Confronting Various Quality Perspectives of Paper Straws—Case Study with Generation Z
Source abstract
Abstract
This article provides answers to the question of how Generation Z perceives various quality characteristics in connection with paper straws. The aim of this study was to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of paper straws from three perspectives: intrinsic quality characteristics, sensory perception, and physical characteristics. A total of 215 young adults and 65 students aged up to 27 years took part in the field study and sensory analysis, respectively. The field survey revealed that Serbian Gen Z prefers and expects paper straws do not contribute to the flavor of the drink, have a rounded and dull edge, and not change their shape when dipped into the drink. The sensory panel was formed by selecting students based on the results of several sensory screening tests conducted in the initial phase. Sensory testing for the difference showed that the impact of paper straws of different diameters on flavor was limited, although it was confirmed that artificial saliva could easily coat the surfaces and penetrate the layers of the paper straws, resulting in a significant loss of firmness and a greater potential to adhere to the lips. No effects were found on the sweetness, sourness, pungency, and overall flavor of the soft drink. Viscosity was the only attribute that was affected. The soft drink was perceived as more viscous when using the narrower straw than when using the larger diameter straws. Artificial saliva and water were the liquids that had the greatest influence on the loss of firmness of the soaked straws. After 20 min of exposure to most of the liquids tested, the paper straws were found to lose over 75% of their firmness. Paper straws are more sustainable and have the potential to completely replace plastic straws. However, their physical properties, especially firmness, need to be further improved, considering that they can be soaked in liquids for more than 20 min when consuming various beverages.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative Human-Technology Interaction · Crafts, Textile, and Design
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. An integrated sustainability assessment of drinking straws10.1016/j.jece.2021.105527 ↗
2. EU (2022). European Green Deal: Putting an End to Wasteful Packaging, Boosting Reuse and Recycling, European Commission.
3. Household food waste in Serbia—Attitudes, quantities and global warming potential10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.400 ↗
4. EC (2019). Directive 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Off. J. Eur. Union, 189, 17.
5. EU (2021). Turning the Tide in Single-Use Plastics, European Union.
6. A sip of joy: Straw materials can influence emotional responses to, and sensory attributes of cold tea10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104090 ↗
7. An evaluation of alternative biodegradable and reusable drinking straws as alternatives to single-use plastic10.1111/1750-3841.15783 ↗
8. Evaluation of paper straws versus plastic straws: Development of a methodology for testing and understanding challenges for paper straws10.15376/biores.14.4.8345-8363 ↗
9. Hirschlag, A. (2023, September 15). Plastic or Paper? The Truth About Drinking Straws. BBC News, Available online: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231103-plastic-or-paper-the-truth-about-drinking-straws.
10. Fortune (2024). Paper Straw Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, by Material (Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper), by Product (Printed and Non-Printed), by Application (Foodservice and Household), and Regional Forecast, 2024–2032, Fortune Business Insights.
11. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made10.1126/sciadv.1700782 ↗
12. Moy, C.-H., Tan, L.-S., Shoparwe, N.F., Shariff, A.M., and Tan, J. (2021). Comparative study of a life cycle assessment for bio-plastic straws and paper straws: Malaysia’s perspective. Processes, 9.10.3390/pr9061007 ↗
13. In pursuit of environmentally friendly straws: A comparative life cycle assessment of five straw material options in South Africa10.1007/s11367-020-01786-w ↗
14. Life cycle assessment of environmental impact of disposable drinking straws: A trade-off analysis with marine litter in the United States10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153016 ↗
15. Legislation, standards and diagnostics as a backbone of food safety assurance in Serbia10.1108/BFJ-08-2013-0228 ↗
16. Republika Srbija (2018). Srbija i Agenda 2030—Mapiranje Nacionalnog Strateškog Okvira u Odnosu na Ciljeve Održivog Razvoja, V.R.S.-R.s.z.j., Editor Republika Srbija.
17. Food hygiene practices in different food establishments10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.10.035 ↗
18. Restaurant consumers repeat patronage: A service quality concern10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.008 ↗
19. Cross-cultural consumer perceptions of service quality in restaurants10.1108/NFS-04-2016-0052 ↗
20. Consumer acceptability and monetary value perception of iced coffee beverages vary with drinking conditions using different types of straws or lids10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109849 ↗
21. Miller, J.L., and Lu, W. (2018). Gen Z Is Set to Outnumber Millennials Within a Year, Bloomberg.
22. Su, C.-H., Tsai, C.-H., Chen, M.-H., and Lv, W.Q. (2019). US sustainable food market generation Z consumer segments. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11133607 ↗
23. The role of social media influencer on brand switching of millennial and Gen Z: A study of food-beverage products
24. Nowoczesne technologie—Wyzwanie dla współczesnych konsumentów
25. New Technologies in the Ecological Behavior of Generation Z10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.256 ↗
26. FirstInsight (2021). The State of Consumers Spending: Gen Z Influencing All Generations to Make Sustainability-First Purchasing Decisions, The Baker Retailing Center at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
27. More than just a utensil: The influence of drinking straw size on perceived consumption10.1007/s11002-013-9225-6 ↗
28. (2014). Sensory Analysis—General Guidelines for the Selection, Training and Monitoring of Selected Assessors and Expert Sensory Assessors (Standard No. ISO 8586:2014).
29. (2019). Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Sequential Analysis (Standard No. ISO 16820:2019).
30. (2006). Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Ranking (Standard No. ISO 8587:2006).
31. Varela, P., and Ares, G. (2014). Classical Descriptive Analysis. Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.10.1201/b16853 ↗
32. Varela, P., and Ares, G. (2014). Flash Profile. Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.10.1201/b16853 ↗
33. EC (2011). European Regulation No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on Plastic Materials and Articles Intended to Come into Contact with Food, O.J.o.t.E.U., Editor European Commision.
34. (2005). Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Paired Comparison Test (Standard No. ISO 5495:2005).
35. (2021). Sensory Analysis—Methodology—Triangle Test (Standard No. ISO 4120:2021).
36. Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.023 ↗
37. COVID-19 pandemic effects on food safety—Multi-country survey study10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107800 ↗
38. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: An overview10.1186/s13561-015-0077-z ↗
39. Phospholipid-Cellulose Interactions: Insight from Atomistic Computer Simulations for Understanding the Impact of Cellulose-Based Materials on Plasma Membranes10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b07765 ↗
40. Senate of the University of Belgrade (2016). The Code of Professional Ethics of the University of Belgrade. Off. Gaz. Univ. Belgrade, 193, 16.