development of the DfA technique is the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) technique. Information technology has been outset introduced by Boothroyd (1994), who synthesised the concepts of Blueprint for Manufacturing (DfM) and DfA, already well-known 'Pattern For X' (DfX) techniques used in several concurrent technology applications, into a single design approach. He recognised the fact that manufacturing decisions have an touch on on associates and vice-versa. Therefore, one method could integrate the 2 design techniques to reduce cost, errors, and time to market (Annamalai et al., 2013; Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, and Giacchetta 2007). DfMA has also been applied to the packaging field. In particular, Betancur-Muñoz et al. (2014) presented an integral approach for packaging design, complementing the guidelines proposed by Lee and Lye (2003) in primal contexts of the packaging lifecycle. Equally highlighted past Koblasa, Šírová, and Králíková (2019), the limit of these techniques in packaging pattern is related to the lack of assay of logistical requirements. Abdallah et al. (2015) pointed out that the Pattern for Logistics (DfL) is a study focused on economic packaging to optimise the employ of space, parallel/concurrent processes to shorten the lead time, and standardisation. Storage systems play an essential part in the logistic concatenation. In this context, DfMA processes should exist analysed with Pattern for Logistics (DfL) requirements. Furthermore, as stated by Favi, Germani, and Mandolini (2016), a step forrard would be to include other interesting product aspects, such as ecology impacts, energy consumptions, and so on, in order to shift the overall production features early in the conceptual design stage.
This study aims at providing a useful methodology to designers and visitor managers who combine DfMA and DfE principles to pattern and optimise the packaging solutions of products. The innovative aspect of this research consists in the realisation of a practical and customisable pattern tool. The tool is able to simultaneously evaluate assembly features and environmental impacts of the designed packaging solution, this latter obtained by because the most important functional requirements, pattern specifications, and components of the packaging solution itself. In doing and then, this study follows the arroyo of Le Pochat, Bertoluci, and Froelich (2007) who stated specific tools used in DfE methodology tin can be divided into 2 main categories: ecology cess and ecology comeback tools. Equally environmental cess tool, this written report has used the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method, structured according to the ISO xiv,040 directives (ISO 14040 2006a; ISO 14044, 2006b), while, as a way to improve the environmental performance of a production solution, this study has used the Eco-design approach.
The paper has been organised every bit follows: after this introduction, Department two describes the scientific literature that has been reviewed. The kickoff role (Department 2.1) deals with the Life Wheel Assessment method, and in particular with its use in scientific packaging studies. The 2d office (Section 2.two) with the Eco-design approach every bit a way to better the environmental operation of a product. Section iii explains the research arroyo and the general methodology itself; Section 4 shows the case study and the LCA analysis; Department 5 reports the outcomes of the case study; Section vi reports the Word and conclusions of the study.
ii Literature review
The following department provides the background for the topic of this study. The first part is a review of the LCA literature in the packaging sector. It shows how information technology has evolved in time in different industrial fields (from the food and potable to the pharmaceutical), with an attending to studies about recycling and reuse of product packaging. Information technology ends with a focus on studies concerning the ecology impacts of delivery packages. The second office is a review of the DfE approach in product design phase, of its connexion with LCA method and other traditional design tools, and of its measurable benefits for the companies (both economic and ecology).
2.1 Life cycle assessment for packaging solutions
Several studies in literature investigated the environmental impacts of the product packaging, through the use of LCA. The bulk of these studies focused their attention on the packaging in food and beverage products, due to the necessity of the packaging to maintain food/beverage quality, safety assurance and preventing food/beverage waste through extending the product shelf life. Zabaniotou and Kassidi (2003) applied the LCA for the comparing of two egg packages: one fabricated of polystyrene and the other made of recycled paper. The results did not provide a clear-cut answer for defining the eco-friendlier product, merely the goal was a preliminary approach to perform a comparative assay. Bertoluci, Leroy, and Olsson (2014) conducted two series of five Life Wheel Assessments (respective to the national state of affairs of five European countries: French republic, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden) on three olive packaging solutions: doypacks, glass jars, and steel cans. The results highlighted the influence of national household waste drove rates and selected technologies for waste matter treatment (recycling and incineration) on the environmental performance of packaging design. The authors concluded that eco-blueprint of packaging cannot be considered merely in terms of the materials employed: the contribution of the consumers' behaviour is too a determinant criterion in the design of food packaging. Battini et al. (2016) performed a disquisitional analysis of two fresh food packaging solutions, i.e. corrugated fibreboard boxes and re-usable plastic containers, from both an economic and an environmental perspective (using LCA). They proposed as well two new packaging solutions and compared them with the existing solutions in different supply concatenation scenarios. Their results showed the packaging solutions being more than or less convenient according to the specific supply chain scenario. Wikström, Williams, and Venkatesh (2016) take analysed how user behaviour influences the environmental comparison of two dissimilar packages for minced meat: a lightweight tube and a tray. The direct and indirect environmental effects were evaluated and the results show that the tube is the superior environmental alternative when only the direct effects are considered. When indirect effects and user behaviour are included in the comparison, the tray is the better alternative due to college recycling rates and, near importantly, less food waste material during the process of emptying. Ingrao, Gigli, and Siracusa (2017) performed an Attributional-LCA to identify ecology hotspots in the life-bicycle of expanded Polylactic Acid (PLA) trays for fresh-nutrient packaging. Their study highlighted that the highest environmental impacts come from the product and transport of the PLA granules. Gutierrez, Meleddu, and Piga (2017) tried to identify improvements in food packaging solutions to minimise environmental externalities. The environmental bear on of packaging and food losses and the residual between the two were examined concerning a cheesecake that is normally packaged in low-density polyethylene film and has a express shelf life due to microbial growth. A shelf life extension was sought through the awarding of the well-established modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) technique. Results showed that the new packaging solution could considerably extend the shelf life of cheesecakes, reducing food waste and decreasing the overall environmental impact. Abejón et al. (2020) assessed the environmental impacts of the distribution of fruit and vegetables using reusable plastic crates and single-use paper-thin boxes. Their results showed that reusable plastic crates implied significant lower environmental impacts than the single-use cardboard boxes. Their work showed that plastic packaging should not be totally avoided or banned since, for certain applications, it can exist the most environmentally friendly choice.
Other studies focused their attention on recycling and reuse of the product packaging. Ross and Evans (2003) examined whether a re-use and recycle strategy for a plastic-based packaging would besides reduce the overall environmental burden. The LCA results demonstrated that recycle and reuse strategies for plastic-based products can yield pregnant environmental benefits. In 2013, Cleary (2013) examined the impacts related to the vino and spirit packaging supply in the City of Toronto, Canada. He evaluated five alternative means of packaging, including the container, closures, capsules and labels: conventional single-utilise glass bottles; lightweight unmarried-use drinking glass bottles; refillable drinking glass bottles (assuming 14 refills maximum); polyethylene terephthalate bottles; and hygienic cartons. The results of these LCA comparisons indicated that the internet environmental burdens from each package life cycle broadly reflected the relative masses of the containers, except for the refillable glass bottles. Postacchini et al. (2018) showed how the adoption of a packaging reuse policy, together with a logistical reorganisation of the supply chain, in a honey production case, tin can consistently reduce the environmental emissions of the whole supply concatenation. The results are dependent on the packaging reuse rate but they confirmed to be valid and consistent fifty-fifty in a worst-case scenario of a 10% reuse factor. The LCA results also proved that a logistical optimisation of a supply chain, by itself, does not pb to the best solution for the environment, in terms of polluting emissions.
The environmental impacts of packaging accept too been studied for pharmaceutical products. Dhaliwal et al. (2014) compared the environmental impacts of two packaging options for contrast media offered by GE Healthcare: +PLUSPAK™ polymer bottle and traditional glass bottle. This study indicated that the polymer bottle outperforms the glass bottle in all the considered ecology categories. The lower impacts of the polymer bottle for this packaging application tin can be attributed to lower cloth and manufacturing impacts, lower distribution impacts, and lower terminate-of-life disposal impacts. The results of this study suggested that using polymer rather than glass bottles provides a means past which to lower the environmental affect of contrast media packaging. Using LCA, Raju et al. (2016) compared two packaging forms frequently used in the pharmaceutical industry. The written report showed that the environmental performance of PVC blister packaging is better than that of aluminium blister packaging, as the PVC blister packaging performed better in 9 out of the eleven considered bear upon categories. Information technology has also been observed that the process of manufacturing of aluminium foils is a pregnant contributor to the overall ecology bear upon of aluminium blister packaging.
Some other studies investigated the ecology impacts of delivery packages. In 2004, Franklin Assembly (2004) prepared a written report for the Oregon Section Of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Programme, in which 26 dissimilar packaging options were investigated to obtain a lifecycle inventory. The study inventoried inputs (free energy, materials) and outputs (solid waste, atmospheric and waterborne emissions) but made no claims regarding the impacts of these inputs and outputs. Tan and Khoo (2005) compared two different packaging materials such as Expanded polystyrene (EPS) and corrugated paperboard (CPB), in the context of a specific insert packaging solution. The LCA example study has been divided into 2 chief parts. The first investigated the bear on assessment of two different designs of both EPS and CPB. The second part presented various end-of-life scenarios. For the original designs, CPB displayed a higher full ecology load. In the redesigned comparison, the proposed EPS insert potentially generates about 70% lower ecology overall load, as compared to the original EPS insert. Yi et al. (2017) used lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach to examine the environmental impacts and energy consumption of delivery packages used for express purposes, which mainly include corrugated boxes, plastic numberless and tapes for binding and sealing purposes. The results showed that product and usage stage consume the nigh energy and create the nearly environmental impacts. 1-layer box uses less materials and energy and thus tin can supercede two-layer box to reduce ecology impacts. Finally, Su et al. (2020) used the life wheel cess method to bear a quantitative analysis of the Greenish House Gases (GHGs) emissions of limited delivery packaging materials in Prc. Their results indicated that the full CO2-eq from packaging materials' overall life has increased from 0.3 metric tons (Mt) in 2007 to 13.ii ± v% Mt in 2018. Their scenario-based analysis unsaid there are great opportunities to reduce packaging materials consumed and then mitigate their impact.
ii.2 Design for environment and its measurable benefits
Blueprint For Surround (DFE) or Eco-Pattern (De Grave and Olsen 2006), equally defined in ISO 14,062 (ISO/TR 14,062, 2002), is a design approach aiming at reducing the ecology impacts of products and services throughout the whole life cycle, while assuring similar or improved services to the terminate client (Vallet et al. 2013). Eco-design not just is considered to be an efficient ecology approach, but information technology is also said to carry several economic advantages for the firms adopting information technology. Plouffe et al. (2011) investigated the economic issue for companies marketing one or more eco-designed products. Their results showed that there are articulate short-term benefits for the firm. Profitability over the long term, notwithstanding, cannot be assessed, equally fixed costs seem to be higher for eco-designed products compared to traditional products. In 2002, Holdway, Walker, and Hilton (2002) suggested Eco-pattern every bit a way to overcome barriers to sustainable packaging and they outlined perspectives and processes that could assistance development teams to maximise results in this increasingly important attribute of pattern. Despite the progressive employ of eco-design in the industrial earth, taking into account ecology constraints remains problematical for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Le Pochat, Bertoluci, and Froelich (2007) dealt with the issue of eco-pattern integration in a visitor's organisation. They put forward a method to conduct out the integration of eco-design in small and medium-sized enterprises, guiding change management in a company past establishing connections betwixt the company's ordinary preoccupations (strategy, design) and the environmental aspects. Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, and Giacchetta (2007) discussed a methodology for integrating Design for Environment (DfE) and life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques both into new product development and into the procedure of redesigning a set of existing products. Later, Grande et al. (2017) demonstrated that through the use of LCA is possible to improve a methodology for eco-blueprint of materials (in particular metal-organic framework materials). In their study of 2015, Andriankaja et al. (2015) proposed a holistic approach to ecodesign geared to operate within a Product Life cycle Management (PLM) system. A PLM system is a prepare of tools used to create and manage the product information through its whole life bicycle. Within the mechanical blueprint surface area, a PLM system is composed of the traditional pattern tools such as Figurer-aided design (CAD), Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), Estimator-aided engineering science (CAE), etc., and allows bidirectional advisory flows betwixt the embedded tools. The report aimed to foster sustainable design solutions for high-end structural parts used in the send sector, specially in the automotive and aeronautic industries. In their piece of work of 2016, Lacasa et al. (2016) implemented a sustainable product development methodology to obtain an improved design of two different products: a solar tracker and an isothermal container. First, the main inputs and outputs associated with the product process of each product were obtained. Next, the quantification of the economic, environmental and social aspects was carried out past the use of suitable engineering metrics and indicators. Finally, sustainability strategies focused on the pick of low impact materials and the reduction of materials were practical in the product redesign process. In both cases, a lower environmental touch on and higher company benefit have been accomplished. Chun et al. (2018) proposed a consumer-oriented eco-design index (CEDI) and a producer-oriented ecodesign index (PEDI) as a method to place the target components of a product for ecodesign, using the water purifier example report. Their report tried to overcome the challenges on the tool related barriers that limit ecodesign implementation, such as allowance of multi-objective analysis, inclusion of life cycle perspective, and linkage with economical aspects. Cicconi (2019) proposed an Eco-design tool able to promote a collaborative approach among all the unlike stakeholders (such as designers, manufacturers and suppliers) to support the product design stage in the creative industry. A collaborative platform tool has been described and the design workflow is based on the development of a Fabric Choice Tool, which reduces the gap between research, evolution, and innovation using a design-driven approach. Civancik-Uslu et al. (2019) showed how to apply LCA and eco-design as a shortcut to environmentally ameliorate a detail packaging in the context of the cosmetic industry (a corrective tube). To improve the environmental profile of this packaging, virgin petrochemicals accept been partially replaced by mineral fillers or/and recycled plastics. They showed that a cosmetic tube with less environmental emissions tin be obtained, while maintaining its technical feasibility and reducing the economic costs. Finally, Kamalakkannan and Kulatunga (2021) proposed a parametric life cycle assessment (PLCA) approach to eco-pattern optimisation and controlling at the early stage of design. Their suggested model reflected the characteristics of the environmental functioning as an objective function at the early design stage. This could allow designers to optimise the design and to mitigate environmental impacts, without performing scenario assay.
This study aims at showing a new pattern method to improve the overall assembly features and ecology sustainability of a packaging solution. It helps to fill the following research gap: to give the product designers a concrete method to spot and focus their attending on the most of import packaging parts and, at the aforementioned time, give them a clear thought of which are the nearly important functional requirements to be satisfied. This study has been focused on domestic household packaging, but the provided method can be extended to whatever particular packaging solution and its findings be still valid.
iii Research approach
The research approach has been described with hypothesis, materials and methods. The Hypothesis section describes the limits of the analysed design approach for packaging. The Materials and Methods section deals with the methodological approach, describing in particular the phases for supporting the packaging design.
3.1 Hypothesis
The principal hypothesis related to this study are:
-
The study has been focused on the packaging blueprint for small-medium-sized household appliances. Yet, the approach can be extended to any particular packaging solution. As a case study, the redesign of packaging for cooker hoods has been proposed;
-
The interviewed experts and stakeholders, who have helped to codify the proposed approach, are related to the industrial field of the household appliances;
-
The dimensions of the external box and the interior parts take been studied together. These dimensions are related to the product size to exist analysed.
3.2 Materials and methods
This section describes the methodological approach that has been used to support the pattern activity of a packaging solution. Figure i describes the traditional lifecycle process for packaging from the design to the production delivery. The design phase of packaging consists of two levels: the design of the external box and the design of the interior. The complexity is related to the pick of the materials and their configurations in terms of thickness, shape, and layers. In this design workflow, the designers evaluate the level of the production protection that has to be performed by the packaging itself only, associates properties and eco-sustainability of information technology are very rarely considered in this stage.
A pattern method for improving assembly and ecology sustainability in packaging solutions: a case study in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Effigy 1. Packaging procedure from the design activeness to the production delivery
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0001_oc.jpg"})
Figure 2 describes the approach proposed in this paper to back up the design of a packaging solution. The approach is based on the definition of the bones functions (Fs) and the functional requirements (FRs) that a packaging must perform (see paragraph 3.2).
A pattern method for improving associates and ecology sustainability in packaging solutions: a example study in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure 2. The proposed methodological approach to support the blueprint of a packaging solution
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0002_oc.jpg"})
Functions and functional requirements of a specific production packaging should be discussed and formalised, when possible, by the product experts and the stakeholders or, in alternative and when available, derived by specific scientific literature. All the Fs and FRs considered in this newspaper have been established by a console of experts and stakeholders and they referred to the case of a generic household appliance packaging. Indeed, while the list of functions could be considered valid for a large variety of product packaging (if not all), to fulfil a correct and detailed FRs list, it is essential to define and know what kind of product the packaging is for. On this basis, in this study, each component of the panel of experts has been selected among packaging designers, production managers and logistic managers that work in the household appliance field, according to the criteria of competence and expanse of expertise (Clayton 1997; Okoli and Pawlowski 2004; Mazzuto et al. 2018).
One time Fs and FRs are identified, each functional requirement is linked to the functions information technology performs, resulting in a Functions/Functional Requirements (F/FR) matrix. This matrix is the tool to identify and describe the relationships between the functional requirements and their performed functions. Functional requirements are then specifically evaluated in terms of 3 pattern specifications: Customer Perception, Strategic Value, and Lean Production. This evaluation involves external and internal actors in the packaging process, including a representation of end-users. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Procedure (AHP) approach, a unmarried normalised Design Score (DS) is obtained for each FR, out of the single three design specification score (see paragraph 3.2.1). Then, a Pair Comparison Analysis is performed on the FRs to highlight the number of relationships among the FRs and rank them accordingly to the obtained Pair Comparison Score (PCS – see paragraph three.2.one). For each FR, past multiplying the obtained DS and PCS, a final Combined score (CS) is produced (see section 3.2.2). The CS indicates the importance of the associated FR: the college the CS, the more of import is the associated FR.
In parallel with this FRs development process, the list of the parts of the packaging solution (the physical components of it) are analysed and singularly connected to the functions they accept to perform. The result is a second ranked matrix (P/F matrix) that highlights the number of relationships betwixt parts and functions (come across section 3.2.3). The parts with the highest number of performed functions are the ones that need to be advisedly redesigned first. On the other manus, parts with the fewest number of relationships are considered less important.
Having in mind which are the most important FRs that accept to be fulfiled (the ones with the highest CS), the designers can focus their attention on the parts that have the highest impact on the packaging. Designers tin now make up one's mind whether to modify, add or delete a function, or modify the part material, or searching for a different assembly configuration.
Finally, the redesign typhoon is validated using two analysis related to assembly properties and ecology sustainability. The assembly properties analysis estimates the average fourth dimension of assembly in the product line while the ecology sustainability is analysed by means of the LCA tool. The results of these ii analyses are important because they give feedback on the results achieved in the packaging design. Therefore, during the proposed design workflow, the packaging designers and the product managers can compare dissimilar solutions for achieving a final decision process. The final decision is based on the evaluation of the environmental and lean production gains.
3.2.one Functions and functional requirements
The most important and almost obvious function of the packaging is to protect the product during transportation. However, the packaging should accept characteristics that add together convenience in distribution, handling, stacking, display, sale, opening, reclosing, using, dispensing, reusing, recycling, ease of disposal, etc. As stated in the previous department, the methodological arroyo for defining Fs and FRs, in this study, has been referred to a generic household appliance packaging. This does not invalidate or touch the generality of the method itself, merely information technology is necessary for a right Fs and FRs development. Every bit a event, vii basic functions take been defined. These basic functions are the post-obit:
-
To Protect: one of the chief functions of a packaging organization is to protect its content, avoiding whatsoever amercement during the delivery stage (breakage, leakage, etc.). Therefore, 'to protect' means that the bundle has to provide structural resistance to compression, accidental drop, and vibration;
-
To Contain: a packaging has to contain products and its accessories inside the same box fugitive limit atmospheric condition such every bit a too tight parcel or a loose and over-sized one;
-
To Preserve: the contents of a package have to avoid any spoilage related to ecology influences such as humidity, temperature, light, air, liquid, etc. This type of protection depends on the blazon of goods to be transported (i.e. foods, appliances, textiles, metallic, etc.);
-
To Transport: the packaging has to provide a structure compliant with the transportation (lorry, containers, etc.);
-
To Communicate: each parcel has its labels to inform about its content (which tin can be a article or food), logistics data, tracking, ship details, use, make, etc. Labels are also marketing tools and they can include barcodes and q-codes for a rapid access to data and codes;
-
To Assembly: this function concerns the manufacturing line where the parts of the packaging are assembled together with the product. The packaging process in a manufacturing line requires specific needs in order to reduce time and cost in production;
-
To Be Sustainable: current packaging has to provide functionalities such as recycling or reuse, and in full general minimisation of the resources involved to reduce the overall environmental impacts;
After the definition of the list of functions, the same panel of experts and stakeholders has outlined a list of xx functional requirements the packaging solution has to perform. Table i reports each functional requirement (FR) with its clarification. Regarding all the functional requirements focused on avoiding damages, the entity of the loading conditions is defined with the customer, because normative. As an example, the resistance forcefulness to vertical compression is a specification divers with the customer before the conceptual design. In general, the resistance cheque to whatsoever loading condition (such every bit compression forcefulness, vibration, etc.) needs of tests on physical prototypes.
Table 1. Functional Requirements list and description
As a second step, a Function/Functional Requirement (F/FR) tabular array is defined to describe the relationships between each FR and functions (run across the example written report in section iv.1.ane, Table ii).
Tabular array 2. FR/F matrix for the packaging of household appliances
3.2.2 Ranking the functional requirements
Once the relationships between each FR and the functions take been discovered, the FRs are assessed using three different pattern specifications: Customer Perception, Strategic Value, and Lean Production. These pattern specifications take been chosen to comprehend the needs of the different supply concatenation actors and stakeholders. The 'Customer Perception' is obtained through a customer survey and then used to assess the perception and the importance given by the customers to a certain FR. The 'Strategic Value' represents the benefit (or the added value) that the improvement of a specific FR could create for the supply concatenation. Every bit an example, the employment of environmentally friendly materials is a characteristic that could create strategic value to the whole supply chain. The 'Lean Product' is more specific for the company and it describes how an FR is compliant with the full general Lean Production thinking. Therefore, while the company experts and stakeholders have to be employed for the characterisation of the Strategic Value and Lean Production score, a panel of end-users (customers) must exist employed for the analysis of the Customer Perception value. A scale from ane to 5 has been proposed to score the single FRs for each pattern specification. The iii different design specification scores are multiplied in order to obtain a single score for each FR. And so, a final normalised Design Score (DS), expressed in percent, is obtained by dividing the related single score for the sum of all the scores (Total score). An Analytic Bureaucracy Process (AHP) is then applied to rank the listing of FRs according to their normalised Design Score. AHP is a multicriteria controlling arroyo in which factors are arranged in a hierarchic structure (Saaty 1990). The results of this process are shown in practise in the case study section iv.1.ane (see Table 3). As a next step, a Paired Comparing Analysis must exist performed to describe the relationships betwixt each FR, to determine if any of them has a connectedness with others. In paired comparisons, the alternatives depend on each other and a new alternative tin touch on the relative ranks of existing alternatives (Saaty 2016). This analysis is important to qualitatively evaluate how a change in a specific FR could affect other FRs and their number. Table four in department 4.one.1 shows the results of this assay in the considered case report.
Tabular array 3. Results of the AHP with normalised Design Score for each FR
Table 4. Paired Comparing matrix of the functional requirements
3.ii.3 Combining the scores
Having obtained both the normalised DS and the Paired Comparison Score (PCS – encounter Table v), for each single FR, the next stride is to create a single alphabetize score that combines them together. The result is shown in Table 6 of department 4.1.1. The Combined Score (CS) gives a more comprehensive understanding of the importance of each FR, because information technology takes into consideration both the three blueprint specifications and the human relationship among the FRs. Table 6 gives the last indication on which are the most important FRs that have to be kept or improved (highest Combined Score) and which are the less important. Indeed, whatsoever design modification on these latter ones does not bear on in a significant way the final packaging.
Tabular array five. Results of the number of total relationships per each FR analysed in Pair Comparison analysis and correlated Pair Comparison Score (PCS)
Table 6. Combined Score (CS) table
3.two.4 Parts/Functions analysis
When the blueprint activity starts, the packaging designers collect the list of parts (components) of the packaging solution. Data and information such as geometry, material property, weight, sizing, and assembly time, are considered per each part which constitutes the packaging structure. The designers then define the relationships between each specific part and the functions it has to perform. The issue is a 2d ranked matrix (P/F matrix) that highlights the number of relationships between parts and functions. The parts with the highest number of relationships are considered the most important parts for that packaging solution, because they perform multiple functions. These parts are the ones that demand to be carefully redesigned first. On the other hand, parts with fewer numbers of relationships are considered less important. Tabular array vii in department 4.1.1 shows this matrix for the analysed case report.
Table 7. Part/Functions matrix
four Case study
The proposed approach has been applied and tested in the design of a packaging for a common vertical kitchen hood with a glass surface. The data accept been provided by a kitchen-hoods large size manufacturing company located in Italia and the panel of experts and stakeholders has been selected within the company management and the visitor stakeholders.
4.1 The bodily packaging
The test instance is focused on the redesign of an already existing packaging described in Figure 3. It consists of several items for cushioning and protect the contained commodity. In item, four compressed paper-thin corners are employed to improve the angular cushioning and resistance, one EPS base is used every bit a cushioning system for avoiding ruptures from drops, 1 corrugated fibreboard chimney protection is used to avoid contact between the steel chimney and the vertical glass of the product, and four internal air bags are included for improving the protection of the product. Finally, the commodity is packaged using a corrugated fibreboard box. The parts list of the actual packaging has been analysed in terms of materials, weight, and functions. In order to define a human relationship between parts and FR, each part has been associated to one or more than functions.
A design method for improving assembly and environmental sustainability in packaging solutions: a example report in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure iii. Internal packaging scheme of the analysed kitchen-hood: 1) external box; 2) EPS base; 3) chimney protection; 4) Internal air bags (4 items per packaging); 5) Corner (4 items per packaging); 6) kitchen-hood; 7) Chimney
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0003_b.gif"})
4.1.ane Functional analysis and functional requirements
Table 2 shows the F/FR matrix for a kitchen-hood packaging, while Tabular array 3 shows the results of the AHP on the normalised Pattern Score (encounter department 3.2). A scale from 1 to 5 has been proposed to score the single FR for each blueprint specification where: 1 = not at all important; 2 = slightly of import; iii = of import; 4 = fairly of import; 5 = very of import.
Analysing Table iii, it is axiomatic that the three most of import Functional Requirements are FR 15, FR 3 and FR 20. This ways that a moderate or low weight together with an adequate resistance to vertical compression and the use of environmentally friendly material are the most important requirements to satisfy when designing the new packaging solution.
Table iv shows the results of the Pair Comparison Assay. As stated in department three.2, this analysis is essential to assess how a change in a specific FR could touch on other FRs. The number of total relationships per each FR is summarised in Table five with the relative percentage Pair Comparison Score (PCS). This score is calculated as the number of relationships of a FR divided past the full number of relationships so expressed in percentage.
Having calculated the normalised Pattern Score and the Pair Comparison Score of all the FRs, it has been possible to calculate the Combined Score (CS). Table 6 reports the Combined Scores. These scores give the last indication on which are the virtually important FRs that take to be kept or improved.
Finally, Table 7 reports the relationships betwixt each packaging part and the highlighted functions, apropos the components of the bodily packaging solution. For example, the external box performs a total of half-dozen functions: to protect, to comprise, to send, to assemble and to be sustainable.
From the analysis of Table vii, it is articulate that some items are less important than others in terms of full relationships.
four.2 The redesigned packaging
Co-ordinate to the results of the previous section, the design of the new packaging solution has been focused on the outset 4 components ranked in Table 7, i.e.: the external box, the EPS base, the chimney protection, and the internal air numberless. In particular:
-
External box: the structure of the board box has been optimised to reduce the weight maintaining a like level of Border Compression Test (ECT value) per each carton lath sheet. A wave-sheet has been removed from the limerick of the corrugated fibreboard, passing from a double wall board to a unmarried wall board. Still, an increased use of kraft material has been considered per each layer of the corrugated fibreboard (outer and inner liner);
-
EPS base: a new base blueprint has been developed to increase the cushioning aspects (see Figure four). Non only that, it has been chosen to use a more than dense EPS fabric (xxx kg/miii instead of the previous 27 kg/mthree). Therefore, the new EPS base of operations is more robust. Moreover and very importantly, with this new design the EPC base avoids the employment of other packaging parts such as the lateral corners and the internal air bags;
A pattern method for improving assembly and environmental sustainability in packaging solutions: a example report in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure 4. Redesigned EPS base
![](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/{"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0004_oc.jpg"})
-
Chimney protection: beingness composed past a single wave corrugated fibreboard (East flute), this part was already optimised for assembly and it has not been redesigned;
-
Internal air numberless: these parts have been removed due to the improved design of the new EPS base of operations, which could provide an increased level of cushioning;
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0004_oc.jpg"})
No design changes have been performed in parts such as plastic cover, external tape, internal tape, clips, and labels. Indeed, all these parts have already a very reduced mass weight in the packaging assembly and they also take a lower number of P/F relationships. Figure 4 describes the redesigned EPS base of operations. The new pattern has aimed at reducing the number of internal packaging parts by increasing the thickness, the shape and the density of the EPS base. In this way, it has been possible to remove iv corners and four internal air bags.
Analysing the improvements related to the redesigned EPS base, Figure 5 shows the divergence between the start EPS base and the redesigned model. The top and length of the lateral protections take been increased also every bit the lateral reinforcements. These lateral reinforcements accept extended the contact with the corrugated fibreboard box. This characteristic has increased the commodity stability, avoiding the utilise of the lateral corners, though information technology has incremented the weight of the EPS base from 396 g to 531 g (approximately a 34% weight increase).
A pattern method for improving assembly and environmental sustainability in packaging solutions: a case report in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure five. Some details of the differences betwixt the start EPS base (a) and the redesigned model (b)
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0005_oc.jpg"})
4.three Life cycle assessment
Life Bicycle Assessment has been used to quantify the environmental impacts of the packaging solutions. The LCA has been structured according to the ISO 14,040 directives (ISO 14040 2006a,b). Equally functional unit of measurement, the packaging of a single kitchen hood has been chosen. The method ReCiPe 2016 in its 'Midpoint Hierarchist' version has been used to assess the impacts. In guild to encompass a range of pregnant environmental impacts, 12 ReCiPe characterisation categories have been chosen to consider: 'Global warming', 'Stratospheric ozone depletion', 'Terrestrial acidification', 'Freshwater eutrophication', 'Marine eutrophication', 'Terrestrial ecotoxicity', 'Freshwater ecotoxicity', 'Marine ecotoxicity', 'Human being carcinogenic toxicity', 'Land use', 'Fossil resources scarcity' and 'Water consumption'.
four.iii.2 Description of the system and system boundaries
This written report does not include the LCA of the kitchen hood manufacturing nor all the textile transportations between the unlike production stages. Figure 6 shows the materials and processes that accept been taken into the analysis.
A design method for improving assembly and environmental sustainability in packaging solutions: a example report in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure 6. LCA arrangement boundaries
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0006_oc.jpg"})
4.3.iii Life Cycle Inventory of the actual and redesigned packaging
All the LCI inputs used in this written report accept been taken from the Ecoinvent database (version 3.5), except the 'Electricity' input. This has been borrowed from the European Life Cycle Database (ELCD). The following sections explain how each phase/process has been modelled. Table 8 show the packaging items and their number in the 'Bodily Packaging' configuration and the 'Redesigned Packaging' configuration.
Table eight. List of packaging items for the actual and the redesigned packaging solution
Tables ix and 10 show a summary of the LCI inputs for each procedure/phase, with the relative consumption, for, respectively, the bodily and the redesigned packaging configuration.
Table 9. LCI inputs for the bodily packaging solution
Table 10. LCI inputs for the redesigned packaging solution
5 Results
Table xi shows the Life Cycle Cess results. The 'Redesigned Packaging' has shown to be able to cut all the considered ecology emissions, approximately of 30% on average. It is a consistent cut when information technology comes to 'Land use' and 'Terrestrial ecotoxicity' (respectively, 68% and 37%), while the cut is fairly low on 'Marine eutrophication' and 'Fossil resource scarcity' (xv% and xi%).
Tabular array eleven. Life Bike Impact Cess results
In lodge to give a ameliorate representation of the environmental savings of this Redesigned packaging, Table 12 and Figure 7 show the normalised LCA results, considering an annual product of 60,000 pieces (which was the real market demand in 2019 for the considered kitchen-hood model). These results have a unit expressing an impact per person and yr, also referred to as person equivalent.
A design method for improving associates and environmental sustainability in packaging solutions: a case study in household appliances
Published online:
17 May 2021
Figure 7. Normalised LCA results, expressed in person equivalent, for an annual product of 60.000 pieces
![]({"type":"image","src":"/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tsue20/2021/tsue20.v014.i04/19397038.2021.1920644/20211029/images/medium/tsue_a_1920644_f0007_oc.jpg"})
Table 12. Normalised LCA results, expressed in person equivalent, for an almanac production of 60.000 pieces
These results prove the ecology categories that are the most afflicted by the packaging production, in item: 'Marine ecotoxicity', 'Freshwater ecotoxicity', 'Homo carcinogenic toxicity' and 'Terrestrial ecotoxicity'. On the other hand, the environmental bear upon contributions of both the packaging solutions, for categories such as 'Stratospheric ozone depletion' and 'Marine eutrophication' have resulted to be negligible. The normalised results requite a better agreement of the savings in terms of environmental emission that the Redesigned packaging could allow to reach. For example, with the Redesigned packaging, in a twelvemonth, the emission of 4810 person equivalent could be saved in the 'Marine ecotoxicity' category, 2779 person equivalent in the 'Freshwater ecotoxicity' category, 1727 person equivalent in the 'Human carcinogenic toxicity' category, up to two person equivalent in the 'Stratospheric ozone depletion' category. From a 'lean production' point of view, the Redesigned packaging brought to save a ten% in assembly time, when compared to the Bodily packaging. This is due to the minor number of items it is composed and therefore its minor assembly complication.
6 Discussion and decision
Starting from identifying the functions, the functional requirements and the components of a packaging solution, this study has shown a viable and helpful approach to improve the design of a packaging solution, in terms of associates and sustainability. The proposed design approach aims at discovering which are the most of import functional requirements to be satisfied for a packaging solution and, at the same time, which are the nigh important parts composing it. The commencement aim has been reached by ranking the FRs co-ordinate to iii different design specifications (Customer Perception, Strategic Value and Lean Production). Simultaneously, the FRs have been also ranked co-ordinate to a Paired Comparison analysis, which highlights the relationships amidst the FRs. A terminal combined score for the FRs has been obtained by joining together the two previous single rank scores. The 2nd aim has been reached by analysing the unmarried parts and the functions they perform. This allows to rank the parts according to the number of performed functions and therefore to understand the single part importance. The importance is given by the fact that any modify on them would impact profoundly the whole packaging solution.
Once the ii ranks take been obtained, the designers are able to focus their attention on the most important parts according to the well-nigh important FRs that have to exist satisfied. This method considers a final evaluation stage, in which the new redesign solution is compared with the actual one, from a sustainability and assembly betoken of view. The results of these two comparisons have to be assessed by both the designers and the product managers, in order to approve the new pattern or discard it and kickoff over the process.
The proposed design approach has been tested on the instance of a kitchen hood packaging solution. In item, Life Cycle Assessment method has been used to assess the affect of both the actual and the redesigned packaging solution, over 12 different environmental categories. By following this design approach, the Redesigned packaging has shown an ecology bear upon reduction in all the environmental categories (approximately 30% on average). At the same time, the Redesigned packaging has allowed to salve time in the assembly line for approximately 10%.
It is important to underline that the general idea of this new design approach can be easily applied to whatsoever kind of packaging solution, not only household appliances. In guild to do that, specific prepare of functional requirements have to exist evaluated for each specific packaging application (households rather than food, rather than electronics, etc.), merely the general procedure explained past this paper tin can exist extended to whatsoever kind of packaging needs and requirements.
The proposed approach responds to the necessity to investigate specific backdrop in the packaging design such as assembly and eco-sustainability. Other properties can exist investigated and added in the final evaluation phase of the designed packaging, co-ordinate to the company goals. This method is indeed flexible and open up to customisation. The two properties to exist assessed in the final stage (assembly and eco-sustainability) have been called considering, nowadays, they are important for all kind of packaging. Indeed, an like shooting fish in a barrel associates configuration can reduce time and money related to the production packaging with important benefits in terms of line efficiency. The easier the packaging assembly, the more compliant with the Just-In-Time (JIT) paradigm the solution. In general, the parts and materials used to assemble a packaging are bought in large quantity and stored in the warehouse as a current nugget. Therefore, the reduction in terms of weight, volume, and quantity of parts permit to achieve important targets in terms of price and time. On the other hand, sustainability also means to achieve a low-cost configuration within a reduction of resources. This study in particular, has shown how the paper-thin reduction, replaced by a proper EPS design, has been able to ensure the same level of product protection, with a considerable reduction of the environmental impacts.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19397038.2021.1920644
0 Response to "Methods for the Assessment of Environmental Sustainability of Packaging a Review"
Post a Comment