4.7 Article

Revealing the feasibility and environmental benefits of replacing disposable plastic tableware in aviation catering: An AHP-LCA integrated study

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 187, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106615

Keywords

Aviation catering; Plastic pollution; Environmental benefit; Integrated AHP-LCA method; Carbon emission

Funding

  1. National Key R & D Program of China [2019YFC1904800]
  2. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  3. Ministry of Commerce of China [CHN-2152, 19/0026]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the feasibility of replacing disposable plastic tableware through integrated analysis and life cycle assessment. The results indicate that stainless steel, bamboo, or bio-based plastic cutlery is preferred over petroleum-based plastic ones. Replacing cutleries on domestic flights in China can significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Reducing disposable plastic products has been in the spotlight lately, in order to address plastic pollution. With the rapid development of air transportation, plastic waste during flight is increasing, and most of it comes from catering. To evaluate the feasibility of replacing disposable plastic tableware, we carried out an integrated analytic hierarchy process (AHP) -life cycle assessment (LCA) study. The results show no significant feasibility in replacing salad bowls, while cutleries made of stainless steel, bamboo or bio-based plastic are preferred to petroleum-based plastic ones. In particular, bio-based plastic cutlery poses the least negative environmental impacts among all the disposable alternatives. Stainless steel cutlery will have the least carbon emissions when used more than 29 times. Replacing cutleries can reduce carbon emission by 12.5 g to 25.6 g of CO2 per cutlery set, leading to a maximum reduction of 10,219.51 t/a in China's domestic flights in 2019.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available