advertorial industry
Blending for success
The trend towards customising materials at the machine is becoming an increasingly popular approach to both reducing cost and optimising both processing and properties.
Over the last three decades, we have witnessed masterbatch becoming the predominant method for both colouring plastics and adding small concentrations of additives and processing aids.
More recently processors are looking to blend additives such as Vistamaxx™
Which technologies are available to plastic processors seeking to blend material at the hopper?
There are four main options:
Hand blending Tumble blending Volumetric blending Gravimetric blending
Each technique has the following advantages and disadvantages:
propylene-
based elastomers, Exact™ plastomers, which can be used to modify the rigidity and impact performance of polyolefins, and Granic®
compounds with high
concentrations of mineral fillers used as rigidity modifiers, productivity enhancers and extenders.
Whilst the advantages of blending at the machine are clear, the close control of this process is vital.
In the case of additive and colourant masterbatches, for instance, excessive dosing will increase cost, while in the case of plastomers and Granic®
dosing will lead to the properties of the end product not meeting the required specification.
In recognition of this trend, industry know-how is providing practical advice on blending.
In the case of hand and tumble blending, the labour cost and error rates only make it feasible for very small production runs.
In the case of volumetric blending we need to look at what happens in the real work environment to assess its practical value.
, incorrect
The key to accuracy with volumetric equipment is frequent calibration and correction of control settings. Unfortunately, the time and attention to detail required to do this is rarely available to personnel on the factory floor and as a result processors often run without the correct settings risking their product integrity.
When the masterbatch or additive amount added to the process is too low, the error is often visible and a correction to increase is obviously made. However, when the material addition is too high, the problem may not be visible and adjustments are not made.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116