RESEARCH ON INTERACTIVE FOOD
PACKAGING DESIGN BASED ON USER
EXPERIENCE UNDER THE BACKGROUND
OF DUAL CARBON
Yanjun Zhao*
Department of Finance and Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences, Beijing, 100102, China.
17801567001@163.com
Reception: 17/04/2023 Acceptance: 11/06/2023 Publication: 29/06/2023
Suggested citation:
Zhao, Y. (2023). Research on interactive food packaging design based on
user experience under the background of dual carbon . 3C Tecnología.
Glosas de innovación aplicada a la pyme, 12(2), 253-267. https://doi.org/
10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
253
ABSTRACT
In recent years, the environmental degradation caused by carbon emissions has
become more and more serious. It is particularly important to achieve the dual carbon
goals of "carbon peaking" and "carbon neutral". The food packaging process accounts
for a large portion of carbon emissions in the food industry and is an important
concern for carbon reduction. While the task of carbon reduction is particularly
important, it is also important to design food packaging with the user's experience in
mind. This is the reason why interactive packaging design, which focuses on two-way
communication and user experience, is used in the design of this paper. To
corroborate the design scheme, the carbon footprint analysis of three packaging
methods for 200g cooked peanuts was conducted in this paper. The final carbon
footprints of vacuum, air, and modified atmosphere packaging methods were 36.18,
54.78, and 218.86
respectively. Subsequently, the sensitivity of different
packaging methods is analyzed. It is found that vacuum packaging is more sensitive
to changes in emission factors. The final carbon footprint value is changed by 16.31%
under the direct influence of emission factors, while the final carbon footprint values in
air and modified atmosphere packaging are 4.88% and 0.78% respectively, which are
less affected by the change of factors.
KEYWORDS
Dual Carbon; Based on user experience; Food; Interactive; Packaging Design
INDEX
gCO2eq
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING DESIGN AND USER EXPERIENCE
2.1. The concept of interactive food packaging design
2.2. User Experience
3. COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT OF CARBON FOOTPRINT IN DIFFERENT FOOD
INTERACTIVE PACKAGING METHODS
3.1. Definition and Scope of Objectives
3.2. Inventory Analysis
3.3. Data Analysis
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Carbon footprint analysis of different packaging methods
4.2. Sensitivity analysis of different packaging methods
5. DISCUSSION
6. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
254
ABSTRACT
In recent years, the environmental degradation caused by carbon emissions has
become more and more serious. It is particularly important to achieve the dual carbon
goals of "carbon peaking" and "carbon neutral". The food packaging process accounts
for a large portion of carbon emissions in the food industry and is an important
concern for carbon reduction. While the task of carbon reduction is particularly
important, it is also important to design food packaging with the user's experience in
mind. This is the reason why interactive packaging design, which focuses on two-way
communication and user experience, is used in the design of this paper. To
corroborate the design scheme, the carbon footprint analysis of three packaging
methods for 200g cooked peanuts was conducted in this paper. The final carbon
footprints of vacuum, air, and modified atmosphere packaging methods were 36.18,
54.78, and 218.86 respectively. Subsequently, the sensitivity of different
packaging methods is analyzed. It is found that vacuum packaging is more sensitive
to changes in emission factors. The final carbon footprint value is changed by 16.31%
under the direct influence of emission factors, while the final carbon footprint values in
air and modified atmosphere packaging are 4.88% and 0.78% respectively, which are
less affected by the change of factors.
KEYWORDS
Dual Carbon; Based on user experience; Food; Interactive; Packaging Design
INDEX
gCO2eq
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING DESIGN AND USER EXPERIENCE
2.1. The concept of interactive food packaging design
2.2. User Experience
3. COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT OF CARBON FOOTPRINT IN DIFFERENT FOOD
INTERACTIVE PACKAGING METHODS
3.1. Definition and Scope of Objectives
3.2. Inventory Analysis
3.3. Data Analysis
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Carbon footprint analysis of different packaging methods
4.2. Sensitivity analysis of different packaging methods
5. DISCUSSION
6. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2021, the Chinese government officially included the goals of "carbon peaking"
and "carbon neutrality" in the government's work report. To achieve this goal, a
timeline was set for carbon emissions to reach a peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality
by 2060. In response to the government's call, various industries have developed
policies and strategies for energy conservation and emission reduction to achieve the
"carbon neutrality" goal. In response to the government's call, the application of green
packaging to food and beverage has become a major trend. Packaging has always
been an important part of food products and plays an important role in ensuring the
quality of food. Survey results show that in the worldwide packaging services industry,
the food packaging segment accounts for 60% of the entire market and the industrial
scale is a trend of expansion in recent years. In the huge industry chain, the global
food system emissions of greenhouse gases accounted for about 26% of the total
global emissions. Under the dual impetus of the growing food packaging industry and
the implementation of carbon reduction policies, it is a huge problem to design low-
carbon packaging that meets the requirements.
Scholars from different countries have different studies on how to design food
packaging. Ilicic J studied a product shaking effect [1]. Consumers can moderate the
anxiety effect induced by the package design by shaking the product. Anxiety-inducing
product package designs with shaking product interactions were introduced and can
be used as an anti-emotional eating strategy. It can also be used as an effective
measure to prevent obesity. Khan A identified inefficient collaboration between design
and management as a factor in the increase of packaging waste [2]. The food
packaging design process and the impact of team design on packaging design were
studied in his research. He categorized and analyzed the end-of-life issues of food
packaging design and explored emerging opportunities. In the end, necessary design,
as well as research strategies, are also proposed, which in turn promote end-of-life
considerations in food packaging. Yokokawa N argued that packaging design should
also try to integrate with factors such as consumers' consumption preferences and the
influence of the low environment [3]. And he believes that packaging design can also
be used to further influence the purchasing preferences of a particular consumer by
using a particular combination of packaging or features for a particular product. In his
research project, the environmental impact factors and potential consumer preference
effects of over 18 design options with different packaging and functional requirements
were systematically evaluated. Subsequently, he has examined quantitatively the
influence relationships that exist between the options. Ma X argues that packaging
waste is a major issue for both business and society [4]. However, the perception of
sustainable packaging efforts in practice is less clear. To address this issue, seven
interviews were conducted with providers of sustainable materials and the results
were analyzed. The study by Nevala H aimed to model a reusable food packaging
service using customer-centered design thinking [5]. The study was conducted using
a qualitative research approach, using interviews with 11 study participants. After
results such as their packaging preferences were collected, they were placed into the
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
255
established model as elements of the value proposition. In this way, possible, new and
reusable food packaging services were explored. Yu D et al. studied the application of
computer graphic design color language in food packaging design at a time of rapid
Internet development [6]. The study reported that the unique importance of color
treatment as an integral part of the packaging design process is unquestionable. Color
not only reflects people's consumption emotions but also drives consumers'
psychological associations. For this reason, it is particularly important to investigate
the practicality and significance of the application of computer graphic design color
language in food packaging design.
From the above studies, it is easy to find that the research on food packaging
design concepts and solutions is very in-depth. However, there is relatively little
research on food packaging design based on the concept of carbon reduction. In
addition, the integration of carbon reduction elements into interactive packaging
design based on user experience is also a less studied point. Interactive packaging
design integrates cultural and scientific factors into one and also applies various
knowledge systems such as information media, consumer psychology, and
economics. It not only meets the aesthetic requirements of contemporary people but
also takes into account the dissemination of the concept of carbon reduction. One of
its advantages is that it focuses more on the user's experience. How to combine the
concept of carbon reduction with interactive food packaging design that focuses on
user experience is the focus of this paper.
2. INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING DESIGN AND
USER EXPERIENCE
2.1. THE CONCEPT OF INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING
DESIGN
Interactive print and packaging design technology is a comprehensive applied
design engineering discipline that integrates design business, culture, science, art,
materials, and printing, including information media, ergonomics, economics,
consumer psychology, usability engineering research, and other aspects [7-9]. The
leading idea of interactive packaging design is to take digital packaging products and
their supporting product systems as the carrier, a new period of two-way
communication and bridge established between people and things system, to
gradually enhance the effective interactive information exchange between people and
things. The interactive design of food packaging places more emphasis on the
interaction between packaging and consumers, with the user as the center, to meet
the needs of users.
Truly excellent interactive packaging design will not only give everyone visual
enjoyment but will also allow all users to experience the entire interactive process of
the packaging and better understand the product characteristics and brand
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
256
established model as elements of the value proposition. In this way, possible, new and
reusable food packaging services were explored. Yu D et al. studied the application of
computer graphic design color language in food packaging design at a time of rapid
Internet development [6]. The study reported that the unique importance of color
treatment as an integral part of the packaging design process is unquestionable. Color
not only reflects people's consumption emotions but also drives consumers'
psychological associations. For this reason, it is particularly important to investigate
the practicality and significance of the application of computer graphic design color
language in food packaging design.
From the above studies, it is easy to find that the research on food packaging
design concepts and solutions is very in-depth. However, there is relatively little
research on food packaging design based on the concept of carbon reduction. In
addition, the integration of carbon reduction elements into interactive packaging
design based on user experience is also a less studied point. Interactive packaging
design integrates cultural and scientific factors into one and also applies various
knowledge systems such as information media, consumer psychology, and
economics. It not only meets the aesthetic requirements of contemporary people but
also takes into account the dissemination of the concept of carbon reduction. One of
its advantages is that it focuses more on the user's experience. How to combine the
concept of carbon reduction with interactive food packaging design that focuses on
user experience is the focus of this paper.
2. INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING DESIGN AND
USER EXPERIENCE
2.1. THE CONCEPT OF INTERACTIVE FOOD PACKAGING
DESIGN
Interactive print and packaging design technology is a comprehensive applied
design engineering discipline that integrates design business, culture, science, art,
materials, and printing, including information media, ergonomics, economics,
consumer psychology, usability engineering research, and other aspects [7-9]. The
leading idea of interactive packaging design is to take digital packaging products and
their supporting product systems as the carrier, a new period of two-way
communication and bridge established between people and things system, to
gradually enhance the effective interactive information exchange between people and
things. The interactive design of food packaging places more emphasis on the
interaction between packaging and consumers, with the user as the center, to meet
the needs of users.
Truly excellent interactive packaging design will not only give everyone visual
enjoyment but will also allow all users to experience the entire interactive process of
the packaging and better understand the product characteristics and brand
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
information. The process of designing various interactions in food packaging can also
be dynamic and can be repeatedly changed, including the interaction designer's
design logic and reasoning, accurate prediction, and grasp of the interactive use of
the product and product positioning. Focusing on the user's visual experience is the
correct guideline for the process of excellent interactive food packaging design.
Experience psychology includes basic mental processes such as sensation,
perception, feeling, thinking, and cognitive process. The experience design of
interactive food packaging design is mainly based on the interaction designer's
thinking about many issues such as user information and experience mode, emotional
experience building structure, user behavior testing, and the way of their feedback.
Food packaging design must not only focus on a variety of external product images
such as product graphics, color, material texture, etc. but also first solve the problems
of external visual image communication and environmental protection material use
and soon.
2.2. USER EXPERIENCE
The American psychologist Maslow proposed a hierarchical model of human needs
that divided the basic needs of each person into the following seven levels of needs:
physiological needs, security needs, belonging and love needs, respect needs,
cognitive needs, aesthetic needs, and self-actualization needs. People's needs are
gradually shifting from good use needs to better levels of emotional needs. From self-
worth to be recognized, and then to achieve personal social value. People began to
have some higher-level design requirements for the product design and service mode
of packaging design. In food packaging and design activities, designers should usually
focus on the long-term usability of the product itself, and consider whether the product
packaging design can fully meet the needs of its target users.
User interaction experience is concerned with the real interaction needs of users
and interaction experience, and food packaging design needs to adhere to the main
starting point of serving users and the center of the final design. After collecting user
feedback and feedback analysis reports, we carefully check all the details in the
process of product interaction to give users a comfortable and pleasant interaction
experience. Think about the user's feelings when using the product, and finally get the
user's consistent love and willingness to accept the interaction of the product.
As shown in Figure 1, three important aspects of user experience design in the
overall food and packaging innovation design work include.
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
257
Figure 1. The importance of user experience in food packaging design
1. It often promotes better communication between users and other food
manufacturers and product packaging suppliers. User experience-based food
packaging design can ensure that all users can accurately receive the relevant
information conveyed by the product packaging, making the use of the product
clearer, simpler, and more convenient, and achieving two-way communication
between the product itself and the target user group.
2. It can likewise further enhance the value and brand awareness of food
production operators. Good commodity packaging and design style can ensure
a good product image to the majority of user consumers. The interactive
contact process between customers and food products will make the user a
good and pleasant psychological experience, thus strengthening people's
emotional trust, loyalty, and secondary purchase desire for their products,
forming the product's word-of-mouth image and brand reputation.
3. It can actively promote the economical use of waste food packaging materials
and green environmental protection.
Under the requirement of the ecological background environment of double carbon,
designers should further fully consider the final use experience effect of commodity
packaging products in the process of designing and manufacturing, and define the
reasonable reuse process of packaging resources to increase the user's experience,
which can effectively maintain the balance of the whole ecological environment.
The distinctive feature of interactive packaging design is that the interaction
between the package and the user is predesigned by the designer. Before completing
the package design, the package designer must anticipate the visual image of the
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
258
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
package, the opening method of packaging, the using method of packaging, and the
secondary use the package will bring to the user's experience.
One of the most significant technical features of interactive packaging design
technology is that the designer can design in advance to control the interaction
between the user and the product packaging. Before the overall package design is
completed, visual designers can anticipate the overall visual image of the package,
the way the package will be opened, the way the package will be used, and the
experience the user will have when the package is used again.
3. COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT OF CARBON
FOOTPRINT IN DIFFERENT FOOD INTERACTIVE
PACKAGING METHODS
General food packaging methods are vacuum packaging, air packaging, and
modified atmosphere packaging. Among them, vacuum packaging is widely used,
research shows that modified atmosphere packaging has the advantage of improving
the quality of food storage and extending the shelf life [10-12]. Therefore, this paper
firstly takes cooked peanut bags as an example, and per 200g of cooked peanuts,
three different packaging and transportation methods, such as vacuum packaging, air
packaging, and air-regulated packaging, are used to study the impact of carbon
footprint brought by different packaging methods.
3.1. DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF OBJECTIVES
This study is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, which is
consistent with the methodology described in PAS 2050[13-15]. Calculate the carbon
footprint of different packaging methods in the packaging process and assess the
impact of the packaging method on the product's carbon footprint [16,17]. The
experimental objective of this study was to compare the potential carbon footprint in
vacuum, air, and modified atmosphere packaging. The packaging unit process
analysis method was used to calculate the potential carbon footprint in cooked peanut
packaging. The project uses the vacuum cooling method to reduce the center
temperature of the cooked peanut package to less than 10℃, and the cooked peanuts
obtained after cooling will be packaged in different kinds of packaging methods, such
as vacuum, air, and modified atmosphere packaging. The functional unit reflects the
consumption behavior pattern of the end-consumer and can be regarded as a
meaningful quantity of a specific product function at the same time. One of the primary
objectives of this experimental design is to study the calculation of the overall carbon
emissions of the product during the actual operation of the packaging storage and
transportation unit. In other words, the experimental study does not cover the entire
production, transportation, storage, and consumption of the product packaging
[18-20]. One of the functional units in this study is a cooked peanut with a packaging
mass of 200g. Determined system boundary To facilitate quantitative calculations and
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
259
determine the carbon footprint in the production process of specific research products,
the system boundary was determined to clarify the objectives of quantitative
evaluation and research, to specify the scope of the experimental research process,
and to clarify the carbon input and output sources in the quantitative
experiment[21-23]. To further investigate the carbon emissions of cooked peanuts
during packaging and processing, the scope of this study included the preparation of
cooked peanuts, control equipment, and cooling and packaging processes [24-26].
The study scope process is shown in Figure 2, where the green area is the area
delineated by the system boundary.
Figure 2. Experimental flow chart
3.2. INVENTORY ANALYSIS
For the inventory analysis step of the entire LCA process, sufficiently detailed input
and output data about the product's carbon footprint and processes need to be
collected and disaggregated [27,28]. The long phase of inventory analysis is data
collection, and the accuracy and validity of the data collected have a significant impact
on the accuracy of the carbon emissions calculation, which is the key to the four main
steps of the carbon emissions calculation. Data sources for life cycle evaluation can
be published data sources, experimental data, or even hypotheses [29-31]. There are
two methods of data collection, direct and indirect. Direct collection refers to the
collection of primary materials through experiments or interviews with experimenters,
while indirect collection refers to the recording of carbon emissions from a process
through reading literature, expert interviews, and the use of supporting software.
According to the international standard ISO 14040, the manufacture, maintenance,
and disassembly of stationary equipment during the packaging process should be
included in the system boundaries. In this test, the inputs used for the vacuum
packaging of cooked peanuts, air packaging, and modified atmosphere packaging
include equipment, electricity, gases (indirect and direct emissions), and plastic
products. The equations for calculating the product carbon footprint of the packaging
process are shown in Equation (1) and Equation (2).
(1)
E
Fi=
GHG
i
ti
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
260
EFi=GHGi
ti
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
(2)
In the above equation, is the final carbon footprint, ;
is the i-th input carbon emission factor, ; is
the life cycle carbon emissions for the i-th input, ; is life
cycle of the i-th input, min; is the processing time of samples, min.
Multiply each input emission factor by each input to obtain the
input life-cycle emission data. In estimating equipment lifecycle
emissions data, yuan will be used as the
equipment emission factor, i.e., the equipment emission factor
multiplied by the selling price of each piece of equipment to arrive at
the lifecycle emissions per piece of equipment. The service life
of vacuum packaging machines, tabletop gasifiers, air compressors,
gas mixers, gas cylinders, and buffer tanks is provided by the
equipment manufacturer and distributor. In addition to the equipment,
other materials should be used in the packaging process. The
electricity emission factor is , per
of plastic. As the emission factor of plastic products, the GaBi
database of GaBi5 version, a professional carbon footprint calculation
software developed by Hangzhou Green Blue Environmental
Technology Co. Calculating the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
to the atmosphere for the production of of , and of
liquid
in the U.S. yields gas emission factors of
, and
for the
production of , and , respectively.
3.3. DATA ANALYSIS
This study investigated the life-cycle carbon emissions in the packaging process of
cooked peanuts. It also investigates the three mainstream packaging methods based
on the dietary style preferences of users. A 100-year time horizon global warming
potential value was used for the calculation according to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IGC). The experimental data were statistically analyzed using
SPSS software, and the variance of the mean of each sample was analyzed using
Tukey's method. The experimental data should be expressed as mean ± standard
deviation; Origin 8.5 software was used for the drawing of pictures.
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
C
F=
n
∑
i=1
(Qi×EFi
)
CF
gCO2eq
EFi
gCO2eq/min
GHGi
gCO2eq
ti
Qi
GHG
GHG
110 kg/million
GHG
1.03 kgCO2/kW ·
h
2.0 kgCO2eq
kg
1kg
O2
N2
1kg
CO2
0.15 kgCO2eq/kg
0.088 kgCO2/kg
0.45 kgCO2eq/kg
O2
N2
CO2
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
261
4.1. CARBON FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT
PACKAGING METHODS
For different user preferences, three packaging methods were studied: vacuum
packaging (VP), air packaging (AP), and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP). The
final carbon footprint of the packaging process of 200 g of ripe peanuts was also
investigated. The calculations can be done using equations (1) and (2). The inputs of
the packaging process include equipment (vacuum packaging machine, tabletop gas
conditioning machine, air compressor, gas mixer, gas cylinder, buffer tank), electricity
energy consumption, gases ( , , ), plastic products for packaging, etc. Inputs
in the packaging process are respectively: equipment (vacuum packaging machine,
tabletop gas conditioning machine, air compressor, gas mixer, gas cylinders, and
buffer tanks), electricity consumption, gas ( , , ) plastic products for
packaging, etc.
Figure 3 shows the final carbon footprint of 200g of cooked peanuts packed in
different packaging methods.
Figure 3. Final carbon footprint of 200g of cooked peanuts packed in different packaging
methods
It can be seen from Figure 3 that the final carbon footprint difference under the
three packaging methods is relatively large. Overall, the final carbon footprints of
vacuum, air, and modified atmosphere packaging are 36.18 , 54.78 and 218.86
respectively. The final carbon footprint of the MAP is the largest, followed by the AP,
and the final carbon footprint of VP is the smallest. The size of the carbon footprint is
linked to the amount of emissions. The final carbon footprint of MAP is 6 times
higher than that of VP and 4 times higher than that of AP, reflecting the significant
carbon footprint of using MAP as a packaging method. MAP is a method developed to
preserve the freshness of cooked food for a long time. The main working principle is
to evacuate the air inside the box and fill it with a certain ratio of mixed air to achieve
the effect of freshness. This is why in Figure 3(c), gas preparation accounts for 64% of
the final carbon footprint. In addition, due to the complexity of the process, the amount
of equipment required for MAP is also relatively large, so this part of the carbon
footprint accounted for 17%. VP and AP do not require gas preparation for filling, the
CO2
O2
N2
CO2
O2
N2
CO2
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
262
CO2
O2
N2
CO2
O2
N2
CO2
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
impact on the final carbon footprint is negligible. Since AP is simply compressed air for
packaging, the impact on the final carbon footprint is mainly on the consumption of
plastic products. As can be seen from Figure 3(b), this component accounts for 81%.
Finally, VP requires vacuum preparation, so its equipment power consumption
accounts for a large part of the final carbon footprint. It can be seen in Figure 3(a) as
60%. From the above description, we can find that the main influencing factors of the
final carbon footprint are different due to the different processes of the three. However,
since plastic packaging is used in all of them, the influence of plastic products on the
final carbon footprint value accounts for a relatively high percentage in all three ways.
In the three methods of VP, AP, and MAP, the percentage of this part is 34%, 81%,
and 13% respectively. At a time when the concept of carbon reduction is deeply
rooted in people's minds, the MAP which consumes so much carbon, should be
replaced by two other methods. However, the use of MAP of goods is mostly fresh
food. This packaging method allows consumers to visually observe the real
appearance of the goods and find points of attraction, thus creating a desire to buy.
This interactive experience between humans and food is something that the other two
food packaging methods can hardly provide. Therefore, it is important to apply the
interactive experience in the gas packaging method to the other two packaging
methods in the subsequent research. This will reduce the carbon footprint without
disrupting the user experience.
4.2. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT PACKAGING
METHODS
Sensitivity analysis is an important component of LCA and can change the results
of LCA. Therefore, this section analyzes important influencing factors that have not
been considered in the previous section to consider whether changes in these factors
can significantly change the carbon footprint of the packaging process. Due to the
limitation of space, this section will focus on the carbon emission factors of the
equipment in the carbon footprint sensitivity analysis.
In the results of this experimental study, the mass emission factor of the
experimental equipment was used to simulate again the final carbon footprint of the
packaging-making process. Setting the emission factor of the equipment for the
second time to , it is expected that
is generated
per kilogram of plastic product. The carbon emission factors for each test equipment
were multiplied by the weight of each experimental equipment itself to facilitate further
data on the full life-cycle
mass and emissions generated by each experimental
equipment itself. The final carbon footprint and emissions packaging data before and
after the change in equipment emission factors can also be calculated directly from
Equations 1 and 2, the results are represented in Figure 4.
3.54 kgCO2eq/kg
2.0 kgCO2eq
GHG
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
263
Figure 4. Comparative sensitivity analysis of equipment carbon emission factors
As can be seen in Figure 4(a), the carbon footprints of the three initial VP, AP, and
MAP methods of packaging are ,
, and
, respectively. After the emission factor correction calculation, the
final carbon footprint was reduced to under the AP transportation
method, while the final carbon footprint increases to and
for VP and MAP methods, respectively. This is due to the high price
of MAP equipment and the small quality of the equipment when the emission factors
of the equipment change. The final carbon footprint of the VP and AP will increase,
probably due to the larger equipment and excessive plastic usage.
From Figure 4(b), it can be seen that the carbon emissions generated in the VP
process changed by 16.31% after the change of emission factors of the equipment.
This is partly because the final carbon footprint of the VP production process is
extremely sensitive to the influence of the carbon emission factor of the equipment.
Therefore, when the influence of this factor changes significantly, the carbon footprint
value of the final product tends to change dramatically as well. While the change in
the final carbon emissions of AP and MAP equipment is not much different, only
4.88% and 0.78% respectively. This is because the final carbon footprint changes of
AP equipment and MAP systems have better stability for the emissions of the
equipment. In the subsequent selection of the packaging method, the sensitivity of the
emission factor can be a more important factor to consider. Choosing a packaging
method with low sensitivity to emission factors for carbon footprint analysis and
improvement measures can reduce the fluctuations caused by changes. Such an
improvement method can avoid the generation of errors in the investigation of carbon
emission factors to a greater extent.
5. DISCUSSION
In the current context of carbon reduction, the burden of carbon reduction for the
food industry is huge. As a major part of carbon emission in the food industry, it is a
challenging task to make effective methodological improvements and system
adjustments. When designing food packaging with the task of carbon reduction, it is
36.18 gCO2eq
54.78 gCO2eq
218.86 gCO2eq
217.63 gCO2eq
42.26 gCO2eq
57.45 gCO2eq
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
264
Figure 4. Comparative sensitivity analysis of equipment carbon emission factors
As can be seen in Figure 4(a), the carbon footprints of the three initial VP, AP, and
MAP methods of packaging are , , and
, respectively. After the emission factor correction calculation, the
final carbon footprint was reduced to under the AP transportation
method, while the final carbon footprint increases to and
for VP and MAP methods, respectively. This is due to the high price
of MAP equipment and the small quality of the equipment when the emission factors
of the equipment change. The final carbon footprint of the VP and AP will increase,
probably due to the larger equipment and excessive plastic usage.
From Figure 4(b), it can be seen that the carbon emissions generated in the VP
process changed by 16.31% after the change of emission factors of the equipment.
This is partly because the final carbon footprint of the VP production process is
extremely sensitive to the influence of the carbon emission factor of the equipment.
Therefore, when the influence of this factor changes significantly, the carbon footprint
value of the final product tends to change dramatically as well. While the change in
the final carbon emissions of AP and MAP equipment is not much different, only
4.88% and 0.78% respectively. This is because the final carbon footprint changes of
AP equipment and MAP systems have better stability for the emissions of the
equipment. In the subsequent selection of the packaging method, the sensitivity of the
emission factor can be a more important factor to consider. Choosing a packaging
method with low sensitivity to emission factors for carbon footprint analysis and
improvement measures can reduce the fluctuations caused by changes. Such an
improvement method can avoid the generation of errors in the investigation of carbon
emission factors to a greater extent.
5. DISCUSSION
In the current context of carbon reduction, the burden of carbon reduction for the
food industry is huge. As a major part of carbon emission in the food industry, it is a
challenging task to make effective methodological improvements and system
adjustments. When designing food packaging with the task of carbon reduction, it is
36.18 gCO2eq
54.78 gCO2eq
218.86 gCO2eq
217.63 gCO2eq
42.26 gCO2eq
57.45 gCO2eq
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
important to retain the user's interactive experience and retain or even enhance the
attractiveness of the product to consumers while achieving carbon reduction. The
design of green, interactive packaging based on user experience should be human-
centered and take into account the individual aesthetic needs of users as the main
starting point for the product design concept. The task of carbon reduction should be
taken into account when providing a better product experience to users and should be
reflected. While users can enjoy the experience of food packaging, they can also
appreciate the urgency of the task of carbon reduction. A good carbon reduction food
packaging design should also absorb more factors of the times in order not to be
easily eliminated.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the final carbon footprint results of three different packaging methods
were obtained by studying the carbon emission impact factors of 200g cooked
peanuts. Subsequently, a sensitivity study of different packaging methods was
conducted to explore the high sensitivity of the three methods to the emission factors.
The specific findings are as follows.
1.
Among the three completely different packaging processes, the final carbon
footprint of the MAP process was the largest, at
. This was
followed by the AP process, with a size of
, and the smallest
final carbon footprint of VP, with a value of .
2. Among the factors influencing the final carbon footprint of the three methods,
the main energy consumption of VP is the consumption of electricity,
accounting for 60%. The factor affecting the size of the final carbon footprint of
AP is the consumption of plastic products, accounting for 81%. In MAP, gas
preparation has the largest impact on the final carbon footprint, accounting for
64%. In all three ways, the impact of plastic products on the final carbon
footprint value accounted for a large part of the. For the three methods of VP,
AP, and MAP, this part of the impact accounted for 34%, 81%, and 13%,
respectively.
3.
For the sensitivity of the emission factors, VP is the most affected. Its final
carbon footprint changed by 16.31% compared to the previous one. AP and
MAP are less affected, with 4.88% and 0.78% respectively.
REFERENCES
(1) Iličić
, J., & Brennan, S. M. (2022). Shake it off and eat less: anxiety-inducing
product packaging design influences food product interaction and eating.
European Journal of Marketing.
218.86 gCO2eq
54.78 gCO2eq
36.18 gCO2eq
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
265
(2)
Khan, A., & Tandon, P. (2018). Realizing the End-of-life Considerations in the
Design of Food Packaging. Journal of Packaging Technology and Research,
2(3), 251-263.
(3)
Yokokawa, N., Amasawa, E., & Hirao, M. (2021). Design assessment framework
for food packaging integrating consumer preferences and environmental impact.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1514-1525.
(4)
Ma, X., & Moultrie, J. (2018). Understand sustainable packaging design in
practice. In DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design
Conference (pp. 2693-2704).
(5)
Nevala, H. (2022). The renaissance of reusable food packaging: design thinking
as basis for creating sustainable service models in Tampere.
(6)
Yu, D., Liu, X., & Ren, G. (2019). Application of the Computer Graphic Design
Color Language in the Food Packaging Design. In International Conference on
Frontier Computing (pp. 1677-1682). Springer, Singapore.
(7)
Shan, S., Ma, Y., Tang, C., et al. (2018). Folding cartons: Interactive
manipulation of cartons from 2D layouts. Computer Aided Geometric Design, 62,
228-238.
(8)
Barrientos-Gutiérrez, I., Islam, F., Cho, Y. J., et al. (2021). Assessing cigarette
packaging and labelling policy effects on early adolescents: results from a
discrete choice experiment. Tobacco Control, 30(5), 505-514.
(9)
Zhu, L., Xie, B., Zhang, Y. J., et al. (2019). Cartonist: Automatic Synthesis and
Interactive Exploration of Nonstandard Carton Design. Computer-Aided Design,
114, 215-223.
(10)
Dias, R. R., Deprá, M. C., Zepka, L. Q., et al. (2022). Roadmap to net-zero
carbon emissions in commercial microalgae-based products: environmental
sustainability and carbon offset costs. Journal of Applied Phycology, 34(3),
1255-1268.
(11)
Fady, B., Davi, H., Martin-StPaul, N., et al. (2021). Caution needed with the EU
forest plantation strategy for offsetting carbon emissions. New Forests, 52(5),
733-735.
(12)
Han, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Study on Influencing Factors of Industrial Carbon
Emission in Jiangsu Province Based on LMDI Model. Environmental Science &
Technology.
(13)
Puettmann, ME, & Milota. (2017). Life-cycle assessment for wood-fired boilers
used in the wood products industry. FOREST PROD J.
(14)
Florent, Querini, Enrico, & Benetto.(2017). Combining agent-based modeling
and life cycle assessment for the evaluation of mobility policies. Environmental
Science & Technology..
(15)
Kühnen, Michael, & Hahn, Rüdiger. (2017). Indicators in social life cycle
assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience.
Journal of Industrial Ecology.
(16)
Phouratsamay, S. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2019). The single-item lot-sizing
problem with two production modes, inventory bounds, and periodic carbon
emissions capacity. Operations Research Letters, 47(5), 339-343.
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
266
(2) Khan, A., & Tandon, P. (2018). Realizing the End-of-life Considerations in the
Design of Food Packaging. Journal of Packaging Technology and Research,
2(3), 251-263.
(3) Yokokawa, N., Amasawa, E., & Hirao, M. (2021). Design assessment framework
for food packaging integrating consumer preferences and environmental impact.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1514-1525.
(4) Ma, X., & Moultrie, J. (2018). Understand sustainable packaging design in
practice. In DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design
Conference (pp. 2693-2704).
(5) Nevala, H. (2022). The renaissance of reusable food packaging: design thinking
as basis for creating sustainable service models in Tampere.
(6) Yu, D., Liu, X., & Ren, G. (2019). Application of the Computer Graphic Design
Color Language in the Food Packaging Design. In International Conference on
Frontier Computing (pp. 1677-1682). Springer, Singapore.
(7) Shan, S., Ma, Y., Tang, C., et al. (2018). Folding cartons: Interactive
manipulation of cartons from 2D layouts. Computer Aided Geometric Design, 62,
228-238.
(8) Barrientos-Gutiérrez, I., Islam, F., Cho, Y. J., et al. (2021). Assessing cigarette
packaging and labelling policy effects on early adolescents: results from a
discrete choice experiment. Tobacco Control, 30(5), 505-514.
(9) Zhu, L., Xie, B., Zhang, Y. J., et al. (2019). Cartonist: Automatic Synthesis and
Interactive Exploration of Nonstandard Carton Design. Computer-Aided Design,
114, 215-223.
(10) Dias, R. R., Deprá, M. C., Zepka, L. Q., et al. (2022). Roadmap to net-zero
carbon emissions in commercial microalgae-based products: environmental
sustainability and carbon offset costs. Journal of Applied Phycology, 34(3),
1255-1268.
(11) Fady, B., Davi, H., Martin-StPaul, N., et al. (2021). Caution needed with the EU
forest plantation strategy for offsetting carbon emissions. New Forests, 52(5),
733-735.
(12) Han, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Study on Influencing Factors of Industrial Carbon
Emission in Jiangsu Province Based on LMDI Model. Environmental Science &
Technology.
(13) Puettmann, ME, & Milota. (2017). Life-cycle assessment for wood-fired boilers
used in the wood products industry. FOREST PROD J.
(14) Florent, Querini, Enrico, & Benetto.(2017). Combining agent-based modeling
and life cycle assessment for the evaluation of mobility policies. Environmental
Science & Technology..
(15) Kühnen, Michael, & Hahn, Rüdiger. (2017). Indicators in social life cycle
assessment: a review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience.
Journal of Industrial Ecology.
(16) Phouratsamay, S. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2019). The single-item lot-sizing
problem with two production modes, inventory bounds, and periodic carbon
emissions capacity. Operations Research Letters, 47(5), 339-343.
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
(17) Xu, X., Wang, Q., Ran, C., et al. (2021). Is burden responsibility more effective?
A value-added method for tracing worldwide carbon emissions.
(18) Marland, G., Oda, T., & Boden, T. A. (2019). Per capita carbon emissions must
fall to 1955 levels. Nature, 565(7737), 567-568.
(19) Ma, M., & Cai, W. (2019). Do commercial building sector-derived carbon
emissions decouple from the economic growth in Tertiary Industry? A case study
of four municipalities in China. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 822-834.
(20) Tang, Z., Yu, H., & Zou, J. (2022). How does production substitution affect
China's embodied carbon emissions in exports? Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 156, 111957.
(21) Sommer, M. , & Kratena, K.. (2017). The carbon footprint of European
households and income distribution. Ecological Economics, 136(JUN.), 62-72.
(22) Skudder, H. , Druckman, A. , Cole, J. , Mcinnes, A. , Ian Brunton-Smith, & An-
saloni G. P. . (2017). Addressing the carbon-crime blind spot: a carbon footprint
approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2 1(4).
(23) Zheng, H. , Fang, Q. , Wang, C. , Wang, H. , & Ren, R. . (2017). China's carbon
footprint based on input-output table series: 1992–2020. Sustainability, 9(3), 387.
(24) Wang, S., Tang, Y., Du, Z., et al. (2020). Export trade, embodied carbon
emissions, and environmental pollution: An empirical analysis of China's high-
and new-technology industries. Journal of Environmental Management, 276,
111371.
(25) Zhang, W., Li, G., & Guo, F. (2022). Does carbon emissions trading promote
green technology innovation in China? Applied Energy, 315, 119012.
(26) Zhu, B., & Zhang, T. (2021). The impact of cross-region industrial structure
optimization on economy, carbon emissions, and energy consumption: A case of
the Yangtze River Delta. Science of The Total Environment, 778, 146089.
(27) Li, Jing. (2021). Evolutionary game research on the psychological choice of
online shopping of fresh agricultural products based on the dynamic simulation
model. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences. doi:10.2478/
AMNS.2021.2.00145.
(28) Zhou, N., Zhang, J., Khanna, N., et al. (2019). Intertwined impacts of water,
energy development, and carbon emissions in China. Applied Energy, 238,
78-91.
(29) Li, B., Han, S., Wang, Y., et al. (2020). Feasibility assessment of the carbon
emissions peak in China's construction industry: factor decomposition and peak
forecast. Science of the Total Environment, 706, 135716.
(30) Wu, P., Guo, F., Cai, B., et al. (2021). Co-benefits of peaking carbon dioxide
emissions on air quality and health, a case of Guangzhou, China. Journal of
Environmental Management, 282, 111796.
(31) Ma, X., Wang, C., Dong, B., et al. (2019). Carbon emissions from energy
consumption in China: its measurement and driving factors. Science of the total
environment, 648, 1411-1420.
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n2e44.253-267
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
267