No abstract

No abstract

Orange peel‐derived pectin jelly/corn starch‐based biocomposite films with and without layered silicates (LSs) were prepared using melt extrusion followed by film die casting. To enhance interfacial compatibility, corn starch and LSs were chemically modified. Regardless of chemical modification or LS weight content, different pectin jelly‐to‐starch weight ratios (63/37, 60/40, 57/43, and 54/46) were considered to formulate the ingredients of biocomposite films in light of Taguchi‐based predictions. X‐ray diffraction (XRD), fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), scanned electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were systematically used to characterize corn starch, LSs, and biocomposite films. Among all the films considered, pectin jelly/modified (15%) starch‐based biocomposite film (54/46 w/w) containing 0.25 wt % of pristine LSs was found to be the most promising in terms of texture structure and mechanical integrity. Furthermore, creep recovery, hydrophobicity, and water vapor and oxygen gas transmission rates of the most promising biocomposite film were experimentally determined. Based on the findings obtained, the overall performance of the biocomposite film was evaluated and weighed against the overall performance of a low‐density polyethylene film. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 40654.

A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) between three different cheese packages (P1: completely polypropylene (PP), P2: tin and polyethylene (PE), and P3: carton and PE) has been carried out for the production, distribution and waste disposal (100% landfill) phase. A package for 1 kg of cheese was selected as the functional unit. SimaPro7 software (PRConsultants, The Netherlands) was used for the LCA study. The EcoIndicator 99 method was selected for comparison of the packages. The comparisons show that the total environmental performance of the cheese package types in order from worst to best is P2, P1, and P3. This conclusion was supported by a sensitivity analysis, which was conducted by using different impact assessment methods. IntroductionCheese production is a complex system where different reactions take place during the maturation and storage processes. After manufacture, semihard cheese undergoes a maturation process according to the ripening conditions that the cheese is exposed to. This process influences the texture, flavor, and all other chemical and physical properties of a cheese. When a packaging system is used with the objective of extending the shelf-life of the product, the maturation process has to be considered [1]. Since it is a complex system, the selection of a suitable packaging material has an important role in cheese packaging.The packaging materials obtain some properties such as vapor and gas permeability/impermeability, heat and oil impermeability through their operation. Several durability tests are conducted by the manufacturing companies to determine the performance of the packages [2].Cheese packages on the market may be completely composed of plastic or a combination of plastic and carton or plastic and tin. The environmental effects of packaging materials are varied depending on the material used. The potential effects of packaging material on the environment can be determined by conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) study.LCA is a tool used to assess the environmental impacts of product systems and services, accounting for the emissions produced and resources used during the production, distribution, use, and disposal of a product. LCA has been developed from the analysis of cumulative or embodied energy demand [3]. It was developed rapidly during the 1990's and has reached a certain level of harmonization and standardization. An International Standards Organization (ISO) standard has been developed, as well as several guidelines. LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a "product" life, i. e., cradle-to-grave, from raw material acquisition through production, use, and disposal [4]. Throughout these stages, the extraction and consumption of resources (including energy) and emissions release into air, water, and soil are identified and quantified. Subsequently, the potential impact contributions of the resource extraction and consumption, as well as environmental releases resulting in several important impacts on the environmental, are asse...

No abstract

No abstract

Packaging wastes have a portion of 12-15% in total municipal solid waste (MSW) in Turkey, and they have to be evaluated from production to final disposal from the environmental point of view. The concern about the environmental impacts of packages has been dealt with using several approaches in environmental management, such as risk assessment, environmental impact assessment, environmental auditing, energy analysis, material flow analysis, and life cycle analysis (LCA). The main purpose of this research was to investigate the life cycle environmental impact of glass bottles and beverage cartons. This LCA study was performed by using SimaPro7 (PRè Consultants, The Netherlands) software. Individual and comparative life cycle analysis of two packages was performed depending on a consumer who lives in Eskisehir city. For that aim, SimaPro7 was used, and the data to run the software was gathered from package producers, the database of the software, and the literature. Life cycle comparisons of the two juice packages among themselves and also within themselves were carried out by using EcoIndicator 99 on the basis of climate change, ecotoxicity, acidification/eutrophication, and fossil fuels. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of transportation. According to comparison figures, the environmental load of glass bottles is higher than beverage carton's load for all the impact categories. This result is also supported by the sensitivity analysis.

No abstract