In today's fast-paced life, disposable beverage drinking paper cups have become a necessity. With increasing environmental awareness and stricter policies, the choice of drinking paper cup material not only affects performance but also impacts a company's sustainable development. PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and PP (polypropylene), as mainstream plastic drinking paper cup materials, each have their advantages in the cold and hot beverage sectors. This study compares them from four core dimensions: material properties, production costs, market applications, and environmental performance, providing a scientific basis for companies' product selection, investment decisions, and strategic planning.
I. Material Property Comparison Analysis
The differences in material properties between PET and PP directly determine their application scenarios. The core differences lie in temperature adaptability, appearance, performance, density, and mechanical barrier properties.
1.1 Temperature Adaptability: Complementarity of Heat and Cold Resistance
Regarding heat resistance, PET has a melting point of 250-260℃, but its glass transition temperature is only 70-80℃, limiting its usage temperature to below 60-70℃. Exceeding this temperature can easily cause deformation or release harmful substances, making it only suitable for cold and room-temperature beverages. PP has a melting point of 160-170℃, lower than PET, but its continuous use temperature can reach 110-120℃, and it can withstand short-term high temperatures of 150℃. It will not deform under any external force, making it the core choice for hot beverage packaging.
In terms of cold resistance, PET performs excellently, withstanding extremely low temperatures of -70℃ and maintaining durability even in frozen environments, making it suitable for cold chain logistics. However, its toughness decreases below 0℃, and its impact strength drops by 40%-50% at -20℃, with a brittleness temperature of -40℃ to -50℃. PP has weaker cold resistance, with a glass transition temperature of -13 to -1℃. Its impact strength at 0℃ is only half that at 20℃, and it gradually becomes brittle below 20℃. Unmodified homopolymer PP has limited applications in low-temperature environments.
1.2 Appearance and Physical Properties: The Trade-off Between Transparency and Lightweighting
Transparency is a key factor influencing consumer decisions. PET has glass-level transparency and gloss, clearly showcasing beverage colors and blocking ultraviolet rays, making it suitable for packaging scenarios requiring visual appeal. PP is mostly translucent or opaque. Although this can be improved with anti-reflective agents, it cannot reach the level of PET. Its appearance is white and waxy, but its rigidity and fatigue resistance are outstanding; hinges can withstand more than 70 million folds, making it suitable for flip-top or sealed container designs.
The density difference brings cost and usage advantages: PET has a density of 1.31-1.38 g/cm³, while PP has a density of only 0.90-0.91 g/cm³, making it one of the lowest-density plastics. With the same weight of raw material, PP can produce more products of the same volume, and the drinking paper cups are lighter, reducing both unit costs and transportation energy consumption, which is especially important for large-scale transportation by chain brands.
clear lunch boxes
disposable party plate
custom paper Cups
clamshell Food Containers
1.3 Mechanical and Barrier Properties: Differences in Rigidity, Toughness, and Preservation Capacity
In terms of mechanical properties, PET has significant advantages, with a tensile strength of 140-160 MPa, a flexural strength of 70-100 MPa, and toughness ranking among the top thermoplastics. It also exhibits excellent fatigue resistance, abrasion resistance, and dimensional stability. PP has slightly lower mechanical properties, with a tensile strength of 30.0-39.0 MPa and a flexural strength of 42.0-56.0 MPa, but its elongation at break is 200-400%, far exceeding PET's 50-150%, and it has stronger flexibility and resistance to deformation. At room temperature, PET has an impact strength of 3-5 kJ/m², while PP performs well. However, PP's impact performance drops sharply at low temperatures.
Barrier properties determine beverage shelf life: PET has a water vapor transmission rate of <1g/(m²·24h) and an oxygen transmission rate of <5cm³/(m²·24h·0.1MPa), making its oxygen barrier capacity three times that of PP. It is suitable for carbonated beverages, juices, and other products requiring long-term preservation. PP has a water vapor transmission rate of <2g/(m²·24h) but an oxygen transmission rate exceeding 100cm³/(m²·24h·0.1MPa), requiring EVOH lamination or aluminum foil to improve barrier properties, making it more suitable for short-term hot beverages.
1.4 Chemical Stability: Food Safety and Environmental Tolerance
Both are safe food contact materials. PP exhibits excellent chemical stability, resisting acids, alkalis, oils, and most organic solvents except for concentrated sulfuric acid and nitric acid. Its high-temperature resistance makes it the only plastic recommended for microwave use. PET is resistant to weak acids and organic solvents but not to hot water immersion and strong alkalis. It may hydrolyze under high temperature and humidity conditions, but remains safe and stable at room temperature, making it suitable for beverage and food packaging.
II. Production Cost Comparison Analysis
Production costs are determined by raw materials, processing, energy consumption, and economies of scale. PP has a significant overall cost advantage, while PET demonstrates potential for cost sharing in large-scale production.
2.1 Raw Material Prices
According to 2025 market data, the price range for PET raw materials is 5812-11000 yuan/ton, with bottle-grade chips at 6300-6400 yuan/ton and food-grade granules at 6500-8500 yuan/ton. The international market price in North America in June was approximately 8000 yuan/ton, showing overall stability with slight fluctuations due to international oil prices.
PP has a more competitive price advantage. Virgin PP is priced at 7800-9200 yuan/ton, while recycled PP is only 4000-6000 yuan/ton. The mainstream transaction price for fiber-grade PP is 7020-7200 yuan/ton, with the average annual price in East China at 7144 yuan/ton, a decrease of more than 5% compared to last year. At the end of October, the spot price was as low as 6585 yuan/ton, showing a downward trend, and the cost advantage continues to widen.
2.2 Processing and Energy Costs
Regarding equipment and mold costs, injection molding equipment (suitable for complex drinking paper cup shapes) costs hundreds of thousands to millions of yuan, while mold costs tens of thousands to millions of yuan. Blow molding equipment costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yuan, while molds cost only a few thousand to tens of thousands of yuan. PET is mainly processed by blow molding, which is 25% more efficient than PP. PP processing temperature is 220-280℃, lower than PET's 280℃, and does not require pre-drying treatment, resulting in lower energy consumption, which can offset some of the production efficiency disadvantage.
The cost difference per drinking paper cup is significant: a 500ml PET drinking paper cup costs approximately 0.18 yuan, while a PP drinking paper cup costs only 0.1 yuan. The core reason is that PP has lower density, lower raw material costs, and lower processing energy consumption. In blow molding processes where raw material costs account for 50%-70%, the price of PP raw materials is 8500-12500 yuan/ton, lower than PET's 9500-14000 yuan/ton.
2.3 Economies of Scale
PET production exhibits a prominent economy of scale. While a fully automated production line requires an initial investment of tens of millions of yuan, the depreciation cost per bottle can be reduced by 90% when annual output increases from 100 million to 1 billion units. China, as the world's largest PET bottle producer, will account for 36.2% of global capacity in 2024, with Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Jiangsu provinces contributing over 52% of the capacity. This industrial clustering further reduces costs. While PP also enjoys bulk purchasing incentives, its equipment investment threshold is lower, resulting in relatively milder economies of scale.
III. Market Application Analysis
PET and PP have formed a market division based on their different properties. PET dominates the cold beverage market, while PP monopolizes the hot beverage market. Regional preferences and environmental trends drive the evolution of the market structure.
3.1 Core Application Scenarios
PET cold beverage drinking paper cups are primarily used for packaging freshly made tea, coffee, carbonated beverages, juices, and dairy products. In 2023, the Chinese plastic cold beverage drinking paper cup market reached 21.8 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 9.7%, with domestic manufacturers accounting for 58% of the market share. Mixue Ice Cream purchased over 3.65 billion cold beverage drinking paper cups in 2024, accounting for 41.1% of the catering chain market. Its high transparency and barrier properties can showcase the texture of beverages, extend shelf life, and meet the needs of cold chain logistics.
PP hot beverage drinking paper cups are mainly used in coffee chains, tea shops, and for packaging hot drinks and food for takeout. Portable coffee drinking paper cups under 500ml account for 65% of total sales. The catering industry's annual demand is approximately 4.2 billion units, with fast food and tea beverage businesses accounting for 54% of usage. Its high-temperature resistance makes it suitable for coffee drinks above 80℃ and tea drinks between 60-80℃, and it is also drop-resistant and reusable, making it suitable for both home and office settings.
3.2 Market Share and Regional Preferences
In the global cold drinking paper cup market, PE/PET materials account for 58.2%, and PET and PP together account for 65.3% of the plastic drinking paper cup market. In 2024, plastic drinking paper cups accounted for 52.7% of the Chinese market, with PP accounting for 52%, followed by PET; the share of biodegradable drinking paper cups rose to 18.9%, and PLA's growth rate reached 37%, expected to exceed 15% in 2026. The global PET drinking paper cup market is expected to exceed US$10 billion in 2025, with a growth rate of 8% in China; the share of PP coffee drinking paper cups is expected to increase from 35% to 40%.
Significant regional differences exist: European and American markets favor transparent drinking paper cups made from recycled PET (rPET), emphasizing product display; the Asia-Pacific region is the largest consumer market for PET, with China, India, and Southeast Asia driving growth, and younger consumers driving demand for ready-to-drink tea beverages; Southeast Asia is price-sensitive, highlighting the cost advantage of PP; East and South China in China lead in demand for cold drinking paper cups, accounting for 31.5% and 24.8% respectively, highly consistent with the layout of chain brands.
3.3 Development Trends
Environmental protection is becoming a core trend. By 2025, the penetration rate of bio-based materials in cold drink packaging is expected to reach 28%, PLA's premium pricing power will increase, and PET's cost can be reduced by 19% through recycling. The application of recycled materials is accelerating; in 2024, cold drinking paper cups with ≥30% recycled PET accounted for 42% of the market share, and the "Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control" requires that the recycled content of PET bottles be no less than 30% by 2025. In terms of technological innovation, chemical recycling achieves high-purity recycling of mixed plastics, and consumption upgrades are driving demand for customized and high-end packaging, benefiting high-quality PET drinking paper cups.
IV. Environmental Performance Comparison Analysis
Environmental performance focuses on recyclability, degradation capacity, life cycle impact, and policy compatibility. PET has a significant advantage due to its well-established recycling system, while PP faces recycling bottlenecks but has promising potential.
4.1 Recycling Performance
PET's recycling rate far exceeds that of PP. The global average recycling rate is 58%, with China exceeding 65%, and Europe and the United States around 50%. It has a recycling code of "1," well-developed infrastructure, and recycled materials can be used for bottles, textiles, etc., with some products containing 30-50% recycled materials. China's PET plastic recycling volume is projected to reach 16.5 million tons by 2025, accounting for 36.7% of total waste plastic recycling.
PP's recycling rate is less than 10%, with a recycling code of "5." It suffers from severe mixed pollution, high sorting costs, and weak recycling infrastructure. Recycled materials are mostly used for automotive parts and storage containers. Although easy to recycle, insufficient collection and processing facilities limit its promotion, and future improvements to the sorting system are needed.
4.2 Degradation and Life Cycle Impact
Neither PET nor PP is biodegradable. PET molecules are tightly packed and highly crystalline, requiring 450 years for complete degradation in the marine environment. PP molecular chains are nonpolar and dense, making them difficult for microorganisms to decompose, with natural degradation taking hundreds of years. Only the bacteria *Ideonella sakaiensis* can secrete enzymes to decompose PET, but this is far from a practical application.
4.3 Policy and Sustainable Prospects
Policies are becoming increasingly stringent. China requires an 18% reduction in unit energy consumption for PET production by 2025, an industrial wastewater reuse rate exceeding 90%, and the application rate of recycled PET packaging reaching 30%, increasing to 45% by 2030. More than 60 countries worldwide have incorporated recycled plastic content into their regulations, with the EU requiring a 50% plastic recycling rate by 2025.
In terms of sustainable development, PET, relying on chemical recycling technology, achieves a monomer recycling rate of 95.4%, solidifying its circular advantages. PP needs to overcome collection and sorting bottlenecks; chemical recycling and combined mechanical-chemical recycling technologies are under development. The rise of bio-based materials presents challenges, but PET's cost advantage in recycling and PP's lightweight potential remain competitive, making the circular economy a core development direction.
Through a comparison across four dimensions, PET and PP exhibit distinct differences: PET, with its high transparency, excellent barrier properties, and good low-temperature resistance, is suitable for cold drinks, and its recycling system is well-established; PP, with its high-temperature resistance, low cost, and lightweight nature, dominates hot drinks, but its recycling is insufficient. In terms of production costs, the cost per drinking paper cup of PP is only 55% of PET, demonstrating significant advantages in raw materials and energy consumption. In market applications, the two have a clear division of labor between hot and cold drinks, and environmental trends are driving competition between recycled and biodegradable materials.
Policy recommendations: Beverage companies should select materials based on product type: PET for cold drinks and PP for hot drinks; diversified companies can use a combination. Investors should pay attention to the PET recycling industry and the lightweighting potential of PP, and invest in bio-based material technologies. Policymakers should improve the PET recycling system, support PP recycling technology research and development, and promote differentiated environmental policies. In the future, PET needs to increase the added value of recycled products, and PP needs to establish a recycling system. Both need to adapt to environmental requirements through technological innovation to achieve sustainable development.