A Comprehensive Analysis of Sustainability (Glass Jar vs. Plastic Jar)
Glass Jars vs. Plastic Polypropylene Containers with Eco-friendly Additives or Post-Consumer Recycled Content
Introduction:
As sustainability becomes a focal point in the packaging industry, a multifaceted approach is necessary to assess the environmental impact of different materials. Two commonly used packaging options under scrutiny are glass jars with plastic lids and lid liners versus plastic polypropylene containers with no secondary materials. This article aims to provide a comparative analysis of the sustainability aspects associated with these two packaging choices.
Glass Jars with Plastic Lids and Lid Liners:
Glass jars are often favored for their recyclability, durability, and inert nature. They can be endlessly recycled without losing quality, reducing the demand for raw materials. The plastic lids and lid liners, however, introduce an additional layer of complexity to the sustainability equation.
- Recyclability: Glass is highly recyclable, and many municipal recycling programs accept glass containers. However, the recycling process becomes more intricate when dealing with mixed materials such as glass and plastic. Consumers must separate the glass from the plastic components before recycling, which may reduce the likelihood of proper disposal.
- Lids and Liners: Plastic lids for glass often contain liners made from various materials, such as foam or foil, to ensure a tight seal. These liners must be separated from the plastic lid to recycle and the liner material may not be recyclable and end up in landfills, contributing to environmental issues.
- Weight and Transportation: Glass jars are heavier than their plastic counterparts, leading to increased transportation costs and carbon emissions. The added weight increases the overall carbon footprint of the glass versus plastic during transportation.
Plastic Polypropylene Containers with Accelerated Degradation Additives or Post-Consumer Recycled Content:
Plastic polypropylene containers, on the other hand, offer a different set of advantages and challenges.
- Recyclability: Polypropylene is widely accepted in recycling streams, and its lightweight nature makes it easier to transport. However, the quality of recycled plastic may degrade over time, limiting the number of times it can be reused.
- No Secondary Materials: Plastic polypropylene containers may consist of a single material, simplifying the recycling process. This can contribute to a more straightforward and efficient recycling system.
- Carbon Footprint: The weight discrepancy between glass and polypropylene containers significantly influences the carbon footprint during transportation. The lighter weight of polypropylene translates to lower energy consumption in shipping, mitigating emissions and contributing to a more environmentally friendly distribution process.
- Accelerated Degradation Additives: As the world grapples with the environmental impact of packaging materials, the sustainability discourse has expanded to include considerations for innovative additives that mitigate the negative effects of traditional materials. The integration of accelerated degradation additives in polypropylene containers represents a promising step towards reducing the environmental impact of plastic packaging. These additives enable plastic to break down more rapidly, promoting the eventual degradation of the material. CRATIV Accelerator additive is a non-oxo formulation that does not produce harmful microplastics. Unlike regular plastic that can sit in a landfill for hundreds or thousands of years, plastic enhanced with CRATIV Accelerator additive attracts over 600 different types of microbes that effectively digest and consume it.
- Post-Consumer Recycled Content (PCR): Another significant stride toward sustainability is the incorporation of post-consumer recycled (PCR) content in the manufacturing of polypropylene containers. Utilizing recycled plastic helps reduce the demand for virgin materials, conserving resources and energy. The percentage of PCR content varies, and higher percentages contribute to a more circular and environmentally friendly product life cycle. CRATIV PCR50 material contains 50% PCR.
Conclusion:
The integration of accelerated degradation additives and post-consumer recycled content in polypropylene containers underscores a commitment to sustainable packaging practices. This combination addresses concerns related to the end-of-life disposal of plastic, fosters the circular use of materials, and contributes to reducing environmental pollution.
While glass jars maintain their merits in terms of recyclability, polypropylene containers with accelerated degradation additives or post consumer recycled content (PCR) present a compelling case for a more sustainable packaging future. As consumers increasingly prioritize eco-conscious choices, the collaboration of manufacturers, recyclers, and consumers is essential to drive meaningful change and foster a circular economy that prioritizes environmental responsibility.
Ultimately, the choice between these two packaging options should be guided by a holistic assessment of the entire life cycle, considering factors such as material sourcing, production, transportation, and end-of-life disposal. As we continue to seek sustainable solutions, innovation in packaging materials and recycling processes will play a crucial role in minimizing the environmental impact of packaging across industries.
Case Study: 8 Oz. Glass Container vs 8 Oz. CRATIV Vault 65
| THE DATA | ||
| Glass Jar with Lid and PE Liner | CRATIV Vault 65 PP Jar | |
| Mfg. Location | China | Mexico |
| Jar Capacity | 8 oz. / 65 dram | 8 oz. / 65 dram |
| Number of Materials | Three | One |
| Materials Used | glass jar, plastic lid, lid liner | polypropylene with accelerated degradation additive |
| Weight per Unit | 8.16 oz. | 0.72 oz. |
| Weight per Box | 28 lbs. | 30 lbs. |
| Weight Per Pallet | 1,547 lbs. | 525 lbs. |
| Units per Box | 48 ea. | 432 ea. |
| Units per Pallet | 2,352 ea. | 6,912 ea. |
| Boxes per Pallet | 49 boxes | 16 boxes |
| Box Size | 20″ x 14″ x 8″ | 22″ x 20″ x 20″ |
| Pallet Dimensions | 48″ x 40″ x 71″ | 48″ x 40″ x 85″ |
| Shipping Cost Per Unit | $0.16 | $0.07 |
The Facts – 8 Oz. Glass Jar vs. 8 Oz. CRATIV Vault 65
- CRATIV is made in North America so there is no carbon footprint vs. glass shipped on container ships from China.
- CRATIV is made from one sustainable accelerated degradation material (no secondary materials).
- The glass jar is made of three materials that have to be separated to be effectively recycled.
- One 8 oz. glass jar weighs over 11 times as much as the CRATIV Vault 65.
- A pallet of glass jars weighs almost 3 times as much as a pallet of CRATIV Vault 65.
- A pallet of CRATIV Vault 65 contains 3 times the number of units versus a pallet of 8 oz. glass jars.
- You would have to ship 3 pallets of glass and 3 times that amount of weight versus one pallet of CRATIV.
- $0.16 per unit – Glass Shipping Cost Denver to Los Angeles – 3 pallets glass = $1,157
- $0.07 per unit – CRATIV Vault 65 Shipping Cost Denver to Los Angeles – 1 pallet = $524
- You have to handle 49 individual boxes to process 2,352 units for filling.
- You only have to handle 16 individual boxes of CRATIV Vault 65 to process 6,912 units for filling.
See www.crativpackaging.com or email us at sales@crativpackaging.com to learn more.
