journal article·2026-03-26

A comparison analysis of the paperboard properties: bagasse versus recycled paperboards

Reza Beiranvand, Hossein Gharebeiglou, Elaheh Gharehkhani

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract In this study, we examined the physical, chemical, and microbial properties of two types of industrial paperboards, with the same initial basis weight (Grammage = 180 g/m 2 ). One type was made from bagasse (Sugarcane stalk residue), while the other was recycled. Following the guidelines set by the International Organization for Standardization, we employed various apparatuses to analyze the similarities and differences between the two paperboards, with the results undergoing statistical analysis. The findings showed that both types of paperboards met the quality indicators established by the standards of the International Organization for Standardization. Notably, the bagasse-based paperboard exhibited superior microbial properties, hydrophilicity, water absorption, flexibility, folding endurance, tear resistance, and stiffness compared to recycled paperboard. Conversely, the recycled paperboard demonstrated higher tensile strength than the bagasse paperboard. Overall, the results indicate that both types of paperboards provide viable solutions to various challenges in sustainable packaging and could help address issues within the food packaging industry.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing · Recycling and Waste Management Techniques · Advanced Cellulose Research Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry , Lorestan University , Khorramabad , 44316-68151 , Iran

Department of Chemistry , Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University , Saveh , Iran

References (15)

Show source-provided references
1. Aguilar‐Rivera, N. (2016). Sustainable sugarcane bagasse cellulose for papermaking. Adv. Eng. Mater.: 121–163, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119242567.ch4.10.1002/9781119242567.ch4 ↗
2. Armengot-Carbó, B., Oliver-Villanueva, J.V., Lorenzo-Saéz, E., and Lerma-Arce, V. (2025). Sustainable environmental analysis of wooden boxes for fruit and vegetable packaging and transport in comparison with corrugated paperboard boxes. Sustainability 17: 557, https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020557.10.3390/su17020557 ↗
3. El-Sakhawy, M., Abd El-Sayed, E.S., and El-Sakhawy, M.A.M. (2020). Non-wood fibers as raw material for pulp and paper industry. Nord. Pulp Pap Res. J. 35: 215–230, https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2019-0064.10.1515/npprj-2019-0064 ↗
4. Engin, M., Yılgör, N., and Atik, C. (2021). Ageing mechanisms of the papers with zeolite and PCC fillers. Nord. Pulp Pap Res. J. 36: 284–296, https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2020-0090.10.1515/npprj-2020-0090 ↗
5. Garbowski, T. (2024). ʻRevolutionizing corrugated board production and optimization with artificial intelligenceʼ. BioResources 19: 2003–2006, https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.19.2.2003-2006.10.15376/biores.19.2.2003-2006 ↗
6. Garbowski, T., Cornaggia, A., Gajewski, T., and Knitter-Piątkowska, A. (2023). ʻInfluence of humidity and temperature on mechanical properties of corrugated board–numerical investigationʼ. BioResources 18: 7490–7509, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202307.1073.v1.10.15376/biores.18.4.7490-7509 ↗
7. Hao, F., Zhang, Z., Hu, D., Liu, W., and Chen, X. (2024). ʻNatural plant fiber‐based materials for packaging Applications–A review of recent innovations and developmentsʼ. Adv. Mater. Technol. 10: 2401020, https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.202401020.10.1002/admt.202401020 ↗
8. Indunil, G., M. and Bandara, R. (2022). ʻFood packaging from recycled papers: Chemical, physical, optical properties and heavy metal migrationʼ. Heliyon 8: e10959, ‏https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10959.10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10959 ↗
9. Kohli, D., Loushigam, G., Richa, R., and Bajad, R. (2024). ʻRecent advances in food packaging for shelf life of foodʼ, food production, diversity, and safety under climate change. Springer Cham: 273–284, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51647-4_23.10.1007/978-3-031-51647-4_23 ↗
10. Lv, S., Mu, Y., Liu, J., Tong, J., Liu, L., Wang, J., and Wei, D. (2025). Recent advances in research on biomass‐based food packaging film materials. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 24: e70093, https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70093.10.1111/1541-4337.70093 ↗
11. Marc, R.A., Stroescu, M., and Mureşan, C.C. (2024). A comprehensive review on sugarcane bagasse in food packaging: properties, applications, and future prospects. Hop Med. Plants 32: 169–184, https://doi.org/10.15835/hpm.v32i1-2.15024.10.15835/hpm.v32i1-2.15024 ↗
12. Mikhailidi, A., Tikhomirova, E., Aleksandrov, D., and Tofanica, B.M. (2024). Evaluation of recycled paperboard properties and characteristics. Appl. Sci. 14: 1661‏, https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041661.10.3390/app14041661 ↗
13. Pirsa, S. (2024). Cellulose-based cartons: production methods, modification, and smart/active packaging. Cellulose 31: 3421–3445, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-024-05826-8.10.1007/s10570-024-05826-8 ↗
14. Sarlak, N. and Beiranvand, R. (2023a). Electrospun nanofiber mat of graphene/mesoporous silica composite for wastewater treatment. Mater. Chem. Phys. 309: 128311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.128311.10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.128311 ↗
15. Sarlak, N. and Beiranvand, R. (2023b). Application of PVDF/rPG/Silica-g-PS nanocomposite to reinforce LDPE films. Mater. Today Commun. 34: 105200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.105200.10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.105200 ↗