Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (1): 10-22
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Universidad Autónoma de Baja California ISSN 2594-1925
Volumen 7 (1): e253. Enero-Marzo, 2024. https://doi.org/10.37636/recit.v7n1e253
1 ISSN: 2594-1925
Research article
Development and redesign of flexible packaging under
sustainability criteria
Desarrollo y rediseño de envases flexibles bajo criterios de sostenibilidad
Johnatan Gabriel BernalCarrillo1, Fernando Sebastián Chiwo-González2, Ana del Carmen Susunaga
Notario3, Mayra del ÁngelMonroy2, Hugo ArcosGutiérrez4, Isaías Emmanuel GarduñoOlvera4
1POSGRADO CIATEQ A.C., Centro de Tecnología Avanzada, Circuito de la Industria Poniente Lote 11, Manzana 3, No. 11, Col.
Parque Industrial Ex Hacienda Doña Rosa, Lerma de Villada, 52004, Estado de México, México.
2CIATEQ A.C., Centro de Tecnología Avanzada, Eje 126 No. 225, San Luis Potosí, 78395, San Luis Potosí, México.
3CONAHCYTICAT Instituto de Ciencias Aplicadas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito escolar
s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Col UNAM, CU, Delegación Coyoacán, 04510, Ciudad de México, México.
4CONAHCYTCIATEQ A.C., Centro de Tecnología Avanzada, Eje 126 No. 225, San Luis Potosí, 78395, San Luis Potosí,
México.
Corresponding author: Isaías Emmanuel Garduño Olvera, CONAHCYT-CIATEQ A.C., Centro de Tecnología Avanzada, Eje 126 No. 225, San
Luis Potosí, 78395, San Luis Potosí, México. E-mail: isaias.garduno@ciateq.mx. ORCID: 0000-0002-8944-7954.
Received: June 7, 2023 Accepted: January 9, 2024 Published: January 18, 2024
Abstract.- The circular economy and sustainable development are critical issues today, given the growing environmental pollution
caused by solid waste, especially plastics. Furthermore, plastic waste has raised significant social concerns and alerted plastic
product designers. Therefore, developing or redesigning plastic products in the flexible packaging industry is imperative to ensure
their recyclability at the end of their life cycle. It is necessary to ensure that the mechanical and barrier properties of the ecological
plastic packaging remain intact for specific uses. The current study aims to redesign flexible packaging, focusing on providing the
mechanical and barrier properties of the packaging suitable for food industry applications, thus offering a solution through new
design proposals that allow the development of sustainable and flexible packaging, emphasizing material reduction and recyclability.
This study assessed and compared the mechanical properties of the proposed packaging with those of existing products. The results
demonstrated the feasibility of reducing plastic film thickness or eliminating layers in a tri-laminated structure and transitioning to
a bi-laminated structure. This adjustment did not compromise the mechanical and barrier properties; the oxygen barrier remained
at 35.39 cc/m2*day, and the humidity stood at 0.57 mg/m2*day. This investigation led to a 26.48% reduction in the raw material
consumption of laminated coils and 12.68% in Doypack type packaging used in food applications. Consequently, the decreased
material usage and adoption of monomaterial structures significantly minimized the environmental impact of plastic waste
contamination due to the possibility of mechanically recycling the final product.
Keywords: Circular economy; Sustainable development; Recyclability; Monomaterial; Flexible packaging.
Resumen.- La economía circular y el desarrollo sostenible son temas críticos hoy en día, dada la creciente contaminación ambiental
provocada por los residuos sólidos, especialmente los plásticos. Además, los residuos plásticos han generado importantes
preocupaciones sociales y han alertado a los diseñadores de productos plásticos. Por lo tanto, desarrollar o rediseñar productos
plásticos en la industria del embalaje flexible es imperativo para garantizar su reciclabilidad al final de su ciclo de vida. Es necesario
garantizar que las propiedades mecánicas y de barrera de los envases de plástico ecológicos permanezcan intactas para usos
específicos. El presente estudio tiene como objetivo rediseñar los envases flexibles, enfocándose en proporcionar las propiedades
mecánicas y de barrera del envase adecuadas para aplicaciones de la industria alimentaria, ofreciendo así una solución a través
de nuevas propuestas de diseño que permitan el desarrollo de envases sostenibles y flexibles, enfatizando en la reducción de
materiales y la reciclabilidad. Este estudio evaluó y comparó las propiedades mecánicas del embalaje propuesto con las de los
productos existentes. Los resultados demostraron la viabilidad de reducir el espesor de la película plástica o eliminar capas en una
estructura trilaminada y realizar la transición a una estructura bilaminada. Este ajuste no comprometió las propiedades mecánicas
y de barrera; la barrera de oxígeno se mantuvo en 35.39 cc/m2*día y la humedad se situó en 0.57 mg/m2*día. Esta investigación
condujo a una reducción del 26.48% en el consumo de materia prima de bobinas laminadas y un 12.68% en empaque tipo doypack
utilizadas en aplicaciones alimentarias. En consecuencia, la disminución del uso de materiales y la adopción de estructuras
monomateriales minimizaron significativamente el impacto ambiental de la contaminación por desechos plásticos debido a la
posibilidad de reciclar mecanicamente el producto final.
Palabras clave: Economía circular; Desarrollo sostenible; Reciclabilidad; Monomaterial; Envases flexibles.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
2
1. Introduction
The daily use of plastic has increased in recent
years because of its multiple characteristics, such
as long life, cost-effectiveness, versatility, and
lightweight nature [1]. It is used in different
industrial sectors: food packaging, consumer
products, electrical, electronics, aerospace,
construction, transportation, biomedical,
automotive, and textiles [2]. Similarly, there has
been an increase in the generation of low-
biodegradability plastic waste, causing various
environmental problems [3]. According to
research, the production of plastics has risen
exponentially from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to
448 million tons in 2015 [4]. Data on solid waste
management indicate that a staggering 8 million
tons of plastic annually enter the ocean and
pollute rivers [5]. Failure to address this
environmental issue could lead to an alarming
projection: by 2050, the expected quantity of
plastic in the sea will surpass the fish population
[6].
Plastics have many applications in daily life and
can be recycled many times [7]. The current
problem derives from inadequate waste
management and handling [8]. The impact of
plastic on the day-to-day lives of humanity has
been of such magnitude that today, it is difficult
to find products that do not contain some polymer
in their structure or packaging [9]. Several factors
have contributed to the global environmental
problem related to solid waste management.
Therefore, addressing a few issues can help
improve the preparedness and overall
effectiveness of waste management efforts[10].
Unfortunately, however, these problems lead to a
need for more knowledge about alternative
technologies for solid waste management.
The objective of the circular economy is to
preserve the value of materials and products by
prolonging their useful life as much as possible
and preventing them from being discarded in
nature [11]. Reintegrating waste into the
productive reuse system minimizes waste
generation and achieves a closed life cycle. The
circular economy offers a solution to promote
sustainable development, expecting to
effectively mitigate adverse environmental
impacts by implementing an economic system
that reduces inputs of resources, waste and
emissions, and energy losses [12].
A product's design and development stage is
crucial because it seeks to reintegrate the plastic
resource into the product’s productive system.
Otherwise, all the plastics or packaging
generated with synthetic polymers will end up in
the trash, wasting a resource that could become
the same again or some other product [13].
Consequently, the redesign of products focused
on an environmental and sustainable
development concept, as well as preserving the
main properties that packaging needs, is of the
highest importance, specifically in single-use
plastics and packaging food primaries [14].
Although petrochemicals are the primary
materials used to make most commercial
polymer packaging, the plastic industry
continues to experience increased production,
meaning plastic waste grows yearly. Polymers
are known for their high barrier properties [15].
However, while synthetic polymers exhibit gas,
chemical, biological, or microbial resistance, the
same properties can also make them extremely
difficult to degrade at the final disposal stage of
the product life cycle [16]. Thus, the durability of
synthetic polymers is a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, these materials are solid and
long-lasting; on the other hand, improper
disposal and lack of recycling have resulted in
significant environmental contamination.
Irresponsible manufacturing practices in the
plastic industry have only exacerbated this issue.
Therefore, plastic product designers must
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
3
consider the end-of-life stage of their products
and ensure that the industry can easily recycle
them. This eco-design concept integrates
environmental considerations into the initial
design phase. This approach can lead to better
waste minimization plans and a more sustainable
material value chain. The recycling industry
relies heavily on recycled plastics; eco-design is
critical for product improvement and a circular
economy. The environmental benefit of circular
packaging depends on the design characteristics
(such as materials used and packaging
appearance) and the consumer's willingness to
buy these products [17]. A study revealed that
consumers are willing to pay more for
sustainable packaging to reduce solid waste and
for recycled and recyclable products, indicating a
preference for environmentally friendly options.
Therefore, bioplastic materials will replace fossil
petroleum-based materials in the coming
decades.
The main objective of recycling is to conserve
energy and raw materials for the well-being of
health and ecosystems [18]. The ASTM defines
biodegradable packaging as one that is capable of
decomposing into carbon dioxide, methane,
water, inorganic compounds, or biomass, being
the dominant mechanism of decomposition of the
enzymatic action of microorganisms and the
resulting products can be obtained and measured
in a determined period. Biopolymers can solve
the problems posed by plastics because they
degrade quickly in the environment and mimic
the properties of conventional polymers [19].
The need to replace petroleum-derived plastics
with polymers of natural origin is logical because
the production of plastics is unsustainable (due to
environmental problems). Different types of
biodegradable materials exist, such as those
entirely biodegradable of natural origin,
photodegradable, semi-biodegradable, and
synthetic. Biopolymers from manufactured
renewable resources must be biodegradable and
compostable to act as fertilizers and soil
conditioners [20].
Plastic degradation involves irreversible physical
changes, including discoloration, loss of shine,
cracks, stickiness, erosion, reduced tensile
strength, and elongation. Chemically, it entails
chain breakage, crosslinking reactions, and
alterations in lateral substituents [21]. Some of
the fundamental aspects of the processes that
involve sustainable plastics include the
photodegradation of plastic materials [22],
thermal degradation of polymers [23], chemical
degradation of polymers [24], compostable
polymers [25], and recycling in plastics [26, 27]
Packaging is a critical food manufacturing and
distribution operation [28]. Its main functions are
protection (protection against physical, chemical,
and biological changes), containment (facilitates
transportation and distribution throughout the
supply chain), communication (provides product
information, ingredients, weight, and expiration),
and convenience (allowing the consumer to
prepare food in less time, increasing the demand
for fresh, processed and fast foods) [29]. One
crucial task is to reduce the environmental impact
of food packaging; thus, several strategies have
been implemented to eliminate unnecessary
packaging. Food packaging materials are mainly
glass, metal, paper, and plastic [30]. Plastics are
classified as thermosets and thermoplastics, with
the latter being the primary packaging material in
the food industry [31]. At a global level, various
modifications have been proposed in the safety
regulations for this type of packaging, which
focus on being eco-friendly, seeking the
biodegradability and sustainability of packaging
materials, and allowing quality food to be offered
[32]. Thus, it develops new packaging
technologies that surpass the essential functions
of packaging [33].
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
4
Flexible packaging is an emerging packaging
technique that exploits the particular
functionalities of several polymers to develop
improved packaging in terms of protection and
durability. A monolayer of polymer is unlikely to
cover all food packaging needs, including
containment (strength and sealability), protection
and preservation (barrier to moisture, gas, light,
taste, and odor), and machinability (tensile
strength, softening, slip, stiffness, flexibility, and
heat resistance), providing cost-effective and safe
food. The flexible packaging industry combines
various materials, including different polymers,
to produce laminations that are not recyclable.
Therefore, the engineering function for a flexible
packaging operation must design products and
processes that deal with both challenges of "fit-
for-use" and "fit-to-make" [34].
Consequently, it is essential to consider
redesigning the packaging to incorporate
recyclable materials and take some actions to
achieve the goal of sustainable packaging. One
such effort is to use plastic laminations made
from a single polymer or monolayer, simplifying
the recycling process. Moreover, implementing
laminations that use compostable or
biodegradable films is highly recommended, as
this helps reduce plastic waste and promotes an
eco-friendly approach to packaging.
Flexible packaging designers reduce raw
material consumption and optimize resource
usage in mass production. They strived to
maintain the essential properties that ensure the
product's quality, extend its useful life, and
facilitate transport and distribution. A necessary
attribute of flexible packaging is its ability to
form thinner, lighter, and more compact
packages [35]. Furthermore, flexible packaging
uses multilayer films of immiscible materials
such as polyethylene (PE), polyethylene
terephthalate (PET), and nylon [36]. Within the
food industry, petroleum-derived plastics such as
PET, low- and high-density polyethylene (LDPE
and HDPE, respectively), polypropylene (PP),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS)
are the most popular packaging materials. Using
biopolymer materials is a sustainable alternative
to synthetic polymers, mainly because of their
biodegradability, agro-industrial waste (biomass)
utilization, and renewable raw materials. These
biopolymeric materials can also be formed as
composites and laminated to improve their
properties [37].
The flexible packaging industry faces a
significant challenge in redesigning all
packaging to be optimally recycled or
reintegrated into the earth in an environmentally
friendly manner. Packaging films made of
synthetic polymers are nonbiodegradable and
cause severe ecological problems [38], [39].
Flexible packaging today has an opportunity for
improvement; when thinking about a design that
considers circular economy criteria, the
challenge for designers is to obtain an ecological
package that retains the essential properties it
requires [40]. Multilayer food packaging faces
significant challenges because of the
incorporation of multiple materials, including
polymers, paper, aluminum, and organic or
inorganic coatings [41]. Designing and
manufacturing flexible packaging with diverse
polymers creates a barrier to recycling.
Recycling such packaging becomes complex and
costly because of the bonding of plastic films
through adhesives during the lamination process.
Moreover, separating these layers poses a
significant challenge. Consequently, it is crucial
to develop flexible packaging solutions that
employ a single polymer to enhance recyclability
or explore alternative biodegradable or
compostable materials. Therefore, this study
proposes a flexible packaging design
incorporating biodegradable materials and
monomaterial laminations, making it highly
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
5
recyclable. Here, it includes a methodology that
compares the mechanical and barrier properties
of the current multi-polymeric design with a
thinner, mono-material structure. In designing
biodegradable flexible packaging, it is essential
to characterize the properties of the packaging to
determine its capabilities. The main objective of
the research is to contribute to reducing the
environmental impact caused by pollution from
plastic waste. This is achieved by promoting
recycling through reducing raw materials and
redesigning the current multi-layer and multi-
material flexible packaging with sustainability
criteria. These criteria include integrating
materials of the same polymeric origin, reducing
lamination layers, and decreasing the thickness
and weight of the packaging.
The research also emphasizes ensuring that the
packaging, at the end of its life cycle, can be
reintegrated into the value chain as a raw material
using mechanical recycling without
compromising its physical, mechanical, and
barrier properties. As mentioned in the literature,
a design based on recycling could potentially
reduce the use of flexible packaging with
multiple layers [42].
Furthermore, reducing the thickness and base
weight of the packaging leads to savings in raw
material consumption and decreased production
costs. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze the
mechanical, physical, and barrier properties of
multi-material and multi-layer packaging,
comparing them with the proposed designs
incorporating sustainability criteria. This
analysis is necessary to determine if it is possible
to maintain optimal levels of packaging
properties in the food sector.
These sustainable measures reduce consumption
and manufacturing processes and contribute to a
decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, lower
water consumption, and reduced use of energy.
Currently, a significant challenge lies in finding
specific applications in packaging within the
food sector that allow for the implementation of
designs based on sustainability criteria. It is
essential to consider the shelf life requirements
for the product to be packaged during the design
process.
2.- Methodology
In this study, the ecological proposal of two
different types of plastic packaging (laminated
coil and Doypack) was carried out. A
comparative study of the commercial structures
was carried out, as well as the structure of the
ecological proposal of the following mechanical
properties: a) thickness, b) weight, c) lamination
force, d) sealing strength, e) resistance tensile
strength, f) percentage of elongation, g)
coefficient of friction, h) oxygen and i) water
vapor permeability of laminated coil and
Doypack plastic containers. Finally, the
mechanical resistance was evaluated through
destructive tests against impact, atmospheric
pressure, and airtightness in the Doypack-type
plastic containers.
2.1.- Proposals for the redesign of flexible
packaging
Numerous sustainable design projects and
initiatives have emerged with the intention of
reducing the environmental impact caused by the
flexible packaging industry. These endeavors
focus on implementing design methodologies
within industrial settings to foster the
development of environmentally friendly
products. This framework assesses the physical
and mechanical characteristics of various plastic
laminates and presents recommended
enhancement measures.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
6
2.1.2.- Reduction of lamination layers in
trilaminate structure for flexible packaging in
the food sector in laminated coil
2.1.2.1. Processes to obtain flexible laminated
coil and Doypack packaging
Laminated coils were used in the flexible
packaging industry to form a package while
filling it with the product. The processes used in
the development of the laminated reel in flexible
packaging are described as follows: It is essential
to highlight that there are processes preceding the
production of the laminated coil, such as the
plastic film extrusion processes, but for this case,
they are not taken into account since the coil
production process already includes plastic films
extruded A) obtaining a reel with an image
referring to the product to be packaged, this
consisted of printing on a plastic film by
rotogravure, the color selection for the generation
of the image (CMYK) 10 nitrocellulose-based
polymeric inks were used, diluted in ethyl acetate
at a speed of 150 m/min. The printed plastic
substrate was left to rest for four hours so that the
ink would polymerize completely and thus
guarantee its correct functionality. B) In the
lamination process, two plastic films were joined
with an acrylic-based polymeric adhesive, which
was diluted with ethyl acetate with its catalyst for
lamination at a speed of 250 m/min. It was left to
stand for 8 hours. C) Cutting process: this was
done through an unwinder and blades; the coil's
width is 395 mm, and the outer diameter is 350
mm.
Doypack packaging: Like the laminated coil, the
process begins considering that the plastic films
are already extruded as raw material. The plastic
film was manufactured using the rotogravure
printing process (it is the same as the previous
one), capturing the image of the product to be
packaged, then forming was carried out, in which
folds were generated through a laminated coil,
sealing the sides and the bottom with hot jaws.
The sealing temperature for creating the package
was 180-220 °C, and the jaw contact time was 0.5
s.
A proposal to reduce the environmental impact of
plastics in the flexible packaging industry is to
reduce raw material consumption and eco-
design. As shown in Table 1, coil packaging for
the food sector has a trilaminate structure with
three substrates of different polymeric origins:
polypropylene as a printing substrate, metallic
polyester as a substrate to provide mechanical
resistance, and polyethylene as a sealing
substrate. Therefore, it must meet specific quality
requirements to ensure the packaging is suitable
for the intended application.
Table 1. Characteristics of the lamination structure for coil packaging for the food sector
Actual structure
Thickness
(micron)
Basis weight
(g/m2)
Variation
(%)
Natural BOPP (bi-
oriented polypropylene)
20
18.1
10
Ink
3
3.0
5
Adhesive
3
3.0
5
Metallic polyester
12
16.8
10
Adhesive
3
3.0
5
Low-density
polyethylene
40
38.4
10
Total
81
82.3
10
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
7
The methodology proposed to work on
improving weight reduction through the
application of lamination layers and a trilaminate
structure in flexible coil packaging. Therefore,
the proposal suggests using a bilaminate and
trilaminate structure in coil food packaging, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Bilaminate structure proposed in flexible packaging of the food sector in coil
Proposal structure
Basis weight
(gr/m2)
Variation
(%)
Natural BOPP (bi-oriented
polypropylene)
18.1
10
Ink
3.0
5
Adhesive
3.0
5
Metalic CPP
(polypropylene cast)
36.4
10
Total
60.5
10
The proposed structure significantly reduces raw
materials and lamination processes, saving
machine and adhesive time, among other
benefits, and contributes to sustainable
development by using polypropylene as the only
polymeric material. In addition, the latter makes
it a monomaterial proposal, making the recycling
of the product more feasible.
The tests carried out to verify the functionality of
the packaging (laminated coil), both the current
packaging and the ecological proposal, were as
follows. It should be noted that these tests allow
to check if the packaging is functional for the
specific application. The tests will be carried out
on the two packaging options in quintuplicate,
seeking to compare and verify if the properties
are unaffected when changing materials. The
mechanical properties evaluated are described
below:
a) Thickness determination: This test was
carried out with a Mitutoyo digital
micrometer to measure the thickness of
each plastic film or plastic laminate.
(applicable regulations ASTM D6988
[43])
b) Weight determination: Obtaining the
weight of each plastic film or plastic
laminate and applications of adhesives in
lamination or inks was carried out with an
analytical balance.
c) Lamination Force: Determines the
property of two adhesively bonded plastic
films by using a universal testing machine
to simulate the peeling of the films by
holding them by a corner until they break
or crumble. The MECMESIN Multitest
2.5-I brand universal testing machine is
used to measure mechanical properties
and obtain stress-strain graphs.
(applicable regulations ASTM F88
Method A [44])
d) Sealing strength: The polyethylene was
sealed at 150 degrees Celsius, and then,
with a universal testing machine, it was
checked whether the seal came off or the
sheets broke. (applicable regulations
ASTM F88 Method A [45])
e) Tensile strength and percentage of
elongation: The mechanical properties of
plastic films or plastic laminates were
analyzed using a stress-strain graph, in
which a specimen was obtained and
exposed to a tensile force until it reached
the break. (applicable regulations ASTM
D882 [46])
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
8
f) Friction coefficient: a slip property that
indicates the processability of the film in
a packaging forming machine lacking
methodology. (applicable regulations
ASTM D-2578-09 [47])
g) Oxygen and water vapor permeability
Oxygen and moisture barrier properties
are measured to ensure that the product to
be packaged will meet the time and
characteristics required on the sales line.
(applicable regulations ASTM D3985
[48], ASTM F1249 [49])
h) Destructive drop test criterion: The
destructive test consisted of filling the
container with product, then the flexible
packaging was dropped in free fall at a
height of 1 meter. It is essential to the
perfect seal of the packaging. The test
evaluated the capacity of the container to
resist three falls in different positions:
vertical, horizontal, and random, and the
container must remain sealed entirely
without any breakage or damage after
three falls.
Destructive drop test criterion: In the
experimental setup, the sealing of the product
procedure is conducted using bespoke sealing
equipment. This custom apparatus features
precision-engineered steel jaws carefully
designed to ensure optimal performance and
reliability throughout the experimentation
process. The integration of resistance
thermometers adds a layer of accuracy to the
measurements, enabling the collection of precise
temperature data, which is crucial for the
comprehensive analysis of the sealing process.
Furthermore, pneumatic pressure equipment was
incorporated into the experimental framework,
providing a controlled and consistent application
of pressure during the sealing procedure. This
equipment has pressure regulation mechanisms
to guarantee uniformity and repeatability across
multiple trials. Including a seal time controller
further enhances the experimental control,
allowing for precise adjustment and monitoring
of the duration for which the sealing process is
maintained (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Methodology procedure corresponding to the drop test in flexible packaging (Doypack) A) Packaging filled with
product, B) Packaging sealing, C) Fall from a 1m high
Packaging tightness test by vacuum pressure:
The flexible container was vacuumed at 31 cmHg
(centimeters of mercury) for 60 seconds to
evaluate its tightness as established in ASTM
D3078-2 [60]. The test was carried out in
triplicate (see Fig. 2). The Packaging tightness
test by vacuum pressure was conducted within
the confines of a designed acrylic vacuum
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
9
chamber. The chamber, characterized by its
complete hermetic sealing, features dimensions
of 35x25x35 cm, ensuring a controlled and
standardized environment for the experimental
procedures. Using acrylic material not only
enhances transparency, allowing for real-time
observation of the internal processes but also
guarantees the integrity of the vacuum
conditions.
Integral to the functioning of this apparatus is a
robust 1-horsepower (1hp) motor engineered to
generate and maintain a vacuum within the
equipment. The applied vacuum ranges from 25
to 40 cmHg, a carefully selected parameter that
aligns with the specific requirements of the
experimental protocol. This motorized system
serves as the driving force behind the creation
and sustenance of the desired vacuum levels,
ensuring the precision and reproducibility of the
experimental outcomes.
Figure 2. Vacuum tightness test: Equipment employed in the trial included the vacuum pressure gauge and a package inside
for testing A) a Sample of packaging inside a vacuum chamber, B) a Manometer.
Air-pressure leak test for flexible packaging
(Doypack): the air pressure test is crucial to
ensure that the packaging has the necessary
mechanical strength to withstand various
conditions during storage and transportation.
This test was carried out by opening the container
and subjecting it to the air pressure machine. The
pressure gauge is then pressurized to 0.1 MPa for
60 seconds, ensuring the container does not break
or leak air (see Fig. 3). The testing procedure is
conducted using air pressure equipment designed
to assess the integrity of the packaging materials.
This apparatus, developed in-house, comprises a
system featuring two adjustable jaws that
facilitate the regulated introduction of air into the
packaging under scrutiny. The primary objective
of this apparatus is to systematically control the
applied air pressure within a defined range of
0.050.5 MPa. This controlled pressure is
accurately regulated using a pressure valve,
ensuring accuracy and reproducibility throughout
the experimental process.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
10
Figure 3. Air-pressure test in a flexible package. The package is pressurized to 0.1 MPa for 60 seconds, ensuring no rupture or
leak of air A) Manometer and B) Air pressure packaging sample.
Statistical analysis: Each test was carried out in
quintuplicate except for the mechanical resistance
tests (carried out in triplicate), both from the
commercial container and the proposal. The data are
expressed as the mean ± the standard error of the
mean, *p˂0.05 after the t-student test of independent
samples.
2.1.3- Redesign of flexible packaging in a
doypack format with a three-layer and multi-
polymeric structure to a mono-material using
polyethylene as a base polymer
The actual formulation corresponds to the
composition of the container structure for the
Doypack format using the materials detailed in Table
3.
Table 3. Tri-laminate structure characteristics for a flexible package (Doypack)
Actual structure
Thickness
(micron)
Basis weight
(g/m2)
Variation
(%)
Natural Polyester
12
16.8
10
Ink
3
3.0
5
Adhesive
3
3.0
5
Natural Polyester
12
16.8
10
Adhesive
3
3.0
5
Low-density polyethylene
75
72.0
10
Total
108
114.6
10
Table 4 presents the characteristics of the
proposed new structure, which is expected to
maintain the mechanical resistance of Doypack-
type containers. This lamination aims to achieve
the desired gloss and adequate sealability without
compromising the mechanical resistance of the
flexible packaging. Destructive tests will
evaluate the mechanical resistance. Therefore, it
is advisable to use a bilaminate and
monomaterial structure.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
11
Table 4. Bilaminate and monomaterial structure characteristics proposal (Doypack)
Proposal structure
Thickness
(micron)
Basis weight
(g/m2)
Variation
(%)
Mono-oriented
Polyethylene
25
19.1
10
Ink
3
3.0
5
Adhesive
3
3.0
5
Low-density Polyethylene
75
72.0
10
Total
101
97.1
10
The proposed design allows for experimental
evaluation of the previously mentioned
mechanical properties to determine if the flexible
packaging can meet or exceed the mechanical
properties of the existing trilaminate packaging.
Additionally, this trial will evaluate the
feasibility of replacing the current packaging
with the proposed monomaterial and thinner
structure through testing. Finally, mechanical
strength plays a crucial role; thus, destructive
packaging must be tested under specific
conditions.
3. Results and discussions
Reducing the use of materials, particularly
resources, is crucial to promoting sustainable
development. Flexible packaging involves using
laminated coils processed by an automated
forming and filling machine. The input for this
machine consists of a set of laminated films, like
those presented in Fig. 4, which provide essential
properties for product containment. This
methodology proposes an improvement by
reducing the number of lamination layers in the
laminated coil used to protect food as primary
packaging.
Figure 4. Laminated coil for forming flexible packaging with different plastic structures.
Food products require high levels of protection to
prevent hardening, mainly due to environmental factors such as decomposition and moisture
absorption.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
12
3.1 Reduction of lamination layers in a
trilaminate structure for flexible food
packaging (laminated coil).
Figure 5 illustrates a comprehensive schematic
diagram comparing the bilaminate and
trilaminate structures. This visual representation
is a reference point for understanding the critical
distinctions between the two configurations. The
proposed bilaminate structure emerges as a
noteworthy advancement with a profound impact
on resource efficiency and manufacturing
processes. This design significantly reduces the
consumption of raw materials, minimizes the
need for extensive lamination processes, and
results in substantial savings in terms of machine
time and adhesive usage. Resource optimization
enhances economic feasibility and aligns with
sustainable development goals by promoting a
more environmentally friendly approach.
An outstanding feature of the proposed structure
is its reliance on polypropylene as the sole
polymeric material. This strategic choice
streamlines the manufacturing process and
contributes to environmental sustainability. By
embracing a monomaterial approach, the design
facilitates more accessible and more effective
recycling of the end product. Polypropylene,
being a widely recyclable material, aligns with
contemporary efforts to create a circular
economy and reduce the environmental impact of
industrial processes.
In addition to the advantages in material
efficiency and recyclability, the proposed design
underscores the importance of considering the
product's entire life cycle. Beyond its initial
manufacturing and use, the strategy contemplates
the end-of-life phase, emphasizing the need for
responsible disposal or recycling practices. This
complete perspective on the life cycle ensures
that the product meets current requirements and
aligns with long-term sustainability goals.
Figure 5. Comparison of the trilaminate structure against the bi-laminate structure. The objective variable is to reduce the basis
weight of the package from 82.3 g/m2 to 60.5 g/m2
Table 5 presents the results obtained from the
characterization of the mechanical properties of
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
13
the laminated coil of commercial packaging, as
well as the proposed packaging of the bilaminate
and trilaminate systems.
Table 5. Packaging for food in laminated coil, summary average measurement. Comparison of commercial structure
(trilaminate) vs ecological proposed structure (bilaminate)
Quality requirement
Actual Trilaminate
structure
Proposal Bilaminate
structure
Thickness
[micron]
141±2.91
135±2.64
Basis Weight
[g/m2]
0.820±0.005
0.605±0.0008*
Lamination Force
[gf]
520.6±49.43
629.0±55.96
Seal Force
[gf]
4011.0±654.8
633.2±166.4*
Tensile strength
[gf]
MD
13236.0± 174.7
16482.4±616.6*
TD
10759±347.8
14922±329.8*
Elongation
Percentage
[%]
MD
29.48±13.02
54.95±7.44
TD
46.67±2.97
86.54±4.95*
Coefficient of
friction
ST
0.27±0.01
0.26±0.01
DI
0.20±0.01
0.18±0.01
Oxygen permeability
[cm3/m2*day]
1.29±0.36
35.38±0.82*
Water steam permeability
[mg/m2*day]
0.82±0.02
0.56±0.01*
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean n=5 *p˂0.05 after the independent samples t-student
test. MD: Machine direction, TD: Transversal direction, ST: Static, DI: Dynamic.
The thickness of the proposed structure did not
show a significant difference concerning
commercial packaging. A statistically significant
reduction in the weight of the proposed design
was observed compared with that of the
commercial container. The lamination force used
is similar for both packages. In contrast, the
sealing force determines the separation strength
of the seal, which can predict whether the seal is
suitable for the relevant package application.
This parameter was significantly reduced in the
proposed container concerning the commercial
container, which could translate into the ease of
opening the container. The tensile strength can
guarantee that the structures do not deform,
fracture, or break; the proposed structure shows a
statistically significant increase in the different
moments or forces evaluated. The elongation
percentage of the proposed design increased
significantly in the transverse direction,
indicating more excellent ductility of the
structure. Tensile strength and elongation are the
leading performance requirements of laminated
flexible packaging. These parameters indicate the
suitability of the material for manufacturing
throughout the technological process (printing,
lamination, and packaging), as well as resistance
during transportation, handling, and storage. The
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
14
friction coefficient determines the kinetic (in
motion) and static (at the beginning) resistance of
the proposed container, which does not present a
significant difference from the commercial
container. It can be inferred that the 26.48%
reduction in raw materials contributes to the
circular economy of flexible packaging.
Likewise, adhesive consumption and machine
lamination time are reduced by 50% because,
with the proposed bi-laminated structure, one
lamination will be carried out instead of two,
thereby reducing energy consumption and the use
of processed water, regarding the elimination of
a lamination layer throughout the structure of the
flexible packaging.
After conducting oxygen and moisture barrier
experiments, it is evident that the proposed
sustainable design presents technically viable
performance (See Table 5). It is essential to
highlight that the moisture barrier is the most
crucial property of this packaging as it improves
the conservation of the product. Regarding the
oxygen barrier, it is recommended to conduct
practical life tests to confirm the results. Under
this scheme, the sustainable and monomaterial
proposal is feasible. Because of its monopolymer
composition, the design proposal includes the
property of being easily recyclable at the end of
its packaging life cycle. These properties ensure
that the most critical properties are preserved in
this type of packaging because this keeps the
shelf life of the packaged products.
3.2. Redesign of flexible packaging for food
with a tri-layer and multi-polymeric structure
to a mono-material using polyethylene as the
base polymer in Doypack
In the flexible packaging industry, another type
of packaging, "Doypack" (see Fig. 6), is obtained
through a laminated coil to be processed through
a bagging process. It is delivered individually and
formed to be later filled with the product to be
packaged; the laminated coil is used when the
packaging is included in the filling, and the
Doypack-type packaging is first formed and then
filled. The crucial dimensions of this packaging
are height, width, and depth. This type of
packaging is regularly designed with multi-
materials to provide barrier properties and
mechanical resistance.
Figure 6. Flexible package (Doypack) used for food packaging
Regarding Doypack, it is crucial to analyze the
properties and mechanical resistance (through
destructive tests) after using monomaterial
structures to design a sustainable system and
determine its functionality. The results presented
in Table 6 show that the proposed single-material
design provides sufficient mechanical strength
for product packaging and containment, as
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
15
demonstrated by its comparable tensile strength,
elongation percentage, lamination strength, and sealing strength compared to the trilaminate
structure.
Table 6. Packaging for food in Doypack, summary average measurement. Comparison of commercial structure (trilaminate)
vs ecological proposed structure (Monomaterial)
Quality requirement
Actual
Trilaminate
structure
Proposal
monomaterial
structure
Thickness
[micron]
106.0±2.23
109.4±1.14
Weight
[g/m2]
1.2048±0.13
1.0520±0.007*
Lamination Force
[gf]
495.6±40.29
507.2±25.72
Seal Force
[gf]
6461.2±1632.23
3095.2±1358.28
Tensile strength
[gf]
MD
12319.4±1707.37
10306.8±258.26
ST
13449.4±991.21
4368.2±881.70*
Elongation percentage
[%]
MD
40.924± 4.35
29.442±2.38*
ST
36.730±9.52
420.832±14.27*
Coefficient of friction
ST
0.32±0.075
0.22±0.061
DI
0.09±0.035
0.05±0.020
Packing resistance to drop
5/5 N/A
5/5 N/A
Vacuum packing tightness
test
3/3 N/A
3/3 N/A
Packing resistance test
through air pressure
5/5 N/A
5/5 N/A
Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean n=5 *p˂0.05 after the independent samples t-student
test. MD: Machine direction. TD: Transversal direction. ST: Static. DI: Dynamic
The prevailing Doypack packaging currently
utilized in the market employs a structural
composition involving the lamination of three
plastic films, a design to ensure the requisite
mechanical resilience. The efficacy of
commercial packaging is contingent upon its
ability to safeguard the enclosed product from
external factors. Consequently, any proposition
for a novel structural configuration must
guarantee that mechanical properties remain
uncompromised or are sufficiently robust for the
intended product.
Table 6 reveals a discernible weight disparity
between the existing structure and the proposed
alternative, resulting in a substantial material
reduction of 12.6 %. This reduction translates
into economic advantages and diminishes the
cost per unit and operational savings. The
omission of a lamination layer eliminates an
additional processing step and curtails adhesive
consumption by at least 3 g/m2.
Significantly, the lamination strength of the
envisaged ecological structure surpasses that of
the current configuration, ensuring that the
product is resistant to delamination, showcasing
an enhancement of 2.3%. Despite the reduced
resistance to tension and seal force in the
proposed structure due to the absence of a
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
16
lamination layer, meticulous destructive tests
affirm that the ecological packaging satisfies the
stipulated requirements for the specific product.
This assertion is supported by the outcomes of
drop resistance, resistance to air pressure, and
vacuum tightness tests, where the doypack
exhibits no signs of rupture.
Further noteworthy is the elongation percentage
of the monomaterial ecological structure, which
is 91% higher in the transverse direction when
contrasted with the trilaminated counterpart. This
augmentation is attributed to polyethylene in
both laminate layers, conferring elevated
resistance to the packaging while on the shelf.
The comprehensive analysis of these findings
underscores the viability and efficacy of the
proposed ecological packaging regarding
material reduction and cost efficiency and in
meeting and surpassing the mechanical and
functional requisites for the intended product.
As depicted in Table 6, the results of destructive
tests on impact, atmospheric pressure, and
airtightness reveal no significant differences
between the trilaminate structure and the
monomaterial proposal. Consequently, we
propose that a monomaterial polyethylene
structure is a viable option for recyclable
packaging. This approach reduces raw material
consumption by eliminating a lamination layer,
thus contributing to a circular economy through
recycling and reintegrating packaging into the
value chain. This modification ensures that the
packaging maintains sufficient mechanical
strength for long-term durability.
4. Conclusions
Designing or redesigning flexible packaging is a
complex task that requires ensuring
functionality, barriers, and mechanical
resistance. In some cases, thermal resistance is
also necessary, and above all, the packaging must
provide the product with a long shelf life without
compromising its contents. It is essential to use
the properties of different polymers while
ensuring that the packaging is attractive to
consumers. If the packaging is visually
appealing, it is more likely that customers will
purchase the product.
Therefore, the challenge is creating an eco-
friendly design that allows the materials to
biodegrade quickly or the packaging to be fully
recycled, thus enabling the product to be used as
a raw material. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that
the physical properties of the packaging are not
affected by using fewer raw materials, reducing
thicknesses, reducing lamination layers, and
incorporating biodegradable materials.
Furthermore, if any of these changes affect the
physical properties, it is crucial to determine to
what extent such alterations are permissible.
This research demonstrates that it is possible to
reduce raw material consumption and achieve
economic benefits by experimenting with
flexible packaging properties, such as reducing
the thickness and number of layers in the plastic
laminate and using materials from a single origin.
Furthermore, polymeric materials can be crucial
in reducing the environmental impact while
achieving these goals.
Today, the packaging industry and engineering
and design areas play an essential role in
developing packaging solutions that prioritize
sustainability. This experiment seeks to renew all
existing packages while creating new ones
incorporating sustainability principles.
This study shows that it is possible to reduce the
number of lamination layers in flexible
packaging such as Doypack and laminated coil
because the mechanical, physical, and barrier
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
17
properties are not affected and, in some cases,
can be improved. This benefits the reduction of
the environmental impact due to the consumption
of raw materials. In addition, it generates an
economic reduction in sales prices, increasing the
product's profit margin.
Currently, trilaminate structures of different
polymeric origin, for doypack and laminated coil
packaging, do not present the property of
recyclability because it is not possible through
mechanical recycling to reprocess the packaging
once its life cycle has ended, unlike laminated
coils or Doypacks that are processed using
monomaterials, in addition to having a reduction
in raw materials, are products that can be
mechanically recycled as they have polymeric
compatibility.
This study shows that the mechanical properties
of single-material packaging are completely
functional compared with those of multi-material
packaging; the barrier properties are even better
in the case of laminated coils. Destructive tests
for Doypack-type packaging are available for
single-material packaging despite having smaller
thicknesses and fewer laminate layers.
As can be seen, the improvement proposals that
include materials that can be recycled more
quickly due to polymeric compatibility can be
considered sustainable since non-renewable
resources, which in this case is oil, could be used.
Under this premise, raw materials are
reintegrated into the value chain of the finished
product. Raw materials can be reused several
times through mechanical recycling.
It is essential to mention that recyclability is a
factor that benefits sustainable development, as
is the biodegradability and compostability of
plastic films. Today, taking advantage of
resources, reintegrating raw materials into the
system through recycling, and generating a
benefit to the environment can result in economic
savings in the cost of the finished product.
Recycling currently presents challenges because
a product is designed to be recycled. However,
recycling is complicated because ink and paint
are still available despite using plastic film
materials of the exact polymeric origin.
Lamination adhesive, which is of different
polymeric origin, represents less than 5% of the
total weight of the structure and continues to be a
pollutant that affects recycling.
The main goal is to eliminate laminations and
generate single-layer flexible packaging.
However, the ink with which an image is placed
on the product's packaging will continue to exist.
Nowadays, the technology of inks that can be
removed using a particular chemical is emerging.
It is in the initiation stage but is intended to have
flexible packaging of a single polymer that can
be 100% recycled without affecting the
functionality and physical properties of the
packaging itself.
When generating monolayer packaging of a
single polymer, the problem of the barrier level
of the packaging to the product it will contain is
caused. For this purpose, coating technologies
are being developed to increase the barrier
property of the plastic film. Suppliers of
adhesives and inks are already beginning to apply
this technology. Once this is implemented,
sustainable, flexible packaging can be generated
and recycled. Materials that biodegrade can be
considered sustainable because the said material
disintegrates through organic beings, but the
resource is not used compared to recyclable
materials. It is eliminated, wasting a non-
renewable natural resource, despite not
contaminating it as solid waste. On the other
hand, compostable materials can be reintegrated
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
18
into the system as biomass, but they cannot be
used for the same product. Therefore, recycling
is one of the most viable options for sustainable
plastic development to avoid environmental
contamination due to solid waste.
The five key findings of this study are
summarized as follows:
1. Removing the material layer is feasible to
preserve and improve the moisture barrier
properties (mg/m2*day) of coils for food
packaging. Previously, the moisture barrier was
measured at 35.38771 cc/ m2*day, but it has been
improved to 0.569552 mg/m2*day. This
enhancement in packaging performance on the
shelf is significant.
2. The consumption of raw materials in
laminated coil packaging for food was reduced
by 26.48% through the proposed structural
change from a tri-laminated to a bi-laminated
design.
3. The number of lamination layers in flexible
Doypack-type packaging for food applications
can be reduced from two to three without
compromising the mechanical properties. This
conclusion is based on successful destructive
packaging tests, including vacuum tightness,
drop, and air pressure tests conducted on bi-
laminate and mono-material packaging and a
reduction in raw materials by 12.6%.
4. By redesigning the bi-laminate coil packaging
for food with the same polypropylene polymer, it
is possible to achieve 100% recyclability. This
improvement is significant compared with
trilaminate and multi-polymer packaging, which
cannot be recycled because of polymer
incompatibility.
5. The proposed new structure for Doypack-type
packaging for food, transitioning from
trilaminate to bi-laminate and mono-material,
offers 100% recyclability, which is a notable
improvement over the previous trilaminate
packaging that was not recyclable due to polymer
incompatibility.
5. Acknowledgment
J. G. BernalCarrillo gratefully acknowledges
support from Posgrado de CIATEQ. I. E.
Garduño and H. ArcosGutiérrez gratefully
acknowledge support from the Investigadores
por México - CONAHCYT program through
project No. 674. A.Susunaga gratefully
acknowledges support from the Investigadores
por México - CONAHCYT program through
project No. 223. F. S. Chiwo acknowledges
support from COPOCYT Fideicomiso 23871
Multas Electorales Convocatoria 202101
through the project Optimización de Parámetros
en Procesos de Moldeo por Inyección de
Plásticos con Enfoque Hacia Manufactura 4.0.
6. Authorship acknowledgment
Johnatan Gabriel BernalCarrillo:
Conceptualization; methodology; validation;
writing; revision; project administration;
software; investigation; display; draft writing;
reviewing and editing. Fernando Sebastián
Chiwo-González: Conceptualization;
methodology; validation; writing; revision;
software; reviewing and editing. Ana del Carmen
SusunagaNotario: Conceptualization;
methodology; validation; writing; revision;
software; reviewing and editing. Mayra del
ÁngelMonroy: Conceptualization;
methodology; validation; writing; revision;
software; reviewing and editing. Hugo Arcos
Gutiérrez: Conceptualization; methodology;
validation; writing; revision; software; reviewing
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
19
and editing. Isaías Emmanuel GarduñoOlvera:
Conceptualization; supervision; methodology;
validation; writing; revision; project
management; formal analysis, draft writing,
writing, reviewing, and editing.
References
[1] A. G. Azevedo, C. Barros, S. Miranda, A. V.
Machado, O. Castro, B. Silva, and M. A. Cerqueira,
"Active Flexible Films for Food Packaging: A Review,"
Polymers (Basel), vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 2442, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14122442
[2] I. Karimi Sani, M. Masoudpour-Behabadi, M.
Alizadeh Sani, H. Motalebinejad, A. S. M. Juma, A.
Asdagh, and F. Mohammadi, "Value-added utilization
of fruit and vegetable processing by-products for the
manufacture of biodegradable food packaging films,"
Food Chem, vol. 405, pt. B, p. 134964, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134964
[3] K. Sasikumar and S.G. Krishna, "Solid waste
management," PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd, 2009.
[4] O. I. Nkwachukwu, C. H. Chima, A. O. Ikenna,
and L. Albert, "Focus on potential environmental issues
on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic recycling
in developing countries," Int. J. Ind. Chem., vol. 4, pp.
1-13, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/2228-5547-4-34
[5] T. M. Letcher, Ed., "Plastic Waste and
Recycling: Environmental Impact, Societal Issues,
Prevention, and Solutions," Academic Press, 2020.
[6] H. K. Lamba, N. S. Kumar, and S. Dhir,
"Circular economy and sustainable development: a
review and research agenda," Int. J. Prod. Perform.
Manage., vol. (ahead-of-print), 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2022-0314
[7] R. Kumar et al., "Impacts of Plastic Pollution
on Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development
Goals, and Need to Focus on Circular Economy and
Policy Interventions," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 17, p.
9963, Sep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179963
[8] M. Sadiq, T. Q. Ngo, A. A. Pantamee, K.
Khudoykulov, T. Thi Ngan, and L. P. Tan, "The role of
environmental social and governance in achieving
sustainable development goals: evidence from ASEAN
countries," Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 170-190, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2072357
[9] P. P. Rogers, K. F. Jalal, and J. A. Boyd, "An
introduction to sustainable development," Earthscan,
2012.
[10] M. Geissdoerfer, S.N. Morioka, MM de
Carvalho, and S. Evans, "Business models and supply
chains for the circular economy," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 190, pp. 712-721, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159
[11] S. Oktavilia, M. Hapsari, A. Setyadharma, and
I. F. S. Wahyuningsum, "Plastic Industry and World
Environmental Problems," in E3S Web of Conferences,
vol. 202, p. 05020, EDP Sciences, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020205020
[12] E. Foschi, S. Zanni, and A. Bonoli, "Combining
eco-design and LCA as decision-making process to
prevent plastics in packaging application,"
Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 22, p. 9738, Nov. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229738
[13] I. Berkane, A. Cabanes, O. Horodytska, I.
Aracil, and A. Fullana, "The delamination of metalized
multilayer flexible packaging using a microperforation
technique," Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
vol. 189, p. 106744, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106744
[14] Z. Zhu, W. Liu, S. Ye, and L. Batista,
"Packaging design for the circular economy: A
systematic review," Sustainable Production and
Consumption, vol. 32, pp. 817-832, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.005
[15] S. Mangaraj, A. Yadav, L. M. Bal, S. K. Dash,
and N. K. Mahanti, "Application of Biodegradable
Polymers in Food Packaging Industry: A
Comprehensive Review," J. Packaging Technol. Res.,
vol. 3, pp. 77-96, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41783-
018-0049-y
[16] T. Mekonnen, P. Mussone, H. Khalil, and D.
Bressler, "Progress in bio-based plastics and plasticizing
modifications," Journal of Materials Chemistry A, vol.
1, no. 43, pp. 13379-13398, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C3TA12555F
[17] V. Siracusa, P. Rocculi, S. Romani, and M.
Dalla Rosa, "Biodegradable polymers for food
packaging: a review," Trends in Food Science &
Technology, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 634-643, Dec. 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.07.003
[18] W. Abdelmoez, I. Dahab, E. M. Ragab, O. A.
Abdelsalam, and A. Mustafa, "Bio- and oxo-degradable
plastics: Insights on facts and challenges," Polymers for
Advanced Technologies, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1981-1996,
May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.5253
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
20
[19] A. Alhanish and M. Abu Ghalia,
"Developments of biobased plasticizers for compostable
polymers in the green packaging applications: A
review," Biotechnology Progress, vol. 37, no. 6, p.
e3210, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.3210
[20] R. Spaccini, D. Todisco, M. Drosos, A.
Nebbioso, and A. Piccolo, "Decomposition of bio-
degradable plastic polymer in a real on-farm composting
process," Chemical and Biological Technologies in
Agriculture, vol. 3, pp. 1-12, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-016-0053-9
[21] M. Avella, E. Bonadies, E. Martuscelli, and R.
Rimedio, "European current standardization for plastic
packaging recoverable through composting and
biodegradation," Polymer Testing, vol. 20, no. 5, pp.
517-521, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-
9418(00)00068-4
[22] S. M. Al-Salem, P. Lettieri, and J. Baeyens,
"Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste
(PSW): A review," Waste Management, vol. 29, no. 10,
pp. 2625-2643, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.004
[23] D. Briassoulis, M. Hiskakis, and E. Babou,
"Technical specifications for mechanical recycling of
agricultural plastic waste," Waste Management, vol. 33,
no. 6, pp. 1516-1530, Jun. 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.004
[24] C. Barlow and D. Morgan, "Polymer film
packaging for food: An environmental assessment,"
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 78, pp. 74-
80, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.07.003
[25] J. Hopewell, R. Dvorak, and E. Kosior,
"Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities,"
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, vol. 364, no. 1526, pp. 2115-2126,
2009. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311
[26] N. C. Saha, A. K. Ghosh, M. Garg, S. D. Sadhu,
"Food Packaging: Materials, Techniques and
Environmental Issues," Springer Nature, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4233-3
[27] A. M. Grumezescu and A. M. Holban, Food
packaging and preservation, vol. 9, Academic Press,
2017.
[28] V. Frigerio, A. Casson, and S.J. Limbo,
"Comparison of different methodological choices in
functional unit selection and results implication when
assessing food-packaging environmental impact,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 396, p. 136527,
2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136527
[29] N. Bittrich, M. I. R. Mogollón, and R. P. J.
Larios-Francia, "Environmental Impact Assessment of
Flexible Food Packaging," The International Journal of
Environmental Sustainability, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 39, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1077/CGP/v19i01/39-61
[30] A. A. Wani, P. Singh, and H.-C. Langowski,
"Introduction: Food Packaging Materials," In Food
Packaging Materials, CRC Press, 2017, pp. 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315374390
[31] T. De Pilli, A. Baiano, G. Lopriore, C. Russo,
G. M. Cappelletti, "Sustainable Innovations in Food
Packaging," Springer International Publishing, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80936-2
[32] T. Anukiruthika, P. Sethupathy, A. Wilson, K.
Kashampur, J. A. Moses, C. Anandharamakrishnan,
"Multilayer Packaging: Advances in Preparation
Techniques and Emerging Food Applications,"
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1156-1186, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12556
[33] Y. Nasri, M.T. Benaniba, and M.J.M.T.P.
Bouquey, "Elaboration and Characterization of
Polymers Used in Flexible Multilayer Food Packaging,"
Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 53, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.390
[34] T. Dunn, "Manufacturing flexible packaging:
materials, machinery, and techniques," William
Andrew, 2014.
[35] S. E. Selke and R.J. Hernandez, "Packaging:
Polymers in Flexible Packaging," in KH Jürgen
Buschow, Robert W. Cahn, Merton C. Flemings,
Bernhard Ilschner, Edward J. Kramer, Subhash
Mahajan, and Patrick Veyssière (eds.), Encyclopedia of
Materials: Science and Technology, Elsevier, 2001, pp.
6652-6656. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043152-
6/01176-1
[36] G. A. Uehara, M. P. França, and S. V.
Canevarolo Junior, "Recycling assessment of multilayer
flexible packaging films using design of experiments,"
Polímeros, vol. 25, pp. 371-381, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-1428.1965
[37] A. M. Grumezescu and A. M. Holban (Eds.),
Biopolymers for Food Design, vol. 20. Academic Press,
2018.
[38] O. Lopez, M. A. Garcia, M. A. Villar, A.
Gentili, M. S. Rodriguez, and L. Albertengo, "Thermo-
compression of biodegradable thermoplastic corn starch
films containing chitin and chitosan," LWT-Food
Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 106-115,
2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.01.024
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT): Volumen 7 (1): e253.
ISSN: 2594-1925
21
[39] B. M. Trinh, B. P. Chang, and T. H. Mekonnen,
"The Barrier Properties of Sustainable Multiphase and
Multicomponent Packaging Materials: A review,"
Progress in Materials Science, vol. 101071, May. 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101071
[40] S. Sid, R. S. Mor, A. Kishore, and V. S.
Sharanagat, "Bio-sourced polymers as alternatives to
conventional food packaging materials: A review,"
Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 115, pp. 87-
104, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.026
[41] A.-S. Bauer, M. Tacker, I. Uysal-Unalan, R. M.
S. Cruz, T. Varzakas, and V. Krauter, "Recyclability and
Redesign Challenges in Multilayer Flexible Food
PackagingA Review," Foods, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 2702,
Nov. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112702
[42] C. T. de Mello Soares, M. Ek, E. Östmark, M.
Gällstedt, and S, Karlsson, Recycling of multi-material
multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends and future
scenarios,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
vol. 176, p. 105905, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105905
[43] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Guide for
Determination of Thickness of Plastic Film Test
Specimens." ASTM, vol. 08.03, pp. 7, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1520/D6988-21
[44] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Seal Strength of Flexible Barrier Materials," ASTM,
vol. 15.10, pp. 11, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1520/F0088_F0088M-21
[45] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic Sheeting," ASTM,
vol. 08.01, pp. 12, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0882-
18
[46] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Wetting Tension of Polyethylene and Polypropylene
Films," ASTM, vol. 08.01, pp. 4, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1520/D2578-09
[47] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Oxygen Gas Transmission Rate Through Plastic
Film and Sheeting Using a Coulometric Sensor," in
ASTM, vol. 15.10, pp. 7, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1520/D3985-17
[48] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Water Vapor Transmission Rate Through Plastic
Film and Sheeting Using a Modulated Infrared Sensor,"
ASTM, vol. 15.10, pp. 6, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1520/F1249-20
[49] ASTM. L. Agreement, "Standard Test Method
for Determination of Leaks in Flexible Packaging by
Bubble Emission," ASTM, vol. 15.10, pp. 3, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1520/D3078-02R21E01
Derechos de Autor (c) 2024 Johnatan Gabriel BernalCarrillo, Fernando Sebastián Chiwo-González, Ana del Carmen
SusunagaNotario, Mayra del ÁngelMonroy, Hugo ArcosGutiérrez, Isaías Emmanuel Garduño
Este texto está protegido por una licencia Creative Commons 4.0.
Usted es libre para compartir copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptar el documento
remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material para cualquier propósito, incluso para fines comerciales, siempre que
cumpla la condición de:
Atribución: Usted debe dar crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se
han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del
licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
Resumen de licencia - Texto completo de la licencia