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
Top Related