Apr 8-PET single-serve bottles have less impact on the environment over their lifecycle than aluminium cans or glass bottles, according to a study commissioned by the PET Resin Association (PETRA).
The study, conducted by Franklin Associates, compared total energy, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions per 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in 20-ounce PET bottles, 8-ounce glass bottles or 12-ounce aluminium cans. The PET bottles showed lower greenhouse gas emissions, generated less waste and used less energy for their entire life cycle, the study said.
When comparing energy use, emissions and solid waste based on 10,000 equally-sized 12-ounce containers, total energy use was comparable. But the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from PET bottles was only two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions from aluminium cans and roughly half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from glass bottles.
There were less pounds of solid waste generated when comparing 12-ounce PET bottles to 12-ounce aluminium cans or 12-ounce glass bottles. But by volume, the amount of cubic yards generated was 16.5 cubic yards for aluminium cans, 29.9 cubic yards for PET bottles and between 37.3 and 44.1 cubic yards for glass bottles.
The portion of the study that compared 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in 20-ounce PET bottles, 8-ounce glass bottles and 12-ounce aluminium cans reported that greenhouse gas emissions during the lifecycle of PET bottles was 59 percent less than aluminium and 77 percent less than glass.
Energy use for the PET bottles totalled 11 million BTU per 100,000 ounces of soft drink, 16 million BTU for aluminium and 26.6 million BTU for glass.
Solid waste for the PET bottles totalled 302 pounds, 767 pounds for aluminium and 4,457 pounds for glass. Solid waste volume was 0.67 cubic yards for PET, 0.95 cubic yards for aluminium, 2.14 cubic yards for glass.
The life cycle analysis covered the period from the extraction of the raw materials through container fabrication and post-consumer disposal and recycling.
This study again confirms the excellent environmental profile and value of PET for packaging foods and beverages, said PETRA executive director Ralph Vasami. Since 2005, PET containers have been the subject of several independent life-cycle analyses and PET has consistently shown itself to be a sound environmental choice whether compared to glass, metal or other plastics.
The study, conducted by Franklin Associates, compared total energy, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions per 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in 20-ounce PET bottles, 8-ounce glass bottles or 12-ounce aluminium cans. The PET bottles showed lower greenhouse gas emissions, generated less waste and used less energy for their entire life cycle, the study said.
When comparing energy use, emissions and solid waste based on 10,000 equally-sized 12-ounce containers, total energy use was comparable. But the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from PET bottles was only two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions from aluminium cans and roughly half the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from glass bottles.
There were less pounds of solid waste generated when comparing 12-ounce PET bottles to 12-ounce aluminium cans or 12-ounce glass bottles. But by volume, the amount of cubic yards generated was 16.5 cubic yards for aluminium cans, 29.9 cubic yards for PET bottles and between 37.3 and 44.1 cubic yards for glass bottles.
The portion of the study that compared 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in 20-ounce PET bottles, 8-ounce glass bottles and 12-ounce aluminium cans reported that greenhouse gas emissions during the lifecycle of PET bottles was 59 percent less than aluminium and 77 percent less than glass.
Energy use for the PET bottles totalled 11 million BTU per 100,000 ounces of soft drink, 16 million BTU for aluminium and 26.6 million BTU for glass.
Solid waste for the PET bottles totalled 302 pounds, 767 pounds for aluminium and 4,457 pounds for glass. Solid waste volume was 0.67 cubic yards for PET, 0.95 cubic yards for aluminium, 2.14 cubic yards for glass.
The life cycle analysis covered the period from the extraction of the raw materials through container fabrication and post-consumer disposal and recycling.
This study again confirms the excellent environmental profile and value of PET for packaging foods and beverages, said PETRA executive director Ralph Vasami. Since 2005, PET containers have been the subject of several independent life-cycle analyses and PET has consistently shown itself to be a sound environmental choice whether compared to glass, metal or other plastics.
