KOREAN JOURNAL OF PACKAGING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (한국포장학회지)

Korea Society of Packaging Science and Technology (한국포장학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Environmental Evaluation for Paper and Plastic Based Mask Packaging

종이 기반과 플라스틱 기반 보건마스크 패키징의 환경영향 비교

  • Dongho Kang (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Korea Packaging Center ) ;
  • Youjin Go (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Korea Packaging Center ) ;
  • Sanghoon Oh (Hansol Paper Co., Ltd ) ;
  • Gohyun Choo (Hansol Paper Co., Ltd ) ;
  • Jisoo Jang (Hansol Paper Co., Ltd. R&D Center) ;
  • Junhyuk Lee (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Korea Packaging Center ) ;
  • Jinkie Shim (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Korea Packaging Center )
  • 강동호 (한국생산기술연구원 패키징기술센터) ;
  • 고유진 (한국생산기술연구원 패키징기술센터) ;
  • 오상훈 (한솔제지주식회사) ;
  • 추고현 (한솔제지주식회사) ;
  • 장지수 (한솔제지주식회사 중앙연구소) ;
  • 이준혁 (한국생산기술연구원 패키징기술센터) ;
  • 심진기 (한국생산기술연구원 패키징기술센터)
  • Published : 2024.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, environmental evaluation of high barrier coated paper (coating layer/paper) packaging is conducted in comparison with conventional aluminum laminated (PET/VMPET/LLDPE) plastic packaging. The target product for this packaging is a KF94 mask, which requires a high barrier of water and oxygen to maintain the filtration ability of the mask filter. The functional unit of this study is 10,000 mask packaging materials based on a material capable of blocking oxygen (<1 g/m2day) and moisture (<3 g/m2day) for the preservation of KF94 masks. In order to understand the results easily, paper-based mask packaging system divided into 6 stages (pulp, pulping & paper making, calendaring & coating, printing, packing and waste management), while plastic-based mask packaging consists of 5 stages (material production, processing, printing, packing, waste management) In case of paper-based mask packaging, most contributing stage is calendaring & coating, resulting from heat and electricity production. On the other hand, plastic-based mask packaging is contributed more than 30% by material production, specifically due to linear low density polyethylene and purified terephthalic acid production. The comparison results show that global warming potential of paper-based mask packaging has 32% lower than that of plastic-based mask packaging. Most of other impact indicators revealed in similar trend.

Keywords

References

  1. Platt, D., The Future of Global Packaging to 2026. 2021: Smithers. 
  2. Syam, N., Is the pandemic triggering a spike in plastic pollution. 2020. 
  3. Nzediegwu, C. and S.X. Chang, Improper solid waste management increases potential for COVID-19 spread in developing countries. Resources, conservation, and recycling, 2020. 161: p. 104947. 
  4. 황나원 and 이광우, COVID-19 의 확산으로 인한 국내 소비자의 마스크 사용현황과 만족도 조사. 한국의류산업학회지 pISSN, 2022. 24(4). 
  5. Korea Consumer Agency, Mask safety survey. 2018. 
  6. Ministry of Food & Drug Safety, Provision of information on 'Health mask' against yellow dust and fine dust, M.o.F.D. Safety, Editor. 2018. 
  7. Zhang, X., et al., Multi-layered, corona charged melt blown nonwovens as high performance PM0. 3 air filters. Polymers, 2021. 13(4): p. 485. 
  8. 한국환경공단, 전국 폐기물 발생 및 처리현황(2022년). 2022. 
  9. Anwar, T., D. Palekhow, and M. Schmidt, Comparative Study of Environmental Performance between Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) Grocery Bags and Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags via Life Cycle Assessment using openLCA. 2020, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus. 
  10. Bisinella, V., et al., Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags. 2018. 
  11. Civancik-Uslu, D., et al., Life cycle assessment of carrier bags and development of a littering indicator. Science of the Total Environment, 2019. 685: p. 621-630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.372
  12. Muthu, S.S., et al., Carbon footprint of shopping (grocery) bags in China, Hong Kong and India. Atmospheric environment, 2011. 45(2): p. 469-475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.09.054
  13. Ferrara, C. and G. De Feo, Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative systems for wine packaging in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 259: p. 120888. 
  14. Giroux, L.L., A life cycle assessment case study of milk packaging in Nova Scotia. 2001: National Library of Canada= Bibliotheque nationale du Canada, Ottawa. 
  15. Ligthart, T. and A. Ansems, Single use cups or reusable (coffee) drinking systems: an environmental comparison. TNO, Apeldoorn, 2007. 
  16. Belley, C., et al., Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Report of Food Packaging Products. Report of CIRAIG (Interuniversity Research Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services), Montreal (Canada), 2011: p. 47. 
  17. International Standard Organization, ISO 14040:2006 Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework, in Environmental management. 2022. 
  18. Lee, Y., Comparative life cycle assessment of traditional instant noodle packaging with newly developed packaging in Korea, in Department of Food Bioscience and Technology. 2022, Korea University. 
  19. Kim, S.-K., et al., Estimated CO2 emissions and analysis of solid recovered fuel (SRF) as an alternative fuel. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment, 2013. 7(1): p. 48-55.  https://doi.org/10.5572/ajae.2013.7.1.048
  20. Bayus, J., C. Ge, and B. Thorn, A preliminary environmental assessment of foil and metallized film centered laminates. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2016. 115: p. 31-41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.024
  21. Wang, L., et al., Global face mask pollution: threats to the environment and wildlife, and potential solutions. Science of The Total Environment, 2023: p. 164055.