Lightweight, Compostable, And Biodegradable Fiberboard

1
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
University Donghai Wang, Department of Bio
Agriculture Engineering, Kansas State
University Richard Farrell University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Compost Studies for Biodegradable Fiberboard
Study of Soy Protein Adhesives for Biodegradable
Fiberboard
Research and Development of Fiberboard Containers
Introduction Overview

• Background
• The development of biodegradable fiberboard
  is being researched by the Department of
  Defenses 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 Methods
• Soybean 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

• 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).

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 II Composting
Materials Methods
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).

• 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

• 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.

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 All SPAs were prepared at 5 solid content, and stirred prior to applications All SPAs were prepared at 5 solid content, and stirred prior to applications All SPAs were prepared at 5 solid content, and stirred prior to applications All SPAs were prepared at 5 solid content, and stirred prior to applications
Bioreactors maintained in a controlled
environment chamber at 52 2C. 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.
Formula Area density Thickness TSH MOR Wet TSH Wet MOR
Formula 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

• Light weight biodegradable fiberboard (LBF)
  preparation

Package Testing and Characterization
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 (50RH 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.

• Tier II Composting - targets mineralization as a
  measure of a materials 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.

Figure 1. Net mineralization of the positive
control (cellulose) and test materials. All test
runs performed with the compost kept at 52 1C
and 55 5 water-holding capacity.
Figure 2. Disintegration of the EVCO sample
during a 42-d, bench-scale composting test. The
compost was kept at 52 1C and 55 5
water-holding capacity.
Bioreactors maintained in a controlled
environment chamber at 52 2C. 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).

• 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).

• 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)

Discussion
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 140198 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 gt0.60, 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.

• 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

Test materials were ground to a powder, dried to
a constant weight in a convection oven (50C 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
Results
Tier I Composting
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
Treatment Area 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
Acknowledgements
Time (d) - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - - - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - - - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - - - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - - - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - - - - - - - Weight Loss () - - - - -
Time (d) V2S V3C MRE-liner MRE-box EVCO SF
7 0.76 0.64 1.11 1.72 1.06 2.40
14 4.84 3.39 1.50 8.57 7.56 8.83
21 8.59 6.48 9.03 11.17 10.92 11.59
28 12.11 9.38 10.09 12.91 18.43 17.04
35 17.81 12.84 14.07 20.71 18.43 15.35
42 18.91 14.13 16.45 24.03 17.71 15.30
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.
Table 5 Comparison of water soaking properties of
LBF with SF
Area density g/cm2 Thickness mm 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 ) 1.24 1.7 2.5 2.5 55.6
Tested after 24 h water soaking Tested after 24 h water soaking Tested after 24 h water soaking Tested after 24 h water soaking Tested after 24 h water soaking Tested after 24 h water soaking
References

• Benefits
• Weight 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

Random Vibration testing of MRE corrugated
containers
Cold weather testing of fiberboard containers
4 hr rain test corrugated fiberboard containers
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.
Table 3 Spell out of paper sheet prepared with
pulp and chemically treated CFF with 0.1 SPA-1
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 pH10 treated chicken feather fiber M-CFF, 40mmol/L 2-mercaptoethanol solution treated chicken feather fiber F-CFF, 88wb formic acid treated chicken feather fiber. U-CFF, untreated chicken feather fiber SBH-CFF, 6g/L sodium bisulfate solution with pH10 treated chicken feather fiber M-CFF, 40mmol/L 2-mercaptoethanol solution treated chicken feather fiber F-CFF, 88wb formic acid treated chicken feather fiber. U-CFF, untreated chicken feather fiber SBH-CFF, 6g/L sodium bisulfate solution with pH10 treated chicken feather fiber M-CFF, 40mmol/L 2-mercaptoethanol solution treated chicken feather fiber F-CFF, 88wb formic acid treated chicken feather fiber.
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.
Acknowledgement This research was supported by
the US Department of Defense Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program.
Unit load compression of MRE corrugated
containers.
Test duration 27 days with an average high of 34F
4 hr rain test 4 column stack of fiberboard
containers
Compression equipment for MRE / UGR analysis