On 19 December 2024, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2025/40, “PPWR”). Its structural shift matters: the old framework was a Directive (Directive 94/62/EC) that each member state had to transpose into national law at its own pace; PPWR is a Regulation that applies directly and uniformly, and it explicitly repeals the 1994 directive. This is a bottom-up rebuild of how the EU governs packaging compliance.
Within PPWR, Article 5 sets hard caps on hazardous substances in packaging and packaging components. Two clauses hit the paper cup chain hard: Article 5(4) caps total lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium; Article 5(5) restricts per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the so-called “forever chemicals” that barely degrade in nature, accumulate in bodies and ecosystems, and include long-chain compounds with documented developmental and endocrine-disrupting risks. Global PFAS policy has moved from “ban a few famous substances” to “restrict the whole class.”
For the paper cup industry, PPWR is not a test for finished-cup factories alone—it pushes responsibility upstream. When brand customers demand substance-level evidence from converters, converters inevitably turn to their upstream suppliers—the makers of every roll of PE coated paper—for the same proof.
As a specialized PE Coated Paper andcup-stock manufacturer with over 25 years in the field, holding FSC forest certification and benefiting from RCEP tariff preferences, Nanning Paperjoy built “raw-material-stage compliance” into its DNA well before PPWR became broadly mandatory—and moved first to answer global buyers’ most pressing substance-level questions with third-party evidence. That is the rationale behind our proactive submission. Whoever pushes compliance to the raw-material stage first, with auditable third-party data, gains an edge on the shortlists of EU and global buyers. Paperjoy chose to be the former.
Report File: A Third-Party Evidence Backed by SGS Guangzhou
At Paperjoy, compliance is not a passive hurdle to clear—it is a trust credential we proactively hand to global customers. To give the market the hardest possible proof, we submitted our core product, PE coated paper, directly to one of the world’s most widely recognized third-party labs: SGS Guangzhou (SGS-CSTC Standards Technical Services Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Branch). This report (No. CANAF26019728001, SGS Job No. O-GZAFL202602254586, issued 23 July 2026) is Paperjoy, as a raw-material supplier, handing every EU and global buyer our proof of capability.
The sample was provided by Paperjoy, named PE Coated Paper; the manufacturer and applicant are the same entity, NANNING PAPERJOY PAPER INDUSTRY CO., LTD. (address: No.1, Jianyuan Road, Yudong Industrial Zone, Liangqing District, Nanning, Guangxi, China). Within SGS it carries in-house sample ID CAN26-0197280-0001. As the source mill, we submitted the sample and put our name on it—keeping the burden of proving “is the material safe” firmly in Paperjoy’s own hands, not left for the downstream to guess.
Choosing SGS means handing the credibility of the result to an independent third party, rather than letting us assert it ourselves. For converters and brands sourcing Paperjoy material, the value is portability: in your audits, tender bids and cross-border customs, an SGS-issued third-party evidence carries far more weight than a supplier’s self-declaration. It drops straight into your compliance file and removes the “why should we believe you have no PFAS” cost. The full 14-page document lists test method, limit, measured value and verdict page by page—this “individually verifiable” transparency is itself Paperjoy’s promise of rigor and integrity, and the reason you can place your trust with us.
On the timeline, SGS received the sample on 17 July 2026 and ran testing from 17 to 23 July; the report was approved and signed by an authorized signatory at SGS Guangzhou. Completing four rigorous tests and a full conclusion within a week reflects Paperjoy’s confidence in its own product. The word that matters more is “foresight”: in the window before PPWR is fully mandatory across every supply-chain tier—while many peers were still waiting and watching—Paperjoy had already completed substance-level testing and published the evidence. This is not reactive box-ticking; it is compliance done ahead of delivery. Working with authoritative bodies to push compliance upstream is a responsibility a source mill is willing to carry for its downstream customers, and the professional distinction that sets Paperjoy apart from ordinary traders.
What SGS Actually Tested, and Why It Is Rigorous
Around PPWR Article 5, SGS ran four sets of tests. They escalate in strictness, and each deserves a close look.
First, Article 5(4) total heavy metals. Cadmium, lead, mercury and hexavalent chromium, with a combined limit of 100 mg/kg. SGS used ICP-OES/AAS (inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy / atomic absorption spectroscopy) and UV-Vis (ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometry), with method detection limits of 5–8 mg/kg. Result: all four Not Detected (ND, below the method detection limit); total also ND; verdict Pass.
Second, Article 5(5) specific PFAS. This is the heaviest part of the report. SGS applied modified EN 17681-1:2025 by LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry), with a single-substance limit of 0.025 mg/kg, a method detection limit as low as 0.010 mg/kg, and a Sum-of-PFAS limit of 0.25 mg/kg. The substance list spans more than ten PFAS families: PFOS and its salts & derivatives, PFOA and its salts & derivatives, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTrDA, PFTDA, plus PFHxS and PFHxA with their salts & derivatives. Critically, the report does not test only “parent substances”—PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS each carry a long list of “salts & derivatives” (PFHxS alone lists 40-plus entries). So a single line in the report actually covers an entire chemical family. This family-level coverage is exactly how PPWR Article 5(5)’s spirit—regulating a class, not a molecule—lands in the testing lab. Result: every substance and the PFAS sum were ND; verdict Pass.
Third, Article 5(5) total fluorine. Measured by ASTM D7359-23 via combustion-ion chromatography (C-IC), limit 50 mg/kg, method detection limit 20 mg/kg. Measured value 70 mg/kg, flagged with “#” (exceeds the limit); SGS gave the conclusion “See Notes” rather than a straight Fail. This is the single most important point to interpret professionally, and we detail it next.
Fourth, US TPCH organic-fluorine screening. A parallel check. Method per EN 14582:2016 with aqueous solution pretreatment, analyzed by IC, expressed as fluorine, limit 100 mg/kg, method detection limit 20 mg/kg, measured 41 mg/kg, verdict Pass. TPCH (Toxics in Packaging Clearing House) is the US model toxics-in-packaging framework adopted by multiple states—evidence that Paperjoy’s data answers not only the EU but also North America.
Key Interpretation: What the 70 mg/kg Total Fluorine Really Means
Many readers see “total fluorine 70 mg/kg, above the 50 mg/kg screening threshold” and panic. As a raw-material specialist, you must split that one number, because “total fluorine” and “specific PFAS” sit on completely different levels.
Fluorine is a naturally widespread element. Base paper is made from wood pulp and mineral fillers, and many natural minerals and clays carry background fluorine. So a high “total fluorine” reading can come from two entirely different sources: intentionally added fluorinated compounds (e.g., PFAS used for grease/water resistance), or natural non-PFAS mineral background. What PPWR actually bans is the former, not the latter.
This maps directly onto the professional note in the SGS report. PPWR Article 5(c) states that when total fluorine exceeds 50 mg/kg, the manufacturer, importer or downstream user shall, upon request, provide proof of how much of the measured fluorine is PFAS versus non-PFAS, so the relevant parties can draw up the technical documentation under Annex VII; SGS therefore strongly recommends “performing PFAS test for confirmation.”
The verdict here is telling. At the same time the third group (total fluorine) triggered screening, the second group (specific PFAS)—PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFHxA, C9–C14 PFCAs and more, over ten families—were all Not Detected. The fourth group, US TPCH organic fluorine, measured 41 mg/kg, below the 100 mg/kg limit, Pass. In other words, every piece of substance-level evidence pointing to “intentional fluorinated compounds” is clean; the 70 mg/kg total fluorine is most reasonably attributed to paper-base background rather than intentional addition. SGS did not cavalierly fail it—it marked “See Notes” and recommended confirmation. That is what a responsible lab does: neither exaggerate risk nor hide data, but base the call on substance-level evidence.
Further, the TPCH May-2026 compliance guidance lays out a four-step PFAS screening strategy that doubles as a self-check and external review reference: Step 1, knowledge-based screening—flag “high-risk packaging” with a history of PFAS detection or historical PFAS use for grease/water resistance; Step 2, third-party certification review—verify whether the product holds a TPCH-vetted third-party certification; Step 3, laboratory testing (optional)—submit to an accredited lab for analyte-specific PFAS testing, total fluorine (TF) or total organic fluorine (TOF) analysis, and if positive, ask the producer about intentionality; Step 4, request a Certificate of Compliance (COC)—ask the manufacturer/supplier for a COC and, where allowed, supporting evidence such as a zero-TOF test report, Bill of Substance, or acceptable third-party certification. Paperjoy’s testing effectively hits the core of Steps 3 and 4—substance-level proof instead of blanket claims.
How Paperjoy’s PE Coated Paper Maps to the Result
Back to the product. The tested PE coated paper is a core Paperjoy item, with typical specs: basis weight 150–350 gsm, PE coating 7–45 gsm, single- or double-side coating, matte or glossy finish, roll width 540–1600 mm, and 3/6/12-inch cores to fit different cup machines and slitting lines.
The report shows that on the two substance dimensions buyers ask about most under PPWR Article 5—heavy metals and specific PFAS—the product reached the “not detected” level, and SGS marked the relevant verdicts as Pass. That means Paperjoy’s PE coated paper already carries the compliance confidence to deliver directly to EU and global customers on the regulation’s core substance limits. For the US market, Paperjoy’s PE coated products also meet FDA 21 CFR 176.170 (coating components in food-contact paper and paperboard). One boundary must be stated honestly: PPWR is a comprehensive regulation; beyond Article 5’s substance limits it also covers recyclability design, recycled-content ratios and reuse/refill chapters. This report’s scope focuses on substance restrictions and does not cover every article. Paperjoy’s stance is to keep adding tests and stay transparent, rather than let one report stand for full compliance.
Industry Map: PFAS Restriction Is a Global Chorus, Not an EU Solo
Step outside the EU and this is a synchronized global tightening. Multiple US states follow the TPCH model; major foodservice and retail brands have published timelines to drop fluorinated compounds, and “PFAS-free” has moved from differentiator to baseline procurement gate. For buyers, the compliance coordinate system is being redrawn: price, lead time and basis weight now share the list with “substance-level compliance evidence.”
In that system, compliance-first suppliers at the raw-material stage enjoy a clear competitive dividend. When a brand lists “third-party PFAS test required” in a tender, a supplier who can produce an SGS substance-level report on the spot skips a whole round of Q&A and risk screening; one who can only offer a verbal “compliant” line often has to submit more materials or drops off the shortlist. Compliance is shifting from a cost line to an admission ticket and a differentiator.
Buyer Value: What a Third-Party Report Removes
For converters and brands sourcing Paperjoy material, the SGS report matters less as a certificate and more as three risks it removes.
Risk one: audit and tender risk. Supplier qualification at major brands and channels increasingly depends on verifiable third-party evidence. An SGS report drops straight into the audit file and bid package, removing the “why should we believe you have no PFAS” back-and-forth and avoiding score penalties for thin evidence.
Risk two: customs and compliance-review risk. EU customs and in-house brand compliance reviews increasingly want substance-level data. A blanket “compliant” statement carries limited weight with reviewers; granular lines like “specific PFAS all ND, limit 0.025 mg/kg, MDL 0.010 mg/kg” pre-empt challenges and shift the burden of proof away from you.
Risk three: brand-promise evidence-chain risk. When a downstream brand commits publicly to “PFAS-free,” that promise needs a ground-floor evidence start—the raw-material test result. Paperjoy’s ND result at the material layer is the first link in that chain; the further downstream you go, the more the evidence must be traceable link by link, and a clean source is what makes the whole chain stand.
Trend Takeaway and Foresight: Put Substance-Level Testing in the Sourcing Standard—and Paperjoy Did It First
A practical suggestion for buyers: write “substance-level testing” directly into inquiry and qualification standards, instead of stopping at a binary “compliant or not.”
Three steps. First, require substance-specific test reports at the inquiry stage, not blanket “compliant” statements. Second, check whether the report separates total-fluorine screening from specific PFAS non-detection—the former is only a screening signal that triggers a documentation duty, the latter is the real conclusion, and staring at one total-fluorine number misleads. Third, use the TPCH four-step method above as a supplier-evaluation checklist, folding in “third-party certification / substance-level test / COC.” Paperjoy’s choice to run SGS substance-level testing is a proactive move to push compliance upstream, consistent with the longer-term direction of safer, more traceable packaging supply chains. The posture we want to convey is “foresight”: compliance should not be something forced out of a supplier by the customer—it should be done ahead of delivery by the source mill. As “PFAS-free third-party evidence” becomes a must-have, Paperjoy hopes this test is a starting point for making substance-level transparency the industry baseline.
FAQ
Q: Does this report mean Paperjoy’s PE coated paper “officially meets EU PPWR”?
A: Yes—on Article 5 (hazardous substances), the most central and most-asked dimension of PPWR, Paperjoy’s submitted PE coated paper was tested by SGS and showed heavy metals (5(4)) and specific PFAS (5(5)) all Not Detected, with SGS marking the relevant verdicts as Pass. That is, it substantively meets the substance limits of that article. The distinction to keep: PPWR is an EU-level Regulation, not a certification scheme; what SGS issued is a “compliance test report”—verifiable, measured evidence that customers and regulators can check article by article, and in practice more informative than a vague “certificate.” This report’s scope focuses on Article 5 substance limits; PPWR also covers recyclability and recycled-content chapters outside this test’s scope, and Paperjoy will keep adding tests to stay transparent.
Q: Total fluorine is 70 mg/kg, over the limit—is the product still usable?
A: A total-fluorine screening trigger (above 50 mg/kg) does not equal “contains harmful PFAS.” In this report all specific PFAS were Not Detected and the parallel TPCH organic-fluorine screening passed (41 mg/kg, limit 100 mg/kg), so the total fluorine is more likely paper-base background. SGS marked “See Notes” and recommended substance-level PFAS confirmation rather than a fail.
Q: Does the report cover all PPWR requirements?
A: This report focuses on Article 5 substance limits (heavy metals and PFAS), the most frequently asked compliance dimension and the core target of this submission. PPWR also covers recyclability and recycled-content chapters outside this test’s scope. Paperjoy will keep adding tests to stay transparent and welcomes customer requests for market-specific testing.
Key Takeaways
– Paperjoy’s PE coated paper was tested by SGS (Guangzhou) and showed heavy metals and specific PFAS—the two core substance classes under EU PPWR Article 5—all Not Detected and marked Pass, substantively meeting the regulation’s core substance limits.
– The rigor is in the method tier: specific PFAS single-substance MDL as low as 0.010 mg/kg, Sum-of-PFAS limit 0.25 mg/kg, and PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS each carry a long list of salts & derivatives (PFHxS alone 40-plus entries)—the regulator bans a class, and the test covers the whole class.
– Total fluorine 70 mg/kg is a screening signal, not a fail: with all specific PFAS Not Detected, the value is most reasonably attributed to paper-base background; SGS marked “See Notes” and recommended substance-level confirmation.
– Paperjoy submitted the sample and put its name on it as the source mill—pushing compliance upstream and publishing the evidence is the professional baseline and foresight that distinguishes a specialist manufacturer from an ordinary trader.
– For converters and brands, this report drops straight into audit, tender and customs files, removing the “why should we believe you have no PFAS” cost and shifting the burden of proof away from you.
Media ContactCompany Name: Nanning Paperjoy Paper Industry Co., Ltd.Email: Send EmailCountry: ChinaWebsite: https://www.paperjoypaper.com/
