performance of aluminium based packaging materials ... - films acg films & foils. influence of...

Download PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM BASED PACKAGING MATERIALS ... - Films ACG Films & Foils. INFLUENCE OF ALUMINIUM

Post on 11-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 2018

    PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM BASED PACKAGING MATERIALS RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE by Dr. E. Pasbrig, GM Development and Technology ACG Films & Foils

  • INFLUENCE OF ALUMINIUM THICKNESS OF CFF AND PUSH THROUGH FOIL TO EFFICIENCY AND COST

    Cold form laminate in India normally has aluminium thickness of 50 µm. Internationally,

    45 µm is used for packaging of standard products. If a higher dent resistant of cavity is

    needed, the thickness of aluminium will be 60 µm.

    Di�erence of 5 µm in thickness does not provide a better dent resistant, as shown in

    next table.

    Cold form laminate in India normally has aluminium thickness of 50 µm. Internationally,

    45 µm is used for packaging of standard products. If a higher dent resistant of cavity is

    needed, the thickness of aluminium will be 60 µm.

    Di�erence of 5 µm in thickness does not provide a better dent resistant, as shown in

    next table. Formability of the laminate with 50 µm aluminium is not increased

    compared to the standard laminate with 45 µm Al. Use of laminate with 60 mm

    aluminium provides a slightly better formability and more consistent forming results

    related to pinholes (higher cost).

    Reduction of aluminium thickness by 5 µm for a cold form blister with dimension of

    120 x 55 mm results in 18 kg material saving for packing 2 Lakh of blister.

    oPA-Al-PVC

    40 cycle/min, blister 120 x 55 mm

    Aluminium thickness (µm)

    1 reel (20 kg) in m2

    45 50

    84.4 79.8

    422 399

    844 798

    313 331

    18

    6311

    Running meter (width 200 mm)

    2 blister/cycle

    2 lac blister (1320 sqm) (kg)

    Saving (kg)

    Approximately Saving (INR)

    CFF Sti�ness(Nmm)

    1.13

    1.14

    2.12

    25-45-60

    25-50-60

    25-60-60

  • Cycle per reel (14 kg) Running time per reel

    Possible savings over a year, depending how many shifts per day are done, are in the

    range of INR 22 to 89 Lakh.

    The example is showing, that CFF with 50 µm does not have an advantage in

    performance, needed higher amount of material by area and more frequent changes of

    reels during production.

    For a production of blister (60 x 95 mm; 4 blister/cycle; 40 cycle/min; weight of

    reel = 14 kg) switching from 25 to 20 µm, produces 7040 blisters more, with 20 µm foil.

    In addition, time until reel needs to be changed is increased by 44 min.

    LID FOIL, ALUMINIUM THICKNESS 25 µm AND 20 µm

    Similar result we get for the change of 25 µm to 20 µm aluminium thickness for lid foil.

    Beside the USA market, all other countries use a thickness of 20 µm, and Japan uses

    even 3 µm less.

    For aluminium foil produced in Europe, the maximum amount of pinholes per m2 with

    0.5, respective 0.4 for 25 µm are similar and do not influence the barrier properties of

    the sealed blister.

    Savings of material for the lid foil, as mentioned in the following table, are up to 21.8%.

    1 shift/day

    kg INR (Lakh)

    6552 22.3

    13104 44.6

    26208 89.2

    2 shifts/day

    4 shifts/day

    CFF HSL Lacquer Weight Yield Saving

    54.0 7 1 62.0 16.1 21.80%

    67.5 7 1 75.5 13.2

    Thickness (µm) 20 25

    225.8 185.4

    9956 8176

    14 kg = m2

    Cycle/14 kg

    Thickness (µm) 20 25

    249 205

    44

    Production time (min)

    Di�erence (min)

  • Related to seal strength, heat resistance, abrasion of printing ink, there is no di�erence

    between the 20 and 25 µm foil used for converting.

    Burst pressure is increasing with the thickness of the foil. With this push through, force

    is increasing too. It is di�cult to push a hart gelatine capsule through 25 µm foil

    without denting/pressing the capsule.

    REDUCTION OF PACKAGING MATERIAL - STRIP PACK – CFF – TROPICAL BLISTER

    Moisture sensitive products packed in strip pack are as well protected as in CFF. If

    sealing layer of CFF has to be identical as strip pack, LDPE or HDPE can be used. As

    sealing layer of lid foil an extrusion coating of LDPE on 20 µm aluminium is used.

    Comparison of strip pack and CFF highlights the main points as:

    • more packaging material has to be used

    • product is in direct contact with sealing roller (hard gelatine capsule can stick on PE)

    and temperature sensitive products cannot be packed

    Calculations to compare size of pack have shown, that with usage of CFF, 30% to 70%

    reduction is possible, depending on product geometry. If tropical blister is used, further

    saving is possible. Reduction in size is not identical with saving of cost. But if all points

    are taken, every example shows savings:

    • production time and output

    • lower weight

    • smaller folding carton

    • more blister in shipper

    • lower cost for logistics

    These calculations come into play if a customer expresses an interest to switch from

    strip pack to CFF or tropical blister.

    LID PE

    Sealing layer of lid foil (push through) for sealing to CFF with polyethylene (LDPE,

    HDPE, CFF with desiccant) is produced by extrusion coating. To get su�cient

    adhesion to the aluminium surface a primer (lacquer) is used between aluminium and

    PE. Because of this sealing, the layer related to lid foil is double in thickness compared

    with lacquer of 7 g/m2 where double amount of humidity and oxygen is migrating

    through it into the cavity.

    We were able to develop a push through foil with a lacquer in sealing to polyethylene

    with 5 or 7 g/m2, depending on customer requests. Not only is the cost less, but more

    importantly, the cross migration is reduced by 50%. This lid foil is on the market

    already and replacing the material with extruded LDPE.

    SUMMARY

    • Use of CFF with aluminium of 50 µm compared with 45 µm does not have any

    advantage related to performance; costis higher related to area.

    • Switching of lid foil with 25 µm aluminium to 20 µm provides an advantage related to

    cost and change time of a reel

    • Change from strip pack to CFF can reduce pack size by 30 – 70%.

    • Lid foil for sealing to polyethylene with a lacquer can replace the currently used lid

    foil with LDPE extrusion coating. It provides cost advantage and better barrier

    related to cross di�usion of a CFF blister.

    • If barrier layer of thermo form films are on inner side barrier properties after forming

    is increased by 11 – 15%.

    • ACG Pharmapack is offering a unique service to the pharmaceutical industry related

    to thermo forming, cold forming and sealing.

  • Related to seal strength, heat resistance, abrasion of printing ink, there is no di�erence

    between the 20 and 25 µm foil used for converting.

    Burst pressure is increasing with the thickness of the foil. With this push through, force

    is increasing too. It is di�cult to push a hart gelatine capsule through 25 µm foil

    without denting/pressing the capsule.

    REDUCTION OF PACKAGING MATERIAL - STRIP PACK – CFF – TROPICAL BLISTER

    Moisture sensitive products packed in strip pack are as well protected as in CFF. If

    sealing layer of CFF has to be identical as strip pack, LDPE or HDPE can be used. As

    sealing layer of lid foil an extrusion coating of LDPE on 20 µm aluminium is used.

    Comparison of strip pack and CFF highlights the main points as:

    • more packaging material has to be used

    • product is in direct contact with sealing roller (hard gelatine capsule can stick on PE)

    and temperature sensitive products cannot be packed

    Calculations to compare size of pack have shown, that with usage of CFF, 30% to 70%

    reduction is possible, depending on product geometry. If tropical blister is used, further

    saving is possible. Reduction in size is not identical with saving of cost. But if all points

    are taken, every example shows savings:

    • production time and output

    • lower weight

    • smaller folding carton

    • more blister in shipper

    • lower cost for logistics

    These calculations come into play if a customer expresses an interest to switch from

    strip pack to CFF or tropical blister.

    LID PE

    Sealing layer of lid foil (push through) for sealing to CFF with polyethylene (LDPE,

    HDPE, CFF with desiccant) is produced by extrusion coating. To get su�cient

    adhesion to the aluminium surface a primer (lacquer) is used between aluminium and

    PE. Because of this sealing, the layer related to lid foil is double in thickness compared

    with lacquer of 7 g/m2 where double amount of humidity and oxygen is migrating

    through it into the cavity.

    We were able to develop a push through foil with a lacquer in sealing to polyethylene

    with 5 or 7 g/m2, depending on customer requests. Not only is the cost less, but more

    importantly, the cross migration is reduced by 50%. This lid foil is on the market

    already and replacing the material with extruded LDPE.

    SUMMARY

    • Use of CFF with aluminium of 50 µm compared with 45 µm does not have any

    advantage related to per