Life Cycle Assessment - Paper Cup Versus Mug

Luiz Fernando, Stan Yankovoy, Rhonda Couch, Cera Frederiksen, Ibrahim Musa

SCIE8010-The Science of Sustainability

Conestoga College

Raymond Neakpur

April 23, 2022

Figure 1 (Martin et al, 2018)

Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................2
Goal Definition....................................................................................................................................................2
Scope Definition..................................................................................................................................................2
Inventory Analysis...............................................................................................................................................5
Simple Impact Assessment................................................................................................................................11
Interpretation and Recommendations..............................................................................................................15
References........................................................................................................................................................16

1
Executive Summary
Coffee and tea are very popular beverages and given societies busy schedule, many people take
these hot beverages to go, however the use of disposable cups leads to approximately 500 billion single use
cups being discarded annually (Martin et al, 2018). With increasing concern surrounding the sustainability of
individuals consumption habits, many consumers are switching to reusable mugs, such as ceramic ones. The
purpose of this report is to educate consumers on the different environmental impacts of ceramic mugs
versus disposable cups. We investigate various methods of washing the ceramic mugs (handwashing vs
dishwasher) as well as analyze the breakeven points of both and the production and post-consumer use of
both options. This has provided us with a well-rounded overview of both options. Our findings support the
use of a ceramic mug, washed in a dishwasher, as the most sustainable option. The second most sustainable
option is a paper cup; however, this is only slightly more sustainable than the last option, which is a ceramic
mug hand washed. We cover several recommendations to improve the sustainability of all options, including
using biodegradable detergents, using energy efficiency dishwashers, producing disposable cups without
plastic components (i.e., the lining of the cup) and washing the ceramic mugs with cold water instead of hot.

Goal Definition
We will be conducting this Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using the guidelines set out in ISO14040.
There are two goals to be achieved through this study. The first goal is to educate the public on the
sustainability of a paper mug vs a ceramic mug and to determine which option is more environmentally
friendly. Secondly, we aim to identify areas in all stages of production, use and disposal and analyse their
environmental impact to uncover areas of improvement. This report has been prepared by a team of
sustainability consultants (Stan Yankovoy, Ibrahim Musa, Rhonda Couch, Luiz Fernando and Cera
Frederiksen). The targeted audience is Raymond Neakpur and the students of the Sustainable Business
Management program at Conestoga College, specifically in the SCIE8010 class.

Scope Definition
It is especially important to define the scope when comparing the paper cup and mug because there
are many different variables that may affect impacts of both products on the environment from cradle to
cradle and cradle to grave (e.g., human behavior, technology used for washing, materials used to make
product and the production process, geography, energy sources available, etc.).

2
 Martin et al. (2018) describes an LCA of a paper cup with a plastic lid, versus a ceramic cup with a
rubber lid, a ceramic cup alone (see table below). This study was very comprehensive and included most
processes from cradle to grave. However, there were a few limitations such as the exclusion of the
dishwasher, sink and sponge and the fact that the study was conducted within one geographic location
where most paper cups were incinerated and not recycled given the inability to recycle the plastic inner liner
(see figure 1 below).

Chart 1. LCA of paper cup, versus ceramic cup with rubber lid, versus paper cup with plastic lid (Martin et
al., 2018)

Scope Paper Cup versus Mug (Martin et al., 2018)

Identification of Ceramic cup alone, ceramic cup and rubber lid, paper cup and plastic lid: all hold 300ml
the Functional of liquid. All made in Berlin, Germany
Unit

Function Both ceramic and paper cups are used for transporting a beverage. Lids are used for
keeping the liquid warm and keeping the liquid from splashing out of the cup during
transport.
Limitations The production of the sponge, sink and dishwasher were not considered.
Only 2/3 or 66% of paper cups are recycled in appropriate bins in Germany
During recycling-- due to the plastic inner layer in paper cups, most of the paper ends up
in the incinerator.
Assumptions For ceramic mug, and lids for the washing process the water is electrically heated.
A new paper cup is used for every drink, but for a ceramic cup can be used for entire
usage of the functional unit unless it is broken. If a cup is broken a new one must be
made, and the waste will go to a landfill.
The amount of recycled paper cups was not considered, and thus that every used paper
cup was incinerated.
In the production and transportation there are no garbage materials produced.

Boundaries LCA of ceramic mug washed in dishwasher:

(Type of LCA input: production (ceramics, painting), transportation (fossil fuel and usage, freight),
(Cradle-to- dishwasher (water, electricity, detergent, non-ionic surfactant, builder, bleaching agent,
cradle, Cradle- water softener), wastewater treatment
to-grave, Gate- Output: clean ceramic cup
to-gate etc.)
LCA of ceramic mug handwashed:
input: production (ceramics, painting), transportation (fossil fuel extraction and usage,
freight), handwashed (water, detergent, non-ionic surfactant, builder, bleaching agent,
water softener),
Output: clean ceramic cup

3
 LCA of rubber lid for ceramic cup:
Input: production (synthetic rubber), transport (fossil fuel extraction and usage, freight),
dishwasher (water, electricity, detergent, bleaching agent, water softener), wastewater
treatment
Output: clean lid, disposal if damaged

LCA of paper cup:

input: production (paper, plastic for lining), packaging (box board, packaging film),
transportation (fossil fuel extraction and usage).
output: plastic film packaging disposed, used cup, disposal

LCA of plastic lid:

Input: production (polystyrene), packaging (box board, packaging film}, transportation
(fossil fuel extraction and usage, freight)
Output: plastic film packaging disposal, plastic lid use, disposal of lid in incinerator

Figure 1: LCA of Ceramic Mug, Ceramic Mug and Lid, Paper Cup and Lid

Figure 2: LCA process of Ceramic mug with lid (Martin et al., 2018)

4
Figure 3: Paper cup with a plastic lid (Martin et al., 2018)

Inventory Analysis
Given the limited information available and the fact that our team was unable to visit the production
facilities, we used data from Martin et al. 2018 as input for the analysis. Three categories of cups were used
for the inventory analysis: ceramic mugs, ceramic mugs with a rubber lid, and paper cups with a plastic lid.
The 310g Ultra model from Highflyers Werbeartikel GmbH was used for the ceramic cup (35g). It was made in
China and sent by ship (18521.51 km) to Hamburg and then transported by truck to Berlin (300 km). For a
ceramic mug with a rubber lid, it was assumed that the mug was produced in the same way as the Ultra
model mug but made in the Czech Republic with the lid coming from Switzerland. The estimated travel
distance was estimated as being the travel distance from Zurich to Berlin and from Prague to Berlin.

Since the LCA evaluation includes more than just the manufacturing and shipping part, a usage
analysis was also carried out. This was one of the main factors that influenced the result. Most of the data
was taken from Martin et al., 2018, where data on hand washing, energy used, detergent and amount of
water used were taken from previous studies and their own experiment. Data on the A+++ certified
dishwasher, its energy and water consumption were taken from the GED Gesellschaft für
Energiedienstleistung. It was assumed that 20 cups could be washed at the same time in a wash cycle, so all
values were divided by 20. In our article, we did not separate wash cycles for lids and cups, we assumed that
20 cups with 20 rubber lids can be washed together in one wash cycle. Data on dishwashing detergents was
not available in Martin's study, so an estimate was made that half of the detergent was ordinary soap.

5
For the paper cup and plastic lid, Martin's publication used the Cafe D model and a matching lid from
allesbecher.de. The weight of the cup is 8.3 g, inside it is covered with polyethylene (0.1 g). Lid weight 0.93g.
The transportation was calculated based on information that the cup was made in Poland and the lid in
Germany, the total transportation route was estimated as 700 km.

Baseline data on material input during production and transport was taken from Martin's publication. The
impact of materials used in production and logistics on GHG emissions was then converted using the Idemat
app and third-party sources into CO2 equivalent in kg (see Table 1). This conversion helped us use a single
metric to compare the impact of both products on CO2 emissions from production to delivery to customers.

Table 1 Production and shipping stage

Production Input/output Unit Comment CO2 conversion rate CO2 equivalent

Ceramic mug
production

Ceramic input 310g sanitary ceramic production 0.34 0.1054

Painting input 5g alkyd paint production, white,

solvent -based
n.d n.d.

Transport input 5,17417 transport, freight, lorry. see 16 g CO2/ tonne-km 0.08278672
t*km ship

Ceramic mug Output 1 0.18818672

Lid
production

Synthetic input 35g synthetic rubber production 3,18 0.1113

rubber

Transport Input 0,029 t*km transport, freight, lorry. 64 gCo2/tonne-km 0.001798

Plastic lid Output 1 0.113098

(mug)

Paper cup

Paper input 8,3g 2.42 0.020086

Plastic coating input 0,5g packaging film production, PE 1.87kg (Ideamat) 0.000935

Transport Input 0,00249 transport, freight, lorry. 64 gCo2/tonne-km 0.00015438

t*km
Paper cup output 1 0.02117538

Lid
production

6
 Polystryene input 2,86g Polystyrene production 2,25 kg 0.006435

Transport Input 0,00037 transport, freight, lorry. 64 gCo2/tonne-km 0.000002368

t*km
Plastic lid Output 1 0.006437368
Packaging input

Boxboard input 0,9/1000 kg folding boxboard production | 0,36 kg (Ideamat) 0.000324

Packaging film input 1,05g packaging film production, 0,17 kg (Ideamat) 0.0001785
low
density polyethylene

Packaging output 1 0.0005025

Total CO2 cost of 1 ceramic mug 0.188187

Total CO2 cost of 1 ceramic mug + lid (mug) 0.301285

Total CO2 cost of 1 paper cup with lid 0.028115

After doing a break-even analysis (see Chart 2), we determined that the paper cup seemed to be the
more sustainable option (during manufacturing and shipping) until it was used no more than 7 times. After
that, the ceramic mug (which can be used until it breaks) becomes more sustainable option. After 11 uses,
the ceramic mug with lid is more environmentally friendly.

Chart 2. Break Even point for production and logistic

When analyzing the stage of use, the impact of washing cycles on the environment was evaluated.
Washing only applies to the ceramic mug and ceramic mug with lid, as paper cups are disposed of after use.
We followed the same principle as Martin in his article - we evaluated the process of machine and hand
washing and its impact on the environment. In the first step, we used the electricity consumption data

7
(dishwasher and water heating) from the publication and converted to CO2 equivalent (with Idemat) to
further compare products in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (see table 2). In Table 2, we see that
handwashing consumes much more energy and therefore emits more greenhouse gases. In Chart 3 we see
the difference in value between the two types of wash, which gets larger with more uses.

Mug washing -dishwasher Type Unit CO2 conversion rate CO2 equivalent

Electricity Input 0.0504 MJ 116,92 kg/GJ (idemat,

Germany) 0.00589

Mug washing - handwashing

Electricity (electricity Input 0.222 MJ 116,92 kg/GJ (idemat,

voltage transformation) Germany) 0.02595
Table 2. CO2 emission per washing cycle. Based on data from Martin et al., 2018

Chart 3. CO2 emission associated with type of washing

The CO2 emissions calculated for the production and logistics stage were combined with the
calculations for the use stage and presented in Chart 4. As we can see Paper cup + Lid in the long-term is the
least sustainable option (purple line). A ceramic mug (with or w/o lid) with handwashing is slightly better
than paper cup (dark green and blue line). A ceramic mug (with or w/o lid) with machine washing is the most
sustainable option (light green and red line).

8
Chart 4. Break even point with washing cycle

In the 2nd step of use stage analysis, we used some data from Martin’s publication and added our
assumptions to compare hand vs machine washing cycles (refer table 3) for mugs with and without lids. We
selected only the data that can be compared for all products: tap water consumption, detergent component
(soap was used for both types), wastewater treatment (treatment of wastewater from residence). The
comparison chart (refer to chart 5) shows that machine washing uses up to 72% less water and 92% less
wastewater treatment is required. Detergent consumption was 40% higher for the ceramic cup, but 30% less
for ceramic cups with lids. This finding confirms that hand washing is the most unsustainable option.

Table 3. Usage stage (hand washing vs machine washing)

Handwashing Machine washing Unit

Ceramic mug
Tap water 0.5 0.14 kg
Detergent component 0.5 0.7 g

Water waste treatment 0.5 0.014 m3

Ceramic mug + lid

Tap water 0.75 0.14 kg
Detergent component 1 0.7 g

Water waste treatment 0.525 0.014 m3

9
Chart 5. Inputs for hand and machine washing

It should be noted that additional investigation of detergent components and their impact is required.
However, due to lack of information we relied on findings in Marin’s publication and reflected his findings in
the impact assessment section.

Post-consumer stage
At the post-consumption stage, we made an assumption about the waste generated after the
disposal of products. Ceramics are difficult to recycle and can only be recycled by specialized facilities, so it
can be assumed that all 310 g of ceramics are sent to landfill at the end of mug life cycle. The rubber cap and
plastic cap can be recycled so we can exclude them from the calculation. Plastic-coated paper cups are non-
recyclable and go straight to the incinerator. According to the statistics mentioned in the scope section, only
66% of paper cups are recycled (sento to incinerators) in Germany. This means that 2.8 grams out of every
8.3-gram paper cup ends up in landfill. A simple calculation shows that 110 purchased paper cups produce
the same amount of landfill waste as 1 ceramic mug. Considering that the life of a ceramic mug is usually
longer, a paper cup is less sustainable in the long run. Greenhouse gas emissions from combustion can also
be added to this.

10
Simple Impact Assessment

Table 4: LCA outcomes for different cups in relation to various impact classification (Martin et al., 2018).

Various steps are necessary in the life cycle of both paper cups and ceramic mugs and by extension,
these processes have impacts on the environment. Each type of cup has an impact on multiple categories as
demonstrated in table 4, but for the purposes of this simple impact assessment and considering the lack of
resources, only the impacts on the midpoint will be analyzed. The midpoint indicators for this evaluation
consist of 15 impact categories which can be summarized under the following sub-categories: climate
change, ecosystem quality, human health and resources. In the table, hand refers to handwashing while dish
refers to the use of a dishwasher.

Ceramic mug

11
Fig 4: The effects of washing, producing, waste disposal and transportation on the impacts of ceramic mugs.
expressed by a percentage per environmental impact category. On the left is the hand-washed version
represented (Martin et al., (2018).

With regards to the ceramic mug, there is a significant impact that is realized through its production
and an ongoing impact with every wash. A ceramic mug with a lid is more taxing on the environment than a
mug on its own. Considering the washing, producing, waste disposal and transportation necessary in the life
cycle of ceramic mugs, washing has the most impact as can be seen in figure 4. Noting this, figure 5 breaks
down the processes associated with washing and highlights the use of electricity as being the main
contributor to the impacts of washing as it is used for the heating of the water and for 19% to 99% of the
impact that the washing process creates. To further mitigate negative impacts, ceramic mugs that are
washed after three uses as seen in figure 4 reduces the number of resources needed in the cup's life cycle.

Fig 5: Influence of the different processes – electricity, detergent, water, wastewater treatment – on the
washing of a ceramic mug, expressed by a percentage per environmental category. On the left is the hand-
washed version represented (Martin et al., (2018).

12
 Fig 6: Influence on impact categories if mugs are washed after every three uses (Martin et al., 2018).

Paper Cup

The production and the waste treatment process have the highest impact in the paper cup’s life cycle
as shown in figure 7, with most of the impact stemming solely from production. Paper cups have the least
impact on freshwater eutrophication but most impact on land use, freshwater ecotoxicity and photochemical
ozone creation. Overall, this disposable alternative turns out to be slightly better than its ceramic
counterpart if the ceramic mug is washed by hand as will be elaborated on in the relative assessment.

Fig 7: The influence of paper cups on different impact categories (Martin et al., 2018).

13
Relative assessment

As can be determined by Table 4, a reusable mug that is put through a dishwasher has a significantly
less impact as demonstrated by the calculated global warming potential in relation to disposable cups.
Interestingly, we find that hand washing a mug has a significantly increased amount of global warming
potential over 100 years compared to using the dishwasher or even compared to using disposable cups. It is
increasingly environmentally appropriate to be using a ceramic mug with or without a lid and cleaning it
using a dishwasher in relation to paper cups (Martin et al., (2018). It is important to note the significant initial
environmental impact of ceramic cups in relation to paper cups, but also how hand washing a cup has more
detriments to it than positives. It is determined that after 11 uses is where the environmental impact is
significantly lesser for reusable mugs when compared to their disposable paper cup counterparts (Martin et
al., (2018). This finding is generally in line with chart 2 in inventory analysis which suggests 7 uses as the
environmental breakeven point when only considering carbon emissions and no additional impact
categories. Overall, hand washing continues to be the least efficient alternative to paper cups when
considering all impact categories, and assuming a wash after each individual use as seen in figure 8.

Fig 8: impact on various impact categories assuming a single wash per use (Martin et al., 2018).

14
Interpretation and Recommendations
The purpose of completing this LCA was to determine whether a disposable paper cup or a ceramic
mug was the most environmentally friendly option. Upon completion of this LCA we have concluded that
using a ceramic mug is the most environmentally friendly choice. The ceramic mug has the best outcomes
when using a dishwasher rather than hand washing. This conclusion considers the breakeven point of both a
ceramic mug and a disposable cup, as this was a significant factor in the outcome.

The ceramic mug shows to be a better option than paper cups. The production but also the
additional washing of this plastic lid is the reason for the relatively poor performance compared to the
ceramic mug. To make the paper cup more environmentally friendly, we recommend that no plastic is used,
and that post-consumer recycled material is used.

Although ceramic mugs have less impact than paper cups, the results vary significantly depending on
the washing method. As expected, the consumption of water, energy, and GHG emission when washing the
mugs negatively impacts the overall results. Handwashing mugs have a considerably worse result than the
dishwasher, even worse than disposable cups. Furthermore, the use of energy to heat the water in the hand
washing generates a significant variation, pointing to a more favourable result in the washing with cold water
compared with heated water. In conclusion, variations in the cleaning process can generate relevant impacts
on the LCA of ceramic mugs. It is recommended to use dishwashers or wash mugs by hand with cold water to
reduce the environmental impact. Additionally, trying to re-use a ceramic mug multiple times before washing
in conjunction with using an energy-efficient dishwasher and biodegradable detergent helps to reduce
energy consumption and environmental impact when compared to common appliances and non-
biodegradable detergents.

15
 References

Ciraig (2021). Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Single-Use Coffee Cups. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
reusable and single-use coffee cups (gouv.qc.ca)

Idemat. (2022). Sustainable Materials Selections. http://idematapp.com/

International Standard Organisation (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment:

Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14040. Geneva

Lewis, Y., Gower, A. & Philippa Notten, P. (2021). United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP_-LCA-
Beverage-Cups-Report_Web.pdf (lifecycleinitiative.org)

Martin, S., Bunsen, J., & Ciroth, A. (2018). Case Study Ceramic Cup versus Paper Cup. Open LCA. AWARE in
openLCA

16