Converting Quarterly title
The Official
Technical Magazine
of AIMCAL
small AIMCAL logo
  Search

Substrate Secrets

Blogmaster: Dr. Eldridge M. Mount III

12

I had a follow-up question relating to my answer about “orange peel” defects in BOPET films. The question is, “Is there any effect of the required addition of antiblock agent “silica particles” to the skin layer on the formation of an orange peel appearance?” 

Answer: While antiblock particles can impact film appearance, In general I have a bit of a different idea as what “orange peel” is which I described in the earlier post and in general it would not equate with silica addition (for me orange peel is a surface defect caused by chemical deposits on the chill roll).  I might be inclined to think that an interfacial instability might cause an optical defect more like an orange peel appearance than the silica addition.  A viscosity mismatch between skin and core, which causes a slight interfacial instability, will cause an optical variance in the film which could be mistaken for an orange peel.  It is possible that some rheological change in the skin resin, associated with the addition of the silica containing resin, causes an interfacial instability and the silica (which must be added) is blamed for the defect.  

However, there are many defects in a film which can cause some sort of optical distortion in the film appearance or a disruption in the film surface gloss which might be like an orange peel. So part of the question is how do we differentiate between various defects so that we give them a proper designation so as not to cause confusion? It might be that the addition of the additives cause a variation in skin layer.

As to the impact of the silica itself, I can imagine that the use of silica could cause some optical defects in a film, but I would generally call it a surface or bulk haze effect. In general the addition of particles to a film surface is absolutely necessary to insure that the films we produce give good web handling and winding performance.  It is necessary to add particles and the best place to add them is in the skin of a coextrusion so that the particles are where they need to be, at the surface. The use of coextruded films let us take the particles out of the core of the BOPET and will improve clarity by decreasing the internal haze of the film.  Particles can cause haze in several ways, from the refractive index of the particle, the size of the particle and the amount of particles. Because the particles are located in a skin layer in this case it could cause gloss variations if poorly dispersed and could be miss identified as orange peel

Silica particles have a refractive index of about 1.55 while the refractive index of PET is 1.65 or more depending on the film density. This refractive index difference between the polymer and particle will cause some light scattering (haze) which could be called orange peel if it impacted surface gloss. Next if the particles are a particular diameter, they will scatter light just due to the size. Light scattering increases when the particles are approximately the same size as the wave length of light. For me an optimum particle diameter for winding in a thin skin would be about 4 microns in diameter. This should not cause much haze if used at about 2300 ppm. If used at higher levels they could cause a drop in surface gloss which might be mistaken for orange peel. The third source of haze is simply a large number of particles causing a rough film surface and bulk light scattering.

In general if the silica particles are properly dispersed in the skin layer I do not think they would cause an optical distortion in the film which I would equate with an orange peel but could cause a change in surface gloss of the film.

For more background on light scattering from articles, you can download a copy of a TAPPI paper I wrote “Optics, principle sources of haze and gloss” on film optics from my Website www.emmount-technologies.com

Posted in: Basics

Comments

There are currently no comments, be the first to post one.

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above:

Blogmaster

Eldridge Mount photo Dr. Eldridge M. Mount III

Dr. Mount is an independent consultant in the coextrusion, extrusion, film, metallization and film converting industries. He is a leader in the development of metallized films for barrier applications and film laminations. His expertise is in oriented film product and process research, the design and implementation of extrusion systems and coextrusion die specification and system specification including installation and start-up. He is also recognized for trouble shooting mono and biaxial orientated film and sheet coextrusion, melt casting and melt pinning, and film surface treatment by corona, flame and plasma systems. EMMOUNT Technologies, LLC offers consulting and technical training in film orientation, barrier technologies, coextrusion and extrusion and measures polymer melt viscosity with a capillary rheometer.

Eldridge has over 30 years industrial experience in the extrusion and orientation of polypropylene and polyester films at ExxonMobil Chemical and ICI Americas Film Divisions. He managed the intellectual property of Mobil Chemical Films Division and has courtroom experience as an expert witness. A frequent contributor to SPE ANTEC, AIMCAL and TAPPI conferences, he is a member of the SPE Extrusion Division Board of Directors, and a Fellow and Honored Service Member of SPE. Appointed AIMCAL Metallizing Consultant in 2001 and a past VP of the Society of Plastics Engineers. He has a Bachelors degree in Chemistry from West Chester University and a ME and PhD in Chemical Engineering from Rensselear Polytechnic Institute.

Recent Comments

Minimize
No recent comments.

Contributing Authors

Minimize
Eldridge M. Mount III

EMMOUNT Technologies, LLC

Beth M. Foederer

Optex Process Solutions, LLC