1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Case Company and Its Activities

The company is located in the geographical region of Peloponnese and is one of the largest producers of soft drinks in Greece. It has a bottling capacity of 85 million units per year. Around 88% of its total production is bottled in PET bottles, while in the remaining 12% glass bottles are used as containers. The company operates a production line for PET bottles using PET granules as raw material, while glass bottles are supplied by a local supplier. The product range of the reference case company includes carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks in PET bottles with a capacity of 330 mL, 500 mL and 1500 mL and carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks in glass bottles with a capacity of 330 mL. In the company, 89% of all products produced are carbonated or carbonated soft drinks bottled in PET and glass bottles with a capacity of 330 mL. As a result, this study focuses on 330 mL bottles.

At the time of the study, every new glass bottle consisted of 70% recycled glass and 30% new glass composition (Table 1). The weight of every such glass bottle is 196 g and the energy consumed to produce one bottle is equal to 208.3 Wh. A percentage of glass bottles, after their use, are returned to the company, where, after washing, they are refilled. In a glass bottle the above process can be repeated six times, so each glass bottle used can be used for bottling a total of seven times. After six reuses there are superficial lesions in bottles (emulsions, etc.) and they have to be discarded. The minimum required number of reuses of bottles to achieve sustainability targets is variable and directly dependent on their travel distance (from industry to consumer) [25,26].

Washing a returnable glass bottle requires: 8.6 Wh, 300 mL of water at 90 ⁰C and 8.6 mL of 50% caustic soda solution. Then, after a stage of quality control, washed returned bottles enter the bottling line. The energy and chemical elements used for washing each single bottle are shown in Table 2.

Regarding PET bottles, in the specific reference case, PET beans are made of 8% recycled PET (r-PET) and 92% virgin PET. In order to comply with the European Directive on plastic [8], the company’s goal is to increase the percentage of recycled PET in the next few years. Bottles intended for carbonate-free soft drinks weigh 18.9 g, while bottles intended for carbonated soft drinks weigh 23.3 g and the energy consumed to produce one bottle in both cases is 38.91 Wh. After their use, PET bottles are recycled at a rate of 34%, of which 8% is converted back into PET granules for the production of new bottles. The remaining is used in other applications, not related to food or drink packaging.

Table 1. Glass bottle composition.

Table 1. Glass bottle composition.

Material	Type	Weight (g)
Silica sand	SiO2	144,45
Soda ash	Na2CO3	31,36
Calcium carbonate	CaCO3	10,19
Potassium oxide	K2O	0,98
Magnesium oxide	MgCO3	7,06
Aluminum oxide	Al2O3	1,96
Total		196,00

Table 2. Inputs and outputs of the washing process of returnable glass bottles, per glass bottle (data for the specific case study).

Table 2. Inputs and outputs of the washing process of returnable glass bottles, per glass bottle (data for the specific case study).

Category	Quantity	Unit
Input
Electricity	8,60	Wh
Water	0,30	L
Detergent (50% caustic soda solution at 90 ⁰C)	8,60	mL
Output
Effluent	0,30	L

Figure 1 and Figure 2 below depict input-output diagrams for the production processes of glass and PET bottles, respectively.

In the soft drinks bottling process, with or without carbonate, in glass containers, bottles enter the bottling line where they are filled with soft drinks of different flavors (1st packaging stage). Then, an aluminum stopper is inserted and a plastic label is glued (1st packaging stage). Next is the packaging in six-packs using plastic film (2nd packaging stage). In the final stage of packaging, six-packs are stacked on wooden pallets (3rd packaging stage). A cardboard sheet is inserted between layers to guarantee stability (3rd packaging stage). Each pallet carries a total of 1944 bottles. In the final stage, pallets are wrapped with a plastic film (3rd packaging stage), so that can be transported easily and safely, and that their overturning is avoided. The energy consumed in the above processes is 30.06 Wh per bottle. Every pallet weighs 1059.64 kg. Pallets are then transported from the factory to the distribution center over a distance of 150 km by 16-32 ton Euro 5 trucks, and then from the distribution center to retailers over an average distance of 35 km by 3.5-7.5 ton Euro 5 trucks (data from the bottling industry). Used bottles are returned from retailers to the distribution center and then to the bottling plant (total 185 km) in 16-32 ton Euro 5 trucks. The weight of the pallet with returnable bottles is 418.12 kg. Table 3 shows the weights of packaging materials per bottle.

As far as plastic bottles are concerned, the bottling process of carbonated soft drinks commences with the arrival of bottles in the bottling line and their automatic their filling. A high-density HDPE stopper is then inserted and a plastic label is glued in every bottle (1st packaging stage). Next is the packaging in six-packs using a plastic film (2nd packaging stage). At the final stage of packaging, six-packs are stacked on wooden pallets (3rd packaging stage), where cardboard is used to separate layers (3rd packaging paper tray stage). Each pallet carries a total of 1944 bottles. Finally, pallets are wrapped with plastic film (3rd packaging stage). The energy consumed for the above processes is 20.11 Wh per flask. The weight each pallet, carrying 1944 bottles of carbonated soft drinks is 725.56 kg. So, due to reduced weight, fuel consumption in transport is significantly less compared to glass packaging. The pallets are then transported from the factory to the distribution center and then from the distribution center to the retailers in the same way as in the case of glass bottles.

The same procedures are followed in bottling carbonate-free soft drinks in PET bottles. The only difference is the weight of pallets, which is 716.42 kg, so fuel consumption is a little less (insignificant) compared to transporting pallets of carbonated soft drinks. Table 4 depicts the weights of constituents per bottle for both carbonated and non-carbonated drinks, whereas Table 5 depicts the products’ distribution/transport data.

Table 3. Weights per bottle for glass packaging, for bottling carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks (330 mL per bottle).

Table 3. Weights per bottle for glass packaging, for bottling carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks (330 mL per bottle).

Steps	Packaging Component	Weight (g)
1st Packaging	Glass bottle	196.00
	Aluminum cap	1.59
	PE label	0.54
	Glue	2.00
2nd Packaging	Film PE	1.83
3rd Packaging	PE stretch film	0.17
	Cardboard sheet	1.63
	Wood pallet	11.32
	Total	215.1

Table 4. Weights per bottle for 330 mL PET bottle, for bottling carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks.

Table 4. Weights per bottle for 330 mL PET bottle, for bottling carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks.

	Packaging Component	PET bottle for carbonated soft drinks	PET bottle for non-carbonated soft drinks
Steps		Weight (g)	Weight (g)
1st Packaging	PET bottle	23.30	18.90
	Cap HDPE	2.35	2.05
	PE label	0.55	0.55
	Glue	2.00	2.00
2nd Packaging	Film PE	1.92	1.92
3rd Packaging	PE stretch film	0.17	0.17
	Cardboard sheet	1.63	1.63
	Wood pallet	11.32	11.32
	Total	43.20	38,50

Table 5. Distribution/transport data for glass and PET bottles.

Table 5. Distribution/transport data for glass and PET bottles.

Packaging System	First distribution1	Second distribution2	Returnable bottles
	kgkm	kgkm	kgkm
Glass bottle	81.8	19.1	39.8
PET bottle for carbonated soft drinks	56.0	13.1
PET bottle for non-carbonated soft drinks	55.3	12.9

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the flow diagrams of the processes carried out in the bottling firm, during the production of soft drink bottles for glass and PET bottles, respectively.

Industry provided data for a full calendar year (2022) indicated that 2,867,400 new glass bottles were used to bottle 10,245,300 soft drinks of various flavors. This practically means that each new glass bottle was bottled 3.57 times (once as a new bottle and 2.57 times as a reusable/returnable bottle). This indicates that only a percentage of glass bottles are returned to the company. Some of them are discarded after the first, or consecutive uses (mainly by household consumers), but some may have been returned up to six (6) times. The number of reuses is a critical parameter for assessing the packaging lifecycle and consumer behavior has a direct influence on collection systems, as demonstrated by the study by Simon et al. [25]. Usually, beyond six returns, the company cannot use them as there are observable alterations. However, as technology advances new glass bottles are available which allow for more reuse cycles without problems [19].

2.2. Methodology

2.2.1. LCA Calculations

We followed a two-stage methodology. First, using the information and analysis of Section 2.1, static LCA assessment was accomplished for the three packaging options: glass, PET for carbonated drinks and PET for non-carbonated drinks. The data were collected from the glass bottle manufacturer that supplies the case company, as well as from the case company, which also manufactures PET bottles. Additional data and factor values for the case of Greece were obtained from the literature [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Data were input into the SimaPro 8 software for performing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA and for determining the most adverse environmental impact categories defined by the ReCiPe 2016 method [45]. ReCiPe provides a harmonized implementation of cause-effect pathways for the calculation of both midpoint and endpoint characterization factors [46]. According to this method, the total environmental impact categories studied are eighteen at midpoint level, which are reduced to three at endpoint level. The results obtained are based on the evaluation method ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H)/ Endpoint (H) in a hierarchical perspective. For transportation activities, the Ecoinvent v.3 database was used.

Initial explorative LCA calculations, again for all three packaging options, at the level of single bottle, along the four life cycle stages (production of bottles, bottling, distribution/transportation, and disposal), indicated the six categories with the highest environmental impact. These were: global warming (g CO2 eq), fine particulate matter (FPM) formation (mg PM2.5 eq), terrestrial acidification (mg SO2 eq), terrestrial ecotoxicity (g 1.4-DCB), human non-carcinogenic (HNC) toxicity (g 1.4-DCB) and fossil resource scarcity (FRS) (g oil eq). It should be noted that storage and use at the end customer are not considered explicitly as, beyond the difficulties involved in assessment [47], they are beyond the control of the company. They were assumed to be constant for all packaging options. The values determined and used in the second stage of the methodology are shown in the tables in section 2.2.2. Different percentages of recycled PET are reflected in different values of aspects in the “Disposal” stage. These data were obtained from midpoint analysis.

The six environmental aspects that most affect the endpoint outcome were analyzed and the sources that cause them were identified in order to prioritize them and investigate if and how much they can be improved. Table 6 below shows the comparative results of the three different packaging choices for the specific company, at the bottle level, assuming an average of 3.57 (re)uses for glass bottles, for the six worst midpoint impact categories of ReCiPe 2016 (H) hierarchical perspective.

Following, an analysis per stage in the value chain concluded that, as far as the impact of Global Warming is concerned, for the case of PET bottles, it seems to be an important factor in the production of bottles, whereas for glass bottles it has a reduced impact in the same activity due to the reuse of bottles. In bottling operations, the worst choice is the glass bottle, mainly due to the process of washing the returned bottles. Regarding distribution/transportation, in the case of PET bottles, values are 50% lower than the value for glass bottles due to their lower weight.

Regarding the environmental aspect of Fine Particulate Matter Formation PM2.5, a significant reduction of the burden was observed in the case of glass bottle (15% in total), due to the recycling reflected in the disposal values. Otherwise, it would be prohibitive to use this packaging option. In the environmental aspects of Terrestrial Acidification and Terrestrial Ecotoxicity, the impact of the use of detergents for washing reusable glass bottles is reflected in the plant operation (bottling) parameter. The values of the Terrestrial Ecotoxicity aspect depend on the distribution/transportation, and since the weight of glass bottles is significantly greater than the corresponding weight of pallets carrying PET bottles, we see that the value of this factor is 100% greater than in the case of glass bottles. The Human Non-carcinogenic Toxicity (HNC) aspect is adversely affected by the processes that take place during the glass recycling stage and this is illustrated by the positive and very high value of the disposal factor in the case of glass bottle packaging. The positive element of recycling (not reuse) is the gain in resources that are used as raw material again to produce new glass bottles, but we cannot avoid the stage of processing the raw material to create the bottle, which gives us this unfavorable result. Finally, regarding the environmental aspect of Fossil Resources Scarcity (FRS), it was observed that PET bottles perform worse than glass bottles. This is because in the case of the glass bottle there is a large percentage of positive contribution to the disposal factor which stems from the correspondingly large percentage of recycling/reuse.

In general, the midpoint level is used in order to identify the most adverse impact categories by making comparisons. It also facilitates the comparison of impacts of operations’ policies at specific contexts, as in our case, where absolute, detailed values are not necessary. For a complete picture of impacts one must refer to the cumulative effect of the eighteen categories of the midpoint level, according to the application of the LCA method. This result is illustrated in the Endpoint level as depicted below for the case of 3.57 and 7 reuses of glass bottles, in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively.

2.2.2. Discrete Event Model Construction

In the second stage, a discrete event simulation model of the soft drinks supply chain was developed. A block diagram of the model is depicted in Figure 5. Blocks in bold lines indicate the activities/stages for which LCA data from the first stage of the methodology were used (as in Table 6). In order to facilitate simulation and keep simulation running times at reasonable ranges, items flowing through the model were palettes of bottles (rather than individual bottles). Hence, LCA data were transformed from the unit of single bottle to palette (values for single bottles multiplied by 1944) (Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12).

As a discrete-event model, the model assumes a “push” operation, i.e., customer orders trigger the different activities/stages of the model and push items (pallets) in the consecutive stages of the value chain. Demand is generated (“arrives”) at specific time intervals that follow a normal distribution with parameters varying according to the month of the year. The distribution parameters were determined by fitting company demand data (mean values) and by “translating” it to inter-arrival time intervals. The standard deviations were set to 10% of the mean values. The aggregated demand data were then rationed according to the demand for specific packaging options (glass, carbonated and non-carbonated). Initial rationing was also according to the company-supplied data (percentages of 14:70:16, for the three options above, respectively). Hence, in the model, once demand was generated, orders followed one of the three possible paths in that analogy.

Orders for carbonated and non-carbonated PET bottles followed open loop paths, consisting of the aforementioned stages: production of bottles, bottling operations, distribution and use, and disposal. In the model, the cycle time of every stage was also distributed normally and was approximately equal to the average time interval between orders (mean 0.01 days and standard deviation 0.001 days for all stages, with the exception of the return transportation which was distributed normally with parameters (0.015; 0.005) to account for the collection delay). This was a sought after operation by the case company as it was aiming at subscribing to the principles of lean manufacturing (takt time rate-based production of minimal inventories) [48]. At the time of the study, in the company there were efforts towards lean-six sigma operations [49]. In simulations, scenarios of varying demand were accomplished by varying the inter-arrival periods. Table 13 depicts the inter-arrival intervals for the three main demand scenarios: normal, increased by 30%, and increased by 30% during the summer months (May to September).

The environmental impact of each stage in the six categories depicted above was inscribed in the model. Impact values were accumulated as pallets were flowing through the stages, and total values were recorded at the end of every simulation run. The impact of the distribution activity was calculated according to the specific distance assumed. In the simulations presented in the paper, a total distance of 185Km was used.

Orders for glass packaging followed a closed loop path. Two sets of values were used for this packaging option, in two distinct paths: one for the initial use of bottles that included bottle production and one for the reuse of empty bottles that excluded this activity and included the washing of used bottles. According to the maximum allowed reuse value, bottles re-entered the system (were returned) or were disposed. Of those pallets “eligible” for reuse, only a percentage was actually returned and re-entered the system. New bottles entered the system only if used bottles were not available. Scenarios with different maximum reuse values and return rates were executed and evaluated. All scenarios were evaluated over a time period of three years (1080 days).

Table 13. Mean inter-arrival times for different values of demand (days).

Table 13. Mean inter-arrival times for different values of demand (days).

Month	Initial demand	Increased demand by 30%	Increased demand by 30% in summer
1	0,01657	0,01159	0,01657
2	0,01583	0,01108	0,01583
3	0,00879	0,00615	0,00879
4	0,00781	0,00547	0,00781
5	0,00882	0,00617	0,00617
6	0,00694	0,00486	0,00486
7	0,00580	0,00406	0,00406
8	0,00702	0,00492	0,00492
9	0,00798	0,00559	0,00559
10	0,01171	0,00820	0,01171
11	0,01329	0,00930	0,01329
12	0,01245	0,00871	0,01245

3. Simulations, Results and Commenting

3.2. The Effect of Using Recycled PET in New Plastic Bottles

For many, recycled PET seems a promising solution for mitigating the negative environmental impacts of plastics [50]. So, a number of scenarios were simulated to examine the effect of increasing the percentage of rPET in plastic bottles. Three alternative possibilities were assessed for the participation of recycled PET in new bottles for both carbonated and non-carbonated drinks: 12%, 20% and 30% (tables 10 and 11). Alternatives were assessed for two different product mixes (14/70/16 and 30/57/13) and for 7 uses of glass bottles). A return rate of 70% for glass bottles was assumed.

The results of the simulations indicate that in all the cases (environmental aspects) increasing the percentage of recycled PET improves the overall environmental performance of packaging in the company. As expected, this is more evident in the product mix vastly dominated by plastic (initial 14/70/16). Again, this trend is reversed in FRS, where only high percentages of recycled plastic seem to outperform a mix with increased glass participation.

Figure 8. The effect of using recycled PET in new plastic bottles on the six environmental aspects.

Figure 8. The effect of using recycled PET in new plastic bottles on the six environmental aspects.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

References

1. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, R.J; Law, L.K. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (7), e1700782. [CrossRef]
2. Mendes, A.C.; Pedersen, G.A. Perspectives on sustainable food packaging:–is bio-based plastics a solution? Trends in Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 839–846. [CrossRef]
3. Pal, M.; Devrani, M.; Hadush, A. Recent developments in food packaging technologies. Beverage Food World 2019, 46, 21–25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 330555330_Recent_developments_in_food_packaging_technologies.
4. Tulashie, S.K.; Boadu, E.K.; Dapaah, S. Plastic waste to fuel via pyrolysis: A key way to solving the severe plastic waste problem in Ghana. Therm Sci Eng Prog. 2019(11):417-424. [CrossRef]
5. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2009, B 364, 1985-1998. [CrossRef]
6. Mann, M.E. The New Climate War: The Fight to Take our Planet Back. Scribe Publications: London, UK, 2021.
7. Waring, R.H.; Harris, R.M.; Mitchell S.C. Plastic contamination of the food chain: A threat to human health? Maturitas 2018, 115, 64-68.
8. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic product on the environment. Official Journal of the European Union 2019, L 155, 12.6.2019.
9. Grand View Research: U.S. Soft Drinks Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Carbonated Drinks, Packaged Water, Iced/RTD Tea Drinks, Fruit Beverages, Energy Drinks) And Segment Forecasts, 2018 – 2025, San Francisco, CA (2018).
10. FoodDrink Europe: Data & Trends: EU food and drink industry. Brussels (2016).
11. ICAP: 40 High Performance Sectors in Greece, Athens Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Athens (2016).
12. Mirasgedis, S., Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Papagiannaki, K., Lalas, D.P.: The impact of climate change on the pattern of demand for bottled water and non-alcoholic beverages. Business Strategy and the Environment 23, 272–288 (2014).
13. De Feo, G.; Ferrara, C.; Minichini, F. Comparison between the perceived and actual environmental sustainability of beverage packagings in glass, plastic, and aluminium. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 333, 130158. [CrossRef]
14. Ahmad, S.M.; Ahmad, A.S. The impact of polyethylene terephthalate waste on different bituminous designs. Springer 2022, 69:53. [CrossRef]
15. Allen, D.; Linsley, C.; Spoelman, N.; Johl, A. The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big Oil and the Plastics Industry Deceived the Public for Decades and Caused the Plastic Waste Crisis. Center for Climate Integrity 2024.
16. Duarte, L.T.; e Silva, E.M.P.; Branco, J.R.T.; Lins, V.F.C. Production and characterization of thermally sprayed polyethylene terephthalate coatings. Surf Coat Technol 2004, 182(2-3):261-267. [CrossRef]
17. Sarker, M.; Rashid, M.M. Thermal Degradation of Poly (ethylene terephthalate) Waste Soft Drinks Bottles and Low Density Polyethylene Grocery Bags. Intern J Sustain Energy Environ 2013 1(3):78-86. http://www.ijsee.com/IJSEE_VOL.%201,%20NO.%203.
18. Lebreton, L.; Andrady, A. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5(1):1-11. [CrossRef]
19. Islam, M.D.; Lee, Z.; Shaleh, A.; Soo, H.S. The United Nations Assembly resolution to end plastic pollution: Challenges to effective policy interventions. Env Dev Sustain 2024, 26.
20. Guignone, G.; Calmon, L. J.; Vieira, D.; Bravo, A. BIM and LCA integration methodologies: A critical analysis and proposed guidelines. Journal of Building Engineering 2023, 73, 106780. [CrossRef]
21. Pauer, E.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Methods for the Assessment of Environmental Sustainability of Packaging: A review. IJRDO 2017, 3, 6. https://www.ijrdo.org/index.php/ar/article/view/86/75.
22. Ferrara, C.; De Feo, G.; Picone, V. LCA of Glass Versus PET Mineral Water Bottles: An Italian Case Study. Recycling 2021, 6, 50. [CrossRef]
23. Amienyo, D.; Gujba, H.; Stichnothe, H.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2013, 18(1), 77-92. [CrossRef]
24. Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Rodrigues, A.J.M.; Agostinho, F.; Giannetti, B.F. Material selection for environmental responsibility: the case of soft drinks packaging in Brazil. J Clean Prod 2017, 142, 172-179. [CrossRef]
25. Τua, C.; Grosso, M.; Rigamonti, L. Reusing glass bottles in Italy: A life cycle assessment evaluation. Paper presented at the Procedia CIRP 2020. [CrossRef]
26. Simon, B.; Amor, M. B.; Földényi, R. Life cycle impact assessment of beverage packaging systems: Focus on the collection of post-consumer bottles. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016, 112, 238-248. [CrossRef]
27. Boutros, M.; Saba, S.; Manneh, R. Life cycle assessment of two packaging materials for carbonated beverage (polyethylene terephthalate vs. glass): Case study for the Lebanese context and importance of the end-of-life scenarios. J Clean Prod 2021, 314, 128289. [CrossRef]
28. Ponstein, H. J.; Meyer-Aurich, A.; Prochnow, A. Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for German wine production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 212, 800-809. [CrossRef]
29. Cleary, J. Life cycle assessment of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: A Toronto, Canada case study. J Clean Prod 2013, 44, 143-151. [CrossRef]
30. Ferrara, C.; De Feo, G. Comparative life-cycle assessment of alternative systems for wine packaging in Italy. J Clean Prod 2020, 259, 120888. [CrossRef]
31. Stefanini, R.; Borghesi, G.; Ronzano, A.; Vignali, G. Plastic or glass: a new environmental assessment with a marine litter indicator for the comparison of pasteurized milk bottles. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2021, 26(4), 767-784. [CrossRef]
32. Ramanathan, U.; He, Q.; Subramanian, N.; Gunasekaran, A.; Sarpong, D. Collaborative closed-loop supply chain framework for sustainable manufacturing: Evidence from the Indian packaging industry. Technol Forcast Soc Change 2023, 191, 122489. [CrossRef]
33. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.K.; Tignor, M.; Allen S.K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P.M. (eds). Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1535. [CrossRef]
34. WMO (2011) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-report no.52. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/00-SAP-2010-Assement-report.pdf.
35. Frischknecht, R.; Braunschweig, A.; Hofstetter, P.; Suter, P. Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environmental Impact Asses Rev (20) 2000, 20:159–189. [CrossRef]
36. van Zelm, R.; Preiss, P.; nan Goethem, T.; Van Dingenen, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J. Regionalized life cycle impact assessment of air pollution on the global scale: Damage to human health and vegetation. Atmos Environ 2016, 134:129–137. [CrossRef]
37. Roy, P-O.; Azevedo, L.B.; Margni, M.; van Zelm, R.; Deschênes, L.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: A systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 2014, 500:270–276. [CrossRef]
38. van Zelm, R.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Van de Meent, D. USES-LCA 2.0-a global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2009, 14(30):282–284. [CrossRef]
39. Curran, M.; Hellweg, S.; Beck, J. Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 2014, 24:617–632. [CrossRef]
40. Doell, P.; Siebert, S. Global modeling of irrigation water requirements. Water Resour Res 2002, 38:1037. [CrossRef]
41. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint of Humanity. PNAS 2012, 109:3232–3237. [CrossRef]
42. Vieira, M.D.M.; Ponsioen, T.C.; Goedkoop, M.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Surplus ore potential as a scarcity indicator for resource extraction. J Indus Ecol. 2016. [CrossRef]
43. Jungbluth, N.; Frischknecht, R. Cumulative energy demand. In: Hischier R, Weidema B (eds). Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent centre 2010, St Gallen, pp. 33–40. https://ecoinvent.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/201007_hischier_weidema_implementation_of_lcia_methods.pdf.
44. Helmes, R.J.K.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Henderson, A.D.; Jolliet, O. Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012, 17:646–654. [CrossRef]
45. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint Level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [CrossRef]
46. Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; Schryver, A.D.; Struijs, J.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition 2009, Report I: Characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) 2013, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
47. Gomes, T.S.; Visconte, L.L.Y.; Pacheco, E.B.A.V. Life Cycle Assessment of Polyethylene Terephthalate Packaging: An Overview. J Polym Environ 2019, 27, 533–548.
48. Adamides, E.D.; Karacapilidis, N.; Pylarinou, H.; Koumanakos, D. Supporting collaboration in the development and management of lean supply networks. Prod Plan Control 2008, 19:35-52. [CrossRef]
49. Brenig-Jones, M.; Dowdall, J. Lean Six Sigma For Leaders: A practical guide for leaders to transform the way they run their organization. 2018, Wiley: Chichester, UK.
50. Nardi, P.C.C.; da Silva, R.L.M.; Ribeiro, E.M.S.; de Oliveira, S.V.W.B. Proposal for a methodology to monitor sustainability in the production of soft drinks in Ref PET. J Clean Prod 2017, 151, 218-234.