PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.

com

The Future of Single-use Paper Coffee Cups: Current

Progress and Outlook
Nick Triantafillopoulos a and Alexander A. Koukoulas b,*

The expanded use of environmentally friendly and sustainable foodservice

packaging continues to be a prime focus of stakeholders across the
foodservice value chain. Paper-based coffee cups is one product segment
where effective recycling of waste cups remains elusive. As a result,
material substitutes for polyethylene liners are emerging to solve the
problem of waste cups. In this paper, current and emerging commercial
material technologies used in the production of paper-based coffee cups
that are readily recyclable with other paper grades are reviewed. Many of
these material solutions are also compostable. Special attention is paid to
the rapidly evolving, alternative large-scale production of bioplastics.
Multiple efforts to effectively develop a more environmentally friendly
paper cup are also examined. It is clear that broad adoption of proposed
solutions will require an integrated commitment and approach to circular
economics. Specifically, this includes: changes in consumer behavior;
brand owner initiatives to meet sustainability goals; governmental policies
that limit or forbid use of fossil-based cups; and easily accessible
infrastructures at the consumer level for the collection, separation, and
processing of biodegradable cups.

Keywords: Paper coffee cups; Sustainable foodservice packaging; Barrier coatings; Waterbased coatings;
Bioplastics

Contact information: a: Arditos Innovation LLC, San Diego, CA, USA; b: A2K Consultants LLC, 2 N.
Fahm St., 2981, Savannah, GA, USA 31402; *Corresponding author: alex@a2kconsultants.com

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of cafés and the like have created a worldwide explosion in the
consumption of out-of-home (OOH) coffee and coffee beverages. Recent surveys estimate
the market size for single-use OOH hot paper coffee cups at 118 billion units per year with
a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.8% to reach 294 billion units by 2025
(iMarc 2020). Between 2012 and 2017, the number of coffee shops increased 16% and
28% in the US and UK, respectively. This growth is expected to continue, driven by the
demand for convenience by consumers (Chaudhuri 2018). Hectic, busy lifestyles lead cash-
rich and time-poor consumers to use single use OOH cups. This trend is expected to drive
annual consumption of paperboard cupstock from 2.2 million tons (mt) currently to 6.8 mt
by 2025, a three-fold increase (Hämäläinen 2019). Although single-use hot coffee
beverages are sometimes offered in cups made from expanded polystyrene (EPS), this
review is only focused on fiber-based paper cups made from cellulosic fibers and a
polymeric barrier liner.
The United States leads all nations in the consumption of OOH paper-based coffee
cups: 136 million cups per day. This is followed by China (27.4 million), Russia (16.4
million), Germany (7.2 million), Britain (7.0 million), and Australia (2.7 million) (Ma
2018). Most of the used coffee cups end up in landfills, where they do not biodegrade

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7260
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
(Rodden 2018). Although packaging utilizes sustainable, and sometimes recycled, wood
fiber to make the paperboard cupstock, the cups are commonly lined with polyethylene
(PE) coatings to create the required limited-term hot liquid, oil, and fatty acid resistant
barrier functionalities, as well as to maintain cup integrity and preserve coffee aroma
required for ultimate customer experience. Paper coffee cups are used for an average of 13
min before being tossed out. In spite of efforts and incremental progress in developed
economies to increase recycling rates, we estimate that less than 1% of used paper coffee
cups are recycled worldwide because of
(a) ineffective or inconsistent recycling schemes among communities and venues,
(b) the perception that paper coffee cups are made from a difficult-to-recycle mix of
paper and plastic, and
(c) the inability of many recycling facilities to commit to processing food-
contaminated waste streams.
Recovery of used coffee cups is low due to the limited availability of systematic collecting,
sorting, and processing to recycling or industrial composting facilities. In contrast, fossil-
based plastic-coated paper coffee cups take more than 20 years to decompose in landfills
and are major contributors to the pollution of land, rivers, and oceans.
Consumers, especially those grouped as Millennials and Generation Z, have
become increasingly sensitive to the environmental impact of their product choices. This
has challenged manufacturers and brand owners to re-examine end-of-life options for paper
coffee cups including the collection, separation, and recycling of the different cup
components. In practice, most paper coffee cups are either disposed improperly or mixed
in with waste streams that are eventually landfilled. Most plastics, including PE, do not
readily degrade in the environment, relying on a combination of long duration processes
such as photodegradation, thermo-oxidative degradation, oxo-biodegradation, and
hydrolytic degradation to completely decompose (Webb et al. 2013). Consequently, the
popular single-use OOH paper coffee cup coated with PE has become a big target for
consumers, brand owners, governments, and companies looking to replace fossil-based
plastics with more sustainably derived and environmentally friendly alternatives
(Chaudhuri 2018).

Biodegradation
Biodegradation through composting is an attractive solution to coffee cup end-of-
life. Composting is the controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic matter into
a stable, humus-like product called compost (USDA 2010). Unlike degradation,
biodegradation relies on microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, to metabolize the
material so that it completely disintegrates into water, CO2, and decayed organic material
or compost. The resulting compost is full of beneficial soil nutrients and is often used as a
soil amendment. As with all chemical processes, composting rates are affected by the
chemical composition of material, and the time and temperature of the compositing
conditions. Under normal composting conditions where the temperature is at least 25 °C
(preferably 35 °C), 60 to 90% of the material will biodegrade within 84 to 180 days,
disintegrating into pieces of less than 2 mm in size. Industrial compositing, which operates
at temperatures around 50 to 60 °C, reduces this time to less than one month and it is the
most preferred method to biodegrade compostable paper coffee cups and other foodservice
packaging (European Bioplastics 2017). However, limited industrial composting facilities
are available worldwide.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7261
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Studies have shown that PE-based coffee cups do not readily biodegrade (Brinton
et al. 2016). Two-sided PE-coated substrates are even more recalcitrant, as the second
plastic layer retards microorganisms from reaching the fibrous component. Micro-plastic
fragments are often released from plastic coated cups during degradation and can easily be
transferred by surface water into streams and oceans. In contrast, discarding a cup into the
ocean takes decades to disintegrate and decompose. As a result, there is keen interest to
streamline the collection, sorting, and recycling of OOH paper coffee cups, while in
parallel pursuing substitute barrier technologies that assist compostability and
biodegradation.

Topics for Review

This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art barrier coatings and other
technologies used to produce recyclable or biodegradable OOH paper coffee cups. It
discusses efforts to expand coffee cup recyclability and compostability. Focus is placed on
worldwide progress in the search for alternatives to plastic barrier coatings and challenges
that must be addressed to successfully replace fossil-based PE. The task is formidable, as
successful replacement of fossil-based plastic coatings will require cost-effective delivery
of all essential barrier and functional cup properties (e.g., heat sealability, anti-blocking,
mechanical strength, and thermal insulation) within proven manufacturing processes.
Additionally, alternatives to the current cup platform must be economically competitive
and contribute to the circular economy. For the purpose of this review, only alternative
technologies that have already been commercialized are included. Challenges for recycling
paper coffee cups and the emergence of schemes to streamline the process and increase
recycling levels are also addressed. Finally, there is discussion of key trends that will affect
the substitution of fossil-based barrier plastics.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PAPER COFFEE CUP

Most paper coffee cups are currently made from coated paperboard, or cupstock,
which is either single- or double-walled. The barrier coating is typically made from PE,
which is extruded or laminated to the paperboard. The cup comprises a paperboard
substrate with a basis weight of 150 to 350 g/m2 and a PE liner of 8 to 20 g/m2, which has
a thickness of about 50 μm.
Figure 1 shows the essential design elements of a coffee cup: a cylindrical wall
portion (A) along a vertical lap seam (B), which joins the end edges (C) and (D) (Mohan
and Koukoulas 2004). In this design, a single-sided PE-coated board is formed into a
single-wall cup. The outer (top) layer may be coated to enhance printability and heat
sealability. The end edges are affixed to one another using conventional methods, typically
melt-bonding (hot air or ultrasound).
Paper cups also include a circular rolled rim (F) and a separate circular bottom
portion (E) attached and heat sealed to the side wall. The latter is a thicker caliper than the
bottom paperboard base. Sometimes, the bottom cupstock is two-side coated with PE for a
better seal. Figure 2 is a photograph of a paper coffee cup made using an extruded fossil-
based PE coating.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7262
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com

Fig. 1. Design elements of a single-wall paper cup adapted from Mohan and Koukoulas (2004)

Fig. 2. Single-wall paper cup manufactured by SOLO

Double-wall paper cups have inner and outer paperboard cupstocks separated by an
insulating middle layer. A corrugated medium has often been used as a middle layer to add
structural rigidity and thermal insulation. In some double-wall cup designs, a combination
of layers imparts additional thermal insulation to the cup, either by including an air gap
(Fig. 3) or by incorporating polymeric insulating stripes (Fig. 4) between the outer and
inner paperboard layers. Such designs remove the need for a clutch or sleeve, have lower
maximum wall temperature for “warm touch” without burning the fingers, and allow the
contents to stay warm longer, while protecting aroma.
Although it represents between 5% and 10% of the weight of the final cup, the inner
liner is critical to the end-use performance of the cup and its manufacture. The liner must
impart critical resistance to hot and cold liquids, as well as resistance to fatty acids present
in milk and cream. It also has an important heat-sealing function, which ensures the
integrity of the cup rim, side seam, and cup bottom. Seal elements at exposed edges must
be resistant to imbibition from liquids, which will degrade the mechanical integrity of the
cup. Additionally, seals must withstand the high temperatures experienced during the
serving of hot beverages.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7263
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com

Fig. 3. Double-wall paper cup manufactured by Seda Packaging showing outer wall

Fig. 4. Double-wall paper cup with Thermolite™ insulation from LBP Manufacturing

The paperboard used for cupstock will typically contain sizing agents, such as alkyl
ketyl dimer (AKD), alkyl succinic anhydride (ASA), or fluorochemicals, to prevent
penetration by liquids and lactic acid-containing liquids, such as milk or cream, at exposed
surfaces. A challenge of such treatments is poor adhesion of the subsequently applied PE
barrier film on to the treated paperboard. Although addition of fluorochemicals at the wet-
end, water box, or size press is a mature and proven technology to impart water, grease,
and oil resistance to paperboard, its use in direct-contact food applications has been
declining rapidly due to health concerns (Hogue 2018). Long alkyl chain fluorocarbons,
like perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have been
replaced by short chain analogues. Compounds with six or fewer fluorinated carbon atoms
(i.e., fluorotelomers) work nearly as well as their longer chain versions and they have
currently replaced all long chain fluorochemicals (Ritter 2015). Currently, paperboard
manufacturers and converters have abandoned making paperboard cupstock containing any
type of fluorochemicals because single-use coffee cups have a limited time exposure to
coffee oils and fatty acids from milk or creamers. However, other sizing additives are still
used.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7264
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
The material selection and compositional structure of OOH paper coffee cups are
to a large extent dictated by the process requirements for converting, the required end-use
barrier performance, and convenience features. However, the resulting mixture of materials
and features also make the cups difficult to recycle.

THE CHANGING DEMANDS OF CONSUMERS

Consumers often change their minds, so it should not come as a surprise that their
views of foodservice items, like coffee cups, have evolved over time. In the 1990s, an
analysis of five different types of coffee cups concluded that eliminating disposable cups
was costlier and caused greater environmental impact than available disposal options
(Hocking 1994). The study examined a range of cup types in terms of regulated
environmental requirements, convenience, and cost, and it showed that consumers base
their choice of a cup type on aesthetics and convenience rather than perceived
environmental impacts. However, that was the ‘90s. Fast forward to the early 2010s.
During this period, Starbucks tried to implement a program saving 10 cents every time a
customer brings his/her own coffee cup, yet only 2% of their customers took them up on
the offer (Minter 2014). At the same time, Starbucks initiated efforts to demonstrate the
value and feasibility of paper cup recycling (Kamenetz 2010).
Today, consumer sentiment has changed dramatically, driven by the heightened
awareness and concern for the environment, the introduction of favorable regulatory and
public policies that ban fossil-based plastics and promote sustainable products, and the
desire of brand owners to present a strong eco-centric image to their consumer base,
shareholders, and the general public. Increasingly, consumers, especially younger
consumers comprising the Millennial and Generation Z categories, demand brands for
sustainable solutions. Moreover, they are willing to alter their buying habits favoring more
sustainable packaging. Fossil-based plastics are perceived as environmentally less
preferred because they deplete hydrocarbons, are difficult to recycle, and have a large CO2
fingerprint during their complete life cycle. A European survey conducted with a group of
5,900 consumers from 8 countries in March 2020, confirmed this (Tame 2020). Nearly
70% of consumers are actively taking steps to reduce their use of plastics and 48% say that
they would avoid retailers that are not actively trying to reduce their use of non-recyclable
plastic packaging. Fiber-based packaging ranks highest with consumers for sustainability
attributes, including home compostable (72%), better for the environment (62%), and
easier to recycle (57%).
Many countries, states, townships, and cities around the world are moving towards
banning plastics from OOH items. Recommendations have been made around the world to
remove, or even ban, single-use foodservice packaging, including plastic cups. Examples
include policies in the EU and Australia to phase-out single-use plastics by 2023, and in
Taiwan by 2030 (Chaudhuri 2018). The Kerala state government in India has gone a step
further by including paper coffee cups in their ban of the production, sale, and use of single-
use plastics.
Significant progress has been made at the municipal and regional levels for
collecting and sorting waste for recycling. According to BioCycle, the number of curbside
collection programs in the USA has increased from 14 in 2014 to 48 in 2017, an 87%
increase (Streeter and Platt 2017). In early 2018, 326 USA communities had access to food
waste collection, up from 198 in 2014, a 65% increase. In a recent report, curbside

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7265
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
recycling programs capture an estimated 11.9 million tons, which is less than one-third of
the total 37.4 million tons of recyclables in the United States (Mouw et al. 2020). The
report determined that improvements need to be made in curbside access, participation,
and participant capture behavior to feed the circular economy of the future.
Similar and even more intense efforts have been initiated in Europe and the UK.
The Paper Cup Recovery & Recycling Group (PCRRG) leads paper cup recycling to meet
the 2016 UK Manifesto Goal: “by 2020 the greater majority of the UK population will have
access to information, schemes, and facilities that enable used paper cups to be sustainably
recovered and recycled.” In their 2017 progress, PCRRG showed that capacity exists to
recycle all paper cups currently used in the UK (Reed 2018). The program has made
significant inroads: more than 4,500 paper cup recycling points for consumers to return
cups in bins and in-store take back; 115 municipalities collect paper cups with paper
cartons; 21 waste collectors actively participate in a national recycling program to increase
recycling of paper cups and transport them to their reprocessing end markets, up from two
last year; four recycling papermills are accepting paper cups, including ACE UK, DS
Smith, James Cropper, and Veolia; and at least nine regional councils have started to
include paper cups in curbside collection from households. This is in extension of Veolia’s
national coffee cup solution to make cup recycling possible in offices across the UK in
2017.

Pursuing the Goal of “Zero Waste”

Another approach is to shift consumers behavior by incentivizing them to not use
single-use coffee cups and aim to zero waste. On January 2020, the city of Berkeley in
California (USA) imposed a 25-cent tax on disposable coffee cups with the intent of
inducing consumers to use their own reusable coffee cup. Cafés are also taking aim at
incentives. For example, Nova Familia Coffee (Portland, Oregon, USA) charges customers
25 cents for a disposable to-go cup and gives them a 25-cent discount for bringing their
own cup. In its 2018 to 2019 transparency report (Nossa Familia Coffee 2019), the
company reported a year-over-year reduction in the consumption of single-use cups from
66 to 31%, while 17% of its costumers brought their own cups. Blue Bottle Coffee, owned
by Nestlé, has also piloted a zero-waste coffeehouse in the San Francisco Bay area (CA,
USA) by offering to its customers to bring their own cups or rent one from the café,
targeting to convert all of their coffeehouses to zero-waste by the end of 2020, diverting
90% of its waste from landfills. Here Please, an Oakland, California-based (USA)
nonprofit, helps cafés and restaurants reduce single-use plastics, promotes the use of
reusable cups by training baristas, and educates customers face-to-face using social media
and providing visual reminders. In 2019, it helped the Perch Coffeehouse to become the
first disposable-fee café in the city, offering a 25-cent discount to costumers bringing their
own coffee cup or charging a small fee for renting out a reusable cup or mason jar.
Similarly, the city of Freiburg, Germany, has been providing citizens with an easy reusable
cup system, a hard-plastic OOH cup with a disposable lid that customers can obtain with a
€1 deposit and return to any one of the 100 participating businesses across the city. Muuse
is another smart system for reusable coffee cups. Originally, Muuse partnered with selected
cafes and beverage outlets, in Singapore, San Francisco, and Hong Kong, to switch from
single-use to reusable cups stainless steel cups. Hence, the consumer paid a small deposit,
which he/she collected when returning the cup. Now, customers using a phone app can
pick up cups embedded with a QR code and keep on reusing them for up to 5 days, then
returning them to the cafes or a smart return bin. However, market research by Mintel has

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7266
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
shown that, while consumers show off great environmental intentions, they are often time
pressured and price sensitive (ProCarton 2019). The hassle factor of carrying around a
reusable coffee cup can limit the popularity of schemes that reward people for doing so.
Shaming is another trend for the unconvincing consumers. Photos of scowling Greta
Thunberg, the teen climate change activist, next to institutional and office coffee stations
has effectively dramatized choosing disposable cups. Finally, consideration must be given
to that reusable cups still utilize resources and energy to produce them and therefore have
an environmental impact.
Recovery and recycling of used coffee cups is technically feasible and may be
economically viable in some cases. It is a feasible and practical approach to handling large
volumes of waste single-use cups. Collection, sorting, and processing facilities worldwide
are continuing to expand. Successful implementation includes dedicated schemes for
collection and collaborations between manufacturers or converters of cups and brand
owners or main venue operators. Examples include the recent announcement by Lavazza
Professional that their KLIX Eco Cup™ in its KLIX® in-cup vending machines will be
Kotkamills’ eco-friendly ISLA® cup, and replacement of single-use cups in Norwich City
Football Club’s stadium in England starting next season. Similar initiatives have been
established in soccer stadiums and concert halls across Germany and other EU countries.

CHALLENGES TO RECYCLING

Paper is the most recycled municipal and commercial solid waste material,
including that found in nondurable goods, such as coffee cups (US EPA 2017). However,
with regards to paper cups, the reality is that the majority of waste coffee cups are being
sent to landfills or incinerated in spite of the best intentions of brand owners and consumers
to promote recycling (Garrison et al. 2016). Traditional cups with PE liners are impervious
to microbial action in a composting system and are not biodegradable. While paper is
consumed by composting microorganisms, PE becomes brittle over time, separating into
microscopic lightweight fragments, which can be readily transported through the
ecosystem and create environmental and health problems (Narayan 2011).
Paper cups with PE coatings are recyclable. The challenge is that in many areas the
infrastructure needed is not in place. Key elements for successful recycling include (Mouw
et al. 2020):
(a) separation and processing of the waste,
(b) reclaiming of fibrous materials – not all recyclers take all packaging,
(c) consistent supply of coffee cups at MRF,
(d) recycling process optimization based on processing coffee cups waste, and
(e) the cost of virgin vs. recycled fiber.
When PE-coated paper enters a conventional paper recycling facility, it generally
results in operational problems and added cost to the papermaker. During re-pulping, the
plastic layer is broken down into flakes, which tend to clog the fine screens separating
recyclable fibers from contaminants. Material that does make it through the screens will
typically melt out on hot rolls during paper manufacturing. These stickies can cause paper
breaks on the papermachine resulting in downtime and production losses.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7267
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Separation of the plastic component coating from the fibrous cupstock can be done
effectively. For example, a pilot program spearheaded by Starbucks in 2018 dismissed the
myth that PE coffee cups cannot be recycled along with other papers (Peters 2018). In the
cup-to-cup closed loop partnership project, fibers were successfully separated from coffee
cups and re-pulped to make recycled market pulp at the Sustana pulpmill in Wisconsin
(USA). The recovered fiber pulp was then used by WestRock to produce cupstock, which
was subsequently converted to new coffee cups by Seda Packaging. Sustana reported that
(a) the fiber quality was superior to that recovered from other packaging, such as milk
cartons, and (b) it was not more expensive to separate PE from coffee cups than from other
fibrous-based packaging (Peters 2018). Currently, Sustana offers its EnviroLife™ pulp
from 100% post-consumer recycled fiber to FDA-compliant packaging with direct food
contact. Many brands of cupstock paperboard in the USA now contain over 30% recycled
fiber from post-consumer waste. An example is the Nuvo® cupstock offered by Clearwater
Paper, based on multi-ply fiber blending with up to 35% post-consumer fiber from Sustana.
Recycling of used coffee cups is technically and economically feasible. However,
it requires a concerted effort of the whole supply chain. Continued success in recycling
coffee cups depends on a consistent supply stream of used coffee cups so that a recycle
pulp mill can continually operate efficiently under optimized conditions to process
recovered cups. Not all communities and municipalities accept wasted coffee cups.
Broadly, local or regional recyclers have been unwilling to take cups – something that at
present is limited in most countries.
Efforts in developed economies during the past two years have shown promise in
systematically collecting, sorting, and processing used coffee cups. Led by San Francisco,
other cities like Seattle, New York, Washington D.C., and Denver have implemented
coffee cup collection, separation, and sorting processes to send substantial cup volumes
into recycled pulp mills, such as Sustana. Recyclers started including clean coffee cups in
their bales, which then can be easily accepted by a recycling pulpmill with the rest of the
papers. An example is the commitment to accept paper coffee cups by Recology, a major
recycler headquartered in San Francisco that provides collection, recyclables sorting,
marketing, composting, and landfilling services to communities in California, Oregon, and
Washington. In contrast, efforts by industrial groups like the Foodservice Packaging
Initiative (FPI) in the USA aim to expand recycling through its Paper Recovery Alliance.
In Europe, recycling is mostly driven by policy, including incentives for investment in
recycling infrastructure. In the UK, for instance, according to the PCRRG, residential
recycling schemes and four large reprocessing plants enabled the levels of coffee cup
recycling to be raised from 1:400 in 2017 to 1:25 in 2018, reaching 1:12 in 2019 (Reed
2018). Programs such as the Simple Cups in the UK and the Close Loop in Australia have
facilitated collecting and recycling paper coffee cups. Brands, such as McDonald’s and
Costa Coffee, have installed collection bins specifically for coffee cups in their UK stores.
Recycling Service, UK, makes it easy to recycle paper coffee cups, by collecting
waste cups directly from retail outlets. CupCycling™ by James Cropper, UK, is another
example of a collaborative recycling scheme, involving supply chain and brand owners,
dedicated to upcycling OOH paper coffee cups to tailor-made papers. In contrast, in Japan,
there is already an established practice to collect and recycle PE-coated packaging,
separating, and incinerating the plastic component.
One example of how coffee cups can be successfully integrated within a recycling
program is given by Smart Planet Technologies (US). It recently commercialized reCUP™
(also under Vericup™ in the UK), a paper cup designed with a minimal plastic (resin)

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7268
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
content and an inner liner that is re-pulpable. Their EarthCoating® barrier technology is a
blend of calcium carbonate mineral and polyolefinic resins, like PE, which can be applied
with existing coating equipment while the wasted cup is readily recyclable. These barrier
cups contain 41 to 50% less plastic than cups made from 100% fossil-based PE liner.
Another example is converter Beautiful Cups (The Netherlands), which collaborates with
Renewi, a waste management and recycling company, to offer a closed loop solution.
Beautiful Cups, made with 95% fiber and 5% plastic, are collected in special bags and
Renewi upcycles them into toilet paper, while the plastic component of the cups is also
recycled. This project has been rolled out in 10 countries so far. In mid-2018, Pacific City,
CA (USA) showcased reCUP™ products during the US Open of Surfing, along with a
closed-loop recycling program for reCUP™ paper cups. This initiative is considered to be
a blueprint for addressing paper cup waste at the municipal level, creating an
environmentally sustainable approach to paper cup use. Such programs can become
enablers, not only in separate cup recycling, but also in adopting new sustainable paper
cups and foodservice packages.
Another approach is to make recycling easy. FrugalCup ™ from startup Frugalpac
(UK) is a composite paper cup that can be disposed in any recycling bin and recycled with
any mainstream waste process (Frugal Cup 2020). It comprises two individual cup
components: an outer made from recycled paperboard, an inner made from food-grade PE.
Each component easily separates in the re-pulper during recycling, so that the fiber can be
recycled again, while the inner plastic liner can be separately recycled or incinerated. The
Frugal Cup Linerless™ is manufactured from sustainable virgin paperboard, treated with
a proprietary coating for paper cup recycling. A Frugal Lid is also made from molded
fibrous pulp out of sugarcane waste. Both Frugal cups and lids can be readily disposed in
any recycling bin, collected, separated, and processed to make more cups without changing
the recycling processes.
Major recycled paperboard manufacturers have been at the scale-up and
commercialization stages to implement paper mill technologies to handle foodservice
waste, including single-use OOH paper coffee cups. Noteworthy is the Advanced
Foodservices Packaging Recycling project spearheaded by WestRock. Through
optimization in pulping and cleaning systems, the company’s mills are able to handle
foodservice packaging, including used coffee cups. Proven on a pilot program in a couple
of their mills, bails from foodservice packaging are now accepted in seven of the
company’s recycled paperboard mills. A similar project is pursued by Georgia-Pacific
based on its patented Juno™ process. By applying heat and pressure to foodservice
packaging, the materials can be screened and separated into fiber, plastic, and metal
streams. Recovered fiber is then mixed in with old corrugated container (OCC) pulp and
processed to make new packaging materials.
Collection, sorting, and processing facilities worldwide are continuing to expand.
However, several challenges remain, including inconsistencies in waste collection service
models, policy patchworks, market access to consistent volumes of clean cups, and
infrastructure investments made for recycling. Additionally, biodegradable coffee cups are
not the best for composting facilities; some of them do not even accept them because they
contaminate their composting streams as consumers typically discard them with look-alike
non-compostable cups (Wozniacka 2020).

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7269
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
CURRENT STATE OF COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES DESIGNED TO
REPLACE PE LINERS

Responding to customer sentiment and the drive of brand owners for sustainable
packaging, papermakers and converters have introduced a range of sustainable cupstock
solutions, including cups that are repulpable when processed in recycled fiber papermills
or even compostable in industrial sites. Efforts have been made to incorporate increased
renewable components into cupstocks and replace the fossil-based PE barrier layer.
Replacements of the paper coffee cup liner include bio-based plastics, processed in existing
extruders or water-based dispersions that are either extruded or applied onto cupstock
paperboard on existing coaters. Worth noting is the fact that polymers made from bio-based
feedstocks are not necessarily always biodegradable. With regards to paperboard
processing costs, new coating processes, such as online extrusion, slot, and slide curtain
coaters, have a real potential to lower unit cupstock costs by eliminating the need for offline
handling, extrusion, or lamination. As a reference, Table 1 lists current and emerging
manufacturers and converters of sustainable paper coffee cups.

Table 1. Sustainable Paper Coffee (Hot) Cups and Materials (Manufacturers,

converters)
Manufacturer
Product (Country) Technology Sustainability Claim(s)*
Acrycote resins Acrylate water-
APEC (KR) Recyclable
(cup liners) based coating
Bare Dart Container
PLA Compostable
(solo eco-forward) Corporation (US)
Polymer-based
Recyclable,
Bioastra cups Bioastra (CA) phase-changing
biodegradable
nano-emulsions
BioBarrier coating Colombier (NL, FI) Water-based coating Recyclable
Kraft of bamboo
BioChoice cups Cape Cup (SA) paper with PLA, Compostable
single/double wall
Kraft paper with
Bio Paper cups DoECO (RU) PLA, single/double Recyclable, compostable
wall
Bioware cups Huhtamaki (FI) PLA Compostable
Bridge-Gate Alliance
Bridge-Gate cups PLA Compostable
Group (US)

Butterfly cups Hanpak (IRL) PBS Recyclable, compostable

Polymeric
combination of
Barriertec Packaging
selected salts,
Coffee cups & Groupe Research Repulpable
calcite or polyvinyl
I.D. Inc. (CA)
alcohol, latexes,
fatty acids
Minima Technology
Coffee cups PLA, bioPBS Compostable
(TW)
Nanjing Anbao
Coffee cups PLA, bioPBS Compostable
Paper Products (CH)

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7270
 PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Manufacturer
Product (Country) Technology Sustainability Claim(s)*
President Packaging
Coffee cups PLA Compostable
(TW)
Sans Packaging
Coffee cups PLA Compostable
(CH)
Compostable paper
Pactiv (US) PLA Compostable
(hot cup)
Cupforma Natura
Stora Enso (FI) PLA Compostable
cupstock
PE liner with a heat-
Dixie Ultra Insulair
Georgia Pacific (US) activated internal air Recyclable
(double-wall cup)
pocket
Biodegradable Earth
Earth cup PLA Compostable
Service (US)
Biodegradable Food
Earth cup PLA Compostable
Service (US)
Europeene des
Earth cup Paper monomaterial Compostable
Emballages (FR)
Eco-barrier Prime FBB Recyclable,
MetsäBoard (SE) Water-based coating
EB cupstock biodegradable
Graphic Packaging
Econtainer cups PLA Compostable
(US)
PLA, single/double
EcoCup EcoPack (SA) Recyclable, compostable
wall
PE with 24% post-
Evolution World cups ECO Products (US) consumer fiber Recyclable
content
Paper with a
Extraordinary
Petra International penetrating Recyclable, compostable
(paper cup)
treatment
Foldable “all in one” cup All in One Recyclable
Foodpak Asia Pulp & Paper Water-based
Recyclable, compostable
BioNatura cups (ID) dispersion
Footprint Molded fiber lids and
Footprint (US) Recyclable, compostable
(cups and lids) water-based coating
FrugalCup Frugalpac (UK) PE Recyclable
FrugalCup Linerless Frugalpac (UK) Proprietary coating Recyclable
Team Three Group
G2 cups PLA Compostable
(US)
Grass-based fibrous
Grasspaper cups Crearpaper (GE) Recyclable, compostable
cups
Greenstripe cups ECO Products (US) PLA Compostable
Greenus Hanchang Paper
PLA, sugarcane Compostable
(hot cup) (KR)
Double wall cups
with Thermashield
Insulated Hold&Go Graphic Packaging air gap, PE liner, 10
Recyclable
(hot cups) (US) to 40% post-
consumer fiber
content

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7271
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Manufacturer
Product (Country) Technology Sustainability Claim(s)*
Invercote GP and
Iggesund Holmen
Incada Exel PE Recyclable
(SE)
(paperboard)
Multilayered water-
ISLA cups Kotkamills (FΙ) Recyclable, compostable
based dispersions
Karat Earth cups Lollicup (US) PLA Compostable
Anqing Lush Paper
Lush packaging cups PLA Compostable
Industry (CH)
Liner with
agricultural waste
bound by dormant
Mushroom cups Concentric (US) Biodegradable
Mycelium fungi in a
cellulose acetate
coating
Hydrophobic ethyl
Innotech Materials
Nanocellulose coating nanocellulose liquid Biodegradable
(US)
crystalline liners
Water-based
Natura Sanitas INDEVCO (LB) Recyclable
emulsion coating
Naturally Seda Seda (US) PLA Compostable
GreenCentury
Nature cup PLA Compostable
Enterprises (CA)
Naturally grown
cups inside custom- Biodegradable,
Nature’s cup Crème
designed 3D-printed compostable
molds
Double-wall cup with
Natures cup Natures Cup (UK) Compostable
air gap and PLA
NewGen BioPBS resins PTT MCC Biochem
PBS Recyclable, compostable
for cup liners (IN)
Clearwater Paper
Nuvo cupstock PE Recyclable
(US)
PLA, synthetic resin-
OmegaBev Natur-Tec (US) polydimethylsiloxane Compostable
coating
Zhejiang Pando EP
Pando cups PLA Compostable
Technology (CH)
Totempak Solutions
Paper cup PLA Compostable
(TW)
Xiamen Wei Mon
Pland paper cup Environmental PLA Compostable
Materials (CH)
PLAP cups Mei Mon (TW) PLA Compostable
AmerCareRoyal
PrimeWare cups PLA Compostable
(US)
reCUP Smart Planet 51% CaCO3, 49%
Recyclable
Vericup Technologies (US) LDPE coating
Acrylate water-
rePaper cups rePaper (KR) Recyclable
based coating

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7272
 PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Manufacturer
Product (Country) Technology Sustainability Claim(s)*
Restoration packaging Restoration
PLA Compostable
cups Packaging (US)
Sentinel Evergreen
Green PE Recyclable
(cupstock) Packaging (US)
Solgel Advanced Sol-gel barrier
SGMA ZP2C Biodegradable
Materials (UK) coating
Single and double wall Hefei Hengxin Env
PLA Compostable
hot cups Sci Techn (CH)
Solo Dart Container
PE Recyclable
(hot cups) Corporation (US)
Molded cellulosic
Stalkmarket cups Seda (US) Compostable
fiber
Sustainex
Mondi (AT) PLA Compostable
(cupstock)
Thermolite LBP Engineering PE and synthetic air
Recyclable
(double-wall cups) (US) lattice between walls
Polystyrene
maleimide with
TopScreen coatings Solenis (US) vegetable oil Recyclable, compostable
coatings with/without
pigments
TruServ WestRock (US) PLA Compostable
Foldable paper with
Unocup cup Unocup (US) Recyclable
PE barrier (no lids)
Vegware cups Vegware (US) PLA Compostable
Viaggio cups Seda (US) Double wall with PE Recyclable
GreenCentury
Vista cups PE Recyclable
Enterprises (CA)
Walki cups Walki (FI) Green PE Recyclable
World Art cups ECO Products (US) PLA Compostable
World Art
ECO Products (US) PLA, double wall Compostable
(insulated cups)
World Centric cups World Centric (US) PLA Compostable
YJS Environmental
YJS cups PLA Compostable
Solutions (TW)

* “Compostable” means biodegradable in industrial composting facilities

Green Polyethylene
Of the many available options, Sentinel™ is a renewable cupstock produced by
Evergreen Packaging. The product claims to be made from 97% biobased ingredients, with
10% of the PE layer derived from sugarcane to lower the overall carbon footprint of the
product. It is offered in one-side PE coated paperboard for hot coffee cupstock with features
that ease converting and printability. The cupstock uses a PE called greenTM Polyethylene,
supplied by Braskem (São Paulo, Brazil), which is produced from bio-based ethanol made
from sugarcane grown under sustainable standards. It has the same chemical signature as

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7273
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
fossil-based PE. While it is recyclable, it is not biodegradable or compostable. Moreover,
it is unclear whether a bio-based PE has any real environmental benefits.

Water-based Dispersion Coatings

Attempts have been made, with some economically commercial success, to use
water-based emulsions and/or pigmented coatings for the production of recyclable and
compostable coffee cups. Water-based barrier coatings (WBBC) containing polymer
dispersions are formulated with water-based resin (latex) emulsions containing 40 to 50%
colloidal polymeric particles, along with other additives, such as dispersants, thickeners,
wetting surfactants, and/or mineral pigments. Additives and inorganic pigments (type and
addition levels) can improve barrier performance, but these can also create crack-at-the-
fold problems (Vähä-Nissi et al. 2001). Typical dispersion resins are pure acrylic polymers,
copolymers of acrylates such as ethyl acid acrylates and ethylene methacrylate, polyvinyl
acetates, styrene butadiene copolymers, and polyolefins. Sometimes, different polymers
are blended or applied in multiple layers to provide the required performance.
Water-based barrier coatings are applied onto cupstocks on both the sidewall and
bottom of a cup, and they can be single or multiple coatings. Upon drying, a water-based
polymeric emulsion forms a barrier thermoplastic film that provides the required resistance
to water, hot liquids, and fatty acids. In contrast to paper coatings for printing, barrier
coatings are formulated below the critical pigment volume concentration when pigment is
used, so that a continuous polymeric film covers the entire paperboard surface. Water-
based polymers for barrier coatings represent 36% of the paper and paperboard barrier
market (Crowther-Alwyn 2019). To achieve barrier properties for coffee cups, multiple
WBBC coating layers are required, typically applied by rod, roll, filmpress, curtain, blade,
or reverse gravure coaters.
There are several requirements to meet for successful implementation of WBBC
and latex-based technologies to barrier coatings. In addition to water vapor, oil, and fatty
acids resistance, a coated cupstock needs to show:
• no blocking during converting to cups;
• heat sealing at 300+ cups/min cup converting machines;
• flexural strength to avoid cracks at a fold;
• retention of cup sidewall stiffness upon exposure to hot liquids up to 100 °C;
and
• resistance to coffee cup edge wicking.
Barrier performance requires wetting of the coating onto the base paperboard
substrate to achieve good adhesion, especially on heavily sized paperboards, and uniformly
continuous substrate coverage. Cupstock paperboard quality, smoothness, and coating
layer uniformity are important aspects for a successful barrier function. The coating layer
must also be free of pinholes that adversely affect the barrier function. Pinholes from foam
or air bubbles generated during coating preparation and processing can be eliminated by
using best practices for coating make-down and delivery. Intense, fast drying of the applied
coating film may also create bubbles that form pinholes upon bursting and allow liquids to
go through the final barrier coating. While resisting hot liquids, the coated cupstock also
needs to have no odor and not create an aftertaste upon its use with a hot beverage, while
complying with national and international regulatory food contact requirements.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7274
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Being able to pass all the above requirements simultaneously has proven to be a
challenge for cupstocks with water-based emulsions and coatings. Thermoplastic latexes
create strong, flexible films that are good for cup strength and hot melt sealability.
However, they may also gradually soften and become sticky when at elevated temperatures
(~ 49 to 55 °C), generating tacky films that create blocking during the converting operation,
such as sticking to the mandrills of the cup forming machine. Blocking limits cup forming
speed, adversely affecting line productivity. Hot air sealed paper cup machines are
competitively run at speeds over 150 cups, preferably over 300 cups, per minute, which
makes it challenging to meet anti-blocking and heat sealability requirements. Many times,
formulation strategies are competing against each other. Although mineralization of a
water-based formulation helps resistance to blocking, cracks may develop at the fold when
attaching the side wall to the bottom of the cup. Therefore, formulating for resistance to
blocking, while preserving sealability, is a critical step in successful application of WBBC.
Thermoplastic coating films with 100% latex emulsions are based on pure acrylics or
acrylate copolymers, typically formulated with dispersants, thickeners, wetting aids, and
other additives for processability during coating and converting. These coatings also
require FDA/BfR compliance for food contact, FBA or equivalent certificates for
recyclability, and/or qualifications of DIN EN 13432:2000 (2007), preferably compostable
product certification from the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI).
Recently commercialized, paper cups coated with latex or WBBC are generally
recyclable, re-pulpable, and even compostable in industrial facilities (Ju et al. 2017;
Hämäläinen 2019). Coatings based on pure acrylics and acrylate copolymers have been
successfully used to make coffee cups in several regions around the world. Among others,
examples are: acrylates from Advanced Polymer Emulsions Company (APEC), Korea, and
BASF (Germany); ethyl acid acrylate (EAA) copolymers from SK Chemical (Korea);
commercial ready-to-use coating formulations such as VaporCoat® and Michem®Coat
from Michelman (USA); REPA® coatings by rePaper (Korea); or CHP BAR® coatings
with mineral pigments from CH-Polymers (Finland). On the pigment side, Imerys offers
BarrisurfTM HX, a coarse hyper-platy clay that imparts barrier and hydrocarbon resistant
performance in WBBC. Imerys also provides formulated coatings with their Century TM
delaminated kaolin, Steaplus® Prime minerals, and Barrikote™ formulations. Based on
platy minerals and specialty polymers, Barrikote™ coatings are claimed to provide
equivalent water resistance, heat sealability, anti-blocking, and crack-resistance as
traditional PE liners at 70% thinner film thickness with the added bonus of recyclability
(De Sailly 2018). Specific coatings have been developed for multilayered curtain coating,
while formulation design includes choice of the appropriate polymer. Ethyl acid acrylate
emulsion polymers in WBBC demonstrate comparatively better barrier properties with
sealability and blocking resistance, while other acrylate copolymers give a thin balance of
properties because optimization of their polymeric design for one property adversely
affects another.
Typically, water-based polymer dispersions are formulated into ready-to-use
coatings for cupstock. An example is the ACRYCOTE® APC-200 resin by APEC. It is
based on acrylate-carboxylic acid copolymers, which are polymerized at the presence of a
reactive emulsifier and a multifunctional silicone polymer (Shim 2016). These acrylate
emulsions exhibit low volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and are formulated to
environmentally preferred WBBC for OOH paper coffee cup recycling or composting in
industrial facilities. Coat weights of 8 to 10 g/m2 have been applied on paperboard with
gravure coaters to create 150 to 350 g/m2 cupstocks, which impart good sealability, and

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7275
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
comparable physical, water, and oil resistance properties to PE coatings. More recent
variations incorporate a 3 to 10 g/m2 precoating, with 6 to 12 g/m2 top coating, onto 150 to
350 g/m2 base board (Larsson and Emilsson 2019). BASF also offers developmental
acrylate water-based polymers that provide heat-sealable, block-resistant, and liquid
barrier coatings, making paper coffee cups re-pulpable. In some cases, there is a
combination of PE liner with an aqueous water-based dispersion coating. These new
polymer systems are at the pilot scale and machine trial stages. While multiple
development efforts are in progress, consistently passing all cupstock barrier and
converting performance requirements simultaneously has been proven difficult for
emulsions.
Another example of water-based coatings is REPA® Coat, an acrylate-based
emulsion resin by RePaper. A recent patent discloses emulsion polymer resins synthesized
with copolymerized acrylate monomers and cyclosiloxanes to form a copolymer having
100,000 to 200,000 molecular weight. The polymer is blended with up to 15% gelatinized
polyvinyl alcohol to form the emulsion copolymer (Yoon 2019). These copolymers are
formulated into WBBC REPA® coatings, which are applied onto the side wall to provide
desired barrier properties, namely, Cobb, water-vapor transmission rate (WVTR), and oil
and grease resistance (OGR). The coatings are said to provide good sealability and
improved blocking performance over pure thermoplastic films. Typically, a single coating
layer of 8 to 10 g/m2 is sufficient to provide barrier properties on a 200 to 350 g/m 2
paperboard for paper coffee cups. The coating thickness is half or two-thirds lower than
that required with PE films. Re-pulpability yield of rePaper beverage cups coated with
REPA® has been better than that of those coated with PE or PLA (Ju 2017). Additionally,
cups with REPA® coatings are compostable in industrial facilities. Commissioned studies
under controlled composting conditions (58 °C, 48 days) demonstrated greater than 90%
average biodegradation. However, their widespread adoption is hindered by blocking
problems during converting in cup machines at speeds over 300 cups/min, which can
adversely affect productivity.
CHP BAR® coatings by CH-Polymers (Finland) are also based on acrylate
chemistry. These have been used to formulate pigmented coatings for cupstock that are
recyclable and biodegradable in industrial composting facilities. These WBBCs give good
grease and mineral oil barrier properties and can be designed to also provide moisture and
water resistance. Similarly, Charta Global, in a strategic partnership with Asia Pulp &
Paper, has introduced their Foodpak Bio Natura Cup™, which is based on an aqueous
dispersion coating (Lingle 2018). The product is said to provide hot liquid holdout with
good sealing properties. It complies with FDA requirements for food contact, as well as
with the FTC’s Green Guides for biodegradability and compostability.
Different types of water-based chemistries have also been used to replace PE liners
and create commercially feasible barrier coatings. Examples include technologies
commercialized by Footprint and Colombier. Footprint, a sustainable packaging company
from Arizona (USA), has also created water-based barrier coatings to make recyclable and
compostable fiber-based coffee cups. Water repellency is created by combining alkyl
ketene dimer (AKD) sizing agent with polyamide epichlorohydrin (PAE), starch, and
inorganic salts (Chung et al. 2018). Colombier, from The Netherlands and Finland, has
introduced the BioBarrier® coatings that are tailor made for specific product applications,
including paper coffee cups, to impart selected properties such as water, water vapor, oil
and grease, and heat resistance. In this case, the barrier coating forms a monomaterial
together with the coated base material, while a separate coating on the outside wall of a

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7276
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
cup provides optical and appearance properties. Cups with BioBarriers are recyclable and
compostable.
Other water-based products at the early commercialization stage show promise for
application to paper coffee cups. Dow Coating Materials offers RHOBARR™ 320, a
polyolefin dispersion (POD) that meets barrier performance requirements for hot beverages
cupstock (Piwowar et al. 2019). The particular PODs contain the base resin and additives
for processing, adhesion, and wetting in existing extruders. To achieve acceptable barrier
performance, their application requires less raw material than with conventional fossil-
based resins, comparatively 10 to 15% lower weight. This reduces waste and enables
almost complete (99%) fiber recovery from recovered waste cups. Under license, Paramelt
(USA) developed commercial capability to produce mechanical dispersions (Aquaseal™)
of high-molecular weight thermoplastic polyolefins and styrene block copolymers in water,
which is based on Dow’s proprietary Bluewave™ technology; this enables dispersion of
polymers that are not self-dispersing (Rao 2009).
Yet another type of aqueous coating formulation with barrier properties has been
introduced by TopChim NV (now Solenis). TopScreen™ technology is based on
imidization of polystyrene maleic anhydride (SMA) in the presence of vegetable oil to
yield polystyrene maleimide (SMI). This creates water-dispersed particles that incorporate
the vegetable oil in a core-shell structure. The particles are 0.1 to 0.15 microns in diameter
and contain up to 70% vegetable oil. TopScreen™ coatings have been shown to have
similar properties to PE-coated paper cups on a lower weight cupstock (Stanssens 2017).
They work well as a barrier, either as a standalone layer or as a top coating in multilayered
designs. In both cases, the TopScreen™ coating must sit on top of the paperboard to
achieve good sealability. As a result, the type of coating method used and coating viscosity
at the sealing temperature will dramatically impact coating performance. Vercammen’s
(2019) recommendations include using TopScreen™ PC at 3 to 10 g/m2 as a precoating,
followed by 6 to 12 g/m2 of TopScreen™ TC for the inner liner barrier layer, and 1 to 3
g/m2 of outside cupstock coating for sealing and printability. These coatings can be applied
with rod, blade, or curtain coaters, and they fit well with operations that can deploy a
variety of coating techniques. A recommended application includes multilayering with
double coating for the inner wall of a cup, i.e., a liquid repellant/heat sealable top coating
added on to a non-water repellant base coating, and separately applying a single coating on
the external wall to enhance fiber tear resistance after sealing. Converting to recyclable and
potentially compostable cups has been demonstrated at production rates over 300 cups per
minute. Recent trials at the UMV pilot facility in Sweden demonstrated successful
application with rod, resilient tip, and blade tip on zero and long-dwell coaters of the
TopScreen™ TC372 pigmented coating for cupstock (Hutchinson 2019).
Thermolite™ insulating technology is yet another option to brand owners and
converters. Offered by LBP Manufacturing, a thermally expandable coating is applied onto
the cupstock of a double-wall cup in a pattern form, filling the air gap between the two
walls (Fu and Cook 2017). This results in a synthetic air lattice structure, which provides
thermal insulation, improved mechanical strength, and cup integrity in double-wall cups
(Fig. 4). The coating contains expandable microspheres that activate at a temperature
around 88 °C (190 °F) and an adhesive to form, upon expansion, an insulating layer
between the two walls that provides insulation by reducing thermal conductivity. The
microspheres are expanded during cup manufacturing or during use when hot beverages
are added to the cup. The insulation coating with microspheres is formulated from

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7277
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
renewable materials and applied in-line during converting to create an environmentally
preferred coffee cup.
With its Flying Eagle project, Kotkamills has successfully implemented
papermaking technology to produce cupstock that eliminates the need for a separate PE
barrier liner (Rodden 2018). As an integrated mill, it has the advantage to control basesheet
properties, such as formation, sheet porosity, and smoothness for coatweight uniformity, a
key variable for optimum barrier performance of a cup. A good example of how to exploit
modern coating methods for efficiency is the company’s use of an in-line curtain coater to
apply two coating layers simultaneously on each side of the web. Multi-layering gives the
opportunity to apply different coatings at the same time, e.g., one designed for water vapor
transmission resistance and another one selected for oil and grease or fatty acids resistance.
Additionally, a metered-size press and a blade coater make it possible to apply up to a total
of seven barrier layers online. The capability to manufacture baseboard and coat it online
at the same site provides a cost competitive advantage over off-machine coating (Rodden
2018). Besides making the uncoated ISLA™ Cup Base for traditional coating with an
extruder, Kotkamills produces ISLA™ DUO coated board in weights of 160 to 325 g/m2
for hot beverages. Both paperboards recently received Nordic Swan approval. They
represent a new generation of barrier paperboard that incorporates water-based dispersion
barrier coatings on one or both sides that are applied online with curtain/slide coaters as a
single layer of multi-layered coatings. Upon collection and sorting, disposable coffee cups
made with ISLA board can be composted or recycled together with the fibrous component.
Cups, like office papers, are recyclable in the common paper waste streams. Tests have
also shown that the ISLA barrier coatings are over 90% biodegradable upon industrial
composting.

Pigmented Coatings
For pigmented coatings, super-platy clays, or layered silicates (i.e., nanoclays),
have been shown to provide the physical barrier to water, oil, and grease. They also provide
protection against migration of mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) and mineral
oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH) to food packaging (Imerys 2017). However, super-
platy kaolin coatings tend to crack at the fold upon creasing and add 5 to 10% by weight
to formulated coatings for paper cups. They have also been blended with bioplastics, such
as PLA, but with limitations as such coatings are not the best for high-moisture resistance
of OOH paper coffee cups. Besides achieving technical performance, inclusion of pigments
in barrier coatings also depends on the final cost of the formulated coating.
Although water-based resins and dispersion technologies have the advantage that
they can be readily adopted to existing coating processes and produce recyclable paper
coffee cups, they are only making small and slow inroads to replacing fossil-based liners
in coffee cups. At issue is the relatively high raw material and in-use costs required to
achieve barrier performance and end-use performance properties. Furthermore, coated
cupstock needs to be converted at high speeds, which has proven to be an additional
challenge. These challenges make it difficult to broadly and readily displace paper cups
lined with fossil-based plastics and some bioplastics. Upon industrial composting, paper
cups coated with water-based dispersions demonstrate some degradation, yet they leave
behind thermoplastic microparticles, which can still have an adverse environmental impact
(Brinton 2016). Recycling with other common papers, such as old corrugating boxes, is
considered a more viable end-of-life solution.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7278
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Bioplastics as Replacement for PE Liners
Unlike petroleum-derived PE, many bioplastics, such as thermoplastic starch,
polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and
their blends, are industrially compostable. Thermoplastic starch is water-sensitive and its
application in barrier coating may only be in blends with other polymers. Biodegradable
aliphatic polyesters, such as PLA and PBS, are typically produced by condensation
reactions. For high-molecular weight biodegradable polymers, ring opening
polymerization is preferred (Vroman and Tighzert 2009). Polylactic acid is produced from
a series of natural α-hydroxy acids with bacterial fermentation from corn or sugar cane,
while PBS is the product of the condensation reaction of succinic acid and 1-4 butanediol
(BDO) based on petroleum or sugars. Both plastics are biodegradable in industrial
composting facilities. Polyhydroxyalkanoates are linear polyesters produced by bacterial
fermentation of sugars or lipids. Their most common type is the polyhydroxy-butyrate
(PHB) from sugar cane. Plastics with PHAs are readily biodegradable in soil, wetlands,
marine water, septic and municipal solid waste facilities, and even in cold seawater. They
are also US-FDA approved for food contact in packaging. Although the potential of PHA
to replace fossil-based PE liner has been recognized from many years ago, its economically
attractive large-volume production has not yet materialized, making it difficult to compete
in the market against fossil-based plastics (Laird 2019).

Table 2. Categorizing Biodegradability of Bioplastics Currently in the Market and

Under Commercial Development (Bergsma et al. 2017)
Degree of Biodegradation Material
Readily biodegradable PHA
(in seawater or residential composting) Regenerated cellulose
Biodegradable at large scale PLA
(municipal/industrial composting) PLA-PHA blends
Thermoplastic Starch (TPS)
TPS-PLA blends
Bio-PBS
TPS-bio-PBS blends
TPS-PHA blends

All these polymeric resins can be applied in existing extrusion equipment optimized
for their processing; hence, they all represent potentially commercially viable solutions that
can replace fossil-based PE liners. In many cases, resins are formulated in blends with other
bioplastics and additives to improve their processability during extrusion. Attractiveness
of their use is that the final product is industrially compostable and biodegradable, with
several compostable at the residential level (Table 2). Most often, industrial composting
systems are required to provide the high temperature (> 49 °C) required for practical
composting to biodegrade within a reasonable time. The rate of biodegradability of
bioplastics depends on their processing conditions, molecular weight, additives, and
crystallinity (Garrison et al. 2016).
The drive to reduce pollution has generated considerable interest within the coffee
cup value chain to exploit the properties of bioplastics and introduce biodegradable coffee
cups to the market. For example, UK-based Biopac Limited has commercialized
compostable hot cups using paperboard that is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) and a specially formulated starch-based coating that provides barrier properties. The

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7279
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
company also offers a double-layered version for enhanced thermal insulation. World
Centric®, a California Benefit Corporation, offers three lines of hot paper cups, each using
cupstock lined with Ingeo™ PLA, made by NatureWorks®, as the barrier. Similarly, Pactiv
produces the Earthchoice™ cups lined with Ingeo. Natur-Tec, a business unit of Northern
Technologies International Corporation, in collaboration with ITC India’s Paperboard and
Specialty Paper Division (ITC PSPD), successfully commercialized a modified-PLA
coated cup that is also certified compostable by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI)
(Manjure 2011). Their Omega Bev® products are either PLA-based or made with a
synthetic resin and polydimethylsiloxane coatings, giving water resistance and heat
sealability. Ecotainer® by International Paper Foodservice (now Graphic Packaging
International) also uses Ingeo PLA coating, making coffee cups compostable in industrial
facilities. A PLA lined product made by WestRock is the TruServ™ Compostable
Cupstock. Compostable biopolymer is also used as a barrier coating in Stora Enso’s
Cupforma Natura™ cupstock, a lightweight three-layered fibrous basestock that has the
properties for converting it to disposable coffee cups. Earth Cup ™ by Biodegradable Food
Service™ (US) is a PLA-lined coffee cup that has BPI certification for composting in
industrial facilities. Typically, PLA is modified to enhance its thermal stability in extrusion
lines and to improve its mechanical properties (e.g., reduce brittleness). Although modified
PLA and its blends have gained market share in bioplastic cold beverage cups, they have
not yet made a large-scale break into the broader paper coffee cup liner market due to their
high in-use cost relative to PE, heavy coatweight required to achieve targeted barrier
properties, difficulty in recycling – including contamination of other recyclable plastic
streams – and slow biodegradation rates during industrial composting.
While companies are actively introducing biodegradable product lines, pull-
through has been largely slow due to three reasons:
1. Bio-based polymers are expensive relative to the petroleum-derived resins. Use of
bio-based polymers increases the unit cost of the cup, which presents a challenge
in this highly cost-sensitive market;
2. Very few retail facilities have access to composting, while only a fraction of
compost processing facilities accept bioplastics; and
3. The lack of uniform terminologies and standards for biological recycling of
biopolymer products.
As a result, many biodegradable products are improperly disposed in landfills or
contribute to plastic pollution (McDonald 2019).

Overcoming the Collection Challenge

Composting bioplastic-based coffee cups is problematic because they contaminate
composting streams. As a result, they are not accepted by most of the existing US
composting facilities. At this time, only a few hundred of the roughly 4,000 composting
sites in the US accept foodservice packaging, and a much smaller portion accepts
bioplastics (Wozniacka 2019). The problem is contamination with fossil-based plastics.
Where composting facilities do not accept biopolymers, municipalities have to find other
alternatives to access biological recycling facilities (McDonald 2019). One solution for
bioplastic cup-friendly composting facilities may be to follow the lead of Chulalongkorn
University (Bangkok, Thailand), where through their “zero-waste cup” initiative nearly 2
million coffee cups are collected from 17 university canteens annually and processed

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7280
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
through a central composting facility designed to process the bioplastic. These cups, which
biodegrade in the soil even under ambient temperatures, use a PBS-based coating from
PTT MMC Biochem, Thailand, marketed under the tradename bioPBS™ (BioPBS™ 2016,
2019). The eco-friendly product has been qualified as a coating for cupstock, with
sufficient properties for extruder processing, heat sealing, and printing properties that are
equivalent to PE. Starbucks has announced pre-market testing of a BioPBS™-lined cup in
selected stores in Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, and London (Starbucks
2020A).
Thailand-based Chula Zero Waste offers coffee in paper cups lined with bioPBS
sold in 11 OOH canteens so far, bringing 5.7 tons of cups to industrial composts,
completely biodegrading within three months. Most recently, under their “be smart, be
green” program, Silapakorn University partnered with PTT Global Chemical to promote
the use of bioPBS in coated paper cups. A newer bioPBS version biodegrades at ambient
conditions of 30 °C (86 °F) to produce H2O, CO2, and biomass without the need of an
industrial composting facility. Although industrially compostable, PBS is yet to be
produced economically in large volumes across continents, while its high raw materials
and manufacturing costs have so far limited its broad application into coffee cups beyond
Thailand and southeast Asia.
A number of recyclable coffee cups have been introduced by integrated
manufacturers such as WestRock, Stora Enso, Metsä Board Husum, and Kotkamills; and
biodegradable cups by Graphic Packaging International, Evergreen Packaging, Lecta, Asia
Pulp & Paper (APP), ITC PSPD, and PTT MMC; as well as by converters like Tetra Laval,
ECO Products, Smart Planet Technologies, LBP Manufacturing, Huhtamäki, rePaper, and
Walkifoods. They are trying to make recycling of paper coffee cups easy, such as the
initiative launched by Huhtamäki introducing QR codes on their cups that lead to recycling
possibilities available to a consumer. Other converters, such as Dart Corporation, Pactiv,
and Seda Packaging, have made significant commitments to using sustainable raw
materials for cup manufacturing. Recyclable coffee cups can now be processed with other
papers in recycling papermills, while the ones based on biopolymers or WBBC are over
90% biodegradable in industrial composting facilities. Exceptions are bioPBS, which is
compostable at 30 °C, and PHA, which is readily compostable in any environment. It
should be noted, however, that an increase in compostable single-use coffee cups and
foodservice packaging can bungle up existing composting processes, instead of increasing
commitment of consumers to the more environmentally beneficial practices of reducing
and reusing (Wozniacka 2019).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Consumer demand for environmentally friendly products has resulted in many

parallel worldwide efforts across the value chain to deliver alternatives to plastic-coated
paper cups. Although progress has been made, the Holy Grail remains elusive: how to make
an easy to use out-of-home (OOH) paper coffee cup that readily disintegrates in a typical
ambient environment within a reasonable time, requiring no specialized composting. To
this end, raw material suppliers, manufacturers, converters, and brand-owners are
delivering a plethora of new products that can eliminate PE in favor of bio-based plastics.
These new cup offerings are in many cases compostable and biodegradable in industrial

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7281
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
facilities. However, high end-product unit costs still remain a challenge to widespread
adoption of such solutions.
Although recent progress has been made, recycling and composting infrastructures
needed to recover waste cups on a large scale are largely absent. From a cost perspective,
there is a premium in-use cost associated with compostable and biodegradable coffee cups.
As a result, manufacturers need to fully understand the available technology options so that
they can make informed decisions about materials selection, while brand owners need to
consider the full life cycle cost of products they use (Changwichan and Gheewala 2020).
A recent life cycle study showed that current methods for disposing paper cups has the
global environmental footprint of 1.5 million Europeans and that recycling could reduce
this impact by 40 percent (Foteinis 2020). The entire value chain needs to work with
municipalities, regional communities, and across governments to ensure that a recovery
infrastructure is in place to best dispose and process these cups. Only then will it be possible
to meet consumer needs while addressing environmental and sustainability goals.
However, it is one thing for the consumer to talk about sustainability and demand
environmentally friendly product options, and another to practice prudent waste separation
practices and be willing to pay a premium for behaviors and selections that support
sustainability.
New policies and legislation are driving the change to more sustainable solutions
and a circular economy. An example is the recent provisional agreement for an EU
directive on single-use plastics to address marine litter: where alternatives are easily
available and affordable, and single-use plastic products will be banned from the market,
while other products will be limited in their use through reduction in consumption, design
and labelling requirements, and waste management/clean-up obligations for producers
(European Commission 2019). Approved in June 2019, EU member states have to
transpose it within two years. Its implementation requires separate measures to apply to
different product categories that include reduction in the use of PE-lined OOH paper coffee
cups. In parallel, the UK has already introduced the producer responsibility obligation
regulation that essentially taxes producers through purchasing packaging recovery notes
(UK Parliament 2017). Currently, there is consideration for further legislation in the UK,
Australia, Canada, South Africa, China, India, Singapore, and Taiwan to phase out single-
use fossil-based plastics, including PE-lined OOH paper coffee cups, within the next five
years.
Sustainability commitments and initiatives by brand owners help to identify ideas
and accelerate implementation of new innovative solutions in collaboratively finding
solutions to the waste problem and designing the next generation coffee cup. In a recent
letter by Starbucks’ CEO, the company reiterated its commitment to becoming resource
positive, storing more carbon than they emit, eliminating waste, and providing cleaner
freshwater than they use, and established as a key benchmark replacement of single-use by
reusable packaging (Starbucks 2020B). Similar guiding principles have been chartered by
other major brand owners in the foodservice industry. In March 2018, Starbucks committed
$10 million to the NextGen Cup Challenge project, a collaboration with Closed Loop
Partners and its Center for the Circular Economy (NextGen Consortium 2020). Since then,
the project has been joined by McDonalds, Coca Cola, the Yum! Group, Wendy’s, and
Nestlé. Its goal is to seek a global end-to-end solution that would allow paper coffee cups
around the world to be diverted from landfills and recycled or composted. The consortium
awarded accelerator grants to innovators and entrepreneurs working on ideas that could
help develop more sustainable cups, while through open innovation inviting industry

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7282
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
participation and partnerships to implement a global solution. Out of 500 submissions from
50 countries, 29 teams were selected to move to the refinement stage of the Challenge
(OpenIDEO 2020). Subsequently, a forum of judges from food and beverage companies
picked the 12 most promising ideas and prototypes to move forward to their demonstration
stage (Wilson 2019). At the time of this writing, six teams have entered phase five of the
project to create manufacture-ready products/services, pitch-ready business plans, and
teams for long-term growth. The winners included: Colombier (The Netherlands, Finland)
and Footprint (USA) for their innovative barrier coating liners; Solublue (UK) in the new
material (plant-based) category; CupClub (UK) for their returnable cup ecosystem scheme;
and ReCup (Germany) for their deposit system of reusable (rent-and-return) cups.
Demonstrations of large-scale production capability and testing concepts at the consumer
level have started in September 2019.
Preference for new materials and cups is for designs that can fit currently available
manufacturing processes and recycling process capabilities. Recently, the Confederation
of European Paper Industry (CEPI) introduced packaging recyclability guidelines that
included alternative barriers from new technologies such as polymer dispersion coated
barriers (CEPI 2019). The guidelines emphasized design of barrier products ensuring that
(a) the paper component of the package breaks down to single fibers in existing recycling
pulpmill equipment, and (b) giving preference to polymers that can be efficiently removed
from the fibrous component in existing screening processes. Separately, the National
Geographic Society and Sky Ocean Ventures put together the Ocean Plastic Innovation
Challenge to source ideas from around the world about designing a better packaging, such
as a fully biodegradable coffee cup (Borunda 2019). Results from such efforts would test
the true appetite of consumers for a change to sustainable solutions, provide ways to
implement the no-single-use plastic policies, and assist in implementing an integrated
approach to coffee cups recovery. In the end, the successful adoption of such solutions will
provide lasting benefits and advance the circular economy by minimizing cradle-to-cradle
resources consumption and carbon footprint.

REFERENCES CITED

Bergsma, G., De Graaf, L., Nusselder, S., and Odegard, I. (2017). Biobased Plastics in a
Circular Economy: Policy Suggestions for Biobased and Biobased Biodegradable
Plastics (Report J66), CE Delft, Delft, Netherlands.
Borunda, A. (2019). “Can you solve the plastics problem? New prize invites ideas,”
National Geographic, (www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/plastic-
innovation-challenge-prize-clean-ocean/#close), Accessed 11 Feb 2019.
Brinton, W., Dietz, C., Bouyounan, A., and Matsch, D. (2016). “The environmental
hazards inherent in the composting of plastic-coated paper products,” Eco-Cycle,
(http://www.ecocycle.org/microplasticsincompost), Accessed 3 Jan 2019.
Changwichan, K., and Gheewala, S. (2020). “Choice of materials for takeaway beverage
cups towards a circular economy,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 22, 34-
44.
Chaudhuri, S. (2018). “Paper cups become a target in the fight against plastic,” Wall
Street Journal, (https://www.wsj.com/articles/scrutiny-of-paper-coffee-cups-stacks-
up-1540810800), Accessed 31 Oct 2018.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7283
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Chung, Y. D., Moore, B. M., and Zhang, Y. (2018). “Method for manufacturing fiber-
based produced containers,” U. S. Patent No. 9856608.
Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) (2019). “Paper-based packaging
recyclability guidelines,” (http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/news_items/19-
3038_Recyclability_A4_EN_20191115.pdf), Accessed 01 March 2020.
Crowther-Alwyn, L. (2019). “Innovative barriers for flexible packaging,” in: Proceedings
of the PTS Streicherei 2019 Symposium, Munich, Germany.
De Sailly, M. (2018). “Imerys Barrikote water-based barrier formulation for recyclable
hot and cold cups,” OpenIDEO, (https://challenges.openideo.com/challenge/next-gen-
cup-challenge/ideas/imerys-barrikote-water-based-barrier-formulation-for-recyclable-
hot-and-cold-cups), Accessed 17 Jan 2020.
DIN EN 13432:2000 (2007). “Requirements for packaging recoverable through
composting and biodegradation – Test scheme and evaluation criteria for the final
acceptance of packaging,” Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany.
European Bioplastics (2017). “Bioplastics packaging: Combining sustainability with
performance” (http://docs.european-bioplastics.org/2016/publications/fs/
EUBP_fs_packaging.pdf), Accessed 30 Nov 2019.
European Commission (2019). Directive (EU) 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 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32019L0904&from=EN), Accessed June 19, 2020.
Foteinis, S. (2020). “How small daily changes play a huge role in climate change: The
disposable paper cup environmental bane,” J. Cleaner Production 255, 120294.
Frugal Pac (2020). “Recyclable coffee cups,” (www.frugalpac.com), Accessed 19 Jan
2020.
Fu, T., and Cook, M. (2017). “Thermally activatable insulating packaging,” U. S. Patent
No. 9580228.
Garrison, T., Murawski, A., and Quirino, R. (2016). “Bio-based polymers with potential
for biodegradability,” Polymers 8(7), 262-284. DOI: 10.3390/polym8070262
Hämäläinen, M. (2019). “Plastic-free, easily recyclable paper cups are available,” in:
Proceedings of the TAPPI PaperCon 2019 Conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Hocking, M. (1994). “Reusable and disposable cups: An energy-based evaluation,”
Environmental Management 18(6), 889-899. DOI: 10.1007/BF02393618
Hogue, C. (2018). “San Francisco moves to ban food containers made with fluorinated
chemicals,” Chemical and Engineering News, (https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation-
/San-Francisco-moves-ban-food/96/i32), Accessed 04 Feb 2019.
Hutchinson, L. (2019). “Development of more sustainable barrier technology for
packaging,” in: Proceedings of the TAPPI PaperCon 2019 Conference, Indianapolis,
IN, USA.
iMarc (2020). “Paper cups market: Global industry trends, share, size, growth,
opportunity and forecast 2020-2025,” (https://www.imarcgroup.com/paper-cups-
manufacturing-plant), Accessed 15 April 2020.
Imerys (2017). Formulation Services Brochure: Barrier Against Mineral Oils, Imerys
Kaolin Americas, Sandersville, GA, USA.
Ju, L. T., Yoon, C., and Ryu, J. Y. (2017). “A new potential paper resource: Recyclability
of paper cups coated with water-soluble polyacrylate latex,” Nordic Pulp & Paper
Research Journal 31(1), 155-161. DOI: 10.3183/npprj-2017-32-01-p155-161

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7284
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Kamenetz, A. (2010). “The Starbucks cup dilemma,” Fast Company,
(www.fastcompany.com/1693703/starbucks-cup-dilemma), Accessed 05 Feb 2019.
Laird, K. (2019). “Bioplastics: Promising but pricey,” Plastic News,
(https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190205/NEWS/190209956/bioplastics-
promising-but-pricey), Accessed 06 Feb 2020.
Larsson, T., and Emilsson, P. (2019). “Cupstock coated with multilayer WBBC's process
& product performance,” in: Proceedings of the PTS Streicherei 2019 Symposium,
Munich, Germany.
Lingle, R. (2018). “New paperboard packaging matches foodservice shift in
sustainability,” Packaging Digest,
(https://www.packagingdigest.com/paperboard/new-paper-pkg-option-matches-
foodsv-sustain-1805), Accessed 28 Dec 2019.
Ma, Y. (2018). “Problems and resolutions in dealing with waste disposable paper cups,”
Science Progress 101(1), 1-7 (https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017X15129981721365)
Manjure, S. (2011). “PLA for paper coating,” Bioplastics Magazine 6(5), 34-37.
McDonald, N. (2019). “Biological recycling of biodegradable plastics,” Biocycle 60(7),
32-34, 36.
Minter, A. (2014). “Why Starbucks won’t recycle your cup,” Bloomberg News,
(www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-04-07/why-starbucks-won-t-recycle-your-
cup), Accessed 05 Feb 2019.
Mohan, K., and Koukoulas, A. A. (2004). “Low density paper and paperboard articles,”
U.S. Patent No. 6802938.
Mouw, S., Schwartz, L., and Yakorsky, S. (2020). “State of curbside report,” The
Recycling Partnership, (https://recyclingpartnership.org/stateofcurbside/), Accessed
13 Feb 2020.
Narayan, R. (2011). “Carbon footprint of biopolymers using biocarbon content analysis
and life-cycle assessment,” MRS Bulletin 36(9), 716-721. DOI:
10.1557/mrs.2011.210
NextGen Consortium (2020). “Accelerating the future of the fiber,”
(https://www.nextgenconsortium.com), Accessed 10 Feb 2020.
Nossa Familia Coffee (2019). “Sustainability and transparency report,”
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5419e3c7e4b090c9db3d42ca/t/5d0bc51aa2343
f00014258ab/1561052454593/Sustainability-Report-2018-19_Nossa-Familia-
Coffee.pdf), Accessed 10 Feb 2020.
OpenIDEO (2020). “NextGen cup challenge: Short List,” OpenIDEO, (https://media-
openideo-rwd.oiengine.com/attachments/8efc2ce0-e61f-4a4c-b2f3-
65bbd6738d79.pdf ), Accessed 12 Feb 2020.Peters, A. (2018). “Starbucks recycled
23 million old coffee cups into new cups,” FastCompany Magazine,
(https://www.fastcompany.com/90270871/starbucks-recycled-25-million-old-paper-
coffee-cups-into-new-cups), Accessed 28 Nov 2019.
Piwowar, A., Einsla, B., Ellison, C., Fowler, H., Katzenstein, J., Leitinger, J., Mason, J.,
Roper, J., Rosen, K., and Smith, R. (2019). “Optimizing performance of polyolefin
based waterborne barrier coatings for cupstock applications,” in: Proceedings of the
TAPPI PaperCon 2019 Conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
ProCarton (2019). “Retail trade, brands and packaging – The trends 2019,”
(www.procarton.com/retail-trade-brands-and-packaging-the-trends-for-2019/),
Accessed 20 May 2019.

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7285
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
Rao, R. (2009). “Polyolefin dispersion – A new vistas for flexible packaging,” in:
Proceedings of the TAPPI PLACE 2009 Conference, Mumbai, India.
Reed, F. (2018). “PCRRG reports huge increase in coffee cup recycling,” PCRRG,
(www.pcrrg.uk/news.html), Accessed 20 Jan 2019.
Ritter, S. (2015). “The shrinking case for fluorochemicals,” Chemical & Engineering
News 93(28), 27-29. DOI: 10.1021/cen-09328-scitech1
Rodden, G. (2018). “A perennial problem solved,” Paper 360, (https://www.paper360-
digital.com/ppis/may_june_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1395357#artic
leId1395357), Accessed 27 July 2018.
Sherriff, L. (2019). “This recyclable coffee cup is made from 100% recyclable paper,”
Forbes, (www.forbes.com/sites/lucysherriff/2019/11/16/this-recyclable-coffee-cup-is-
made-from-100-recyclable-paper/#3db62c1d4c52), Accessed 28 Dec 2019.
Shim, M.-S. (2016). “Aqueous copolymeric latex comprising multi-functional silicone,
preparation thereof, and food, packaging container using the same” Korean Patent
No. 10-2016-0050980.
Stanssens, D. (2017). “Barrier coating for PE-free paper cups,” in: Proceedings of the
PTS Coating 2017 Symposium, Munich, Germany.
Starbucks Corporation (2020A). “Starbucks trials a NextGen cup solution,”
(https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2020/starbucks-trials-a-"-cup-
solution/), Accessed 4 Feb 2020.
Starbucks Corporation (2020B). “A message from Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson:
Starbucks new sustainability commitment,”
(https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2020/message-from-starbucks-ceo-kevin-
johnson-starbucks-new-sustainability-commitment), Accessed 10 March 2020.
Streeter, V., and Platt, B. (2017). “Residential food waste collection access in the US,”
(https://www.biocycle.net/2017/12/06/residential-food-waste-collection-access-u-s/),
Accessed 11 Jan 2019.
Tame, J. (2020). “European packaging preferences 2020: A European study of consumer
preferences, perceptions, and attitudes towards packaging,” A TwoSides Report,
Daventry, UK.
UK Parliament (2017). “Targets and policy for coffee cup waste reduction,”
(publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/657/65706.htm),
Accessed 27 Dec 2019.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2017). “Paper and
paperboard: Material-specific data,” (www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-
materials-waste-and-recycling/paper-and-paperboard-material-specific-data),
Accessed 24 Jan 2020.
Vähä-Nissi, M., Lahti, J., Savolainen, A., Rissa, K., and Lepisto, T. (2001). “New water-
based barrier coatings for paper and paperboard,” Appita Journal 54(2), 106-115.
Vercammen, Y. (2019). “Towards fully sustainable food packaging,” in: Proceedings of
the PTS Streicherei 2019 Symposium, Munich, Germany.
Vroman, I., and Tighzert, L. (2009). “Biodegradable polymers,” Materials 2(2) 307-344.
DOI: 10.3390/ma2020307
Webb, H. K., Arnott, J., Crawford, R., and Ivanova, E. (2013). “Plastic degradation and
its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate),”
Polymers 5(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.3390/polym5010001
Wilson, M. (2019). “Starbucks and McDonald’s are testing these radical cups of the
future,” Fast Company, (https://www.fastcompany.com/90311549/starbucks-and-

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7286
PEER-REVIEWED REVIEW ARTICLE bioresources.com
mcdonalds-are-testing-these-compostable-cups-of-the-future), Accessed 01 March
2019.
Wozniacka, G. (2019). “Plastic to-go containers are bad, but are the alternatives any
better?,” Civil Eats, (https://civileats-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/civileats.com/2020/01/14/plastic-to-go-containers-are-
bad-but-are-the-alternatives-any-better/amp/), Accessed 14 Jan2020.
Yoon, C. (2019). “Paper coating material having environment-friendly, water-proof and
oil-proof properties, and method of manufacturing the same,” U. S. Patent No.
10184067.

Article submitted: March 12, 2020; Peer review completed: June 13, 2020; Revised
version received and accepted: June 22, 2020; Published: June 25, 2020.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.15.3.Triantafillopoulos

Triantafillopoulos & Koukoulas (2020). “Coffee cups,” BioResources 15(3) 7260-7287. 7287