MATERIALS / RECYCLING PETplanet Insider Vol. 26 No. 03/25 www.petpla.net 16 The PET 500ml also performed well: CO2 equivalent emissions were 28% less than 350ml aluminium and 92% less than 350ml glass; acidification was 60% lower than aluminium and 97% below glass. Soft drinks comparisons returned similar results. In this case, typical 2,000ml and 600ml PET bottles were compared with 350ml aluminium can and 250ml glass bottles. The 2l PET bottle was found to require 64% less water than aluminium cans during production and 88% less than glass. To put it the other way round, aluminium required three times as much water to produce than PET; glass requires over seven times as much. It was also found to contribute as much as 44% less to climate change than aluminium and 93% less than glass. In the case of disease-causing particulate material and ecotoxicity, PET was found to be much less harmful than aluminium or glass. The 600ml PET container almost matched the 2,000ml PET bottle’s performance against aluminium and glass. Finally, 900ml PET edible oil containers were compared with 900ml steel packages. The findings were much the same as for soft drinks and water: PET packaging is much less damaging to the environment, to health, to the land and to acidification. Production of steel uses 100 times as much water as PET. As noted previously, Brazil’s rate of post-consumer PET recycling is quite high by international standards, at 56.4%, according to the country’s latest PET Recycling Census. This leads to greater use of rPET in Brazil, leading to reduced demand for raw materials – all of which helps environmental performance. Compared to glass and aluminium, especially, recycled PET uses much less energy in manufacture. The leading users of rPET are preform and bottle manufacturers, who take nearly one-third of the total available. Non-food and beverage applications, ranging from textiles to industrial strapping, account for the rest. Conclusion The multi-year study found that PET is the best currently available material for food and beverage packaging, tion is greatly reduced. Although it is derived from petroleum products, its contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, acidification, water pollution and particulate emissions are much lower than other products. The report can be found at https://abipet.org.br/wp-content/ uploads/2024/10/Sumario-Executivoversao-fi nal-ingles.pdf Full list of corporate participants in the lifecycle study ADM, Alpek, Ambev, Amcor, Bunge, Cargill, Coca-Cola, Convenção Rj, Danone, Engepack, Femsa, Global Pet, Heineken, Imcopa, Indorama, Ldc, Mate Couro, Minalba, Pepsi, Petrópolis, Plastipak, Recofarma, Solar and Valgroup. compared to the leading competing materials of aluminium, glass and steel. It scores highly in terms of environmental, health, ecotoxicity, particulate and energy factors. Its hygiene, safety and mechanical resistance offer very high levels of product protection during handling and storage. Its lightness contributes to lower transportation costs and the fact that PET bottles are, generally, remanufactured rather than washed and reused means that water consumpWater packaging comparison Soft drink packaging comparison Edible oil packaging comparison
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTY0MjI=