Page 366 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

350 5 Life Cycle Interpretation, Reporting and Critical Review

Table 5.3 Comparison beverage carton with closure and PET single-use bottle in the market
segment juice/nectar – storage (1 l filling) with application of different allocation rules.

Indicator 50 : 50-allocation 100 : 0-allocation
Carton system (1 l) versus Carton system (1 l) versus
PET system (1 l) corresponds PET system (1 l) (%)
to Table 5.1 (%)

Greenhouse effect −167 −204
Fossil resources consumption −164 −123
Summer smog (POCP) +42 +81
Acidification −23 −16
Terrestrial eutrophication −37 −38
Aquatic eutrophication −26 −51
Land use – forest area +999 +622
Cumulative energy demand −48 −40
(CED) total

Relative system differences, in each case related to the smaller result (computational
differences without specification of a significance threshold).
Negative values: indicator value of the beverage carton is smaller than the one of the PET
bottle.
Positive values: indicator value of the beverage carton is larger than the one of the PET bottle.
POCP, photo oxidant creation potential.

For individual categories, the relative differences decrease for an appli-
cation of the 100 : 0 allocation, while they increase for others. In no case,
however, does the tendency or significance of the results change.

5.6.7
Restrictions

In principle, it is assumed in the study that the results are sound and robust.

In the opinion of the practitioners, the results of base scenarios of the
examined packaging systems and of system comparisons based on those
are sound and robust within the defined boundary conditions. In case of a
deviation from these boundary conditions, the following restrictions should
be considered for an application of the results of the study.

The study addresses a set of restrictions, of which only some are stated below
as an illustration. In the study, the restrictions are, however, described in further
detail. The following list is only meant to indicate the possible restrictions: