The slide is the biggest lever
A one-time capital expenditure, ongoing labor costs—but the material that is used anew with every package produced is the packaging material itself. In tube-bag and flow-pack lines, film typically accounts for 30 to 50 % of ongoing packaging costs, in line with industry standards. Six approaches measurably reduce this cost without compromising the package’s functionality.
Approach 1: Format Design – Prioritize Area Over Thickness
Film consumption is calculated as area times thickness, and area is the greater factor: A bag length that exceeds the required seal margin by 5 mm costs 5 mm × bag width × film thickness for each bag—at 40 cycles per minute, this adds up to kilometers of film over the course of a year. The key is discipline: check every seal margin to ensure it’s exactly the design-required dimension, and dimension the bottom gussets and top seam based on precise calculations rather than generous estimates. A format adjustment of just a few millimeters saves a single-digit percentage of film area—without any visible change to the bag.
Approach 2: Film Width and Roll Utilization
The film roll comes in standard widths from the manufacturer; the machine width and bag format determine the required width. Two adjustment factors: Set the bag width to the most economical roll width (to avoid waste at the roll edge), and for multi-web solutions—such as stick packs with 4 to 10 webs—optimize the number of webs against the web width. A bag that is 20 mm narrower with the same fill volume (taller instead of wider) saves a proportional amount of space.
Approach 3: Check the composite structure
Every layer in a composite structure adds to the cost: barrier layers, topcoats, and interlayer adhesives. The composite structure should be regularly reviewed—packaging requirements change (shorter shelf life due to cold-chain products, altered storage times), and film manufacturers are constantly offering thinner barrier materials. A reduction in total thickness by 10 % while maintaining the same functionality lowers the film price roughly proportionally. The review involves submitting a request to the film supplier with the current list of requirements—not every layer that was necessary in 2018 is still required today.
Approach 4: Use the seal window instead of securing it
Sealing times set too long and sealing margins set too wide result in hidden film costs: wide seams take up space, and long sealing times reduce the cycle rate—both indirectly increase film consumption per hour of production time. The machine’s recipe management system maintains the optimal sealing parameters for each film type; an annual recipe audit conducted jointly with the film supplier takes one day and identifies areas for improvement.
Strategy 5: Reduce Start-up and Scrap Losses
Every start-up following a format or film change produces scrap until the seal is stable: typically 10 to 30 bags per change, according to industry standards. With two changes per shift, that amounts to up to 60 bags per shift in scrap alone. The solutions: Switch recipes instead of formats whenever possible (Format Consolidation), web alignment via sensors rather than through reject cycles, and a standardized startup procedure with a documented checklist. The methodology behind this is the same as that used in the OEE – Every minute of committee time counts as a paid slide.
Step 6: Purchasing and Quality Control
Three Leverage Points in Purchasing: Batch Consolidation instead of individual orders (discount tiers offered by film manufacturers), Competition Qualification multiple film suppliers for the same composite (to reduce dependence and maintain price pressure) and Incoming inspection of each batch on seal windows and thickness. The incoming inspection takes just a few minutes per pallet and prevents the most costly mistake: a line running with the wrong film and producing scrap until someone notices.
How the machine contributes to this
The Vertical filling and capping machine controls three film-related parameters: film length accuracy (servo-driven unwinding versus mechanical unwinding reduces the tolerance band), web correction (eliminating film fluctuations instead of rejecting bags), and film end management (roll change without wasting the remaining film). When purchasing a machine, these are the three functions that pay for themselves over the machine’s lifetime—more so than any price negotiation regarding the machine itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much can we realistically save on film costs?
Without compromising functionality, the industry standard is a 5- to 15-% range achieved through format design, composite testing, and startup optimization; purchasing benefits also contribute to this. Larger changes require format changes or transitions to single-material packaging, which have implications for logistics and recycling.
Does thinner film always lower costs?
Only if functionality is maintained: Thinner film tears more easily and seals faster—and producing scrap is more expensive than saving on film. The composite material must be evaluated based on the list of requirements, not just on thickness alone.
How much does film waste cost per format change?
10 to 30 bags per change are standard in the industry; the total cost is calculated as bag area × film price × number of changes per year. Calculating this figure just once will either justify or refute any investment in web correction and recipe management.
Does using a single material offer cost advantages?
The composite price may be higher than that of traditional laminates—the advantage lies in recyclability and upcoming regulatory requirements. Save costs by using single-material structures with thinner designs and simpler seal windows, not by focusing on the price per kilogram.
Related pages: Format Change on Packaging Machines | OEE of Packaging Lines | VFFS Guide | Flowpack Guide
Request technical specifications and a quote for your production line. Please specify the product, bag size, and target output (bags/min.) – Request Technical Specifications and a Quote.
English 
German