Collaboration at supply chain level is crucial for the UK packaging industry to move forward. The three-part UK Materials Knowledge Transfer Network conference on research funding, smart and sustainable packaging, and macro-packaging minimisation opened up debate on opportunities that lie ahead. Ledetta Asfa-Wossen investigates

The current economic climate puts the industry in a unique position, noted Packaging Society’s Chairman Keith Barnes. ‘It is prime timing for packaging innovations and creative ideas to be trialled’, as consumers look at getting more for their money and sustainable options.

‘Stay engaged’ was therefore the key message at the Materials Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN)  packaging conference held in September in Grantham and London, UK.

Barnes called on delegates to explore cost reduction by looking at their production line. ‘Cost reduction is a simple process and all companies can save at least 10%, either by eliminating an element in production, such as the use of glue machines, or through the use of single sheet cardboard boxes’.

Various products sparked debate, such as the M&S ladies’ fragrance box made of single sheet cardboard, and the use of self-sealing magnetic powders embedded into box layers by Chinese confectionary packaging manu- facturers. As a powder, the magnets would allow printing in a slurry, resulting in a less energy intensive and more economical process than solid magnetic parts.

Barnes emphasised the importance of encouraging UK innovation through spin-out firms and delivering a more commercial focus. 

Further to this, with the pending issues of food waste – designers and manufacturers were called on to invest more time in increasing shelf-life through the use of engineered plastics, laminates and improved barrier properties.

Travelling light

Macropackaging minimisation to reduce cost, manpower, and productivity time has been a focus for the packaging supply chain and, as such, transportation companies such as DHL.

One focus for DHL is designing with less metal and ‘going beyond the 20x40ft container standard type’ with the use of contoured unit load devices (ULD) for aircrafts made from light metal aluminium.

These ULDs mould with the shape of an aircraft – wide, narrow and main bodies – and being compact, they decrease ground time, due to a more evenly distributed fit for smoother connections. They also eliminate loss of space down the sides of the aircraft.

Yet, cutting down dead weight, payload loss, logistics and fuel costs is still a key challenge. ‘We need a way of sharing that weight with lighter materials,’ said Mark Rickinson of DHL.

The use of carbon fibre-reinforced composites for ULDs was put forward as a solution by several members of the audience. However, while lighter composites could be feasible, there are problems associated with rigidity.

Stuart Preston of the Materials KTN said, ‘The question with composite materials such as carbon fibre-reinforced ones is how to make the design compatible with existing clamping units currently in use with aluminium tracks within aircraft fuselage.

‘I’m not saying you can’t make carbon fibre do that. But, if you look at the material mix in there [within the aircraft and ULDs] it is all based around an existing material infrastructure. So you are not designing from a blank piece of paper. It is about fitting it in the aircraft’.

Rickinson answered questions from the floor on how lightweighting could be quantified. He said this could be done by measuring fuel costs (cost per kilo) and payload loss andrevenue per kilo, but attendees were hesitant about performing such long and extensive calculations.

FP7 and beyond

As the open forum revealed, knowledge gaps not only lie in design production but understanding what R&D programmes are available to pursue. Furthermore, how can the likes of retailers, designers, brand owners and material developers be successful in schemes such as the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

Dr Alistair McGibbon, an FP7 UK National Point Contact for Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies and Materials, led the discussion on best practice in FP7. He expressed that success lies in ‘a strong and balanced consortium. It is about good partners, and focusing on what the UK is best at, which is the industrial element’.

Dr Rachel James of C-Tech Innovation, a former UK SME participant of the scheme, added that ‘aligning proposals to the funding call is central to success at FP7’. Speaking on common pitfalls, James warned participants should thoroughly consider the role of the coordinator, particularly if a small company has responsibility – managing partners can be arduous. ‘Some may be uncommitted, or drop out at the last minute’, so researching the roles of consortium members is crucial.

Furthermore, while the financial, marketing and research advancement benefits of FP7 and similar public funding schemes are attractive, these are long-term projects and need to be viewed as such.

Another concern voiced by delegates was the issue of patent ownership, with so many partners involved. The answer? To select the consortium carefully and eliminate conflicts in interest.

A spokesperson from the Creative Industries KTN noted that designers are often unsure if funding calls are applicable to them. To which McGibbon responded with a solution for FP8, to market calls more clearly to designers and the materials community.

Gibbons highlighted theimportance of FP7 National Contact Points, where designated teams can assist with consortium selection, financial information, and, even at the earlier stages, assess if a company/individual organisation is best suited for the scheme. If not, regional or UK-based initiatives may be recommended instead.

The seminars saw 20 companies pitch areas for collaboration, from R&D in polyester film development, to bio-based material foams and nanoclays, to low-cost liquid delivery systems. National Contact Points representatives for FP7 were also on hand to provide one-to-one guidance on how best to take project ideas forward.

Putting it into practice

Other innovations in lightweighting that were presented included a simple, yet unexplored,paper option for freight-related packaging from the Crown Group, which does not make use of bubble wrap or petroleum-based related packaging. The company claims paper wrap is ideal for furniture, wood and high value items that would be damaged by bubble wrap expanding from humidity and sticking to the furniture, peeling off polish and paint.

Another alternative presented was the use of overcarding for lightweight impact protection, recycled newspaper  and chip shop paper. The use of simple paper technology could also be transferred to domestic items, the company says, by using brown paper sacks that transport and protect mattresses and armchairs.

The abundance of avenues for making a smarter and more efficient UK packaging supply chain are clear.

What the conferences did emphasise, though, was the increasing importance of information libraries, such as the Materials Resource Centre at IOM3 in London, to inform industry on new materials and processes. 

Further information

The current FP7 call: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html

Materials KTN: https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/materialsktn

See also from this issue Unlocking ingenuity - a report on the European Packaging Summit