UNCLASSIFIED

Compression Testing of Fiberboard Containers

2485 25272355

1898

2223

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

55# RSC/Insert

55# WD 72# RSC/Insert

72# WD MRE SF

Co

mp

ress

ive

Lo

ad

(lb

s)

Lightweight, Compostable, And Biodegradable Fiberboard Jason Niedzwiecki, Jo Ann Ratto, Jeanne Lucciarini, Christopher Thellen, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA

Xin Li, Xiuzhi Susan Sun, Bio-Materials and Technology Lab, Dept of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State UniversityDonghai Wang, Department of Bio & Agriculture Engineering, Kansas State University

Richard Farrell University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Lightweight, Compostable, And Biodegradable Fiberboard Jason Niedzwiecki, Jo Ann Ratto, Jeanne Lucciarini, Christopher Thellen, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA

Xin Li, Xiuzhi Susan Sun, Bio-Materials and Technology Lab, Dept of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State UniversityDonghai Wang, Department of Bio & Agriculture Engineering, Kansas State University

Richard Farrell University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Introduction & Overview

Acknowledgements

Materials & Methods

This research was funded through the USDOD Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. All test materials were supplied by the Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center (Natick, MA). All composting tests were carried out at the Dept. of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, SK, Canada). RF & DR gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Mark Cooke and Luke Pennock in monitoring the compost tests.

Composting trials are being conducted to assess the “environmental degradability” of these new coated paper and fiberboard formulations. These trials will ensure that, when used in combination with other waste materials (e.g. food waste, grass clippings, leaves, bark, etc.), the new paper and fiberboard products, do not interfere with the composting process and can generate a compost product that can ultimately be used as a soil conditioner that can be sold or given to local communities.

The specific goal of the first phase of this research is to demonstrate the “environmental degradability” of packaging materials incorporating biodegradable polymer coatings and adhesives with natural fibers and pulp under composting conditions. This effort will determine how fast the fiberboard degrades in compost and if, when combined with other waste materials (e.g., food waste, grass clippings, leaves, bark, etc.), these packaging materials produce a valuable compost product.

This research is a collaboration between the U.S. Army (Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA) and the University of Saskatchewan (Dep. of Soil Science, Saskatoon, SK, Canada).

Tier I Composting - targets material disintegration (ASTM D6003)

– bench-scale test under controlled composting conditions

– “compostable” material demonstrates satisfactory disintegration if ≤ 10% of original material is recovered on a 2-mm sieve after a 12 week test exposure.

References

American Society for Testing and Materials. 2003b. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM: West Conshoshocken, PA; Vol. 08-03; Standard D 6002.Farrell, R.E., T.J. Adamczyk, D.C. Broe, J.S. Lee, B.L. Briggs, R.A. Gross, S.P. McCarthy, and S. Goodwin 2000. Biodegradable bags comparative performance study: A multi-tiered approach to evaluating the compostability of plastic materials. Pp. 337-375 In R.A. Gross and C. Scholz (eds.) Biopolymers from Polysacharides and Agroproteins, ACS Symposium Series 786. American Chemical Society Washington, DC.

Standardized (ASTM equivalent) tests were conducted to assess the bio-environmental degradability of light weight packaging materials under controlled aerobic composting conditions. Of the 28 test materials evaluated during test exposures of 140–198 days, all but two [KSU-Q (fiberboard) and KSU-U (chicken feather)] achieved the relative net mineralization threshold (RBI ≥0.60) required for designation as a readily biodegradable/compostable material.

In general, the test materials and positive control (microcrystalline cellulose powder) included in the

first test run produced relatively low net CO2-C yields, which are believed to reflect matrix effects

related to the amount of readily available C-substrate present in the compost. These effects were not observed in the second test run, which employed the compost from the same source but which had been aged for an additional seven months. All 15 materials included in the first test run were characterized by RBIs >0.60, indicating that they could be considered biodegradable/compostable.

However, because of the low CO2 yields, these test results should be considered ‘conservative’. A

sub-set of the samples is being retested to confirm these results.

Weight-loss (Tier I) tests demonstrated that the new packaging materials were compostable (e.g., EVCO, Fig. 2), though the intact materials degraded at a significantly slower rate than the powdered materials.

Standard (ASTM or ISO equivalent) laboratory test methods were used to assess the degradation/disintegration (measured as weight loss; Tier I test) and mineralization (conversion of

organic-C into CO2; Tier II test) of the test materials. Compost quality was assessed in accordance

with U.S. Composting Council standards (Leege & Thompson, 1997).

Test materials were ground to a powder, dried to a constant weight in a convection oven (50°C for 12 to 18 h) and stored in glass vials until needed. All samples were analyzed for their carbon (C) content using a LECO CNS analyzer.

Results

Discussion

Bioreactors maintained in a controlled environment chamber at 52 ± 2°C.

Each reactor is maintained under aerobic conditions and at a moisture content of 55 ± 5% water-holding capacity by flushing with humidified air.

A poisoned control reactor is maintained in order to assess the contribution of abiotic degradation.

Tier II Composting - targets mineralization as a measure of a material’s ultimate biodegradability

– bench-scale test under controlled aerobic conditions (Farrell et al. 2001)

– a test material is considered “biodegradable” if it achieves 60% ThCO2 relative to the

positive control during a 180-day test exposure.

Bioreactors maintained in a controlled environment chamber at 52 ± 2°C.

Each reactor is maintained under aerobic conditions and at a moisture content of 55 ± 5% water-holding capacity.

Headspace gas samples collected at 12 to 120 h intervals and analyzed for CO2 and O2 content using

GC-TCD.

Daily and cumulative CO2 production (total and net)

are calculated relative to a control reactor (unamended compost).

Figure 1. Net mineralization of the positive control (cellulose) and test materials. All test runs performed with the compost kept at 52 ± 1°C and

55 ± 5% water-holding capacity.

Tier I Composting

Time (d)- - - - - Weight Loss (%) - - - - -

V2S V3C MRE-liner MRE-box EVCO SF

70.76 0.64 1.11 1.72 1.06 2.40

144.84 3.39 1.50 8.57 7.56 8.83

218.59 6.48 9.03 11.17 10.92 11.59

2812.11 9.38 10.09 12.91 18.43 17.04

3517.81 12.84 14.07 20.71 18.43 15.35

4218.91 14.13 16.45 24.03 17.71 15.30

Tier II Composting

- - - Test Material - - - Description I.D.

Laga

(days) ThCO2

(%) RBIc t60 (days)

Cellulose powder (positive control) Cell 1 123 14 - - - 31

V3C corrugated board V3C <1 129 11 1.05 27

V2S solid board V2S <1 123 20 1.00 29

30# Uncoated Kraft E <1 101 10 0.82 41

30# Kraft coated w/MBX CS06082205 F 1 95 1 0.77 41

Metabolix MBX 1507-20A J 2 100 20 0.81 39

MRE box MRE-bx 2 86 11 0.70 47

MRE liner MRE-ln 2 87 19 0.71 41

90# Liner 12 1 113 12 0.92 37

Fiberboard KSU-Q 2 68 13 0.55 85

Raw wood fiber KSU-R 4 79 1 0.64 62

Cheese cloth KSU-S 3 109 14 0.89 35

Modified soy protein KSU-T 1 122 29 0.99 39

Chicken Feather KSU-U 2 71 27 0.58 94

Figure 2. Disintegration of the EVCO sample during a 42-d, bench-scale composting test. The compost was kept at 52 ± 1°C and 55 ± 5%

water-holding capacity.

Compost Studies for Biodegradable FiberboardStudy of Soy Protein Adhesives for Biodegradable Fiberboard

Results and Discussion Paper sheet prepared with mixture of pulp and chicken feather fiber (CFF)

Tensile strength decreased with the replacement of 20% pulp with chicken feather fiber

(Table 2). No apparent difference of tensile strength was observed for paper sheet with treated and

untreated chicken feather fiber (Table 3).

Table 2 Spell out of paper sheet prepared with mixture of pulp and CFF

Background The development of biodegradable fiberboard is being researched by the Department of

Defense’s Strategic Environment Research and Development Program with Kansas State University

and U.S. Army as collaborators. The project will help to reduce the amount of solid waste for the

military. Shipping containers fabricated from fiberboard are necessary to transport and store food

and other military items. However, there are numerous disadvantages in producing fiberboard for

the military: the process is costly, uses cellulose and hazardous chemicals, deletes natural

resources in our environment, and creates hazardous waste.

Objective To develop light weight biodegradable fiberboard (LBF) that can be used for military ration packaging.

Materials and MethodsSoybean flour was the product of Cargill company;

100% virgin pine pulp (made through an unbleached kraft process) was provided by Interstate Paper LLC;

Five soy protein-based adhesives (SPA) was prepared (Table 1)

Table 1 SPA Formula

Fiberboard evaluation Burst index test: TAPPI T 810 om-06 (Technical Association for the Pulp, Paper, and

converting Industry ) Mechanical and water soaking properties - ASTM D1037-99 (American Society for Testing

and Materials) Tensile strength (TSH); Modulus of rupture (MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE); TSH after 24 h water soaking; Thickness swell (TS); Linear expansion (LE)

Conclusion

This research suggests that the light weight biodegradable fiberboards with soy protein adhesives

prepared from either modified soy flour or soy protein isolate have great potential as alternatives to

current commercial fiberboard. These soy protein adhesives would be easier for re-pulping, which is

under evaluation.

Table 5 Comparison of water soaking properties of LBF with SF

Comparison of properties of LBF with commercial fiberboard

Compare to commercial solid fiberboard (SF), the light weight biodegradable fiberboards had

significantly higher tensile strength, similar burst index(Fig.3); higher or similar tensile strength after

water soaking; similar linear extension and thickness swell (table 5).

Properties of LBF with five SPAs (Table 4)

All of these LBFs showed highly strong tensile strength, MOR, wet-TSH and wet-MOR; Modified soy flour adhesives and SPI (with and without SDS modifications) adhesives

provided significant higher mechanical properties than control; No apparent difference of mechanical properties were observed for LBFs with soy flour

and control; mechanical properties after water soaking were improved by soy flour

Table 4 Properties of LBF with SPAs

SPA solution

Mixing Paper sheetMolding in

Special MoldPulp Pressing

Fig 1. Preparation of the light weight biodegradable fiberboards

SPA-1 SPA-2 SPA-3 SPA-4 SPA-5

SDS-modified

soy flour powder

SDS-modified soy flour slurry

Soy flour

powder

SDS-modified SPI slurry

Soy protein isolates (SPI ) powder

All SPAs were prepared at 5% solid content, and stirred prior to applications

TreatmentArea density

(g/cm2)Tensile strength

(MPa)

100% pulp (control) 0.77 8.92

80% pulp/20% CFF 0.73 2.41

80% pulp/20% CFF/0.1% SPA-1 0.85 5.67

80% pulp/20% CFF/0.2% SPA-1 1.15 12.01

Effect of concentration of SPA on mechanical properties of LBF

The optimum concentration of SPA added in pulp is from 0.05% to 0.15%(Fig. 2).

Fig 2. Mechanical properties of LBF, Made at 66.7 KN forces, 160 ˚C for 3.5 min, with 1.0 g/cm2 of area density

and 1.2 mm of thickness, prepared by different concentrations of SPA-I

TSH MOR MOE0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

5000

5500

6000

6500

a a

a aa

a

a

a

b

MP

a

Properties

0 0.05 0.10 0.15

a

bb

Treatment*Area density

(g/cm2)Tensile strength

(MPa)

80% pulp/20% U-CFF(control) 1.44 6.61

80% pulp/20% SBH-CFF 1.40 6.98

80% pulp/20% M-CFF 1.46 6.12

80% pulp/20% F-CFF 1.42 6.43

*U-CFF, untreated chicken feather fiber; SBH-CFF, 6g/L sodium bisulfate solution with pH=10 treated chicken feather fiber;

M-CFF, 40mmol/L 2-mercaptoethanol solution treated chicken feather fiber; F-CFF, 88wb% formic acid treated chicken

feather fiber.

Table 3 Spell out of paper sheet prepared with pulp and chemically treated CFF with 0.1% SPA-1

FormulaArea density Thickness TSH MOR Wet TSH Wet MOR

g/cm2 mm MPa MPa Mpa MPa

SPA-1 0.090 1.10 61.0a 46.7a 4.12a 3.53a

SPA-2 0.090 1.18 51.7b 45.2a 3.73a 3.28a

SPA-3 0.088 1.15 39.9c 37.9b 4.14a 3.17a

SPA-4 0.094 1.13 54.2b 47.5a 3.81a 3.34a

SPA-5 0.089 1.13 51.9b 48.0a 4.23a 3.30a

Control (no adhesive)

0.090 1.21 42.8c 36.7b 2.60b 2.10b

0

2

4

6

8

Tensile strength (10MPa) Burst Index(KPa m2/g)

A B SF(Parallel) SF(perpendicular)

Light weight biodegradable fiberboard (LBF) preparation

Fig.3 Comparison of mechanical properties of LBF with SF: A) LBF with 0.09 g/cm2 of area density and 1.1 mm of thickness; B) LBF with 0.05 g/cm2 of area density and 0.6 mm of thickness

Area densityg/cm2

Thicknessmm

Wet-TSH MPa

LE%

TS%

LBF A 0.09 1.1 3.1 0.6 60.0

LBF B 0.05 0.6 5.5 0.4 69.3

SF

(Parallel )1.24 1.7

3.5 0.1 56.3

SF(perpendicular )

2.5 2.5 55.6

Tested after 24 h water soaking

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by the US Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.

Technical ObjectivesProblem Statement:

In 2004, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps consumed approximately 144 million operational rations generating

66,718 tons of ration related waste.

Technical Objectives: Produce lightweight fiberboard materials, biodegradable polymer-

coated fiberboard and paperboard that can be converted to a valuable byproduct, compost

Produce environmentally friendly materials that meet the operational and performance requirements of combat ration packaging

Technical Approach

Lightweight and Compostable Packaging

Biodegradable Coatings(coated corrugated)

Biodegradable Fiberboard(soy protein adhesive)

Prepare and characterize coatings vs. different methods and substrates

Down select optimal materials through sample characterization

Fabricate shipping containers and evaluate performance

Prepare and optimizecomposite panels

Transition TechnologyTier III composting study

Tier I & IICompost studies

Produce and characterize coated fiberboard/paperboard

Fiberboard Manufacturing Process

Single Face Liner Double Face LinerMediumGlue Roll

Glue Roll

Heating Section Finished Sheets

Cooling Section

Cutting Section

Glue station - single face / liner join Finished sheets

Cutting/Scoring Wheels

Heating Section

Roll Station for MediumRoll Station for Liner

Corrugated Structures

55# liner / 30# WAM medium / 55# liner

69# liner / 30# WAM medium / 69# liner

72# liner / 30# WAM medium / 72# liner

MRE Containers

Regular Slotted Container

Weight – 1.22 lbsCompression Strength – 1327 lbs

Regular Slotted Container with Length Divider

Weight – 1.42 lbsCompression Strength – 1827 lbs

Regular Slotted Container with Insert

Weight – 1.64 lbsCompression Strength – 2568 lbs

Regular Slotted Container with Width Divider

Weight – 1.36 lbsCompression Strength – 2174 lbs

Solid Fiberboard Container

Weight – 2.36 lbsCompression Strength – 1665 lbs

Note: Compression data and weights based on 55# corrugated structure

R & D Efforts

• Compression Strength

• Bursting Strength

• Rough Handling

• Water/Moisture resistance

• Weight, Waste & Cube

• System Performance– Transport/Storage– Material Handling/Use– Disposal

Compression Testing of Fiberboard Containers

Objective: To perform compression test of MRE / UGR fiberboard containers

Background: Compression strength is the containers resistance to uniform applied external forces. The ability to carry a top load is affected by the structure of the container and the environment it encounters, and the ability of the inner packages/dunnage to help support the compressive load.

Results: Studies under standard lab conditions (50%RH and 23C) have shown that CAD samples have higher compression strength when compared to existing solid fiberboard containers. New studies will be conducted to analyze the affect of compression strength of production samples.

Unit Load Testing of Fiberboard Containers

Objective: To perform transportation test of MRE / UGR fiberboard containers

Background: Unit load performance plays a major role in protecting ration components and defines the logistic requirements needed to transport, handle and store combat rations. Optimizing performance under dynamic/static compression, shock and vibration can help absorb or divert energy away from the product and ultimately improve product performance and quality.

Results: Studies have shown that the prototype corrugated containers perform similarly to existing MRE rations under unit load compression and random vibration testing which simulates transportation activities.

Environmental Testing - Cold Weather Test of Fiberboard Containers

Objective: To subject fiberboard containers to cold weather climates

Background: The prototype corrugated and solid fiberboard containers were exposed to environmental conditions which included: high winds, snow and some rain/freezing conditions with an average low of 18F and an average high of 34F over the 27 test days. Several container designs and industrial adhesives were tested/inspected during the cold weather study.

Results: Studies from the cold weather test have shown that the corrugated containers and industrial adhesives maintain their performance under cold weather conditions. Since the cold weather study, the water resistant coatings have been optimized to better perform under wet environments.

Environmental Testing – Spray Test of Fiberboard Containers

Objective: To determine the water resistance of MRE / UGR containers

Background: The water spray test is used to establish the water resistance of shipping containers, by determining the ability of the container to protect the contents from water and high humidity. Performance in these environments must be achieved in order to maintain the compression strength required for combat ration storage and use.

Results: Results have shown that the coated corrugated containers actively repel water from the container. Studies are ongoing to determine the overall impact on compression strength at high humidity/wet conditions.

Weight Analysis of Fiberboard Containers

Objective: To conduct weight analysis of fiberboard containers

Background: The weight and volume of MRE rations has a major influence on the packaging supply chain and can impact logistic operations within the military distribution system. Weight reduction can improve operations within the supply chain and can dramatically reduce material consumption while at the same time lower costs incurred during procurement, manufacture, shipment and disposal.

Results: By optimizing the overall size and structure of the corrugated containers, studies have shown that weight reduction can be reduced by as much as 40% (1 lb) of the original packaging weight. This weight reduction can add up to over 3.6 million lbs per year based on average procurement.

Random Vibration testing of MRE corrugated containers

Unit load compression of MRE corrugated containers.

Cold weather testing of fiberboard containers

Test duration 27 days with an average high of 34F

4 hr rain test – corrugated fiberboard containers

4 hr rain test – 4 column stack of fiberboard containers

31

42

21

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Per

cen

t R

edu

cti

on

(%

)

55#RSC/Insert

55# WD 72#RSC/Insert

72# WD

Weight Reduction of Fiberboard Containers

BenefitsWeight Reduction

– 3.6 million lbs of packaging per year!

Material Reduction– 20%-40% fiber reduction vs. MRE

container

Compostable– Coatings and fiberboard containers

maintain compostability

Repulpable– New coatings allow fiberboard to be

reprocessed at the paper mill

Recyclable– Move packaging out of land filling

and into the recycling waste stream

Package Testing and Characterization

Results

Compression equipment for MRE / UGR analysis

Research and Development of Fiberboard Containers