‘Development of functional barriers for the use of recycled materials in flexible packaging’

Vicent MartinezAIMPLASvmartinez@aimplas.es

Follow AIMPLAS

AIMCAL ConferenceMunich, March 23rd 2017

Overview • Circular economy vision

• Functional barrier concept

• BANUS Project

• Cases study

• Conclusions

MARKET ORIENTED

+570MEMBERS

+2,300CUSTOMERS

€ 8.4MREVENUES

> R&D INNOVATION PROJECTS> TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE> ANALYSIS & TESTING> COMPETITIVEINTELLIGENCE> TRAINING

Over 8,500 m2 facilities with state-of-the-art equipment

Valencia Parc Tecnologic (SPAIN)

Benefits flexible packaging

Multilayer laminates and specialty coatingfilms offer optimal barrier properties thatlead to extended shelf-life for perishablegoods contributing food waste reduction

Lightweight and compact packagingformats allow lower environmental impactsdue to weight reduction andtransport cost savings

Drawbacks: difficult recycling

Packaging waste features low bulk density,thin gauge fluffy films, combination ofdifferent materials (foil, paper, plastics…)

Usually this type of waste is diverted to:Energy recovery from plastic incineration

Plastic mechanical recycling for low valueproducts including bin bags, pipes, pots, etc.

Paperboard for recycled pulp poses someconcerns on mineral oils hydrocarbons (MOHs)

Circular economy

Strategy to develop a sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient andcompetitive economy

Key actions:

Innovative and more efficient production processesImprove waste management to increase use secondary materialsAvoid scarcity of resources and raw materials volatile prices

Closing the loop of product lifecycles through greater recycling and re-use

Use of recycled plastic for food packaging

1. Offcuts and scraps from production of food contact plastics

(Regulation EC 2023/2006)

2. Recycled plastics from processesauthorised by EFSA

(Regulation EC 282/2008)

3. Recycled plastics used behind a functional barrier

(Regulation EU 10/2011)

Functional barrier

Layer (or multi-layer of any type of material) which prevents the migration ofsubstances from behind that barrier into the food(including set-off during storage of stackable packaging)

NON-AUTHORISED MATERIALS

FUNCTIONAL BARRIER

FOODSTUFF

X

Functional barrier

Behind a functional barrier, non-authorised substances can be used, provided they fulfil certain criteria and their migration remains below a given detection limit: 0.01 mg/kg in foodstuff (10 ppb)

Substances not covered by the functional barrier definition:

• Nanoparticles

• Toxic to reproduction

• Mutagenic

• Carcinogenic

Functional barrier

The effectiveness of the functional barrier depends on:

• Concentration and diffusion coefficient of contaminants in the recycled layer

• Chemical nature and thickness of the barrier layer

• Conditions of use:

o Type of food

o Temperature and time of use

A functional barrier must also be efficient under processing conditions, to prevent diffusion of substances when the polymer layers are in contact at high temperatures

BANUS projectDefinition and development of functional barriers for the use of recycled materials in multi-layer food packaging

www.banus-project.eu

Funded byDuration: 24 months July 2014 - June 2016

Partners: 9 partners from 6 countries

12

Develop new multilayer structures for food packaging applications (using conventional polymers to achieve new functionalities)

Evaluate their properties as functional barriers

Open new potential markets for the traditional recycling companies in Europe

The ultimate objective is to increase the technical knowledgeabout materials and technologies used in functional barrier development

BANUS project - Goals

• Substitution of a percentage of virgin material by recycled material(paper or plastic) in the selected structures in order to develop moreenvironmental friendly food packaging structures

13

BANUS project - Objectives

• The main objective is to ensure highly efficient functional barriers toguarantee food safety when using recycled materials (plastic andpaper) even coming from non-authorized recycling processes infood packaging structures

• A key point is the evaluation of the functional barriers performancewhen positioned between recycled materials and foodstuffs

Methodology to asses the effectiveness as functional barrier

Intentional contamination of a packaging material with a known

concentration of surrogate substances (challenge test)

Incorporation of contaminated material within the packaging

structure behind the functional barrier

Migration testing with food-simulating solvents under worst foreseeable

conditions of use

BANUS project - Stages

15

Case Study 1:Semi-rigid multilayer

plastic packaging

Case Study 2Flexible multilayer

packaging

Case Study 3Coated paperboard

packaging

Current structure PP/EVOH/PP Paper/PET met/PE Paperboard/Coating

Current processing technology

Co-extrusion Lamination adhesives Coating

Recycled material

proposedRecycled PP Recycled paper Recycled paperboard

End users Applications

BANUS project – Case Studies

16

CTC(OTH)

End-user Cluster

AIMPLASPlastic materials and processes expert

Pilot plant processingTesting

DELTA (SME)Paper coating

BOBINÓ (SME)Plastic

co-extrusion

BUMAGA(SME)Paper recycling

expert

Value chain resources mobilisation and integration

RTD/DEMO resources

mobilisation

and integration

HELIO (SME)Lamination

+MTM(SME)Plastic recycler

INNVENTIAPaper and coatings materials and

processes expertPilot plant processing

Testing

AVEP (OTH)Plastic industry

association

+

BANUS project- Partners’ roles

Case Study 1 Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP tray

17

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

Requirements Barrier propertiesMechanical properties: compression, impact resistance

Final application

Type of food Fatty liver (foie gras)

t-T contactconditions

Sterilization (80ºC- 60 min or 90 ºC-115 min)+Long termstorage at room T or below

Structures to be evaluated Assymetric: PP+tie / Recycled PP+tie / EVOH / PP+tie

Symmetric: PP+tie/ EVOH / Recycled PP+tie / EVOH / PP+tie

SELECTION OF SURROGATES

Substance PropertiesChloroform Volatile Polar

Toluene Volatile Non-PolarBenzophenone Non-Volatile Polar

Phenylcyclohexane Non-Volatile Non-PolarCopper(II) 2-ethylhexanoate Heavy metal

FDA Guidance forRecycled Plastic

EFSA Opinion on submission a dossier for safety evaluation of

recycling processes

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

CONTAMINATION OF PP

- Virgin PP + Surrogate contaminants cocktail- 40ºC under continuous stirring- Several times of contact (since 10 days) until

maximum concentration was achieved- Rinse twice with water for elimination of

surface contamination- Drying- Quantification of contamination level

(chromatography)

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

PILOT PLANT CO-EXTRUSION+THERMOFORMING

Asymmetric structure:

PP+tie / EVOH // Contaminated PP+tie / PP+tie

Symmetric structure:

PP+tie / EVOH // Contaminated PP+tie / EVOH / PP+tie

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

MIGRATION STUDIES

Exposure- Filling- Conditions: 2h/100ºC + 10d/60ºC- Simulants:

- Simulant B (Acetic acid 3%) for Copper(II) 2-ethylhexanoate

- Vegetable oil simulant and alternative simulants (Iso-octane and Ethanol 95%) for Chloroform, toluene, benzophenone and phenylcyclohexane

Quantification of specific migrants- Chromatography techniques- ICP-AES

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

MIGRATION STUDIES

Migration results in all cases are above 0.01 ppb (except for Cu)

IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT ANY OF THE TESTED STRUCTURES ACTS AS FUNCTIONAL BARRIER

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

RESULTS

- Specific substances have been selected to cover a wide range ofcontaminants in a worst-case scenario for challenge test

- Migration tests methods have been optimized to performa correct evaluation

- High levels of contaminants in the simulants after the exposure stage donot permit to prove that any of the structures testedacts as functional barrier

- Further research proposed to study diffusion of contaminants betweenlayers during co-extrusion and thermoforming process

CASE STUDY 1: Thermoformed PP/EVOH/PP trays

Case Study 2 Flexible multilayer multimaterial packaging

25

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

Requirements Barrier propertiesMechanical properties: delamination strength, CoF, tear resistance

Final application

Type of food Preparation for soups in powder form

t-T contactconditions

Long term storage at room T

Structures to be evaluated Coating / Recycled Paper / Metallized PET / PE

CONTAMINATION OF PAPER

- Spike 1: Mixture of chemicals

Maximum concentration was achieved and verified in used contamination conditions

- Spike 2: Recycled ‘dirty’ paper

- Spike 3: Mineral oils

- Spike 4: Boric acid and metal salt

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

PILOT-PLANT LAMINATION PROCESS

Recycled Paper / Metallized PET / PE

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

MIGRATION STUDIES

- Within a range from t=0 at 20oC to 10 days at 60oC with simulant A and E

- B, C, D2 and substitute simulants at the worst case scenario of 10 days 60oC

SPIKE 1

- Worst-case scenario- Below 0.01 mg/kg foodstuffs

for 9 substances

SPIKE 2

- Met PET/PE behaves as a functional barrier for a non-food contact approved recycled paper

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

MIGRATION STUDIES

- Within a range from t=0 at 20oC to 10 days at 60oC with simulant A and E

- B, C, D2 and substitute simulants at the worst case scenario of 10 days 60oC

SPIKE 3

- Met PET/PE behaves as a functional barrier for mineral oils

SPIKE 4

- Water soluble compounds are normally not migrating through the gas phase and are therefore not a problem for migration to dry food

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

RESULTS

- Exaggerated worst case conditions have been applied by means of4 different spiking procedures performed

- Migration tests methods have been optimized to performa correct evaluation

- Further research proposed in order to prevent set-off diffusion duringroll laminate storage by means of a barrier coating

CASE STUDY 2: Flexible multilayer packaging

- Met PET/PE could be considered as a functional barrier when laminatedto real recycled paper

Case Study 3 Coated paperboard packaging

32

CASE STUDY 3: Coated paperboard packaging

Requirements Mechanical properties; flexibility, resistance to abrasion

Final application

Type of food 1. Fast food (high fat content)2. Cereals

t-T contactconditions

1. Short term storage of hot foodstuffs2. Long term storage at room T

Structures to be evaluated Coating / Recycled Paperboard / Coating

SELECTION OF COATINGS

Dry coat weight

TAPPI 454 test (penetration

resistance to fats and oils)

SCREENING CRITERIA

CASE STUDY 3: Coated paperboard packaging

- Up to 120 different coatings wereselected for trials at laboratory level

- After screening 9 coatings subjectedfor verification performing migration test

MIGRATION STUDIES RESULTS

- 2 hours at 70oC and 10 days at 60oC

- Simulants B and E

SPIKE 1 SPIKE 2

SPIKE 3 SPIKE 4

CASE STUDY 3: Coated paperboard packaging

- Only one coating show lower migration values and could beconsidered as a functional barrier for mineral oils

BANUS project – General conclusions

• Considerable advance in the knowledge on methodologies ofcontaminating materials with representative surrogates (challenge test)

• Optimization of methods for migration evaluation of substances inselected packaging structures for each case study

• Co-extrusion and thermoforming are critical processes thatcan promote diffusion of contaminants between layers,affecting functional barrier behavior

• Paperboard coatings evaluated have not been able to act as a functionalbarrier to all selected contaminants

• Further work is needed in order to optimize barrier effectivenesson a commercial product

Thank you

Contact us:www.aimplas.netinfo@aimplas.esPhone + 34 96 136 60 40

www.linkedin.com/company/aimplasTwitter: @aimplas