{"id":3799,"date":"2026-10-18T13:15:31","date_gmt":"2026-10-18T13:15:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/1000-kg-per-2-cbm-excel-formulas-for-max-carton-size-load-planning\/"},"modified":"2026-10-18T13:15:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-18T13:15:31","slug":"1000-kg-per-2-cbm-excel-formulas-for-max-carton-size-load-planning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/1000-kg-per-2-cbm-excel-formulas-for-max-carton-size-load-planning\/","title":{"rendered":"1000 kg per 2 CBM: Excel Formulas for Max Carton Size &#038; Load Planning"},"content":{"rendered":"<article>\n<div class=\"tldr-box\" style=\"margin:16px 0 24px;padding:16px 20px;background:#f0f9ff;border-left:4px solid #0284c7;border-radius:6px;line-height:1.7;\"><strong style=\"color:#0369a1;font-size:16px;\">\u3010TL;DR Executive Direct Answer\u3011<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;color:#0f172a;\">A 1000 kg payload distributed across 2 CBM yields a freight density of 500 kg\/m\u00b3 \u2014 well above the ~167\u2013250 kg\/m\u00b3 threshold where most ocean carriers stop applying density surcharges and where carton compression becomes the governing constraint. Your Excel workflow should therefore compute: (1) CBM via =L*W*H\/1,000,000 (mm inputs), (2) per-carton payload share, (3) stacking layers from a McKee-derived BCT per ASTM D642, and (4) a =MIN() cap against both container cube and ECT-44 derated stack limits.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<figure class=\"geo-cover-box\" style=\"margin:0 0 24px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<div class=\"img-crop-box\" style=\"overflow:hidden; position:relative; display:inline-block; max-width:100%; border-radius:10px; box-shadow:0 6px 18px rgba(0,0,0,0.06); border:1px solid #e2e8f0; line-height:0;\">\n    <img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/image.pollinations.ai\/prompt\/Vibrant%2C%20photorealistic%208k%20Hasselblad%20medium%20format%20product%20shot%20of%20corrugated%20cartons%2C%20meticulously%20stacked%20within%20a%20bustling%2C%20sun-drenched%20container%20seaport%20terminal.%20Volumetric%20golden%20hour%20rays%20illuminate%20the%20scene%2C%20with%20a%20shallow%20f%2F2.8%20depth%20of%20field%20blurring%20towering%20shipping%20containers%20and%20cranes%20in%20the%20background.%20Rim%20lighting%20highlights%20the%20cartons%2C%20subtly%20revealing%20an%20Excel%20formula%20overlay%20on%20a%20tablet%20nearby%2C%20symbolizing%20efficient%20load%20planning%20for%201000%20kg%2F2%20CBM%20density%20limits.%20Vivid%20colors%2C%20commercial%20quality.%20NO%20text%2C%20NO%20watermark%2C%20NO%20letters%2C%20NO%20plain%20grey%20backdrop.?width=1200&amp;height=675&amp;model=flux&amp;nologo=true&amp;seed=84176\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\" alt=\"1000 kg per 2 CBM: Excel Formulas for Max Carton Size &amp; Load Planning - Design Overview\" title=\"1000 kg per 2 CBM: Excel Formulas for Max Carton Size &amp; Load Planning\" loading=\"eager\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" style=\"display:block; width:100%; height:auto; border-radius:0; border:none; box-shadow:none; transform:scale(1.07); transform-origin:center 15%;\">\n  <\/div><figcaption style=\"font-size:13px; color:#64748b; margin-top:8px; font-style:italic;\">Figure: Packaging Design Overview (1000 kg per 2 CBM: Excel Formulas for Max Carton Size &amp; Load Planning)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<h2>1. Deconstructing the Query: What &#8216;1000 kg per 2 CBM&#8217; Actually Means in Freight Engineering<\/h2>\n<p>Global e-commerce freight rates entered 2026 with continued volatility on the trans-Pacific and Asia\u2013Europe corridors, pushing procurement teams to squeeze every cubic meter of container utilization \u2014 and that is precisely why search queries like &#8220;1000 kg per 2 cbm Excel formula to work out greater size&#8221; spike among operations planners. Strip away the phrasing and the engineering question is concrete: given a fixed payload mass (1000 kg) and a fixed volume envelope (2 CBM), what is the largest carton \u2014 or the largest shipper unit \u2014 that can be specified without violating density rules, stacking strength limits, or FBA dimensional penalties?<\/p>\n<p>The arithmetic core is trivial: 1000 kg \u00f7 2 m\u00b3 = 500 kg\/m\u00b3 bulk density. What is not trivial is that 500 kg\/m\u00b3 sits in the heavyweight freight band where structural packaging failures \u2014 column crush, delamination, pallet collapse \u2014 dominate claim rates. Per EU Directive 94\/62\/EC Annex II and the EU PPWR (Regulation 2024\/1991) mandates now active across 2026 compliance cycles, any heavier-duty carton you specify must also document recyclability and minimizing criteria, which constrains the temptation to simply over-spec board grade. This guide anchors every calculation to recognized test protocols and gives you copy-paste Excel logic.<\/p>\n<aside style=\"margin:20px 0;padding:16px 20px;background:#f8fafc;border-left:4px solid #2563eb;border-radius:6px;\"><strong>\u3010Core Engineering Definition: Bulk Freight Density (kg\/m\u00b3)\u3011<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;\">Bulk freight density is the quotient of gross shipment mass by the rectangular volume it occupies (kg\/m\u00b3), the single metric that determines whether ocean carriers classify a shipment as weight-limited or cube-limited and whether FBA applies dimensional-weight billing per its 2026 inbound guidelines; it is validated dimensionally per ISO 186:2020 conditioning (23\u00b0C \u00b1 1\u00b0C, 50% \u00b1 2% RH) before carton compression performance is assessed.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<h2>2. The Excel Formula Stack: From CBM to Maximum Carton Size<\/h2>\n<p>Build your spreadsheet in four calculation columns. Assume dimensions in millimeters for die-line compatibility:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step A \u2014 Carton volume (CBM):<\/strong> <code>=A2*B2*C2\/1000000<\/code> (L \u00d7 W \u00d7 H in mm \u2192 m\u00b3). For a 600 \u00d7 400 \u00d7 400 mm carton this returns 0.096 m\u00b3.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step B \u2014 Per-carton payload share:<\/strong> with 1000 kg total across a target carton count N, <code>=1000\/N<\/code>. At 10 cartons, each carries 100 kg gross.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step C \u2014 Shipper-unit ceiling (the &#8216;greater size&#8217; solver):<\/strong> given the 2 CBM envelope, the maximum count that fits is <code>=FLOOR(2\/(A2*B2*C2\/1000000),1)<\/code>, and the largest single carton footprint within the envelope solves to <code>=((2*1000000)\/(N* stacking_layers))^(1\/3)<\/code> when dimensionally cubic. Wrap everything in <code>=MIN(dimension_result, pallet_constraint, container_constraint)<\/code> so no single constraint is silently exceeded \u2014 standard pallet footprint 1200 \u00d7 1000 mm and a 40&#8242; HC cube of 67.7 m\u00b3 (with 2 CBM being your allocated share, you have ~3% utilization headroom).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step D \u2014 Stacking strength check:<\/strong> each carton&#8217;s share of the 1000 kg stack column must be less than its derated Box Compression Test (BCT). At 500 kg\/m\u00b3, a 0.096 m\u00b3 carton weighs ~48 kg; a five-high stack puts ~240 kg on the bottom carton. Per ASTM D642 (Standard Test Method for Determining Compressive Resistance of Shipping Containers), specify BCT \u2265 4\u20135\u00d7 that sustained load after humidity derating, which typically forces ECT-44 double-wall (BC flute, ~7.0 mm combined caliper) rather than ECT-32 single-wall C-flute.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin:18px 0;padding:14px 18px;background:#eff6ff;border-radius:8px;border:1px solid #bfdbfe;\"><strong>\u3010\ud83d\udca1 Packaging Engineer&#8217;s Quick Q&amp;A\u3011<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Q: If the McKee formula can derive BCT from ECT on paper, why does my Excel model still under-predict bottom-carton failures at 500 kg\/m\u00b3 density?<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>A:<\/strong> Direct answer: because McKee predicts BCT under standard 23\u00b0C\/50% RH conditioning, while your real stack sees 85\u201395% RH in ocean containers, cutting effective compression 30\u201350%. Mechanically, moisture plasticizes the starch adhesive bonds and the linerboard cell walls, collapsing the ECT value the formula consumes as its input. Recommendation: derate McKee output by a humidity factor of 0.55\u20130.65 for ocean freight lanes, and confirm final grade with physical BCT per ASTM D642 on conditioned specimens, not spreadsheet values alone. Use TadaPack&#8217;s free verification calculators at https:\/\/tadapack.com\/tools to cross-check ECT-to-BCT conversions interactively.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>3. Board Grade Selection: Governing Standards Comparison for 500 kg\/m\u00b3 Loads<\/h2>\n<p>At 500 kg\/m\u00b3 you have crossed out of e-commerce parcel board territory into industrial shipper territory. The table below is a hypothetical worked example matrix for a 1000 kg \/ 2 CBM allocation, with governing protocols cited:<\/p>\n<table style=\"width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin:16px 0;font-size:14px;\">\n<tbody>\n<tr style=\"background:#1e293b;color:#fff;\">\n<th style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Parameter<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Single-Wall C-Flute<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Double-Wall BC-Flute<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Governing Standard \/ Test Protocol<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Combined board ECT<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ECT-32 (fails 5-high stack at this density)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ECT-44 (recommended)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">TAPPI T811 \/ ISO 3037<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Burst strength (min)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">~1,600 kPa<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">~2,000 kPa<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">TAPPI T810 (2026 Revision)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Combined caliper<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">~4.0 mm<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">~7.0 mm \u00b10.15 mm<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ISO 3034 \/ ASTM D685 conditioning<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Water absorption (liner)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Cobb60 \u2264 35 g\/m\u00b2 required<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Cobb60 \u2264 30 g\/m\u00b2 + water-resistant adhesive<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ISO 535 (Cobb method)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Transit simulation<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ISTA 3A (parcel lanes)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ASTM D4169 DC-13 \/ ISTA 3E (palletized)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">ASTM D4169 \/ ISTA 3E<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">Recyclability documentation<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"2\" style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">PFAS-free barrier coatings; conforming substrate declaration required<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:10px;border:1px solid #cbd5e1;\">EU PPWR (2024\/1991); FTC Green Guides 16 CFR Part 260<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Note that TAPPI Standard T810 (2026 Revision) burst requirements apply where legacy carrier tariffs still reference Mullen-rated board; most 2026-compliant B2B tariffs have migrated to ECT-only specification, which is more predictive of stacking performance and allows lighter basis weight at equal compression performance.<\/p>\n<h2>4. Four-Step SOP: Excel Load Model \u2192 Dieline \u2192 Lab Validation<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Step 1 \u2014 Fix the density inputs.<\/strong> Enter gross mass (1000 kg), allocated volume (2 CBM), carton count N, and target stacking height (layers \u00d7 caliper + pallet deck, capped at 1.8 m warehouse racks or 2.2 m container interior). Tolerance all dimension inputs to \u00b10.15 mm to mirror die-cutting registration reality.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step 2 \u2014 Solve maximum dimensions with stacked constraints.<\/strong> Use the FLOOR\/MIN formula stack from Section 2. Add a safety clamp: <code>=MIN(computed_dim, pallet_internal_dim - 10)<\/code> to reserve a 10 mm load-fit clearance per side per common warehouse SOP.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step 3 \u2014 Back-solve required ECT.<\/strong> Apply the McKee relationship: BCT \u2248 5.87 \u00d7 ECT \u00d7 \u221a(caliper \u00d7 perimeter). Derate by 0.6 for ocean humidity, divide by (layers \u2212 1) \u00d7 unit weight for bottom-carton demand, and iterate the Excel goal-seek until ECT demand \u2264 available grade (choose ECT-44 BC-flute in nearly all 500 kg\/m\u00b3 scenarios).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Step 4 \u2014 Physical validation before PO release.<\/strong> Order prototypes from TadaPack&#8217;s custom structural packaging and prototyping service, then test: compression per ASTM D642, vibration profile per ASTM D4169 (Distribution Cycle 13 for truck\/palletized lanes), and drop per ISTA 3A sequences. Do not release mass production against spreadsheet BCT values alone \u2014 this is the single most expensive error pattern we see in claim audits.<\/p>\n<h2>5. Defect Diagnostics &amp; Troubleshooting Matrix at High Density<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Defect 1 \u2014 Bottom-carton column crush after 30-day ocean transit.<\/strong> Root cause: humidity-driven ECT collapse; container sweat on Pacific and Atlantic lanes routinely drives 85\u201395% RH for multi-week exposures, and linerboards with Cobb60 absorption above 35 g\/m\u00b2 trigger transit delamination and bond failure. Corrective floor actions: (a) specify Cobb60 \u2264 30 g\/m\u00b2 kraft liners, (b) require water-resistant (WR) corrugating adhesive in the PO, (c) add a desiccant load calculation (~2 units per m\u00b3 of container air) and (d) derate stack height one layer in the Excel model for all ocean lanes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defect 2 \u2014 Flap popping \/ seam gapping under palletized vibration.<\/strong> Root cause: insufficient creasing matrix specification and under-driven stitch or tape closure relative to 48+ kg unit weight. Corrective actions: move to 45-durometer creasing matrix, widen the crease channel by 0.3 mm over standard for BC flute, and upgrade closure to 48 mm pressure-sensitive tape or a minimum 2-stitch pattern; verify flap alignment under ASTM D4169 random-vibration profile before approval.<\/p>\n<h2>6. Multi-Regional Landing Matrix: Where Your 2 CBM Actually Gets Abused<\/h2>\n<p><strong>California Inland Empire (FBA ONT8\/LGB3):<\/strong> dry inland ambient (~30\u201340% RH) is benign for compression, but Amazon 2026 inbound rules enforce strict pallet height and overhang tolerances \u2014 a single 12.7 mm overhang voids stacking credit. Your Excel model must therefore cap footprint at the 1200 \u00d7 1000 mm pallet deck minus 10 mm per side. <strong>DFW Texas triangle:<\/strong> high summer heat (40\u00b0C+ trailer interiors) softens hot-melt adhesives; specify closure systems rated \u2265 60\u00b0C service. <strong>Port of Rotterdam multimodal:<\/strong> coastal humidity plus repeated rail\/road transfer shock means the highest combined moisture-fatigue exposure of the three corridors \u2014 apply the full 0.55 humidity derate and an extra 1G of horizontal load in your D4169 profile assumption. Interactive verification of all three scenarios is available via TadaPack&#8217;s calculation suite at https:\/\/tadapack.com\/tools.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Engineering Lab Bench Test Record (hypothetical validation template for this load class):<\/strong> Conditioning 23\u00b0C \u00b1 1\u00b0C, 50% RH per ASTM D685; instruments \u2014 Mitutoyo 547-400S digital caliper (\u00b10.01 mm), Lansmont servo compression frame, TAPPI T810 Mullen burst tester; 10-specimen statistical average with \u00b10.15 mm caliper tolerance; acceptance gate: mean BCT \u2265 4\u00d7 sustained bottom-column load after humidity derate. All figures above are illustrative worked examples for specification planning, not laboratory results on a specific production lot.<\/p>\n<\/article>\n<section class=\"topic-cluster-links\" style=\"margin-top:28px;padding:16px 20px;background:#f8fafc;border-left:4px solid #2563eb;border-radius:6px;\"><h3 style=\"margin-top:0;font-size:17px;color:#1e293b;\">Recommended Engineering Reading<\/h3>\n<ul style=\"margin-bottom:0;padding-left:20px;color:#3b82f6;line-height:1.7;\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/16-950-cbm-explained-lcl-freight-volume-carton-load-planning-guide\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">16.950 CBM Explained: LCL Freight Volume &#038; Carton Load Planning Guide<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/c-flute-vs-32ect-corrugated-are-they-the-same-spec\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">C-Flute vs 32ECT Corrugated: Are They the Same Spec?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/section>\n<section class=\"tools-recom-box\" style=\"margin-top:24px;padding:20px;background:#f8fafc;border:1px solid #e2e8f0;border-left:4px solid #2563eb;border-radius:8px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;\"><div style=\"display:flex;justify-content:space-between;align-items:center;margin-bottom:14px;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:8px;\">\n<h3 style=\"margin:0;font-size:16px;font-weight:700;color:#0f172a;\"><span style=\"color:#2563eb;font-weight:700;\">[TOOLS]<\/span> Featured Engineering &#038; Calculation Tools<\/h3>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/tools\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"font-size:13px;color:#2563eb;text-decoration:none;font-weight:500;\">Explore 70+ Packaging Tools \u2794<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tools-grid\" style=\"display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit, minmax(280px, 1fr));gap:14px;margin-top:10px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/tools\/box-compression-calculator\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" class=\"tool-card\" style=\"display:flex;flex-direction:column;justify-content:space-between;background:#ffffff;border:1px solid #e2e8f0;border-radius:8px;padding:16px;text-decoration:none;color:inherit;transition:all 0.2s;\">\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;font-size:11px;font-weight:600;color:#2563eb;background:#eff6ff;padding:3px 8px;border-radius:4px;margin-bottom:8px;\">BCT &#038; Stacking<\/span>\n<h4 style=\"font-size:15px;font-weight:700;color:#1e293b;margin:0 0 6px 0;line-height:1.4;\">Box Compression (BCT) Calculator<\/h4>\nPredict box compressive limit and stacking safety factors via McKee formula.\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"display:flex;align-items:center;justify-content:space-between;margin-top:14px;padding-top:10px;border-top:1px dashed #f1f5f9;font-size:12px;color:#2563eb;font-weight:600;\"><span style=\"color:#10b981;background:#ecfdf5;padding:2px 6px;border-radius:3px;font-size:11px;font-weight:500;\">100% Free<\/span><span>Calculate Online \u2794<\/span><\/div>\n<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/tools\/edge-crush-test-calculator\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" class=\"tool-card\" style=\"display:flex;flex-direction:column;justify-content:space-between;background:#ffffff;border:1px solid #e2e8f0;border-radius:8px;padding:16px;text-decoration:none;color:inherit;transition:all 0.2s;\">\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;font-size:11px;font-weight:600;color:#2563eb;background:#eff6ff;padding:3px 8px;border-radius:4px;margin-bottom:8px;\">ECT Testing<\/span>\n<h4 style=\"font-size:15px;font-weight:700;color:#1e293b;margin:0 0 6px 0;line-height:1.4;\">Edge Crush Test (ECT) Calculator<\/h4>\nCalculate linerboard ring crush and composite ECT ratings for optimal board specs.\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"display:flex;align-items:center;justify-content:space-between;margin-top:14px;padding-top:10px;border-top:1px dashed #f1f5f9;font-size:12px;color:#2563eb;font-weight:600;\"><span style=\"color:#10b981;background:#ecfdf5;padding:2px 6px;border-radius:3px;font-size:11px;font-weight:500;\">100% Free<\/span><span>Calculate Online \u2794<\/span><\/div>\n<\/a><\/div><\/section>\n<p><!-- ========================================= --><br \/>\n<!-- Google & AI GEO Schema.org Structured Data --><br \/>\n<!-- ========================================= --><br \/>\n<br \/>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Engineering-grade guide: build Excel formulas for 1000 kg \/ 2 CBM density limits, ECT stacking checks, and freight-optimized carton sizing for B2B packaging.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-custom-packaging"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tadapack.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}