Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

to high pressure. A two-compartment permeation cell

was integrated in a high-pressure autoclave (Figure 10).

The bottom of a compartment of the cell is moving like a

piston to apply high pressure on the liquid in contact with

the ﬁlm. The pressure p

of the hydraulic ﬂuid (water/

glycol) is applied by a piston to the lower region of the

autoclave ﬁlled with water. Another piston separates the

water from the aroma–solvent (water/ethanol) solution.

After the pressure is built up, the cell is rinsed again in

order to obtained the amount of aroma that permeated at

max

= p

through the ﬁlm. The end of the rinsing deﬁnes

the beginning of the holding time. After the holding

time, the cell is rinsed again with the solvent out of the

reservoir. The amount permeated and then the liquid

permeability is determined by GC analysis of the solvent

after holding time.

Dynamic Isobaric Method

The rotating diffusion cell is designed hydrodynamically

so that stationary diffusion layers of known thickness are

created on each side of the ﬁlm (Figure 11). The ﬂux of

aroma compound from the inner compartment across the

ﬁlm was measured by periodically sampling with a micro

syringe from the solution in the outer compartment and

analyzed by GC. The rotating diffusion cell method en-

ables us to carry out a study on the mass transfer of

solutes from a liquid phase to another liquid. The funda-

mental theory of the Levich model (22) provides the means

of aroma compound transfer from the inner to the outer

compartment by the overall permeability of aromas but

also the aroma diffusivity within the ﬁlm packaging and

the interfacial resistances.

SORPTION METHODS

There are many works focused on the determination of

aroma mass barrier which are based on sorption experi-

ments. The retention or the release of substances is

monitored during the experiment. This evolution can be

followed by gravimetry (DVS, electrobalances, spring bal-

ances), by manometry, by GC or HPLC, and so on. Figure

12 (24) presents aroma compound sorption kinetics. The

quantity of aroma compounds adsorbed by the ﬁlm during

transient state of the mass transfer was often obtained

using a modiﬁed microatmosphere method. Dried ﬁlms

cut into small pieces were exposed to atmospheres satu-

rated with pure or dilute aroma compound. This atmo-

sphere was usually conditioned at 0% relative humidity

and continuously swept with a carrier gas (helium) con-

taining a known vapor concentration of aroma compounds.

The atmosphere inside the ﬂask containing the ﬁlm was

kept at a constant aroma concentration. The total amount

of volatile compound sorbed at a given time until constant

Q was determined after solvent extraction such as n-

hexane (for which extraction yield is 97%) of a ﬁlm sample

Hydraulic pressure fluid

Piston

Film

Solvent and

aroma compound

Samplin

and volume measurement

Figure 10. Experimental design of a liquid permeation cell

under high pressure. [Adapted from Gotz and Weisser (21).]

Cylindrical rotating baffle

Inner compartment with

aroma compounds

Film or membrane

Thermostatted

water

Aroma compounds

Film or membrane

Outer

compartment

Figure 11. Rotating diffusion cell for mea-

suring permeability of aroma compound be-

tween two liquid phases. [Adapted by

Debeaufort from works of Rogacheva et al.

(23).]

68 AROMA BARRIER TESTING

and by injection of the resulting aroma solution in a gas–

liquid chromatograph (GLC). The quantities of aroma

compounds adsorbed in the ﬁlms are expressed as

mg mL

1

of dry ﬁlm. The aroma ﬂux was deﬁned as the

ratio of the weight of permeated vapors (g) to the product

of exposed area (m

) and time (s). The ﬂux was expressed

as g m

2

s

1

. In practice, permeability P and solubility

coefﬁcients S are calculated from the following equations:

P ¼ F=Dp  e and S ¼ Q=Dp

where F is the transfer rate (mg m

2

s

1

), Dp is the vapor

partial pressure gradient, e is the ﬁlm thickness (m), and

Q is the quantity of volatile compound sorbed in the ﬁlm

(mg mL

1

The diffusion coefﬁcient can be calculated from the

half-time method of sorption experiment (Figure 13),

designating the time t

1/2

at which the transfer rate is

equal to half of the transfer rate at the steady state

obtained by a differential permeation method (5, 8, 25)

or from numerical solution of Fick equations. The diffu-

sion coefﬁcient (D) was calculated using the equations

D ¼

7:199t

1=2

and

 M

n¼1

2n 1ðÞ

exp 

2n 1ðÞ

where M

is the aroma quantity sorbed at the time t, M

the aroma quantity sorbed at the equilibrium, and M

the initial aroma quantity in the ﬁlm sample.

The measurements methods of sorption are often used to

search the afﬁnity properties of the aroma compounds.

These methods can also be used to determine diffusion

and then the permeability from the sorption kinetics. But

permeability can be only estimated from the sorption

method when the Henry and Fick’s laws are obeyed. This

calculation applies only in the absence of strong interac-

tions between the volatile compound and the polymer– that

is for a constant diffusivity and a linear sorption isotherm.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. H. Maarse, Volatile Compounds in Food and Beverages,

Marcel Dekker, New York, 1991.

2. J. Ylvisaker, ‘‘The Application of Mass Transport Theory to

Flavor and Aroma Barrier Measurement,’’ Tappi Polymers,

Laminations & Coatings Conference Proceedings, 1995, Book

2, p. 533.

3. P. T. DeLassus, ‘‘Permeation of Flavors and Aromas through

Glassy Polymers,’’ Tappi J., 77(1), 109 (1994).

4. W. E. Brown, Plastics in Food Packaging: Properties, Design

and Fabrication, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1992.

5. J. Crank, The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2nd edition, Oxford

University Press, New York, 1975, pp. 32, 52.

6. R. Gavara, R. Catala, P. M. Hernandez-Mun˜ oz and R. J.

Hernandez, Packag. Technol. Sci. 9(4), 215–224 (1996).

7. R. M. Felder and G. S. Huvard, Methods of Experimental

Physics, Vol. 16c, Academic Press, New York, 1980, pp. 324, 344.

8. R. M. Felder, J. Membr. Sci., 3, 15–27 (1978).

9. Q. Zhou, B. Guthrie, and K. R. Cadwallader, Packaging

Technol. Sci., 17(4), 175–185 (2004).

10. F. Debeaufort and A. Voilley, Second International Sympo-

sium on Food Packaging: Ensuring the Safety and Quality of

Food, Vienna, Austria, November 2000.

Dried air

(Dilution of aroma)

Air + Aroma

(atmospheric

pressure)

Dried air

Pure

aroma

Film

Thermostated

bath (25°C)

Figure 12. System to determine aroma com-

pound sorption kinetics (micro-climate method).

∞

Time

0.5

1/2

: aroma quantity sorbed at the time t

∞

: aroma quantity sorbed at the equilibrium

Figure 13. The half-time method of diffusivity determination

from sorption kinetics.

AROMA BARRIER TESTING 69

11. M. G. Kontominas, Sci. Alim. 5(2), 321–329 (1985).

12. M. Rubino, M. A. Tung, S. Yada, and I. J. Britt, J. Agric. Food

Chem. 49(6), 3041–3045 (2001).

13. D. Cava, R. Catala, R. Gavara, and J. M. Lagaron, Polym.

Testing 24, 483–489 (2005).

14. F. Debeaufort and A. Voilley, J. Agric. Food Chem., 42(12),

2871–2876 (1994).

15. A. Nestorson, A. Leufven, and L. Ja

rnstro

m, Polym. Testing

26, 916–926 (2007).

16. R. Franz, Packag. Technol. Sci. 6, 91–102 (1993).

17. A. G. Wientjes, H. Maarse, and S. A. Van Straten, Lebensmit-

tel Hunters Hyg., 58(1), 61–70 (1967).

18. M. Lomax, Polymer Testing 1, 105–147 (1980).

19. H. Okuno, K. Renzo, and T. Uragami, J. Membr. Sci., 103

(1–2), 31–38 (1995).

20. I. Bodnar, A. C. Alting, and M. Verschueren, Food Hydrocoll.

21(5–6), 889–895 (2007).

21. J. Gotz and H. Weisser, Innov. Food Sci. Emerging Technol. 3,

25–31 (2002).

22. V. G. Levich, Physico-chemical Hydrodynamics, Prentice-

Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ, 1962.

23. S. Rogacheva, M. A. Espinosa-Diaz, and A. Voilley, J. Agric.

Food Chem. 47(1), 259–263 (1999).

24. J. A. Quezada-Gallo, F. Debeaufort, and A. Voilley, J. Agric.

Food Chem. 47(1), 103–108 (1999).

25. R. R. Chao and H. H. Rizvi, in J. H. Hotchkiss, ed., Oxygen

and Water Vapor Transport through Polymeric Films: A Re-

view of Modeling Approach, Food and Packaging Interactions

365, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, pp. 216–

242, 1988.

70 AROMA BARRIER TESTING

BAG-IN-BOX, DRY PRODUCT

GILLES DOYON

Agriculture & Agri-Food

Canada, Ministry, Saint-

Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

When the bag-in-box concept is applied to dry products, it

generally involves a bag inside a folding carton (see

Cartons, Folding). In order to appreciate the impact of

the bag-in-box (BIB) concept for dry products, one must

understand the history of the folding carton. The turn of

the century marked the ﬁrst use of the folding carton as a

package when National Biscuit Company introduced the

‘‘Uneeda Biscuit’’ (soda cracker). Instead of opting for the

conventional bulk method of selling crackers, Nabisco

decided to prepackage in smaller boxes, using a system

that would prolong freshness. The paperboard carton shell

with creased score line ﬂaps had recently been developed,

along with a method for bottom and top gluing on auto-

matic machinery (see Cartoning machinery). Waxed paper

(see Paper; Waxes) was to be added manually to the inside

of the carton. So was born the ‘‘lined carton.’’

The evolutionary process eventually culminated in two

basic methods of producing lined cartons. The ﬁrst was a

machine to automatically open a magazine-fed side-

seamed carton and elevate it around vertically indexed

mandrels where glue is applied to the bottom ﬂaps and

folded up against the end of the mandrel with great

pressure. The result is a squarely formed open carton

with a very ﬂat bottom surface capable of being conveyed

upright to a lining machine that plunges a precut waxed-

paper sheet into it by a system of reciprocating vertical

mandrels. The lining is overlapped at the edges and sealed

together to form an inner barrier to outside environmental

factors. It protrudes above the carton top score line by a

sufﬁcient amount of paper to be later folded and sealed at

a top-closure machine. Straight-line multiple-head ﬁlling

machines are used to ﬁll premeasured product into the

carton. Initial ﬁll levels are often above the carton-top

score line and contained within the upper portion of the

lining, which eventually settles with vibration before top

sealing takes place. This fact has relevance with respect to

the bag-in-box concept.

The second method involves the use of a double-pack-

age maker (DPM), which combines the carton forming/

gluing operation with a lining feed mechanism that wraps

the lining paper around a solid mandrel prior to the carton

feed station. In this instance the carton blank is ﬂat and is

side-seamed on the DPM. The lined carton is then dis-

charged upright onto a conveyor leading to the ﬁller and

top closing machine.

These packaging lines are typically run at up to 80

packages per minute (in some special cases 120/min).

They are considered to be very complex machines

requiring skilled operating personnel and are usually

restricted up to a single size.

Although the time reference is rather vague, it would

appear that the bag-in-box concept began with the reﬁne-

ment of vertical form/ﬁll/seal (VFFS) machinery in the

1950s (see Form/Fill/Seal, Vertical). Packaging machinery

manufacturers and users saw an alternative to the DPM

in the horizontal cartoner coupled with VFFS equipment.

The idea of automatically end-loading a sealed bag of

product into a carton offers the following important ad-

vantages compared to lined cartons: simplicity (i.e., fewer

and less-complicated motions); ﬂexibility (i.e., size

changes more easily and quickly accomplished); higher

speed (i.e., up to 200 packages per minute is theoretically

possible with multiple VFFS machines in combination

with a continuous-motion cartoner); lower packaged cost

(i.e., higher speeds and lower-priced machinery); im-

proved package integrity (i.e., bags are hermetically

sealed using heat-seal jaws); reduced personnel (i.e.,

possible for one operator to run line); requires less ﬂoor-

space (i.e., more compact integrated design); and wider

choice of packaging materials (i.e., unsupported as well as

supported ﬁlms can be handled).

Although bags are sometimes inserted manually, the

high-speed methodology (see Figure 1) employs multiple

VFFS machines stationed at right angles to the cartoner

infeed, dropping ﬁlled and sealed bags of product onto an

inclined conveyor that carries them to a sweep-arm transfer

device for placement into a continuously moving bucket

conveyor. The VFFS machines are electrically synchronized

with the cartoner, and the transfer device is mechanically

driven by the bucket conveyor. When the bag reaches the

carton-loading area, it is gradually pushed out of the bucket

by cammed push rods through guides and into the open

mouth of the box which is contained within chain ﬂights

traveling at the same speed adjacent to the bucket. A guide

plate drops into the bucket from overhead to conﬁne the bag

during insertion into the box. Once the bag is in the box, the

end ﬂaps are glued and rail closed before entering compres-

sion belts for discharge to the case packer.

When difﬁculties occur in this system, it is usually at

the insertion station, caused by misshaped or rounded

bags with a girth larger than the carton opening. An

attempt is made to condition the bag on the inclined

conveyor by redistributing the product within the bag

more evenly and, once in the bucket, by vibrating tampers

to ﬂatten it. However, if there is too much air entrapment

in the bag, or a high product ﬁll level, or an improperly

shaped bag, these devices become futile. Increasing the

carton size would be a simple solution, but the packager is

often not free to do this. Marketing departments are

generally reluctant to change the size of a carton that

has been running satisfactorily on DPM equipment. The

main problem is that the BIB manufacturer must allow

more clearance of bag to box than is required on a close-

ﬁtting lining. The usual BIB bag-sizing rule of thumb is a

gusseted bag having a width

in. (9.53 mm) less than the

carton face panel and

in. (6.4 mm) less than carton

thickness. This can vary somewhat, but the bag must be

small enough to transfer positively into the bucket and

subsequently into the box without interference.

One manufacturer has attempted to deal with the

problem by wrapping the carton blank around the bucket

after the bag has been top-loaded into it (see Figure 2).

In wraparound cartoning, ﬂat blanks are used and glue

is applied to the manufacturer’s joint and side-seamed

against the mandrel by rotating-compression bars. The

mandrel/bucket is withdrawn, leaving the bag in the

box ready for ﬂap gluing and closing. This approach is

more forgiving than end-loading, but is still susceptible

to bag-sizing problems because additional clearance

must be allowed to compensate for the gauge of the

three-sided bucket walls. Speeds of r140 per minute

are possible.

The vertical load concept has gone a long way toward

overcoming bag insertion problems (see Figure 3). It relies

on simple gravity and special bag-shaping techniques to

drop the bag directly into the box from a ﬁlm transport-

belt-driven type of VFFS machine. The carton shell is

formed from a ﬂat blank and bottom glued on a rotary

four-station mandrel carton former. The upright carton is

conveyed to a starwheel-timed ﬂighted chain indexing

device to position it squarely under the VFFS rectangular

forming tube. Two VFFS machines with electronically

synchronized motor drives operate independently of the

carton former. A prime line of empty cartons initiates the

operation of each VFFS machine.

The bag-forming parts consist of a rectangular-forming

shoulder and tube that has been manufactured to produce

a bag with cross-sectional dimensions

in. (6.4 mm) less

than carton face panel and

in. (3.2 mm) less than the side

panel. This very close ﬁt is made possible by a combination

of several mechanisms. First a gusseting device creates a

true ﬂat-bottom bag using ﬁngers that fold in the ﬁlm from

the sides as contoured cross-seal jaws close on the bag. The

bottom of the rectangular forming tube is within

in.

(6.4 mm) of the seal jaws and acts as a mandrel around

which the bag bottom is formed. The bag is thereby given a

sharply deﬁned rectangular shape, which is maintained as

it is ﬁlled with product and lowered through a shape-

retaining chamber. This chamber is vibrating so as to

present a moving surface to the bag to reduce frictional

Figure 2. Bag-in-box packaging system with wraparound cartoner.

Figure 1. Bag-in-box packaging system with horizontal cartoner.

72 BAG-IN-BOX, DRY PRODUCT

contact and, more important, to settle the product before

the top seal is made. Since the bag is conﬁned and not

allowed to round out, headspace between product and top

seal is kept to a minimum, thereby reducing air entrap-

ment to manageable levels. Flap spreaders ensure that

there is unobstructed access into the box.

The shaped ﬁlled bag slips freely into the box, allowing

the four corners of the bag to settle snugly into the

bottom, making maximum use of available volume. The

bag cutoff is determined by product ﬁll level and, if

necessary, can be made so that the top seal protrudes

over the score line by several inches. (centimeters) when

fully seated in the box, which is neatly pressed down at

the next station. While the carton is contained in the

ﬂighted chain, it is indexed through a top sealer where

hot-melt glue is applied to the ﬂaps, which are railed over

before passing under compression rollers. The top sealer

is integrated mechanically and electrically with each

VFFS machine, and because the operation is performed

immediately after bag insertion, the carton never has a

chance to bulge, which is eventually important for efﬁ-

cient case packing.

This packaging system is rated at up to 100 cartons per

minute, and two lines can be mirror-imaged for higher

speeds. A recent adaptation of the vertical-load system

integrates a carton erector for side-seamed blanks with

one VFFS and a top-and-bottom gluer into a single

compact module rated at up to 50 boxes per minute.

Another BIB system close-couples a carton former

(preglued or ﬂat blanks) with a pocket conveyor that

indexes the box to a series of bag insertion, ﬁlling, sealing,

and carton top/bottom gluing stations. The bag is formed

using vertical form/ﬁll techniques utilizing a rectangular

forming tube. A unique gripping mechanism engages the

bottom seal of the bag and pulls it into the box from

underneath. The bag top is left open to be ﬁlled with

product at succeeding stations. This system offers the

advantages of multiple-stage ﬁlling for optimum accuracy,

checkweighing, and settling before the bag top is sealed.

This is a very effective way of dealing with the problem of

high ﬁll levels. Outputs of 65–80 packages per minute are

claimed for this type of machinery.

RELATED CONCEPTS

A ﬁeld that has grown is institutional bulk packaging of

large quantities of product in 10 to 20-lb (4.5 to 9.1-kg)

sizes which usually require corrugated-box materials (see

Boxes, Corrugated). The VFFS unit is an expanded ma-

chine capable of producing large deeply gusseted bags and

is usually set up for vertical bag loading. Speeds are in the

range of 15–30 cartons per minute. In a related process,

not technically ‘‘bag-in-box,’’ horizontal pouch (three-side-

seal) machines are close-coupled to a cartoner to auto-

matically insert one or multiple pouches into a carton at

high speeds.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

N. H. Martin, Jr., ‘‘Bag-In-Box, Dry Product’’ in The Wiley

Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 1st edition, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 24–26.

General Reference

S. Sacharow, A Guide to Packaging Machinery, Books for the

Industry and the Glass Industry Magazine, Divisions of

Magazines for Industry, NewYork, 1980, 191pp.

BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT

JIM ARCH

Scholle Corporation

GILLES DOYON

MARCO LAGIMONIE

Agriculture & Agri-Food

Canada, Ministry, Saint-

Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada

Bag-in-box is a form of commercial packaging for food and

nonfood, liquid and semiliquid products consisting of three

Figure 3. Bag-in-box packaging system with mandrel carton former.

BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT 73

main components: (a) a ﬂexible, collapsible, fully sealed

bag made from one or more plies of synthetic ﬁlms; (b) a

closure and a tubular spout through which contents are

ﬁlled and dispensed; and (c) a rigid outer box or container,

usually holding one, but sometimes more than one, bag

(see Figure 1).

The bag-in-box concept appeared in the United States

in the late 1950s. As early as 1957 (1), the package was

introduced into the dairy industry in the form of a

disposable, single-ply bag for bulk milk. By 1962, it had

gained acceptance as a replacement for the returnable 5-

gal (19-L) can used in institutional bulk-milk dispensers

(2). One of the ﬁrst nonfood items to be offered in a bag-in-

box package was corrosive sulfuric acid used to activate

dry-charge batteries.

During this early period, bags were manufactured from

tubular stock ﬁlm by labor-intensive methods. Initially,

the physical properties of monolayer ﬁlms (chieﬂy low-

density polyethylene homopolymers) limited the applica-

tions, and ﬁlling equipment was slow and often imprecise.

This situation changed signiﬁcantly with the introduction

in the 1960s of ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer

ﬁlms that provided added sealability and resistance to

stress and ﬂex cracking. By 1965, faster, dual-head ﬁllers

became available featuring semiautomatic capping cap-

abilities. Developments in automated box forming and

closing kept pace. Also, by 1965, proprietary bag-manu-

facturing equipment capable of making bags from single-

wound sheeting sealed on all four sides had been devel-

oped (see Sealing, heat). In the mid-1970s, ﬁlling ma-

chines that automatically loaded ﬁlled bags into boxes

came on-line. This was followed by totally automatic

ﬁlling equipment that accepted a continuous feed of bags

in strips (3), separated, ﬁlled, and capped them, then

placed them in outer boxes. Meanwhile, barrier ﬁlms (4)

(see Barrier polymers) with improved handling and sto-

rage characteristics were being developed. Multilayer

ﬁlms of polyethylene coextruded with polyvinylidene

chloride or PVDC to provide an oxygen barrier had become

commercially available as Saranex (Dow Chemical Co.) in

the early 1970s (see Vinylidene chloride copolymers). The

application of this barrier ﬁlm permitted packaging of

oxygen-sensitive wines and highly acidic foods such as

pineapple and tomato products. Beginning in 1979, multi-

ple-ply laminates (5) (see Multilayer ﬂexible packaging)

combining foil (aluminum) or metallized polyester sub-

strates were introduced and were also in wide use by 1982

(see Film, polyester). Such laminations are thermally or

adhesively bonded and in some instances by hot melt

extruding the adhesive layer (see Adhesives; Extrusion

coating). The most commonly used barrier ﬁlm in the

United States today is a three-ply laminate consisting of

2-mil (51-mm) EVA/48-gauge (325-mm) metallized polye-

ster/2-mil (51-mm) EVA. The barrier properties of metal-

lized polyester are directly proportional to the optical

density (OD) of the metal deposit. Multilayer coextruded

ﬁlms combining the barrier properties of ethylene–vinyl

alcohol copolymer (EVOH), the strength of nylon, and

sealability of linear low-density polyethylene are being

successfully used for some bag-in-box applications. It is

the sensitivity to moisture by EVOH that is limiting the

ﬁlms’ wider use (see Ethylene-vinyl alcohol; Nylon; Poly-

ethylene, low density).

Fully automatic ﬁlling machines with as many as six

heads (6) handling up to 40 two-liter (B2 qt) bags per

minute are in operation. Films have been reﬁned and

specialized to meet tight packaging speciﬁcations for such

procedures as hot ﬁll at 2001F (93.31C) temperatures.

Bags are also presterilized by irradiation for ﬁlling with

a growing number of aseptically processed products for

ambient storage without preservatives (see Aseptic packa-

ging). Outer boxes have become not only stronger, but

more attractive and appealing as consumer sales units.

MANUFACTURING PROCESS

In general, large producers of bag-in-box packaging de-

sign, develop, and manufacture packages to speciﬁcations

meeting customer requirements. Containers vary in capa-

city from small, consumer and institutional sizes 1 qt to

5 gal (or 2–20 L), to large, process and transportation

packs of 52–312 gal (or 200–1200 L).

A corrugated board box for enclosing a ﬂexible, collap-

sible bag with a closed spout is described (1997). The box

may be used to deliver soft drink syrups, milk, water

contained in plastic pouch (7). The next invention (8)

relates to post-mix dispensers of the type using peristaltic

pump located below a bag-in-box package of concentrate

(1997). Novel use of oxygen-scavenging compositions in

packaging material that comprise a gas and vapor barrier-

forming layer or coating is introduced (1998) and disclosed

(9). Applications could be for carton, bag-in-box, thermo-

formed trays or cups, over-wraps, shrink-wraps, closure

liners, and cans. More recently (2000), an improved bag-

in-box packaging system for storing, transporting, and

dispensing liquid products such as chemicals, soft drink

syrup, fruit juices, and food condiments is patented (10).

It allows for more complete drainage of the liquids. An

Figure 1. A bag-in-box package for liquid products consists of a

bag (A), a closure and tubular spout (B), and a rigid outer

container (C).

74 BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT

improved bag-in-box packaging has a shell surrounding

the carton (11) that can be separated to form a stand for

the carton (2004) is presented. It facilitates dispensing of

the beverage from the bag by allowing glasses and cups to

be placed on the table under the tap, eliminating the need

to use two hands to ﬁll the glass. A multipurpose four-

sided sealed bag with a bag-in-box container system for

viscous or powdery (particulate) products as vegetable

oils, syrups, salad dressings, peanut butter, or soy sauce

is described (12). The method of producing and using the

bag are also included (2004). A bridge and adapter system

for ﬁlling a bag-in-box packaging with liquids, solids, and

semisolid products is claimed to provide a quick connec-

tion between the supply line and the dispensing part of the

packaging (13). The bridge can be made of food grade

stainless steel, plastic, or aluminum (2004). A collapsible

ﬂexible liner for a bag-in-box container system or ﬂexible

intermediate bulk container (FIBC) is detailed (14). The

liner is designed to prevent unwanted collapsing of the

liner during ﬁlling or draining (2005). It is also suitable for

shipping various products including powder detergent. A

new bag-in-box beverage container and dispenser is pa-

tented (15, 16), which incorporates (a) an outer shell

preferably fabricated from corrugated paperboard mate-

rial and (b) an inner liquid-containing bag fabricated from

a suitable material (2006). A recessed handle is also

provided. Finally, a bag-in-box for containing and dispen-

sing liquids (e.g., beverages) is described (2006). The

interior surface of the bottom of the box preferably slopes

downwards toward the spout of the bag and/or has ter-

races, curves, corrugations, fan-like ridges, or beams to

help feed the liquid toward the spout (17). The invention

may also be used to advantage in other liquid dispensing

applications.

Bag

The principal considerations in choosing a ﬁlm laminate

or coextruded for the bag construction are strength and

ﬂexibility, with low permeability and heat resistance

added critical factors in an increasing number of applica-

tions. In the case of laminates, the bond between the

layers of dissimilar materials must be maintained at a

high level. Minimum requirements of over 1.1 lbf (500 gf)

per inch (2.54 cm) (i.e., B193 N/m) is not uncommon.

Films, laminates, and coextruded have to be resistant

and must also, of course, be compatible with the product

from which they are in direct contact with.

Once the appropriate ﬁlm compositions have been

determined for a speciﬁc application, the typical manu-

facturing procedure is as follows: Referring to Figure 2,

two or three pairs of rolls of single-wound sheeting (A) are

unwound on a machine where the webs advance inter-

mittently, holes are punched (B), and spouts are sealed (C)

into one of the duplex or triplex ﬁlm sheets at predeter-

mined points depending on ﬁnished size, and the bags are

formed by sealing the two ﬁlms together along the sides

(D) and then at the ends (E). Therefore, the bags for

liquids are of a ‘‘ﬂat’’ nature, not gusseted. Because precise

time and temperature must be maintained to generate

the seal between the thin ﬁlms, the uneven thickness

resulting from wrinkles or folds must be avoided because

the resulting ‘‘darts’’ will not be fully sealed. A removable

closure is applied to the spout (F), and after passing by the

draw rolls (G) the bags are either cut apart as the ﬁnal

operation or are perforated (H) for subsequent machine

separation at time of ﬁlling.

Bag Size

The box size must be measured ﬁrst, and then the exact

sizing of the inner bag can be determined with respect to

capacity or desired volume. The bag must occupy virtually

all of the interior space of the box without unﬁlled corners

or potentially damaging excess headspace resulting from

an oversize box. The relationship between the effective

surface area in contact with atmospheric air from the bag-

in-box and the volume capacity is important, as well as,

the residual air bubble inside. Referring to Table 1, one

can demonstrate by doing some rapid calculations that a

better shelf life for larger bag-in-box capacity is antici-

pated for similar bag structure. Furthermore, variability

of the bubble diameter or its out-of-control speciﬁcation

per type of volume capacity is a good visual tool for quality

control (QC) procedures and automatic ﬁlling machine

adjustment.

Spout and closure

The spout is the ﬁlling port of the bag. Together with the

closure, they are designed to mate with ﬁlling heads and

must be able to withstand the mechanical shock of the

closure being removed and replaced during the ﬁlling

operation without damage to the spout or closure. Spouts

are generally molded of polyethylene with a thin ﬂexible

ﬂange to which the bag ﬁlm is sealed. The spout has

handling rings for holding the spout during the ﬁlling

sequence, and the closure likewise has rings for the same

purpose. Figure 3 shows the ﬁlling head in the ﬁll position.

The closure (A) has been removed and lifted up and away

at an angle permitting the ﬁlling nozzle (B) to come

downward and enter the spout (C) that is being held

ﬁrmly in position. Because the design of bag-in-box

packages provides for the contents always to be in contact

with the spout, the spout-closure ﬁt must be leakproof.

When high oxygen-barrier property is essential, the spout

and closure appear as the weakest area of the global bag +

spout/closure structure, even though the valve is now of

high barrier material. The oxygen ingress remains im-

portant unless the tightness or snugness of the spout/

closure is ensured. This is a mechanical ﬁt with tight

Figure 2. Typical bag-in-box manufacturing procedure.

BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT 75

speciﬁcations. Their behavior with respect to temperature

changes is not to be forgotten. Some commercial products

are available, but the list is not exhaustive: Presstap,

Malpass, Vitop, Flextap, Viniplus, to name a few. The

reader is recommended to peruse references 19 and 20

for complementary information. Also of importance is

some application of nitrogen gas (N

) or the liquid- form

droplet to ﬂush the headspace of residual air moments

prior to ﬁnal positioning of the valve or spout on the bag-

in-box neck.

There are many designs for spouts and closures, de-

pending on function. In packages destined for consumer

use, the closure typically is a simple, one-piece, ﬂexible

valve that opens and closes as a lever is activated. Such a

combination is shown in Figure 4. Two layers (A, B) of ﬁlm

are sealed to the spout sealing ﬂange (C). Around the

tubular wall (D) are one or more spout handling rings (E).

The closure also has a handling ring (F) that facilitates its

removal by the ﬁller capping head. The closure is retained

on the spout by a mating groove and head (G), and the

liquid seal is achieved by a pluglike ﬁt (H) between the two

components. The one-piece closure is molded from a

resilient material and becomes a dispensing valve by

ﬂexing the toggle (I), creating an opening to an oriﬁce

(J) and providing a path for the contents to exit.

For food-service use, such as in restaurants, the closure

may have a dispensing tube attached or be compatible

with a quick-connect-disconnect coupler leading to a

pump. For other uses, just a cap may need to be removed

prior to emptying of contents.

Box

In some dairy applications, the bags are transported in

returnable plastic crates. Most typically a wide variety of

materials in many forms may be used for the nonreturn-

able box of bag-in-box packages. For smaller sizes (1–6 gal,

or 4–23 L), the outer box is usually made of corrugated

board in a conventional cubic conﬁguration. For larger

sizes (30–54 gal, or 114–208 L), rigid plastic and metal

containers, or even cylindrical drums, may be employed.

The required strength must be designed into the box as

dictated by the speciﬁc application.

Outer boxes may be manufactured with built-in hand-

holds or locked-in-place handles, and some have special

wax or plastic coatings for moisture protection. Most boxes

are built with punch-out openings for easy access to the

spout and closure.

FILLING

Filling bag-in-box packages may be a manual or semi- to

fully automatic operation and is adaptable to a wide range

Figure 4. A ﬂexible-valve closure. See text.

Table 1. Bag-in-Box (BIB) Capacity, Effective Surface Area, and Equivalence per Unit of Volume

Capacity (BIB) 2 L (2.10 qt) 3 L (3.15 qt) 4 L (4.20 qt) 10 L (10.5 qt) 20 L (21.0 qt)

Mean surface. cm

or [in.

] 1376 [213] 1546 [240] 2140 [332] 3941 [611] 5838 [905]

Surface equivalent cm

/L or [in.

/qt] 688 [101] 515 [76] 535 [79] 394 [58] 292 [43]

Conversion units used in this paper are

0.001 in. = 1 mil = 25.4 mm (micrometer)

1cm

= 0.155 square inch (in.

)

1 Liter (L) = 1.05 US quart (qt)

1 L = 0.26 US gallon (gal)

1 US gal = 3.79 L

Figure 3. Filling head in ﬁll position. The closure (A) has been

removed to permit the ﬁlling nozzle (B) to come down and enter

the spout (C).

76 BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT

of standard industrial processing procedures, including

cold, ambient, high-temperature, and aseptic ﬁlling. The

basic design of a typical ﬁlling machine incorporates a ﬂow

meter, ﬁlling head or heads, an uncap–draw vacuum–ﬁll–

recap sequence, and ﬁlled bag discharge (see Filling

machinery, still liquid). Bags may be manually loaded

into the ﬁlm head or automatically fed in strip form into

more sophisticated models. Advanced ﬁlling equipment

can also be provided with such devices as a cooling tunnel

where hot-ﬁlled bags are agitated and cooled by jets of

chilled water; a specialized valve to allow passage of

liquids with large particulates; steam sterilizing and

sterile air chambers for aseptic ﬁlling; or other modiﬁca-

tions as determined by application.

Five-gallon (or 19-L) bags can be ﬁlled at speeds that

range from four units per minute (1200 gal/h or 76 L/min)

to 20 units per minute (6000 gal/h or 380 L/min). Low-

speed ﬁlling is done on single-head, worker-attended

ﬁllers, whereas high-speed is done on ﬁlling on multihead

equipment, comparing favorably with line speeds of con-

ventional rigid-container operations. Complete systems

including box formers, conveyors, automatic bag loading,

and top sealers are available to support the automated

large-capacity ﬁllers.

SHIPPING AND STORAGE

Bag-in-box packaging offers signiﬁcant weight- and space-

saving economies. Before ﬁlling, components are shipped

ﬂat; after ﬁlling, the basic cubic shape of most bag-in-box

outer boxes occupies less space and tare weight than

cylindrical metal containers of comparable volume. Lim-

itations include (a) restrictions on palletizing and stacking

height, where content weight may exceed outer box rat-

ings, especially those constructed of corrugated board, (b)

vulnerability of uncoated boxes to humidity and moisture,

plausible, mainly if we have metallized polyester from

the effect of internal handling, (d) short as well as long

transportation, and (e) age in distribution (national and

international levels). Damages by surrounding materials,

leaking units, and vibrations as well as shocks (frequency

and intensity) must not be forgotten nor neglected.

DISPENSING

Dispensing may be accomplished in one of three basic

ways: uncapping and discharging contents; attaching one

or more packages to a pumping system; or activating a

small volume, user-demand closure often referred to as a

dispensing valve.

In single-bag packages, the spout closure is contained

within the outer box for protection and withdrawn prior to

use through a perforated keyhold opening in the box.

During dispensing, the bag collapses from atmospheric

pressure as contents are expelled without the need for air

to be admitted. When completely empty, bag-in-box pack-

age components, except those outer boxes or containers

speciﬁcally designed for reuse, are fully disposable.

Corrugated board and polyethylene are easily incinerated,

and metallized and foil inner bags compact readily to go to

landﬁlls.

APPLICATIONS

With advancements constantly being made in bag ﬁlm

capabilities, along with ﬁlling and dispensing techniques,

practically every commercial product is either being con-

sidered for or is now available in bag-in-box packages.

Major users include the dairy industry with ﬂuid milk,

cream, and soft ice cream mixes. Also of interest are fruit

juices and concentrates, edible oil, sauce, and jams, from

5- to 1000-L (1.3- to 260-gal ) capacity. Clients are increas-

ing for restaurants, institutions, and fast food markets

(21, 22). The wine industry since the 1970s in Australia

and South Africa have expended their success of the bag-

in-box material and packing technologies worldwide (23);

and, ﬁnally, most important transportation abuse and

shelf-life extension are under close scrutiny (19, 24).

From 3–4 L (3.2 qt to 1 gal), soon some 2-L (2.1 qt) contain-

ers will be available for retail; also, institutional size

(10–20 L, or 2.6l–5.2 gal) and long preservation storage

size (1200 L, or 312 gal), respectively, will be available.

Purees and ketchup have modest applications too. Some

soft drinks are also prepared from fountain syrup pumped

from a bag-in-box arrangement (18), which eliminates the

need for recycling and accounting for metal transfer

containers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. U.S. Patent 2,831,610 (April 28, 1958), H. E. Dennis (to Chase

Bag Company).

2. U.S. Patent 3,090,526 (May 21, 1963), R. S. Hamilton and

coworkers (to The Corrugated Container Company).

3. U.S. Patent 4,120,134 (October 17, 1978), W. R. Scholle (to

Scholle Corporation).

4. ‘‘Films, Properties Chart,’’ in Packaging Encyclopedia 1984,

Vol. 29, No. 4, Cahners Publication, pp. 90–93.

5. J. P. Butler, ‘‘Laminations and Coextrusions,’’ in Packaging

Encyclopedia 1984, Vol. 29, No. 4, Cahners Publication, pp.

96–101.

6. U.S. Patent 4,283,901 (August 18, 1981), W. J. Schieser (to

Liqui-Box Corporation).

7. U.S. Patent 6,223,981 (May 1, 1997) T. L. Gunder (to The

Coca-Cola Company, GA (US)).

8. W.O. Patent 9,747,532 (December 18, 1997) A. A. Schroeder

(to The Coca-Cola Company, GA (US)).

9. U.S. Patent 6,601,732 (August 5, 1998) M. L. Rooney and M.

A. Horsham (to Commonwealth Scientiﬁc and Industrial

Research Organisation (CSIRO), Campbell (AU)).

10. U.S. Patent 6,609,636 (August 26, 2000) P. F. Petriekis and W.

H. Williams (to Packaging Systems LLC, Romeoville, IL

(US)).

11. W.O. Patent 2,005,019,063 (March 3, 2004) A. Kjellberg, R.

Olsson, M. Otterstedt, and A. Rydfjall (to all designed states

except the US: STORA ENSO AB, Falun (SE). (to the authors

and inventors directly, if in the US.

BAG-IN-BOX, LIQUID PRODUCT 77