lca pet

7/23/2019 LCA PET

1/14

Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, 2008 125

Copyright 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottlesand comparative LCA of three disposal optionsin Mauritius

Rajendra Kumar Foolmaunand Toolseeram Ramjeawon*

Faculty of Engineering,

University of Mauritius, Republic of Mauritius

Fax: + 230 210 5751 Fax: 230-4657144

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Abstract: Disposal of the increasing volume of used PolyethyleneTerephthalate (PET) bottles has been a cause for concern for the MauritianGovernment. To assist Government in decision-making, a study on PET bottlesand its disposal was undertaken using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool.Three disposal scenarios, namely (100%) landfilling; (100%) incineration; and50% landfilling and 50% incineration were compared. Sima Pro 5.1 softwarewas used to analyse data and Eco-indicator 99 method was used for the impactassessment. The results showed that about 90% of the total environmentalimpact happened during the assembly and use phase of PET bottles. 100%incineration was found to be the most preferred option.

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment; LCA; Polyethylene Terephthalate; PET;PET bottles; plastic bottles; solid wastes.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Foolmaun, R.K. andRamjeawon, T. (2008) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles andcomparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius, Int. J. Environmentand Waste Management, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, pp.125138.

Biographical notes: R.K. Foolmaun is presently working as EnvironmentOfficer in the Ministry of Environment and National Development Unit.He is a part time Doctoral student at the University of Mauritius andundergoing a research on the Life Cycle Assessment of PolyethyleneTerephthalate bottles in Mauritius.

Toolseeram Ramjeawon is an Associate Professor of EnvironmentalEngineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University ofMauritius. He has more than 15 years of relevant experience in the area of

environment policy and management. He is part of the International Life CyclePanel of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and also the coordinator of theAfrican Life Cycle Assessment Network (ALCANET).

1 Introduction

The island of Mauritius is 1865 Km2 in land area and lies about 800 Km south east of

Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. It is a relatively densely populated island (population

7/23/2019 LCA PET

2/14

126 R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

of 1.13 million in 2000). Over the past 20 years Mauritius has achieved an average of 5%

annual economic growth and the per capita income in 2005 was about US$5000, rankingMauritius as an upper middle-income country. In parallel to the economic growth, the

volume and nature of wastes has changed significantly. Around 1200 tons of municipal

solid wastes are generated daily. Most of the solid wastes are compacted in five transfer

stations before being sent to the sole sanitary landfill on the island. The latter is presently

filled to around 60% of its total capacity and is expected to be saturated in 2008 if the

present waste trend continues. GoM (2000) and Bro (2003) have recommended that

landfilling be continued as a viable option for disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

for the short and medium term while the option of incineration be incorporated along

with landfilling from the year 2013. In September 2006, the Board of Investment in

Mauritius gave a letter of intent to a private company to incinerate 300,000 T of MSW

annually from the year 2009 and to generate 20 MW of energy which would be sold to

the national grid. As it is projected that the amount of solid waste generated will increaseto 466,000 T in the year 2013 (GoM, 2005), it means that both the incinerator plant and a

new landfill will have to be operated in the near future.

PET containers form part of our daily life and the rising consumption has resulted in

the disposal of about 70 millions of used PET bottles annually in Mauritius. In the

absence of other disposal alternatives, used PET bottles are disposed of, co-mingled with

domestic waste at the sole sanitary landfill. Used PET bottles occupy a relatively large

volume in the landfill, whilst constituting an eyesore in the form of litter in the

environmental landscape.

LCA is a decision support tool that facilitates the comparison of alternative

products and services that perform the same function from an environmental perspective.

The methodology also allows analysis of services, such as waste management

(Finnveden, 1999). A literature review showed that studies have been conducted on,

either, part of the life cycle of PET bottle (Boustead, 1995), or on the whole life cycle

(Person et al., 1998). Boustead (1995) performed an eco-profile of bottle grade PET

polymers starting from raw materials extraction and up to the production of the polymer

resins (i.e., cradle to gate analysis). The eco-profile essentially presented quantified

results for inputs in terms of raw materials used, the energy requirements and outputs in

terms of air, water and solid waste emissions. Person et al. (1998) on the other hand,

carried out a LCA of disposable PET bottle as part of a study on LCA of packaging

systems which aimed at comparing the potential environmental impacts associated

with different packaging systems for beer and soft drinks filled and sold in Denmark.

These two researchers used the EDIP method for the impact assessment and found

out that disposable PET bottles contributed mostly to the following five impact

categories:

ecotoxicity, terrestrial

human toxicity

Photochemical Ozone Formation (POCP)

Global warming (GWP)

acidification.

7/23/2019 LCA PET

3/14

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA 127

Disposal of used PET bottles is an important phase of the PET life cycle and has been the

subject of several studies (Craighill and Powell, 1996; Denison, 1996; Ayalon et al.,2000; Grant et al., 2001; Von Krogh et al.,2001; Mlgaard, 1995; Reid Lea, 1996; Song

and Hyun, 1999; Perugini et al., 2004). Out of the nine studies reviewed, seven

studies (Mlgaard, 1995; Denison, 1996; Reid Lea, 1996; Ayalon et al., 2000; Grant

et al., 2001; Von Krogh et al., 2001; Perugini et al., 2004) showed a general preference

for recycling as a disposal option for PET bottles. However, the review also showed

that the most appropriate disposal method of PET bottles depends on a number

of local factors. White et al. (1999) stated that there was no optimal system for waste

management due to the geographic differences in waste characteristics, energy sources,

availability of some disposal options, and size of markets for products derived from waste

management. Mendes et al. (2004) further reported that the optimal system for any given

region should be determined locally so as to reduce the environmental impact.

The aim of this study was to compare the environmental effects during the whole lifecycle (from manufacture to waste management) of the usage of PET plastic material for

bottling applications on the island of Mauritius using the LCA methodology, and to use

the LCA tool to compare three alternative disposal methods for the used PET bottles,

namely:

disposal of used PET bottles by landfilling-the plastic bottles that are generated in

households are collected together with residual waste and deposited in a landfill

disposal of used PET bottles by incineration with energy recovery-the plastic bottles

that are generated in households are collected with the source sorted plastic

packaging and sent to an incinerator

disposal of 50% of the used PET bottles by landfilling and 50% by incineration.

The results of the study are meant to be employed at the industrial level in order to select

the most environment friendly plastic material for bottling, and for waste management

authorities to select the most appropriate disposal method. The waste management

options have been selected based on the future development of this sector in Mauritius

and the future implementation of a municipal incinerator in 2009.

2 Methodology

This study has been based upon the LCA methodology, as described in the

ISO Standards 1404014043 (1997, 1998, 2000). The method chosen, due to the

relevance of the impact factors for the study, is Eco-Indicator 99 end-point method.

In this method, normalisation and weighting are performed at three different damagecategory levels:

HH: Human Health (unit DALY = Disability Adjusted Life Years).

EQ: Ecosystem Quality (unit: PDF*m2yr; PDF = Potentially Disappeared Fraction of

plant species).

R: Resources (unit: MJ surplus energy; Additional energy requirement to compensate

lower future ore grade).

7/23/2019 LCA PET

4/14


2.1 Scope definition

For the system function of beverage bottles made of PET during their whole lifetime, the

functional unit was defined as the production, use and disposal of 1000 packs of 1.5 L

PET bottles, used for the packaging of 9000 litres of beverage. One pack contains six

1.5 L PET bottles enclosed by a plastic film made up of LDPE.

For the assessment and comparison of the disposal scenarios, the functional unit

chosen was the disposal of 1 tonne of used PET bottles. Caps amount to around 5% of the

total weight and the labels amount to around 1% of the total weight.

2.2 System boundary

The process tree is illustrated in Figure 1. We are taking into account the entire life-cycle

of the bottles, from the raw material (oil) to the moment they lose, totally, their value(landfilling). The system boundary, therefore, includes extraction of raw materials and

manufacture of PET pellets; importation of PET pellets from South Africa; conversion of

PET pellets to PET preforms at a local industry in Mauritius; blowing of PET preforms

into PET bottles (prior to bottling) at another local industry; distribution, use and

disposal. Productions of materials for secondary packaging and cap inserts made from

polypropylene are included in the LCA. Since most used PET bottles are disposed of

commingled with municipal solid waste, it is assumed that all used PET bottles were

disposed of by landfilling.

2.3 Main assumptions and data gaps

Consumers disposed their used PET bottles after use without any washing.

Electricity was generated from oil only.

For comparison of the disposal scenarios, it was assumed that the incineration

facility is situated close to the landfilling plant.

Within Mauritius, 16 T trucks that run on diesel as fuel, are used for distribution of

bottled water and for collection of used PET bottles. Average transport distances

used for calculations were as follows:

average car distance travelled by consumers cars to shopping centre: 5 Km

average distance covered by 16 T truck for transportation of PET preforms to

PET bottling plant: 18 Km

average distance covered for distribution of bottled water to the retail outlets:20 Km

average distance travelled by 16 T trucks for disposal at landfill: 25 Km.

7/23/2019 LCA PET

5/14


Figure 1 Flow chart of LCA of PET bottles

2.4 Sensitivity analysis

A Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate the influence on the results by

altering the source of electricity generation from oil to electricity generation from coal, as

it is anticipated that there will be a greater share of electricity generation from coal in theelectricity mix in the future.

3 Inventory analysis

3.1 Data collection

Data were collected during visits to the two local industries (one industry

which transforms PET pellets to PET preforms and another industry which blows

7/23/2019 LCA PET

6/14


the PET preforms into PET bottles prior to filling and bottling) and from the following

sources: technical reports, Central Statistics Office reports of the Republic of Mauritius.In the absence of relevant data in Mauritius, the data gaps were filled in using

data from Sima Pro software databases, particularly the Swiss BUWAL 2000

database, on the assumptions that the conditions under which these data apply in

Europe are similar to Mauritius. Data collected were processed and analysed using the

SimaPro 5.1 software.

3.2 Inventory analysis

3.2.1 Inventory analysis results for PET life cycle

The results show that 177 kgs of crude oil were used as feedstock and 6410 MJ of

energy was required to produce 6000 PET bottles of 1.5 L volume. This production

emitted 2420 Kg of carbon dioxide, 23.4 Kg of SO x, 8.87 Kg of NOx and 31.7 Kg ofmethane. The result of the inventory analysis is summarised and presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of inventory analysis result for PET life cycle

Input

Raw materials Energy input

Substance Unit Amount Substance Unit Amount

Crude oil (feedstock) Kg 177 Natural gas (Vol) M3 110

Biomass g 210 Crude oil ETH Kg 593

Natural gas (feedstock) M3 84 Coal ETH Kg 37.7

Rock salt Kg 1.44 Lignite ETH Kg 36.6

Limestone Kg 1.46 Natural gas ETH M3 24.9Manure g 860 Pot. energy hydropower Mj 201

Process and cooling water M3 4.2

Process water L 3.09

Steam from wasteincineration

Mj 954

Water (cooling) Kg 680

Wood Kg 6.57

Wood (feedstock) Kg 4.52

Energy input from electricity Mj 6410

Output

Airborne emissions mount Waterborne emissions Amount Solid waste emissions Amount

Substance (Kg) Substance (Kg) Substance (Kg)

CO 4.43 Anorg. dissolved

substance

10.4 Mineral waste

(mining)

7.14

CO2 2420 BOD 0.25 Waste bioactivelandfill

3.69

CxHy 1.93 Chlorate ions 7.38 E03 Waste in inert landfill 0.058

Dust 1.63 Chloride ions 18.1 Emissions to soil

Methane 31.7 COD 0.96 Substance (mg)

Non-methane VOC 12.2 Suspended subst. 1.61 Pb 369

NOx(as NO2) 8.87 TOC 3.05 Cd 90.8

SOx(as SO2) 23.4 Waste water (Vol) (m3) 460 Hg 23.7

7/23/2019 LCA PET

7/14


The inventory analysis results of the PET life cycle were compared with that of the study

conducted by Person et al. (1998) in Table 2. The deviations are due to the followingreasons:

Differentwaste disposal scenarios. The present study considered landfilling as a

disposal method for used PET bottles while Person et al., considered recycling (90%)

and incineration with energy recovery (10%) as disposal alternatives. Their study

assumed that the recycled PET replaced equal amounts of virgin PET and PET

recycled from other products. Recycling implies fewer raw materials were utilised

and thus lower air and water emissions. Incineration with energy recovery on the

other hand, implied avoided energy and emissions

Person et al. expanded their system boundaries so as to include parts of other life

cycles affected by the outflow of recycled PET bottles and parts of other life cycles

that were affected by energy recovery from waste incineration.

In the present study electricity was produced from heavy oil which has higher air

emissions as compared to a mixture of light fuel oil, hydropower, coal and

alternative sources such as peat as used in study by Person et al.

Transport distances used in the present study are smaller, since Mauritius is a small

island state, compared to distances used in Denmark by Person et al.

Table 2 Comparison of results of this study with Person et al. (1998) (for a functional unit of9000 litres of packaged beverage)

Parameter Unit Present study Person et al. (1998)

Mass of unit PET bottle g 34 42

Crude oil (feedstock) kg 177 218

Bauxite g 77.8 86.22

Methane Kg 31.7 21.78

CO Kg 4.43 6.32

Carbon dioxide Kg 2420 1755

Dust Kg 1.63 1.64

NMVOC Kg 12.2 0.5

NOx Kg 8.87 9.9

H2S mg 340 2709

SO2 Kg 23.4 11.79

HCl g 105 126

BOD g 250 255.6COD g 961 1386

Oil g 29.4 65.7

Hg mg 54.5 28.62

AOX g 3.09 1.26

Chloride Kg 18.1 4.27

7/23/2019 LCA PET

8/14


3.2.2 Inventory analysis results for the disposal scenarios

Table 3 provides a summary of emissions occurring for disposal Scenarios 13, and the

following can be observed:

Scenarios 2 and 3-incorporating incineration had higher emissions of Carbon

dioxide compared to Scenario 1

Scenarios 1 and 3 had higher emissions of methane with respect to Scenario 2, due to

the anaerobic decomposition of paper labels in the landfill

with the exception of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, all emissions of

Scenario 2 bear negative values due to avoided emissions from energy recovery.

Table 3 Summary of emissions for Scenarios 13

Substances UnitScenario 1:

landfill (100%)Scenario 2: incin.

100%with energy recoveryScenario 350%

landfill and 50% incin.

Air emissions

CO g 413 120 267

CO2 Kg 381 4.54E3 2.46E3

Dust Kg 0.0828 1.48 0.697

Methane Kg 38.7 4.53 17.1

NM-Voc Kg 0.47 8.76 4.15

Nox (as NO2) Kg 1.13 5.42 2.15

Sox (as SO2) Kg 1.22 39.2 19

Water emissions

Anorg. dissolved subs. Kg 0.492 19.4 9.45

BOD g 0.101 2.48 1.19Chloride ions Kg 4.9 26.6 10.8

COD g 3.29 42.9 19.8

Oil g 25 18.5 21.7

Sulphate Kg 3.04 0.95 1.05

Suspended solids Kg 0.0665 3.3 1.62

TOC Kg 2.94 0.0681 1.44

Emissions to soil

Carbon Kg 2 Nil 0.999

Cd mg 93.9 Nil 47

Hg mg 25 Nil 12.5

N-tot g 120 Nil 59.9

P-tot g 3.99 Nil 2

Pb mg 66.9 Nil 33.5

4 Impact assessment

Since normalisation and weighting were performed by the Eco-indicator 99 method

the interpretation of results is mainly based on single score and characterisation.

The following impact categories were considered in the model: Carcinogens,

7/23/2019 LCA PET

9/14


Respiratory organics, Respiratory inorganics, Climate change, Ecotoxicity, Ozone layer,

Acidification/Eutrophication, Mineral and Fossil fuel.

4.1 Impact assessment of PET life cycle

The results of impact assessment were reported for two separate phases: assembly

and use phase and the disposal phase. The assembly and use phase included the

extraction of raw materials (i.e., PET, PP, LDPE); polymerisation of PET, PP and LDPE;

manufacture of paper; shipping of these materials to Mauritius; transformation of the

PET pellets to preforms and PET bottles; and distribution of the bottled water.

The disposal phase reflected the waste management method for the disposal of used

PET bottles.

The results indicated that the highest environmental impacts occurred during the

assembly and use phase (Figure 2), more specifically under the damage categoryResources (Figure 3) owing to the relatively high utilisation of fuel and minerals.

The data show that during the production of PET resin, besides oil, a substantial amount

of minerals is used (Fe, Limestone, KCl, Bauxite, Sulphur, NaCl).

Two processes, namely electricity generation from oil in Mauritius and industrial

manufacture of PET pellets in South Africa, contributed to around 90% of the total

environmental impacts (Figure 4). The process contribution results also reveal that

transport contributes very little (0.01%) to the total environmental loads while the

disposal phase contributes to only 5% of the total environmental impact. A break down of

the disposal phase indicated that landfilling of paper labels causes the highest

environmental impacts as shown in Figure 5, while disposal of PET plastic contribute to

only 5.4% of the total environmental impacts. This is explained by the fact that landfilled

paper labels decompose readily in the anaerobic landfill environment to release methane

while PET bottles, like other plastics, do not degrade readily in landfills.

Figure 2 Single score LCIA result of 1000 packs of PET bottles

7/23/2019 LCA PET

10/14


Figure 3 Weighted result of LCIA of 1000 packs of PET bottles

Figure 4 Results of process contribution analysis

Figure 5 Percentage environmental impacts of processes within the waste disposal phase

7/23/2019 LCA PET

11/14


4.2 Impact assessment of Scenarios 13

The results are illustrated in Figure 6, which shows that the scenarios incorporating

incineration had negative values for the impact assessments owing to avoided emissions.

Between the two scenarios incorporating incineration, Scenario 2 had higher negative

values (258 pt) as compared to Scenario 3 (121 pt).

Figure 6 Impact assessment results for comparative scenarios

4.3 Sensitivity analysis

Since electricity generation caused the highest environmental impact in the life cycle of

PET bottles, the influence of altering the source of electricity generation on the present

results was investigated. For this purpose, electricity generation in the LCA of PET

bottles was altered to electricity generation using coal instead of oil. The sensitivity

analysis showed that altering electricity generation from oil to coal had a relatively

significant effect on the damage category, Resources (decrease by 48%) (Table 4).

This highlights the importance of developing the environmental impact for the electricity

mix in the country to improve the accuracy of the results.

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of LCIA results (weighted)

Impact indicators UnitElectricity generated

with oilElectricity generated

with coal Difference (%)

Human health Pt 83.1 90.4 8.07

Ecosystem quality Pt 12.1 9.74 19.5

Resources Pt 139 72.4 47.92

Total Pt 234 173 21.37

7/23/2019 LCA PET

12/14


5 Interpretation

The impact assessment results show that the highest environmental impact occurred

during the assembly and use phase, more particularly under the damage category,

Resources. The process contribution results reveal that during the life cycle of PET

bottles in Mauritius, the highest environmental impacts can be attributed to the electricity

generation from oil for consumption in two processes: the transformation of PET

pellets into PET preforms (1422.5 KWh) and the blowing of preforms to PET bottles

(359.15 KWh). The highest environmental impacts in Mauritius, therefore, occurred at

the transformation process of PET pellets into PET preforms. The process contribution

results also indicated that the disposal method has a much lower environmental impact

compared to the assembly and use phase.

The investigation of the three disposal scenarios for used PET bottles show that

scenarios incorporating incineration had lower environmental impacts compared to thescenario of landfilling. This finding is in agreement with some of the earlier studies

reviewed, such as Lea (1996) and Denison (1999), which found incineration to be better

than landfilling. Other studies comparing disposal alternatives and conducted by Chung

and Poon (1996), Arena et al. (2003) and Mendes et al. (2004) on municipal solid waste

showed similar findings.

6 Conclusions

During the life cycle of PET bottles, the highest environmental impacts occurred

within the assembly and use phase and were attributed to only two processes:

electricity generation from oil and production of PET pellets. On the island, the

highest environmental impacts occurred during electricity production from oil.

Transport contributed very little to the total environmental loads.

Comparison of the three disposal scenarios indicated that energy recovery gave a net

environmental benefit for most of the impact categories. Landfilling gave the highest

environmental burdens when compared to energy recovery.

References

Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L. and Perugini, F. (2003) The environmental performance of alternativesolid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study, Chemical EngineeringJournal,Vol. 96, pp.207222.

Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y. and Shechter, M. (2000) Application of a comparative

multi-dimensional LCA in solid waste management policy: the case of soft drink containers,In Journal of Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 3, Nos. 23, April, pp.135144.

Boustead, I. (1995) Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry, Report 8: PolyethyleneTerephthalate (PET), Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe Technical andenvironmental Centre, Brussels.

Bro, C. (2003) Environmental Solid Waste Management Project, Feasibility Report, Ministry ofLocal Government. Government of Mauritius. Port-Louis.

7/23/2019 LCA PET

13/14


Chung, S.S. and Poon, C.S. (1996) Evaluating waste management alternatives by the multiple

criteria approach,Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 17, pp.189210.Craighill A.L. and Powell, J.C. (1996) Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of

recycling: a case study,Resource Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 17, pp.7596.

Denison, R.A. (1996) Environmental lifecycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling, andincineration: a review of recent studies, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,Vol. 21, p.191237.

Finnveden, G. (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid wastemanagement systems,Resour. Conserv. Recy., Vol. 26, No. 314, pp.173187.

GoM (2005) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Ministry of Environment &NDU, Mauritius Staking out the Future, Chapter 9, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius,pp.143159.

Grant, T., James, K.L., Lundie, S. and Sonneveld, K. (2001) Life Cycle Assessment for Paper andPackaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria, Final report of Stage 2.

ISO 14040 (1997) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles andFramework, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

ISO 14041 (1998) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Goal and ScopeDefinition and Inventory Analysis, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

ISO 14042 (2000) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle ImpactAssessment, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

ISO 14043 (2000) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life CycleInterpretation, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.

Lea, R.W. (1996) Plastic incineration versus recycling: a comparison of energy and landfill costsavings,Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 47, pp.295302.

Mendes, M.R. Amaraki, T. and Hanaki, K. (2004) Comparison of the environmental impact ofincineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo city as determined by LCA, Resources,Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.4763.

Mlgaard, C. (1995) Environmental impacts by disposal of plastic from municipal solid waste,Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.5163.

Person, L., Ekvall, T. and Weidema, B.P. (1998) Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems forBeer and Soft Drinks, Technical report 6: disposable PET bottles. Ministry of Environmentand Energy, Denmark, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Miljprojekt No. 405,p.198.

Perugini, F., Mastellone, M.L. and Umberto, A. (2004) Environmental aspects of mechanicalrecycling of PE and PET: a life cycle assessment study, Progress in Rubber, Plastics andRecycling Technology,Vol. 20 No. 1, pp.6984.

Song, H.S. and Hyun, J.C. (1999) A study on the comparison of the various waste managementscenarios for PET bottles using the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, Resources,Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 27 pp.267284.

von Krogh, L., Lerche Raadal, H. and Jorgen Hanssen, O. (2001) Life Cycle Assessment ofDifferent Scenarios for Waste Treatment of as Plastic Bottle Used for Food Packaging,

OR 39.01, Ostfold Research Foundation.

White, P.R., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Mangement- A Life CycleInventory, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Aspen Publishers Inc., Chapman & Hall, New York.

7/23/2019 LCA PET

14/14


Bibliography

Clift, R., Doig, A. and Finnveden, G.(2000) The application of life cycle assessment to integratedwaste management. Part I. methodology, Trans. IchemE., Vol. 78(B), p.279287.

Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, J., Franklin, W., Jensen, A.A., de Oude, N., Parrish, R.,Perriman, R., Postlethwaite, D., Quay, B., Seguin, J. and Vignon, B. (Eds.) (1993) Guidelinesfor Life Cycle Assessment: a Code of Practice, SETAC, Brussels.

CSO (2005) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Central Statistical Office,Digest of Environment Statistics for the Year 2005, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius.

GoM (2000) Government of the Republic of Mauritius, Report of the Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, Productivity and Regional Development, Feasibility Study Final Report onEnvironmental Solid Waste Management Programme, Mauritius, and prepared byFichtner GmBh. for the Republic of Mauritius, Chapter 2, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius,pp.2-12-48.

GoM (2002) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Ministry of Environment,

Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius, p.169.McDougall, F.R., White, P., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (2001)Integrated Solid Waste Management,

A Life Cycle Inventory, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science.

Oodit, D. (2004)A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the Roof Construction Materials Used inthe Mauritian Housing Sector, MSc Environmental Engineering dissertation, University ofMauritius, Reduit, Republic of Mauritius, p.77.

SETAC (1991) A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments, Society for EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry, Washington DC.

Tan, R.R. and Culaba, A.B. (2002) Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment: A Tool for Public andCorporate Policy Development, p.12, www.lcacenter.org/library/pdf/PSME2002a.pdf-, dateaccessed July 2005.

lca pet

Documents