Premium
Comparison of various loose fill cushioning materials based on protective and environmental performance
Author(s) -
Singh S. Paul,
Chonhenchob Vanee,
Burgess Gary
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
packaging technology and science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.365
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1099-1522
pISSN - 0894-3214
DOI - 10.1002/pts.2770070504
Subject(s) - cushioning , expanded polystyrene , materials science , cushion , raw material , starch , composite material , volume (thermodynamics) , waste management , engineering , mechanical engineering , food science , chemistry , physics , organic chemistry , quantum mechanics
This paper compares various loose fill packaging materials based on the amount of material required for a given level of protection. A methodology developed to evaluate and compare package cushioning materials on the basis of environmental concerns relative to disposal and recycling is used to compare seven different loose fill materials. The materials compared include recycled expanded polystyrene (EPS), starch and paper based materials, wood shavings and popcorn. The shock level G was related to the amount of cushion material needed both by weight and by volume. The results show that starch‐based loose fill materials (Naturpack and Eco‐Foam) and Fiberflow showed the best protective performance and minimum material utilization by volume. 100% recycled EPS showed the best performance in terms of percent weight utilization. Other materials tested, like popcorn and wood shavings, showed poor material utilization.