Section 1: Introduction and Scope of Study

This study was undertaken at the request of National Consumers League, Washington D. C. They asked for information to use in constructing an educational program for consumers to inform them about the solid waste impact of various packaging options for the products they buy in the supermarket. This report provides that information.

The approach was to select an array of supermarket product categories representative of consumer purchases; to identify within the categories specific products that are offered in a variety of sizes, modes of preparation, or types of packaging. At the suggestion of National Consumers League, we started with the Nielson Top 40 Product Categories List. In addition, we surveyed supermarkets in the Lansing, Michigan area, and we found a number of product categories that should be included that were not on the Nielson list; fresh meat and produce are two examples. There were also some categories on the Nielson list that we believe should not be represented on our list; cigarettes are one example. Some of the Nielson categories were too broad for our purposes, so we divided them according to our needs. As a result, we are reporting on 40 categories of products, represented by 252 products.

Within each product category we chose a range of products that would represent the variety of choices of packaging available in the supermarket. Our objective was to include all combinations of packaging that might result from purchases of product based on life style choices not necessarily related to minimizing packaging solid waste. These choices might include economics of price, economics of size (quantity of net contents), dietary considerations, taste preference, etc. Thus, the consumer can know the packaging solid waste impact of most of the purchase choices available.

The amount of packaging for each product was determined. This was, in fact, a determination of the amount of solid waste resulting from each package type, kind of material, or combination of package type and material. Then, the products were grouped into two "market baskets"; market basket 1 is the group of products using the least packaging, and market basket 2 is the group of products using the most packaging. From these groupings we determined what packaging is associated with "most" and "least" amount of packaging used for supermarket products.

The amount of packaging was determined on both a weight basis, and a volume basis. The weight basis is the easier of the two to determine, and is the easier one for most people to visualize. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product. For some materials and packages, such as paper wraps, it can be determined by measuring the length, width and thickness of the material. For other materials and packages, such as plastic bottles, it is necessary to determine the volume of material (plastic) by measuring the amount of water displaced by the bottle emptied of product. Since the volume determination involves a number of measurements of different kinds, it must be assumed that this method is less precise than is the weight method that requires only a single direct weighing of the material. When the volume has been determined, the amount of compressibility of the package in a landfill is not known, so the effect of the volume is not known with any precision. A plastic wrap will compress to a very small volume, not much more than its own intrinsic volume. A plastic bottle will be much less compressible because of its shape, thickness and stiffness. The void volume of the bottle in a landfill may be a much higher ratio than the void volume for a plastic wrap. The volume of the material is of interest to some researchers now, and it may become of greater interest in the future. Therefore, we have included it in the study.

Once the weight and volume of the packaging (material) were determined, we calculated the weight and volume of packaging material used per unit amount of product. We made this calculation on three

 

 

 

 

 

different bases: 1) per gram of product for solids or per milliliter of product for liquids, 2) per manufacturer’s recommended use, and 3) per standard use. A discussion of these bases follows:

For almost all product categories, the "most packaging used" or "least packaging used" assignment was the same for both volume and weight determinations. For a few categories the assignment would be different for the volume determination than for the weight determination. When this happened, we made the assignment based on the weight determination because it is the more reliable of the two, as described above.

 

Section 2: Market Basket Comparison and Summary.

 

This study compared the amount of packaging material used on a volume and weight basis for 40 product groups containing 252 products. The data collected on each product category allowed for the selection of the packaging that used the least packaging material and the package that used the most packaging material. The products that used the least packaging material are combined through addition in a market basket (market basket 1). Market basket 2 is a combination of products that used the most packaging materials. Figure 1 depicts this data in a bar chart. Table 1 summarizes the two market baskets.

 

Table 1: Comparison of Market Baskets.

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Manufacturer Serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

g/serving

g/use

g/g

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g
Market Basket 1: Least Packaging Material

82.27

72.62

2.07

96.39

87.75

2.37
Market Basket 2: Most Packaging Material

1100.54

1104.18

11.85

724.73

656.84

9.80
Ratio of Market Basket 2 to Market Basket 1

13.4

15.2

5.7

7.5

7.5

4.1

 

 

The products selected in market basket 1 used less packaging material than those products selected in market basket 2. The volume of packaging material per use in market basket 2 was 7.5 times the volume in market basket 1. The packaging weight per use in market basket 2 was 15.2 times the weight in market basket 1. The volume of packaging per gram of product and the packaging weight per gram of product were 4.1 and 5.7 times, respectively, as large in market basket 2 as in market basket 1. The comparisons based on the number of uses or servings are the most relevant in educating consumers to make choices that reduce generation of packaging waste.

 

 

Table 2 shows the product/packaging systems that used the least packaging material and the most packaging material for each product group in the study. These values were combined to create market basket 1 and market basket 2 summarized above. The bold data in the tables throughout the report represent the product/package systems that used the least material, and the italicized data represent the product/package systems that used the most packaging material.

 

 

 

Table 2: Market Basket 1 - Least Packaging Used & Market Basket 2 - Most Packaging Used

Market Basket 1

Market Basket 2

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Category

g/serving

g/use

g/g

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/serving

g/use

g/g

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

Baby Food

2.350

3.440

0.147

2.347

3.431

0.147

9.860

12.860

0.735

6.980

9.154

0.523

Baking Mix

0.261

0.194

0.015

0.030

0.022

0.001

6.460

4.516

0.143

5.580

3.900

0.124

Beer

16.000

16.205

0.045

7.700

7.799

0.022

267.698

254.187

0.702

148.370

140.882

0.389

Bread

0.499

0.589

0.017

0.535

0.632

0.018

0.573

0.633

0.018

0.509

0.562

0.016

Candy

2.430

1.191

0.064

2.165

1.061

0.057

6.524

3.376

0.189

9.079

4.698

0.263

Cereal

0.727

0.624

0.023

2.639

2.265

0.083

17.474

14.255

0.548

20.114

16.409

0.629

Cheese

0.322

0.286

0.011

0.215

0.191

0.007

55.080

57.503

1.848

29.542

30.842

0.991

Chips

0.962

0.593

0.034

1.113

0.686

0.039

7.732

4.761

0.272

10.640

6.552

0.374

Cleaners

2.932

2.728

0.091

3.633

3.380

0.113

4.309

4.127

0.070

4.828

4.624

0.078

Cookies

0.675

0.402

0.017

0.716

0.427

0.018

5.192

8.196

0.273

12.545

19.803

0.680

Crackers

0.225

0.374

0.015

0.207

0.344

0.014

2.402

3.764

0.151

2.821

4.421

0.177

Dinners

6.508

2.451

0.091

7.099

2.673

0.099

65.970

19.809

0.184

69.417

20.844

0.194

Dishwashing Detergent-Auto

*

2.889

0.052

*

2.792

0.050

*

3.204

0.057

*

3.423

0.061

Dishwashing Detergent-Hand

*

0.290

0.047

*

0.219

0.035

*

0.430

0.069

*

0.257

0.042

Drink Mix

0.223

0.234

0.385

0.209

0.220

0.361

3.153

3.198

0.186

1.651

1.674

0.097

Eggs

1.304

1.646

0.023

18.118

22.871

0.320

4.042

5.028

0.070

9.986

12.423

0.174

Fruit

0.662

0.877

0.004

0.530

0.702

0.003

56.997

82.185

0.457

18.223

26.277

0.146

Gum

0.444

*

0.098

0.359

*

0.079

0.957

*

0.385

1.070

*

0.385

Hand Soap

*

0.043

0.021

*

0.041

0.019

*

1.170

0.234

*

1.046

0.209

Ice Cream

3.641

1.339

0.034

4.248

1.562

0.040

3.748

2.452

0.053

4.662

3.050

0.066

Juices

4.362

4.334

0.018

4.398

4.370

0.018

80.096

79.680

0.332

38.808

38.604

0.161

Laundry Detergent

0.432

0.427

0.007

0.406

0.401

0.006

19.323

18.830

0.156

12.271

11.958

0.099

Lunch Meat

0.438

1.036

0.015

0.373

0.881

0.013

6.570

10.461

0.110

6.884

10.960

0.115

Margarine

0.650

*

0.045

0.784

*

0.055

1.803

*

0.121

1.720

*

0.115

Meat

1.234

0.366

0.009

13.342

3.954

0.094

4.273

2.029

0.034

33.777

16.039

0.270

Milk

1.550

1.307

0.007

1.621

1.366

0.007

22.768

17.612

0.095

21.482

16.617

0.090

Paper Towel

0.035

0.077

0.015

0.037

0.081

0.015

0.151

0.180

0.099

0.162

0.193

0.106

Pasta

0.305

0.146

0.005

0.582

0.278

0.010

8.380

3.458

0.094

6.316

2.606

0.071

Pet Food

*

1.369

0.022

*

4.278

0.069

*

35.157

0.227

*

5.239

0.034

Poultry

0.309

0.219

0.003

0.348

0.246

0.004

1.443

1.050

0.017

11.733

8.536

0.136

Shampoo

0.501

0.811

0.081

0.387

0.626

0.063

1.050

1.615

0.162

1.109

1.706

0.171

Soft Drink

6.419

6.461

0.027

5.257

5.291

0.022

232.797

231.510

0.965

140.212

139.438

0.581

Soup

1.955

1.675

0.059

1.798

1.540

0.055

105.177

93.276

0.454

33.749

29.930

0.146

Tissues

0.230

0.435

0.034

0.208

0.393

0.030

0.714

1.438

0.091

0.904

1.821

0.116

Toilet Paper

0.004

0.027

0.098

0.004

0.030

0.109

0.016

0.113

0.068

0.015

0.102

0.061

Tomato Product

0.895

*

0.052

0.660

*

0.038

1.305

*

0.074

0.971

*

0.055

Toothpaste

0.170

0.156

0.099

0.219

0.202

0.128

2.202

2.006

1.276

2.385

2.173

1.382

Tuna Fish

12.852

10.640

0.181

3.020

2.500

0.042

47.945

54.009

0.569

27.083

30.509

0.321

Vegetables

0.320

0.882

0.004

0.334

0.921

0.004

15.735

50.758

0.127

4.472

14.425

0.036

Water

4.057

*

0.015

4.509

*

0.017

16.159

*

0.056

10.389

*

0.036

Yogurt

5.390

8.853

0.042

5.524

9.073

0.044

14.459

15.344

0.081

14.274

15.147

0.080

TOTALS

82.273

72.621

2.071

96.389

87.749

2.368

1100.537

1104.180

11.825

724.733

656.844

9.800

The packaging systems that most often appeared in market basket 1 include paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches, single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, and plastic pouches. Market basket 2 was primarily composed of packages that used multiple components in the packaging system. These systems include paperboard cartons with internal plastic sealed bags, amber and clear glass jars with paper labels, expanded polystyrene trays (PS) with plastic wrap, and corrugated boxes with plastic/foil pouches inside. Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2 show the primary packaging materials found in each market basket.

Table 3: Packaging Materials Found in each Market Basket

Product Package description Package Description
Group Least material: Market Basket 1 Most Material: Market Basket 2
Baby Food Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch Clear glass jar, metal lid, paper label
Baking mix Plastic pillow pouch Paperboard box, 2-piece steel can, plastic pouch
Beer 6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder Paperboard carton, 6 amber glass bottles
Bread LDPE plastic bag LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap
Candy Plastic pillow pouch, foil wrap, paper cup LDPE plastic bag, paperboard backing, plastic wraps, paper cups
Cereal LDPE plastic bag 8 paperboard boxes, 8 plastic bags, outer plastic wrap
Cheese Plastic pillow pouch Ceramic jar, metal closure, inner plastic pouch
Chips Plastic/paper laminate bag Paperboard tube,paper/plastic/foil seal, HDPE plastic lid
Cleaners Paperboard laminated box HDPE bottle
Cookies Plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch, PS tray
Crackers LDPE plastic bag Paperboard carton, plastic pouches
Dinners Paperboard carton, Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, plastic film cover
Dish Soap, hand HDPE plastic bottle PET bottle
Dish Soap, auto HDPE plastic bottle Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate outer wrap
Drink Mix Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch Paperboard tube, HDPE lid, metal lid and bottom
Eggs EPS foam carton Pulpboard carton
Fruit Plastic mesh bag, paper label Clear glass jar, metal lid
Gum Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil wraps, paper gum wraps Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack, foil seal
Hand Soap Plastic outer wrap, 3 plastic/foil laminate wraps Paperboard outer carton, PET plastic bottle
Ice Cream Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminated lid Paperboard carton, plastic lid
Juice HDPE gallon jug Clear glass bottle, metal cap
Laundry Detergent Plastic bag HDPE bottle
Lunch meat LDPE plastic pouch Paperboard carton, plastic pouch
Margarine Paperboard carton, 4 paper wraps HDPE plastic bottle
Meat EPS tray, plastic wrap EPS tray, plastic film cover, laminated plastic film covering
Milk LDPE plastic pouch 6 HDPE pigmented bottles, plastic outer wrapping, 6 shrink wrap labels
Paper Towel LDPE plastic bag 8 LDPE plastic wraps, outer plastic wrap
Pasta Plastic pillow pouch Plastic tray, plastic film cover
Pet Food Multi-wall paper bag 2-piece steel can, paper label
Poultry LDPE bag EPS tray, plastic wrap
Shampoo PET bottle HDPE bottle
Soft Drink PET bottle Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles
Soup Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch Clear glass jar, metal cap, paper label
Tissues Plastic outer wrap, 6 plastic tissue wraps Paperboard box, plastic wrap
Toilet tissue LDPE plastic wrap (12 rolls) LDPE plastic wraps (4 rolls)
Tomato Product PET plastic bottle (64 fl.oz.) PET plastic bottle (20 fl.oz.)
Toothpaste Plastic self-standing tube Paperboard box, plastic molded pump
Tuna Fish 2-piece steel can, paper label Paperboard carton, 3 PET cups, 3 2-piece steel cans
Vegetables LDPE bag 3-piece steel can, paper label
Water HDPE gallon jug Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles
Yogurt 6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal

 

 

Table 4: Comparison of Packaging Weight/Standard Use of Market Baskets 1 & 2

Market Basket 1 Market Basket 2

Ratio

Product

Product
Description

Packaging Weight/

Product
Description

Packaging Weight/

2) 11

Group
Number

Standard Use
Number

Standard Use

g/use

g/use
Baby Food

146
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch

3.440

133
Clear glass jar, metal lid, paper label

12.860

3.74
Baking mix

40
Plastic pillow pouch

0.194

42
Paperboard box, 2-piece steel can, plastic pouch

4.516

23.28
Beer

247
6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder

16.205

248
Paperboard carton, 6 amber glass bottles

254.187

15.69
Bread

77
LDPE plastic bag

0.589

79
LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap

0.633

1.07
Candy

72
Plastic pillow pouch, foil wrap, paper cup

1.191

75
LDPE plastic bag, paperboard backing, plastic wraps, paper cups

3.376

2.83
Cereal

6
LDPE plastic bag

0.624

7
8 paperboard boxes, 8 plastic bags, outer plastic wrap

14.255

22.84
Cheese

147
Plastic pillow pouch

0.286

155
Ceramic jar, metal closure, inner plastic pouch

57.503

201.06
Chips

37
Plastic/paper laminate bag

0.593

38
Paperboard tube,paper/plastic/foil seal, HDPE plastic lid

4.761

8.03
Cleaners

250
Paperboard laminated box

2.728

175
HDPE bottle

4.127

1.51
Cookies

23
Plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch

0.402

27
Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch, PS tray

8.196

20.39
Crackers

34
LDPE plastic bag

0.374

31
Paperboard carton, plastic pouches

3.764

10.06
Dinners

189
Paperboard carton, Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch

2.451

191
Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, plastic film cover

19.809

8.08
Dish Soap, hand

178
HDPE plastic bottle

0.290

177
PET bottle

0.430

1.48
Dish Soap, auto

181
HDPE plastic bottle

2.889

180
Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate outer wrap

3.204

1.11
Drink Mix

259
Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch

0.234

121
Paperboard tube, HDPE lid, metal lid and bottom

3.198

13.67
Eggs

171
EPS foam carton

1.646

172
Pulpboard carton

5.028

3.05
Fruit

214
Plastic mesh bag, paper label

0.877

215
Clear glass jar, metal lid

82.185

93.71
Gum2

45
Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil wraps, paper gum wraps

0.444

134
Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack, foil seal

0.957

2.16
Hand Soap

10
Plastic outer wrap, 3 plastic/foil laminate wraps

0.043

13
Paperboard outer carton, PET plastic bottle

1.170

27.21
Ice Cream

240
Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminated lid

1.339

238
Paperboard carton, plastic lid

2.452

1.83
Juice

92
HDPE gallon jug

4.334

88
Clear glass bottle, metal cap

79.680

18.38
Laundry Detergent

115
Plastic bag

0.427

110
HDPE bottle

18.830

44.10
Lunch meat

157
LDPE plastic pouch

1.036

158
Paperboard carton, plastic pouch

10.461

10.10
Margarine2

257
Paperboard carton, 4 paper wraps

0.650

169
HDPE plastic bottle

1.803

2.77
Meat

200
EPS tray, plastic wrap

0.366

199
EPS tray, plastic film cover, laminated plastic film covering

2.029

5.54
Milk

260
LDPE plastic pouch

1.307

252
6 HDPE pigmented bottles, plastic outer wrapping

17.612

13.48
Paper Towel

183
LDPE plastic bag

0.077

184
8 LDPE plastic wraps, outer plastic wrap

0.180

2.34
Pasta

56
Plastic pillow pouch

0.146

54
Plastic tray, plastic film cover

3.458

23.68
Pet Food

66
Multi-wall paper bag

1.369

61
2-piece steel can, paper label

35.157

25.68
Poultry

202
LDPE bag

0.219

203
EPS tray, plastic wrap

1.050

4.79
Shampoo

233
PET bottle

0.811

235
HDPE bottle

1.615

1.99
Soft Drink

138
PET bottle

6.461

142
Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles

231.510

35.83
Soup

205
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch

1.675

210
Clear glass jar, metal cap, paper label

93.276

55.69
Tissues

127
Plastic outer wrap, 6 plastic tissue wraps

0.435

123
Paperboard box, plastic wrap

1.438

3.31
Toilet tissue

129
LDPE plastic wrap (12 rolls)

0.027

128
LDPE plastic wraps (4 rolls)

0.113

4.19
Tomato Product2

194
PET plastic bottle (64 fl.oz.)

0.895

195
PET plastic bottle (20 fl.oz.)

1.305

1.46
Toothpaste

229
Plastic self-standing tube

0.156

231
Paperboard box, plastic molded pump

2.006

12.86
Tuna Fish

241
2-piece steel can, paper label

10.640

256
Paperboard carton, 3 PET cups, 3 2-piece steel cans

54.009

5.08
Vegetables

219
LDPE bag

0.882

224
3-piece steel can, paper label

50.758

57.55
Water2

108
HDPE gallon jug

4.057

102
Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles

16.159

3.98
Yogurt

213
6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal

8.853

253
PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal

15.344

1.73

 

 

1 Table 4 shows the Packaging Weight per Standard Use comparison for each market basket. The table also shows a ratio between the value found in market basket 1 as compared with market basket 2. The ratio is: Packaging weight per standard use, Market Basket 2 ) Packaging weight per standard use, Market Basket 1.

 

 

2 The packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparison was used for the gum, margarine, tomato product and water product groups, since the packaging weight per standard use comparison was not done.

 

 

Section 3: Analysis of the Product Groups.

 

The analysis of each product category is based upon weight and volume of packaging materials. From these, weight per serving and volume of material per serving are calculated based on the number of servings or uses in the container. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product. The smallest value of weight or volume per serving represents the least amount of packaging used for the product group being analyzed.

Each product group is analyzed using six comparisons, three based on volume of packaging material, and three based on packaging material weight. The first volume comparison is the volume of packaging material per number of manufacturer servings. This comparison uses the labeled number of servings or uses for each product in the group. The second volume comparison is the volume of packaging per number of standard uses. The standard use values are based upon 100 calories per serving for foods. The standard use comparison for other product groups is based upon the amount of product consumed per use. The comment section for each group contains the description of how the standard use was determined for the group. The third volume comparison is the volume of packaging material per gram of product. This comparison is based on the volume of packaging material divided by the measured weight of the product. For liquids, this comparison is based on the volume of packaging material divided by the amount of liquid (ml). The first and second packaging weight comparisons are based on the manufacturer serving and standard use, respectively. The third packaging weight comparison is packaging weight per product weight comparison. This comparison uses the measured product weight in comparison to the packaging weight. For liquids, the measured volume of product (ml) is compared to the packaging weight.

We have used two definitions of servings in this study. The first is the manufacturer’s definition as presented on the package. The second is a "standard use". The standard serving for food products is based arbitrarily on 100 calories per serving. The number of standard uses is usually different from the manufacturer’s number of servings. We have listed the results for both methods in Tables 3-42. The discussion of each includes a comment section describing the product group and any special circumstances encountered during analysis.

The bold highlight in each data table indicates the product that used the least packaging material in the product group. The italicized data indicates the product that used the most packaging material in the product group. Bar charts are also included to aid in product/packaging comparisons.

BABY FOOD:

The baby food product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The product group included dry and pre-mixed baby cereals. The standard use comparison for the dry baby food products were based upon calorie information in a non-prepared form. The standard use comparison for the prepared baby food is based upon calorie information of prepared baby food.

Table 5: Baby Food Comparative Data

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

69

3.182

5.192

0.208

0.164

2.505

4.088

70

3.413

5.730

0.229

0.201

2.990

5.020

133

6.980

9.154

0.523

0.735

9.806

12.860

146

2.347

3.431

0.147

0.147

2.350

3.440

Product 146 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 133 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal recloseable lid and a paper label.

Baby Food Product Group

 

 

 

 

Product 69: paperboard box with outer plastic wrapping. Product 70: paperboard box with outer plastic wrapping. Product 133: clear glass jar with a metal recloseable lid. Product 146: Paper/foil/plastic laminate pouch.

BAKING MIX:

The baking mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The type of mix chosen for analysis was muffin mix. The calorie information, used as the basis for the standard use comparison, was based upon calories of the baking mixes in a non-prepared form.

Table 6: Baking Mix

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

40

0.030

0.022

0.001

0.015

0.261

0.194

41

4.073

2.359

0.099

0.086

3.520

2.039

42

5.580

3.900

0.124

0.143

6.460

4.516

43

0.210

0.264

0.009

0.099

0.246

0.310

44

0.991

0.865

0.031

0.035

1.142

0.997

Product 40 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package for this product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch sealed on the top and bottom with a fin vertical seal. Product 42 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard outer box, a plastic pillow pouch containing the muffin mix and a 2-piece steel can containing blueberry glaze.

Baking Mix Product Group

 

 

Product 40: Plastic pillow pouch. Product 41: Paperboard box with paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 42: Paperboard box, plastic pillow pouch, steel 2-piece steel can. Product 43: Paper bag. Product 44: Paper/plastic laminate bag.

BEER:

The beer product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. Light beer was selected for each product in the study. The data for each is as follows:

Table 7: Beer Comparative Data

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g/g

g/serving

g/use

243

24.118

24.393

0.067

0.088

31.458

31.817

244

25.283

25.467

0.070

0.088

31.507

31.737

245

112.307

112.177

0.310

0.514

186.315

186.098

246

122.917

111.594

0.308

0.333

132.930

120.685

247

7.700

7.799

0.022

0.045

16.000

16.205

248

148.370

140.882

0.389

0.702

267.698

254.187

Product number 247 used the least packaging in the product group. This package consisted of 6 aluminum cans and a plastic ring holder. The most packaging is the group was found in product number 248. This package consisted of 6 amber glass bottles and a paperboard holder.

 

Beer Product Group

 

Product 243: Paperboard box with 12 aluminum cans. Product 244: Paperboard box with 24 aluminum cans. Product 245: Corrugated box with 12 amber bottles. Product 246: 40 oz. amber glass bottle. Product 247: 6 aluminum cans with plastic ring holder. Product 248: 6 amber glass bottles with paperboard carton.

 

 

BREAD:

The bread product category consisted of 3 product/package systems. The product type selected within the bread family was sliced white bread.

Table 8: Bread

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

77

0.535

0.632

0.018

0.017

0.499

0.589

78

0.511

0.456

0.011

0.015

0.676

0.603

79

0.509

0.562

0.016

0.018

0.573

0.633

The bread category resulted in similar values for each of the products analyzed. Product 77 used the least packaging material in this product group. This product was selected because of the packaging weight per standard use comparison being the lowest for the product group. Product 79 used the most packaging material in this product group. The package for product 77 consisted of a single LDPE bag. Product 79 consisted of an outer LDPE bag and a white plastic inner wrap around the bread.

 

Bread Product Group

 

 

 

Product 77: LDPE plastic bag. Product 78: LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap. Product 79: LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap.

 

CANDY:

The candy product group consisted of 6 product/package systems. The candy selected for analysis in this study was chocolate peanut butter cups.

 

 

Table 9: Candy

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

71

6.773

3.582

0.200

0.083

2.795

1.478

72

2.165

1.061

0.057

0.064

2.430

1.191

73

7.455

1.757

0.093

0.098

7.830

1.845

74

3.655

1.459

0.081

0.069

3.120

1.246

75

9.079

4.698

0.263

0.189

6.524

3.376

76

1.372

0.675

0.036

0.068

2.567

1.263

Product 72 used the least packaging material overall in this product group. This product was selected for the market basket since it had the lowest packaging weight per standard use value. The packaging for Products 72 consisted of a plastic 3-sided sealed outer bag, individual foil wrapping for each candy and a paper cup that contains each candy. Product 75 used the most packaging material for this product group. The package consisted of a plastic (LDPE) outer bag, an inner paperboard tray holding the candies, individual paper/plastic laminate outer candy wrappings, paperboard candy backing cards, and individual paper cups holding each candy.

 

Candy Product Group

Product 71: LDPE plastic bag, plastic candy wrapper, paperboard backing, paper cup. Product 72: Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrap, paper cup. Product 73: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup. Product 74: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup. Product 75: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, plastic candy wrap, paper cups. Product 76: Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrapper, paper cup.

 

CEREAL:

The cereal category was composed of 9 different product/packaging types. This category included oatmeal and dry cereal. The dry cereals selected for analysis were Cheerios and Tastee-os.

Table 10: Cereal

Volume of packaging/

Volume of packaging/

Volume packaging/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Product

# manufacturer serving

# Standard Uses

gram product

Product weight

# manufacturer servings

# standard uses

Number

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

1

15.906

10.617

0.3981

0.119

4.763

3.173

2

4.517

2.966

0.1112

0.0891

3.618

2.376

3

6.374

5.695

0.2034

0.1183

3.707

3.312

25

4.539

3.178

0.1141

0.0972

3.866

2.707

26

5.874

4.11

0.1475

0.1321

5.258

3.679

4

11.648

10.056

1.0263

0.8219

9.388

8.105

5

9.827

8.967

0.3288

0.2624

7.842

7.155

6

2.639

2.265

0.0831

0.0229

0.727

0.624

7

20.114

16.409

0.6289

0.5484

17.474

14.255

Product 6 was found to produce the least packaging in this category. This package consisted of a single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. Product 7 was found to produce the most packaging in this category. This packaging system was composed of 8 individual paperboard boxes, 8 plastic internal bags, and an LDPE outer plastic wrapping.

Cereal Product Group

Product 1: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product 2: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product 3: Paperboard box, 12 paper/plastic laminate pouches. Product 4: Paperboard box, inner plastic cereal pouch. Product 5: Paperboard box, inner plastic cereal pouch. Product 6: LDPE plastic bag. Product 7: Outer plastic wrap, 8 paperboard boxes, 8 inner plastic cereal pouches. Product 25: Paperboard tube, plastic top.

Product 26: Paperboard tube, plastic top.

CHEESE:

The cheese product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The products in this group included block cheeses, sliced cheeses and cheese spreads.

Table 11: Cheese

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

147

0.215

0.191

0.007

0.011

0.322

0.286

148

2.526

2.211

0.087

0.071

2.063

1.806

149

1.388

2.303

0.073

0.059

1.129

1.873

150

0.715

0.997

0.033

0.029

0.619

0.863

151

1.023

0.842

0.034

0.035

1.076

0.886

152

2.004

2.957

0.074

0.071

1.933

2.852

153

0.797

0.696

0.027

0.024

0.705

0.616

154

1.773

1.878

0.060

0.059

1.719

1.820

155

29.542

30.842

0.991

1.848

55.080

57.503

156

1.893

3.031

0.065

0.059

1.728

2.767

 

Product number 147 used the least packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic vacuum-sealed fin pouch. Product 155 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a ceramic recloseable jar with a rubber gasket, inside of which a sealed plastic bag contained the cheese product. The bag was sealed with two metal clamps.

Cheese Product Group

Product 147: Plastic pillow pouch (vacuum sealed). Product 148: Wax outer coating, inner plastic wrap. Product 149: Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed cheese wraps, individual plastic cheese wraps. Product 150: Plastic outer wrap, individual plastic cheese wraps. Product 151: Plastic recloseable bag.

Product 152: Plastic pillow pouch, paperboard backing. Product 153: LDPE plastic recloseable bag.

Product 154: HDPE plastic tub with HDPE lid. Product 155: Ceramic jar, inner plastic sealed tube, metal closure. Product156: Plastic tub, plastic lid.

CHIPS:

This product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The type of chip selected for the product group was plain.

Table 12: Chips

Volume of packaging/

Volume of packaging/

Volume packaging/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Product

# manufacturer serving

# Standard Uses

Gram product

product weight

# manufacturer servings

# standard uses

Number

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

35

1.705

1.108

0.0594

0.0522

1.500

0.976

36

2.591

1.605

0.0851

0.0726

2.210

1.369

37

1.113

0.686

0.0392

0.0339

0.962

0.593

38

10.640

6.552

0.3744

0.2720

7.732

4.761

39

5.294

3.319

0.1897

0.1701

4.746

2.976

Product 37 was found to use the least packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic/paper-laminated bag, sealed on the top and bottom, with a fin vertical seal. Product 38 used the most packaging in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard tube with an aluminum bottom, a paper/foil/plastic laminate sealed top and a plastic (HDPE) recloseable lid.

Chip Product Group

Product 35: Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 36: Plastic/paper laminate pouch. Product 37: Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 38: Paperboard tube, metal bottom, plastic/foil/paper seal, plastic lid. Product 39: Paperboard box, 2 foil/plastic laminate bags.

 

 

CLEANERS:

The cleaner group was composed of 4 product/package systems. This group was made entirely of floor cleaners. The standard use comparison was made using ¼ cup (59 ml for liquid product or 30 g for dry product) as the use amount.

Table 13: Cleaners

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer uses

Standard Use

ml product

ml product

Manufacturer uses

Standard Use

cm3/uses

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g/ml

g/uses

G/use

173

3.681

3.633

0.061

0.062

3.716

3.668

175

4.828

4.624

0.078

0.070

4.309

4.127

249

3.475

3.288

0.056

0.063

3.948

3.736

cm3/g

g/g

250

3.633

3.380

0.113

0.091

2.932

2.728

 

Product 250 used the least packaging material in the product group based on weight per manufacturer’s use and standard use values. This package consisted of a laminated paperboard box. Product 175 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle.

Cleaner Product Group

Product 173: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 175: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 249: PET plastic bottle.

Product 250: Paperboard laminated box.

 

 

 

 

COOKIES:

The cookie product category consisted of 11 product/package systems. This product group consisted mainly of chocolate chip cookies. Fudge sandwich cookies and chocolate/fudge shortbread cookies were included because different packaging systems were found for these items.

Table 14: Cookies

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

17

3.892

2.425

0.121

0.045

1.443

0.899

18

10.932

8.283

0.414

0.118

3.103

2.351

19

1.905

1.402

0.070

0.056

1.509

1.110

20

6.675

5.407

0.234

0.164

4.684

3.795

21

5.953

4.857

0.251

0.024

0.567

0.462

22

3.730

2.943

0.141

0.053

1.408

1.111

23

0.716

0.427

0.018

0.017

0.675

0.402

24

7.133

3.400

0.170

0.087

3.650

1.742

27

12.545

19.803

0.680

0.273

5.192

8.196

28

4.887

2.730

0.137

0.127

4.553

2.543

29

6.468

2.754

0.143

0.042

1.884

0.802

Product 23 used the least packaging material in this product group based on packaging weight per standard use. The package for this product consisted of a plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch. The pouch was sealed on the top and bottom with a vertical fin seal. Product 27 used the most packaging material for the product group. This package was composed of a gable-top paperboard carton, a plastic/foil laminate pouch and a polystyrene (PS) tray. The plastic/foil pouch contained the polystyrene tray, which held the cookies.

 

Cookie Product Group

Product17: Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag, paperboard tray. Product 18: Paper/plastic bag, 2 paper cups. Product 19: Paperboard carton, plastic wrap. Product 20: Paperboard box, plastic/foil inner bag. Product 21: EPS tray, plastic wrapping.

 

Cookie Product Group

 

Product 22: Plastic outer wrap, PS tray. Product 23: Plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 24: Plastic/foil laminate pouch, paperboard tray. Product 27: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate bag, PS tray. Product 28: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed wrappers. Product 29: PS carton.

 

 

CRACKERS:

The cracker product group consisted of 5 different product/package systems. The product group was composed of saltines, butter-type crackers (Ritz), and oyster crackers.

Table 15: Crackers

Volume of packaging/

Volume of packaging/

Volume packaging/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Product

manufacturer serving

standard use

gram product

Product weight

manufacturer servings

standard use

Number

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

30

2.936

3.445

0.1723

0.1597

2.722

3.194

31

2.821

4.421

0.1768

0.1506

2.402

3.764

32

3.392

3.996

0.1998

0.1578

2.679

3.156

33

0.776

1.25

0.0500

0.0479

0.743

1.198

34

0.207

0.344

0.0138

0.0150

0.225

0.374

 

Product 34 used the least packaging in the product group. This packaging system consisted of a single plastic LDPE bag. This bag was sealed on the top, bottom and a fin vertical back seal. Products 31 used the most packaging material in the product group based on the packaging weight per standard use comparison. The package for this product consisted of a paperboard box and either 3 plastic cracker bags inside the box. Each internal bag was sealed on 3 sides, the top, bottom and a vertical fin seal.

Cracker Product Group

Product 30: Paperboard box, 3 plastic sealed bags. Product 31: Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed bags. Product 32: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed bags. Product 33: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 34: Plastic fin vertical back sealed pouch.

DINNERS:

This product category consisted of 9 different product/package types. This product category included refrigerated, shelf-stable and frozen dinners. The EPS (expanded polystyrene) foam trays found in some packaging systems in this group were measured without being compacted.

Table 16: Dinners

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

185

110.210

32.025

0.437

0.103

25.913

7.530

186

8.717

2.663

0.041

0.039

8.456

2.583

187

10.033

3.054

0.100

0.080

8.060

2.453

188

9.254

3.476

0.129

0.113

8.127

3.053

189

7.099

2.673

0.099

0.091

6.508

2.451

190

9.991

2.978

0.097

0.084

8.628

2.517

191

69.417

20.844

0.194

0.184

65.970

19.809

192

54.379

19.321

0.184

0.159

46.860

16.650

193

7.986

4.626

0.037

0.129

28.050

16.250

 

Product 189 used the least packaging material in this product group based on packaging weight per standard use data. This packaging system consisted of a paperboard carton and a plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch. This product was a shelf-stable dinner. Product 191 used the most packaging material in this product group. Product 191 was selected for the market basket comparison because of this system having the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 191 consisted of a paperboard outer box; a PET plastic plate and a plastic film cover over the plate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dinners Product Group

 

Product 185: Paperboard carton, EPS tray, Paper/plastic laminate tray, plastic/foil laminate pouch, plastic pouch, outer plastic wrapping. Product 186: Plastic sealed outer pouch, top and bottom seal with fin vertical seal, plastic pouch for sauce, plastic mesh pouch. Product 187: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 188: Paperboard carton, paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 189: Paperboard box, paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 190: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 191: Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, Plastic film plate covering. Product 192: Paperboard carton, plastic tray, plastic film cover. Product 193: Three-piece steel can, paper label.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISH SOAP:

This category consisted of 2 different product types, hand dish soap, and automatic dish soap. The category was split into these two sub-categories for comparison purposes, since hand soaps cannot be used in automatic dishwashers. The comparative data does not include manufacturer’s use size comparisons because such information was not provided on the package. The standard use comparisons were based upon a one wash basis, which was determined to be 15 ml for hand soaps and 56 g for automatic dish soaps. These were based upon normal use levels for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher for this project.

Table 17: Dish Soap

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g/ml

g/serving

g/use

Hand

176

*

0.208

0.034

0.057

*

0.355

177

*

0.257

0.042

0.069

*

0.430

178

*

0.219

0.035

0.047

*

0.290

179

*

0.262

0.042

0.056

*

0.344

Automatic

cm3/g

g/g

180

*

3.423

0.061

0.057

*

3.204

181

*

2.792

0.050

0.052

*

2.889

HAND:

Product 178 used the least packaging material in this product group. Product 178 consisted of a 42 fl.oz. HDPE bottle and a recloseable cap. Product 177 used the most packaging material in this product group. This product consisted of a 14.7 fl.oz. PET bottle with a recloseable cap.

 

AUTO:

Product 181 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an HDPE plastic bottle with a flip-top closure. Product 180 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard box with a plastic/foil laminate outer label covering the entire box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hand Dish Soap Product Category

 

 

Product 176: PET plastic bottle (42 fl.oz). Product 177: PET plastic bottle (14.7 fl.oz.). Product 178: HDPE plastic bottle (42.7 fl.oz). Product 179: HDPE plastic bottle (28 fl.oz.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Auto Dish Detergent Product Group

 

Product 180: Paperboard box with paper/foil laminate outer label. Product 181: HDPE plastic bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRINK MIX:

The drink mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon 240 ml of prepared drink for each product in the category. This method was used instead of calories since a majority of the drink mixes had little or no caloric value.

Table 18: Drink Mix

 

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

117

1.073

1.129

0.019

0.043

2.511

2.641

118

1.778

1.789

0.104

0.115

1.976

1.988

119

0.742

0.733

0.556

0.533

0.711

0.702

120

1.134

1.219

1.002

0.884

1.000

1.076

121

1.651

1.674

0.097

0.186

3.153

3.198

259

0.209

0.220

0.361

0.385

0.223

0.234

Product 259 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package for this product consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 121 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard tube with a metal top and bottom, the top of which is removable. A plastic HDPE lid and a paper label were also components of this packaging system.

Drink Mix Product Group

Product 117: Aluminum can. Product 118: HDPE plastic container, plastic label. Product 119: Paperboard carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil pouches. Product 120: Plastic tube, 6 plastic tubs, 6 plastic/foil laminate seals. Product 121: Paperboard cylinder, metal bottom and top, plastic recloseable lid. Product 259: Paper/plastic/foil pouch.

 

 

 

EGGS:

The egg product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The expanded polystyrene (EPS) cartons found in this category were analyzed in a non-compacted form.

Table 19: Eggs

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

171

18.118

22.871

0.320

0.023

1.304

1.646

172

9.986

12.423

0.174

0.070

4.042

5.028

174

7.927

10.898

0.153

0.059

3.060

4.206

258

12.921

17.901

0.251

0.027

1.384

1.918

Product 171 used the least packaging material on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for 171 consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam container with 12 eggs. Product 172 used the most material on a packaging weight per standard use basis. Product 172 consisted of a pulpboard carton for 12 eggs.

Egg Product Group

 

Product 171: EPS foam container. Product 172: Pulpboard container. Product 174: Pulpboard container, plastic wrap. Product 258: EPS foam container, plastic wrap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRUIT:

This product category consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. Included in this group were canned, bottled and fresh fruit. The manufacturer serving size and calorie information for fresh fruits was taken from the Food and Drug Administration fruit and produce information available in the grocery stores. The product group consisted of peaches, oranges and papaya.

 

Table 20: Fruit

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

214

.530

.702

0.003

0.004

0.662

0.877

215

18.223

26.277

0.146

0.457

56.997

82.185

216

4.664

7.685

0.037

0.132

16.537

27.248

217

5.387

4.898

0.039

0.133

18.560

16.877

218

19.878

24.049

0.170

0.257

30.000

36.296

221

1.045

1.519

0.007

0.005

0.830

1.207

Product 214 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic mesh bag and an adhesive paper/plastic laminate label. Product 215 used the most packaging material for the fruit product group. This package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug cap, and an adhesive plastic label.

Fruit Product Group

 

Product 214: Plastic mesh bag, plastic label. Product 215: Clear glass jar, metal lug closure. Product 216: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 217: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 218: Paperboard carton, 4 three-piece aluminum cans, 4 paper labels. Product 221: HDPE plastic bag.

 

 

 

GUM:

The chewing gum product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The standard use comparisons were not reported for this category because gum is not used for the nutritional value of the product.

Table 21: Gum

Volume of packaging/

Volume of packaging/

Volume packaging/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Packaging weight/

Product

# manufacturer serving

# Standard Uses

gram product

product weight

# manufacturer servings

# standard uses

Number

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

45

0.359

*

0.0789

0.0975

0.444

*

46

0.481

*

0.0921

0.0921

0.520

*

47

0.571

*

0.2096

0.2096

0.591

*

48

0.547

*

0.1698

0.1698

0.548

*

134

1.07

*

0.3852

0.3852

0.957

*

 

Product number 45 used the least packaging. This package consisted of 4 individual plastic/foil laminate packs, 20 waxed paper gum wrappers and a plastic over-wrap. The most packaging was product 134. This packaging type was composed of a paperboard sleeve, a plastic blister package with 12 blisters, and a foil backing over the blisters.

Gum Product Group

Product 45: Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 20 paper/plastic laminate gum wrappers. Product 46: Plastic bag, paper adhesive label, 17 paper/plastic gum wrappers. Product 47: Plastic outer bag, adhesive paper label, 8 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 40 paper wrappers, 40 foil wrappers. Product 48: Plastic/foil laminate gum wrapper, 5 paper wrappers, 5 foil wrappers. Product 134: Paperboard carton, plastic blister pack, foil/plastic laminate seal.

 

HAND SOAP:

This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems including bar soaps and liquid soaps. Manufacturer use amounts were not used as comparisons in this group because the manufacturers did not provide such information. The standard use amount was based upon actual hand washing analysis. The analysis consisted of a series of hand washings, from which the average soap per use was calculated for each product type (liquid or bar). This analysis determined that bar soap was used at 2.1 g/washing, and liquid soap was used at 5 ml/washing.

 

Table 22: Hand Soap

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

Standard Use

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/use

8

0.499

0.100

0.172

0.859

9

0.217

0.103

0.077

0.162

10

0.041

0.019

0.021

0.043

11

0.052

0.025

0.023

0.049

12

0.185

0.088

0.066

0.138

13

1.046

0.209

0.234

1.170

14

0.243

0.116

0.081

0.171

15

0.064

0.031

0.028

0.059

16

0.574

0.115

0.174

0.872

 

Product 10 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of 3 paper/plastic laminate soap wraps and plastic over-wrap. The most packaging material was used by product 13, which consisted of a paperboard outer carton, a plastic (PET) bottle and a plastic pump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hand Soap Product Group

 

 

Product 8: PET plastic bottle. Product 9: Paperboard box, 2 plastic soap wraps. Product10: Plastic/foil laminate wrapping, 3 paper/plastic soap wraps. Product 11: Paperboard backing card, 10 plastic/paper laminate soap wraps, plastic wrap. Product 12: 2 paperboard boxes, paper/plastic laminate soap wraps. Product 13: Paperboard box, PET plastic bottle. Product 14: Paperboard laminate box. Product 15: Paper/plastic laminate wrap, paperboard backing. Product 16: Plastic (PET) bottle with hand pump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ICE CREAM:

This product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The products selected for this category were all regular ice cream. Other ice cream products, such as fat free, use similar package systems.

Table 23: Ice Cream

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

g product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

236

2.240

1.853

0.035

0.031

1.967

1.628

237

4.695

2.917

0.064

0.050

3.665

2.277

238

4.662

3.050

0.066

0.053

3.748

2.452

239

4.421

2.433

0.051

0.044

3.813

2.099

240

4.248

1.562

0.040

0.034

3.641

1.339

Product 240 used the least packaging in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This package consisted of a paperboard tub and a paperboard lid. Product 238 used the most packaging in the analysis of this product group. Product 238 consisted of a laminated paperboard carton and a plastic lid. Product 238 was selected for the market basket comparison because of the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value.

Ice Cream Product Group

 

Product 236: HDPE plastic tub, plastic lid. Product 237: Laminated paperboard carton. Product 238: Paperboard tub, plastic lid. Product 239: Paperboard tub, paperboard lid. Product 240: Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminate lid.

 

 

 

 

 

JUICES:

The juice product category consisted of 18 product/package systems and included frozen juice concentrates, shelf-stable juices, and refrigerated juices. The standard use comparison for this product group was based upon 240 ml (8 oz) amount per use. The standard use comparisons for product 90 and 97, the frozen juice concentrates, were based upon the juices in their prepared form. The comparative data for this product group is as follows:

Table 24: Juices

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g pack/ml product

g/serving

g/use

80

7.387

10.691

0.045

0.186

30.846

44.640

81

9.318

17.893

0.075

0.065

8.083

15.521

82

5.748

5.998

0.025

0.119

27.398

28.589

83

14.722

14.326

0.060

0.051

12.597

12.258

84

19.774

18.898

0.079

0.039

9.814

9.380

85

8.453

8.344

0.035

0.045

10.814

10.676

86

12.712

13.693

0.057

0.044

9.696

10.444

88

38.808

38.604

0.161

0.332

80.096

79.680

89

64.996

72.556

0.302

0.093

20.080

22.415

90

3.647

3.700

0.062

0.078

4.738

4.806

91

10.783

10.858

0.045

0.037

8.764

8.825

92

4.398

4.370

0.018

0.018

4.362

4.334

93

10.015

10.015

0.042

0.040

9.538

9.538

94

13.612

13.612

0.057

0.051

12.260

12.260

96

11.235

11.235

0.048

0.044

10.398

10.563

97

3.079

4.213

0.050

0.071

4.358

4.420

98

26.895

26.895

0.106

0.091

23.013

21.802

99

31.275

30.024

0.125

0.099

24.672

23.684

Product 92 used the least packaging material in the product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This product was refrigerated orange juice. The packaging for this product consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) gallon jug. Product 88 used the most packaging material in this product group. The package for product 88 consisted of a clear glass bottle with a recloseable metal cap. Product 88 was selected for the market basket comparison because of the packaging weight per standard use comparison value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juice Product Group

 

Product 80: 6 steel cans, plastic ring holder, plastic/foil laminate closures. Product 82: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 89: Corrugated box, 10 plastic/foil laminate pouches, 10 straws and plastic straw wrappers. Product 90: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure.

Product 93: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 94: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 96: Paperboard gable-top carton, plastic closure. Product 97: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure. Product 98: Paperboard carton, 3 gable-top paperboard cartons, plastic straws. Product 99: 6 HDPE plastic bottles with plastic closures, plastic outer wrapping, paperboard backer material, plastic labels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juice Product Group

Product 81: 4 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product 83: 3 paperboard laminate drink boxes, outer plastic wrapping. Product 84: 9 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product 85: PET plastic bottle with HDPE cap. Product 86: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 88: Clear glass bottle, paper label. Product 91: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 92: HDPE gallon jug.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAUNDRY DETERGENT:

This product category consisted of 7 product/package systems. The comparisons were based upon manufacturer’s uses per container and standard uses based upon the amount of product used per wash. The standard use amount for powdered detergent was 62 g per use, and for liquid detergent was 121 ml per use. These values were based upon normal use amounts for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this project.

Table 25: Laundry Detergent

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer uses

Standard uses

ml product

Product Weight

Manufacturer uses

Standard uses

cm3/uses

cm3/ uses

cm3/ml

g/ml

g/use

g/ uses

110

12.271

11.958

0.099

0.156

19.323

18.83

111

6.630

6.502

0.054

0.067

8.269

8.11

112

8.820

8.702

0.072

0.045

5.519

5.445

cm3/g

g/g

113

5.444

5.427

0.088

0.076

4.726

4.711

114

8.075

7.120

0.115

0.102

7.175

6.326

115

0.406

0.401

0.006

0.007

0.432

0.427

116

8.209

7.857

0.127

0.088

5.714

5.469

Product 115 used the least packaging material for this product group. This package consisted of LDPE plastic sealed bag. The package was sealed on the top, bottom and vertically on the back with a fin seal. Product 110 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of an HDPE pigmented plastic bottle and a plastic screw cap.

Laundry Detergent Product Group

Product 110: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 111: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 112: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 113: Paperboard box. Product 114: Paperboard box. Product 115: LDPE plastic bag. Product 116: Paperboard box.

 

LUNCH MEAT:

The lunch meat product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. The lunch meat product selected was ham.

Table 26: Lunch Meat

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

157

0.373

0.881

0.013

0.015

0.438

1.036

158

6.884

10.960

0.115

0.110

6.570

10.461

159

1.403

2.658

0.027

0.044

2.263

4.285

160

0.637

2.081

0.026

0.023

0.564

1.842

Product 157 used the least packaging material for this product group. This package consisted of a plastic LDPE sealed pouch. Product 158 used the most packaging in the product group. The package consisted of a paperboard outer carton and a plastic pouch that was sealed on 4 sides.

Lunch Meat Product Group

 

Product 157: LDPE plastic pouch. Product 158: Paperboard carton, 4-sided sealed plastic pouch.

Product 159: Plastic recloseable bag. Product 160: LDPE plastic recloseable bag, plastic inner

wrap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARGARINE:

The margarine product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The product group consisted of margarine sticks, margarine tubs and squeezable margarine. The standard use comparison was not used because the category included no calorie fat-free margarine.

Table 27: Margarine

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

Manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Product Weight

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

Cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

167

1.735

*

0.119

0.097

1.409

*

168

0.794

*

0.055

0.050

0.721

*

169

1.720

*

0.115

0.121

1.803

*

170

0.955

*

0.063

0.043

0.652

*

257

0.784

*

0.055

0.045

0.650

*

Product 257 used the least packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard carton with 4 paper margarine wraps. Product 169 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a squeezable HDPE plastic bottle, a plastic flip top closure and a foil seal.

 

Margarine Product Group

 

Product 167: Paperboard carton, 2 Polypropylene plastic cups and lids. Product 168: Paperboard carton, 4 foil wrappers. Product 169: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 170: HDPE plastic tub with lid. Product 257: Paperboard carton, 4 paper wrappers.

 

 

MEAT:

The meat category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The product selected for analysis in this study was ground beef. The calorie and serving size information for the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken from information provided in grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute. The expanded polystyrene trays found in this product group were analyzed without being compacted.

Table 28: Meat

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

198

27.495

13.514

0.227

0.027

3.325

1.634

199

33.777

16.039

0.270

0.034

4.273

2.029

200

13.342

3.954

0.094

0.009

1.234

0.366

201

15.767

5.139

0.123

0.013

1.626

0.530

Product 200 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray and plastic wrap (PVDC). Product 199 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an EPS tray, and plastic outer sealing layers. This package also had a paper backing material inside the package.

Meat Product Group

 

Product 198: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 199: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 200: EPS foam tray, plastic wrapping. Product 201: EPS foam tray, plastic wrapping.

 

MILK:

This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems. The product group consisted of skim and low fat milks.

Table 29: Milk

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving:

Standard Use:

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving:

Standard Use:

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g pack/g product

g/serving

g/use

161

5.269

6.586

0.022

0.018

4.404

5.505

162

4.391

5.553

0.019

0.018

4.217

5.334

163

10.190

12.567

0.042

0.033

7.918

9.765

164

11.072

13.883

0.046

0.035

8.415

10.552

165

9.434

11.792

0.039

0.062

14.910

18.638

166

12.502

10.418

0.052

0.064

15.405

12.838

251

11.764

13.167

0.049

0.056

13.380

14.976

252

21.482

16.617

0.090

0.095

22.768

17.612

260

1.621

1.366

0.007

0.007

1.550

1.307

 

Product 260 was found to use the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an LDPE plastic pouch. Product 252 was found to use the most packaging material in the group on a packaging weight per manufacturer serving basis. This basis was used for this category because the milk caloric values varied between skim and low fat milk products. The package for this product consisted of 6 individual serving pigmented HDPE bottles, 6 plastic shrink labels, and plastic outer shrink-wrap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Milk Product Group

Product 161: HDPE half-gallon jug. Product 162: HDPE plastic gallon jug. Product 163: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 164: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 165: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 166: PET plastic bottle. Product 251: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle, plastic label. Product 252: 6 HDPE plastic pigmented bottles, 6 plastic labels, plastic wrapping. Product 260: LDPE plastic bag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAPER TOWEL:

The paper towel product group consisted of 3 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon one 11"x11" paper towel per use.

 

Table 30: Paper Towel

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer use

Standard Use

one square

one sheet, cm2

manufacturer use

Standard Use

cm3/ use

cm3/use

cm3/tissue

g/cm2

g/use

g/use

182

0.071

0.084

0.017

0.016

0.065

0.077

183

0.037

0.081

0.015

0.015

0.035

0.077

184

0.162

0.193

0.106

0.099

0.151

0.180

Product 183 used the least packaging material in this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of an outer LDPE plastic wrap. This product consisted of one roll of paper towels. Product 184 used the most packaging materials in this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of 8 individual LDPE plastic wraps, and an outer plastic wrap around all 8 rolls.

Paper Towel Product Group

Product 182: LDPE plastic outer wrapping. Product 183: LDPE plastic roll wrapping. Product 184: LDPE plastic outer wrapping, 8 LDPE plastic roll wrappings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PASTA:

The pasta category consisted of 9 product/packaging systems. The expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray found in this product group was analyzed without being compacted. The comparative data for the group is as follows:

Table 31: Pasta

 

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving:

Standard Use:

Product Weight:

Product Weight:

Manufacturer Serving:

Standard Use:

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

50

7.408

3.605

0.1328

0.1071

5.975

2.908

51

9.501

4.630

0.1684

0.0176

0.993

0.484

52

4.273

2.006

0.0752

0.0618

3.511

1.684

53

0.490

0.228

0.0086

0.0077

0.440

0.205

54

6.316

2.606

0.0705

0.0936

8.380

3.458

55

3.818

1.727

0.0691

0.0777

4.293

1.942

56

0.582

0.278

0.0102

0.0054

0.305

0.146

57

62.637

30.096

1.056

0.0651

3.863

1.856

58

1.548

0.720

0.027

0.0318

1.827

0.849

 

Product 56 used the least packaging for this product group. The package for this product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch with a vertical fin seal. Product 56 was selected for the market basket analysis because of smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 54 used the most packaging material in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for this product consisted of a plastic tray and a plastic film cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pasta Product Group

Product 50: Paperboard box. Product 51: Plastic bag. Product 52: Paperboard carton. Product 53: Plastic pouch. Product 54: Plastic tray, plastic film cover. Product 55: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 56: Plastic pouch. Product 57: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap. Product 58: Plastic bag, adhesive paper closure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PET FOOD:

The pet food product category consisted of 9 product/package systems. The pet food product selected for analysis in this study was cat food. Included in this category were moist and dry cat foods. The manufacturer serving comparisons were not used in this product category because the majority of the products did not indicate a serving size. The standard use comparison was based upon normal feeding amounts for one cat per day. Dr. Selke and Dr. Lockhart provided feeding information on amounts of food for each of their cats. The basis for the standard use comparison was found to be 5.5oz (155g) for moist food and 2.1oz (61.6g) for dry.

Table 32: Pet Food

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

g product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/servings

cm3/uses

cm3/g

g/g

g/servings

g/uses

59

*

6.657

0.108

0.097

*

5.969

60

*

5.185

0.033

0.146

*

22.678

61

*

5.239

0.034

0.227

*

35.157

62

*

10.213

0.166

0.141

*

8.676

63

*

1.550

0.025

0.023

*

1.389

64

*

7.586

0.049

0.114

*

17.605

65

*

15.366

0.099

0.093

*

14.388

66

*

4.278

0.069

0.022

*

1.369

67

*

10.357

0.168

0.132

*

8.104

Product 66 used the least packaging material in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This product was a dry cat food product. This package consisted of a multi-wall paper bag. Product 61 used the most packaging material on a packaging weight per standard use basis and, therefore, was selected for the market basket. The package for product 61 consisted of a 2-piece steel can with a pull-top lid and a paper label.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pet Food Product Group

Product 59: HDPE plastic container. Product 60: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 61: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 62: Paperboard box. Product 63: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 64: 2-piece metal can, paper label. Product 65: Plastic tray, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 66: Multi-wall paper bag. Product 67: Paperboard box, 6 plastic pouches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POULTRY:

The poultry product category consisted of two product/package systems. This product group was made up only of fresh, whole chicken. This was done to narrow the product group because of the vast variety of prepared chicken products available, such as breaded chicken breast and buffalo-wing style chicken pieces. The expanded polystyrene tray in this product group was analyzed in a non-compacted form. The calorie and serving size information for the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken from information provided in grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute.

Table 33: Poultry

 

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

202

0.348

0.246

0.004

0.003

0.309

0.219

203

11.733

8.536

0.136

0.017

1.443

1.050

Product 202 used the least packaging material for the product group. The package for this product consisted of a single LDPE plastic bag. Product 203 used the most packaging material for the product group. This package consisted of an expanded polystyrene tray, a plastic label, and an outer plastic wrap.

Poultry Product Group

Product 202: LDPE plastic bag. Product 203: EPS foam tray, plastic label, plastic wrapping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHAMPOO:

 

The shampoo category consisted of 4 product/packaging systems. Standard use comparisons for this product category were based upon the amount of shampoo used per wash. The amount of shampoo used for the standard use basis in this study was 10 ml/use. This is based upon normal use amounts for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this study.

 

Table 34: Shampoo Comparative Data

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g/g

g/serving

g/use

232

0.559

0.931

0.093

0.103

0.620

1.033

233

0.387

0.626

0.063

0.081

0.501

0.811

234

1.191

1.854

0.185

0.153

0.985

1.534

235

1.109

1.706

0.171

0.162

1.050

1.615

Product 233 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle and a plastic screw cap. Product 235 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle with plastic flip cap. Product 235 was selected for market basket analysis because of the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value.

Shampoo Product Group

 

Product 232: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle. Product 233: PET plastic bottle. Product 234: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle. Product 235: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOFT DRINK:

The soft drink product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The standard use comparisons were based upon 240 ml (8 fl oz) per usage. The standard use comparison was not based on calories per serving because the category included diet soft drinks.

 

Table 35: Soft Drinks

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Amount

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/ml

g/ml

g/serving

g/use

135

16.011

10.764

0.045

0.065

23.211

15.604

136

22.329

9.045

0.038

0.050

29.917

12.118

137

51.600

52.253

0.218

0.494

117.008

118.489

138

5.257

5.291

0.022

0.027

6.419

6.461

139

6.794

4.457

0.019

0.043

15.860

10.405

140

8.020

5.347

0.022

0.046

16.697

11.131

141

5.527

5.202

0.022

0.028

7.158

6.736

142

140.212

139.438

0.581

0.965

232.797

231.510

143

23.275

9.310

0.039

0.052

31.330

12.532

144

15.895

10.626

0.044

0.071

25.499

17.047

Product 138 used the least packaging material in the product group. Product 138 consisted of a 3-Liter PET bottle. Product 138 was selected for market basket analysis because of the smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 142 used the most packaging material in this product group. The packaging consisted of 6 clear glass bottles and a paperboard carton.

Soft Drink Product Group

Product 135: Paperboard carton, 24 aluminum cans. Product 139: 6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder. Product 140: LDPE plastic outer wrapping, 12 aluminum cans. Product 144: Paperboard carton, 12 aluminum cans.

 

 

 

Soft Drink Product Group

 

Product 136: 6 PET plastic bottles, plastic ring holder. Product 137: Amber glass bottle. Product 138: PET plastic bottle (3-liter). Product 141: PET plastic bottle (2-liter). Product 142: Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles. Product 143: PET plastic bottle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUP:

The soup product group consisted of 7 product/package systems. Included in this group were condensed soups, dry soups, ready to eat soups, and frozen soups.

 

Table 36: Soup

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

ml product

Product Weight

manufacturer serving

Standard Use

cm3/serving

cm3/use

cm3/g

g/g

g/serving

g/use

204

6.519

42.406

0.444

0.402

5.903

38.395

205

1.798

1.540

0.055

0.059

1.955

1.675

206

16.118

9.430

0.329

0.251

12.320

7.208

207

13.881

12.329

0.116

0.088

10.590

9.406

208

6.840

8.259

0.056

0.129

15.856

19.144

209

10.476

7.912

0.038

0.132

36.245

27.373

210

33.749

29.930

0.146

0.454

105.177

93.276

 

Product 205 used the least packaging material for this product group. The package consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. This product was one of the dry soups in the product group. Product 210 used the most packaging material in the product group. The package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug closure and a paper label. This product was one of the ready-to-eat soups in the product group.

Soup Product Group

 

Product 204: Paperboard carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches. Product 205: Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 206: Paperboard cup, paper/plastic laminate seal.

Product 207: Paperboard carton, 2 HDPE plastic trays, plastic film. Product 208: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 209: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 210: Clear glass jar, metal lug cap.

 

 

 

 

TISSUES:

The tissue product group consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. The standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of tissue per use. Manufacturer uses comparisons were based upon one tissue per use. The data comparisons for this product group is as follows:

Table 37: Tissue Comparative Data

Product

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Volume Packaging/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Packaging Weight/

Number

Manufacturer use

Standard Uses

cm2 product

cm2 product

manufacturer use

Standard Use

cm3/use

cm3/use

cm3/cm2

g/cm2

g/use

g/use

122

0.067

0.129

0.017

0.061

0.243

0.471

123

0.904

1.821

0.116

0.091

0.714

1.438

124

0.496

0.954

0.107

0.090

0.418

0.804

125

0.613

1.228

0.159

0.135

0.520

1.043

126

0.516

0.983

0.186

0.154

0.425

0.811

127

0.208

0.393

0.030

0.034

0.230

0.435

Product 127 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of 6 individual plastic tissue pack wraps, and an outer plastic wrap. Product 127 was selected for market basket analysis because of the smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 123 used the most packaging material in the product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This package consisted of paperboard box with a plastic wrap material around the width of the box, with a plastic adhesive label.

Tissue Product Group

 

Product 122: Plastic outer wrap, 8 plastic tissue wraps. Product 123: Paperboard box, plastic wrap, plastic adhesive card. Product 124: Paperboard box, plastic outer wrap. Product 125: 3 paperboard boxes, outer plastic wrap. Product 126: Paperboard box, plastic film window.