MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399365042 · doi:10.1002/pts.2826

Environmental and Economic Analysis of Reusable and Single‐Use Food Packaging Formats in University Campus Food Services

2024· article· en· W4399365042 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Ralph Snyder, Jonghun Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePackaging Technology and Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental impact assessmentScope (computer science)EngineeringFood packagingProduction (economics)Operations managementWaste managementBusinessEnvironmental economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to assess the environmental and economic impacts of the various food packaging systems offered in university food services in Canada. Toronto Metropolitan University's food service was chosen as a test case. Three systems exist in this setting: single‐use polypropylene (PP) containers, reusable PP clamshells and compostable bagasse clamshells. The goal is to understand which system has the most favourable impact regarding the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts' (TRACI 2.1) 10 impact categories and which system is the most financially viable through a cost analysis. The scope includes a cradle‐to‐grave life cycle assessment (LCA) consisting of raw material extraction and production, transportation, usage and end‐of‐life disposal. This study investigates the environmental impact of each packaging system for 10 000 meals consumed by students. This research follows two ISO standards, 14044:2006, and 14040:2006. These standards involve defining the goal and scope, completing a life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, completing a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpreting the life cycle. LCI information is extracted using SimaPro v9.0. The study results reveal that the reusable PP clamshell has the least environmental impact when compared to the two other single‐use packaging alternatives for nine of the 10 environmental impact categories. The single‐use PP container has the most significant environmental impact due to its harmful material extraction, production processes and end‐of‐life emissions. The sensitivity analysis determined that if reused a minimum number of 37 times, the reusable clamshell (RU) remains favourable to the single‐use formats in nine of the 10 impact categories. Furthermore, the cost analysis reveals that the reusable packaging format is the most financially favourable when reused 16 times or more. This research concludes that single‐use food packaging options have a more significant environmental impact than reusable PP clamshells. Based on the research findings, purchasing a less harmful detergent, sourcing the packaging locally and reducing the loss rate of reusable PP clamshells could produce an even more favourable environmental impact for the reusable food packaging system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePackaging Technology and ScienceSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207