Vanee Chonhenchob Department of Packaging & Materials ...€¦ · Vanee Chonhenchob Department of...
Transcript of Vanee Chonhenchob Department of Packaging & Materials ...€¦ · Vanee Chonhenchob Department of...
Vanee ChonhenchobDepartment of Packaging & Materials Technology
Faculty of Agro-IndustryKasetsart UniversityKasetsart University
AirlinesFarmers Shippers RetailerImporters
Harvest &ost Harvest
Packing
Hous
Freight Forwardi
ng
Destination
Cargo
Importer / Delivery
End consume
LoadingTransit
Delivery
Originating
Cargo
Clearing
AgentHouse
ng Cargo Terminal
DeliveryCargo Terminal
Agent
CountryGAP GMP BRC,TransportExport Docs IATA Regs FTA QuotasCold Chain General EuroGap
MRLBRC
HACCPISO14000
HACCPPackaging LawHalal Logistics
Cert of OriginCustoms
Disease control
PerishableHandling
Import DocsCustoms Regs
BRCHandling Standards
Food Law
BRC / EU
Handling Rqts
HACCP / General Food Law / ISO 22000Good Distribution Practices
Source: CoolCargo
5 D1 8 D1 2 D1 4 D1
Pack house Prep & Cooling
Early morning Harvest
Truck to Airport
Customs Inspection
5am D1 8am D1 2pm D1 4pm D1
Handler Receipt & Handlers Staging &Load Build5pm D1 6pm D1 7pm D1 10pm D1
Handler Receipt & Palletization
Handlers Coolroom
Staging & Ramp
Load, Build & Weight
12midnight D1 1am D2 7am D2 11am D2
Departing aircraft on Ground
Aircraftin Air
Transit Hub
Aircraftin Air
g
Arriving Aircraft on Ground
Pallet Inspection & Breakdown
Truck to Clearing Agent
Truck to Customers
3pm D2 5pm D2 6pm D2 8pmD2
Potential Heat damage Cold Chain Inconsistent Adapted: South Australian Govt
PRODUCT-PACKAGE-LOGISTICSPRODUCT PACKAGE LOGISTICS
SeverityOverpackaging
ge e
Damage in
shipment
Overpackaging
Optimumpackaging
Productimprovement
ent
Pack
age
ckag
e
Pack
ag
Pack
age
nviro
nme
ctP
ct ctPa
ct duct
E
Prod
uc
Prod
uc
Prod
uc
Prod
uc
Prod
Total cost
Packaging cost
$(spent
or Packaging cost
f d
lost)
Cost of damage
Rate of damageHIGH LOW
Involves from farm to fork (grower to consumer)Primary functions:Primary functions: Containment
contain produce for handling and distributionP i & P i Protection & Preservationprotect/preserve from mechanical damage and deteriorationPart of processing Part of processing
Communicationprovide information of packaged produce between supply chain parties & promote and motivate thesupply chain parties & promote and motivate the buying decision
Convenience and useprovide convenience in handling distribution andprovide convenience in handling, distribution and consumption
Precooling◦ Ventilation
Temperature◦ Effect of temperature
Controlled atmosphere (CA)◦ O2 & CO2 tolerance◦ Optimum CA for storage &
MAP study
p(CI, RR, SL)
◦ Optimum temperature◦ Shipping temperature
(T/RH profile)MAP study Modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP)◦ MAP design & model
MAP i b th bl fil
(T/RH profile) Shock & Vibration◦ Truck, rail◦ Air freight◦ Sea freight◦ MAP using breathable films
(non-perforated/micro-perforated films)
◦ MAP & other technologies(ethylene absorbing film or
◦ Sea freight
Postharvest Practices
(ethylene absorbing film or sachet, antimicrobial films)
Distribution Practices
Loading ofgUnpacked ProduceOn the trucktruck
Loading ofLoading ofPacked ProduceOn the truck
Bulk packagingfacilitate delivery of large volume/quantity of fresh produce throughout a supply chain R t il k i Retail packagingdeliver individual sized units of a produce for sale at retailsale at retail
Unitizing/Palletizingcombine small units/packages into one unit p gfor efficient handling, storage, and distribution.
Various materials, various forms Reusable plastic containers (RPCs) Paper containers: corrugated/solid fiberboard
boxes or traysboxes or trays Wooden/leaf containers: wooden boxes,
bamboo baskets, palm leaf baskets, p Foam boxes Plastic or paper sacks/bags/pouches Woven or net sacks Accessories and cushioning materials
RSC (Regular slotted container) FTD (Full telescope design)
TrayDole’s Tray with Lid
Random pack or jumble pack◦ Pack produce randomly into a container◦ Pack produce randomly into a container◦ Is the most common produce packing pattern◦ Is the most simple and low cost system
Pattern pack or place pack Pattern pack or place pack◦ Place each produce into a place◦ Is more expensive than random pack ◦ Result in high density pack◦ Result in high density pack
Tray or cell pack◦ Place individual produce in tray or cell
Should be uniform size◦ Should be uniform size◦ Is simple and convenient◦ Result in good appearance
Various materials, various forms Plastic bags Plastic trays with overwrapped film or heat-
sealed films or clamshell trays or thermoformed traysW t b Woven or net bags
Paper cartons or traysW i Wrapping
Bundling
Clamshell Tray
High gas permeable bag Film wrap with foam netHigh gas permeable bagExtend shelf life
Film wrap with foam net
Foam tray with overwrapping film
Pallets commonly used in the world are: North America pallets North America pallets◦ The most commonly used pallet in North America is the Grocery
Manufacturers’ Association (GMA). The dimension of the pallet is 48 in 40 in.
Euro pallets Euro pallets◦ The most widely used pallets in Europe, which are certified and
inspected by European Pallet Association (EPAL). The most common sizes:
EURO (800 1200 ) EURO (800 mm 1200 mm) EURO 2 (1200 mm 1000 mm) EURO 3 (1000 mm 1200 mm) EURO 6 (800 mm 600 mm)
A i ll Asian pallets◦ The most common pallets used in Asia are 1100 mm 1100 mm
and 800 mm 1200 mm. ISO pallets ISO pallets◦ International Organization for Standardization specifies in ISO
6780:2003
The systems require standardized dimensions and interstacking features to allow containersand interstacking features to allow containers from various manufacturers, which conform to footprint configurations securely stacked on standardized pallets for efficient handling andstandardized pallets for efficient handling and distribution.
Corrugated common footprint (CCF) was developed by the Fiberboard Box Associationdeveloped by the Fiberboard Box Association (FBA)
Common footprint (CF) was developed by the European Federation of Corrugated BoardEuropean Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers (FEFCO)
Full-size container: 597 mm 398 mm Half size container: 398 mm 298 mm Half-size container: 398 mm 298 mm
Key technologies areCA/MAP◦ CA/MAP◦ Active packaging◦ Intelligent packaging
Integration of the MAP approach with postharvest treatment to retain quality and extend the shelf life of fresh produce andextend the shelf life of fresh produce and fresh-cut products
Temperature is the most critical factor paffecting quality and shelf life of fresh produce
Modification of the atmosphere within a package ( d d d l d b di id )(reduced oxygen and elevated carbon dioxide).
In-package modified atmosphere depends on◦ Produce respiration◦ Produce respiration◦ Package permeability◦ Temperature
Common MAP forms◦ plastic bags (casting/blowing)◦ plastic trays (thermoforming/injection molding) withplastic trays (thermoforming/injection molding) with
heat seal film Film: perforated film and non-perforated film
Gas permeability (e.g. PO2, PCO2, PC2H4) Permselectivity (e.g. PCO2/PO2 or β) Water vapor permeability
M h i l ti (t il t th Mechanical properties (tensile strength, elongation, modulus, tear, etc.)
Sealability Sealability Clarity Antifog property g p p y Processability Printability.
Biaxial film stretching for controlling porosity of the film (micro & nano level)
Film blowing machine &Film blowing machine &Scale-up
Source: Dr. Wannee Chinsirikul MTEC, Thailand
Non-perforated film (continuous film)Gas transport involves diffusion and solubilityP = DS
Perforated filmGas transport involves diffusion
20
15
O2 Flux Perforated: Non-perforatedApproximately 1: 4
15
10CO2
(%)
Perforated
5 Non-perforated
00 5 10 15 20
O (%)Oxygen (%)
Packaging that performs some desired roles th th b i f ti (R 1995)other than a barrier function (Rooney 1995).
Systems:◦ Scavenging: oxygen ethylene moisture odorScavenging: oxygen, ethylene, moisture, odor◦ Releasing: carbon dioxide, antimicrobial, moisture◦ Others: equilibrium modified atmosphere (EMA)F Forms:◦ Sachets of reactive compounds◦ Incorporated reactive compounds into the package g
structure)◦ Other forms: Label
Packaging that can inform and/or communicate with the user about the properties or historywith the user about the properties or history records of the produce
Indicators◦ Time-temperature indicators (TTIs): monitor
temperature profiles ◦ Mechanical shock indicators: monitor shock response◦ Ripeness indicators: monitor the ripening stage of a fruit◦ Microbial indicators: inform consumers about the
microbiological safety Radio frequency identification (RFID) and other
devices used for traceability, anti-theft, and anti-counterfeiting.g
Color changes caused by◦ Chemical polymerization (e.g. Fresh-Check;
SmartPak; CheckPoint®)◦ Diffusion of a chemical solute (e.g. 3M)Diffusion of a chemical solute (e.g. 3M)◦ Hydrolization of a lipid substrate resulting in a pH
change
UP
C
~UPC Manager ~Object Class
U
01 . 0000A89 . 00016F . 000169DC0
ePC
Company Code
(28 Bits)
ProductSKU
(24 Bits)
Serial Number(36 Bits)
Header(8 Bits)
e
Header . EPC Manager . Object Class . Serial Number
RFID Test Center (MSU & QLM Consulting, NewStar and CH Robinson Co.)
Shrinkage Anthracnose Stem end rotShrinkage Anthracnose Stem end rot
Film EMA Time to reach EMA
Limiting factor
HNP 5 kPaO2 + 5 kPaCO2
10 Senescence, decay
HNPE 4 kPaO2 + 5 kPaCO2
10 Senescence, decaykPaCO2
HMP 9 kPaO2 + 17 kPaCO2
10 Senescence, decay
LNP 1 kPaO2 + 10 kP CO n/a Fermented off-odor & off-
flLNP kPaCO2n/a flavor
Control n/a n/a Decay
HNPE
HNP
HNPE
Control
HMP
0 10 20 30 40 50
LNP
0 10 20 30 40 50Storage Time (day)
Air Freight, fluctuated temp Air Freight, fluctuated temp Sea Freight, 12Sea Freight, 12CC
No bag
MTEC-2EMA bagg
0 7 14 21 d 0 7 14 21 d0 7 14 21 d 0 7 14 21 d
Physiological quality•Respiration ratep•Ethylene production•Ethanol production•In-package O2 & CO2 concentration
Sensory quality•Quality evaluation(trained panels)•Overall liking
Microbial quality& safety•Total plate count, Mold & Yeast Overall liking
(untrained panels)•Acceptability•Consumer test
Physico-chemical quality
•Escherichia coli
Physico chemical quality•Color (L*a*b*,hue, chroma)•Firmness•TSS, TA, TSS/TA•Bioactive compounds antioxidant capacityBioactive compounds, antioxidant capacity•Flavor & aroma compounds
Input DataFruit = Mango Cultivar = Nam Dok Mai Si ThongWeight/fruit (avg) = 300 g Quantity = 9Maturity = 80%yDestination = NetherlandTransportation = Sea freight Temperature = 12 °C
Output ResultsP i k MTEC 2 b Di iPrimary pkg = MTEC-2 bag Dimension = OTR = 15,000 cc/m2/d PCO2/PO2 = 2.4 Thickness = 22 micronSecondary pkg = Paper tray Dimension = 30 x 40 x 9.5 cmTertiary pkg = Pallet Dimension = 120 x 100 cmDrawingDrawing Recommended packaging systems
Predicted ResultsEquilibrium Modified Atmosphere (EMA) = 3.5%O2 + 5%CO2 Days to reach EMA = 3 tr
atio
n (%
)
15
20
25
Shelf life = 36 daysLimiting factor = Anthracnose
Comparison ResultsControl Paper tray Sea freight
Gas
Con
cent
5
10
5%CO2
3.5%O2Control = Paper tray, Sea freightShelf life = 24 days Limiting factors = Shrinkage, Anthracnose
3 6 9 12 15
Time (days)
0
2
Input DataFruit = Mango Cultivar = Nam Dok Mai Si ThongWeight/fruit (avg) = 300 g Quantity = 9Maturity = 80%yDestination = NetherlandTransportation = Air freight Route code= 2
Output ResultsP i k MTEC 2 b Di iPrimary pkg = MTEC-2 bag Dimension = OTR = 15,000 cc/m2/d PCO2/PO2 = 2.4 Thickness = 22 micronSecondary pkg = Paper tray Dimension = 30 x 40 x 9.5 cmTertiary pkg = Pallet Dimension = 120 x 100 cmDrawingDrawing Recommended packaging systems
Predicted ResultsEquilibrium Modified Atmosphere (EMA) = 2%O2 + 5%CO2 Days to reach EMA = 2 tr
atio
n (%
)
15
20
25
Shelf life = 14 daysLimiting factor = Off-odor
Comparison ResultsControl Paper tray Air freight Route code 2
Gas
Con
cent
5
10
5%CO2
2%O2Control = Paper tray, Air freight, Route code 2Shelf life = 21 days Limiting factors = Shrinkage, Internal browning
3 6 9 12 15
Time (days)
0
2
Day 0 Day 2 Day 6 Day 18
Box12C
BoxFluctuated
Temp
Box + MAP12C
Box + MAPFluctuated
TempTemp
Reduce packaging …..!p g gSocio concerns for its consumers
Economic benefit to retailer
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in November 2006 at Pack Expo released a packaging scorecard to continue its commitment of reducing packaging across its global supply chain by 5packaging across its global supply chain by 5 percent by 2013, helping Wal-Mart and its suppliers improve packaging and conserve pp p p g gresources.
It will measure its 60,000 global suppliers to develop packaging and conserve natural resources.S h d l d t b i i 2008 Scheduled to begin in 2008.
Reduce “overall” packaging by 5%.S th $3 4 billi ! Save the company $3.4 billion!
Wal-Mart’s packaging scorecard is a measurement tool that allows suppliers to evaluate themselves relative to other suppliers based on specific metricssuppliers, based on specific metrics.
The metrics in the scorecard evolved from a list of favorable attributes announcedlist of favorable attributes announced earlier this year, known as the “7 R’s of Packaging”: Remove, Reduce, Reuse, ac ag g e o e, educe, euse,Recycle, Renew, Revenue, and Read.
15% will be based on GHG / CO2 per ton of ProductionProduction
15% will be based on Material Value 15% will be based on Product / Package Ratio / g 15% will be based on Cube Utilization 10% will be based on Transportation
10% ill b b d R l d C 10% will be based on Recycled Content 10% will be based on Recovery Value 5% will be based on Renewable Energy 5% will be based on Renewable Energy 5% will be based on Innovation
The study of the two types of containers was Lif C l I t (LCI) hi h id tifi da Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), which identified
and quantified energy and material inputs and emissions to the air, water, and land over , ,the life cycle of a product system.
2 year study by Franklin Associates10 j d 10 major produce
Funding for developing a research paper
Sample ofRPC with apples
Sample ofDRC with tomatoes
TOTAL ENERGY (million Btu)TOTAL ENERGY (million Btu)
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs Percentage Difference*Percentage Difference*
Fresh ProduceFresh Produce
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs Percentage DifferencePercentage Difference
avgavgavg with avg with 80% BH80% BH conservconserv avgavg conservconserv
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPCavg RPC
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPC avg RPC w/80% w/80%
BHBH conservconservavgavg 80% BH80% BH conservconserv avgavg conservconserv avg RPCavg RPC BHBH conservconserv
ApplesApples 853853 789789 900900 1,0731,073 966966 23%23% 31%31% 7%*7%*
Bell PeppersBell Peppers 1,1211,121 1,0401,040 1,1881,188 1,8181,818 1,6371,637 47%47% 54%54% 32%32%
CarrotsCarrots 531531 504504 567567 981981 883883 60%60% 64%64% 44%44%
GrapesGrapes 1,0801,080 1,0101,010 1,1411,141 1,9201,920 1,7291,729 56%56% 62%62% 41%41%
Lettuce headLettuce head 905905 839839 958958 1,4851,485 1,3381,338 49%49% 56%56% 33%33%
Oranges Oranges 650650 601601 692692 1,2411,241 1,1171,117 63%63% 70%70% 47%47%
Peaches/NectarinesPeaches/Nectarines 671671 621621 707707 1,2841,284 1,1561,156 63%63% 70%70% 48%48%
OnionsOnions 533533 501501 566566 1,0751,075 968968 67%67% 73%73% 52%52%
TomatoesTomatoes 797797 736736 864864 1,2411,241 1,1171,117 44%44% 51%51% 28%28%
StrawberriesStrawberries 1 9751 975 1 8581 858 2 0712 071 2 4552 455 2 2122 212 22%22% 28%28% 7%*7%*StrawberriesStrawberries 1,9751,975 1,8581,858 2,0712,071 2,4552,455 2,2122,212 22%22% 28%28% 7%*7%*
*inconclusive
TOTAL SOLID WASTE (tons)TOTAL SOLID WASTE (tons)
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs DRC/RPCDRC/RPC
Fresh ProduceFresh Produce
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs DRC/RPCDRC/RPC
AvgAvgavg with avg with 80% BH80% BH conservconserv avgavg conservconserv
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPCavg RPC
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPC avg RPC w/80% w/80%
BHBH conservconserv
ApplesApples 1.351.35 1.321.32 1.61.6 25.325.3 22.822.8 18.818.8 19.219.2 14.214.2
Bell PeppersBell Peppers 1.991.99 1.961.96 2.372.37 43.243.2 38.938.9 21.721.7 22.122.1 16.416.4
CarrotsCarrots 1.041.04 1.031.03 1.251.25 23.423.4 21.121.1 22.422.4 22.722.7 16.816.8
GrapesGrapes 2.152.15 2.122.12 2.52.5 45.545.5 4141 21.221.2 21.421.4 16.416.4
Lettuce headLettuce head 1.531.53 1.51.5 1.821.82 35.135.1 31.631.6 2323 23.523.5 17.317.3
Oranges Oranges 1.231.23 1.211.21 1.471.47 30.230.2 27.227.2 24.524.5 24.924.9 18.518.5
P h /N iP h /N i 1 251 25 1 231 23 1 451 45 30 530 5 27 527 5 24 424 4 24 824 8 18 918 9Peaches/NectarinesPeaches/Nectarines 1.251.25 1.231.23 1.451.45 30.530.5 27.527.5 24.424.4 24.824.8 18.918.9
OnionsOnions 1.091.09 1.071.07 1.281.28 25.725.7 23.123.1 23.723.7 2424 18.218.2
TomatoesTomatoes 1.571.57 1.541.54 1.841.84 30.130.1 27.127.1 19.219.2 19.619.6 14.714.7
StrawberriesStrawberries 4 034 03 3 983 98 4 574 57 55 655 6 50 150 1 13 813 8 1414 1111StrawberriesStrawberries 4.034.03 3.983.98 4.574.57 55.655.6 50.150.1 13.813.8 1414 1111
TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS (tons COTOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS (tons CO22 equivalents)equivalents)
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs Percent Difference*Percent Difference*
Fresh ProduceFresh Produce
RPCsRPCs DRCsDRCs Percent Difference*Percent Difference*
avgavgavg with avg with 80% BH80% BH conservconserv avgavg conservconserv
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPCavg RPC
avg DRC, avg DRC, avg RPC avg RPC w/80% w/80%
BHBH conservconserv
ApplesApples 62.762.7 57.557.5 64.364.3 67.167.1 60.560.5 7%7% 15%15% --6%6%
Bell PeppersBell Peppers 81.381.3 74.774.7 83.683.6 113113 102102 33%33% 41%41% 20%20%
CarrotsCarrots 37.837.8 35.635.6 3939 61.161.1 55.155.1 47%47% 53%53% 34%34%
GrapesGrapes 78.378.3 72.672.6 80.480.4 120120 108108 42%42% 49%49% 29%29%
Lettuce headLettuce head 65.965.9 60.560.5 67.767.7 92.892.8 83.683.6 34%34% 42%42% 21%21%
Oranges Oranges 46.646.6 42.742.7 48.148.1 76.976.9 69.269.2 49%49% 57%57% 36%36%
P h /N iP h /N i 4949 44 944 9 50 250 2 80 180 1 72 272 2 48%48% 56%56% 36%36%Peaches/NectarinesPeaches/Nectarines 4949 44.944.9 50.250.2 80.180.1 72.272.2 48%48% 56%56% 36%36%
OnionsOnions 38.238.2 35.735.7 39.439.4 6767 60.360.3 55%55% 61%61% 42%42%
TomatoesTomatoes 57.557.5 52.552.5 59.359.3 7777 69.369.3 29%29% 38%38% 16%16%
StrawberriesStrawberries 145145 135135 148148 155155 140140 7%7% 14%14% --6%6%StrawberriesStrawberries 145145 135135 148148 155155 140140 7%7% 14%14% --6%6%
*inconclusive
For the average condition produce shipping scenarios analyzed within the defined scope of this study, findings indicated that, on average across all 10 produce applicationsaverage across all 10 produce applications, RPCs:◦ Require 39% less total energyRequire 39% less total energy◦ Produce 95% less total solid waste◦ Generate 29% less total greenhouse gas
femissions than do DRCs for corresponding produce applications.
A BUZZ…..A BUZZ…..or a true socio-economical challenge and reward
for packaging
[email protected]@ku.ac.th