Streckblasformen

Thielen, Michael; Gust, Peter; Hartwig, Klaus

doi:10.3139/9783446458567.003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The packaging efficiency, here referring only to the bottle weight, was in the same range for these three CO 2 -concentration categories (Figure 9). Non-carbonated and carbonated water were, therefore, poured into PET bottles with similar weights (in the literature, it was reported that PET for carbonated drinks required a higher intrinsic viscosity and, thus, a higher molecular weight [64,74]). Our hypothesis that PET bottles for carbonated water would be lighter than PET bottles for non-carbonated water because of bottle stabilization by CO 2 pressure was not true and was falsified.…”

Section: Shelf Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Packaging Material Use Efficiency of Commercial PET and Glass Bottles for Mineral Water

Gress,

Müller,

Sängerlaub

2024

Beverages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of the bottle material (glass, PET), the reusability (reusable and disposable bottles), and the carbonization (still, medium, classic mineral water) on the filling ratio, packaging material use efficiency, cost, and shelf life were evaluated. Two hundred different bottles were purchased and characterized regarding their filling volume, the weight of the bottle, the weight of the closure, the weight of the label, and the maximum full-rim volume of the bottle. The packaging material use efficiency was calculated. The shelf life was evaluated by calculating the water vapor and carbon dioxide transmission rates. The ratio of filling volume to the packaging weight of disposable PET bottles was, on average, two times higher compared to returnable PET bottles and 20 times higher compared to glass bottles. Shelf life was, on average, higher than factor two for glass bottles compared to PET bottles. On average, but not in all cases, mineral water packaged in disposable PET bottles was cheaper compared to reusable PET and glass bottles. This paper provides a benchmark for the packaging community, especially when data for life cycle assessment are required, and the different advantages and disadvantages of different bottle materials for mineral water are shown.

show abstract

Section: Shelf Lifementioning

confidence: 99%