Analyzing the environmental sustainability of glass bottles reuse in an Italian wine consortium

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Available online atonline www.sciencedirect.com Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000 Available at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017) 000–000 Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404

26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Analyzing the environmental sustainability of glass bottles reuse in an CIRP Design Conference, May 2018, Analyzing the 28th environmental sustainability ofNantes, glassFrance bottles reuse in an Italian wine consortium Italian wine consortium a* b A new methodology to Landi analyze the functional and Marconi physical architecture of Daniele , Michele Germania, Marco a* a b Daniele , Michele Germani ,product Marco Marconi Department of Industrial Engineering Mathematical Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy existing products forandanLandi assembly oriented family identification a

Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo dell’Università, 01100 Viterbo, Italy a Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy b Department Economics, Engineering,E-mail Society and Business Organization, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo dell’Università, 01100 Viterbo, Italy * Daniele Landi.ofTel.: +39-071-220-4880. address: [email protected] b

Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat

* Daniele Landi. +39-071-220-4880. E-mail address: Arts [email protected] ÉcoleTel.: Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France

*Abstract Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract The wine production constitutes an important sector for the Italian economy. Most of the wine producers are associated in local consortiums, which include small family companies involved in the production of similar products. This study aims to investigate the implementation of The wine production constitutes an important sector for the Italian economy. Most of the wine producers are associated in local consortiums, Abstract circular economy opportunities in the wine production chain. In particular, the reuse of glass bottles in the Piceno wine consortium (central which include small family companies involved in the production of similar products. This study aims to investigate the implementation of Italy) has been analyzed to quantify the potential environmental benefits. The standard Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been circular economy opportunities in the wine production chain. In particular, the reuse of glass bottles in the Piceno wine consortium (central Inused today’s business the trend towards moreagainst productthe variety andscenario customization is and unbroken. to this development, the need of to compare theenvironment, standard scenario (recycle of glass) circular (cleaning reuse ofDue bottles within the local consortium). Italy) has been analyzed to quantify the potential environmental benefits. The standard Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been agile anddemonstrate reconfigurable emerged to to cope with various productimpact families. To design and optimize production Results thatproduction the reuse ofsystems glass bottles leads relevant benefits products in all the and considered categories (ReCiPe Midpoint method). used to compare the standard scenario (recycle of glass) against the circular scenario (cleaning and reuse of bottles within the local consortium). systems as well choose theoffsets optimal matches, product methods are needed. Indeed, of most ofbottles. the known methods aim to The avoided useasoftovirgin glass theproduct additional resources (e.g. analysis energy) consumed during the cleaning used Results demonstrate that the reuse of glass bottles leads to relevant benefits in all the considered impact categories (ReCiPe Midpoint method). analyze a product or one product family on the physical level. Different product families, however, may differ largely in terms of the number and The avoided use of virgin glass offsets the additional resources (e.g. energy) consumed during the cleaning of used bottles. nature ofThe components. This fact by impedes anB.V. efficient and choice appropriate product family combinations for the production © 2019 Authors. Published Elsevier This comparison is an open access article of under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2019AThe Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access CC BY-NC-ND license system. new methodology is proposed to analyze existing products in article view ofunder their the functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) these productsunder in new assembly oriented product families for the optimization existing lines(LCE) and the creation of future reconfigurable Peer-review responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRPofLife Cycleassembly Engineering Conference. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review underBased responsibility of Flow the scientific committee the 26thofCIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference. assembly systems. on Datum Chain, the physicalofstructure the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference. wine bottle, circular economy, reuse. aKeywords: functionalLCA, analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative Keywords: LCA, wine bottle, circular economy, reuse. example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of 1. Introduction producer, France (41,9) and Spain (37,8) [5]. In thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of thefollowed proposed by approach. the EU winemaking sector, the electricity ©1.2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Introduction producer, followed by France (41,9) and Spainrepresents (37,8) [5].the In Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific of the the 28th CIRP Designenergy Conference 2018. The global warming and climate changecommittee issues involve primary source (92%), followed by fossil sources as

the EU winemaking sector, the electricity represents the whole world. Policies toand reduce greenhouse emissions are one gas, diesel and fuel oil (8%) for followed a total energy consumption The global warming climate change issues involve the primary energy source (92%), by fossil sources of as Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification of the priorities for the European Union (EU). The EU energy around 1750 million kWh per year [6]. These figures whole world. Policies to reduce greenhouse emissions are one gas, diesel and fuel oil (8%) for a total energy consumption of and goals been incorporated into demonstrate the winemaking is energy-intensive. of theclimate priorities for have the European Union (EU). Thethe EU“Europe energy around 1750that million kWh per sector year [6]. These figures 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” The 60% of the energy consumed is due to and grape and climate goals have been incorporated into the “Europe demonstrate that the winemaking sector is harvest energy-intensive. [1], as well as into the flagship initiative “Resource Efficient phases, the 30% to packaging and bottling phases, while the Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” The of therange energy is due manufactured to harvest and grape 1.2020 Introduction of the60% product andconsumed characteristics and/or Europe” [2, 3]. In particular, the Europe 2020 strategy aims to remaining 10% is due to storage and auxiliary activities as [1], as well as into the flagship initiative “Resource Efficient phases, thein30% to packaging bottling while the assembled this system. In thisand context, the phases, main challenge in increase the share of energy from renewable resources to offices, general heating, air conditioning, lighting, etc. Europe” [2, 3]. the Europein2020 aims of to remaining and 10%analysis is due to storage as Due to theIn particular, fast development thestrategy domain modelling is now notand onlyauxiliary to cope activities with single 20%; to reduce the energy consumption up to 20%and by Therefore, the packaging phases, besides being increase the share ofanenergy from renewable resources to offices, general heating, air bottling conditioning, lighting, etc. communication andprimary ongoing trend of digitization products, a limited productand range or existing product families, improving energy efficiency, to reduce the use of virgin raw very important for the conservation and the quality of the 20%; to reducemanufacturing the primary energy consumption up to 20% by Therefore, packaging and phases, besides being digitalization, enterprises are facing important but also to betheable to analyze andbottling to compare products to define materials, and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by wine, are responsible for high energy consumption, high improving energy efficiency, reduce the use aof continuing virgin raw veryproduct important for the conservation and qualityexisting of the challenges in today’s marketto environments: new families. It can be observed thatthe classical 20%, compared to the 1990the levels [4]. waste and significant environmental impacts [7]. materials, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by wine, production are responsible for high energy ofconsumption, high tendency towards reduction of product development times and product families are regrouped in function clients or features. Thecompared wine sector is a1990 strategic economic sector for the EU. Nowadays, in and the wine sector,environmental we witness two apparently 20%, the levels [4]. there waste production significant shortened producttolifecycles. In addition, is an increasing However, assembly oriented product families areimpacts hardly to[7]. find. TheThe 2016 global economic viniculture data fixes the European opposing phenomena: the sector, increaseweofwitness mass-produced wine, wine sector is a strategic EU. Nowadays, in the wine apparently demand of customization, being ateconomic the samesector time for in athe global On the product family level, products differtwo mainly in two wine production at the most significant production level. Italy and the specialization towards narrow markets characterized The 2016 global viniculture fixes theThis European opposing phenomena: increaseofofcomponents mass-produced wine, competition with economic competitors all over data the world. trend, main characteristics: (i) the number and (ii) the (48,8 million of hl) confirmed its position as the leading world by product quality in terms of markets importance of terroir, wine production at the significant production Italy andexcellent thecomponents specialization narrow characterized which is inducing the most development from macro level. to micro type of (e.g.towards mechanical, electrical, electronical). (48,8 million of hl) position world byClassical excellentmethodologies product qualityconsidering in terms ofmainly importance terroir, markets, results in confirmed diminisheditslot sizes as duethetoleading augmenting singleof products 2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open article under thealready CC BY-NC-ND license product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1].accessor solitary, existing product families analyze the (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). To cope with this variety ascommittee wellB.V. asofThis tothebe able to Life Cycle product structure on aConference. physical level (components level) which 2212-8271 ©under 2019 Theaugmenting Authors. of Published by Elsevier is26th an open articleEngineering under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review responsibility the scientific CIRPaccess (LCE) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009 Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference. production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of(LCE) different product families. Addressing this doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009

2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) 2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of scientific the scientific committee theCIRP 26thDesign CIRP Conference Life Cycle 2018. Engineering (LCE) Conference. Peer-review under responsibility of the committee of the of 28th 10.1016/j.procir.2019.01.054

400 2

Daniele Landi et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

appellation, and geographical identity [8, 9]. In particular, the growing weight of mass-produced wine is documented by the export figures of Europe, which is the principal wine producer (66% of world production in 2011). The overall increase of wine exports from 2010 to 2011 (13%) concerned the sale of bulk wine, especially by the two principal exporters, Spain (+30,7%) and Italy (+8%) [10]. In parallel, the literature shows that narrow markets capable of responding to niches of consumers with differentiated demands for better products have gained ground [11, 12]. Our study focuses on the Italian wine production, particularly in the area of "Piceno" (a region of the Central Italy located in the Marche region). In this area different wine types are produced: Offida Docg (Passerina, Pecorino and Red Offida), Red Piceno Doc, even in the superior variation, Falerio Doc, and Doc Terre di Offida which finds the maximum expression with the sparkling Passerina. In opposition to the high quality of wine, one of the main weaknesses of this area, and more generally of the entire region, is the extreme fragmentation of the production and commercialization system. To satisfy the needs of small companies, different wine producer associations were born over the years. The main objective was to jointly develop an integrated and synergistic strategy among all players in the supply chain, in order to overcome certain critical issues inherent to territory and market situation. Different projects were also born with the aim to increase the environmental sustainability, the whole wine supply chain. One of the projects developed in the context of the Piceno wine consortium regards the reuse of glass bottles. Considering that within the consortium only few types of glass bottles are used for wine packaging, the bottle reuse seems a feasible scenario. Other literature works [13, 14] demonstrated that the reuse can be considered the most sustainable option to improve the environmental performances of the product end of life, but no previous works are focused on wine bottles. This study wants to integrate the state of the art by quantifying and comparing the environmental performances of two different end of life scenarios of the wine glass bottles in the Piceno wine consortium. The comparative evaluation is performed by

using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology [15], which allows to quantify the environmental impacts using a standardized procedure. The final goal of the present study is to answer the following research questions: Which is the best scenario for glass bottles from an environmental point of view? How much are the environmental impacts/benefits related to bottle reuse in a wine consortium? After this introduction, the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 illustrates the goal and scope definition and details the two considered scenarios for glass bottle end of life. Section 3 describes the life cycle inventory. Section 4 presents the impact assessment phase. Section 5 discusses the results obtained. Finally, Section 6 reports conclusions and proposals for future developments. 2. Goal and scope definition The goal of this study is to calculate the environmental impact of the two different end of life scenarios of the wine glass bottles: recycling and reuse. The activity was carried out in collaboration with an Italian consortium of wine producers, a glass recycling company and a glass bottles producer. The functional unit is defined as “packaging of 0,75 liters of wine with a glass bottle obtained from the recovery of end of life glass bottles”. The study includes all the processes starting from the recovery of glass bottles until the production of the new bottles. The system boundaries for the two different scenarios, as well as the processes and activities included in the study are summarized in Fig. 1. The selected impact assessment method is the ReCiPe midpoint - Hierarchist (H) version that allows to quantify the impacts in 18 categories [18]. The analyzed processes are energy (e.g. electricity, heat) and resource (e.g. water, raw materials to produce virgin glass) intensive, therefore the most appropriate indicators are those one related to climate change and depletion of natural resources. However, we decided to consider all the ReCiPe midpoint impact categories, with the aim to have a global view of the environmental impacts caused in the two considered scenarios.

Fig. 1. Recycling and reuse scenarios for glass wine bottles



3 401

Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 Daniele Landi et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404

The recycling scenario for bottles is the standard recovery for glass products [16]. Unselected bottles are sent to the waste glass center, where the shredding and washing phase are carried out. The glass cullet is sent to a glass producer for the realization of a new bottle, obtained through melting of both recycled and virgin glass. After the packaging phase the bottles are sent to wine producers. However, the empty wine bottles, in most cases, do not show damage or defects to prevent their reuse in the same sector. So, the reuse scenario is proposed. In this scenario, the used bottles are collected by a local consortium (in our case study the Piceno consortium), are sent to the local washing center (in our case study located in San Benedetto del Tronto) and prepared for a new use. Washing, sterilization and drying process are the phases necessary for reuse. As in the recycling scenario, after the packaging phase the wine bottles are sent to wine producers. The glass bottles obtained from both the reuse and recycling scenarios are of acceptable quality to be used for the packaging of wine.

packaging the bottles must be dried. The drying step consumes: • Electric energy: measured consumption of about 220 kWh per 1 million of bottles, that means 0,0022 kWh/bottle; • Heat (produced through an industrial furnace powered with methane): measured consumption of about 849600 MJ per 1 million of bottles, that means 0,85 MJ/bottle. The packaging is realized by using 0,5 kg of polyethylene (PE) film for a package of 6 bottles, that means 0,0833 kg/bottle. Concerning the recycling scenario, instead, it is necessary to specify that for quality reasons new bottles cannot be completely made by using recycled glass. According to the Italian recycling figures, an average percentage of 57,5% (in weight) of recycled material is used, while the remaining 42,5% of virgin glass is added during the glass melting phase [17]. Given the chosen functional unit that refers to the production of 1 new wine bottle obtained from end of life glass, the considered flow of recycled glass must be only the 57,5% of the weight of a bottle:

3. Life Cycle Inventory

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0,575 × 0,45 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 0,26 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

According to the LCA standards [15], the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase, essentially consists in subdividing the entire life cycle (or the phases included within the system boundaries) in elementary steps and realize an input-output analysis to identify and quantify the relevant flows. In this study both primary data, collected through measurements or through questionnaires, and secondary data, retrieved from literature or standard LCA databases (e.g. Ecoinvent), have been used. An important information is related to the quantity of glass needed to produce a bottle. The weight of a standard 0,75 l wine bottle used by the analyzed consortium is 0,45 kg. Starting from the proposed reuse scenario (Fig. 1), the first step concerns the transport of used bottles to the washing center. Considering the dimension and shape of the Piceno region and the location of the center (located in San Benedetto del Tronto, an important city of the considered region), the mean distance for this route has been estimated in 50 km. The first treatment consists in the automatic washing of bottles performed by using the following resources: • Water: measured consumption of about 90 l per 1 million of bottles, that means 0,00009 l/bottle; • Soap: measured consumption of about 9 kg of soap per 1 million of bottles, that means 0,000009 kg/bottle; • Electric energy: the machine has an average power absorption of 0,89 kW, while the processing time per single bottle is about 30 s. Therefore, the energy consumption can be quantified in: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 0,89 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 × 30 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 0,0074 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ/𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (1)

The successive step of the reuse scenario is the sterilization process, realized treating the bottles with steam. The measured heat consumption is about 1701000 MJ per 1 million of bottles, that means about 1,7 MJ/bottle. Before

(2)

The first step of the recycling is the transport of used bottles to the waste collection center. In the case study the waste center is located in San Benedetto del Tronto (as the washing center for the reuse scenario), thus the mean distance for this route has been estimated in 50 km. After the collection, the shredding of glass bottles is realized through dedicated mills, powered with electric energy. According to the Italian report on glass recycling [17] the energy consumption is about 383 kWh per 1 ton of glass. Considering the fraction of needed recycled glass (i.e. 57,5% of 0,45 kg), the energy flow can be quantified in:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 0,383

𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

× 0,26𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 0.0996 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘ℎ

(3)

The glass cullet is successively washed by using the following resources: • Water: estimated consumption of about 200 l per 1 ton of glass, that means 0,052 l per 0,26 kg of glass (i.e. the needed recycled fraction to produce a new bottle); • Soap: estimated consumption of about 10 kg of soap per 1 ton of glass, that means 0,0026 kg per 0,26 kg of glass; • Electric energy: estimated consumption of 130,6 kWh per 1 ton of glass, that means 0,034 kWh per 0,26 kg of glass. At this stage the glass cullet is ready to be sent to a glass producer. Supposing that the company is located near Milan, the distance for this route is about 550 km. During the glass melting and handling, 0,19 kg of virgin glass is mixed with the recycled fraction (0,26 kg) to obtain the right quantity for a new bottle (0,45 kg). The considered virgin glass is the Soda-lime-silica (SLS) glass with the following average chemical composition [16]: 74% SiO2, 14% Na2O, 9% CaO, 2% MgO, 1% Al2O3. Regarding the energy consumption, two flows are considered for this phase: • Heat for glass melting (produced through an industrial furnace powered with methane): estimated consumption of

Daniele Landi et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

402 4

about 10000 MJ per 1 ton of glass, which means 4,5 MJ/bottle; • Electric energy for handling: estimated consumption of about 277,8 kWh per 1 ton of glass, that means 0,125 kWh/bottle. During the bottle forming phase, a new bottle is produced by means of glass blowing processes. The estimated electric energy consumed during this phase for the production of compressed air is about 0,50 kWh/bottle. Finally, the packaging is realized in the same way, as in the case of the reuse scenario. The following Table 1 summarizes the most important data collected for both the considered scenarios. All the quantities reported above have been directly measured on the washing plant (e.g. energy/water consumption of the washing machine) or retrieved/estimated from literature data (e.g. glass melting data, bottle forming consumption). Common data and data related to the reuse scenario are referred to a single bottle. Recycling data are referred to the quantity of glass needed to produce a new bottle from recycled glass (i.e. 0,26 kg for the transports, shredding and washing of glass cullet, 0,45 kg for the final glass melting, handling and bottle forming).

Table 1. Life Cycle Inventory data Scenario Common data

Phase

Flow

Quantity

-

Bottle weight

0,45 kg

Packaging

PE film

0,0833 kg

Transport to washing center

Transport (Euro 5, light vehicle)

50 km

Water

0,00009 l

Soap

0,000009 kg

Electricity

0,0074 kWh

Heat

1,701 MJ

Electricity

0,0022 kWh

Washing

Reuse

Sterilization Drying

Heat

0,85 MJ

-

Recycled glass content

57,5% (0,26 kg)

Transport to waste center

Transport (Euro 5, 3.5-7.5 tons lorry)

50 km

Shredding

Electricity

0,0996 kWh

Water

0,052 l

Soap

0,0026 kg

Electricity

0,034 kWh

Transport (Euro 5, 7.5-16 tons lorry)

550 km

Washing Recycling Transport to glass producer

4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment The environmental impact calculation has been realized by using SimaPro 8.05.13 as LCA software tool, equipped with the Ecoinvent 3.1 – allocation, default – system database. The following Table 2 and Table 3 reports the contributions of each process for the reuse and recycling scenarios, respectively. Fig. 2, instead, shows a normalized comparison among the two scenarios. A normalization has been applied by dividing each total value by the maximum value (in module) obtained for each impact category.

Virgin glass

0,19 kg

Glass melting and handling

Heat (melting)

4,5 MJ

Electricity (handling)

0,125 kWh

Bottle forming

Electricity

0,50 kWh

Table 2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of the reuse scenario Impact category

Total

Input bottle

Transport to washing center

Climate change [kg CO2 eq]

-1,17E-02

-4,95E-01

Ozone depletion [kg CFC-11 eq]

-1,96E-08

Terrestrial acidification [kg SO2 eq]

-2,23E-03

Freshwater eutrophication [kg P eq]

Washing (bottle) Water

Soap

Electricity

4,39E-02

7,94E-10

6,16E-05

4,53E-03

-5,61E-08

7,51E-09

5,82E-17

2,07E-12

-3,79E-03

1,98E-04

3,08E-12

1,48E-07

-4,17E-05

-7,55E-05

7,75E-06

2,15E-13

Marine eutrophication [kg N eq]

-5,14E-04

-7,35E-04

2,79E-05

Human toxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq]

-9,83E-02

-1,40E-01

1,34E-02

Photochemical oxidant formation [kg NMVOC]

-7,06E-04

-2,19E-03

Particulate matter formation [kg PM10 eq]

-7,15E-04

Terrestrial ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq] Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq]

Sterilization

Drying

Packaging

Electricity

Heat

1,90E-01

1,35E-03

6,22E-02

1,82E-01

6,46E-10

2,33E-08

1,92E-10

3,70E-09

1,26E-09

1,77E-05

5,11E-04

5,25E-06

1,89E-04

6,45E-04

9,01E-09

7,32E-07

1,88E-05

2,17E-07

2,50E-06

3,77E-06

7,69E-13

2,49E-07

2,95E-05

1,15E-04

8,76E-06

2,14E-05

1,82E-05

3,87E-10

7,37E-06

6,68E-04

1,77E-02

1,99E-04

5,56E-03

4,54E-03

2,62E-04

2,85E-12

1,21E-07

1,05E-05

2,95E-04

3,13E-06

7,86E-05

8,35E-04

-1,23E-03

9,14E-05

1,85E-12

8,32E-08

5,59E-06

1,60E-04

1,66E-06

4,50E-05

2,15E-04

-9,96E-05

-1,30E-04

5,08E-06

7,20E-14

1,25E-06

2,94E-07

1,64E-05

8,75E-08

3,39E-06

3,70E-06

-2,41E-03

-4,08E-03

5,04E-04

3,97E-11

5,13E-07

3,94E-05

5,36E-04

1,17E-05

3,34E-04

2,45E-04

Marine ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq]

-2,27E-03

-3,80E-03

4,90E-04

3,61E-11

2,97E-07

3,47E-05

6,00E-04

1,03E-05

1,77E-04

2,15E-04

Ionising radiation [kBq U235 eq]

-2,74E-02

-4,69E-02

4,30E-03

5,36E-11

1,51E-06

7,88E-04

1,20E-02

2,34E-04

1,52E-03

7,01E-04

Agricultural land occupation [m2a]

-1,12E-01

-1,15E-01

6,38E-04

1,95E-11

6,30E-05

1,82E-04

1,47E-03

5,41E-05

2,17E-04

1,57E-04

Urban land occupation [m2a]

-3,10E-03

-5,33E-03

1,38E-03

2,47E-11

2,99E-07

1,55E-05

3,49E-04

4,59E-06

4,31E-05

4,34E-04

Natural land transformation [m2]

-4,14E-05

-1,10E-04

1,46E-05

1,09E-13

4,51E-07

7,31E-07

4,17E-05

2,17E-07

8,15E-06

2,33E-06

Water depletion [m3]

-1,44E-03

-3,37E-03

1,58E-04

8,84E-08

2,88E-06

3,13E-05

2,03E-04

9,30E-06

3,06E-05

1,49E-03

Metal depletion [kg Fe eq]

-1,23E-02

-1,98E-02

4,62E-03

3,30E-10

1,54E-06

1,14E-04

1,28E-03

3,40E-05

7,73E-04

6,27E-04

Fossil depletion [kg oil eq]

8,16E-02

-1,52E-01

1,51E-02

1,71E-10

3,72E-06

1,40E-03

6,18E-02

4,16E-04

2,15E-02

1,33E-01



Daniele Landi et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

403 5

Table 3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of the recycling scenario Impact category Climate change [kg CO2 eq] Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq] Terrestrial acidification [kg SO2 eq] Freshwater eutrophication [kg P eq] Marine eutrophication [kg N eq] Human toxicity [kg 1,4DB eq] Photochemical oxidant formation [kg NMVOC] Particulate matter formation [kg PM10 eq] Terrestrial ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq] Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq] Marine ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq] Ionising radiation [kBq U235 eq] Agricultural land occupation [m2a] Urban land occupation [m2a] Natural land transformation [m2] Water depletion [m3]

Total

Input glass

Transport to waste center

Shredding

Water

Soap

Electricity

Transport to glass producer

9,10E-01

-1,28E-01

6,82E-03

6,10E-02

4,59E-07

1,78E-02

2,08E-02

3,15E-02

6,29E-03

3,30E-01

8,05E-08

-1,45E-08

2,68E-03

-9,81E-04

1,18E-09

8,70E-09

3,36E-14

5,98E-10

2,97E-09

5,59E-09

5,99E-10

2,18E-05

2,38E-04

1,78E-09

4,29E-05

8,11E-05

1,02E-04

4,12E-05

7,94E-05

-1,95E-05

6,36E-07

9,85E-06

1,24E-10

2,60E-06

3,36E-06

2,43E-06

3,05E-03

-1,90E-04

2,42E-06

3,97E-04

4,44E-10

7,20E-05

1,35E-04

7,78E-02

-3,63E-02

1,66E-03

9,00E-03

2,23E-07

2,13E-03

3,07E-03

1,98E-03

-5,67E-04

2,46E-05

1,41E-04

1,65E-09

3,49E-05

8,03E-04

-3,19E-04

1,02E-05

7,53E-05

1,07E-09

2,40E-05

3,88E-04

-3,36E-05

1,87E-06

3,96E-06

4,16E-11

5,45E-03

-1,06E-03

4,67E-05

5,30E-04

2,29E-08

4,14E-03

-9,84E-04

5,36E-05

4,67E-04

8,13E-02

-1,21E-02

5,42E-04

9,55E-03

-2,97E-02

1,01E-04

2,74E-03

-1,38E-03

2,38E-04

-2,84E-05

Washing (cullet)

Glass Melting & Handling Virgin glass

Heat

Electricity

Bottle Forming

Packaging

7,66E-02

3,06E-01

1,82E-01

1,96E-08

1,09E-08

4,37E-08

1,26E-09

1,00E-03

2,98E-04

1,19E-03

6,45E-04

1,27E-06

1,33E-05

1,24E-05

4,94E-05

3,77E-06

1,07E-05

3,50E-06

1,13E-04

4,98E-04

1,99E-03

1,82E-05

6,13E-03

1,65E-03

2,94E-02

1,13E-02

4,52E-02

4,54E-03

4,83E-05

1,21E-04

3,28E-05

4,16E-04

1,78E-04

7,10E-04

8,35E-04

2,57E-05

4,66E-05

1,54E-05

2,38E-04

9,45E-05

3,78E-04

2,15E-04

3,61E-04

1,35E-06

6,70E-06

1,02E-06

1,79E-05

4,97E-06

1,99E-05

3,70E-06

1,48E-04

1,81E-04

2,15E-04

4,44E-05

1,77E-03

6,65E-04

2,66E-03

2,45E-04

2,09E-08

8,58E-05

1,59E-04

2,32E-04

4,75E-05

9,40E-04

5,86E-04

2,34E-03

2,15E-04

1,06E-02

3,10E-08

4,37E-04

3,62E-03

2,51E-03

3,94E-04

8,08E-03

1,33E-02

5,32E-02

7,01E-04

2,45E-03

1,12E-08

1,82E-02

8,36E-04

4,26E-04

5,73E-04

1,15E-03

3,07E-03

1,23E-02

1,57E-04

2,28E-04

2,08E-04

1,43E-08

8,63E-05

7,10E-05

1,35E-03

2,10E-04

2,28E-04

2,61E-04

1,04E-03

4,34E-04

2,35E-06

9,84E-06

6,30E-11

1,30E-04

3,36E-06

1,12E-05

2,25E-06

4,32E-05

1,23E-05

4,94E-05

2,33E-06

5,21E-03

-8,72E-04

2,11E-05

4,21E-04

5,11E-05

8,31E-04

1,44E-04

9,27E-05

2,22E-04

1,62E-04

5,28E-04

2,11E-03

1,49E-03

Metal depletion [kg Fe eq] 1,38E-02

-5,12E-03

3,90E-04

1,54E-03

1,91E-07

4,44E-04

5,26E-04

1,41E-03

2,29E-04

4,10E-03

1,93E-03

7,73E-03

6,27E-04

Fossil depletion [kg oil eq]

-3,92E-02

2,36E-03

1,88E-02

9,89E-08

1,08E-03

6,43E-03

1,10E-02

1,68E-03

1,14E-01

2,36E-02

9,45E-02

1,33E-01

3,67E-01

Fig. 2. Comparison (normalized) among the two scenarios

5. Results and discussion The comparison among the two considered scenarios (Fig. 2) clearly demonstrates that the reuse is a very promising solution to further reduce the environmental load related to wine bottles. A significant decrease is observed in all the impact categories calculated through the ReCiPe method.

In case of reuse the environmental impacts resulted negative in all the impact categories (except the Fossil depletion), which means that the implementation of this scenario potentially leads to benefits for the environment. This is mainly due to the fact that the reuse allows to recover the entire bottle (if not damaged) avoiding the use of new virgin glass. As explained in the inventory section, the production of a new glass bottle from recycled glass always requires the use of virgin material (42,5% in weight) that must

404 6

Daniele Landi et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 399–404 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

be mixed with the glass cullet during the melting phase. Therefore, in the recycling scenario only a fraction of the original bottle can be reused, with a sensible reduction of the avoided quantity of virgin material, and thus of the environmental benefits. The least improvements have been observed for the Fossil depletion and Climate change indicators. Analyzing the detailed contributions of the reuse scenario, reported in Table 2, it is clear that the most penalizing flows for both indicators are related to the packaging, sterilization and drying phases. Packaging is made of PE plastic film, commonly produced by using oil, thus it contributes to the depletion of fossil resources. Sterilization and drying consume relevant quantities of heat produced through the burning of methane in industrial furnaces. This process strongly contributes both to the depletion of natural resources and to the generation of greenhouse gases; the latter directly influence the Climate change indicator. According to the results obtained for the recycling scenario (Table 3), the most impactful flows are related to the high quantities of electricity and heat needed for the different phases, particularly for glass melting and bottle forming. The proposed reuse scenario allows avoiding these processes, leading to sensible environmental savings in all the considered impact categories. 6. Conclusions The paper presents an environmental comparison among two end of life scenarios for glass wine bottles in the context of an Italian consortium of wine producers located in the Piceno region (Central Italy): (i) recycling, based on bottle shredding and glass recycling through melting, and (ii) reuse, based on bottle washing and reuse. Even if the glass recycling rates are currently very high in most of the developed countries (until 80%), and this scenario is considered a best practice in the context of waste management, since leads to savings of virgin materials, it requires high quantities of energy for the cullet processing and melting. This study quantitatively demonstrates that further improvements can be obtained with the reuse of wine glass bottles that requires less energy-intensive processes. It is worth to notice that the proposed reuse scenario is not dependent to the location of the wine consortium and can be replicated in other geographical contexts. It is expected that similar results can be obtained in other wine consortiums with the same characteristics and dimensions (producers located within 50-100 km, few types of wine produced, few types of bottles used, distribution to local restaurants, etc.). Future work should be focused at first on improving the quality of inventory data. Currently, only the data related to the washing plant have been measured, while all the data related to the recycling scenario have been collected through questionnaires or retrieved/estimated from literature. In addition, a sensitivity analysis should be carried out to establish the most important parameters influencing the obtained results. More complex and complete scenarios should be also analyzed. Additional benefits could be obtained by

implementing a reuse scenario for the packaging, as the use of reusable rigid plastic boxes for bottles, to be used both during the wine distribution and the collection of end of life bottles. Another action that potentially contributes to further reduce the impact, could be the reuse of agricultural waste, coming from viticulture phase, to be used for the co-generation of electricity and heat needed to power the washing plant. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank the Vinea consortium and the Eng. Massimo Carassai for the precious contribution in the development of this research. References [1] European Commission. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart. sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final. Brussels; 2010. [2] European Commission. A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe2020 Strategy. COMM(2011) 21 final. Brussels; 2011. [3] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F, Monforti-Ferrario F, Banja M, Motola V. Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union – An overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress Reports. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:969-985. [4] European Parliament. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, Off J Eur Union 2012;L315/1:1-56. [5] European Commission – Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Wine – Market Situation, Evolution and Background information; 2015. [6] Malvoni M, Congedo PM, Laforgia D. Analysis of energy consumption: a case study of an Italian winery. Energy Proc 2017;126:227-233. [7] S.J. Eilert, New packaging technologies for the 21st century, Meat Science, 71 (2005), pp. 122-127 [8] Charters S. Wine and Society:The Social and Cultural Context of a Drink. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann; 2006. [9] Hammervoll T, Mora P, Toften K. The financial crisis and the wine industry: The performance of niche firms versus mass-market firms. Wine Econ Policy 2014;3(2):108-114. [10] International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV). Vine and Wine Outlook; 2014. [11] Toften K, Hammervoll T. Strategic orientation of niche firms. J Res Mark Enterp 2010;12(2):108-121. [12] Toften K., Hammervoll T. Niche marketing research: status and challenges. Mark Intell Plan 2013;31(3):272-285. [13] Landi D, Vitali S, Germani M. Environmental analysis of different end of life scenarios of tires textile fibres. Procedia CIRP 2016;48:508-513. [14] Marconi M, Landi D, Meo I, Germani M. Reuse of Tires Textile Fibers in Plastic Compounds: Is this Scenario Environmentally Sustainable?. Procedia CIRP 2018;69:944-949 [15] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. Geneva; 2006. [16] Gualtieri ML, Mugoni C, Guandalini S, Cattini A, Mazzini D, Alboni C, Siligardi C. Glass recycling in the production of low-temperature stoneware tiles. J Clean Prod 2018;197:1531-1539. [17] Consorzio Recupero Vetro (CoReVe), Piano Specifico di Prevenzione; 2016. [18] Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation - First edition (version 1.08). VROM–Ruimte en Milieu, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer; 2009.