Search

Packaging waste makes up more than 10% of the landfilled waste in the United States. While consumers often want to make environmentally friendly product choices, we find that their perceptions of the environmental friendliness of product packaging may systematically deviate from its objective environmental friendliness. Eight studies (N = 4,103) document the perceived environmental friendliness (PEF) bias whereby consumers judge plastic packaging with additional paper to be more environmentally friendly than identical plastic packaging without the paper. The PEF bias is driven by consumers' "paper = good, plastic = bad" beliefs and by proportional reasoning, wherein packaging with a greater paper-to-plastic proportion is judged as more environmentally friendly. We further show that the PEF bias impacts consumers' willingness to pay and product choice. Importantly, this bias can be mitigated by a "minimal packaging sticker" intervention, which increases the environmental friendliness perceptions of plastic-only packaging, rendering plastic-packaged products to be preferable to their plastic-plus-paper-packaged counterparts. This research contributes to the packaging literature in marketing and to research on sustainability while offering practical implications for managers and public policy officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ambient or altered environmental conditions on the inactivation of SARS‐CoV‐2 applied to materials common in libraries, archives and museums. Methods and Results: Porous and non‐porous materials (e.g. paper, plastic protective book cover) were inoculated with approximately 1 × 105 TCID50 SARS CoV‐2 (USA‐WA1/2020), dried, placed within test chamber in either a stacked or unstacked configuration, and exposed to environmental conditions ranging from 4 to 29°C at 40 ± 10% relative humidity. The amount of infectious SARS‐CoV‐2 was then assessed at various timepoints from 0 to 10 days. Ambient conditions resulted in varying inactivation rates per material type. Virus inactivation rate decreased when materials were stacked or at colder temperatures. Virus inactivation rate increased when materials were unstacked or at warmer temperatures. Conclusions: SARS‐CoV‐2 at ambient conditions resulted in the inactivation of virus below limit of quantitation (LOQ) for all materials by Day 8. Warmer temperatures, for a subset of materials, increased SARS‐CoV‐2 inactivation, and all were

Here, we use a variety of microscopic imaging techniques, including scanning electron microscopy, 3D visible light microscopy, and portable microscopy to capture the topography of rough paper. Paper coated with a model soot was cleaned with either a firm vinyl eraser or softer, putty-like kneaded eraser and reimaged to characterize the disposition of remaining soot. Although both methods remove soot from the upper-most surface of the paper, only the kneaded eraser can conform to the complex topography to remove soot from the interstices between paper fibers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]