Valorization of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash for the Production of Sustainable Biobased Trays

Le résumé fourni par la source

The search for sustainable alternatives to expanded polystyrene (EPS) has led to the development of starch-based foams reinforced with agro-industrial by-product. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) content on the physical, mechanical, and water-interaction properties of cassava starch foam trays, and to determine the maximum feasible ash content that could be incorporated. Sugarcane bagasse ash was collected from the boiler air preheater. Foam trays were prepared by thermopressing using cassava starch, guar gum, magnesium stearate, glycerol, and SBA at 0%, 2%, 5%, 8%, and 11%. The trays were characterized in terms of their thickness, apparent density, moisture content, water solubility, water absorption, surface wettability, mechanical properties, color, chemical structure, morphology, and thermal stability. The results show that increasing the SBA content from 0% to 11% reduced both water solubility (from 11.39% to 8.81%) and water absorption after 240 min (from 1199.38% to 799.45%). Adding 11% SBA significantly increased the contact angle (from 45.80° with 2% SBA to 70.20°), indicating enhanced surface hydrophobicity of the foam tray. However, the mechanical properties decreased with higher ash content: the tensile strength dropped from 2.06 MPa (2% SBA) to 0.62 MPa (11% SBA) and the Young’s modulus decreased from 354.32 to 112.90 MPa. The trays became progressively darker (L* decreased from 70.06 to 22.79) as the ash content increased. SBA proved to be a promising agro-industrial residue for producing sustainable starch composite foam trays, as it effectively improved water resistance and thermal stability. While the mechanical strength decreased with higher ash loadings, the 5% formulation offered the optimal balance of hydrophobicity and processability, demonstrating its potential as a bio-based alternative to EPS trays.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.