Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Multiple Liquid Laundry Detergent Packaging Formats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging packaging industry trend of focusing on packaging sustainability is also occurring in the laundry detergent industry. This study presents a cradle-to-grave comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of three different packaging systems for liquid laundry detergent: the conventional pourable bottle, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) container with pods, and flexible pouch with pods. The scope of this study included material production, intermediate processes, transportation, and end-of-life phases of each packaging system. The results showed that the conventional pourable bottle made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) has less environmental impact than the other two packaging systems in all impact categories, except ecotoxicity, due to the higher amount of packaging material required to produce the pods. The rigid PET container with pods impacted the environment in all categories more than the multi-layered flexible pouch containing pods, due primarily to the amount of material production, heavier weight, and intermediate processing using injection molding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".