Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

The impact of packaging recyclable ability on environment: Case and

scenario analysis of polypropylene express boxes and corrugated cartons
Xin Guo a,1, Shujun Yao a,1, Qingfeng Wang c, Hailong Zhao d,e, Yu Zhao a, Fuhua Zeng f, Lijiang Huo a, Hao Xing a,
⁎
Yang Jiang a, Yanna Lv a,b,
a
School of Light Industry and Chemical Engineering, Dalian Polytechnic University, Dalian 116034, Liaoning, PR China
b
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Clean Pulp & Papermaking and Pollution Control, Colloge of Light Industry and Food Engineering, Guangxi University, Nanning 53004, Guangxi, PR China
c
School of Information Science and Engineering, Dalian Polytechnic University, Dalian 116034, Liaoning, PR China
d
School of Energy and Safety Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384, Tianjin, PR China
e
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
f
School of West European Language, Chengdu Institute Sichuan International Studies University, Chengdu 611844, Sichuan, PR China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Environmental impacts of PP boxes and

corrugated cartons were compared via
LCA.
• Applicable LCA evaluation model of recy-
clable express packages was established.
• Scenario and multiple indicators analysis
avoided environmental problem-shifting.
• Life cycle inventories of recyclable express
packages are established.
• Integrated impact indexes were evaluated
by ECER analysis.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: With the push for sustainable design strategies, recyclable packaging is widely favored by the public in the express de-
Received 26 October 2021 livery industry due to its potential for lowering environmental burden and solving climatic challenges. The goal of this
Received in revised form 30 December 2021 paper was to quantify and integrate the environmental footprints of polypropylene hollow board express box (PPH-EB)
Accepted 30 January 2022
and establish evaluation model between the recyclable ability and environment performance (EMRE) based on life
Available online 4 February 2022
cycle assessment. This work was carried out by multiple indicators to avoid environmental problem-shifting, and cor-
Editor: Deyi Hou rugated cartons express box (C-EB) was taken as control objects. The results show that integrated index of PPH-EB is
94.42% lower than that of C-EB. Industrial Water Use (IWU), Primary Energy Demand (PED) and SO2 are major factors
Keywords: affecting results of PPH-EB, which mainly come from polypropylene particles and water resource consumption from
Recyclable packaging recycle process. The most obvious advantage of PPH-EB compared with C-EB is the nearly 1700 times difference in nor-
Life cycle assessment malized COD index caused by direct emission of paper preparation process. Scenario analysis showed that integrated
Environmental profile index of PPH-EB was lower than that of traditional corrugated cartons after more than twice of use, but if the recycling
PP express boxes times of PPH-EB continued to increase, the effect on reducing environmental burden was no longer significant. There-
Corrugated cartons
fore, although the recyclable times plays a role in decreasing the environmental impact, it is not a permanent strategy.
In the design stage of the recyclable express box, the recyclable ability should be reasonably designed through EMRE,
so as to minimize the environmental burden.

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Light Industry and Chemical Engineering, Dalian Polytechnic University, Dalian 116034, Liaoning, PR China.
E-mail address: lvyn@dlpu.edu.cn (Y. Lv).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153650
0048-9697/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Guo et al.
1. Introduction
Plastic was once considered one of the “most successful” materials ever
created because of its low cost, easy manufacturing and stable physical and
chemical properties. According to statistics, there are millions of tons of
plastic output every year in the world, of which over 40% are used in the
packaging industry (Groh et al., 2019; Korley et al., 2021; Law and
Narayan, 2021). Such large amount of the plastic package waste has devel-
oped into a global problem of plastic white pollution. This is mostly due to
the CC backbone's polymer molecular structure's remarkable resistance to
breakdown, which means that after usage without incineration, such
long-lasting material will remain for decades or more, posing environmen-
tal contamination issues (Borrelle et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2020). This prob-
lem can be addressed by banning certain non-biodegradable plastics,
developing alternatives, and strengthening supervision of production
sources to reduce the environmental burden of products and their impact
on fossil fuel supplies and climate change (Clapp and Swanston, 2009;
Heidbreder et al., 2019; Soares et al., 2022). For example, the use of bio-
based plastics is recommended instead of traditional petroleum-based plas-
tics successfully (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012; Kamau-Devers and Miller,
2020; Thakur et al., 2018). However, the high price and barrier perfor-
mance of bio-based materials are still in the promotion stage. In addition,
a popular way in the express packaging industry at present is to develop
novel turnover express package to replace single-use corrugated board ex-
press boxes (SC-EB), such as polypropylene hollow board express boxes
(PPH-EB) (Coelho et al., 2020; Eygen et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2020). It is
an attempt to reduce the environmental footprint (EF) of express packaging
by repeated recycling.
Polypropylene (PP) is produced by refining, polymerization and separa-
tion of propylene, a by-product of petroleum refining (Beigbeder et al.,
2019; Luz et al., 2010). Among various polymer options, its low cost, ex-
traordinary low density, non-toxic and tasteless, stiffness, friction resis-
tance, corrosion resistance and excellent moisture-proof performance that
make it quite appealing for use in daily life, including express packaging
(Xanthos, 2012). PPH-EB made of PP is advertised that its recycled times
can be up to 20 times or more (People.cn, 2019). At present, the express
packaging market also takes PPH-EB as a typical green express packaging
for extensive promotion. However, whether such a recyclable strategy
will bring environmental benefits or burden needs to be proved by scientific
quantitative data. Key points may be in the recyclable times, additional
packaging auxiliary materials and cleaning process before reuse cause envi-
ronmental burden (BOXES, 2021; Xanthos, 2012). However, there is a lack
of research on PPH-EB environmental footprint quantization and its
relationship with recyclable ability. In all possible cases, does a recyclable
strategy have a significant potential for environmental improvement per-
manently? In order to prevent the development of sustainable packaging
concept from deviating from the track, it is urgent to use scientific quantita-
tive analysis method to evaluate the environmental footprint of packaging,
and put forward the key points that need to be optimized according to the
results, so as to serve as reference for the eco-design decision of express
packaging and the policy making of rational reuse.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique and method used to assess the
potential environmental impact of a product or service throughout its life
cycle(Guinée and Lindeijer, 2002; ISO, 2006). This method can be used to
quantify the EF of packaging. For example, our previous work quantified
the potential of different functional fillers to reduce the EF of PLA-based
packaging containers using the LCA approach (Guo et al., 2021). Based
on the LCA method, Yi's research team (Yi et al., 2017) evaluated the EF
of single and double corrugated express boxes, and the results showed
that the production and use stages of the boxes consume the most energy
and cause the most environmental impact. One layer tank can reduce mate-
rial and energy input, can replace two layers tank, reduce environmental
impact. Koskela (Koskela et al., 2014) using LCA method to analysis the en-
vironmental characteristics of corrugated cardboard and HDPE plastic
recycling boxes, and the results showed that all the environmental indica-
tors of that were lower than HDPE corrugated carton boxes, the main
2
Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650
reason is that plastic raw materials for production process and the cumula-
tive environmental impact is huge. However, there is still a lack of compar-
ative studies to explain whether the same conclusion can be reached for
PPH-EB and corrugated cartons express box (C-EB). It is worth note that
the impact relationship between the recyclable times and the environmen-
tal footprint is needed to be further studied.
In this study, PPH-EB and C-EB are selected as research objects, and LCA
method is adopted to conduct comparative analysis on their EF under the
premise of multiple indicators. Based on energy conservation and emission
reduction policies (ECER) in China, the integrated environmental indexes
of the two products were calculated. The evaluation model between the re-
cyclable ability and environment performance (EMRE) will be established
through scenario analysis, and suggestions will be put forward to further re-
duce the environmental burden, so as to provide choices for sustainable
packaging design decisions and reference for the formulation of recycling
strategies.
2. Materials and methods
This study takes enterprise survey data and industry statistics as exam-
ples. For PPH-EB, the full life cycle of it was assessed from the aspects of
PP hollow board production, PPH-EB production, transportation, cleaning
and waste treatment. In view of C-EB, its research scope includes paper pro-
duction, corrugated board production, C-EB production, recycling, trans-
portation and waste treatment.
In accordance with ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006) and ISO 14067 (Hohenthal
et al., 2019; ISO, 2018), the LCA study was conducted for two types of pack-
aging cases in four main steps: goal and scope definition, inventory analy-
sis, impact assessment and interpretation. The eFootprint online software
system developed by IKE Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. was used to
calculate, which is compatible with CLCD (Chinese Reference Life Cycle Da-
tabase), ELCD (European Reference Life Cycle Database) and Ecoinvent da-
tabases, and has been adopted by many users (Haafiz et al., 2019; Lv et al.,
2021; Zhao et al., 2020, 2021a,b). Foreground data comes from enterprises
and industry statistics data, CLCD 0.8.1 is preferred for background process
data, and Ecoinvents-Public2.2.0, Ecoinvent 3.1.0 and ELCD 3.0.0 are used
for the rest.
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this study is to compare and analyze the environmental foot-
print of PPH-EB and C-EB, and to establish EMRE based on the scenario
analysis. The functional unit of this study is the number of express boxes
used to complete a logistics transportation. According to the external pub-
licity of the enterprise, allowable recycled times of PPH-EB and C-EB are
set to 20 times and once respectively. In order to maintain comparability,
the size of both express boxes is 300 × 200 × 150 mm, in particular,
both packages have been actually produced and won the first prize in the
2020 SF Logistics Competition (SF-LOGISTICS, 2020). The packaging struc-
ture of the two packages was the same, and the innovative structure real-
ized that the express boxes could be transported without tape. Therefore,
the packaging auxiliary materials were not considered in the study. The sys-
tem boundary is from cradle to grave, including the process of raw material
production, transportation, use and packaging waste treatment. The system
boundaries are shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Life cycle inventory
Inventory data of PPH-EB and C-EB is shown in Supplementary informa-
tion (Tables S1 and S2). Foreground data, such as express boxes production,
PP hollow board production, corrugated board production, paper production,
cleaning agent, waste treatment, etc., were gathered from Chinese enterprise
research and industry statistics. Background data, such as electricity and
transportation, were derived from the CLCD-China-ECER0.8.1, ELCD3.0.0,
Ecoinvent-Public2.2.0 and Ecoinvent3.1.0 databases in the eFootprint online
software system.
X. Guo et al. Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650

Fig. 1. System boundaries of (a) PPH-EB and (b) C-EB in this study.

2.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
In the LCIA phase, the life cycle inventory analysis results are further proc-
essed and interpreted from the perspective of environmental impact, and re-
sults are translated into designated categories (Guinée and Lindeijer, 2002).
In the characteristic analysis phase, the actual modeling results are calculated,
and category indicator results can be grouped and weighted, such as stan-
dardization analysis, which can be used to reveal the share of environmental
footprint results in global or regional totals (Guo et al., 2021; Zhao et al.,
2020).
The 14 impact categories selected in this study are Primary Energy De-
mand (PED, MJ), Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP, kg Sb eq.), Global
Warming Potential (GWP, kg CO2 eq.), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP,
kg CFC−11 eq.), Acidification Potential (AP, kg SO2 eq.), Respiratory Inor-
ganics (RI, kg PM2.5 eq.), Eutrophication Potential (EP, kg PO3− 4 eq.),
Ecotoxicity-freshwater (ET, CTUe), Carbon dioxide (CO2, kg) Industrial
Water Use (IWU, kg), Chemical Oxygen Demand(COD, kg), Ammonium
(NH3-N, kg), Sulfur dioxide(SO2, kg) and Nitrogen oxidation (NOX, kg).
The environmental characteristics of two kinds of packaging in this study
are compared and analyzed from the perspective of multiple indicators,
avoiding the environmental problems-shifting caused by single indicator
analysis, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis of products
(Guo et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2020). At the same time,
a normalization analysis based on China's energy conservation and emis-
sion reduction policies (ECER-135) during the 13th Five-Year Plan cycle
was carried out.
visualization of the results through several targeted parameters input.
Such a calculator with applicable model can also avoid tedious modeling
and produce visualizations that can trace the contributions of various pro-
cesses and materials for further scenario analysis. It is worth noting that it
is intended to provide real-time presentation of the environmental footprint
comparison results of two or more products in the packaging industry, a fea-
ture that is urgently needed by enterprise users and currently not available
with traditional LCA software tools.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization analysis
Characterization analysis results of 14 categories of environmental impact
indicators for PPH-EB and C-EB have been shown in Table 1. More detailed
results involving each process are shown in Supplementary information
(Tables S3 and S4).
As shown in Supplementary information (Fig. S1), when the system
boundary is defined as “cradle to gate”, most environmental impact indica-
tors of C-EB are significantly lower than those of PPH-EB except NH3-N,
COD and ET. The main reason is that the pulp and paper making process
of base paper and recycled paper produces a large amount of black liquor
Table 1
Characteristic analysis results of C-EB and PPH-EB.
Impact categories Abbreviations Unit PPH-EB C-EB

2.4. Scenario analysis Primary Energy Demand PED MJ 1.86E+00 5.45E+00

Abiotic Depletion Potential ADP kg Sb eq 3.01E−07 9.56E−07
Global Warming Potential GWP kg CO2 eq 9.80E−02 3.81E−01
Based on the quantified results, it is used as the basic database of the cal-
Ozone Depletion Potential ODP kg CFC−11 eq 5.25E−10 6.85E−09
culator to analyze the technological characteristics of each foreground pro- Acidification Potential AP kg SO2 eq 4.60E−04 2.00E−03
cess. A functional relationship is established for processes or materials that Respiratory Inorganics RI kg PM2.5 eq 1.23E−04 9.16E−04
need to be distinguished as independent variables and environmental foot- Eutrophication Potential EP kg PO3−
4 eq 4.16E−05 9.85E−04
Ecotoxicity-freshwater ET CTUe 9.45E−04 2.78E−01
print results as dependent variables. For some mature processes in the in-
Carbon dioxide CO2 kg 8.80E−02 3.48E−01
dustry with small improvement potential and bulk raw materials, they are Industrial Water Use IWU kg 2.27E+00 3.58E+00
integrated into the functional relationship as constant terms. The purpose Chemical Oxygen Demand COD kg 1.99E−05 3.39E−02
of designing and establishing the evaluation model between the recyclable Ammonium NH3-N kg 3.56E−07 2.06E−05
ability and EF(EMRE) which can run on calculator we developed of packag- Sulfur dioxide SO2 kg 2.70E−04 1.21E−03
Nitrogen oxidation NOX kg 2.39E−04 9.50E−04
ing is to realize the real-time display of the results and improve the

3
X. Guo et al. Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650

emissions, which leads to a sharp rise in the COD index (An et al., 2020;
Zhao et al., 2019b). Secondly, the production process of corrugated card-
board, core paper and surface paper and paper need to use glue between
the use of starch glue consumption a lot of starch, and the preparation of
starch will cause obvious ecological toxicity of the environmental impact
(Rojas-Bringas et al., 2020; Yusuf et al., 2019). It is also worth mentioning
that the direct emission from the preparation process of corrugated card-
board is the main contribution source of NH3-N, followed by the direct
emission from the preparation process of base paper and recycled paper.
Currently, society is worried about the environmental protection of
plastic and paper goods. In order to control the white pollution of plastic,
the design of paper instead of plastic is currently popular all over the
world (Guo et al., 2020; Jasmani et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021; Zhao et al.,
2019a). When comparing paper with plastics, many people believe that
paper is to be better for the environment since traditional petroleum-
based polymers are exceedingly difficult to degrade. This point of view is
based on the product's full life cycle. Of course, it only focuses on the advan-
tages and disadvantages of end of life (EOL) of products. Whether it is a lit-
tle one-sided, it needs more objective quantitative data as support. Herein,
the environmental footprint of the two objects was analyzed from the per-
spective of the full life cycle. The comparative analysis results of the envi-
ronmental footprint of PPH-EB and C-EB are shown in Supplementary
information (Fig. S1(b)). All environmental impact indicators of C-EB
were larger than those of PPH-EB, especially COD and ET. It is worth noting
that even if PPH-EB is used for 20 times, the IWU index results of the two
packages are not significantly different, mainly because PPH-EB must go
through the cleaning process in the recycling process, which will cause a
large amount of water consumption, resulting in a large IWU indicator re-
sult when PPH-EB is accumulated and used every time. The main contribu-
tion and composition of each indicator also need to be tracked for each
process.
The effects of PPH-EB and C-EB on environmental impact indicators are
shown in Fig. 2. The main contribution of PPH-EB to the 14 indexes came
from the power consumption of PP particle and PP board production pro-
cess, followed by the power consumption of PPH-EB and cleaning process.
The detergent used in the use process is the main contributor to ODP, ET,
and NH3-N, which is closely related to the use of trisodium citrate dihydrate
and process, with a ratio of 67.46% to 86.69%, as shown in the Supplemen-
tary information (Fig. S2). For PPH-EB, after the leftover bits of material
recycling and packaging waste incineration power generation process will
bring environmental benefits (3.7% to 10.68%), mainly reflected in the
PED, ADP, GWP, AP, RI, EP, COD, SO2 and NOX indicators. There was no
significant effect on ODP, ET, IWU and NH3-N indexes. The main contribu-
tion of C-EB to the 14 indexes came from recycled paper and base paper in
the production process of corrugated board.
The contribution of recycled paper to all indicators is shown in Supple-
mentary information (Fig. S3), in which power consumption, steam and
waste paper pulp are the main contributions. In particular, the contribution
of waste paper pulp to COD is close to 100%, mainly from the direct contri-
bution during the preparation process of waste paper pulp, as shown in
Fig. S3 (b). Starch glue used in the preparation of corrugated cardboard is
the main contribution source of ET index, reaching more than 94%, mainly
due to the use of starch, and its contribution rate is as shown in the Supple-
mentary information (Fig. S4). This result confirmed the conclusion of the
above paragraph about starch glue. Different from PPH-EB, C-EB can be
recycled into other paper products after being discarded. As the leftover
in the preparation process, the cardboard recycling and incineration
power generation after packaging waste have certain environmental bene-
fits for 14 indexes (0.36% to 8.31%).
With the enhancement of environmental protection consciousness, cli-
mate change and greenhouse effect have become the focus of global atten-
tion. The carbon footprint of a product is a measure of the total Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions of a product at all stages of its life cycle, that is, from
the extraction of raw materials, production, distribution, use to final dis-
posal/recycling. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and perfluorocarbons
(PFC) (BSI, 2011). The carbon footprint is calculated as the weighted sum of
various greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of a product, expressed in
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq), in kg CO2 eq. GWP, the equivalent of car-
bon dioxide for various greenhouse gases, is usually based on the values pro-
vided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a set of
factors that are widely used globally (Stocker et al., 2013). The carbon foot-
print accounting results of PPH-EB and C-EB are shown in Table 1 and
Fig. 2. Under the scenario defined by the research boundaries and scope in
this study, the carbon footprint of PPH-EB is reduced by 74.28% compared
with that of C-EB when the express box is used once on average, mainly be-
cause PPH-EB has more recycled times, which is attractive when translated
into the carbon emission of each use. The carbon emission of PPH-EB is
mainly the contribution of PP particles and electricity in the production pro-
cess of PP hollow board, and the electricity in the production process and use
process of PPH-EB. It is worth noting that the carbon emission of C-EB comes
from the contribution of paper and recycled paper, which are mainly concen-
trated in the corrugated board production process. Therefore, according to
the results of carbon footprint quantitative accounting, the improvement

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%

-20% -20%
P

AP

EP
D

N D
3 -N
P

ET
D

P
AP

EP

N D
ET

3 -N
P

2
R

x
x
2

2
R

O
O

SO
SO
O

AD

D
W
AD

D
W

PE

IW

O
PE

O
IW

N
N

C
C

O
O

H
H

C
C

G
G

W-LANDFILL W-INCINERATION W-TRANS W-DC W-LANDFILL W-INCINERATION W-PAPER RECYCLED W-TRANS

U-CLEANER U-ELECTRICITY U-TRANS U-WATER W-DC U-TRANS P-GLUE P-LEFTOVER
U-DC P-ELECTRICITY PPb-NATRUAL GAS PPb-DIESEL PC-GLUE PC-PAPER PC-RECYCLED PAPER PC-ELCTRICITY
PPb-ELECTRICITY PPb-PP PARTICLES PPb-DC P-LEFTOVER PC-DC P-ELCTRICITY P-DC
P-DC

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Effects of (a) PPH-EB, (b) C-EB on environmental impact indicators.

4
X. Guo et al. Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650

focuses on different aspects: PPH-EB mainly focuses on energy optimization cumulative contribution analysis of each unit project, it is shown that
or substitution, while C-EB focuses on raw material substitution. PPb-PP, PPb-ELECTRICITY, U-WATER, P-ELECTRICITY, U-ELECTRICITY,
others, INCINERATION and leftover P-LEFTOVER are in the order of contri-
3.2. Normalization analysis bution from largest to smallest. It is worth noting that the main environ-
mental burden is concentrated in the PP board preparation stage and the
A single environmental impact index is not enough to objectively reflect use stage. The biggest contribution is the power consumption of PP board
the environmental characteristics of a product. Objective quantitative production, which has a significant contribution to SO2, NOX, PED and
analysis is needed from the perspective of multiple indicators to avoid the CO2 indexes. The same trend was observed in the power consumption of
environmental problem-shifting (Guo et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2012). Nor- PPH-EB production stage and use stage. The recovery of PP particles and
malization analysis can help to dig into the effect of products on overall en- leftover has the greatest influence on PED index, which is mainly related
vironment at regional scale. Herein, based on the regional scale of China, to the source of PP raw materials from petroleum by-products. The con-
the normalization analysis of PPH-EB and C-EB was conducted. The nor- sumption of water resources in the use stage directly affects the IWU
malized value is the ratio of the characteristic value to the annual impact index, accounting for more than 97%, mainly because a large amount of
of China's total environmental burden in 2015, that is, the national total en- water is consumed for cleaning before each reuse of PPH-EB.
vironmental burden value (Guo et al., 2021; Lv et al., 2021; Zhao et al., For C-EB, PC-RECYCLED PAPER and PC-PAPER contribute the most ob-
2020). According to the national 13th Five-Year Plan cycle (2016–2020) viously. As shown in Fig. 3 (d), the contributions of PC-RECYCLED PAPER
energy conservation and emission reduction (ECER) policy objectives, and PC-PAPER account for 87.3% and 11.6% of the total index result value
seven indexes including PED, CO2, IWU, COD, NH3-N, SO2 and NOX were respectively, which are orders of magnitude different from the contribu-
selected for normalization analysis. Fig. 3 shows the normalized results tions of all other unit processes and are nearly 70 times larger than the
for each material and energy consumption of the PPH-EB and C-EB. In value of the unit process with the largest contribution of PPH-EB. This is
Fig. 3, the endpoints of the ordinate are all 1.60E−012, and the normalized mainly due to the large COD discharge in the papermaking process,
results of PPH-EB and C-EB will not exceed this value. The absolute value of which contributes greatly to the COD index (Walker and Rothman, 2020;
each impact category is provided in Supplementary information (Table S5). Zhao et al., 2019b). The environmental burden of such differences can
For PPH-EB, the normalized results of all materials and energy are not only be offset by the number of uses. It is necessary to consider whether
within the range of ±1.00E−13, as shown in Fig. 3(c). Based on the the material processing technology has potential for improvement. If

NOX(n)
1.60E-012
(a) SO2(n)
1.60E-012
(b) NOX(n)
SO2(n)
1.40E-012 NH3-N(n) 1.40E-012 NH3-N(n)
COD(n) COD(n)
1.20E-012 IWU(n) 1.20E-012 IWU(n)
CO2(n) CO2(n)
1.00E-012 PED(n) 1.00E-012 PED(n)

8.00E-013 8.00E-013

6.00E-013 6.00E-013

4.00E-013 4.00E-013

2.00E-013 2.00E-013

0.00E+000 0.00E+000

-2.00E-013 -2.00E-013
LE ITY
R

AT DI Y

P- R
Y

- E U - T ER

ER

-IN W -DC

AN ION

PC ER

-T E

W -DC

ER ED

AN N
EL TI C
T ES

EL AL L

S
TR AS

-W D C

LL

TR C

YC T R C

PA Y

S
FT DC

S
E

LL
-P R
P- RU SE
b- Pb ICIT

IT

IT

LU
C AN

ER AN

AN

W RE AN
LE LU
VE

VE

IO
R -D

EC LC -D

PC PE
FI

FI
LE ICI
EC CL

EC G

AT

AN

AP

L
LE P-

P-
-

U RIC
IC

IC
W

W AT

W AT
-E PC
PP P P b

U
E

C YC
-G
D

D
O

O
C TR

R
LE R

R
P R

ER -T
FT
P

-IN C
-
-

U
C
U

-C

-L

-L
A

IN

IN
EL
P-

P-
P-
PP

PC PC
N
b-

AP
b-

W
PP
PP

-R

-P
W

4.00E-013
6.24E-012
(d)
4.46E-15
3.57E-14

(c)
6.31E-14
3.46E-14
6.23E-13

3.50E-013
1.78E-16
4.63E-15
2.66E-14

5.46E-012
0
4.71E-12

-6.6E-14

-2.41E-14
-3.3E-14
3.57E-15
6.78E-14

3.00E-013
-4.37E-15

4.68E-012
2.50E-013
3.64E-14

3.90E-012
4.46E-15

2.00E-013
9.03E-14

2.4E-16

3.12E-012
1.50E-013
2.34E-012
8.52E-14

1.00E-013
1.56E-012
5.00E-014
1.41E-16

7.80E-013
1.5E-15

6.87E-15
2.29E-14
1.37E-14

3.7E-15

0.00E+000
0

-1.57E-14

0.00E+000
0

-5.00E-014
P- R
PP P PP R

EL A E L
C

TR DC

ER -T DC

LL
FT -DC

TR AS

-W C
-E U-T TER

C -TR C

LL
I Y

W RA S
AN ON

-R C-E P Y
YC TR DC

-P R

FT UE

U LUE
D ITY

-IN C NS

AN ON
Y

U RI S
LE ITY
ER

P- C-G R

ER L E D
TR ES
N b- IT

IT

C AN

E AN

IT

AN
VE
VE

b - AR b - D

U U-D

-IN W - D

PC PE

FI
FI
P- RU E S
EC G
EC ICL

LE L

W RE RA
AN

AP
P-

EC LC C-

-
-L TI

I
b- P IC

IC

IC
-C C

LE IC

W AT
LE P

C YC
D

D
A

O
O

LE R

R
PA
L

-T
AT D
EL T

W
P
C

-L
IN

IN
EL
P
P-

P-
PP

PC P

AP
b-

W
PP
PP

-P
W

Fig. 3. Normalized environmental impacts of (a) PPH-EB and (b) C-EB. Each unit process contributes results of (c) PPH-EB and (d) C-EB to the ECER.

5
X. Guo et al.
necessary, it is necessary to trace the material, identify the important im-
provement direction, and take appropriate COD emission reduction mea-
sures to reduce the environmental impact of PC-recycled PAPER. PC-
PAPER has the same trend.
After normalization analysis, we then carried out the weight analysis for
PPH-EB and C-EB. The ECER comprehensive index quantitative characteri-
zation method is used to calculate the overall environmental impact, which
effectively avoids the inaccurate impact of the traditional subjective expert
evaluation method based on different projects may have (Guo et al., 2021).
The ECER evaluation index system includes PED, CO2, IWU, COD, NH3-N,
SO2 and NOX life cycle indexes, namely the seven indexes included in the
previous normalization analysis, which are the ECER policy objectives of
the 13th Five-Year Plan of China (CLCD, 2013; IKE, 2012). Its calculation
formula is as follows:
Ai
S ¼ ∑7i¼1 (1)
Ti  Ni
where Ai represents all seven indicators. Ti is comparable ECER policy ob-
jective and Ni is national total of the corresponding indicators in 2015.
ECER indicators results are shown in Fig. S5. It can be intuitively seen
that, on the premise of the definition of system boundary and scope in
this paper, the average logistics transportation is completed, and the indica-
tors of PPH-EB are not much different from those of C-EB except COD. How-
ever, the integrated impact index (ECER) of PPH-EB only accounts for
5.58% of C-EB, which indicates that when evaluating the environmental
benefit of a product, it cannot be explained from a specific index, but should
be considered from the perspective of multiple indicators. For example, the
product environmental footprint (PEF) proposed by the European Union re-
quires accounting in accordance with multiple indicators to present the
results more objectively and comprehensively (Saouter et al., 2018;
Walker and Rothman, 2020). This can effectively avoid the environmental
problem-shifting.
For PPH-EB, its indexes are in the order of IWU > PED > SO2 > NOX >
CO2 > COD > NH3-N. For C-EB, the order of its indexes is COD > SO2 >
NOX > PED > CO2 > IWU > NH3-N. And the main difference between the
two express packages lies in COD index. The result value of COD index of
C-EB is 42.48 times that of PPH-EB, which is the main reason that the inte-
grated index of C-EB is larger than that of PPH-EB. According to the results
of quantitative calculation, the improvement potential of PPH-EB lies in the
water saving in the use stage and the raw material optimization or substitu-
tion direction of PP particles in the production stage. Then, cleaner energy
can be considered to replace the power consumption in the use stage, such
as wind power generation and hydroelectric power generation. The im-
provement potential of C-EB is concentrated in the papermaking process
of the production stage. The use of cleaner papermaking process can effec-
tively reduce the COD index and its integrated index of corrugated cartons,
but the difficulty of process improvement and technical and economic cost
need to be comprehensively considered.
3.3. Scenarios analysis
The analysis findings presented above are based on a certain scope
specification, such as the number of cycles, material utilization, disposal
methods, and so on. What is the impact of these important technology
types or parameters on the evaluation results, and whether there is interac-
tion between parameters, however, limited available work about this
performance of PPH-EB and C-EB has been reported. For packaging indus-
tries, the potential of these variables to improve the environmental benefits
of products can be discussed by categorizing the types of technologies and
materials known to them, which is more targeted and efficient for them-
selves. To avoid repeating the time-consuming modeling effort, we de-
signed a model of recycle ability and environmental footprint based on
the features of the industry and the demands of businesses, and then imple-
mented the calculation and result presentation using the software we cre-
ated. Environmental footprint calculations may be done by inputting a
6
Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650
few essential technology type factors, such as utilization rate of and
recycling way, and the results can be shown and compared live. What's
more intriguing is that this technique has the potential to standardize the
accounting procedures used in the business. It has no effect on the results
because of the length of the supply chain traceability or the usage of multi-
ple databases. It is also based on ISO standards, which is revolutionary for
the environmental footprint of comparable items in the industry. The calcu-
lating technique consists primarily of establishing a functional link between
the input parameters (independent variables) and the process index results
of each unit (dependent variables), after which the program automatically
summarizes and analyzes the process outcomes.
As shown in Fig. 4, with the developed model in calculator, we quickly
calculated the impact of different cycle times, material utilization rate and
waste treatment methods on various indicators and comprehensive indica-
tors of the two express packages. The increase of the reuse times of packing
cases can significantly reduce the ECER index values of the two types of
packing cases, and the trend is roughly the same.
However, it should be noted that when the PPH-EB is used for more
than 8 times, its ECER reduction rate decreases to less than 10%, and
when it is used for 15 times, its ECER reduction rate decreases to less
than 5%, indicating that it no longer has the ideal emission reduction poten-
tial. With the increase of cycle times from 1 to 8 times, the decrease rate of
ECER index of PPH-EB compared with C-EB gradually decreased from
24.49% to 15.03%. As shown in Fig. 4(b) and Fig. 4(c), the board utilization
and waste treatment method (incineration / incineriation + landfill) have
no significant impact on the ECER index. For C-EB, when the board utiliza-
tion rate rises to 85%, the ECER index reduction rate remains above 5%,
while for PPH-EB, the material utilization rate remains below 5%. This
quantitative result objectively indicates that when the number of cycles of
PPH-EB reaches 8 times, the potential of reducing the environmental bur-
den is not significant when the number of cycles is increased, so it can be
considered to improve the material utilization rate while improving the
number of cycles to continue to reduce the environmental burden. For C-
EB, the recycling rate of packaging can be improved through the design
of innovative structure. If it can be increased to 12 times, its ECER value
can be effectively reduced by more than 90%, but the number of such
recycling is assumed in the scenario analysis. In reality, the number of cor-
rugated carton recycling is generally 2 times. If the environmental burden
needs to be further reduced, it can be achieved by improving the utilization
rate of corrugated board. Likewise, the environmental impact of better
waste disposal on upgraded drop boxes is minimal.
In order to further explore the impact of recycled times and board utiliza-
tion rate on ECER index of PPH-EB, the interactive influence of two variables
on ECER results was also studied, as shown in Fig. 5. The environmental bur-
den of PPH-EB can be effectively improved by increasing the recycled times
and board utilization. When PPH-EB is used more than twice, the ECER
index can be lower than the traditional corrugated box used in actual trans-
portation. However, if the number of recycling continues to increase after
three times, ECER shows a slow downward trend, and its environmental bur-
den improvement effect is not significant.
4. Conclusion
By means of characteristic analysis, normalization analysis and scenario
analysis, the environmental profiles of PPH-EB and C-EB express packaging
were analyzed. Under the scope definition and system boundaries, all the
environmental impact result indicators of PH-EB were lower than those of
C-EB, but the difference of IWU index was only 22%. The main reason
was that the cleaning process of PH-EB before recycling consumed a lot of
water resources. The ECER of PPH-EB is 94.42% lower than that of C-EB,
and its normalized environmental index contribution order is IWU > PED
> SO2 > NOX > CO2 > COD > NH3-N, which can be referred to for scientific
emission reduction when implementing emission reduction measures. The
difference between the normalized indexes of C-EB and PPH-EB is mainly
reflected in the COD index, resulting in the unsatisfactory results of the in-
tegrated index.
X. Guo et al. Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650

6.00E-012 60%

(a) C-EB
PPH-EB
50%
5.00E-012

40%
4.00E-012

Reduction rate
30%
ECER

3.00E-012
20%

2.00E-012
10%

1.00E-012
0%

0.00E+000 -10%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Recycled times

6.00E-012 10.00% 6.00E-012 0.30%

(b) C-EB
PPH-EB (c) C-EB
PPH-EB
0.25%
5.00E-012 8.00% 5.00E-012

0.20%
4.00E-012 4.00E-012
Reduction rate

Reduction rate
6.00%
ECER

ECER
0.15%
3.00E-012 3.00E-012
4.00%
0.10%
2.00E-012 2.00E-012
2.00%
0.05%
1.00E-012 1.00E-012
0.00% 0.00%
0.00E+000 0.00E+000
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Board utilization Incineration/Incineration+Landfill

Fig. 4. Effect of (a) recycled times, (b) board utilization and (c) waste disposal on ECER results of PPH-EB and C-EB.

The appliable evaluation model containing board utilization, recycled
times and environmental footprint was established based on scenario anal-
ysis. The results show that the integrated environmental index of PPH-EB
can be lower than that of traditional corrugated cartons when used twice.
However, as recycling times more than three times, ECER displays a gradual
declining trend, and the effect of emission reduction is negligible. In order
to reduce the environmental burden of recyclable packaging, regardless of
ECER
0.95
0.90
ECER of tradition
the recyclable times, it is critical to optimize raw materials and processes
based on indicator contribution order.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Conceptualization, X.G. and Y.L.; methodology, X.G. and S.·Y.; soft-
ware, X.G., S.Y., Q.W., and Y.Z.; validation, H.X., L.H., Y.J. and Y.L.; for-
mal analysis, X.G., S.Y., Y.Z. and Y.L.; investigation, X.G. and Y.Z.;
resources, H.X., Y.J. and Y.L.; data curation, X.G. and Y.L.; writing—
5.360E-12 original draft preparation, X.G. and F.Z.; writing—review and editing,
5.060E-12 X.G., F.Z. and Y.L.; visualization, X.G., Q.W. and S.Y.; supervision, Y.L.,
4.760E-12 and L.H.; funding acquisition, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to

4.460E-12 the published version of the manuscript.

0.85
4.160E-12
3.860E-12 Declaration of competing interest
Board utilization

0.80
3.560E-12
3.260E-12
0.75 We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with
2.960E-12
al corrugated ca

0.70
other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work,
2.660E-12
2.360E-12
there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in
0.65 2.060E-12
any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influenc-
1.760E-12 ing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled
0.60
1.460E-12 “The impact of packaging recyclable ability on environment: Case and sce-
rton

0.55 1.160E-12 nario analysis of polypropylene express boxes and corrugated cartons”.
8.600E-13 The authors declare no conflict of interest.
0.50 5.600E-13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acknowledgments
Recycled times
The authors are grateful for the financial support from the National Key
Fig. 5. Effect of recycled times and board utilization on ECER of PPH-EB. R&D Program of China (2018YFD0400703), the Foundation (2021KF21)

7
X. Guo et al.
of Guangxi Key Laboratory of Clean Pulp & Papermaking and Pollution
Control, and Scientific research project of Liaoning Provincial Department
of Education (J2020040).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153650.
References
Álvarez-Chávez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of bio-
based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement.
J. Clean. Prod. 23, 47–56.
An, X., Zhong, B., Chen, G., An, W., Xia, X., Li, H., et al., 2020:. Evaluation of bioremediation
and detoxification potentiality for papermaking black liquor by a new isolated thermo-
philic and alkali-tolerant Serratia sp. AXJ-M. J. Hazard. Mater. 406, 124285.
Beigbeder, J., Soccalingame, L., Perrin, D., Benezet, J., Bergeret, A., 2019. How to manage
biocomposites wastes end of life? A life cycle assessment approach (LCA) focused on
polypropylene (PP)/wood flour and polylactic acid (PLA)/flax fibres biocomposites.
Waste Manag. 83, 184–193.
Borrelle, S., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., et al., 2020.
Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science
369, 1515–1518.
BOXES, 2021. Corrugated vs. Reusable Plastic Containers (RPCs). Available from: https://
www.corrugated.org/corrugated-vs-rpcs/.
BSI P, 2011. 2050-Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions of Goods and Services. BSI: bsigroup. com.
Clapp, J., Swanston, L., 2009. Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns
of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environ. Polit. 18, 315–332.
CLCD, 2013. Chinese Life Cycle Database-ECER0.8.1. Retrieved from: http://www.efootprint.
net/#/home.
Coelho, P., Corona, B., Klooster, R.T., Worrell, E., 2020. Sustainability of reusable packagin‡.
Current Situation and Trends.
Eygen, E.V., Laner, D., Fellner, J., 2018. Circular economy of plastic packaging: current prac-
tice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Manag. 72, 55–64.
Groh, K.J., Backhaus, T., Carney-Almroth, B., Geueke, B., Inostroza, P.A., Lennquist, A., et al.,
2019. Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci.
Total Environ. 651, 3253–3268.
Guinée, J.B., Lindeijer, E., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to
the ISO Standards. vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media.
Guo, X., Xing, H., Tan, W., Lv, Y., 2020. E-commerce packaging design for ceiling lamp based
on bionic structure. Packag. Eng. 41, 117–123.
Guo, X., Yao, Y., Zhao, H., Chi, C., Zeng, F., Qian, F., et al., 2021. Environmental impacts of
functional fillers in polylactide (PLA)-based bottles using life cycle assessment methodol-
ogy. Sci. Total Environ. 788, 147852.
Haafiz, K.M., Taiwo, O.F., Razak, N., Rokiah, H., Hazwan, H.M., Rawi, N.F.M., et al., 2019.
Development of green MMT-modified hemicelluloses based nanocomposite film with en-
hanced functional and barrier properties. BioResources 14, 8029–8047.
Heidbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C., 2019. Tackling the plastic problem: a re-
view on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1077–1093.
Hohenthal, C., Leon, J., Dobón, A., Kujanpää, M., Meinl, G., Ringman, J., et al., 2019. The ISO
14067 approach to open-loop recycling of paper products: making it operational. 224,
264–274.
IKE, 2012. Introduction of Life Cycle Energy Conservation & Emission Reduction (ECER) As-
sessment (in Chinese). Available from: http://www.ikeglobal.com/archives/181.html.
ISO, 2006. Environmental Management-life Cycle Assessment-principles and Framework.
ISO14040.
ISO, 2018. Greenhouse Gases. Carbon Footprint of Products. Requirements and Guidelines for
Quantification. ISO 14067.
Science of the Total Environment 822 (2022) 153650
Jasmani, L., Ainun, Z.M.A., Adnan, S., Ibrahim, R., Sapuan, S.M., Ilyas, R.A., 2021. Sustainable
Paper-based Packaging. Bio-based Packaging, pp. 225–244.
Kamau-Devers, K., Miller, S.A., 2020. The environmental attributes of wood fiber composites
with bio-based or petroleum-based plastics. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1145–1159.
Korley, L.T., Epps, T.H., Helms, B.A., Ryan, A.J., 2021. Toward polymer upcycling—adding
value and tackling circularity. Science 373, 66–69.
Koskela, S., Dahlbo, H., Judl, J., Korhonen, M., Niininen, M., 2014. Reusable plastic crate or
recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J. Clean. Prod. 69,
83–90.
Lau, W.W.Y., Shiran, Y., Bailey, R., Cook, E., Stuchtey, M.R., Koskella, J., et al., 2020. Evalu-
ating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461.
Law, K.L., Narayan, R., 2021. Reducing environmental plastic pollution by designing polymer
materials for managed end-of-life. Nat. Rev. Mater.
Luz, S., Caldeira-Pires, A., Ferrão, P., 2010. Environmental benefits of substituting talc by sug-
arcane bagasse fibers as reinforcement in polypropylene composites: ecodesign and LCA
as strategy for automotive components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1135–1144.
Lv, L., Song, G., Zhao, X., Chen, J., 2021. Environmental burdens of China’s propylene
manufacturing: comparative life-cycle assessment and scenario analysis. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 799, 149451.
People.cn, 2019. The recycling times of express package shall not be less than 20 times. Available
from: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1642435713801550775&wfr=spider&for=pc.
Rojas-Bringas, P.M., De-la-Torre, G., Torres, F.G., 2020. Influence of the source of starch and
plasticizers on the environmental burden of starch-Brazil nut fiber biocomposite produc-
tion: a life cycle assessment approach. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144869.
Saouter, E., Schryver, A.M.D., Pant, R., Sala, S., 2018. Estimating chemical ecotoxicity in EU
ecolabel and in EU product environmental footprint. Environ. Int. 118, 44–47.
SF-LOGISTICS, 2020. "2020 SF Logistics Competition" Logistics Innovation Competition
Award List. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xonbEbiAgALMdSZHos322g.
Soares, C.Td.M., Ek, M., Östmark, E., Gällstedt, M., Karlsson, S., 2022. Recycling of multi-
material multilayer plastic packaging: current trends and future scenarios. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 176, 105905.
Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J., et al., 2013. IPCC,
2013: Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the In-
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Camb. Univ. Press Camb. UKNY, NY
USA.
Thakur, S., Chaudhary, J., Sharma, B., Verma, A., Tamulevjius, S., Thakur, V., 2018. Sus-
tainability of bioplastics: opportunities and challenges. Green Sustain. Chem. 13,
68–75.
Walker, S., Rothman, R., 2020. Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: a
review. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121158.
Xanthos, M., 2012. Recycling of the #5 polymer. Science 337, 700–702.
Xie, H., Zhang, H., Liu, X., Tian, S., Liu, Y., Fu, S., 2021. Design and preparation of multiple
function-integrated lignin/tannin/ZnONP composite coatings for paper-based green
packaging. Biomacromolecules 22, 3251–3263.
Yang, Y., Bae, J., Kim, J., Suh, S., 2012. Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in signif-
icant environmental problem-shifting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3671–3678.
Yi, Y., Wang, Z., Wennersten, R., Sun, Q., 2017. Life cycle assessment of delivery packages in
China. Energy Procedia 105, 3711–3719.
Yusuf, M., Romli, M., Suprihatin, Wiloso, E.I., 2019. Potential of Traditional Sago Starch: Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) Perspective.
Zhao, D., Du, J., Xia, Z., Zhang, F., Jiang, H., Wang, L., et al., 2019. Packaging design of tea set
by substituting plastics with paper. Packag. Eng. 40, 30–36.
Zhao, H., Liu, F., Liu, H., Wang, L., Zhang, R., Hao, Y., 2020. Comparative life cycle assess-
ment of two ceramsite production technologies for reusing municipal solid waste inciner-
ator fly ash in China. Waste Manag. 113, 447–455.
Zhao, Q., Ding, S., Wen, Z., Toppinen, A., 2019b. Energy flows and carbon footprint in the
forestry-pulp and paper industry. Forests 10, 725.
Zhao, H., Liu, H., Wei, G., Wang, H., Zhu, Y., Zhang, R., et al., 2021a. Comparative life cycle
assessment of emergency disposal scenarios for medical waste during the COVID-19 pan-
demic in China. Waste Manage. 126, 388–399.
Zhao, H., Wang, L., Liu, F., Liu, H., Zhang, N., Zhu, Y., 2021b. Energy, environment and econ-
omy assessment of medical waste disposal technologies in China. Sci. Total Environ. 796,
148964.