Fresh, non-perishable, sustainable and affordable

Milk jugs are a thing of the past. The simple filling methods of yesteryear and today’s complex technology are worlds apart. Fresh, non-perishable, sustainable and affordable: these are the current requirements for food and beverages. Both the packaging and its contents demand the highest hygiene standards and engineering technology. 

A technical conference held by the Fresenius Academy in early November in Mainz attempted to explored whether aseptic processes are a guarantee for the safe and economic manufacturing of beverages and what alternatives are available today.

11,000 aseptic filling systems

In 2008 some 120 billion packaging units – equalling 50 billion litres – were filled with milk and dairy products worldwide. In the non-dairy beverage segment the number of fillings amounted to just under 70 billion units or 36 billion litres. These figures were presented by Daniel Warrick of Warrick Research from the United Kingdom. Today, more than 11,000 aseptic filling lines are in use worldwide which are supplied by about 30 companies. Warrick reported that about one third of the global aseptic filling market was accounted for by Western Europe, another third by Asia-Pacific while North America accounted for only 10%. For cost reasons, however, he said there was a trend towards returning to hot filling in some countries.

Greater sustainability leads to higher productivity

Sustainability considerations are also relevant when it comes to filling of beverages. “Sustainability starts with changing a resource in use and ends with returning it into its original state as far as possible – so that another and/or repeated transformation is possible with the least amount of effort required.” This extract from “Sustainability Issues of Running a Bottling Operation” (MZLU Brno 2009) was quoted by Michael M. Braitinger, CEO of SCB GmbH. He classified sustainability considerations of most filling methods used on the market into three categories – efficiency, ecology and social factors. This means that any consideration focuses, amongst other things, on the manufacturing costs of the various filling processes, the influence of material costs but also the impact of the yield and output ratio as well as the systemic effects on operating expenses. From an environmental perspective such aspects as emissions, material issues, FDA-approvals or the methanol debate must be taken into account. In the social segment the working climate, hygiene at work, stress, training or responsibility and hygiene awareness of individual employees play a central role.

In his comparative analyses Braitinger concluded that the impact of reduced preform weights did not make a difference since these could be factored in with all processes under review in an analogous manner. Processes such as hot filling and its process variations were still difficult to assess and new processes such as high-pressure sterilisation or aseptic, stretched bottles still lacked sufficient evidence for evaluation. Nevertheless, he thought it was feasible to re-classify all technical processes as a matter of principle when examining modern technologies against the background of worldwide resource shortages. In summary this should mean: “The more sustainable a process, the higher its productivity and social relevance.”

Longer run times in line with cost-cutting trend

Longer production runs promise potential savings and are therefore entirely in line with the general trend. Whether this approach really pays off was explained by Dr. Peter Golz of VDMA, the German Engineering Federation. As a case in point the aseptic filling of UHT milk in cartons was examined in detail: If the production intervals are increased from 24 to 100 hours for a line filling 7,000 packs per hour just under 18% of the machinery-related manufacturing costs can be saved and the ramp-up losses are reduced by 19,000 packing units per year. This was said to result in total savings of up to EUR 55,000 per year per machine. But longer run times also increase hygiene risks and non-sterile products can reverse the positive effects of the savings potential in no time. According to Dr. Golz’ calculations a production loss would amount to 500,000 packing units if a malfunction of this kind occurred after 24 hours and was only identified after 72 hours. Whether prolonged run times pay off again depends on the extent of quality costs.

Aseptic cold filling is challenged

Advances made in processes competing with the “Gold Standard” – aseptic cold filling – are gaining increasing importance. Compared to aseptic cold filling classic PET hot filling has some drawbacks such as a higher bottle weight or issues with labelling. A novel blow stretch technology now allows the production of comparatively light and smooth bottles also suitable for hot filling. These are still somewhat heavier than those used for aseptic cold filling but need no further barrier substances. According to calculations by Rüdiger Löhl, E-proPlast GmbH, the investment needed to convert a glass filling to a PET hot filling line amounted to roughly half a million Euros. The total capital expenditure required for an aseptic filling line he said amounted to approx. EUR eight million. According to Löhl, the break-even quantity required – depending on the composition of the PET bottles and distance between hot filling and bottling installations – stood at between 20 and 50 million fillings per year. Aseptic cold filling systems could only work more economically beyond that figure.

Source: interpack