By quantitatively analyzing the environmental impact of tinplate milk powder cans during the "cradle to gate" life cycle, the work aims to identify the key environmental impact categories and the most relevant life cycle stages in the production process of milk powder cans, and propose environmental improvement suggestions. Based on the European Union Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method, SimaPro, the life cycle assessment software, and Ecoinvent database were used to model the milk powder cans during the life cycle. The Environmental Footprint (EF) 3.1 method was used to evaluate 16 environmental footprint indicators, and sensitivity analysis was conducted on the key parameters and multiple databases. Climate change, mineral and metal resource consumption, fossil resource utilization, particulate matter formation, human toxicity-cancer, and acidification were the most relevant environmental impact categories, resulting in the main environmental impact during the production process of milk powder cans. The carbon footprint for producing one milk powder can was 0.34 kg CO2 eq., mainly attributed to the energy and resource consumption during the production stage of tinplate raw materials, with a contribution rate of 61.76%. The transition of energy structure from traditional thermal power to clean energy could give the saving of greenhouse gas emissions from 2.94% to 11.84%. Improving the efficiency of raw material utilization, reducing waste generation, lowering electricity consumption, and accelerating the replacement of clean energy are effective ways to reduce the environmental footprint of milk powder cans throughout their life cycles.
Key words
milk powder can /
life cycle assessment /
product environmental footprint /
carbon footprint
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] YANG X T, YU Q J, GAO W, et al.The Mechanism of Metal-Based Antibacterial Materials and the Progress of Food Packaging Applications: A Review[J]. Ceramics International, 2022, 48(23): 34148-34168.
[2] 申艳毅, 彭喜洋, 陆永亮, 等. 无铬钝化马口铁罐包装奶粉应用研究[J]. 包装学报, 2025, 17(2): 49-54.
SHEN Y Y, PENG X Y, LU Y L, et al.Application Research of Chromium-Free Passivated Tinplate for Milk Powder Cans[J]. Packaging Journal, 2025, 17(2): 49-54.
[3] 申艳毅, 徐尚, 彭喜洋. 奶粉罐合规性管理分析[J]. 包装工程, 2024, 45(7): 137-147.
SHEN Y Y, XU S, PENG X Y.Analysis on Compliance Management of Milk Powder Cans[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2024, 45(7): 137-147.
[4] 郭文渊. 食品包装用金属罐的发展[J]. 上海包装, 2016(2): 32-35.
GUO W Y.Development of Metal Cans for Food Packaging[J]. Shanghai Packaging, 2016(2): 32-35.
[5] MIRZA ALIZADEH A, MASOOMIAN M, SHAKOOIE M, et al.Trends and Applications of Intelligent Packaging in Dairy Products: A Review[J]. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2022, 62(2): 383-397.
[6] 张知悦, 黄子鉴. 可持续发展理念下食品包装设计研究[J]. 绿色包装, 2025(5): 157-162.
ZHANG Z Y, HUANG Z J.Research on Food Packaging Design under the Framework of Sustainable Development[J]. Green Packaging, 2025(5): 157-162.
[7] SANGRONIZ A, ZHU J B, TANG X Y, et al.Packaging Materials with Desired Mechanical and Barrier Properties and Full Chemical Recyclability[J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10: 3559.
[8] 颜沁梅, 袁洋. 环保材料在食品包装设计中的应用研究[J]. 食品安全导刊, 2025(26): 161-163.
YAN Q M, YUAN Y.Research on the Application of Environmentally Friendly Materials in Food Packaging Design[J]. Food Safety Guide Magazine, 2025(26): 161-163.
[9] TASCIONE V, SIMBOLI A, TADDEO R, et al.A Comparative Analysis of Recent Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines and Frameworks: Methodological Evidence from the Packaging Industry[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2024, 108: 107590.
[10] Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines:ISO 14044: 2006[S]. International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
[11] AHN Y, BYUN J, KIM D, et al.System-Level Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of CO2 and Fossil-Based Formic Acid Strategies[J]. Green Chemistry, 2019, 21(12): 3442-3455.
[12] Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework:ISO 14040: 2006[S]. International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
[13] Greenhouse gases - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification:ISO 14067: 2018[S]. International Organization for Standardization, 2018.
[14] ZAMPORI L, PANT R.Suggestions for Updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Method[J]. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019, 201910: 424.
[15] 王艳丽, 李玉坤, 支朝晖, 等. 淀粉基食品包装材料的生命周期评价[J]. 中国食品学报, 2021, 21(12): 277-282.
WANG Y L, LI Y K, ZHI Z H, et al.Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Starch-Based Food Packaging Materials[J]. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology, 2021, 21(12): 277-282.
[16] 廖倩滢, 张珺, 易自力, 等. 南荻生态包装箱的全生命周期评价比较研究[J]. 包装工程, 2022, 43(19): 120-127.
LIAO Q Y, ZHANG J, YI Z L, et al.Comparative LCA Study on the Miscanthus Lutarioriparius-Based Packaging Box[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2022, 43(19): 120-127.
[17] 廖海昆, 孙彬青, 邱浩伦, 等. 基于LCA的纸包装碳排放计算及减排案例分析[J]. 天津造纸, 2024, 46(3): 34-43.
LIAO H K, SUN B Q, QIU H L, et al.Carbon Emission Calculation Based on LCA for Paper Packaging and Emission Reduction Case Analysis[J]. Tianjin Paper Making, 2024, 46(3): 34-43.
[18] CRENNA E, SECCHI M, BENINI L, et al.Global Environmental Impacts: Data Sources and Methodological Choices for Calculating Normalization Factors for LCA[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019, 24(10): 1851-1877.
[19] SALA S, CERUTTI A K, PANT R.Development of A Weighting Approach for the Environmental Footprint[J]. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.
[20] Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organization. Research On China's Energy and Power Development Planning in 2030 and Its Outlook to 2060[EB/OL]. (2021-03-19)[2026-01-06]. http://www.chinapower.com.cn/tynfd/zcdt/20210320/59388.html.
[21] YANG F, YANG X, LI X F.China’s Diverse Energy Transition Pathways Toward Carbon Neutrality by 2060[J]. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2024, 47: 236-250.
PDF(999 KB)
