MRE Rations in All-Polymeric Pouches and why would we want to go there! Tom Dunn Printpack Inc. Atlanta, Ga Why do we wanna go there? Look at current MRE packaging Really look at current MRE packaging! Look at current MRE logistics Consider novel food processing techniques Assess their impact on packaging requirements Identify critical success factors for this packaging Consider alternatives for achieving this mission! Review results to date Anticipate future development A look at current MRE packaging He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator. Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly. ~Francis Bacon Really look at current MRE packaging Foil Pouch Lamination: Entrees Oriented PET Aluminum Foil Puncture Resistance, Heat resistance Light, Oxygen, Water Vapor Barrier/ Stiffness Oriented BON Puncture Resistance Polyolefin Pouch Sealing / shock absorbance MRE Logistics Process Packaging Store Transport Store Deploy 120 100% 90% 80% 70% 80 60% RH Degrees F 100 60 50% 40% 40 30% 20% 20 10% 0 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990 Weeks in Storage TEMP RH Novel Food Processes: Impact Factors Minutes @ 121ºC PRESSURE (psi) Retort ~40-50 13 Commercial MWS ~5 35 Developmental PATS ~5 100,000 Developmental HPP Max: ~40100ºC 70,000 Commercial eHPP Max: ~40100ºC 150,000 Research PROCESS STATUS Process/Packaging Impact PROCESS PACKAGING IMPACT Retort High thermal stability MWS Thermal stability; microwave transparency PATS low volatiles; conformable; thermal stability; HPP low volatiles; conformable eHPP low volatiles; conformable; tbd Process/Logistics Impact PROCESS LOGISTICS IMPACT Retort MWS PATS HPP eHPP Adapt the Packaging! Adapt the packaging to microwave sterilization! PROCESS MWS Packaging Success Factors Microwave transparent Light barrier Oxygen barrier Water vapor barrier Resistant to transient high temperatures Stiffness Weight Plan of Attack: Packaging for MWS FACTOR OBJECTIVE MW transparent Non-foil and ? Light 100% Opaque or ? Oxygen NSRDEC 0.01 cc-day/100 sq. in./atmosphere or ? Water vapor NSRDEC 0.06 gm-day/100 sq. in./atmosphere or ? Temp Resist 121ºC for 7 minutes Stiffness Equal to foil pouch Weight Equal to/less than foil pouch Cost Equal to/less than foil pouch Other Burst, puncture resistance, etc. equal to/greater than foil pouch Tactics OBJECTIVE APPROACH MW transparent Develop assessment method; assess candidates Light Determine scope of need; assess candidates Oxygen NSRDEC target Water vapor NSRDEC target Temp Resist Familiar polymers (heat set & melting point) Stiffness oriented films with modulus ~ foil Weight Familiar polymers with density less than foil Cost Map territory around above targets Other Familiar polymers Light Barrier Results Virginia Tech review of photodegradation chemistry of MRE foods Virginia Tech development of lab model to assess light barrier effectiveness Olive oil and yogurt as model foods Hexanal as target indicator Link hexanal generation to UV-Vis light absorption of packaging materials Design light barrier in packaging materials Organoleptic and nutritional values at risk Wide spectrum (UV-visible light) of active harmful light energy Opacified polymer layer(s) Opacified adhesive layer(s) Confirm effectiveness with accelerated shelf life assessments Microwave Transparency Results WSU adapted dielectric properties food method to flexible packaging e’: ability of a material to store electromagnetic energy e“: ability of a material to dissipate electric energy as heat Carbon black Limited FDA food-contact approval Known microwave absorption Figure A: Dielectric properties 0.035 0.03 Carbon Black Carbon Black Clear 1 opaque adhesive 0.025 0.02 Loss Factor 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 Dielectric Constant 2.9 2.95 3 3.05 Oxygen Barrier Results Limited success with nanocomposites and multilayer coextrusions Nanocomposites couple with MV energy Coextrusions will play a role. (machine/material complexities slow down) Available films and polymers have weaknesses Moisture sensitivity Coating durability Water Vapor Barrier Results Simple polyolefins best MVTR providers Strong thickness impact Coatings the other alternative High Barrier WVTR Coating durability issue “Saran” Coating presents environmental negatives Other Results Temp Resist Same polymers inside and out Stiffness All comparable to foil Weight All less than foil Cost Trade offs with respect to performance Other Comparable burst, puncture, etc Pouch laminations: Foil v. Polymeric Barrier Coating Oriented PET Oriented PET Aluminum Foil Coated PET Oriented BON Coated BON Polyolefin Polyolefin Pouch laminations: Foil v. Polymeric Puncture Resistance, Heat resistance Light, Oxygen, Water Vapor Barrier/ Stiffness Oriented PET Coated PET Coated BON Puncture Resistance Pouch Sealing / shock absorbance Polyolefin Arrive where we started and know the place for the first time Future Developments/Packaging 1) On-pack Time & Temperature Integrator 2) Shelf life modeling of logistics factors Sensitivity analysis for barrier levels Contribution to shelf life of secondary packaging 3) Microwave interaction with polymeric chemistry 4) Within pouch-type/between process shelf life comparisons 5) Impact of packaging on nutritional factors over time Cross process technology comparison Foil- and Polymeric- pouches comparison 6) Failure analysis: packaging volatiles during HPP 7) Definition of Quality Plan for MWS pouches 8) Technology transfer to commercial applications Thank you for your attention! Any questions, Now? Later? tdunn@printpack.com