Inline Metallizing and Coating as a Way to Improve Barrier and Reduce Carbon Footprint

Transcription

1 Inline Metallizing and Coating as a Way to Improve Barrier and Reduce Carbon Footprint 1

2 OUTLINE History of Inline or In Chamber Coating One step vs. two step process Barrier Properties of Inline Top-coated Metallized Films WVTR and OTR Environmental benefits of Inline Coated Films Reducing Carbon Footprint Opportunities for Layer Elimination Summary and Conclusion 2

3 History of Inline Coating General Electric was the forerunner with Acrylate Coatings in early 80 s Sub Licenses went to Dave Shaw Catalina Coatings; Angelo Yializis Sigma Technologies in the late 80s DSM s vapor deposition technology recently introduced as Freshure Coatings Camvac is introducing a new Inline Coating Process Metacoat Inline Coating process developed by Vast Films and Celplast Metallized Products Limited Rumored other efforts to develop the technology 3

4 WHY The Economics of One Step vs. Two steps 4

5 One Step vs. Two Steps Two Step Coating and Metallizing Capital Investment Two units and two production areas Higher fixed costs Operating costs Requires two sets of operators Yield losses > 10% Higher operating costs One Step Coating and Metallizing One unit and one production area Lower fixed costs Requires one set of operators Yield losses ~ 5%, Lower operating costs 5

6 WHY The Economics of One Step vs. Two steps Barrier Properties of Top Coated Metallized Films The Pinhole Theory 6

7 Inline Coating and Metallizing Process 7

8 Pinhole Theory Gas transmission rate through a metallized film is controlled by the number of defects in the metal layer Defects Gas flow 8

9 Pinhole Theory Causes of defect: Scratches Impurities flaking off Roller debris Metal layer Substrate 9

10 . Pinhole Theory The coating protects the metal layer Impurities are trapped Roller debris Coating Substrate 10

11 Pinhole Theory This has been confirmed by looking at coated and uncoated metallized samples under a strong backlight: The uncoated samples have higher levels of pinholes than the coated ones. 11

12 WVTR Values Material Uncoated Coated OD % Improvement 18µ OPP µ PLA µpla µ PLA µpe µ PET µPET µPET µpet µPET µPET µ PET Values in g/m 2 /24h at 37.8 C and 90%RH 12

13 OTR Values Material Uncoated Coated OD % Improvement 18µ OPP µ PLA µ PLA µ PE µ PET* µ PET µ PET µ PET µ PET µ PET Values in cc/m 2 /24h at 23 C and 50%RH *Value measured at 0% RH 13

14 Barrier Properties of Several Metallized and Coated Films 14

15 WVTR vs. Optical Density G PET 1.00 WVTR (g/m2/day) % % Coated Uncoated Optical Density 73% 15

16 WHY The Economics of One Step vs. Two steps Barrier Properties of Top Coated Metallized Films The Pinhole Theory What you measure is what you get Again The Pinhole Theory 16

17 It is possible to significantly improve barrier properties of a film without having to work at optical densities greater than It is possible to design a product knowing what your barrier properties will be with a top coated film. 17

18 Environmental 18

19 REDUCING CARBON FOOTPRINT 19

20 Converting Operations Solvent Based Print or Coat 8.5lbs/ream LDPE (15um) Processing Energy Usage (MJ/Ream) Processing CO 2 Equivalent 1 (Kg/Ream) Material CO 2 Equivalent 2 (Kg/Ream) 203 * * Metallizing 27 ** Metallize & top coat, one pass 43 ** * Life Cycle Inventories for Flexible Packaging Lamination, Rick DiMenna, Rohm & Haas. ** Celplast calculations based on equipment manufacturer specifications and internal M & V studies. 1 Ontario power carbon footprint of kg CO2 eq./mj, How it Works: Electricity Generation, OPG, CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF NINE PLASTIC RESINS, Franklin Associates, Also Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry, Plastics Europe (2005), I. Boustead, ed. Includes yield losses. 20

21 Opportunities For Layer Elimination 21

22 Opportunities For Layer Elimination It allows us to look at eliminating additional plies of material that are there primarily to protect the metallized layer Potential layer elimination for 2 different structures: Dry powder pouch : Aluminum foil Bag-in-box pouch: Metallized OPP 22

23 Carbon Footprint Reduction: Dry Powder or Stick Pack 23

24 Carbon Footprint Reduction: Dry Powder or Stick Pack 24

25 Carbon Footprint Reduction: Bag-in-box Snack Food 2-ply unprinted laminated structure Single ply unlaminated structure Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Unprinted 60 g OPP lbs LDPE adhesive 77.8 Metallizing & EB coating 13.0 Metallizing 6.6 Heat sealable 60 g OPP 12.9 Heat sealable 140 g OPP 30.1 Total CO2 Equiv. (kg/ream) 110 Total CO2 Equiv. (kg/ream) 43 Carbon footprint reduction: 60.9% 25

26 Material Reduction: Dry Powder Or Stick Pack 3-ply laminated structure 2-ply laminated structure Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) SB reverse print PET 11.7 SB adhesive lamination 0.8 SB reverse print PET g Al foil 12.2 SB adhesive lamination 0.8 SB adhesive lamination 0.8 Metallizing & EB coating mil sealant web mil sealant web 22.8 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 48 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 36 Material reduction: 25.3% 26

27 Material Reduction: Bag-in-box Snack Food 2-ply unprinted laminated structure Single ply unlaminated structure Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) Unprinted 60 g OPP lbs LDPE adhesive 8.9 Metallizing & EB coating 0.8 Metallized layer 0.0 Heat sealable 60 g OPP 8.8 Heat sealable 140 g OPP 20.5 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 27 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 21 Material reduction: 19.5% 27

28 Summary: Material, Energy and Carbon Footprint Reduction % Reduction Traditional Structure New Structure Material Weight Energy Usage CO2 Footprint Rev. Print PET / Al Foil / LLDPE Clear OPP / Met OPP Rev. Print PET / Top-coat met LLDPE Top-coat met OPP SB 13.4 SL 39.6 SB 34.8 SL

29 In Chamber Coating: Has Lower Capital and Operating Costs Provides excellent barrier properties Provides predictable barrier properties Opens the possibilities for new laminated and unlaminated structures to be introduced Environmentally reduces: Material and energy consumption Carbon footprint Summary 29

30 Conclusion Inline or In Chamber Metallizing and Coating offers many benefits as summarized on the last slide. An increasing number of technologies are becoming available either for finished product or for a license to do the process which will expand the interest and the market. This will help the technology come of age during the next 10 years where I believe you will see significant acceptance in both packaging and industrial markets. 30

31 Contact information: Office: Mobile: Website: 31