2026-10-07T08:03:19Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/32826308 2026-10-01T16:09:03Z portal_1172 item_type_8 month_year_10_2026

Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost of food transportation packaging- reusable plastic crate (RPC) Si Gao (3607028) PUREID: 685606233 Fruit and Vegetable (FV) Reusable Plastic Crate (RPC) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Global Warming Potential (GWP) Fruit and vegetables (FV) are important for healthier and more nutritious diets, while production and the supply chains for distribution of these products have associated sustainability and environmental impacts. Packaging systems play a critical role in food logistics in terms of climate adaptability and environmental friendliness. Proper packaging may prevent food loss or waste by protecting FV in transit, improving logistics efficiency, and thus extending the shelf life of food products, which results in even less food loss and waste (FLW). Yet the production and use of the packaging material generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The use of reusable plastic crates (RPC), a reusable solution for secondary packaging, instead of disposable boxes, is a packaging solution that is suggested to reduce packaging waste, improve packaging and thereby reduce FLW, and lower energy consumption. Several previous studies have assessed the aggregated impacts using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies supporting the relatively better environmental performance of RPC over disposable packaging solutions, but studies of a more thorough influence of different parameters under practical logistics are lacking. Also, there have been a few life cycle studies combining FV, the FLW, as well as energy optimisation as variables linked to the secondary packaging. Furthermore, the studies of packaging life cycle cost (LCC) under practical situations are also lacking, and they are seldom combined with environmental performance. This thesis aims to analyse different secondary packaging for transporting fruit and vegetables, in terms of their environmental and economic impacts. It applies a life cycle approach (both LCA and LCC) to both environmental and cost implications, comparing RPC with disposable packaging such as cardboard box, foam box and disposable plastic box. The geographical focus is on value chains of different FV in China using a selected number of case studies.<br><br>Results show that RPC usage can significantly reduce environmental impacts. The main factors influencing the GWP emissions of RPCs are transportation distance and the number of calculation that the RPC will have during its lifetime. While distance has a positive correlation with GWP emissions, an increased number of circulation times will reduce the associated GWP emissions. Reduced packaging weight results in fewer emissions, and alternative packaging materials is beneficial. Under reference scenario (72 times circulation over 3 years, crate rotation factor 2), the distance for RPC to be favourable can be more than 2,500 kilometres (from farmland to distribution centre (DC)), while if at 500 km distance, the circulation time can be as few as 6 times/years, while RPC can still be advantageous in GWP emissions compared with disposable packaging. RPC has coupling advantages over cardboard box (CB) in terms of indirect and direct impacts on GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. When combining food and packaging life cycle together, RPC usage can reduce GWP by 4.5%-16.61%. Considering the food loss and waste reduction and energy optimisation brought by RPC usage, RPC usage can reduce GWP increase by 32.36%-50.38% as compared to CB packaging, Freshwater Ecotoxicity Potential (FETP) by 3.1%-16.8%, Freshwater Eutrophication Potential (EP) by 1.9%-13.4% and Water Consumption Potential (WCP) by 3.4%-16.9%.<br><br>LCC analysis shows that transportation distance has a positive linear correlation with transportation costs and the reciprocal of circulation times. Optimising reverse logistics, storage ratio, folded percentage, reducing crate price and extending lifetime could lead to positive economic performance of RPC, while the crate rotation factor increase and circulation crate number increase have a negative influence. If combining LCC with LCA, under the reference scenario, the dual beneficial occasions for both economy and environment occur at equal to or more than 18 circulation times per 3 years for purchased reusable plastic crate (PRPC), while it is 40 times per 3 years for rented reusable plastic crate (RRPC). When the transportation distance from the farmland to DC and from DC to the retailer is below 821, PRPC is economically preferable. Optimising the reverse logistics, the distance can be further extended for RRPC. Models were applied in case studies for testing and positive results for RPC in terms of environment and economy were reached as well. 2026-10-01T16:09:03Z Text Thesis 10.17034/32826308.v1 https://figshare.com/articles/thesis/Life_cycle_assessment_and_life_cycle_cost_of_food_transportation_packaging-_reusable_plastic_crate_RPC_/32826308 All Rights Reserved