Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 2, Nos.

1/2, 2008

125

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles

and comparative LCA of three disposal options
in Mauritius
Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun
and Toolseeram Ramjeawon*
Faculty of Engineering,
University of Mauritius, Republic of Mauritius
Fax: + 230 210 5751
Fax: 230-4657144
E-mail: oumeshf@yahoo.com
E-mail: ramjawon@uom.ac.mu
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Disposal of the increasing volume of used Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) bottles has been a cause for concern for the Mauritian
Government. To assist Government in decision-making, a study on PET bottles
and its disposal was undertaken using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool.
Three disposal scenarios, namely (100%) landfilling; (100%) incineration; and
50% landfilling and 50% incineration were compared. Sima Pro 5.1 software
was used to analyse data and Eco-indicator 99 method was used for the impact
assessment. The results showed that about 90% of the total environmental
impact happened during the assembly and use phase of PET bottles. 100%
incineration was found to be the most preferred option.
Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment; LCA; Polyethylene Terephthalate; PET;
PET bottles; plastic bottles; solid wastes.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Foolmaun, R.K. and
Ramjeawon, T. (2008) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and
comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius, Int. J. Environment
and Waste Management, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, pp.125138.
Biographical notes: R.K. Foolmaun is presently working as Environment
Officer in the Ministry of Environment and National Development Unit.
He is a part time Doctoral student at the University of Mauritius and
undergoing a research on the Life Cycle Assessment of Polyethylene
Terephthalate bottles in Mauritius.
Toolseeram Ramjeawon is an Associate Professor of Environmental
Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Mauritius. He has more than 15 years of relevant experience in the area of
environment policy and management. He is part of the International Life Cycle
Panel of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and also the coordinator of the
African Life Cycle Assessment Network (ALCANET).

Introduction

The island of Mauritius is 1865 Km2 in land area and lies about 800 Km south east of
Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. It is a relatively densely populated island (population
Copyright 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

126

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

of 1.13 million in 2000). Over the past 20 years Mauritius has achieved an average of 5%
annual economic growth and the per capita income in 2005 was about US$5000, ranking
Mauritius as an upper middle-income country. In parallel to the economic growth, the
volume and nature of wastes has changed significantly. Around 1200 tons of municipal
solid wastes are generated daily. Most of the solid wastes are compacted in five transfer
stations before being sent to the sole sanitary landfill on the island. The latter is presently
filled to around 60% of its total capacity and is expected to be saturated in 2008 if the
present waste trend continues. GoM (2000) and Bro (2003) have recommended that
landfilling be continued as a viable option for disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
for the short and medium term while the option of incineration be incorporated along
with landfilling from the year 2013. In September 2006, the Board of Investment in
Mauritius gave a letter of intent to a private company to incinerate 300,000 T of MSW
annually from the year 2009 and to generate 20 MW of energy which would be sold to
the national grid. As it is projected that the amount of solid waste generated will increase
to 466,000 T in the year 2013 (GoM, 2005), it means that both the incinerator plant and a
new landfill will have to be operated in the near future.
PET containers form part of our daily life and the rising consumption has resulted in
the disposal of about 70 millions of used PET bottles annually in Mauritius. In the
absence of other disposal alternatives, used PET bottles are disposed of, co-mingled with
domestic waste at the sole sanitary landfill. Used PET bottles occupy a relatively large
volume in the landfill, whilst constituting an eyesore in the form of litter in the
environmental landscape.
LCA is a decision support tool that facilitates the comparison of alternative
products and services that perform the same function from an environmental perspective.
The methodology also allows analysis of services, such as waste management
(Finnveden, 1999). A literature review showed that studies have been conducted on,
either, part of the life cycle of PET bottle (Boustead, 1995), or on the whole life cycle
(Person et al., 1998). Boustead (1995) performed an eco-profile of bottle grade PET
polymers starting from raw materials extraction and up to the production of the polymer
resins (i.e., cradle to gate analysis). The eco-profile essentially presented quantified
results for inputs in terms of raw materials used, the energy requirements and outputs in
terms of air, water and solid waste emissions. Person et al. (1998) on the other hand,
carried out a LCA of disposable PET bottle as part of a study on LCA of packaging
systems which aimed at comparing the potential environmental impacts associated
with different packaging systems for beer and soft drinks filled and sold in Denmark.
These two researchers used the EDIP method for the impact assessment and found
out that disposable PET bottles contributed mostly to the following five impact
categories:

ecotoxicity, terrestrial

human toxicity

Photochemical Ozone Formation (POCP)

Global warming (GWP)

acidification.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

127

Disposal of used PET bottles is an important phase of the PET life cycle and has been the
subject of several studies (Craighill and Powell, 1996; Denison, 1996; Ayalon et al.,
2000; Grant et al., 2001; Von Krogh et al., 2001; Mlgaard, 1995; Reid Lea, 1996; Song
and Hyun, 1999; Perugini et al., 2004). Out of the nine studies reviewed, seven
studies (Mlgaard, 1995; Denison, 1996; Reid Lea, 1996; Ayalon et al., 2000; Grant
et al., 2001; Von Krogh et al., 2001; Perugini et al., 2004) showed a general preference
for recycling as a disposal option for PET bottles. However, the review also showed
that the most appropriate disposal method of PET bottles depends on a number
of local factors. White et al. (1999) stated that there was no optimal system for waste
management due to the geographic differences in waste characteristics, energy sources,
availability of some disposal options, and size of markets for products derived from waste
management. Mendes et al. (2004) further reported that the optimal system for any given
region should be determined locally so as to reduce the environmental impact.
The aim of this study was to compare the environmental effects during the whole life
cycle (from manufacture to waste management) of the usage of PET plastic material for
bottling applications on the island of Mauritius using the LCA methodology, and to use
the LCA tool to compare three alternative disposal methods for the used PET bottles,
namely:

disposal of used PET bottles by landfilling-the plastic bottles that are generated in
households are collected together with residual waste and deposited in a landfill

disposal of used PET bottles by incineration with energy recovery-the plastic bottles
that are generated in households are collected with the source sorted plastic
packaging and sent to an incinerator

disposal of 50% of the used PET bottles by landfilling and 50% by incineration.

The results of the study are meant to be employed at the industrial level in order to select
the most environment friendly plastic material for bottling, and for waste management
authorities to select the most appropriate disposal method. The waste management
options have been selected based on the future development of this sector in Mauritius
and the future implementation of a municipal incinerator in 2009.

Methodology

This study has been based upon the LCA methodology, as described in the
ISO Standards 1404014043 (1997, 1998, 2000). The method chosen, due to the
relevance of the impact factors for the study, is Eco-Indicator 99 end-point method.
In this method, normalisation and weighting are performed at three different damage
category levels:
HH: Human Health (unit DALY = Disability Adjusted Life Years).
EQ: Ecosystem Quality (unit: PDF*m2yr; PDF = Potentially Disappeared Fraction of
plant species).
R:

Resources (unit: MJ surplus energy; Additional energy requirement to compensate

lower future ore grade).

128

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

2.1 Scope definition

For the system function of beverage bottles made of PET during their whole lifetime, the
functional unit was defined as the production, use and disposal of 1000 packs of 1.5 L
PET bottles, used for the packaging of 9000 litres of beverage. One pack contains six
1.5 L PET bottles enclosed by a plastic film made up of LDPE.
For the assessment and comparison of the disposal scenarios, the functional unit
chosen was the disposal of 1 tonne of used PET bottles. Caps amount to around 5% of the
total weight and the labels amount to around 1% of the total weight.

2.2 System boundary

The process tree is illustrated in Figure 1. We are taking into account the entire life-cycle
of the bottles, from the raw material (oil) to the moment they lose, totally, their value
(landfilling). The system boundary, therefore, includes extraction of raw materials and
manufacture of PET pellets; importation of PET pellets from South Africa; conversion of
PET pellets to PET preforms at a local industry in Mauritius; blowing of PET preforms
into PET bottles (prior to bottling) at another local industry; distribution, use and
disposal. Productions of materials for secondary packaging and cap inserts made from
polypropylene are included in the LCA. Since most used PET bottles are disposed of
commingled with municipal solid waste, it is assumed that all used PET bottles were
disposed of by landfilling.

2.3 Main assumptions and data gaps

Consumers disposed their used PET bottles after use without any washing.

Electricity was generated from oil only.

For comparison of the disposal scenarios, it was assumed that the incineration
facility is situated close to the landfilling plant.

Within Mauritius, 16 T trucks that run on diesel as fuel, are used for distribution of
bottled water and for collection of used PET bottles. Average transport distances
used for calculations were as follows:

average car distance travelled by consumers cars to shopping centre: 5 Km

average distance covered by 16 T truck for transportation of PET preforms to

PET bottling plant: 18 Km

average distance covered for distribution of bottled water to the retail outlets:
20 Km

average distance travelled by 16 T trucks for disposal at landfill: 25 Km.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

Figure 1

129

Flow chart of LCA of PET bottles

2.4 Sensitivity analysis

A Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate the influence on the results by
altering the source of electricity generation from oil to electricity generation from coal, as
it is anticipated that there will be a greater share of electricity generation from coal in the
electricity mix in the future.

Inventory analysis

3.1 Data collection

Data were collected during visits to the two local industries (one industry
which transforms PET pellets to PET preforms and another industry which blows

130

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

the PET preforms into PET bottles prior to filling and bottling) and from the following
sources: technical reports, Central Statistics Office reports of the Republic of Mauritius.
In the absence of relevant data in Mauritius, the data gaps were filled in using
data from Sima Pro software databases, particularly the Swiss BUWAL 2000
database, on the assumptions that the conditions under which these data apply in
Europe are similar to Mauritius. Data collected were processed and analysed using the
SimaPro 5.1 software.

3.2 Inventory analysis

3.2.1 Inventory analysis results for PET life cycle
The results show that 177 kgs of crude oil were used as feedstock and 6410 MJ of
energy was required to produce 6000 PET bottles of 1.5 L volume. This production
emitted 2420 Kg of carbon dioxide, 23.4 Kg of SOx, 8.87 Kg of NOx and 31.7 Kg of
methane. The result of the inventory analysis is summarised and presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of inventory analysis result for PET life cycle

Input
Raw materials
Substance

Energy input
Unit

Amount

Crude oil (feedstock)

Biomass
Natural gas (feedstock)
Rock salt
Limestone
Manure
Process and cooling water
Process water
Water (cooling)

Kg
g
M3
Kg
Kg
g
M3
L
Kg

177
210
84
1.44
1.46
860
4.2
3.09
680

Wood

Kg

6.57

Wood (feedstock)

Kg

4.52

Substance

Unit

Amount

Natural gas (Vol)

Crude oil ETH
Coal ETH
Lignite ETH
Natural gas ETH
Pot. energy hydropower
Steam from waste
incineration

M
Kg
Kg
Kg
M3
Mj
Mj

110
593
37.7
36.6
24.9
201
954

Energy input from electricity

Mj

6410

Output
Airborne emissions Amount Waterborne emissions
Substance

(Kg)

CO

4.43

Amount Solid waste emissions Amount

Substance

(Kg)
10.4

CO2

Anorg. dissolved
substance
2420 BOD

CxHy
Dust
Methane
Non-methane VOC
NOx (as NO2)
SOx (as SO2)

1.93
1.63
31.7
12.2
8.87
23.4

Chlorate ions
Chloride ions
COD
Suspended subst.
TOC
Waste water (Vol) (m3)

Substance

(Kg)

Mineral waste
7.14
(mining)
0.25
Waste bioactive
3.69
landfill
7.38 E03 Waste in inert landfill 0.058
18.1
Emissions to soil
0.96
Substance
(mg)
1.61
Pb
369
3.05
Cd
90.8
460
Hg
23.7

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

131

The inventory analysis results of the PET life cycle were compared with that of the study
conducted by Person et al. (1998) in Table 2. The deviations are due to the following
reasons:

Different waste disposal scenarios. The present study considered landfilling as a

disposal method for used PET bottles while Person et al., considered recycling (90%)
and incineration with energy recovery (10%) as disposal alternatives. Their study
assumed that the recycled PET replaced equal amounts of virgin PET and PET
recycled from other products. Recycling implies fewer raw materials were utilised
and thus lower air and water emissions. Incineration with energy recovery on the
other hand, implied avoided energy and emissions

Person et al. expanded their system boundaries so as to include parts of other life
cycles affected by the outflow of recycled PET bottles and parts of other life cycles
that were affected by energy recovery from waste incineration.

In the present study electricity was produced from heavy oil which has higher air
emissions as compared to a mixture of light fuel oil, hydropower, coal and
alternative sources such as peat as used in study by Person et al.

Transport distances used in the present study are smaller, since Mauritius is a small
island state, compared to distances used in Denmark by Person et al.

Table 2

Comparison of results of this study with Person et al. (1998) (for a functional unit of
9000 litres of packaged beverage)

Parameter

Unit

Present study

Person et al. (1998)

Mass of unit PET bottle

34

42

Crude oil (feedstock)

kg

177

218

Bauxite

77.8

86.22

Methane

Kg

31.7

21.78

CO

Kg

4.43

6.32

Carbon dioxide

Kg

2420

1755

Dust

Kg

1.63

1.64

NMVOC

Kg

12.2

0.5

NOx

Kg

8.87

9.9

H2S

mg

340

2709

SO2

Kg

23.4

11.79

HCl

105

126

BOD

250

255.6

COD

961

1386

Oil

29.4

65.7

Hg

mg

54.5

28.62

3.09

1.26

Kg

18.1

4.27

AOX
Chloride

132

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

3.2.2 Inventory analysis results for the disposal scenarios

Table 3 provides a summary of emissions occurring for disposal Scenarios 13, and the
following can be observed:

Scenarios 2 and 3-incorporating incineration had higher emissions of Carbon

dioxide compared to Scenario 1

Scenarios 1 and 3 had higher emissions of methane with respect to Scenario 2, due to
the anaerobic decomposition of paper labels in the landfill

with the exception of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, all emissions of
Scenario 2 bear negative values due to avoided emissions from energy recovery.

Table 3

Summary of emissions for Scenarios 13

Scenario 1:
Scenario 2: incin.
Scenario 350%
Substances
Unit landfill (100%) 100%with energy recovery landfill and 50% incin.
Air emissions
CO
g
413
120
267
CO2
Kg
381
4.54E3
2.46E3
Dust
Kg
0.0828
1.48
0.697
Methane
Kg
38.7
4.53
17.1
NM-Voc
Kg
0.47
8.76
4.15
Nox (as NO2)
Kg
1.13
5.42
2.15
Sox (as SO2)
Kg
1.22
39.2
19
Water emissions
Anorg. dissolved subs. Kg
0.492
19.4
9.45
BOD
g
0.101
2.48
1.19
Chloride ions
Kg
4.9
26.6
10.8
COD
g
3.29
42.9
19.8
Oil
g
25
18.5
21.7
Sulphate
Kg
3.04
0.95
1.05
Suspended solids
Kg
0.0665
3.3
1.62
TOC
Kg
2.94
0.0681
1.44
Emissions to soil
Carbon

Kg

Nil

0.999

Cd

mg

93.9

Nil

47

Hg

mg

25

Nil

12.5

120

Nil

59.9

3.99

Nil

mg

66.9

Nil

33.5

N-tot
P-tot
Pb

Impact assessment

Since normalisation and weighting were performed by the Eco-indicator 99 method

the interpretation of results is mainly based on single score and characterisation.
The following impact categories were considered in the model: Carcinogens,

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

133

Respiratory organics, Respiratory inorganics, Climate change, Ecotoxicity, Ozone layer,

Acidification/Eutrophication, Mineral and Fossil fuel.

4.1 Impact assessment of PET life cycle

The results of impact assessment were reported for two separate phases: assembly
and use phase and the disposal phase. The assembly and use phase included the
extraction of raw materials (i.e., PET, PP, LDPE); polymerisation of PET, PP and LDPE;
manufacture of paper; shipping of these materials to Mauritius; transformation of the
PET pellets to preforms and PET bottles; and distribution of the bottled water.
The disposal phase reflected the waste management method for the disposal of used
PET bottles.
The results indicated that the highest environmental impacts occurred during the
assembly and use phase (Figure 2), more specifically under the damage category
Resources (Figure 3) owing to the relatively high utilisation of fuel and minerals.
The data show that during the production of PET resin, besides oil, a substantial amount
of minerals is used (Fe, Limestone, KCl, Bauxite, Sulphur, NaCl).
Two processes, namely electricity generation from oil in Mauritius and industrial
manufacture of PET pellets in South Africa, contributed to around 90% of the total
environmental impacts (Figure 4). The process contribution results also reveal that
transport contributes very little (0.01%) to the total environmental loads while the
disposal phase contributes to only 5% of the total environmental impact. A break down of
the disposal phase indicated that landfilling of paper labels causes the highest
environmental impacts as shown in Figure 5, while disposal of PET plastic contribute to
only 5.4% of the total environmental impacts. This is explained by the fact that landfilled
paper labels decompose readily in the anaerobic landfill environment to release methane
while PET bottles, like other plastics, do not degrade readily in landfills.
Figure 2

Single score LCIA result of 1000 packs of PET bottles

134

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

Figure 3

Weighted result of LCIA of 1000 packs of PET bottles

Figure 4

Results of process contribution analysis

Figure 5

Percentage environmental impacts of processes within the waste disposal phase

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

135

4.2 Impact assessment of Scenarios 13

The results are illustrated in Figure 6, which shows that the scenarios incorporating
incineration had negative values for the impact assessments owing to avoided emissions.
Between the two scenarios incorporating incineration, Scenario 2 had higher negative
values (258 pt) as compared to Scenario 3 (121 pt).
Figure 6

Impact assessment results for comparative scenarios

4.3 Sensitivity analysis

Since electricity generation caused the highest environmental impact in the life cycle of
PET bottles, the influence of altering the source of electricity generation on the present
results was investigated. For this purpose, electricity generation in the LCA of PET
bottles was altered to electricity generation using coal instead of oil. The sensitivity
analysis showed that altering electricity generation from oil to coal had a relatively
significant effect on the damage category, Resources (decrease by 48%) (Table 4).
This highlights the importance of developing the environmental impact for the electricity
mix in the country to improve the accuracy of the results.
Table 4

Sensitivity analysis of LCIA results (weighted)

Impact indicators

Unit

Electricity generated
with oil

Electricity generated
with coal
90.4

Human health

Pt

83.1

Ecosystem quality

Pt

12.1

Resources

Pt

139

Total

Pt

234

9.74
72.4
173

Difference (%)
8.07
19.5
47.92
21.37

136

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

Interpretation

The impact assessment results show that the highest environmental impact occurred
during the assembly and use phase, more particularly under the damage category,
Resources. The process contribution results reveal that during the life cycle of PET
bottles in Mauritius, the highest environmental impacts can be attributed to the electricity
generation from oil for consumption in two processes: the transformation of PET
pellets into PET preforms (1422.5 KWh) and the blowing of preforms to PET bottles
(359.15 KWh). The highest environmental impacts in Mauritius, therefore, occurred at
the transformation process of PET pellets into PET preforms. The process contribution
results also indicated that the disposal method has a much lower environmental impact
compared to the assembly and use phase.
The investigation of the three disposal scenarios for used PET bottles show that
scenarios incorporating incineration had lower environmental impacts compared to the
scenario of landfilling. This finding is in agreement with some of the earlier studies
reviewed, such as Lea (1996) and Denison (1999), which found incineration to be better
than landfilling. Other studies comparing disposal alternatives and conducted by Chung
and Poon (1996), Arena et al. (2003) and Mendes et al. (2004) on municipal solid waste
showed similar findings.

Conclusions

During the life cycle of PET bottles, the highest environmental impacts occurred
within the assembly and use phase and were attributed to only two processes:
electricity generation from oil and production of PET pellets. On the island, the
highest environmental impacts occurred during electricity production from oil.
Transport contributed very little to the total environmental loads.
Comparison of the three disposal scenarios indicated that energy recovery gave a net
environmental benefit for most of the impact categories. Landfilling gave the highest
environmental burdens when compared to energy recovery.

References
Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L. and Perugini, F. (2003) The environmental performance of alternative
solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study, Chemical Engineering
Journal, Vol. 96, pp.207222.
Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y. and Shechter, M. (2000) Application of a comparative
multi-dimensional LCA in solid waste management policy: the case of soft drink containers,
In Journal of Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 3, Nos. 23, April, pp.135144.
Boustead, I. (1995) Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry, Report 8: Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET), Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe Technical and
environmental Centre, Brussels.
Bro, C. (2003) Environmental Solid Waste Management Project, Feasibility Report, Ministry of
Local Government. Government of Mauritius. Port-Louis.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA

137

Chung, S.S. and Poon, C.S. (1996) Evaluating waste management alternatives by the multiple
criteria approach, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 17, pp.189210.
Craighill A.L. and Powell, J.C. (1996) Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case study, Resource Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 17, pp.7596.
Denison, R.A. (1996) Environmental lifecycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling, and
incineration: a review of recent studies, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,
Vol. 21, p.191237.
Finnveden, G. (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste
management systems, Resour. Conserv. Recy., Vol. 26, No. 314, pp.173187.
GoM (2005) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Ministry of Environment &
NDU, Mauritius Staking out the Future, Chapter 9, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius,
pp.143159.
Grant, T., James, K.L., Lundie, S. and Sonneveld, K. (2001) Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and
Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria, Final report of Stage 2.
ISO 14040 (1997) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and
Framework, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
ISO 14041 (1998) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Goal and Scope
Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
ISO 14042 (2000) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Impact
Assessment, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
ISO 14043 (2000) Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle
Interpretation, International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
Lea, R.W. (1996) Plastic incineration versus recycling: a comparison of energy and landfill cost
savings, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 47, pp.295302.
Mendes, M.R. Amaraki, T. and Hanaki, K. (2004) Comparison of the environmental impact of
incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo city as determined by LCA, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.4763.
Mlgaard, C. (1995) Environmental impacts by disposal of plastic from municipal solid waste,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.5163.
Person, L., Ekvall, T. and Weidema, B.P. (1998) Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems for
Beer and Soft Drinks, Technical report 6: disposable PET bottles. Ministry of Environment
and Energy, Denmark, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Miljprojekt No. 405,
p.198.
Perugini, F., Mastellone, M.L. and Umberto, A. (2004) Environmental aspects of mechanical
recycling of PE and PET: a life cycle assessment study, Progress in Rubber, Plastics and
Recycling Technology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp.6984.
Song, H.S. and Hyun, J.C. (1999) A study on the comparison of the various waste management
scenarios for PET bottles using the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 27 pp.267284.
von Krogh, L., Lerche Raadal, H. and Jorgen Hanssen, O. (2001) Life Cycle Assessment of
Different Scenarios for Waste Treatment of as Plastic Bottle Used for Food Packaging,
OR 39.01, Ostfold Research Foundation.
White, P.R., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Mangement- A Life Cycle
Inventory, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Aspen Publishers Inc., Chapman & Hall, New York.

138

R.K. Foolmaun and T. Ramjeawon

Bibliography
Clift, R., Doig, A. and Finnveden, G.(2000) The application of life cycle assessment to integrated
waste management. Part I. methodology, Trans. IchemE., Vol. 78(B), p.279287.
Consoli, F., Allen, D., Boustead, J., Franklin, W., Jensen, A.A., de Oude, N., Parrish, R.,
Perriman, R., Postlethwaite, D., Quay, B., Seguin, J. and Vignon, B. (Eds.) (1993) Guidelines
for Life Cycle Assessment: a Code of Practice, SETAC, Brussels.
CSO (2005) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Central Statistical Office,
Digest of Environment Statistics for the Year 2005, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius.
GoM (2000) Government of the Republic of Mauritius, Report of the Ministry of Economic
Development, Productivity and Regional Development, Feasibility Study Final Report on
Environmental Solid Waste Management Programme, Mauritius, and prepared by
Fichtner GmBh. for the Republic of Mauritius, Chapter 2, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius,
pp.2-12-48.
GoM (2002) Government of the Republic of Mauritius. Report of the Ministry of Environment,
Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development, Port Louis, Republic of Mauritius, p.169.
McDougall, F.R., White, P., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (2001) Integrated Solid Waste Management,
A Life Cycle Inventory, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science.
Oodit, D. (2004) A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of the Roof Construction Materials Used in
the Mauritian Housing Sector, MSc Environmental Engineering dissertation, University of
Mauritius, Reduit, Republic of Mauritius, p.77.
SETAC (1991) A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments, Society for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington DC.
Tan, R.R. and Culaba, A.B. (2002) Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment: A Tool for Public and
Corporate Policy Development, p.12, www.lcacenter.org/library/pdf/PSME2002a.pdf-, date
accessed July 2005.