Final report Salad Bag Minimisation: A Feasibility Study Salad bag film May07.pdf · Final report...

Final report

Salad Bag Minimisation: A Feasibility Study

Assessing the potential to reduce the thickness of film used for salad bags in order to generate savings in the weight of packaging used.

Project code: RWM001009 Research date: May 2006 Date: January 2008

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

Written by: eco3

Front cover photography: Asda salad bag display WRAP and eco3 believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Executive summary This project, funded by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme), aimed to establish whether the film used for salad bags could be reduced in thickness from the industry norm of 35 microns to 30 microns without any adverse effect on pack strength, barrier properties, organoleptic properties, supply chain conformance, appearance and consumer acceptability, and so produce a meaningful reduction in packaging waste from supermarkets and convenience stores. The project was led by environmental consultancy eco3 in partnership with ASDA. The chosen product supplier for the initial trials was Yorkshire Fresh Salads (YFS). Unfortunately, they were unable to undertake the second part of the trial, and Kanes Foods (KF) became the main partner. The YFS study revealed no discernible difference in seal integrity between the two thicknesses of bag, but produced limited quantitative data. KF, on the other hand, produced useful results with regards to material and machine performance, together with detailed analysis of the trial packs in terms of strength, appearance, barrier properties and ‘handleability’. The results showed that, within the limits of the trials, the thinner film performed as well as the traditional material, running at the same line speeds and with few or no changes to machine settings. The packs were so good that following qualitative assessment by the ASDA category manager for salads and the Corporate Social Responsibility Manager, it was deemed unnecessary to carry out any form of consumer acceptability trials. This project successfully demonstrated that downgauging from 35 to 30 micron is entirely acceptable. Subsequently, some salad packaging supplied to Asda has moved to 30 micron. The material savings are: From this trial line with ASDA 1.4 tonnes per annum All supermarkets moving all prepacked salad and veg. from 35 to 30 micron: 700 tonnes per annum In addition to the weight saving, the advantages of this downgauging are:

a cost saving of around 14% per pack because 14% more bags are generated from a tonne of 30 micron film compared to 35 micron;

a saving of energy in transport of the film since more film can be accommodated in each load; and efficiency savings in that there is more film on each reel, necessitating less downtime and less material

wastage for reel changes.

If replicated across the industry, this would lead to a 14% reduction in the amount of material used for packaging salad. Based on 700 tonnes of material savings, this would generate 2,240 tonnes of CO2 savings per annum.

Salad Bag Minimisation: A Feasibility Study 1

Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 4 3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Initial Trial: YFS ....................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Results..................................................................................................................................6 5.0 Kanes Foods Trial ..................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Results..................................................................................................................................7 5.1.1 Seal test...................................................................................................................7 5.1.2 Gas analysis testing ..................................................................................................7 5.1.3 Shelf life test ............................................................................................................7 5.1.4 Customer acceptance ................................................................................................7

6.0 Additional Trials ....................................................................................................................... 8 6.1 Results..................................................................................................................................8

6.1.1 Production................................................................................................................8 6.1.2 Leak and seal tests ...................................................................................................8 6.1.3 Shelf life test ............................................................................................................8

6.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................8 7.0 Anticipated Savings.................................................................................................................. 9

7.1 Material savings ....................................................................................................................9 7.2 Financial, energy and efficiency savings ..................................................................................9

8.0 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 10 Appendix 1: Kanes Foods trials: ......................................................................................................... 11 Appendix 2: Additional Kanes Foods trials......................................................................................... 14


1.0 Introduction Salad ingredients and other fresh vegetables are now widely sold in gas-filled plastic bags. While they offer the consumer freshness and convenience, they account for around 5,000 tonnes of the plastic waste thrown away by the consumer. This project was set up to investigate replacing the standard packaging film used in salad bags with a thinner film, thus reducing the amount of plastic being used. It was considered crucial that the new, thinner film must show the same strength and barrier properties and meet all the other technical specifications of the conventional film without the need for tooling changes, while also being acceptable to the customer. A range of rigorous tests needed to be carried out to fulfil these standards. This was done by eco3 in conjunction with:

ASDA

Yorkshire Fresh Salads (YFS)

Kanes Foods (KF)

Ultimate Packaging (film supplier to YFS)

Amcor Flexibles (film supplier to KF)


2.0 Objectives Currently, a whole range of prepared salads and fresh vegetables are packed in plastic film – normally oriented polypropylene (OPP) – on vertical form-fill-seal machines. The industry norm is to use 35 micron thickness material. The project objectives were: A: Working in conjunction with a major supermarket and producer/packer-fillers of salads, to run trial batches

of 30 micron film and evaluate them against control packs of 35 micron material with particular reference to:

sealing performance;

handling and supply chain demands;

shelf life; and

customer acceptability with regards to quality, durability, aesthetics and tactility.

B: Subsequently to work with the supermarket to launch a range of products in the new lighter film and to

calculate accurately the material savings. C: To produce a report for widespread dissemination.


3.0 Methodology The project methodology was split into four phases as detailed below: Phase Activity

Identify relevant supply chain partners; namely packaging suppliers, produce manufacturer/s (who is/are also the packer/filler) and a retail outlet

1

Produce trial packaging, i.e. 30 micron film both plain and printed, in cooperation with the retailer and selected suppliers.

2

Evaluate the new packaging format with supply chain partners and establish acceptability with the ASDA Customer Services team.

3

4 Assess the results of the activity at each supply chain stage and with the customer.

Cost production implications, identify full range of products that could benefit from the change.

Develop dissemination and publicity information.


4.0 Initial Trial: YFS Initial trials were undertaken at YFS to pack Mixed Pepper Salad for ASDA using 30 and 35 micron micro-perforated OPP film supplied by Ultimate Packaging on an Ilapack Vegetronic vertical form-fill-seal machine with gas flushing. Following a standard run of 35 micron material, 300 packs were produced in 30 micron film. 4.1 Results No change to the production line was found to be necessary. Leak testing was by the manual process of pressing the packs by hand and comparing the two sets of packs. Results on leakage were similar for both microns at 10.3% for 35 micron film compared with 9.6% for the thinner material. Interestingly, YFS reported that sometimes up to about 30% of bags can leak, but this includes those with production problems such as leaves getting caught in the seal area. It should be noted that a bag leak does not necessarily mean that the product shelf life is affected; however, it is a sign that the seal is not as good as it could be. Long-term appearance was observed from samples kept in the quality control fridge but some early sliming was observed in both packs and it was decided to re-run the trial with better quality produce and non-perforated films. Although there was an initial qualitative assessment from YFS which stated that the 30 micron film seemed to run fine over the 300 pack production run, the second trial did not take place due to capacity issues at YFS and the project was abandoned.


5.0 Kanes Foods Trial For this trial, 30 and 35 micron antimisted unperforated OPP film from Amcor was used to pack ASDA’s Herb Salad on a Sandiacre TG320LE vertical form-fill-seal line. The 30 micron material was set up to run using the standard conditions for 35 micron material. 5.1 Results Following standard setup procedures the production run was started and ran at normal line speed for the type of product being packed. The trial was run for one hour, during which time 50 bags were taken as samples. During the run, the oxygen content of the bags was monitored to ensure the gas flush was consistent. This was followed by a one-hour run of 35 micron film, again with constant checks for gas flushing and seal integrity. Fifty bags were taken to act as control samples. From each of the batches of 50 bags, 25 bags were taken for quality control assessment and five of each subjected to destructive testing for seal integrity. 5.1.1 Seal test Using a sphygmomanometer, a constant pressure of 60 mmHg was applied to each bag and monitored to detect any change which would indicate a leak, following which the pressure was increased until the bag burst. 5.1.2 Gas analysis testing Five packs of each film type were subjected to gas analysis testing. This test measures the oxygen and carbon dioxide content of the bag by drawing air from the bag via a hollow needle into the gas analyser, which then prints out the results. When the needle was withdrawn from the bag, the puncture hole was covered with tape to prevent any leaking. Appendix 1 details the results of these tests, which showed that in general there was no difference between the two materials, although the results on one 30 micron bag showed signs of leakage – probably due to the puncture hole not being adequately sealed. 5.1.3 Shelf life test Twenty-five packed bags of each thickness of film were evaluated over 5 days for:

aroma appearance flavour

These tests were done by visual inspection, smelling and tasting the product. They were carried out by experienced members of the technical, quality control and purchasing departments, who were all familiar with the products and how they were expected to look, taste and smell as part of their normal job function. The results indicated that there were no differences in behaviour between the two films, confirming that any difference in gas transmission between the different thicknesses does not influence shelf life and the ageing of the pack contents is similar. Following these tests, KF also trialled the 30 micron film on other lines which were all Sandiacre or Ilapack Vegetronic form-fill-seal machines. These lines ran at speeds of up to 100 packs per minute, and it was found that the same performance as 35 micron was obtained. 5.1.4 Customer acceptance Initially it had been intended to subject the new pack format to customer acceptability trials with a focus group and ASDA’s Customer Service team. The finished bags and the trial results were shown to the Category Manager, and he then showed these to his colleagues. As they either noticed no difference or felt that the thinner bag looked better and brighter, he was satisfied that customer acceptability trials would not be necessary and the new material could be introduced without the need for further customer approval.


6.0 Additional Trials In order to validate the initial results, a second phase was undertaken in which 500 packs were produced in each thickness and subjected to the same testing regime as the initial lower volume trial. 6.1 Results 6.1.1 Production No differences in machine performance could be detected during this extended production run. 6.1.2 Leak and seal tests The test was carried out in two parts. First the bag was immersed under water without applying any pressure. Leaks could be identified by air bubbles escaping from the bag. Any leaks observed were recorded and given scores (1, 2 or 3) depending on the severity of the leak. A score of 1 was given to minor leaks where discrete bubbles could be seen. A score of 2 was given when there was a continuous but still discrete stream of bubbles and a score of 3 was given when there was continuous air flow. During the testing it became obvious that leaks were all emanating from the same two places: the corners of the bag and at the junction of the back seal with either the top or bottom seal. The number of places that the bag leaked from were also recorded e.g. a score of 3 was recorded if the bag leaked from 3 of the 4 corners and a score of 1 or 2 for the back seal joint. The second part of the test was conducted by wrapping a sphygmomanometer around the bag until a constant pressure of 60 mmHg was applied. The bag was then immersed in water so that any leaks could be observed. Leaks were recorded in the same way as in part one of the test. The bag was then removed from the water and the pressure increased until the bag burst. This burst point was then recorded. The results, detailed in Appendix 2, demonstrate some important comparisons between the two film thicknesses. The results of the leak test are split into three tables to help give a clear view of data. Table 1 shows the number of bags that had each category of leak. The number of bags tested was 293 of 30 micron and 297 of 35 micron. It can be seen that 30 micron film performed better with no leaks from the corners (vs 28 with 35 micron) and only 4 leaks from the back seal (vs 20 with 35 micron). When pressure was applied 30 micron performed better in terms of corner leaks with only 49 (vs 205 with 35 micron). However 30 micron performed worse in terms of leaks from the back seal with 165 (vs 130 with 35 micron). Table 2 shows the number of bags with leaks as a percentage of the number tested, to adjust for the slightly different number of bags tested. Table 3 shows the burst test results and an average score for the leak tests, again split between the results from standard water immersion and the pressurised water immersion. To obtain these average scores the score for the severity of the leak was multiplied by the number of leaks that were apparent on each bag. This scoring again shows that the 30 micron film performed significantly better. Looking at the burst test there was no significant difference between the average burst points of the two films (91 mmHg for 30 micron and 93 mmHg for 35 micron). Gas analysis test: In this instance, 50 packs of each type were evaluated and Tables 4 and 5 list the results. These indicate that, in general, there was no difference between the two thicknesses. 6.1.3 Shelf life test Twenty-five bags of each thickness were evaluated over five days, and the results are detailed in Tables 6 and 7. They indicate that there was no significant difference between the two thicknesses and that any gas transmission differences do not influence shelf life. 6.2 Conclusion The extended production test supported the findings of earlier trials.


7.0 Anticipated Savings 7.1 Material savings The reduction in thickness of 5 micron equates to a saving of 14.28% in the weight of material. The material savings projected from this trial are: Uptake of research Material savings

(tonnes per annum) From this trial line with ASDA (Herb Salad) 1.4 All supermarkets moving all pre-packed salad & veg. 700.0 Industry research showed that in 2006 the UK used 110,000 tonnes of OPP film. Of this around 5,000 tonnes were used for the packaging of salads and prepared vegetables. Therefore, a 14% material saving will save 700 tonnes of film per year. This would generate 2,240 tonnes of CO2 savings per annum. 7.2 Financial, energy and efficiency savings In addition to the weight saving, there are other spin-off advantages to this downgauging. The first is a cost saving of around 14% per pack because you get 14% more bags from a tonne of 30 micron film compared to 35 micron. Secondly there is a saving of energy in transport of the film. The packer will be buying the same number of metres of film but the total weight delivered will be less and the number of pallets being delivered would be fewer, thereby saving fuel. Thirdly, there are efficiency savings in that there is more film on each reel, necessitating less downtime and less material wastage for reel changes. Finally, developments could potentially result in further energy savings and increased life of the heater elements as a result of reduced sealing energy being needed for a thinner film. This has not been examined further in this study.



8.0 Conclusion An evaluation of all the parameters that could impact on a change from 35 to 30 micron film has shown that there are no negative factors and such a change could be made without adverse effect on the product, its quality, marketability and suitability for the supply chain. Some salad packaging supplied to Asda has subsequently changed to 30 micron. If the change was rolled out across the industry material savings would be impressive, allied to tangible cost savings.

Appendix 1: Kanes Foods trials: Table 1: Summary of packaging film assessment for 30 micron film packing Herb Salad

DAY Pack no % O2 % CO2

Aroma Appearance Flavour Comments

P+1

1 2 3 4 5

2.2 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.5

3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9

Aromatic herb aroma Good, a little wet, some mechanical damage to rocket.

Good, crisp texture. Good herb flavour. No different from control

P+2 1 2 3 4 5

2.2 3.5 1.6 2.4 3.4

4.3 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.6

As for P+1 As for P+1 As for P+1 No different from control

P+3

1 2 3 4 5

9.3 2.0 0.5 1.4 5.6

3.5 5.0 4.8 5.0 3.8

Good herb aroma, a little earthy.

Still good, a little wet. Some signs of drying on some cut surfaces.

Still a good crisp texture and good herb flavour. No different from control Gas results would suggest that bag 1 developed a leak.

P+4

1 2 3 4 5

10.1 1.6 0.1 0.6 2.6

4.2 5.8 5.5 5.7 5.2

A little earthy but still acceptable.

As above although starting to look a little tired.

As above. No different from control

P+5 1 2 3 4 5

13.6 1.4 2.8 1.6 3.2

3.8 6.3 5.2 5.7 5.4


Looking tired. Appears wetter.

Beginning to loose crispness, flavour still acceptable.

No different from control


Table 2: Summary of packaging film assessment for 35 micron film packing Herb Salad

DAY Pack no % O2 % CO2 Aroma Appearance Flavour Comments P+1

1 2 3 4 5

1.4 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.4

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3

Aromatic herb aroma Good, a little wet, some mechanical damage to rocket. Good, crisp texture. Good herb flavour.

P+2 1 2 3 4 5

1.1 1.1 2.1 1.2 1.2

4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.5

As for P+1 As for P+1 As for P+1

P+3

1 2 3 4 5

0.3 0.0 2.1 1.0 0.7

5.2 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.3

Good herb aroma, a little earthy.

Still good, a little wet. Some signs of drying on some cut surfaces.

Still a good crisp texture and good herb flavour.

P+4

1 2 3 4 5

0.3 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.6

5.7 5.8 5.5 5.6 6.0


As above although starting to look a little tired. As above.

P+5 1 2 3 4 5

0.2 0.0 3.4 0.6 7.5

6.0 6.0 5.6 6.2 4.2


Looking tired. Appears wetter. Beginning to lose crispness, flavour still acceptable.



Table 3: Summary of gas analysis testing for 30 micron film used for packing Herb salad bag 60mmHg Burst point (mmHg) Comments 1 Held 160 2 Held 200 3 Held 160 4 Held 170

5 Held 120 Lowest burst point but well above any pressure that would be sustained in general handling.

Table 4: Summary of gas analysis testing for 35 micron film used for packing Herb Salad bag 60mmHg Burst point (mmHg) 1 Held 150 2 Held 180 3 Held 170 4 Held 160

5 Slow drop 130 Insufficient data to comment much on this but I would doubt that leak was big enough to affect shelf life


Appendix 2: Additional Kanes Foods trials Table 1: Summary of leaks and seal tests at 60mmHg when packing Wild Rocket

30 micron Quantity Leaks

293 Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

Std immersion Corner 0 0 0 0

Back seal 4 0 0 4

Pressure immersion Corner 32 14 3 49

Back seal 98 62 5 165

35 micron Quantity Leaks

297 Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

Std immersion Corner 23 4 1 28

Back seal 15 4 1 20

Pressure immersion Corner 82 111 12 205

Back seal 35 87 8 130


Table 2: The number of bags with leaks as a percentage of the number tested (to adjust for the slightly different number of bags tested in each category).

30 micron % Leaks

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

Std immersion Corner 0% 0% 0% 0%

Back seal 1% 0% 0% 1%

Pressure immersion Corner 11% 5% 1% 17%

Back seal 33% 21% 2% 56%

35 micron % Leaks

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

Std immersion Corner 8% 1% 0% 10%

Back seal 5% 1% 0% 7%

Pressure immersion Corner 30% 40% 4% 74%

Back seal 13% 31% 3% 47% Table 3: Burst test results and average scores for leak tests

Burst Point Average Leak score

Std Pressure

30 Micron 91 0.017 1.371

35 Micron 93 0.273 3.298

Table 4: Gas analysis results for Wild Rocket in 30 micron film Bag no P+1 P+2 P+3 P+4 P+5 P+6 % O2 %

CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

1 16.8 3.5 14.6 5.3 12.2 7.1 10.4 8.1 8.5 9.3 7.7 9.4 2 16.8 3.5 14.4 5.5 11.7 7.4 9.4 8.7 7.3 9.9 7.2 9.6 3 16.8 3.5 14.4 5.5 11.7 7.4 9.6 8.6 7.3 9.9 5.9 10.4 4 17.1 3.4 14.9 5.1 12.5 6.8 10.7 8.0 8.6 9.2 7.5 9.5 5 16.6 3.7 14.0 5.8 11.1 7.8 8.9 9.1 7.0 10.1 5.1 11.1 6 17.5 3.7 15.5 4.5 13.3 6.2 11.5 7.3 9.5 8.5 8.2 9.0 7 17.5 3.7 16.3 4.0 14.9 5.1 14.4 5.6 14.2 6.0 14.2 5.8 8 17.8 3.0 16.5 3.8 14.4 5.3 13.6 5.8 10.8 7.8 9.5 8.2 9 17.5 2.7 15.5 4.6 13.6 6.0 12.2 6.9 10.3 8.1 9.2 8.5 10 17.2 3.3 15.1 4.8 12.8 6.5 11.1 7.5 10.1 8.2 9.3 8.4 11 16.9 3.5 14.8 5.2 12.4 6.8 12.3 7.1 11.3 7.7 10.4 8.1 12 17.3 3.3 15.3 4.8 13.6 6.0 12.6 6.7 11.5 7.5 10.8 7.7 13 17.4 3.2 15.5 4.6 13.3 6.2 11.6 7.3 11.7 7.3 12.0 7.0 14 17.4 3.2 15.6 4.5 13.5 6.1 11.7 7.3 9.5 8.5 8.2 9.0 15 17.4 3.2 15.4 4.6 13.2 6.2 12.5 6.6 9.6 8.5 8.1 9.0 16 17.4 3.3 15.5 4.6 13.0 6.5 11.7 7.2 10.0 8.3 9.3 8.4 17 17.1 3.4 15.4 4.8 14.1 5.8 13.0 6.4 11.6 7.5 10.8 7.7 18 17.2 3.4 15.2 4.9 12.8 6.6 11.1 7.6 9.2 8.8 7.9 9.2 19 17.3 3.3 15.2 4.8 12.7 6.7 11.0 7.6 9.2 8.9 8.1 9.1 20 17.1 3.4 15.1 5.0 12.6 6.8 10.8 7.9 8.8 8.9 7.7 9.3 21 16.2 4.0 13.8 5.9 10.8 8.1 8.3 9.5 5.7 11.1 4.5 11.4 22 17.5 3.2 15.7 4.4 13.6 6.0 11.7 7.2 10.0 8.3 8.6 8.8 23 17.5 3.2 16.2 4.0 14.4 5.5 13.8 5.9 12.9 6.6 11.9 7.0 24 17.4 3.2 15.9 4.3 13.8 6.0 13.2 6.9 10.8 8.0 10.1 8.1 25 16.8 3.5 14.5 5.4 11.8 7.4 9.7 8.6 7.4 9.9 6.0 10.5 26 17.0 3.4 14.9 5.0 12.5 6.6 10.7 7.7 8.6 9.1 7.2 9.5 27 17.1 3.5 15.1 4.8 13.4 6.1 11.9 7.1 10.7 8.0 9.8 8.3 28 17.0 3.4 14.8 4.9 12.2 6.9 10.1 8.2 7.6 9.7 6.3 9.9 29 16.8 3.5 14.4 5.4 12.0 7.1 10.2 8.2 8.2 9.4 6.9 9.9 30 16.6 3.6 14.3 5.5 11.7 7.3 9.9 8.3 7.8 9.7 6.3 10.3 31 16.2 4.0 13.6 6.0 10.7 7.8 8.9 9.0 6.6 10.5 5.2 10.8 32 17.0 3.4 14.7 5.1 12.3 6.9 10.4 8.0 8.2 9.4 6.6 9.7 33 17.5 3.2 15.6 4.4 13.6 5.9 12.0 6.9 10.5 8.0 9.4 8.4 34 17.3 3.3 15.2 4.7 13.3 6.1 11.5 7.3 9.6 8.5 8.0 9.1 35 17.3 3.2 15.2 4.7 13.2 6.2 11.2 7.5 9.1 8.8 8.3 9.0 36 16.8 3.5 14.5 5.3 12.2 6.9 10.7 7.9 8.4 9.3 7.0 9.3 37 17.0 3.4 14.7 5.2 12.5 6.7 10.7 7.9 8.6 9.2 10.1 8.1 38 16.9 3.5 14.6 5.3 12.3 6.9 10.4 8.1 8.6 9.2 7.2 9.7 39 16.9 3.5 14.7 5.2 12.8 16.6 11.2 7.7 9.4 8.9 8.2 9.3 40 17.5 3.1 15.6 4.5 13.6 5.9 12.1 6.9 10.3 8.1 9.2 8.5 41 17.5 3.2 14.7 5.2 12.5 6.8 10.6 7.9 8.5 9.2 7.4 9.6 42 16.8 3.6 15.0 5.0 12.9 6.5 11.4 7.4 9.4 8.1 8.3 9.0 43 17.2 3.4 15.4 4.6 13.6 6.0 12.2 6.9 10.6 8.0 9.6 8.2 44 17.3 3.3 15.2 4.8 13.1 6.4 11.4 7.5 9.5 8.6 8.4 8.9 45 17.5 3.2 15.6 4.5 13.7 6.0 12.2 7.0 10.3 8.2 9.0 8.5 46 17.4 3.2 15.6 4.5 13.8 5.9 12.6 6.7 11.0 7.8 9.8 8.2 47 17.3 3.2 15.4 4.7 13.4 6.1 11.9 7.0 10.1 8.2 8.7 8.8 48 17.3 3.3 15.4 4.6 13.3 6.2 11.9 7.0 10.1 8.3 9.2 8.5 49 16.8 3.5 14.8 5.1 12.9 6.6 12.0 7.2 10.6 8.2 9.6 8.5 50 17.2 3.3 15.3 4.8 13.6 6.7 11.8 7.2 9.7 8.5 8.6 8.9



Table 5: Gas Analysis Results for Wild Rocket in 35 micron film

Bag No P+1 P+2 P+3 P+4 P+5 P+6 % O2 %

CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

% O2 % CO2

1 17.3 3.3 14.4 5.4 12.6 6.8 10.3 8.2 8.7 9.2 7.5 9.7 2 17.7 3.1 14.8 5.0 12.9 6.6 10.4 8.1 8.6 9.2 7.3 9.7 3 17.9 3.0 15.4 4.6 14.0 5.9 11.9 7.2 10.4 8.3 9.1 8.8 4 17.6 3.2 14.9 5.1 13.3 6.4 11.6 7.4 10.2 8.5 9.1 8.9 5 17.8 3.1 15.0 4.9 13.2 6.4 11.0 7.1 8.8 9.1 7.2 9.7 6 17.6 3.2 14.8 5.1 12.9 6.6 12.0 7.2 11.0 8.0 9.7 8.3 7 17.3 3.3 14.2 5.5 12.7 6.6 13.7 6.0 14.1 6.0 13.3 6.4 8 17.3 3.4 14.8 5.2 12.4 6.9 10.0 8.4 8.2 9.6 6.5 10.2 9 16.8 3.7 13.6 5.9 11.6 7.5 9.3 8.8 7.5 10.0 6.1 10.5 10 17.0 3.5 14.1 5.6 12.2 7.1 9.8 8.5 7.8 9.8 6.6 10.2 11 17.3 3.3 14.5 5.3 12.2 7.0 10.5 8.1 8.6 9.2 11.1 7.6 12 17.2 3.4 14.5 5.4 12.4 6.9 10.0 8.2 7.9 9.7 6.2 10.4 13 17.1 3.4 14.4 5.4 12.6 6.8 10.7 8.0 9.0 9.0 7.7 9.6 14 17.3 3.3 14.7 5.2 12.8 6.6 11.0 7.8 9.6 8.8 9.9 8.4 15 17.2 3.4 14.7 5.2 12.8 6.6 11.5 7.5 9.4 8.9 8.0 9.4 16 17.6 3.2 15.1 4.8 14.0 5.8 12.6 6.8 12.3 7.1 11.7 7.3 17 16.7 3.7 13.9 5.8 13.4 6.3 13.3 6.5 12.9 6.9 13.0 6.6 18 16.8 3.6 14.1 5.7 11.9 7.4 9.4 8.1 7.3 10.0 5.7 10.7 19 17.1 3.5 14.3 5.5 12.4 7.0 10.4 8.2 8.7 9.3 7.6 9.6 20 16.5 3.9 13.9 5.8 12.0 7.2 10.5 8.2 8.7 9.2 7.6 9.6 21 17.1 3.6 14.5 5.4 12.3 7.1 10.1 8.4 7.9 9.7 6.4 10.5 22 16.4 4.0 13.7 5.9 11.1 7.9 9.3 8.8 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.1 23 16.7 3.8 14.0 5.8 11.7 7.5 9.3 8.9 7.3 10.2 6.0 10.8 24 16.3 4.1 13.4 6.2 11.3 7.8 8.6 9.3 7.0 10.4 5.9 10.8 25 17.1 3.7 14.2 5.5 12.5 7.1 9.7 8.6 7.4 9.9 5.9 10.7 26 16.7 3.6 14.0 5.7 11.8 7.3 9.2 8.9 7.1 10.3 5.6 10.9 27 16.7 3.5 14.2 5.5 12.2 7.1 13.2 6.4 13.7 6.5 13.5 6.5 28 17.0 3.4 14.5 5.4 12.5 6.9 10.3 8.3 8.4 9.5 6.8 10.0 29 17.0 3.4 14.4 5.4 12.3 7.0 10.0 8.4 8.1 9.6 6.6 10.2 30 16.6 3.8 13.8 5.9 11.6 7.5 9.1 9.0 7.9 9.7 5.3 11.0 31 17.1 3.4 13.8 5.9 12.5 6.8 9.7 8.6 7.7 9.9 5.9 10.7 32 17.1 3.2 14.9 5.0 13.0 6.5 11.2 7.7 9.9 8.7 8.9 9.0 33 16.9 3.5 14.9 5.0 15.8 4.7 17.0 3.8 16.9 4.1 17.1 3.7 34 16.6 3.8 14.5 5.4 11.9 7.2 11.0 7.9 10.1 8.6 10.2 8.2 35 17.0 3.5 14.9 5.0 11.3 7.6 9.9 8.4 7.5 9.9 6.0 10.6 36 16.6 3.7 13.6 6.0 11.2 7.1 8.8 9.1 6.4 10.7 4.7 11.3 37 17.2 3.4 14.5 5.3 12.5 6.8 10.4 8.2 8.1 9.6 6.7 10.1 38 16.8 3.6 13.8 5.9 11.8 7.4 9.5 8.7 7.4 10.1 5.8 10.8 39 16.3 4.1 14.3 5.5 11.2 7.8 9.0 8.9 6.9 10.5 5.3 11.2 40 17.3 3.3 14.7 5.2 12.7 4.0 12.1 7.1 11.7 7.6 11.8 7.3 41 17.5 3.2 15.1 4.9 13.2 6.3 11.1 7.7 9.1 9.0 7.7 9.4 42 16.6 3.8 13.8 5.9 12.0 7.3 11.2 7.7 8.6 9.5 7.6 9.8 43 17.1 3.4 14.6 5.3 13.8 6.2 10.1 8.4 14.3 6.1 14.4 5.9 44 16.2 4.1 13.5 6.1 11.0 7.9 14.3 5.9 6.8 10.5 5.7 10.9 45 17.2 3.4 14.6 5.3 12.6 6.8 8.9 9.2 9.8 8.6 7.3 9.9 46 17.0 3.5 14.4 5.5 13.5 6.2 10.6 8.7 10.5 8.3 9.3 8.8 47 16.1 4.2 13.2 6.5 10.8 8.0 12.1 7.2 6.2 10.9 4.9 11.4 48 16.8 3.5 14.2 5.6 11.8 7.4 8.3 9.5 8.1 9.7 6.4 10.4 49 17.5 3.1 14.1 5.7 12.0 7.3 11.4 7.6 8.0 9.7 6.7 10.2 50 16.8 3.5 14.2 5.7 11.8 7.4 9.5 8.8 9.1 9.0 6.2 10.6


Table 6: Packaging film assessment: 30 micron film used for packing Wild Rocket

DAY Aroma Appearance Flavour Comments Start of Life

No distinctive smell Good appearance. Some light and some darker leaves.

Fresh, crisp leaves. Strong peppery flavour.

No difference from 35 micron

P+1




P+2




P+3




P+4

No distinctive smell Good appearance. Some light and some darker leaves..



P+5


Starting to loose crispness. Strong peppery flavour.


P+6

No distinctive smell Good appearance, no sign of breakdown. Some light and some darker leaves.



Table 7: Packaging film assessment: 35 micron film used for packing Wild Rocket

DAY Aroma Appearance Flavour Comments Start of Life




P+1




P+2




P+3




P+4




P+5




P+6




www.wrap.org.uk/retail

Printed on 100% recycled content paper

Final report Salad Bag Minimisation: A Feasibility Study Salad bag film May07.pdf · Final report...

Documents

Transcript of Final report Salad Bag Minimisation: A Feasibility Study Salad bag film May07.pdf · Final report...