po 2010 nano-layer effects in blown barrier films-4

1

Nano-layer Effects in Blown Barrier Films

Henry G. Schirmer, BBS Corporation, Spartanburg, SC

Randy Jester, TOPAS Advanced Polymers Inc., Florence, KY

Gene D. Medlock, Kuraray America, Inc. – EVAL BU, Pasadena, TX

Tom Schell, Curwood, Inc., Oshkosh, WI

Abstract

Coextruded blown barrier films consisting of micro-layers

and increasing numbers of nano-layers were made for the

purpose of determining if they could be used to enhance

barrier properties. Nano-layers of EVOH were alternated

with moisture barrier materials in this study. Film

processing and properties are described as the number of

nano-layers was increased.

Introduction

At the 2009 Polyolefin’s Conference a paper about nano-

layers in blown film was given Ref 14). These films were

produced using the newly invented device called a Layer

Sequence Repeater (LSR). Nano-layers made from two

brittle resins produced films that were less brittle. The two

brittle materials examined were EVOH, a water sensitive

O2 barrier and COC a moisture barrier. In that study there

were hints that nano-layers may have improved the O2

barrier of EVOH by itself but especially under the

punishing Gelbo flex abuse conditions and also hints that

Perhaps nano-layers may have enhanced the moisture

barrier for COC.

At the same conference EDI gave a paper also showing

increased barrier film performance as the number of

alternating nano-layers of EVOH within a polypropylene

based film structure were increased using a layer

multiplier (LM). So this study was made to see if films

made using the LSR might produce similar results.

Both the LM and LSR are capable of producing many

nano-layers. However, the LM is used only with flat die

systems and the LSR is used primarily with blown film

systems. The names given to the two devices are

descriptive in how they differ fundamentally to achieve

similar results. But we will talk about the LSR details only

at some future date because of patent reasons.

This paper then is focused on determining if alternating

nano-layers of EVOH with a moisture barrier material can

enhance the wet O2 barrier performance of EVOH.

Polypropylene is a fairly good moisture barrier. So a

polypropylene based adhesive resin for EVOH was

chosen. COC is also a very good moisture barrier but is

not a good adhesive resin for EVOH. In spite of its poor

adhesive qualities, COC was also evaluated. Both of these

moisture barrier materials were put into EVOH barrier

films made from a Modular Disk Blown Film Die with an

added LSR. Reported here are the processing and property

results as the number of layers was increased from 25 to

75 and then finally to 50 and 150 using blown film

samples in double wound (D/W) form.

Ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH L-171) made by Kuraray

America and Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (TOPAS® COC

8007F-04) made by TOPAS Advanced Polymers and QF

551 made by Mitsui Petrochemicals were the material

grades chosen.

QF 551 is a standard adhesive resin to adhere both EVOH

and Nylon to polypropylene. EVOH (L-171 at 27 mol %

ethylene) is a crystalline brittle moisture sensitive

copolymer with a Tg at 60C and COC (8007F-04) is an

amorphous brittle copolymer with a Tg at 78C. EVOH is a

material with high oxygen barrier properties useful in food

packaging films and COC is a high moisture barrier

material useful in medical and pharmaceutical packaging.

Discussion

Definition of terms The Modular Disk Die has

produced films containing 25 and more micro-layers

independently of the LSR. While it is generally true that as

the number of micro-layers increases, the individual layer

thickness decreases for a given total film thickness, the

thickness of each of the structural micro-layers are

generally all in the same order of magnitude. However,

some these micro-layers may contain the same material to

make what appear to be fewer and thicker micro-layers.

The reason for doing this might be to simply gain

increased output.

The Layer Sequence Repeater (LSR) operates as an

independent unit within a Modular Disk Die and inserts

nano-layer bundles within this matrix of micro-layers.

These are truly an order of magnitude thinner than the

surrounding micro-layers. This definition of nano-layers

will be used here to differentiate nano-layers from micro-

layers and the difference will become very apparent from

the microphotographs shown in this paper.

2

Picture 1 shows a 25 micro-layer barrier film being made

from an 18” 25 layer Modular Disk blown film production

die. Picture 2 shows the internal micro-layer structure. In

this case the 25 micro-layers were combined to make a

pseudo-7 layer Nylon/ EVOH/ Poly barrier film that is the

standard barrier film for the industry and is an example of

creating thicker and fewer micro-layers for the sake of

increased output. This of course is the opposite end of the

nano-layer spectrum but is noteworthy to show that the

same material can be used in micro-layers as it can in

nano-layers to make fewer apparent layers. In some cases

doing this alone will alter the films physical properties

because of different melt shear conditions within.

Picture 1 - 18” 25 micro-layer Modular Disk Die

functioning to make 7 apparent micro-layer barrier films

Picture 2 Standard Barrier Film thicknesses front and back

at 2.55 mil each

While the above 7 layer micro-layer barrier film was made

from a 2x version of the lab dies, the coextruded nano-

layer films reported here were made using a 1x Layer

Sequence Repeater (LSR) inserted within the module of a

1x laboratory Modular Disk Die. These films show an

entirely different layer structure from the micro-layer

films.

A bundle of 75 nano-layers within a matrix of 8 micro-

layers; 4 on each side is shown in Picture 3. Note that each

of the 3 micro-layers on both sides used the same

polyethylene to make what appears to be a single layer.

Here you can see that nano-layers are truly a magnitude

thinner than micro-layers.

Picture 3 75 Nano-layers in a matrix of 8 Micro-layers

Sample 12-2 Total Thickness = 3.2 mil

Picture 4 shows that blowing 75 nano + 8 micro-layer

films in the lab are very similar to blowing single layer

films in production. However, like any other coextruded

film there can be a myriad of coextrusion problems to

overcome and there were some new ones we encountered

in this study either because of extrusion rate or materials

used.

Picture 4 - Laboratory 4” Upward Blown Film Line

Used to make Sample 12-2

FRONT SIDE PE+adhesive Nylon/EVOH/Nylon PE + adhesive PE + adhesive Nylon/EVOH/Nylon PE + adhesive BACK SIDE

3 micro-layers PE 1 layer Vistamaxx 75 nano-layers of PP/Vistamaxx 1 Layer Vistamaxx 3 micro-layers PE

3

To sum it up, nano-layer thickness is defined not by actual

thickness but by relative thickness when compared to the

surrounding micro-layer matrix. Further, nano-layers and

micro-layers both can use the same materials but nano-

layers will certainly appear as a bundle of thinner layers

within the micro-layer matrix.

The structural diagram shown in Picture 5 shows the

progression we are making from standard 7 layer barrier

film structures of today to the nano-layer barrier film

structures of tomorrow.

Picture 5 Progression to more Layers in Barrier Films

Experimental

2” TEST LINE RUN 11

In order to make the 25 nano + 4 micro-layer test films,

the BBS laboratory small LSR insert was used to make the

25 nano-layers. It occupied the space of only 3 cells. The

test line shown in Picture 6 had also a module for making

the 7-layer control film that was exactly the same size as

the module containing the 25 layer LSR. This made the

test line ideal for preparing and directly comparing 29

layer LSR test films with corresponding 7 micro-layer

control films.

Both the EVOH and COC 25 nano-layer test films (29

layers total) and the micro-layer layer controls (7 layers

total) of Run 11 were made on this line and it is shown in

Picture 6.

The test line had 4 extruders; one 1.25” extruder A and 2

– 0.75” extruders B & C driven by the same drive at an

approximate 60/20/20 ratio. The forth 0.75”extruder D

was driven at 30 rpm while the A extruder was driven at

40 rpm. The calculated layer thickness for a 10-mil test

film was made based on output rates of each extruder and

is shown below along with the comparable control film.

The assumption was that the output rates were

proportional to layer thickness.

Picture 6 – 2” Test Line used to make both 7 micro-layer

and 25 nano + 4 Micro-layer test films

ESTIMATED BARRIER THICKNESS: The relative

layer thickness values shown below were expected with A

extruder (1.25”) delivering 10 lbs/hr @ 40 rpm; B&C

extruders (0.75”) at 44.65 rpm delivering @ 3 lbs/hr each

and extruder D (0.75”) @ 30 rpm delivering 2 lbs/hr.

Test film structure = A / D / {C/B/C/…25 nano-

layers…B/C/B/C} / D / A

TOTAL OUTPUT - LAYER RATIO’S (Basis= 10 mil film)

A= 10 lbs/hr = (10)10/18 = 5.556mil (2 layers)

D= 2 lbs/hr = (10)2/18 = 1.111mil (2 layers)

C= 3 lbs/hr = (10)3/18 = 1.667mil (11 layers)

B= 3 lbs/hr = (10)3/18 = 1.667mil (10 barrier layers)

Lbs/hr=10+2+3+3=18lbs/hr TOTAL = 10.001mil

Calculated barrier/total thickness ratio for test films =

1.667/10 = .167mils/mil

Control film structure = A / D / C / B / C / D / A

TOTAL OUTPUT – LAYER RATIO’S (Basis = 10 mil film))

A= 10 lbs/hr = (10)10/18 = 5.556mil (2 layers)

D= 2 lbs/hr = (10)2/18 = 1.111mil (2 layers)

C= 3 lbs/hr = (10)3/18 = 1.667mil (11 layers)

B= 3 lbs/hr = (10)3/18 = 1.667mil (1 barrier layer)

Lbs/hr = 10+2+3+3= 18 lbs/hr TOTAL = 10.001mil

Calculated barrier/total thickness ratio for Control films =

1.667/10 = .167mils/mil total thickness.

The above calculated thickness estimates, however, give

only support to the actual measurements that were

previously made (Ref 14). Actual optically measured total

nano-layer thickness for each of 2 materials used was

measured in last years paper and will be used here as a

more accurate .211 mils/mil total thickness. See reference

14 “Nano-layers in Blown Film” for details.

7 Layer Standard Barrier

25 Layer Modular Disk Die 7 Layer

Modular Die Structure with Nano-layers

4

POLPROPYLENE/EVOH COMBINATIONS: Right

from the start, coextrusion problems appeared with all of

the 25 nano-layer films. The air-cooling conditions for a

stable bubble were very tight. Too little air gave bubble

pulsing and too much air caused the bubble to do a “snake

dance”. The quality of the film also was poor with respect

to clarity. While haze was expected, these films had a

mottled grainy looking appearance. Perhaps the cross

section SEM photographs below help to visualize the

problem.

Picture 7 Sample 11-9 SEM Micro-photo

PP2004/PP2004/{AD498/ET3803..25 nano-

layers}/PP2004/PP2004 (2.0mil)


PP2004/PP2004/{AD498/L-171..25 nano-



PP2004/PP2004/{QF551/L-171..25 nano-


Samples 11-9 through 11-11 all exhibit a chaotic nano-

layer pattern in the cross machine direction. The

underlined nano-layer combinations captioned under each

of the above pictures show that varying the material

combinations did nothing to make the layers more

uniform. The strange behavior seemed related to melt

orientation effects akin to the well-documented strain

hardening of branched polypropylene drawn melts where

thick and thin areas develop during the draw process.

These unstable melt flow conditions continued as both

temperature conditions and EVOH viscosity were lowered

throughout samples 11-12 to 16.

Compare this to Picture 3 where 75 nano-layers of

Vistamaxx/PP2004 in sample 12-2 are rather uniform. The

absence of EVOH in the nano-layers and the substitution

of PP2004 with PE in the outer micro-layers resulted in

stable melt flow conditions. PP2004 is an obsolete

ethylene-propylene copolymer formerly made by

Quantum.

Also compare these results to the results reported from

Run 8 (Ref. 14). Picture 10 shows that sample 8-16 had no

signs of nano-layer chaos using the same AD498/L171

materials in the nano-layer structure but again using

polyethylene in the outer and inner skin micro-layers.

While sample 8-16 had fewer nano-layers, the major

difference here appeared to be with the PE vs. PP outer

micro-layers within the film structure. Clearly all of the PP

film samples from Run 11 were of questionable quality to

submit for testing and were held back.

5

Picture 10 Sample 8-16 Micro-photo

PE 6411/PE 6411/{Admer 498/L-171..21 nano-layers}/PE

6411/PE 6411

The use of the amorphous PP/PE copolymer, Vistamaxx

with PP2004 in the stable 75-nano-layer structure may

have controlled the unstable melt flow effect apparently

caused by PP2004 when used in the outer micro-layers.

Perhaps an extra micro-layer of Vistamaxx in-between the

two as in picture 3 may stabilize nano-layer melt flow

chaos too. However, we felt that further study of this was

beyond the scope of this paper and decided to look at the

alternative COC/EVOH structures. Certainly, we will plan

to return to these unusual material combinations in the

future as the need for polypropylene skin layers may

become necessary for such applications as autoclaving.

So the LSR was flushed with COC where none of the

usual visual haze developed during the transition from

EVOH to COC. Clearly this was an unusual optical

compatibility event and the following 2 structures were

made the next day:

Sample 11-17 PE5563/NF498/{COC/COC..25 nano-

layers}/NF498/PE5563 (2.0mil)

Sample 11-18 PE5563/NF498/{L-171/COC..25 nano-

layers}/NF498 /PE5563 (1.5mil)

EVOH/COC COMBINATIONS: Sample 11-18 was

very clear and was incrementally drawn thinner and

thinner until sample 11-22 at 0.7 mil was made at the

maximum haul off speed. The quality and clarity of all of

the films was excellent but there was no adhesion of COC

to EVOH.

Picture 11 shows the outstanding clarity of the

COC/EVOH film 11-18 compared to the hazy PP/EVOH

counterparts 11-9, 11-10 and 11-11. Look at how well the

wallboards are seen through the backlit sample 11-18

when none can be seen through the 11-9-11 samples.

Picture 11 Clarity of Samples 11-9, 10, 11 and 18

Picture 12 shows the structure of sample 11-18. Clearly

the refractive index of COC and EVOH must be very

close because it is very hard to see the individual nano-

layers even with enhancement. Some layers are seen more

clearly only when they were delaminating during cross

sectioning.

Picture 12 Sample 11-18 Optical Micro-photo (1.6 mil)

PE5563/Admer498/{L-171/COC..25layers}/498/5563

The above samples were then used for wet and dry barrier

testing in spite of the lack of adhesion. Enhancement of

barrier properties in the film would be an indication that

less moisture was absorbed into the EVOH layers and that

the moisture barrier properties of the COC were probably

responsible for this. Notably COC was also an amorphous

material similar to Vistamaxx.

25 nano-layer section some delaminating

layers during cross sectioning

6

4” TEST LINE RUN 12

During run 11 on the 25 nano-layer setup, an 8-extruder

line was being prepared to make films with even a greater

number of nano-layers using 2 larger 1.25” extruders with

variable melt delivery rates to feed the 2 melts to the LSR.

Two triplex extruders were also attached to the die 180

degrees opposed. After the initial start up runs, the line

was fitted with a 4” die, 2 - 4 micro-layer modules each

fed by a triplex extruder and placed on either side of the

75 layer LSR. The experimental films made in Run 11

were essentially to be duplicated on this scaled up

equipment. The upward blown film line is shown in

picture 13.

The 4” die now had 3 separate modules counting the LSR

as a module. The two micro-layer modules were fed from

the 2 triplex extruders that were 180 degrees opposed and

2 single 1.25” extruders fed the LSR nano-layer module.

The quality problems experienced with the polypropylene

series simply became worse and to sum it up briefly we

soon gave up and started trying to make the EVOH/COC

combinations. While these films were not of perfect

quality, we did arrive at combinations that produced film

samples adequate to obtain possible answers from barrier

testing.

Picture 13 - 4” test line used to make 75 nano-layer Films

Sample 12-20 shown in the following micro-photo, picture

14 was similar to the samples collected from Run 11. The

nano-layers were difficult to see and the adhesion between

them was poor. The 75 nano-layer bundle as shown was

clearly less than 1/3 of the total thickness. Measured from

the microscope, the layer bundle to total thickness ratio =

1.5/5.9=0.254 bundle thickness/total thickness

Picture 14 Sample 12-20 (1.6 mils total)

The screw speed of the COC extruder was 18 rpm and the

screw speed of the EVOH was 12 rpm. So the EVOH total

equivalent thickness was 12/30=0.4 of the total bundle

thickness and the equivalent thickness of COC was

18/30=0.6 of the total bundle thickness. Therefore, since

the total bundle ratio was 0.254, the equivalent thickness

of the EVOH was 0.4x0.254 =0.102mil/mil total and the

equivalent thickness of the COC was 0.6x0.254=0.152mil/

mil total.

Table 1 below summarizes the barrier films from both

Runs 11 and 12 that were selected for barrier tests. Of

course, these measurements have some margin of error

and that was considered in reporting the results of testing.

Table 1 Calculated EVOH and COC equivalent thickness

Sample Thickness _

ID Total EVOH COC

11-18 1.6mil 0.338 0.338

11-19 1.2mil 0.253 0.253

11-20 1.0mil 0.211 0.211

11-21 0.8mil 0.169 0.169

11-22 0.7mil 0.148 0.148

12-20 1.6mil 0.163 0.243

Total Nano-layer Thickness Measurement Estimates :

Run 11 – 7 layer control films with 3 barrier layers

COC=0.211mils/mil total; EVOH=0.211 mils/mil total

Run 11 – 29 layer test films with 25 barrier layers

COC=0.211mils/mil total; EVOH=0.211 mils/mil total

Run 12 – 83 layer test films with 75 barrier layers

COC=0.152 mil/mil total; EVOH=0.102 mil/mil total

75 nano-layers of

EVOH/COC

7

TEST RESULTS

Table 2 shows the data received from 2 test laboratories.

Table 2 Physical Properties of Run 11 & 12 Test Samples

Please note that sample 12-20 with its thicker COC layers

had reduced transverse elongation. This is the typical low

transverse elongation of both brittle materials; EVOH and

COC, when the layers become too thick (see ref. 14). Now

for the first time both materials were side by side in

adjacent nano-layers. Surprisingly, the 25 nano-layer

samples that were at a 50/50 layer ratio all showed much

higher elongation. This is another confirmation of the

conclusion drawn in Ref. 14 that nano-layers of brittle

materials are less brittle.

Test lab 1 data also included both wet (85%RH) and dry

(0%RH) O2 transmission and other physical properties as

well. Test lab 2 ran wet (85%RH) O2 on 3 samples that

were double wound film. Doubling the film thickness

increased the number of layers by 2 (i.e. 25 became 50

and 75 became 150). The O2 data results from both labs

were analyzed graphically and the results shown in Graphs

1 and 2.

There are 2 plots of the data from lab 1 in Graph 1

encompassed by 2 boxes. The box on the right shows the

barrier values plotted against total film thickness both in

the wet and dry states. The box on the left shows the

barrier values plotted against calculated EVOH thickness.

There was only one data point from the 75-layer film for

each ambient condition joined to the 25 layer data by a

dotted line.

Please note that the 75-layer film shows higher

permeability than some of the thinner 25 layer films. This

is because there was less EVOH present and the added

thickness from polyethylene contributed virtually nothing

because it is a poor O2 barrier.

However, by transposing the 75-layer O2 data values to

the calculated EVOH thickness plot on the left, one can

see that there seems to be a relatively good fit into the 25

layer data values with a slight hint that the barrier may be

slightly better. Certainly there was no significant barrier

enhancement due to more nano-layers.

Graph 2 shows the 3 data points from lab 2 under wet O2

conditions (85% RH). They were obtained from the

doubly thick film samples and were naturally higher in

barrier because of this and of course the number of EVOH

layers was double as well. However, as one can see, the

data from the double wound films also showed no

significant increase in barrier due to the many more layers.

From both sets of data, we are concluding that there was

no significant enhancement of barrier properties due to a

Graph 2 O2 Transmission vs. Thickness (Lab 2)

Graph 1 O2 Transmission vs. Thickness (Lab 1)

Lab 1 Data

Lab 2 Data

8

nano-layer effect from the COC/EVOH alternating layer

sequence. In other words the high moisture barrier of COC

apparently did not lower the deleterious effects of

moisture on the O2 barrier of EVOH.

Also shown in Table 2 was the moisture transmission of

the nano-layer film samples. Again, in Graph 3 both 25

and 75 nano-layer COC/EVOH sequences were plotted

against thickness as with the O2 data. And, in the box to

the right, the 75-layer data seemed to fit into the 25 layer

data as the total film thickness progressed.

Of course, some of the moisture barrier values had to be

attributed to the polyethylene portions of the film because

it too is a moisture barrier of some significance. The effect

of the polyethylene moisture barrier is certainly shown in

the apparent enhancement of the COC barrier shown in the

box to the left. So we conclude that this graph also shows

no significant effect in moisture barrier due to nano-layers

but that the barrier simply increases with overall thickness

due mainly to the contribution of the moisture barrier

properties of the polyethylene portion.

Let’s now return to both graphs 1 & 2. All of the

permeability values portrayed in both graphs appeared to

be at least an order of magnitude greater than what they

theoretically should be for the calculated values of L-171

present in the films (see the published values at the end of

the paper). The calculated values are of course estimates

subject to some error but are still very close to the real

values (as shown in ref. 14) and confirmed optically.

Something else was responsible for the increased

permeability of these films.

We discussed this issue and 2 schools of thought emerged.

The first was simply that there were pin holes or cracks in

the nano-layers of EVOH due to the poor adhesion

between EVOH and COC. To some extent this was

witnessed during Gelbo flex when the samples failed. The

second thinking was that the very thin nano-layers of

EVOH were air quenched to a more amorphous state. This

would have lowered the amount of crystalline structure

perhaps even approaching total absence. In essence,

reduced crystalline structure would permit higher

transmission of O2 through the nano-layers. A DSC

analysis of the air quenched blown films tested here may

very well infer or show a loss of crystalline structure

within these very thin EVOH nano-layers. This is

something to study and perhaps report separately but for

now it is considered beyond the scope of this paper.

Published Barrier Properties of L-171

(cm2.mil/100in2.day.atm)

O2 Transmission Rate - 0% RH, 20C = 0.005



SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

1. Grossly distorted 25 and 75 nano-layers

occurred during the coextrusion of

Polypropylene based EVOH films. The

nano-layer melt instability did not occur with

PE based films.

2. COC/EVOH 25 and 75 nano-layer structural

combinations produced films of high optical

quality and were tested to determine if

alternating moisture barrier COC nano-layers

with EVOH enhanced barrier.

3. Layers of COC were difficult to resolve from

EVOH layers under an optical microscope

probably because of similar refractive index.

4. COC had absolutely no adhesion to EVOH.

5. COC/EVOH 25 and 75 nano-layer films had

no significant enhancement in oxygen barrier

properties either wet or dry.

6. COC/EVOH 50 and 150 nano-layer double

wound films did not show significant

enhancement in barrier either wet or dry.

7. The COC/EVOH films tested here all had

permeability values a magnitude higher than

theoretical suggesting that the nano-layers

were either damaged or less crystalline.

8. COC/EVOH did not show moisture barrier

enhancement as a result of nano-layers.

9. COC/EVOH nano-layer films did show

reduced brittleness when the layers were of

equal thickness but became more brittle

when the COC layers were increased in

thickness.

Graph 3 Moisture Transmission vs. Thickness (Lab 1)

9

REFERENCES

1. Ethylene-Octene Based Foam-Film

Structures via Micro-layer Co-extrusion –

Renate, Hiltner, Baer, Barger, Dooley -

ANTEC 2006.

2. Structure-Property Relationships in

Coextruded Foam/Film Micro-layers –

Renate, Hiltner, Baer, Bland - ANTEC 2004

3. Comparison of Irreversible Deformation &

Yielding in Micro-layers of PC with PMMA

& Poly (styrene-co-acrylonitrile) Kerns,

Hsieh, Hiltner, Baer - J. of Applied Science

Vol.77, 1545-1557 (2000)

4. The Modular Disk Coextrusion Die –

Schirmer Polyolefins 2000

5. New Compositions of Matter from The

Modular Disk Coextrusion Die - Schirmer,

Love, Schelling, Loschialpo - ANTEC 2000

6. Breathable Polymer Films Produced by the

Micro-layer Coextrusion Process Mueller,

Topolkaraev, Soerens, Hiltner, Baer - J.

Applied Science Vol. 78, 816-828 (2000)

7. Micro-layer Coextrusion Technology Baer,

Jarus, Hiltner - ANTEC 1999

8. Modular Disk Coextrusion: Production Rate

Tests with the 9” flex-Lip Die Schirmer -

Future-Pak 1999

9. Oxygen Barrier Enhancement of PET

Through Physical Modification Sekelik,

Nazarenko, Stepanov, Hiltner, Baer -

ANTEC 1998

10. Novel Structures by Layer Multiplier

Coextrusion - Nazarenko, Snyder, Ebeling,

Schuman, Hiltner, Baer - ANTEC 1996

11. 25 Micro-layer Blown Film Coextrusion Die

– Schirmer - Polyolefins 2008

12. Exploratory Experiments on Solid-State

Foaming of PLA films and COC/LDPE

Multi-layered Films - Lu, Kumar, Schirmer -

ANTEC 2009

13. Improved Flexible Packaging Film

Performance via Layer Multiplication- Sam

Iuliano – Polyolefins 2009

14. Nano-layers in Blown film – Schirmer,

Jester, Medlock – Polyolefins 2009

AUTHOR CONTACTS

Henry G. Schirmer

BBS Corporation

2066 Pecan Drive

Spartanburg, SC 29307

Tel: (864) 579-3058

E-Mail: [email protected]

Randy Jester

TOPAS Advanced Polymers Inc.

8040 Dixie Highway

Florence, KY 41042

Tel: (859) 746-6447x4409


Gene D. Medlock

Kuraray America, Inc.- EVAL BU 11500 Bay Area Blvd. Pasadena, TX 77507

Tel: (713) 495-7363


Tom Schell

Curwood, Inc.

2200 Badger Avenue

Oshkosh, WI 54904


po 2010 nano-layer effects in blown barrier films-4

Documents