From yield, to output & capacity, to CAPEX, when evaluating options for form fill seal applications, the true cost of packaging material replacement goes far beyond the cost per pound. Below, we explore three critical cost factors to consider when selecting alternative polymers for FFS.
When evaluating yield in thermoforming and form fill seal processes, the density and weight of the selected polymer significantly affect the overall cost. Polypropylene (PP), for example, has the lowest density and weight among common polymers—offering up to 30% density reduction from PET and 13% from HIPS.
This matters because lower-density materials result in more linear feet per pound of rollstock, meaning greater yield and cost-efficiency. In other words, packaging material replacement with lower-density polymers provides more usable material for the same weight.
Take the following example:
| Material | Density | Gauge | Width | Quantity (lbs) | Scrap | Linear Feet |
| PET | 1.33 | 0.020" | 30" | 1,000,000 | 15% | 2,777,780 |
| PS | 1.04 | 0.020" | 30" | 1,000,000 | 15% | 3,753,755 |
| XPP | 0.91 | 0.020" | 30" | 1,000,000 | 15% | 4,208,755 |
The above example shows that holding the variables of gauge, width and quantity (lbs) equal, there is an inverse relationship between material density and linear feet.
Lower-density polymers generate more linear feet per pound, which directly increases part yield. Because rollstock is purchased by the pound, put simply, lower density materials like PP give you more bang for your buck than higher density alternatives such as PS and PET, therefore maximizing cost efficiency, a crucial benefit in any packaging material replacement strategy.
Similar to the inverse relationship between material density and linear feet, an inverse relationship also exists between material density and part yield in thermoforming and form fill seal applications.
Once again, holding all other variables constant such as gauge, width and quantity (lbs), a decrease in material density correlates to an increase in output, or part yield, and vice versa.
Take the following example which details the difference in output between the same quantity of three common materials used in thermoformed and form fill seal food packaging for various packaging formats:
|
Material |
Quantity (lbs) |
Estimated Application Part Yield | ||||
| Single-Serve Creamer Cups | Multi-Pack Yogurt Cups | Barrier Pudding Cups | Shelf-Stable Juice Cups | PC Condiment Cups | ||
| PET | 1,000,000 | 295,620,000 | 19,734,000 | 64,584,000 | 70,980,000 | 236,340,000 |
| PS | 1,000,000 | 379,000,000 | 25,300,000 | 82,800,000 | 91,000,000 | 303,000,000 |
| XPP | 1,000,000 | 424,480,000 | 28,336,000 | 92,736,000 | 101,920,000 | 339,360,000 |
Outside of the opportunity cost associated with the lower part yield for higher density materials such as PET and PS, this also presents a sustainability issue, as more raw materials must now be used to maintain the same level of output when, for example, switching from PS to PET. The opposite, however, can be said when switching to PP, as the decrease in density results in improved efficiencies vs PS.
On the other hand, the packaging material replacement with XPP not only improves yield but also enhances efficiency—leading to lower raw material usage and reduced environmental impact. Higher output per pound supports your sustainability goals and lowers your cost-per-unit.
Compatibility with existing equipment and tooling is possibly one of the most daunting challenges brand owners face when tackling PS replacement, whether it be for achieving sustainability goals or satisfying Proposition 65 concerns. Many alternative materials demand expensive changes to thermoforming or FFS equipment—costs that can reach $1,000,000+ per line.
To help overcome this, XPP was designed to offer enhancements to key properties including improved stiffness and controlled shrinkage, to maintain that "snap" characteristic of certain FFS applications, without the need for extensive equipment overhauls.
Production-scale trials of XPP have shown:
These results mean you can avoid unnecessary capital expenditures, reduce risk, and shorten the implementation timeline. When evaluating the true cost of packaging material replacement, this minimal CAPEX requirement becomes a major competitive advantage.
Effective packaging material replacement requires more than just a low cost per pound. Download our Material Replacement Cheat Sheet to explore how XPP compares to PET and PS in form fill seal applications.
Have questions or want to discuss your application? Contact us to talk through your packaging needs