SELECTING THE BEST SHIPPING CONTAINER FOR YOUR LIQUID PRODUCTS

Transcription

1 SELECTING THE BEST SHIPPING CONTAINER FOR YOUR LIQUID PRODUCTS BRIEF: Shipping blk liqids from point A to point B while ensring prodct integrity and keeping costs down can be a challenge. With nmeros shipping container options available, it s not always easy to discern qickly which system will prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective in the long rn. Add in the increasing cstomer demand to redce yor environmental impact while ensring spply chain efficiency, and there s mch to consider. Hygiene concerns also play a key role when it comes to handling, shipping and storing food and beverage prodcts. A Food Logistics article by Maria Hoffman notes that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2011 contaminated food cased 47.8 million cases of illness throghot the U.S. Therefore, reglations sch as the federal Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) can positively impact the safety of food prodcts throghot the spply chain. 1 As a reslt of ongoing pblic safety concerns, reglations like FSMA will contine to significantly impact the food indstry for years to come. In order to meet these reglatory and environmental demands, there is a growing trend toward the tilization of resable packaging which ltimately allows sers to Ct Cost, Eliminate Waste and Mitigate Risk. Blk Liqid Shipping Containers: One Size Does Not Fit All So, how do yo choose a shipping container to meet the needs and varios reqirements of all yor spply chain partners? When it comes to shipping blk food, beverage and other liqids, consider these factors: What s the natre of the prodct yo re shipping? Viscosity If prodct is thick or highly-viscos, it may be difficlt to completely empty from some containers Hazardos Any hazardos-rated liqid prodcts need to be transported in distinctive UN-Rated containers Exposre Some flids are sensitive to oxygen exposre and reqire special considerations What volme of prodct are yo shipping? If yo re shipping more than 3,000 gallons or 30,000 lbs of prodct per month, an IBC may be optimal, however for some extremely high volmes, a blk tanker trck may be the best option. Conversely, manfactrers with very low volmes might consider 5-gallon pails or smaller bag-in-box options for their liqids. What if yor end-ser s processing eqipment reqires yo ship in specified batch sizes? Yo ll need to limit yor container to the reqired batch amont. How does yor facility s eqipment impact yor options? Wold modifying yor filling or decanting eqipment allow yor company or cstomer to save money or become more streamlined? Evalate whether changes to yor eqipment will redce costs or improve profits down the road. Keeping in mind the type and volme of prodct yo re shipping, as well as yor crrent operational setp, will be critical as yo evalate yor blk packaging options.

2 WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? After answering the above qestions, assme yo have determined an IBC (intermediate blk container) ranging in size from 55-gallons to 330-gallons is the appropriate size for yor transport and storage needs. Yo can now compare the most common packaging options in this category. 55-Gallon Drm - The Old Standard May Be Starting to Show Its Age There are many different types of shipping drms, inclding steel, plastic, and fiber. For the most part however they are all very similar in that they typically reqire a liner or coating for food hygiene safety and a pallet and strapping for safe movement. CHALLENGES: Non-collapsible Limited stackability Hygiene concerns Safety hazards Prodct waste = lost profit Capital intensive Shipping drms have been arond for generations and have certainly proved their vale over the years, bt come with Challenges Significant space is reqired to store empty drms Expensive & Unsstainable Empty drms reqire 4 times as many trcks as collapsible containers for retrn delivery, consming more fel and generating more gas emissions Pallets and strapping are additional costs and hassle Labor intensive 1 tote = 5.5 drms for the same prodct volme - greatly increasing labor reqired to fill/decant drms as well as move them in facilities and on/off of transport vehicles Strengths Prodcts limited to 55 gallon batch sizes Hazardos prodcts (drms are available as UN-Rated containers, bt not all drms are UN-Rated) Smaller, inconsistent volmes Cstomers limited in their ability to handle larger containers Safety isses with drms inclde rolling to move, pinched fingers from drm lids and limited/nstable stackability in facilities Reqires sorcing materials from mltiple vendors Warehose Clean-Up & Disposal Wood chips, strapping and pallets can leave a mess, casing hygiene concerns and reqiring disposal

3 concerns in terms of maneverability, safety and storage. Corrgated Containers: A Lightweight Soltion That Can Fold Under Pressre Corrgated containers typically have a 275-gallon capacity, bt are available in several other sizes as well. Similar to drms, corrgated totes reqire additional components, inclding a liner, separate pallet and strapping to secre the tote in transit. CHALLENGES: Large storage space reqired More expensive Less sstainable Labor intensive Safety hazards As the Food Logistics article by Hoffman explains, food companies are looking for accontability from their sppliers and they want to ensre that the eqipment sed when shipping prodct is compliant with state and federal reglations. 2 Corrgated containers are easy to ship when empty and good for inconsistent or low volme prodcts, however they can easily be damaged and are prone to hygiene isses. Challenges Limited Stackability - Typically stack 2-high when fll, reqiring more warehose floor space and can t be stacked in transit, reqiring more trcks Less drable and secre than other options, risking prodct protection Safety isses inclde hazardos strapping removal and precarios stackability Strengths Good for international shipments Good for inconsistent volmes Delivered set-p or collapsed Hygiene Concerns If cardboard gets too wet, bacteria can form. Additionally, corrgate dst, strapping and pallets mean additional cleanp and disposal after se. Not So Green - Corrgate material tilizes more trees than alternatives, working against initiatives to become more environmentally friendly Added cost with reqirement of pallets, strapping and disposal

4 Consider the strengths and challenges below: Non-Collapsible Containers: Not All They re Stacked p To Be Typical non-collapsible container options inclde Bottle-In-Cage (BIC), Stainless Steel and Plastic Rigid totes. More sophisticated than either drms or corrgated containers, these options each have a bilt-in pallet. Additionally, the BIC & Stainless Steel containers can be approved for shipping UN-Rated materials, while the Plastic Rigid tote offers an inslated wall to effectively maintain prodct temperatre. While valable, the trade-off with these containers is that their inability to collapse reqires more storage space and additional trcks to transport, reslting in added cost and waste. Like all the options presented in this white paper, non-collapsible IBCs have strengths and challenges to consider. Bilt-in pallets and drability are favorable, while wasted prodct, heavy payload & transport inefficiency are tradeoffs. CHALLENGES: Reqire significant storage space with lack of collapsibility and stackability when empty Lack of tamper evidency featres case safety concerns Hygiene concern - Crosscontamination from food or mold hiding in harborage areas Capital Intensive & Expensive» Often leave residal prodct, reslting in lost profits» Containers are costly to prchase and draw fnds away from core bsiness» Owned fleets are costly to maintain de to in-hose cleaning, repairs, tracking Reqires significantly more transportation to ship when empty compared to a collapsible container, reslting in increased costs, fel consmption and harmfl fel emissions Bottle-In-Cage Stainless Steel Plastic Rigid Abot BIC is a plastic container with a protective steel or alminm cage, offered typically in 275-gallon capacity, with other sizes also available Stainless Steel containers featre heavy-dty constrction and are most commonly sed in 330-gallon capacity Rigid-walled plastic containers have inslated walls and typically hold 260-gallons Stackability 3-High when empty; Not always stable 3-High when empty 2 High Freight 3.5 Times as many trcks reqired for retrn freight 3 Times as many trcks reqired for retrn freight 3 Times as many trcks reqired for retrn freight Uniqe Challenges Triple rinse wash reqirements waste large amonts of water A layer of prodct skin forms when exposed to air, reslting in wasted prodct and lost profits Heavy container tare weight redces trck payload efficiency Mst often be discarded when jst a part of the container is damaged Not all components are recyclable at end of life

5 Plastic Collapsible Totes: The Ftre, Here Today Plastic collapsible totes, sch as CHEP 315-gallon containers with bilt-in pallets, are constrcted of high-density polypropylene for drability and tilize a new sanitary liner for every trip. These containers offer significant efficiencies in labor, storage and transport while redcing overall costs and minimizing environmental waste when compared to alternatives. Resability and collapsibility enable sers to significantly redce their overall carbon footprint, while translating into savings over the life of the container. STRENGTHS: Collapsible Optimize freight and storage Hygienic and safe Eliminates prodct waste All-Inclsive Container Management In Hoffman s article, CHEP VP of Sales & Marketing, Drew Merrill, explains that resable shipping containers reqire 39 percent less total energy. 3 Plastic Collapsible Containers Safely stack 5-high when fll or 12-high when collapsed to save space 1 Plastic Collapsible trckload = 3-4 Trcks reqired for the same volme of many non-collapsible alternatives Set-p container in 30 seconds for labor efficiency Integrated pallet and no strapping reqired CHEP components are 100% recyclable Good For: Consistent Volmes Saving capital for core bsiness Optimizing freight Redcing carbon gas emissions Ctting Cost, Eliminating Waste, Mitigating Risk Hygienic, smooth walls = Easy cleaning/redced cross-contamination potential Center smp to ensre maximm prodct is emptied at end ser, every time All-inclsive Trip option incldes container rental, empty container delivery/ pickp, liner, tracking (24/7 fleet visibility), cleaning, repair and offsite storage Rental allows yo to save capital for yor core bsiness

6 For assistance with this selection process, contact CHEP to receive a complimentary footprint analysis. As a reslt of its hygienic design, larger capacity, collapsibility and lower costs, plastic collapsible containers, like the CHEP- 315, are among the primary packaging choices for manfactrers today. CHOOSING THE BEST IBC FOR YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN Keeping in mind the strengths and challenges associated with all of the above blk container options, yo mst also consider yor niqe spply chain needs. Using the qestions in the first section of this article as a gide, yo will be able to easily determine which packaging soltion is ideal for yor bsiness. Once yo ve decided which container is right for yor bsiness, check ot the next white paper in this series, Pooling Drives Demand Crve, to evalate whether prchasing or renting IBCs will work best for yo! References: 1 3 from Advances In Liqid Blk Eqipment Inclde Blk Liqid Storage Containers from CHEP, by Maria Hoffman, Food Logistics, May 17, 2012