Ginger CapaCinthia GonzálezGALLEGOS CASTRO, ELVIA DEL CARMENELVIA DEL CARMENGALLEGOS CASTROPatricia AlbaEdwin VeraAlexis DebutCristina E. Almeida-Naranjo2026-02-092026-02-092026-02https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.147566Non-wood agro-residues can reduce the environmental and cost burdens of papermaking, yet process alkalinity often drives impacts. Pineapple crowns were valorized as fiber feedstock and evaluated partial substitution of NaOH with NaHCO3 during processing, using NaOH–NaHCO3 ratios of 1:0, 3:1, and 1:1 (P100:0, P75:25, P50:50). Physical (grammage, thickness, porosity, burst, pH, water uptake) and instrumental characterizations, including Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), thermogravimetric and derivative thermogravimetric analysis (TGA/DTGA), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), were coupled with cradle-to-gate life-cycle (CF: carbon footprint; WF: water footprint) and unit-cost analyses. P75:25 achieved the highest grammage (71.86 ± 0.49 g/m2) and balanced network consolidation, while P100:0 maximized burst (19.53 ± 0.91 psi); P50:50 increased porosity and moisture uptake. TGA/DTGA indicated effective polysaccharide/lignin breakdown for P100:0 and P75:25, with elevated high-temperature residue in P50:50, aligning with SEM-resolved fiber compaction. Environmental results decreased monotonically with sodium-bicarbonate substitution: total CF = 0.25, 0.22 (−12 %), and 0.19 kg CO2-eq for P100:0, P75:25, and P50:50. WF per sheet was 6.56, 3.72, and 3.28 L for P100:0, P75:25, and P50:50, respectively. Despite lab-scale costs (≈4.0 USD/sheet), sensitivity indicates reagent price and electricity as main levers. Overall, P75:25 offers the best performance-to-impact trade-off preserving mechanical integrity while lowering CF and WF vs P100:0 supporting pineapple-crown papers as credible candidates for lightweight packaging and printing.enGreen pulpingLife cycle assessment (LCA)Non-wood papermakingPineapple crown valorizationSodium bicarbonate pulpingPineapple-crown papers with partial NaOH substitution: Performance, costs, and life-cycle footprintstext::journal::journal article