Containers made of polystyrene and paper are used commonly in the foodservice industry to serve food and beverages, and there is a great deal of controversy over which type of container is less environmentally damaging. Although both materials can theoretically be reprocessed, at present neither type of container is recycled. Instead, the waste is either sent to a landfill or incinerated.

Two different sources of data will be used to estimate the relative environmental impact of paper versus polystyrene containers. The first is a paper by Martin Hocking of the University of Victoria published in the respected journal Science (Science, 251:504–505, 1991). This table summarizes some of the results reported by Hocking.

The second is a report by a consulting firm, Franklin Associates Ltd., which was prepared for the Council of Waste Solutions, a group that is partially funded by plastics manufacturers. The data from their report is summarized in the next table. (Franklin Associates Ltd., “Resource and environmental profile analysis of foam polystyrene and bleached paperboard containers,” final report to the Council for Solid Waste Solutions, Prairie Village, Kansas.

Environmental Impact per 10,000 Cups

Franklin Associates reports that 10,000 16-oz polystyrene cups weigh 96.9 lb, while LDPE-coated paper and wax-coated paper cups weigh 229.1 and 287.9 lb, respectively.

On the basis of the data in the tables, estimate the mass of solid wastes and the atmospheric emissions generated per paper cup and per polystyrene cup. Compare the two different sets of data. Use your analysis as the basis for a short letter to your local coffee shops to argue that they use only one kind of cup.

There are major differences between the solid wastes reported for paper cups in the two reports. Hocking states in his paper that “paper cups are made from bleached pulp, which in turn is obtained in yields of about 50% by weight from wood chips.” Similar inefficiencies are assumed in the Franklin Associates report, but these inefficiencies are not counted as solid wastes. Which approach do you think is better, and why?
 
 
 

Transcribed Image Text:

Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10 Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10 Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10 Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10 Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10 Raw materials (per cup) Wood and bark (g) Petroleum (g) Other chemicals (g) Finished weight (g) Cost Water emissions (per metric ton) Suspended solids (kg) Dissolved biodegradable solids (kg) Organochlorines (kg) Metal salts (kg) Air emissions (per metric ton) Chlorine (kg) Chlorine dioxides (kg) Reduced sulfides (kg) Particulates (kg) Pentane (kg) Sulfur dioxide (kg) Paper cup 33 4.1 1.8 10.1 2.5x 35-60 30-50 5-7 1-20 0.5 0.2 2 5-15 10 Polystyrene foam cu 0 3.2 0.05 1.5 1x Trace 0.07 0 20 0 0 0.1 35-50 10

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Lets use 10000 cups as a basis for comparison Well start with the Hocking report The total mass of r... View the full answer