Independent product life cycle analysis finds clear benefits in the use of PET.

Bonn, 24th February 1999. The environmental impact of the new Gerolsteiner 1.0 litre reusable PET mineral water bottle is on average half that of the standard 0.7 litre reusable glass bottle of the Society of German Mineral Water Producers (GDB).

This was the finding of an independent product life cycle analysis, undertaken jointly by the Prognos European Centre for Economic Research and Strategic Consultation (Basle, Switzerland) and the Ifeu Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Heidelberg, Germany).

In addition to the undisputed advantages of the new bottle in terms of economy and convenience, there is now scientific evidence for the environmental friendliness of reusable PET bottles.
 

PET better than glass in nine out of ten criteria.

A total of ten environmental criteria were investigated in the product life cycle analysis. The experts took into account all factors from bottle manufacture through distribution to disposal.

Since the actual number of reuse cycles - i.e. the number of times that reusable bottles are refilled - differs greatly for PET and glass, and the environmental impact is in principal reduced as the number of reuse cycles increases, the study looked at the effects resulting from using different numbers of reuse cycles: 7, 10 and 15 for the lightweight PET bottle; and 30 and 50 for the heavy glass bottle.

With one exception, the Gerolsteiner PET bottle came out significantly better in all criteria than the glass bottle. This was the case for all numbers of reuse cycles, even with the unfavourable assumption of 7 reuse cycles for the PET bottle compared to the favourable assumption of 50 reuse cycles for the glass bottle.
 

Savings of 40% to over 80%.

The criterion with the greatest environmental significance is the contribution to the greenhouse effect, which is caused primarily by CO2 emissions. In second place is the consumption of energy and raw materials - in the form of coal, oil and natural gas - which is primarily caused by bottle manufacture and bottle distribution.

Other important environmental criteria are the contribution to photochemical smog (including the formation of ozone in summer due to emissions of nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons), the acidification of soils and watercourses, and noise pollution caused by the distribution process.

With only 7 reuse cycles assumed for PET and 50 for glass, the energy consumption of the Gerolsteiner PET bottle is approximately 40% lower than that of the glass bottle.

Its contribution to the greenhouse effect is almost 50% lower, to photochemical smog 60% lower, and to acidification 35% lower. With the number of reuse cycles for the PET bottle increased from 7 to 15, the PET bottle comes out even better, with additional savings of up to 20% for some indicators.
Less material and weight.

It is the very low weight (only 49 grams per empty bottle) and low material requirements of the Gerolsteiner PET bottle that are primarily responsible for the more favourable product life cycle analysis. This means either that significantly greater quantities of full or empty bottles can be transported per lorry, or less journeys are required.

The consequences are reduced fuel consumption, less exhaust emissions, less noise pollution and less traffic.

With PET bottles, the low raw material requirements result in considerable savings in the environmentally intensive processes used in bottle manufacture. Recycling also has a positive effect on the PET bottle results, since recycled material from old bottles can be used in the textile industry to replace "fresh" PET

Standardised methodology ensures comparability.
The product life cycle analysis of the Gerolsteiner reusable PET bottle was performed using the same methodological approaches and basic data as (and in co-ordination with) current studies by the German Federal Office of the Environment and the Society of German Mineral Water Producers.

They were carried out in accordance with the specifications of international standards ISO 14040 et seq., including a "critical review" by two independent experts - Dr Heinrich Vogelpohl of the Technical University of Munchen - Weihenstephan and Dr. Rainer Greisshammer of the Ecological Institute in Freiburg.