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

vanee.c@ku.ac.thvanee.c@ku.ac.th