skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Detailed life cycle assessment of Bounty ® paper towel operations in the United States

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1325279
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Published Article
Journal Name:
Journal of Cleaner Production
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 131; Journal Issue: C; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-05-30 15:53:30; Journal ID: ISSN 0959-6526
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
United Kingdom
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Ingwersen, Wesley, Gausman, Maria, Weisbrod, Annie, Sengupta, Debalina, Lee, Seung-Jin, Bare, Jane, Zanoli, Ed, Bhander, Gurbakash S., and Ceja, Manuel. Detailed life cycle assessment of Bounty ® paper towel operations in the United States. United Kingdom: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149.
Ingwersen, Wesley, Gausman, Maria, Weisbrod, Annie, Sengupta, Debalina, Lee, Seung-Jin, Bare, Jane, Zanoli, Ed, Bhander, Gurbakash S., & Ceja, Manuel. Detailed life cycle assessment of Bounty ® paper towel operations in the United States. United Kingdom. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149.
Ingwersen, Wesley, Gausman, Maria, Weisbrod, Annie, Sengupta, Debalina, Lee, Seung-Jin, Bare, Jane, Zanoli, Ed, Bhander, Gurbakash S., and Ceja, Manuel. 2016. "Detailed life cycle assessment of Bounty ® paper towel operations in the United States". United Kingdom. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149.
@article{osti_1325279,
title = {Detailed life cycle assessment of Bounty ® paper towel operations in the United States},
author = {Ingwersen, Wesley and Gausman, Maria and Weisbrod, Annie and Sengupta, Debalina and Lee, Seung-Jin and Bare, Jane and Zanoli, Ed and Bhander, Gurbakash S. and Ceja, Manuel},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149},
journal = {Journal of Cleaner Production},
number = C,
volume = 131,
place = {United Kingdom},
year = 2016,
month = 9
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 2works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:
  • Viable alternatives to conventional newspapers, such as electronic papers, e-papers or e-readers, are intended to have many of the qualities of paper, such as reading using reflective light, high resolution, 180 deg. viewing angle. It has been suggested that the environmental impact of e-paper can be lower than for printed and internet-based newspapers. However, in order to find the facts of the matter, a thorough life cycle perspective covering raw material acquisition, production, use and disposal should preferably be used to study the environmental performance of the different products. A screening life cycle assessment was performed to describe the potentialmore » environmental impacts of two product systems; printed on paper and tablet e-paper newspapers. Results show that the most significant phase of the life cycle for both product systems was the production of substrate or platform. Accordingly, key aspects that may affect the resulting environmental performance of newspaper product systems were for the printed newspaper number of readers per copy and number of pages per issue and for the tablet e-paper newspaper lifetime and multi-use of the device. The printed newspaper in general had a higher energy use, higher emissions of gases contributing to climate change and several other impact categories than the tablet e-paper newspaper. It was concluded that tablet e-paper has the potential to decrease the environmental impact of newspaper consumption. However, further studies regarding the environmental impact of production and waste management of electronic devices and internet use, as well as more comprehensive assessment of toxicological impacts are needed. As the data on the electronic devices becomes more comprehensive this may prove to be a major limitation of electronic newspaper systems. Developers are suggested to strive towards minimisation of toxic and rare substances in production.« less
  • Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Using crop straws and wood wastes for paper production should be promoted. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Bagasse and textile waste recycling should be properly limited. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Imports of scrap paper should be encouraged. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Sensitivity analysis, uncertainties and policy implications are discussed. - Abstract: Waste recycling for paper production is an important component of waste management. This study constructs a physical input-output life-cycle assessment (PIO-LCA) model. The PIO-LCA model is used to investigate environmental impacts of four categories of waste recycling in China's paper industry: crop straws, bagasse, textile wastes and scrap paper. Crop straw recycling and wood utilization for papermore » production have small total intensity of environmental impacts. Moreover, environmental impacts reduction of crop straw recycling and wood utilization benefits the most from technology development. Thus, using crop straws and wood (including wood wastes) for paper production should be promoted. Technology development has small effects on environmental impacts reduction of bagasse recycling, textile waste recycling and scrap paper recycling. In addition, bagasse recycling and textile waste recycling have big total intensity of environmental impacts. Thus, the development of bagasse recycling and textile waste recycling should be properly limited. Other pathways for reusing bagasse and textile wastes should be explored and evaluated. Moreover, imports of scrap paper should be encouraged to reduce large indirect impacts of scrap paper recycling on domestic environment.« less
  • Commonly considered strategies for reducing the environmental impact of light-duty transportation include using alternative fuels and improving vehicle fuel economy. We evaluate the air quality-related human health impacts of 10 such options, including the use of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology. Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration–response, and economic health impact modeling for ozonemore » (O 3) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by low-emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more. Consideration of potential climate change impacts alongside the human health outcomes described here further reinforces the environmental preferability of EVs powered by low-emitting electricity relative to gasoline vehicles.« less