Diploma in Packaging Project - Candidate No 0251[1]

The Institute of Packaging Diploma in Packaging Technology
Diploma in Packaging Technology: 2006
Report Describing and Evaluating the Development Process
for a Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) Beer Bottle for an
Outdoor Concert
Author: 0251, (Packaging Technologist)
Recipient: Bill Smith, (Managing Director)
Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006

Abstract
This report describes the development process for the launch of a
Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) beer bottle for an outdoor music festival.
The report outlines each of the key processes that had to be completed from
the decision to proceed with the project in June 2004 to the product launch in
August 2005. It highlights the role of the Packaging Technologist in the
development process, from selection of material through to transport trials,
and also of each of the other departments within an organisation that must
work together to ensure launch dates are met. Emphasis is placed on the
need for a clear strategy to be developed from the outset and the need for
careful planning and close liason with external suppliers to ensure each
activity is finished on time and budget. The report follows the process through
from planning, implementation of engineering works, line trials through to full
production for the event.

Contents
ABSTRACT i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Market Opportunity 1
2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 5
2.1 Planning 9
2.1.
1
Review of Filling Line Operation to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle 9
2.1.
2
Review & Selection of Suitable Plastic Bottle Material 10
2.1.
3
Design of Plastic Bottle & Closure 13
2.2 Implementation 16
2.2.
1
Line Engineering Works 16
2.2.
2
Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled Product 17
2.2.
3
Design of Label, Selection of Bottle Colour & Artwork Sign Off 18
2.2.
4
Packaging Supply Contracts Put In Place & Packaging Ordered 20
2.2.
5
Bottles, Labels & Closures Arrive On Site 21
2.3 Trial and Trial Review 22
2.3.
1
Full Scale Line Trial 22
2.3.
2
Transport Trial 22
2.3.
3
Assessment of Packaging, Product and Line Capability 23
2.4 Production and Event 23
3.0 CONCLUSIONS 24
4.0 REFERENCES 25
Appendix A 26

1.0 Introduction
The Genuine Beer Company has been bottling beer since 1923. In the early
days the company was a small family run business operating from rented
premises close to the family home. In the 83 years since these small
beginnings the success of the company, founded on tradition and quality, has
seen the company expand into a multinational Plc, and one of the major
global players in the beer industry. Currently the company operates 10 major
beer bottling and canning sites worldwide, ensuring global coverage of The
Genuine Beer Company brand and products.
Traditionally, all bottled beers have been filled into flint, green or amber glass
bottles (Bathe 1997). The reason for glass historically being the material of
choice is because it provides excellent barrier properties, preventing oxygen
entering the product and spoiling it and also prevents the escape of carbon
dioxide so the beer will not go flat. Glass also gives the premium image that
is often associated with products from The Genuine Beer Company. Up until
recent years no other material or materials had been able to meet the
demanding barrier properties required for bottled beers other than glass.
1.1 Market Opportunity
Recent advances in materials science and plastic processing capabilities
have seen the potential for the polymers Polyethylene Tererphthalate (PET)
and Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN) to be used in the beer bottling industry.

PET plastic bottles are commonly used in the soft drinks industry, having
initially been introduced as an alternative to glass, now the majority of soft
drinks in the 500ml to 2L range of take home packs are almost exclusively
manufactured from PET bottles with plastic screw threaded closures. Beer
was first commercially bottled in plastic by the Carlsberg brewing company in
August 1999, employing a PEN bottle for its Carlsberg and Tuborg brands.
Utilising a plastic bottle for beer has some immediate obvious advantages
against glass;
• A 380ml plastic bottle weighs approximately 36g versus 312g for glass.
The reduced weight would significantly improve distribution costs.
Additionally plastic bottles could be blown on site, therefore eliminating
the cost of transporting empty bottles from manufacturer to filler. There
would also be a significant reduction in the noise levels in the bottling
hall.
• Plastic beer bottles would be welcomed by organisers of outdoor music
or sports events. Glass bottles are considered a major safety hazard
at these events, with the potential for people being injured by a thrown
or dropped bottle. Shattered glass on the ground is another safety
concern. These concerns over the safety of glass bottles result in hefty
insurance premiums having to be paid to obtain a licence for outdoor
events, with plastic bottles the majority of these concerns would not
require cover and greatly reduce premiums.

• Plastic bottles, like glass, can be easily recycled provided they are
manufactured from a single homopolymer, (blended or co-extruded
laminate structures are more difficult to recycle as they are difficult to
sort and have limited further applications).
In light of these advances and the opportunity that this could represent
activities had been ongoing within the company throughout the past two years
to implement a line capable of filling beer into plastic. In the past year this
process was accelerated as discussions with the Global Outdoor Events Co
were at an advanced stage for the sole supply of plastic beer bottles for all
their events. In light of this opportunity a decision was taken in June 2004
that the first event that would be supplied solely in plastic to the Global
Outdoor Events Co would be their summer music festival to be held in
Springfield on the weekend of 9th
-11th
August 2005. The product to be
launched was the Genuine Beer Company’s flagship brand in a 0.38l plastic
bottle. This proved to be an opportunity not to be missed for two reasons;
firstly, Springfield is only 30 minutes drive from The Genuine Beer Company’s
headquarters in Brewingville and only two hours by road from the company’s
Deepwell Bottling plant where the plastic line was installed and where the
company’s technical centre is based, incorporating group packaging,
development and project engineering activities. Secondly, it provided an
excellent opportunity for our Marketing team to research the impact that
bottling the companies flagship brand in a plastic bottle had on a controlled
market. This test market was seen as having the ingredients for the ideal

marketing mix of Product, Price, Promotion and Place (Soroka 1999). It was
also seen as an excellent pilot for the future roll out of plastic beer bottles
throughout the product range as a glass alternative at Off Sales and other
licensed premises.
The following sections provide an overview of the development process for
launching a plastic beer bottle from the decision to proceed in June 2004
through to product launch on 9th
August 2005.

2.0 Development Process
With the compressed timescale of 14 months to launch the product a Project
Leader was appointed to co-ordinate the activities of all the relevant
departments involved to ensure a successful product launch.
Below Figure 1.1 details the different departments and teams involved,
including location.
Figure 1.1 – Teams Involved In The Development Process
Project Leader
Deepwell/Brewingville HQ
Commercial Team
Brewingville HQ
Marketing
Brewingville HQ
Purchasing
Brewingville HQ
Development
Deepwell
Packaging
Deepwell
Project Engineering
Deepwell
Production
Deepwell

The Gantt Chart on the next pages details the activities that had to be completed, from
the decision in June ’04 to proceed, to successful launch on the 9th
August 2005. The
chart also indicates the different teams involved in each of the key activities.

Activity Team
2004 2005
Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe
b
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Planning
Review of Filling Line Operation
to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle
Eng, Pro’n
Review & Selection of Suitable
Plastic Bottle Material
Pkg, Eng,
Purch
Design of Plastic Bottle &
Closure
Pkg, Mkg,
Eng
Implementation
Line Engineering Works,
(conveyors, cappers etc)
Eng
Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled
Product
NPD
Design of Label, Selection of
Bottle Colour, Artwork Sign Off
Mkg, Pkg
Packaging Supply Contracts Put
in Place & Packaging Ordered
Purch
Bottles, Labels & Closures
Arrive on Site. Quality Check
Pkg, Pro’n,
Quality
Trial
Full Scale Line Trial
Pro’n,
NPD, Eng
Transport Trial Distribution
Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006 10

Activity Team
2004 2005
Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe
b
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
TrialReview
Assessment of Packaging,
Product and of Line Capability
Pkg, Pro’n,
NPD, Eng
Specifications Loaded onto
Quality Systems
Quality
Remedial Engineering Work to
Line
Eng
Production&Event
Bottling of 100,000 Units for
Event
Pro’n
Distribution of Product to
Organisers
Distribution
OUTDOOR CONCERT ALL
Candidate Number: 0251 Diploma in Packaging Technology Unit 5 February 2006 11

Diploma in Packaging Technology
The following provides the details and reasoning behind the decisions made
associated with the activities outlined in the Gantt chart.
2.1 Planning
2.1.1 Review of Filling Line Operation to Accommodate a Plastic Bottle
The Deepwell plant chosen to house the plastic bottling line had a number of
advantages over the other bottling plants in the group for implementing a
plastic bottling line. Firstly, the plant has three similar glass bottle filling lines,
this provided the plant with spare capacity and the option to operate full
production by utilising only two of the lines, allowing the third line to be
converted to a plastic bottling line. The review also detailed all the
engineering work and capital spend that would be required in order to make
the launch date. To enable the line to be converted a number of components
had to be put in place;
• A new de-palletisier had to be specified and purchased to handle
plastic bottles.
• Conveyors had to be modified to ensure the continuous smooth transit
of bottles.
• Adjustments had to be made to the labelling equipment to allow for
front, back and neck label to be applied to the bottle.
• The current crown closure capper had to be modified to enable closure
application to a plastic bottle.
13th
February 2006
12

The planning of the line conversion was timed to cause minimum disruption to
the rest of the operation. The equipment suppliers were brought in at an early
stage of the project and asked to work together to ensure successful
completion of the line.
2.1.2 Review & Selection of Suitable Plastic Bottle Material
One of the most critical elements of the project was to ensure that the correct
plastic was chosen for the bottle, this was essential in order to achieve the
shelf life required for the product. To assist with the selection a number of
beer products currently in plastic were analysed and a supplier for the plastic
bottles was identified. After reviewing the market and from the advice from
the bottle supplier the choice came down to three materials;
• Polyethylene Tererphthalate (PET)
• Polyethylene Naphthalate (PEN)
• PET/PEN blend (multilayer construction)
(Other material options were available however were ruled out at an early
stage of the investigation, these included; surface coatings and blending of
high barrier resins or oxygen scavengers with PET to aid achieving the
desired shelf life, these were ruled out mainly because the technologies are
still at an early stage and not proven in the marketplace).
On the following page Table 1.1 outlines the critical properties that were
deemed essential, highlighting the comparisons between each material;
13th
February 2006
13

Material
Properties
Good
Barrier
Heat
Resistant
Re-
Useable
Able to
Recycle Easily
Cost
PET No1
No No Yes Least
PEN Yes2
Yes Yes Yes Greatest3
PET/PEN Yes Yes No No Medium
1
Monolayer PET provides shelf life of little more than one month.
2
Monolayer PEN provides a shelf life of six months at ambient temperature.
3
PEN considered approximately 4 times as expensive as PET.
Table 1.1 – Comparison of Plastic Properties
Each of the three materials considered have obvious advantages and
disadvantages, with PET winning on cost however its low shelf life and low
heat resistant were considered to be a major downside. For these reasons
PET was discounted at an early stage, (although the one month shelf life
would have been suitable for an event like the outdoor concert being planned,
were filling and consumption could be timed, its long term future for use in
licensed premises and in the retail trade were the distribution chain demands
a longer shelf life eliminated if from further consideration).
The decision on what material to be used ultimately came down to either a
straight PEN monolayer, or a blend of PET and PEN. Both materials are high
barrier with PEN having approximately five times more barrier protection for
carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapour transmission than PET alone. Both
materials are also heat resistant, a result of the higher glass transition
temperature of PEN, meaning that they can be pasteurised post fill in a
pasteurisation tunnel. If PET had been chosen the beer would have had to
been flash pasteurised before filling or undergone a cold filtering process, this
13th
February 2006
14

may also have led to the need for the beer to be filled aseptically, calling for
yet more capital expense.
The decision to proceed with PEN over a PET/PEN blend was ultimately
because PEN offered a solution that was refillable. The long term strategy of
introducing plastic beer bottles was to penetrate the licensed premises trade
in pubs and clubs, plastic in these venues would also be seen as an
advantage on health and safety grounds. These premises can easily collect
the plastic bottles and send for washing and refilling as is currently done with
glass. The better heat and chemical resistance of PEN (Twede & Goddard
1999) made it suitable for washing at high temperatures and with caustic
cleaning agents, similar to those used for glass. Tests on PEN bottles have
shown that they can be successfully washed and refilled more than 20 times.
The increased trippage of the PEN bottles should offset the increased
material costs. Other advantages of PEN include it is easier to recycle as it is
a monolayer material manufactured from a straight homopolymer and it gives
greater flexibility over bottle design and tooling costs (Giles 1999).
The decision was taken at this stage to be supplied the bottles already formed
by the manufacturer, the option did exist to be supplied the pre-forms and
blow the bottles on site, however, this would have added complexity and
significantly increased capital expenditure.
13th
February 2006
15

2.1.3 Design of Plastic Bottle & Closure
The size and shape of the bottle had to be determined at an early stage of the
project to allow the design of the filling line to be completed. The design of
the bottle was managed by the Packaging, Marketing and Engineering teams
in conjunction with the bottle manufacturer. Essentially there were two
options; firstly to design a bespoke bottle or secondly to utilise one of the
standard PEN bottles supplied by the manufacturer. Designing a unique
bottle for The Genuine Beer Company brand had obvious benefits of creating
a point of difference against other products on the market, however this option
would be expensive with the need for investment in tooling. This investment
would be in the region of £150k for new pre-form moulds and blow moulds. In
light of this and also the lead time involved of 16 weeks before any bottles
would be available for preliminary trials the decision was taken to use the
manufacturers standard 0.38l PEN bottle, Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 – PEN Beer Bottle
13th
February 2006
16

Advantages of using an off the shelf solution like this meant that work by the
development team on shelf life could commence almost immediately.
The majority of plastic bottles used for soft drinks employ a standard threaded
screw cap, however, glass beer bottles have traditionally used a crown
closure. Our Marketing department did not want to move away from the
crown closure design feeling that a screw cap would not convey the right
image and would make the product more in line with a soft drink and not a
premium alcohol. In light of this the decision was made to investigate the
options for using a crown type closure on the PEN bottle. Again this decision
had to be made at an early stage of the development process to allow for all
the necessary engineering works to implement a crown closure to be
completed in good time.
With the brief from the Marketing team the Packaging and Engineering teams
investigated the options available. The current crown closure was eliminated
as they risked damaging the bottle neck finish. Having reviewed other
potential solutions available the most attractive solution was the MaxiCrown
cap, Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 – MaxiCrown Closure
13th
February 2006
17

The MaxiCrown meets all the requirements for a beer bottle closure, with
sealing performance equal to that of a standard crown closure and
furthermore as demonstrated from Figure 1.3 it also makes the bottle safe and
easy to open. The ring pull design means no bottle opener is required, again
enhancing the safety features of the plastic bottle. The MaxiCrown is also
tamper evident as any previous attempts to open and reseal the bottle would
be easily recognizable. The seal is also suitable for the bottle to go undergo
post fill pasteurisation, with the seal holding under high pressure.
Additionally, the MaxiCrown closure can also be used to seal glass bottles,
providing potential for use on the glass bottling line as well.
The closure is constructed of 0.21mm aluminium with a sealing layer of low
density polyethylene (LDPE), while the ring pull is made from high density
polyethylene (HDPE). A marketing advantage of the MaxiCrown is that it can
be printed or embossed as the customer demands, so none of the marketing
potential that the cap offers is lost by using a MaxiCrown closure. From an
engineering perspective the MaxiCrown was a neat solution as the current
capper unit already on the line for applying standard crown closures could be
used with the MaxiCrown conversion unit fitted for sealing MaxiCrown
closures to PEN bottles.
13th
February 2006
18

2.2 Implementation
2.2.1 Line Engineering Works
Engineering works were commenced in October 2004 and planned to
continue until mid May 2005. The works incorporated the fitting of converyors
to convey the plastic bottles, installation of a new de-palletiser at the
beginning of the line, modification to the capper unit to suit the MaxiCrown
closure and work on the labellers for application to plastic bottles. The lead
time of seven and a half months planned for the completion of this work
included the time from order to delivery of all equipment, with the new de-
palletiser having the greatest lead time of 4 months. The timeframe also
allowed for trialling of each new component installed and importantly training
of production staff on the new machinery and of the new procedures that had
to be put in place.
Figure 1.4 below shows the completed capper unit for application of the
MaxiCrown closure system.
Figure 1.4 – Installed MaxiCrown Closure Unit
13th
February 2006
19

2.2.2 Shelf Life Trials on Hand Filled Product
Before The Genuine Beer Company launches any new product full shelf life
trials must be completed. With the line not to be fully available for trials until
mid May 2005 this would not provide enough time for a full shelf life trial to be
conducted (the beer is anticipated to have a shelf life of 6 months). Although
a short self life would be adequate for the summer music festival being
planned for the ultimate goal was for introduction into trade were longer life
would be required. To get round this problem standard PEN bottles were
delivered to the filler by hand and filled, the bottles were then sealed using a
lab sealing machine supplied by the capper manufacturer, once sealed they
were passed through the pasteurisation tunnel and underwent all the line
quality checks, date coded and collected for shelf life analysis. In conjunction
with the filling of PEN bottles by hand a similar study was conducted on glass
bottles for comparison. Shelf life trials on the hand filled samples were
commenced in December 2004, with the six month window complete in May
2005. Samples collected were split up into those from the start, middle and
end of the run. The samples were tested throughout shelf life for taste, yeasts
and mould and carbon dioxide retention. Results indicated that the PEN
bottles performed adequately and had acceptable shelf life over the six month
period, further shelf life work was conducted on the PEN bottles in mid May
once the line was available for full trials. The results from this initial trial
provided the confidence in shelf life to allow for the product to be launched in
August 2005.
13th
February 2006
20

2.2.3 Design of Label, Selection of Bottle Colour & Artwork Sign Off
With all the packaging components in place the Marketing team in conjunction
with the outside advertising agency and artwork house could then proceed
with the selection of bottle colour bottle, label design and artwork sign off.
• Bottle Colour
Traditionally all Genuine Beer Company products are packaged in
amber glass bottles. To avoid confusion among regular customers and
so that the brand is not mistaken for products manufactured by
different beer companies it was decided that the PEN plastic bottle
would also be produced in amber, this would have the added benefit of
limiting the amount of UV light penetrating the bottle and spoiling the
beer.
• Label Design
The bottle was to have three labels, front, back and neck label. The
label design was to reflect the design of the current glass bottle version
of the same brand, however, the back label was to contain information
listing the advantages of plastic versus glass. It was also decided that
for the initial launch the product would have a metallised front and neck
label. To ensure the branding of the bottle was as the Marketing team
wanted an artwork house was briefed to come up with a number of
different concepts, these concepts were then mocked up on the amber
bottles and the most suitable chosen to proceed to print. In conjunction
with this the label design was provided to the Engineering team to
13th
February 2006
21

enable the necessary change parts to be purchased for the labellers to
allow for successful application. The chosen artwork was also
provided to the label printers for them to comment on printability.
Once the final artwork was signed off by both the Marketing and
Packaging teams it was then forwarded to the printers on CD ROM in
Illustrator format. It was the printers responsibility to do the
reprographics on the artwork and provide proofs of the artwork for sign
off before printing. One of the added complexities in the project was
the use of metallic inks to give the metallic effect on some sections of
the label, it was essential that the printers could re-produce these
consistently throughout the print run and subsequent runs. Once the
printers had finalised the reprographics work an electronic proof was
provided for checking (to ensure the artwork was all in the correct
position and that all the text was correct, and importantly that the
barcode was correct). Along with the electronic proof a hard copy
cromalin proof was also provided to, this gave a good indication of how
the colours would look on the final printed version. Upon sign off of the
cromalin the printers could then proceed and produce plates to allow
for the lithographic printing of the labels.
The print run was attended by the Marketing team leader to ensure the
quality of labels demanded for a new product was met. At the print run
standards were also drawn up of what was acceptable in terms of
colour (light & dark) and registration. Both the printers and Marketing
13th
February 2006
22

team kept samples of the agreed standards for all subsequent print
runs to be matched to.
• Closure Design
The MaxiCrown closure was also be branded for added impact. It was
decided to opt for the same design as the current glass version of the
bottle. Again a similar proofing exercise was conducted on the closure
artwork as for the labels.
2.2.4 Packaging Supply Contracts Put In Place & Packaging Ordered
As with all suppliers contracts had to be set up with each of the different
packaging suppliers involved in the project. This provided an opportunity to
negotiate best price on each of the components. The contracts stated
anticipated annual volumes and pricing based on a range of order quantities.
For the PEN bottle contract a rebate was also negotiated based on the
anticipated growth in business over a 5 year period. To ensure consistent
supply of packaging for the line a forecasting system was introduced with the
packaging suppliers being provided the weekly stocks of bottles, labels and
closures on site, the objective was to ensure that the site never fell below 4
weeks stock on any single item.
Once the contracts were all signed and in place each of the new components
had to be set up on the companies central purchasing system and any new
suppliers had also to be activated on the system. Each new item was
assigned a separate item code and the corresponding unit price was entered
13th
February 2006
23

into the purchasing system. In February 2005 the orders were placed for the
packaging required for the Summer Music Festival.
2.2.5 Bottles, Labels & Closures Arrive On Site
In April 2005 all packaging had arrived on site. It was essential that all
incoming packaging underwent a quality check. The quality checks put in
place were to ensure;
• All printed labels matched the approved colour and registration
standards.
• The bottles were to the specified weight, wall thickness (including even
distribution of material throughout the bottle) and that the closure was
also to the specified geometry. This was essential to ensure the bottle
withstood the pressure of the carbonated product and that a good seal
was made with the closure.
• The caps were also checked on arrival, again for print quality and
geometry to ensure adequate sealing could be achieved.
Records were kept of all quality checks and quality manuals updated to reflect
the new procedures that had been put into place. In line with the necessary
quality checks that had been put in place a ‘Product & Process Change
Validation’ form was completed by the relevant teams responsible for each
section before the project could go ‘live’. The form covers equipment,
process, quality and packaging aspects. A blank copy of the form can be
found in Appendix A at the back of this report.
13th
February 2006
24

2.3 Trial and Trial Review
2.3.1 Full Scale Line Trial
In May 2005 with all engineering work complete and all packaging on site a
full scale line trial could be conducted. The objective was to run the line for a
period of time to assess if all equipment and components were operating
correctly and to provide product for further shelf life and to allow for full transit
trials to be completed. Both the production and engineering managers were
present for the line trial. Product was filled initially at low speed with the line
speed gradually increased to determine the optimum operating speed. All
elements of the equipment were reviewed and any areas that needed further
improvement were noted and logged for remedial engineering work to be
conducted. No major line failures were noted with all equipment functioning,
however, some minor adjustments needed to be made in order to keep the
label position accurate. Product was also stored and tested for leakers, it was
essential that a good seal was achieved, otherwise shelf life would be greatly
compromised.
2.3.2 Transport Trial
The filled product was palletised and stored in the warehouse for distribution.
The pallet configuration and stack height utilised was that recommended by
the bottle supplier. For the distribution trial product was loaded onto curtain
sided trailers and transported by road to a number of central distribution
warehouses that are managed by The Genuine Beer Company. On arrival
the loads were inspected and broken down into smaller units and again
13th
February 2006
25

distributed by road. At each stage of the trial samples were held back from
each separate section of the journey for testing, the trial was also documented
and photographic evidence was also used to support all findings. All transport
trials proved to be successful with no excess damage occurring. Label
scuffing was also at a minimum and comparable to what would have been
acceptable with glass.
2.3.3 Assessment of Packaging, Product and Line Capability
The retained samples from the trial run were assessed for quality from a pack
presentation and product quality perspective. Tasting sessions were
conducted against the same product in a glass bottle, results were favourable.
Further shelf life trials conducted on the line trial produced favourable results
also and backed up those results previously obtained from the hand filled trial
conducted back in December 2004. With all remedial engineering work
completed on the line the new plastic bottling line was signed off and
accepted by The Genuine Brewing Company from the manufacturers of the
new components that had been installed. And with all the quality
specifications loaded onto the quality systems and final sign off from
Packaging, Engineering and Marketing achieved the initial production of the
100,000 units for the Summer Music Festival could be planned.
2.4 Production & Event
On the 25th
July 2005 the 100,000 units were bottled for the outdoor music
concert and distributed to the organisers a few days before the event. The
13th
February 2006
26

festival proved to be a great success for the launch of The Genuine Beer
Company’s first venture into plastic bottles. The majority of comments that
came back from the organisers were positive with people enjoying the
experience of drinking out of a plastic bottle. The follow up marketing has
also proved successful with the product now also being sold in a chain of Off
Licenses, with the proposed launch into the pub trade planned for December
2005. The line is now operating on a three day a week basis and with
increased sales expected and products being developed specifically for the
plastic bottle it is expected by the second quarter 2006 that the line will be
running at close to full capacity on a 6 day week.
3.0 Conclusions
The successful launch of the PEN plastic beer bottle owed a lot to the careful
planning that was put in at an early stage of the project and the good
communication and close team work between those involved. It also showed
that to enable a new product to be launched successfully inputs are required
from the Packaging, Engineering, Development, Marketing, Quality,
Purchasing and Production functions of the company. The Packaging
Technologists role is to ensure that the desires of the Marketing department
are met and to ensure a solution is achieved that is feasible in production and
meets all the necessary quality standards.
13th
February 2006
27

4.0 References
Bathe P. (1997), Developments in the Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks. Pira
Publishing ISBN 1858021723.
Giles G. A. (1999), Handbook of Beverage Packaging. Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield, England.
Soroka W. (1999), Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. Revised UK
Edition: Anne Emblem and Henry Emblem, Melton Mowbray: The Institute of
Packaging; First Published 1995 by IOPP, USA.
Twede D., Goddard R. (1999), Packaging Material 2nd
Edition. Pira Publishing
ISBN 1858022622.
Internet Resources
www.americanplasticscouncil.org
www.carlsberg.com
www.grrn.org (Grassroots Recycling Network)
www.maxicrown.se
www.plasticredesign.org
www.plasticstechnology.com
www.pira.co.uk
www.rexam.com
13th
February 2006
28

APPENDIX A
Site:
Change being validated:
Project Title (if applicable):
Capex Ref (if applicable):
Site Manager:
Project Scope
Validation approval must be completed prior to going live with a new product, product
rejuvenation, new equipment, new process, new supplier or raw material/packaging
Please indicate which of the change categories listed below are relevant to this project,
Equipment □ Process □ Quality/ Hygiene □ Packaging/Ingredient □ New Product □
Equipment Validation
• Central QA sign off for hygienic design of new plant ? Yes/No
• Adequate pre-handover trials complete and accepted by production ? Yes/No
• Agreed contractual performance trials met including efficiency/output etc ? Yes/No
• ISO 2001/ISO 14001 manuals updated ? Yes/No
• Manufacturer’s or supplier’s handover Certificate issued ? Yes/No
• Health and Safety plus Environmental impacts considered ? Yes/No
Signed: Date:
Process
• New process handover trials completed and accepted by production? Yes/No
• Central QA signed off process change ? Yes/No
• ISO 2001/ISO 14001 manuals updated ? Yes/No
• Any Health and Safety plus Environmental impacts actioned ? Yes/No
Signed: Date:
13th
February 2006
29

Quality/Hygiene
• Flavour assessment complete though life of product acceptable ? Yes/No
• All new specifications loaded onto quality system for site ? Yes/No
• HACCP and BRC updated ? Yes/No
• Any supplier databases updated ? Yes/No
• Full shelf life trials completed and in specification ? Yes/No
• Equipment and product micro counts meet specification ? Yes/No
Signed: Date:
Packaging / Ingredients
• Packaging fitness for purpose trials carried out and acceptable ? Yes/No
• New ingredient signed off by central QA for food safety ? Yes/No
• Customer implications of new ingredient agreed ? Yes/No
• New suppliers put on the system ? Yes/No
• Procurement negotiated best cost ? Yes/No
• Transit trials carried out to test against all possible distribution routes and acceptable ?
Yes/No
Signed: Date:
New Product
• Product specification signed off by Central QA ? Yes/No
• New product gone through Gate Process and reached Gate 4 with full sign off ?
Yes/No
• New product loaded onto Navision ? Yes/No
Signed: Date:
13th
February 2006
30

PROJECT HANDOVER AGREEMENT
I consider that the project, and all of the relevant areas of the project scope as detailed above,
to be sufficiently completed as to be adopted by the site for the purpose intended.
Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Signed: ___ _________________________ Site Manager
Signed: ____________________________ Technical Director
13th
February 2006
31

Diploma in Packaging Project - Candidate No 0251[1]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Diploma in Packaging Project - Candidate No 0251[1]

Similar to Diploma in Packaging Project - Candidate No 0251[1] (20)

More from Dr Neill Weir

More from Dr Neill Weir (7)

Diploma in Packaging Project - Candidate No 0251[1]