Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Composites Science and Technology 70 (2010) 2123–2127
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Composites Science and Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/compsci tech
Preserving the strength of corrugated cardboard under high humiditycondition using nano-sized mists
Duong Van Hung a, Yusuke Nakano a, Fumihiko Tanaka b, Daisuke Hamanaka b, Toshitaka Uchino b,⇑a Graduate School of Bioresource and Bioenvironmental Sciences, Kyushu University, 6-10-1, Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japanb Laboratory of Postharvest Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 6-10-1, Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 13 April 2010Received in revised form 12 August 2010Accepted 18 August 2010Available online 22 August 2010
Keywords:A. Nano particlesB. Environmental degradationD. UltrasonicsB. StrengthCorrugated cardboard
0266-3538/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.08.011
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81 92 642 2934.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.V.
ac.jp (T. Uchino).
a b s t r a c t
The paper evaluates the adsorption of water vapor and compression strength of three types of commerciallymade corrugated cardboard boxes for packing strawberry, mizuna and broccoli. The experiments were con-ducted on the specimens and empty cardboard boxes at constant temperature and 95% relative humidity(RH). The samples were stored under the environments of two types of mists, namely nanomist and ultra-sonic-mist over a period of 7 days. Nano-sized mist, which are called nanomists and defined as particles ofabout 60 nm in diameter, easily evaporate and are considered not to damp the corrugated boxes in compar-ison with the larger size ultrasonic-mists. The change in moisture content of the samples was first measuredat intervals of 6, 12 and 24 h and then daily over 7 days. Compressive strength test was measured by themeans of using a tensile and compression testing machine. The results revealed that moisture content ofboth specimen and cardboard box tests exposed to the nanomist and ultrasonic-mist at the end of experi-ments was 19.9% d.b. and 30.4% d.b., respectively (dry basis: g-water in material/ g-dry weight) althoughtemperature and relative humidity were almost the same for both cases. Furthermore, the strength of card-board specimens conditioned with nanomist after 7 days at 5.8 �C and 94.2% RH decreased by 44.3–56.9%whilst under ultrasonic-mist condition it reduced by 66.5–70% depending on the types of cardboards. Sim-ilarly, maximum compressive load of corrugated cardboard boxes exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mistdecreased gradually over the time. It was analytically predicted that the boxes exposed to nanomist main-tained its maximum compressive load at 28%, whereas those exposed to ultrasonic-mist remained at 14%after 7 days. The maximum compressive load of corrugated cardboards exponentially decreased with anincrease in moisture content.
� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Corrugated cardboard is the most widely used type of packagefor the packaging and distribution of a wide variety of commoditiesranging from fruits and vegetables, consumer products, to indus-trial items. It is equally suitable for all the different modes of stor-age and transport such as shipping by sea or by air. The mostimportant feature of containers made from corrugated boards isto protect the packaged commodities against damage during stor-age and transport. Therefore, the maintenance of strength of card-board during storing, marketing and distribution of horticulturalcommodities is needed to take into consideration.
The storage of produce is usually maintained under low temper-ature environment. As far as commodity’s transpiration isconcerned, however, high relative humidity of the storage environ-ment plays an important role in maintaining the quality of produce.
ll rights reserved.
Hung), [email protected].
Recently, low temperature and high humidity storage has attractedthe attention of horticultural industries in Japan [1]. Recommendedhumidity level for the storage of fresh fruit and vegetables is com-modity specific; levels are generally in the range of 85–95% [2–4].One of the problems occurring for corrugated cardboard stored un-der high humidity environment is that corrugated boards reduce itsstrength because the boxes become wet during storage. The reduc-tion in strength of cardboards can lead to packaging collapse, there-by causing further mechanical damage to products [5]. Furthermore,wetting may result in biodeterioration of cardboard [6].
Various studies [7–11] have been performed on the corrugatedcardboard and its compressive strength. They found that corru-gated cardboard is very sensitive material to the environmentalconditions, especially high relative humidity. Once wet, the corru-gated cardboards lose their rigidity. Modzelewska [9] indicatedthat when humidity of ambient air was about 100%, boxes madefrom corrugated cardboards practically disintegrated. For this rea-son, the idea of using mists with smaller droplets to raise highhumidity for storage environments is considered to apply. It isreported by Barrow and Pope [12] that the evaporation rate is
mm
Fig. 1. Geometry of corrugated cardboard specimen.
2124 D.V. Hung et al. / Composites Science and Technology 70 (2010) 2123–2127
greater with smaller droplets because small droplets have greatersurface area relative to their volume (surface area to mass ratio)as compared with larger droplets. The rapid evaporation of drop-lets results in the more dryness on the surface of the corrugatedcardboard; in that way, strength of board is preserved.
At present, the large size or conventional mists are being em-ployed to raise relative humidity in the storage environment. Thesemists are mostly generated by ultrasonic humidifier. Our recentstudy showed that ultrasonic humidifier emitted the mists withthe range size from 200 nm to 1250 nm [13]. The large size mistsmay easily damp the corrugated cardboards, thus their strengthare lost. Nanomists, which are defined as particles of about60 nm in diameter, are assumed to evaporate immediately afteratomization and are considered not to damp the corrugated boxesin comparison with the larger size ultrasonic [14]. It is the goal ofthis study which proposes to investigate the effect of nanomist andultrasonic-mist on the moisture content and compressive strengthof corrugated cardboard under high relative humidity condition.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
The experiments were conducted on three types of commer-cially made corrugated cardboard boxes used for the package ofstrawberry, broccoli and mizuna. The cardboard used in this studywas single wall type. Table 1 lists the name of corrugated card-board boxes tested, along with their key specifications. The mois-ture content and strength tests were performed on both testspecimens and empty boxes.
Specimen tests of selected corrugated cardboards were pre-pared according to JIS Z0403-2 [15] (Fig. 1). For every measure-ment of moisture content, a sample of five specimens was testedfor each type of cardboard box. The edge of specimens waswrapped with aluminum tape to prevent water vapor and mistpenetration from the edge. With regard to mechanical test, a sam-ple of 12 pieces was used to measure the relationship between themoisture adsorption and compressive strength. In order to investi-gate the differences in characteristics of moisture adsorption ofspecimens, the samples were horizontally and vertically placedon the stand at the center of chambers. For corrugated cardboardbox test, a sample of five strawberry and broccoli boxes was tested.The samples were placed at near the outlet of humidifiers and atthe center of storage chambers.
For the test of moisture content, the samples were conditionedin a thermo-hygrostat under conventional condition (23 �C and50% RH) for over 24 h [16,17]. Once the equilibrium is reached,specimens were weighed and these measurements were used asdry basis. The samples were then placed in the storage environ-ments at temperature about 6 �C and relative humidity of 95%where nanomist and ultrasonic-mist were sprayed to raise humid-ity. Nanomist is generated by nanomist humidifier (Test model,Mayekawa Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) while ultrasonic-mist is emittedby ultrasonic one (FT -30N-14, UCAN Co., Ltd., Japan). The amountof water absorbed was measured by the change in mass of theboards as a function of time. The change in mass of samples was
Table 1Properties of the tested corrugated cardboards.
Box type Basis weight (g/cm2)
Outer liner Medium Inner liner
Strawberry 180 125 180Mizuna 210 200 170Broccoli 220 160 220
H: height, L: length, W: width.
first measured at intervals of 6, 12 and 24 h, and then daily over7 days. For mechanical test, specimens were also conditioned asabove-mentioned and stored at the same temperature and RH con-dition as described previously. After storage, the samples reached astate of moisture saturation then they were tested. Data of temper-ature and RH were recorded at 10 min intervals in the containersusing humidity and temperature transmitter (model HMT337, Vai-sala, Helsinki, Finland). This device can measure the accuracy attemperature ±0.2 �C at range from �70 �C to +180 �C and RH±1.7% at range from 90% to 100%. The nanomist chamber has thedimensions of 3060 mm in length, 2130 mm in height and2320 mm in width; ultrasonic chamber has sizes of 2600 mm inlength, 2400 mm in height and 1700 mm in width. The chamberswere equipped with cooling system controller, system control pa-nel and nanomist humidifier or ultrasonic humidifier.
2.2. Compression test
The strength test of piece samples was performed by using atensile and compression testing instrument (Tensilon UTM-7, ToyoMeasuring Instruments Co., Ltd., Japan) at crosshead speed of3 mm/min based on a column crush test (JIS Z0403-2), whereasthe top-to-bottom compression test of empty boxes was conductedby using compression test machine (AG-100 kNE, Shimadzu, Japan)at crosshead speed of 12 mm/min. Two metal plates with smoothsurfaces are attached to the upper and the lower compression jawsof the machine to evenly distribute the compression load on thecorrugated boards.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Data analysis was performed using analysis of variance (Gen-Stat Discovery Edition 3, VSN International Ltd., UK). Significantdifferences were further examined with Tukey’s test at P 6 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Specimen test
The moisture content of specimens exposed to nanomist andultrasonic-mist after 7 days is shown in Table 2. The average
Flute type Numbers of flaps Dimension (mm) (H � L �W)
C 0 60 � 305 � 220A 4 440 � 390 � 210A 4 430 � 330 � 250
Table 2Moisture content (% d.b.) of specimens exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mist at ca.6 �C and 95% RH after 7 days (n = 5).
Box type Nanomist Ultrasonic-mist
Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Strawberry 19.5 ± 0.97 a 17.9 ± 0.74 a 26.8 ± 0.94 b 30.7 ± 1.48 cMizuna 18.7 ± 0.57 a 18.5 ± 0.87 a 29.0 ± 1.03 b 30.4 ± 1.07 cBroccoli 18.3 ± 0.45 a 18.0 ± 0.67 a 28.1 ± 1.37 b 30.5 ± 1.1 c
A different letter showed significant difference at P < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.Data are accompanied by the standard deviations of the means (n = 5). Vertical;vertically-positioned specimens and horizontal; horizontally-positioned specimens.
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (day)
Moi
stur
e co
nten
t (%
d.b
.)
Nanomist-verticalNanomist-horizontal
Ultrasonic mist-verticalUltrasonic mist-horizontal
Fig. 2. Moisture content of strawberry specimens exposed to nanomist andultrasonic-mist at ca. 6 �C and 95% RH. Solid lines are fitted values. Bars representstandard deviations of the means (n = 5).
D.V. Hung et al. / Composites Science and Technology 70 (2010) 2123–2127 2125
temperature and relative humidity measured during the experi-ment were 5.9 ± 0.37 �C and 94.2 ± 1.46% for nanomist and6 ± 0.38 �C and 94.3 ± 1.35% for ultrasonic-mist. As can be seenfrom the table that type of cardboard did not affect the moisturecontent (P = 0.423), but type of mist and position of placing speci-mens significantly influenced on the absorption of water vapor(P < 0.05). Moisture content of specimens exposed to nanomistafter 7 days was about 10% lower than that exposed to ultra-sonic-mist regardless of position. Moreover, moisture content ofspecimens stored in the nanomist container was not affected bythe position while moisture content of vertically-positioned speci-mens in the ultrasonic container was significantly lower than thatof the ones placed horizontally. The main reason causing the differ-ences in moisture content between specimens conditioned withnanomist and ultrasonic-mist is attributed to the difference in sizeand particle concentration emitted by two different humidifiers.Our recent data showed that mode-based diameter of nanomistis about 60 nm, such mist evaporates easily compared with ultra-sonic-mist which has a diameter of around 216 nm [13]. The effectof position on moisture content of specimens exposed to ultra-sonic-mist can be explained that large size mist directly falls downon the surface of specimens without evaporating and it wet theboard, thus water is absorbed into the cardboard.
In order to analyze the adsorption kinetics of water vapor on thecorrugated board, the pseudo first-order kinetics model was usedto analyze the experimental data. One of the purposes of usingthe numerical analysis is to predict the results without doingexperiments. This equation has been used for dye adsorption bycotton [18] and water adsorption by brown rice [19]. A simple ki-netic analysis of adsorption is the Lagergren equation. A pseudofirst-order equation describes the kinetics of the adsorption pro-cess as follows:
dMdt¼ k1ðMe �MÞ ð1Þ
where k1 is the rate constant of pseudo first-order adsorption(day�1), and Me and M are the moisture content (% d.b.) at equilib-rium and at time t. After definite integration by applying the initialconditions (t = 0, M = M0), Eq. (1) becomes
M ¼ Me þ ðM0 �MeÞ expð�k1tÞ ð2Þ
where M0 is the initial moisture content. k1 and Me were obtainedby nonlinear least square method. These parameters were shownin Table 3.
Table 3Parameters for prediction of moisture content of specimens and corrugated cardboard box
Parameters Nanomist
Specimen Box
Vertical Horizontal Outlet Cen
Mo 7.7 7.77 8.18 8.0Me 18.74 17.49 24.22 29.6k1 3.5 2.69 4.32 5.6
The result in Fig. 2 presents moisture content of strawberryspecimens exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mist. The absorp-tion of water vapor increased with time until it reached the satura-tion. The data represented by a solid line were obtained from thepseudo first-order Eq. (2). The fitted values agreed very well withthe experimental data. This result suggested that Eq. (2) is avail-able for analyzing water adsorption of corrugated cardboard.
The compressive strength of corrugated cardboard was calcu-lated according to JIS Z 0403-2 [11] which is defined as Pm = 0.02F,where Pm is compressive strength of cardboard (kN/m), F is the max-imum compressive load (N) and 0.02 is the reciprocal number ofwidth (50 mm) of test piece (1/mm). Compressive load of the corru-gated cardboard with 8.71% d.b. of moisture content was propor-tional to strain in the middle of test after which the increasing rateof the load gradually decayed; finally the cardboard bent as shownin other material tests (data not shown).
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between the moisture content andcompressive strength of specimens. Relationship between mois-ture content (M) and compressive strength (Pm) was representedby using an exponential Eq. (3) and parameters were shown inTable 4.
Pm ¼ aMb ð3Þ
The coefficient of determination calculated from data of straw-berry and mizuna specimens was 0.926 and 0.956, respectively. Itshows that compressive strength of board exponentially decreasedwith the moisture content. It has been well documented that theyield stress decreased with the increase in the moisture content[8,10]. In addition, compressive strength of cardboard can be pre-dicted by using Eq. (4) which was obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3),and parameters were presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Pm ¼ a½Me þ ðM0 �MeÞ expð�k1tÞ�b ð4Þ
Fig. 4 compares the compressive strength of vertically-posi-tioned specimens exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic mist at
es.
Ultrasonic-mist
Specimen Box
ter Vertical Horizontal Outlet Center
8 9.73 9.08 8.18 8.4919.63 21.68 29.47 21.92
9 1.97 2.06 1.09 1.65
Mizuna
Strawberry
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 10 20 30Moisture content M (% d.b.)
Com
pres
sive
str
engt
h (k
N/m
)
Fig. 3. Relationship between moisture content and compressive strength of thespecimens, unshaded circle; mizuna, shaded circle; strawberry. Solid curves arefitted values (n = 12).
Table 4Parameters for prediction of compressive strength of specimens and maximumcompressive load of corrugated cardboard boxes.
Box type Specimen test Box test
a b r c d r
Strawberry 17.4 �0.87 0.926 252.7 �1.81 0.963Mizuna 45.5 �0.97 0.956 – – –Broccoli – – – 1489.8 �2.62 0.887
a, b, c, d: parameters in Eqs. (3) and (5); r: coefficient of determination.
0
2
4
6
8
Strawberry Minuza Broccoli Strawberry Minuza Broccoli
Nanomist Ultrasonic-mist
Com
pres
sive
str
engt
h (k
N/m
)
Day 0 Day 7
Fig. 4. Compressive strength of vertically-positioned specimens exposed to nano-mist and ultrasonic mist ca. 6 �C and 95% RH after 7 days. Bars represent standarddeviations of the means (n = 5).
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (day)
Moi
stur
e co
nten
t (%
d.b
.)
Nanomist - outlet
Ultrasonic mist - outlet
Nanomist - center
Ultrasonic mist - center
Fig. 5. Moisture content of strawberry corrugated cardboard box exposed tonanomist and ultrasonic-mist at ca. 6 �C and 95% RH. Solid lines are fitted values.Bars represent standard deviations of the means (n = 5).
Strawberry
Broccoli
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30
Moisture content M (% d.b.)
Max
imum
com
pres
sive
load
(kN
)
Fig. 6. Relationship between moisture content and maximum compressive load ofstrawberry and broccoli cardboard boxes, unshaded circle; strawberry, shadedcircle; broccoli. Solid curves are fitted values (n = 5).
2126 D.V. Hung et al. / Composites Science and Technology 70 (2010) 2123–2127
about 6 �C and 94.3% relative humidity after 7 days. The datashown at 0 day were experimental data whereas those shown atday 7 were predicted values. In general, it can be easily seen thatcompressive strength of specimens conditioned with nanomistwas significantly different with that of those exposed to ultra-sonic-mist (P < 0.05). After 7 days the strength of specimens ex-posed to nanomist remained at 43.4–55.6% while that of thoseexposed to ultrasonic-mist stayed at 29.9–33.4% depending ontypes of cardboards. It is also noted that compressive strength ofcardboard was affected by type of cardboard. Strawberry card-board box, which is made from corrugated board type of C withthickness of 3 mm, has a lower initial strength than the others withthickness of 5 mm; but once stored under nanomist environmentits strength remained at 55.6% at the end of experiment. Accordingto the study of Modzelewska [9], the effect of moisture content onthe behavior of corrugated cardboard boxes is attributed to thematerial employed for its manufacture rather than to the structure(layers, flutes, . . .). For the cardboard boxes made from the same
material, the flute height influences the properties of the corru-gated cardboard. The higher the flute, the better the rigidity ofcardboard, but the product will have greater absorption propertyand consequently the strength was weaker. From this result, itcan be concluded that nanomist has a great effect on controllingstrength of corrugated cardboard.
3.2. Corrugated board box test
Given in Fig. 5 is the change in moisture content of strawberrycardboard box exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mist over aperiod of 7 days. The data represented by a solid line were obtainedfrom the pseudo first-order Eq. (2) using parameters in Table 3. It isevident that moisture content of cardboard exposed to nanomistwas significantly lesser than that of those exposed to ultrasonic-mist. Additionally, the position of placing boxes in the chambersaffected the moisture content. The boxes placed close to the outletof ultrasonic humidifier had a moisture content of 30.8% d.b. whilstthe ones put in the center had a moisture content of 24.8% d.b. Onthe contrary, the boxes located near the outlet of nanomist had alower moisture content that the ones in the center. The result ob-tained from broccoli box was similar to the strawberry’s (data notshown). The larger size ultrasonic mists emitted near the outlet areascribed to be responsible for the wetting of corrugated. The re-sults obtained from the experiments of cardboard boxes again con-firmed that the moisture content of the boxes exposed to nanomistwas about 10% lower than that of those exposed to conventionalmist.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Time (day)
Max
imum
com
pres
sive
load
(kN
)
Nano-outlet
U.sonic-outlet
Nano-center
Fig. 7. Change in maximum compressive load of strawberry corrugated cardboardbox exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mist at ca. 6 �C and 95% RH.
D.V. Hung et al. / Composites Science and Technology 70 (2010) 2123–2127 2127
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the moisture content andmaximum compressive load of strawberry and broccoli cardboardboxes. In this study, we could not determine cross sectional area ofthe box, thus a unit of F was used instead of Pm. Relationship be-tween moisture content (M) and maximum compressive load (F)was represented by using an exponential Eq. (5) and parameterswere shown in Table 4.
F ¼ cMd ð5Þ
It can be seen from the graph that maximum compressive loadof corrugated board was strongly dependent upon the moisturecontent. The coefficient of determination calculated from data ofstrawberry and broccoli was 0.963 and 0.887, respectively. Themaximum compressive load of corrugated cardboard box inFig. 7 was predicted using Eq. (6) which was obtained from Eqs.(2) and (5), and parameters in Tables 3 and 4.
F ¼ c½Me þ ðM0 �MeÞ expð�k1tÞ�d ð6Þ
Data indicated that maximum compressive load of corrugatedcardboard boxes exposed to nanomist and ultrasonic-mist de-creased gradually over the time. The boxes exposed to nanomistmaintained its maximum compressive load at 28.1%, whereas thoseexposed to ultrasonic-mist remained at 14% after 7 days (Fig. 7).Twede and Selke [8] reported that high humidity storage conditionscan severely degrade strength of the box in a matter of hours. At 85%RH, a box loses about 40% of its compression strength. As relativehumidity is increased to 90%, the moisture content of the board in-creases to 20%. This increase in moisture content lowers the com-pression strength by nearly 50%. An evidence was shown from ourexperiments that even the cardboard exposed to 95% humidity ofnanomist, the moisture content of the board remained approxi-mately 20% d.b. and maintained its maximum compressive load at28%, while the boxes stored in the same humidity of ultrasonic-mistabsorbed 30% d.b. moisture content and its maximum compressiveload reduced to 14% after 7 days.
4. Conclusions
In this investigation, the aim was to evaluate the effects ofrelative humidity and particle size on the moisture content
and compression strength of corrugated cardboard under highrelative humidity condition. The results of present research showthat relative humidity affected moisture content of corrugatedcardboard. One of the more significant findings to merge fromthis study is that the ultrasonic mist raised a moisture contentof corrugated cardboard as compared with nanomist at the samehumidity. Furthermore, there was a good correlation betweenmoisture content and compressive strength of corrugated card-board and the cardboard was weakened with the increase inthe moisture content. From these results, it can be concludedthat nanomist is useful for raising humidity during cold storageof fresh fruit and vegetables since it helps preserve the strengthof corrugated cardboard.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support forthis research from research and development projects funded bythe Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Japan.
References
[1] Tanaka K. Postharvest physiology of fruits and low temperature and highhumidity storage. Food Preserv Sci 2000;26(3):67–172.
[2] Paull RE. Effect of temperature and relative humidity on fresh commodityquality. Postharvest Biol Technol 1999;15:263–77.
[3] Rennie TJ, Vigneault C, DeELL JR, Raghavan GSV. Cooling and storage. In:Chakraverty A, Mujumdar AS, Raghavan GSV, Ramaswamy HS, editors.Handbook of postharvest technology. Marcel Dekker; 2003. p. 505–20.
[4] Maguire KM, Sabarez HT, Tanner DJ. Postharvest preservation and storage. In:Hui IH, editor. Handbook of vegetable preservation and processing. MarcelDekker; 2004. p. 1–28.
[5] Marcondes J. Cushioning properties of corrugated fiberboard and the effects ofmoisture content. Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 1992;35(6):1949–53.
[6] Koivula N, Hanninen K. Biodeterioration of cardboard-based liquid containerscollected for fibre reuse. Chemosphere 1999;38(8):1873–87.
[7] Ackerman K. The elements of warehouse management. In: Practical handbookof warehousing. Kluwer Academic Publisher; 1997. p. 51–61.
[8] Twede D, Selke SEM. Cartons, crates and corrugated board handbook of paperand wood packaging. DEStech Publications; 2005. p. 471–95.
[9] Modzelewska I. Climatic conditions vs. hygrostability and strength propertiesof corrugated board. Folia Forestalia Polonica 2006;37:33–45.
[10] Allaoui S, Aboura Z, Benzeggagh ML. Effects of the environmental conditionson the mechanical behaviour of the corrugated cardboard. Compos Sci Technol2009;69(1):104–10.
[11] Allaoui S, Aboura Z, Benzeggagh ML. Phenomena governing uni-axial tensilebehaviour of paperboard and corrugated cardboard. Compos Struct2009;87(1):80–92.
[12] Barrow H, Pope CW. Droplet evaporation with reference to the effectiveness ofwater-mist cooling. Appl Energy 2007;84:404–12.
[13] Hung DV, Tong S, Nakano Y, Tanaka F, Hamanaka D, Uchino T. Measurementsof particle size distributions produced by humidifiers operating in highhumidity storage environments. Biosyst Eng 2010;107:54–60.
[14] Hung DV, Tong S, Nakano Y, Uchino T, Tanaka F, Hamanaka D. Particle sizeconcentration and size distribution by nanomist humidifier. J Kyushu BranchJSAM 2009;58:11–5.
[15] JSA. JIS Z 0403-2: Corrugated fibreboard – part 2: determination of edgewisecrush resistance; 1999.
[16] Gendron G, Dano ML, Cloutier A. A numerical study of the hygro-mechanicaldeformation of two cardboard layups. Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:619–27.
[17] JSA. JIS P 8111: paper, board and pulps – standard atmosphere for conditioningand testing; 1998.
[18] Chairat M, Rattanaphani S, Bremner JB, Rattanaphani V. Adsorption kineticstudy of lac dyeing on cotton. Dyes Pigments 2008;76(2):435–9.
[19] Genkawa T, Uchino T, Miyamoto S, Inoue A, Ide Y, Tanaka F, et al. Developmentof mathematical model for simulating moisture content during the re-wettingof brown rice stored in film packaging. Biosyst Eng 2008;101(4):445–51.
