Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging: Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Abstract:
Tom’s of Maine approached the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems to
examine their choice of aluminum toothpaste containers over the industry-standard laminate
tubes.
As a company that relies on its environmentally-friendly image for product
differentiation, Tom’s of Maine was interested in determining whether their choice of material
was preferable from a sustainability standpoint. In order to answer this question, life cycle
analyses (LCA) were done on both a laminate and an aluminum tube, with two versions of the
aluminum tube modeled (100% virgin aluminum and 50% recycled content).
The results for the LCA are presented in terms of life-cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
acidification potential, carcinogen production, eutrophication, solid waste, and air and water
emissions (see Appendices A and B for results). Across all impact categories, the laminate tube
had better environmental performance than either of the aluminum tubes, with the 100% virgin
aluminum tube having the poorest environmental performance. In general, the aluminum tubes
had two to three times higher environment impacts than the laminate tube. The primary driver
for the high impact of the aluminum tubes came during the raw material extraction and material
production stages. From a life-cycle cost perspective, the two packaging options are equivalent.
Because of the large variety and relatively small number of tubes that Tom’s of Maine purchases,
the cost per tube is the same for both options. Any price savings that may exist for the laminate
option will be captured and not passed on to either Tom’s of Maine or their customers. Finally,
while it may be technically feasible to recycle the aluminum tubes at their end-of-life, our
discussions with recycling centers and aluminum recyclers around the country lead us to believe
that this is not currently taking place to any extant.
Given the higher environmental impacts of the aluminum tube and their low recycling rate, we
recommend that Tom’s of Maine considers switching to a laminate tube design for its toothpaste
line.
Introduction:
Founded in 1970, Tom’s of Maine is a socially and environmentally responsible producer of
personal care products. As a pioneer and industry leader in the area of Natural Care, Tom’s of
Maine’s business strategy includes a stated concern for the environment, its customers, and the
community at-large. The company’s product line includes toothpaste, mouthwash, liquid and
bar soap, deodorant, and many other personal care products, all produced without the use of
artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives. These products are sold in over 50,000 locations
world-wide, with the vast majority of its goods still produced at its facility in Sanford, Maine.
Tom’s of Maine approached the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems to
examine their choice of aluminum toothpaste containers over the industry-standard laminate
tubes. While Tom’s of Maine produces a variety of products, it is best known for its toothpaste.
Along with using only natural ingredients, the company’s toothpaste is also distinct because of
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
1
Winter 2007
its use of aluminum tubes. Given the company’s strong interest in sustainability issues, this
study compares the environmental impact of Tom’s of Maine’s aluminum tubes to the industrystandard laminate tube through a life-cycle analysis (LCA). It compares the material extraction,
material production, product manufacturing, and disposal stages for 6-ounce aluminum and
laminate tubes.
We used information gathered from Tom’s current tube supplier to model the aluminum tube.
We assume that the laminate tubes will also be produced by the current tube manufacturer but we
base our analysis on an equivalent tube produced by Colgate due to data availability (Tom’s of
Maine was bought by Colgate in 2006). The material compositions for both tube systems shown
in Tables 1 and 2 come from direct measurements of tube samples. Our objective is to help
inform Tom’s of Maine decision on whether their choice of aluminum toothpaste tubes is
preferable from a sustainability standpoint to the industry-standard laminate tube.
Description of Process Flow Diagrams:
To start, we examined the life cycle inventory of one aluminum toothpaste tube. We were
informed that the aluminum slug used to produce the tubes is composed of 60% virgin material,
and 40% scrap. However, we were unable to determine whether the scrap was virgin scrap from
in-house processing or purchased recycled aluminum. We therefore modeled the energy
requirements for 100% virgin, and 50% recycled aluminum. Because the computer program
used for the impact analysis, SimaPro, was unable to model the 60:40 ratio, we used a 50:50 ratio
instead.
The aluminum process begins with the extraction of bauxite, a clay-like mineral used to produce
aluminum. Slugs of aluminum weighing 11.12 g per tube are shipped by truck a distance of 22
miles. When the slug arrives at the manufacturer, it is formed into the toothpaste tube and coated
with epoxy resin as a protective barrier. The tube is painted with polyester enamel and alkyde
inks before the polypropylene (PPE) outsert and polyethylene (PE) cap are fastened to the
orifice. For a comprehensive list of the materials found in the final tube, see Appendix A - Table
1. The tubes are then shipped by truck to Tom’s of Maine in Sanford, ME, a distance of 648
miles. The energy used and emissions generated from transporting both the laminate and
aluminum tubes can be found in Appendix A – Tables 3, 4, and 5.
A number of processes were assumed to be constant across both functional units. It was
assumed that the composition of the toothpaste itself would not change, as well as the packaging
material for both shipments to the Tom’s factory, as well as their distributors. We also assumed
that the use phase would be the same for both tubes, although the cost analysis did take into
account the small difference in the amount of toothpaste left in the container prior to disposal.
Contacts at Toms of Maine have informed us that the company would most likely continue to use
their current tube supplier should they decide to switch to the laminate tube, though the location
of the manufacturing center would be different. However, we were not able to collect sufficient
information from the current tube manufacturer to complete the analysis, and so information on
laminate tube processing was solicited from representative at Colgate.
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
2
Winter 2007
Laminate tubes are made of aluminum foil surrounded by layers of acrylic resin and
polypropylene (PPE) on both sides. The laminate mesh is cut into sheets before they are folded
into the shape of the tube and heat sealed at the bottom. The high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
shoulder and polypropylene (PPE) cap are then affixed to the opening and the finished tubes are
boxed and shipped 404 miles to the Tom’s filling facility.
All of the shipments post filling and packaging are done by truck. We assume for the analysis
that of the 1 million tubes Tom’s produces per month, half are shipped to San Francisco, CA
(3,178 miles) and the other half to Boston, MA (89 miles). In order to cover their major
distribution centers, while also simplifying the analysis, we assume a weighted average in terms
of the distance that each tube is shipped that is between these two distances.
It was assumed that disposal options would be the same for both tubes. Although discussions
with recyclers across the country indicated that in some cases it could be possible for the tubes to
make it through the sorting processes, it was generally thought to be unlikely. We therefore
decided to model the tubes as though they were both disposed directly into a landfill.
The complete process flow diagrams are contained in Appendix B – Figures 2 and 3.
Inventory and Impact Assessment Results:
The lifecycle inventory and impact assessment was conducting using SimaPro software version
6.0. In addition, we collected process specific data through interviews with personnel at Tom’s
of Maine, the current tube manufacturer, and Colgate. We translated electricity requirements
into fuel usage and emissions using regional specific fuel mixes from Kim and Dale (2005).
Finally, plastics molding and processing data was obtained through an Association of Platics
Manufacturers in Europe (APME) report (1997). The results for the three tubes are shown in
Tables 3, 4, and 5 of Appendix A.
The laminate tube had lower environmental impact in all categories than either of the aluminum
tube scenarios, with the 100% virgin aluminum tube having the most impact in almost all
categories. For all three tubes, the primary impacts came during the natural resource extraction
and raw material production phases (shown as “Mat Prod/Processing” in all figures). The
laminate tube used approximately 37% less lifecycle energy than the 50% recycled aluminum
tube and 60% less energy than the 100% virgin aluminum tube (see Figure 4). For greenhouse
gas emissions, the difference is even larger with the laminate tube emitting 60% less than the
recycled-content tube and 76% less than the virgin aluminum tube (see Figure 8). The smaller
difference in the energy comparison is due to the fact that the laminate system is predominately
plastics-based and the embodied energy of the laminate feedstock materials is counted toward
the lifecycle energy total. Our analysis shows that the laminate tube had lower air and water
emissions for a suite of pollutants than either aluminum tube (Figures 5 and 6), and produced
less solid waste during its lifecycle (Figure 7). In addition, the laminate tube had a lower
acidification and eutrophication potential and produced fewer carcinogens than the aluminum
tubes (Figures 9, 10, and 11).
For the most part, the 50% recycled aluminum tube had lower environmental impacts than the
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
3
Winter 2007
100% virgin aluminum tube. However, for two categories, the 100% virgin aluminum tube
actually had lower environmental impacts. As Figures 5 and 7 show, the 50% recycled tube
actually emitted more Carbon Monoxide (CO) into the air and produced more solid waste than
the 100% virgin aluminum tube. Given that these differences are entirely driven by the Material
Production and Processing stage, it seems that the process of recycling aluminum has a relatively
high-impact in these areas compared to virgin aluminum production.
Lifecycle Costs:
The lifecycle cost analysis included identifying the costs of tubes for Tom’s of Maine and the
cost to consumers of using and disposing of laminate versus aluminum tubes. Based on
discussions with our contacts, we find that the aluminum and laminate tubes would be sold to
Tom’s of Maine at the same cost per tube.
Anecdotal evidence and direct measurement show that the aluminum tubes are more difficult to
squeeze than the laminate tubes, resulting in slightly more toothpaste remaining in the tube at
end-of-life. We estimate that approximately 6% of the product is wasted in the aluminum tube
versus 3.5% for laminate tubes. The consumer cost of additional product waste was accounted in
calculating consumer costs. Through phone interviews with recycling centers around the country,
it appears that the aluminum tubes are not recycled but are simply sent to a landfill. We used the
city of Ann Arbor’s costs for garbage disposal to calculate the difference in disposal costs of
each tube to the community. In all cases laminate tubes stood out as a better alternative since the
packaging weighs less and results in less wasted toothpaste (Table 6).
Recommendations & Suggestions for Improvement:
Tom’s of Maine should consider switching to laminate tubes as they outperformed aluminum
tubes in all categories. Tom’s can further improve packaging by eliminating the paper inserts
that come with each tube and instead printing their message on the cardboard box. Opportunities
to completely eliminate the card board box should also be considered through the use of reusable
in-store tube holders similar to lipstick holders or egg crates (see Figure 15).
Based on conversations with our contacts at Tom’s of Maine, it appears that the company’s
marketing department may be reluctant to move away from aluminum tubes due to brand
differentiation strategies. The company will have to balance this consideration against using a
less-efficient packaging option when an alternative exists. Should Tom’s of Maine chooses to
continue using aluminum, we recommend reducing the thickness of aluminum tubes and using
more post-consumer recycled content if at all possible. Innovations in bio-plastic manufacturing
should also be monitored as a potential avenue for Tom’s of Maine to reduce the environmental
footprint of its product system.
Recycling and Contacts:
In our discussions with recycling centers around the country, we have concluded that Tom’s of
Maine’s aluminum tubes are not currently being recycled. While it may be technically feasible
to recycle the tubes, it is highly unlikely that any of the aluminum actually re-enters the material
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
4
Winter 2007
cycle. There are several hurdles that the tubes must pass before entering the recycling stream.
First, Tom’s of Maine’s consumers must place the tubes in their recycling bins at the end of their
use-phase instead of disposing of the tubes. Second, curb-side collectors must recognize that the
tubes are aluminum and bring them to the collection center instead of leaving them at the curb as
unwanted materials. Finally, the tubes must pass through the mechanical and manual sorting
processes at the collection centers and remain with the other aluminum products (i.e. cans and
foil) to be sent along to recycled aluminum consumers. Even if the tubes made it through the
first two hurdles, it is unlikely that they would pass the final stage. Representatives at the
various collection centers felt that it was highly unlikely that the various sorting techniques (fans,
sifting screens, eddy-current separators, etc.) would recognize the used tubes as aluminum.
Instead, the tubes would be separated with the plastics and glass before being discarded as waste.
One recycling center was specifically told by the aluminum collectors that they did not want
used toothpaste tubes. It seems that the low aluminum content, high contamination level, and
slow product turnover rate for toothpaste tubes made them a low-priority aluminum source for
recyclers. Contacts at the various aluminum recycling centers listed below were consulted in
preparing this review.
Aluminum Recycling Contacts:
Ann Arbor, MI
Madison, WI
Seattle, WA
MRF of South Carolina
Recycle America of Milwaukee, WI
Recycle America New York
ALCOA
Anheuser-Busch
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
5
Winter 2007
References – On file
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
6
Winter 2007
Appendix A - Tables
Table 1 - Material Composition of Aluminum Tube
Mass (g)
Entire
Product
185.6
Material
composition
Toothpaste
172.33
Chalk
Water
Glycerin
Other
Tube total
Tube body
Outsert
13.27
11.55
Aluminum
(93%)
Epoxy resin
(7%)
0.4
PPE (100%)
Cap
1.3
PE (100%)
Table 2 - Material Composition of Laminate Tube
Mass (g)
Material
composition
Entire
Product
183.04
Toothpaste
172.33
Chalk
Water
Glycerin
Other
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Tube total
Tube body
10.71
6.17
PE (70%)
Resins
(16%)
Aluminum
Foil (14%)
7
Shoulder
3.14
HDPE
(100%)
Cap
1.4
PPE (100%)
Winter 2007
Table 3 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - 100% Virgin Aluminum Tube
Impact
category
greenhouse
ozone layer
acidification
eutrophication
heavy metals
carcinogens
winter smog
summer smog
pesticides
energy
solid waste
Unit
Total
kg CO2
kg CFC11
kg SO2
kg PO4
kg Pb
kg B(a)P
kg SPM
kg C2H4
kg act.subst
MJ LHV
g
2.25E-01
1.07E-07
1.67E-03
8.91E-05
1.66E-06
2.73E-07
1.45E-03
2.26E-04
x
3.58E+00
1.19E+01
Mat Prod/
Processing
1.40E-01
1.03E-07
8.80E-04
3.80E-05
1.35E-06
2.72E-07
8.94E-04
1.92E-04
x
2.52E+00
5.12E-02
Manufacturing
I (Al)
5.57E-02
1.33E-09
4.96E-04
2.66E-05
1.46E-07
1.27E-10
3.58E-04
3.99E-06
x
6.81E-01
1.03E+01
Manufacturing
II
1.75E-02
1.87E-09
1.75E-04
6.92E-06
1.53E-07
2.07E-10
1.40E-04
1.05E-05
x
2.34E-01
1.52E+00
Tran (IntrapTom's)
2.89E-03
2.34E-12
3.26E-05
4.75E-06
1.36E-09
1.30E-12
1.49E-05
5.25E-06
x
3.99E-02
1.52E-02
Tran (Tom'sDistribution)
7.29E-03
5.89E-12
8.22E-05
1.20E-05
3.44E-09
3.27E-12
3.76E-05
1.32E-05
x
1.01E-01
3.82E-02
Tube
disposal (Al)
1.10E-03
1.03E-09
6.05E-06
9.03E-07
4.73E-09
1.91E-11
1.69E-06
1.41E-06
x
9.91E-03
x
Tran (Tom'sDistribution)
7.29E-03
5.89E-12
8.22E-05
1.20E-05
3.44E-09
3.27E-12
3.76E-05
1.32E-05
x
1.01E-01
3.82E-02
Tube
disposal (Al)
1.10E-03
1.03E-09
6.05E-06
9.03E-07
4.73E-09
1.91E-11
1.69E-06
1.41E-06
x
9.91E-03
x
Table 4 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - 50% Recycled Aluminum Tube
Impact
category
greenhouse
ozone layer
acidification
eutrophication
heavy metals
carcinogens
winter smog
summer smog
pesticides
energy
solid waste
Unit
kg CO2
kg CFC11
kg SO2
kg PO4
kg Pb
kg B(a)P
kg SPM
kg C2H4
kg act.sbst
MJ LHV
g
Total
1.45E-01
3.72E-08
1.23E-03
6.94E-05
7.99E-07
1.09E-07
8.99E-04
2.00E-04
x
2.27E+00
1.95E+01
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Mat Prod/
Processing
6.01E-02
3.30E-08
4.37E-04
1.83E-05
4.90E-07
1.09E-07
3.47E-04
1.65E-04
x
1.20E+00
7.68E+00
Manufacturing
I (Al)
5.57E-02
1.33E-09
4.96E-04
2.66E-05
1.46E-07
1.27E-10
3.58E-04
3.99E-06
x
6.81E-01
1.03E+01
8
Manufacturing
II
1.75E-02
1.87E-09
1.75E-04
6.92E-06
1.53E-07
2.07E-10
1.40E-04
1.05E-05
x
2.34E-01
1.52E+00
Tran (IntrapTom's)
2.89E-03
2.34E-12
3.26E-05
4.75E-06
1.36E-09
1.30E-12
1.49E-05
5.25E-06
x
3.99E-02
1.52E-02
Winter 2007
Table 5 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - Laminate Tube
Impact
category
greenhouse
ozone layer
acidification
eutrophication
heavy metals
carcinogens
winter smog
summer smog
pesticides
energy
solid waste
Unit
kg CO2
kg CFC11
kg SO2
kg PO4
kg Pb
kg B(a)P
kg SPM
kg C2H4
kg act.sbst
MJ LHV
g
Total
5.79E-02
6.70E-09
5.68E-04
4.23E-05
2.51E-07
1.69E-08
3.95E-04
1.10E-04
x
1.42E+00
4.35E+00
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Mat. Prod/
Processing
2.11E-02
4.29E-09
2.19E-04
1.74E-05
6.15E-08
1.66E-08
1.55E-04
8.10E-05
x
9.60E-01
1.43E+00
Manufacturing
I (Lami)
8.25E-03
3.26E-10
7.60E-05
3.81E-06
3.13E-08
3.37E-11
5.62E-05
1.55E-06
x
1.03E-01
1.36E+00
9
Manufacturing
II
1.75E-02
1.87E-09
1.75E-04
6.92E-06
1.53E-07
2.07E-10
1.40E-04
1.05E-05
x
2.34E-01
1.52E+00
Tran (IntrapTom's)
2.33E-03
1.89E-12
2.63E-05
3.83E-06
1.10E-09
1.05E-12
1.21E-05
4.24E-06
x
3.22E-02
1.22E-02
Tran (Tom'sDistribution)
5.88E-03
4.76E-12
6.64E-05
9.66E-06
2.77E-09
2.64E-12
3.04E-05
1.07E-05
x
8.12E-02
3.08E-02
Tube
disposal
2.78E-03
2.15E-10
3.91E-06
6.50E-07
1.35E-09
2.24E-12
1.45E-06
1.60E-06
x
5.21E-03
8.85E-04
Winter 2007
Table 6 - Lifecycle Costs – Aluminum versus Laminate Tube
Cost of per 172.33 g
of toothpaste
Cost per g of
toothpaste
AA Land filling
Costs (per Ton)
AA
Landfilling
Cost (per g)
$3.99
$0.02
$67.50
$0.000066
Aluminum
Weight of clean 13.27
tube (g)
Amt of Toothpaste 10.3398
wasted (g)
Total weight to be 23.6098
sent to garbage
disposal facility (g)
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Laminate
10.71
6.03155
16.74155
10
Winter 2007
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 1 - Schematic Lifecycle of Tube
Figure 2 - Process Flow (Aluminum Tube)
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
11
Winter 2007
Figure 3 - Process Flow (Laminate Tube)
Figure 4 – Inventory Analysis – Lifecycle Energy Resource
Energy
4
Aluminum tube 100%
3.5
Aluminum tube 50%
Laminated tube
MJ LHV
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manufacturing Manufacturing
I
II
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
12
Tran
(IntrapacTom's)
Tran (Tom's- Tube disposal
Distribution)
Winter 2007
Figure 5 - Inventory Analysis - Air Emissions
Aluminum tube 100 %
Aluminum tube 50%
Laminated tube
Air Emission
1400
1190
1200
1000
856
800
646
600
495
519
400
200
346
313
193
211
188
151
120
120
20.3
3.06
0
CO (mg)
Nox (mg)
PM (mg)
Sox (mg)
Lead (µg)
Figure 6 - Inventory Analysis - Water Emissions
Aluminum tube 100%
Water Emission
Aluminum tube 50%
Laminated tube
942
1000
900
800
700
600
500
574
468
468
419
400
300
200
77.1
100
1.64
30.3
44.7 44.7
4.68
12.4
0
BOD (mg)
DOC (µg)
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
Suspended solids
(mg)
13
Nitrogen (µg)
Winter 2007
Figure 7 – Inventory Analysis - Solid Waste
Solid Waste
25.0
Aluminum tube 100%
Aluminum tube 50%
Laminated tube
20.0
gram
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manufacturing Manufacturing Tran (Intrapac- Tran (Tom'sI
II
Tom's)
Distribution)
Tube disposal
Figure 8 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment – Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse
0.25
Aluminum tube 100%
Alumiinum tube 50%
kg CO2
0.2
Laminated tube
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manufacturing Manufacturing Tran (Intrapac- Tran (Tom's- Tube disposal
I
II
Tom's)
Distribution)
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
14
Winter 2007
Figure 9 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - Acidification
Acidification
0.0018
Aluminum tube 100%
0.0016
Aluminum tube 50%
0.0014
Laminated tube
kg SO2
0.0012
0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manufacturing Manufacturing
I
II
Tran
(IntrapacTom's)
Tran (Tom's- Tube disposal
Distribution)
Figure 10 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - Carcinogens
Carcinogens
3.0E-07
Aluminum tube 100%
Aluminum tube 50%
2.5E-07
Laminated tube
Kg B(a)P
2.0E-07
1.5E-07
1.0E-07
5.0E-08
0.0E+00
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manufacturing Manufacturing
I
II
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
15
Tran
(IntrapacTom's)
Tran (Tom's- Tube disposal
Distribution)
Winter 2007
Figure 11 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - Eutrophication
Eutrophication
1.0E-04
Aluminum tube 100%
9.0E-05
Aluminum tube 50%
Laminated tube
8.0E-05
kg PO4
7.0E-05
6.0E-05
5.0E-05
4.0E-05
3.0E-05
2.0E-05
1.0E-05
0.0E+00
Total
Mat Prod/
Processing
Manuf acturing Manuf acturing Tran (IntrapacI
II
Tom's)
Tran (Tom'sDistribution)
Tube disposal
Figure 12 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - 100% Virgin Al. Tube
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
16
Winter 2007
Figure 13 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - 50% Recycled Al. Tube
Figure 14 - Lifecycle Impact Assessment - Laminate Tube
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
17
Winter 2007
Figure 15 – Alternative Packaging Option for Laminate Tubes
Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Packaging:
Aluminum vs. Laminate Tubes
18
Winter 2007