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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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