Market Trends, Opportunities and Latest Process Innovation in Vacuum Metallization –

Introducing BOBST AluBond® Technology

N. J. Copeland1 and C. F. Struller
Bobst Manchester Ltd, Pilsworth Road, Heywood, Lancashire OL10 2TL, UK

ABSTRACT

The market expectations for commodity grade metallized film continue to increase in
complexity based on the global market trends. Cost pressures are driving substrate down
gauging, packaging structure simplification/ reduction, greater use of more heat-sensitive
substrates, higher barrier functionality and higher adhesion requirements. This paper will focus
on a new innovative vacuum based hybrid coating technology named AluBond®, which greatly
increases the adhesion level obtained on the produced metallized film whilst also improving
the barrier functionality to levels which provide significant market interest.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the extremely cost-sensitive market for flexible food packaging, the quest for higher
performance packaging materials on one side and the ongoing requirement of cost reduction
on the other side continue to present new challenges to platform providers of vacuum
metallizers and other conversion equipment as well as the converting industry itself. Hereby,
substrate down-gauging, layer reduction (going from triplex to duplex laminate structures and
mono-web materials), wide web metallization and metallization of more heat-sensitive
polyolefin based substrates play an important role as key market drivers. These market trends
demand vacuum metallizer platforms with improved process performance (e.g. regarding
barrier and adhesion characteristics, but also in terms of temperature/heat load management
for thin-gauged and heat-sensitive substrates), increased output and better productivity that
can reliably, consistently and simply produce material of consistent and good quality at a
reduced production cost.
In regards to enhanced process performance, high barrier metallization for foil
replacement and increased shelf life, higher surface energy and better surface energy
retention of the vacuum deposited layer as well as high metal adhesion/bond strength are
critical requirements. Whilst in the past, lower metal adhesion levels appeared to be sufficient
and acceptable, the industry is now frequently asking for metal adhesion greater than
2 N/(15 mm), sometimes even up to 6 or 7 N/(15 mm), although, most adhesives typically fail
around 2 to 3 N/(15 mm) in laminate structures. This is due to the fact, that although the ‘single
layer’ metal adhesion, frequently measured via seal/peel tests with ethylene acrylic acid (EAA)
film [1, 2], appears sufficient, failure/delamination in the laminate structure can take place at
the metal-polymer interface at a lower bond strength value than obtained in the EAA peel test.
Thereby, the type of laminate structure (duplex/triplex), adhesive as well as the sealant web
type and thickness are important and will impact the failure behavior.
The requirement of higher metal bond strength in aluminum metallized films is currently
being addressed in various ways, using for example special chemically coated/treated film
substrates, additional offline pre-treatments in atmosphere such as atmospheric pressure
glow discharge treatment or flame treatment and, finally, high power plasma pre-treatment or

1 Corresponding author: nick.copeland@bobst.com

1
multiple plasma pre-treaters inside the vacuum metallizer. Nevertheless, the use of chemically
coated/treated substrates typically entails additional costs due production/processability
implications for the film producer (line speed reduction) and, furthermore, can potentially be
detrimental to barrier properties once combined with vacuum coating technology. The effect
of offline treatments on the other hand can significantly reduce over time, hence decreasing
the positive impact on metal adhesion, and also issues with treatment consistency and
uniformity have been reported. In addition to that, flame treatment can induce thermal
implications for heat-sensitive and down-gauged substrates.
BOBST AluBond® technology, however, is a novel, unique and elegant approach to
vacuum metallizing that can achieve outstanding metal adhesion beyond the levels
accomplished using conventional inline plasma pre-treatment and without the need for any
additional inline or offline treatment. The technology involves the deposition of a hybrid coating
layer, which has a tailored coating stoichiometry & gradient that exhibits vastly enhanced
anchoring properties to the base polymer substrate. Thus, adhesion levels comparable to
those obtained on chemically coated/treated films can be achieved, without the additional cost
and complexity of the latter and, more importantly, without impairing the barrier performance
of the metallized product. In fact, results are showing a rather positive impact on barrier
performance, especially noticeable for cast polypropylene (CPP) and biaxially oriented
polypropylene (BOPP) substrates when metallized using AluBond® technology. In addition to
the benefits of adhesion and barrier enhancement, AluBond® metallized films can also offer
higher surface energy levels of the metallization layer and better retention of surface energy
(dyne) level with time when compared to standard metallized films. This paper will therefore
present and discuss our latest results in terms of adhesion levels on various substrates,
assessed via a range of peel test methods, dyne level retention and barrier performance for
AluBond® metallized polymer films.

2 EXPERIMENTAL

2.1 METALLIZING PROCESS AND PLATFORMS

A variety of standard packaging/metallizing grade polymer films (polyethylene

terephthalate (PET), CPP and BOPP), typically corona treated by the film manufacturer, were
used in this assessment and were metallized using Bobst Manchester Ltd (Heywood, United
Kingdom) K5 and K5 EXPERT vacuum metallizers equipped with AluBond® process
technology. The metal deposition took place at speeds up to 860 m/min. Reference non-
AluBond® samples for each trial have been produced using the same base film material.
For some of the AluBond® trials and also some of the reference trials, additional in-line
plasma pre-treatment using a medium frequency plasma source with magnetically enhanced
water cooled electrodes was applied.

2.2 ANALYTICAL AND TEST METHODS

Measurement of coating adhesion was performed according to the EMA (European

Metallizers Association) test procedure for metal adhesion (seal test) [1]. Therefore, a 2 mil
(50.8 µm) thick EAA film is sealed to the metallized film surface (105 °C, 4 bar, 20 s) and is
subsequently peeled off using a 180° supported peel test and a peel speed of 50 mm/min.

2
Laminate bond strength is measured in accordance with ISO 11339 [3] (and in parts ASTM
F88 [4]) using a unsupported T-peel test at a peel speed of 100 mm/min. Additionally, a 180°
supported peel test at a peel rate of 50 mm/min is also conducted (i.e. peeling equivalent to
the EAA peel test). A4 samples are laminated in the laboratory using a solvent-based two-
component polyurethane adhesive which is applied to the metal surface using a wire wound
rod. After drying, a 70 µm thick CPP sealant film is used as secondary material in order to
produce a duplex laminate structure. For the triplex laminate, a printed PET film is laminated
to the metallized web with the printed side facing the metallized side. The second lamination
is than carried out using a 70 µm thick CPP sealant web in order to obtain the final structure
(PET print/metallized PET/CPP). In all cases, laminate bond strength tests are performed after
the adhesive has fully cured.
Infrared spectra for determination of the adhesion failure plane were recorded with a
Thermo Scientific Nicolet 380 Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer using a single
bounce diamond attenuated total reflectance (ATR) accessory.
Barrier properties in terms of oxygen and water vapor transmission rates (OTR/WVTR)
were analyzed in accordance with ASTM F 1927 [5] and ASTM F 1249/ISO 15106-3 [6, 7]
using a Mocon Oxtran 2/20 and Systech Illinois 8001 for oxygen permeation and a Mocon
Permatran-W 3/33 and Systech Illinois 7001 for water vapor permeation. Test conditions are
23 °C and 50 % relative humidity (RH) for OTR measu rements and 37.8 °C and a gradient of
90 % RH for WVTR measurements.
A Bresser Researcher Trino optical microscope was used to acquire images of the
metallized film samples in transmitted light mode for defect evaluation.
The surface energy/dyne level was assessed using dyne pens conformal to
ASTM D2578 [8] and ISO 8296 [9]. The highest dyne pen available was 60 mN/m.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 ADHESION – EAA PEEL TEST

AluBond® adhesion assessments have been carried out on a range of polymer films from
different suppliers and representative results for a variety of substrates are summarized in
Table 1, along with non-AluBond® reference data using the same base film substrate. In order
to understand the force values obtained during the peel tests and interpret/use the results
correctly, it is, however, essential and absolutely critical to look at the actual mode of adhesion
failure. Thereby, a range of failure modes can occur, as also discussed in a more general
manner in ASTM F88 [4]. In the case of the EAA peel test for the assessment of metal
adhesion, a number of modes are of importance which are stated below. Along with the
individual failure modes listed, there are, of course, also combinations of these possible (i.e.
partial/full metal removal with EEA material elongation).
• Full metal removal; adhesion failure at metal-substrate (PET/CPP/BOPP) interface
• Full metal removal including film skin layer; cohesive failure within the polymer
substrate (typically BOPP or CPP)
• Partial metal removal
• No metal removal, EAA film delamination; adhesion failure at the metal-EAA interface
• No metal removal, no peel; EAA material elongation or EAA material break

3
In addition to the failure modes, also the ‘raw’ force data obtained needs to be carefully
examined and extracted. Frequently, when full metal removal takes place, the initial force at
the start of the peel is a lot higher than the peel force measured during the actual peel. This
can be due to ‘edge’ effects caused by the sealing of the EAA film or is simply caused by the
fact, that the metal layer needs a higher force to initially break/fracture before the onset of
peeling. Since this initial force peek is not part of the actual peeling process, it should not be
used to obtain the average peel force for the sample measured.
In general, a 1 mil (25.4 µm) EAA film is used for the EAA peel test. However, it has been
found in our tests that this thickness is not sufficient to assess high adhesion metallized films
with AluBond®, based on the intrinsic strength of the EAA film (the limit of EAA film of this
thickness has been reported to be around 3.4 N/(15 mm) [10]); hence, a 2 mil EAA film is
used, which increases the upper test limit for metal adhesion to around 6 to 7 N/(15 mm), a
value similar to what has been stated by other researchers conducting EAA peel tests [11].
Nevertheless, also the 2 mil EAA film has been found to be not sufficient to assess the metal
adhesion in all cases, as can be seen later from the results for AluBond® metallized PET film
(refer to Table 1). In order to assess the locus/plane of adhesion failure, FT-IR analysis is
used. This is mainly needed, when full metal removal at very high peel forces is observed
(typically for AluBond® metallized BOPP or CPP films), as this is frequently a sign of substrate
skin layer removal along with the metallization layer.

Table 1 – AluBond® metal adhesion results on various substrates (EAA peel test)

Metal adhesion Adhesion failure mode

Structure Description
N/(15 mm)
Metal only 0.08 ± 0.02 Full metal removal
Plasma (low-dosage) 0.38 ± 0.30 Full metal removal
PET/Al Plasma (low-dosage) No metal removal; EEA
6.12 ± 0.21
12 µm + AluBond® stretch/snap/delamination
No metal removal; EEA
AluBond® 6.12 ± 0.28
stretch/snap/delamination
Metal only 1.01 ± 0.23 Full metal removal
BOPP/Al
EAA stretch/PP skin
50 µm AluBond® 5.91 ± 0.25
layer removal
BOPP/Al Metal only 0.52 ± 0.14 Full metal removal
20 µm AluBond® 4.47 ± 0.33 Partial metal/skin layer removal
Metal only 0.89 ± 0.22 Full metal removal
CPP/Al
EAA stretch/PP skin
25 µm AluBond® 3.12 ± 0.08
layer removal

When performing peel tests on standard metallized PET films, full metal removal with the locus
of failure at the PET-Al interface is the classic failure mechanism. The EAA peel force values
can be increased by the use of a ‘conventional’ low-dosage in-line plasma pre-treatment (see
Table 1); however, values of several N/(15 mm) are only obtained when high power plasma
pre-treatment is applied or chemically coated PET film is used as a substrate. Nevertheless,
when AluBond® metallization is performed, substantial improvement in adhesion is seen,
independent of plasma pre-treatment. In this case, no peeling of the aluminum layer is
4
possible, but it is the EAA film that delaminates and fails due to elongation or material break.
The values stated for metal adhesion are an average of the force applied that could not remove
the metal layer. Hence, metal adhesion is assumed to be higher.
For standard metallized BOPP, the adhesion behavior is similar to standard metallized PET,
with full metal removal and failure at the BOPP-Al interface. Peel forces are higher compared
to PET, but this is due to differences in the two polymers such as rigidity. When BOPP films
are AluBond® metallized, the adhesion is, again, drastically increased. In the case of BOPP,
however, peeling and metal layer removal (at least partially) are typically possible, frequently
accompanied by the EEA film elongating due to the large peel forces required. In this case,
FT-IR analysis has been conducted and the spectra are presented in Figure 1. It can be seen
that the spectrum of the EAA film obtained from a peel test on an AluBond® BOPP sample (in
red) shows peaks that can be solely attributed to PP as well as solely to EAA. Consequently,
this indicates that part of the BOPP film has been peeled off along with the AluBond®
metallization layer. As the failure in a multilayer structure generally initiates at the weakest
point of the system [12], it can be assumed that the adhesion of the AluBond® coating to the
BOPP film exceeds the measured values, which most likely represent the adhesion between
the skin layer and the core layer of the BOPP film. These results are also in line with pervious
findings when very high peel forces were obtained for AlOₓ coated BOPP films [13].

Figure 1 – FT-IR Spectra of EAA film used for peel test (top), EAA film after peel test on AluBond®
BOPP sample (middle) and BOPP film (bottom)

For the standard and AluBond® metallized CPP film the results are very similar to BOPP. In
both cases full metal removal was achieved, but in the case of the AluBond® film sample, part
of the CPP film was peeled off along with the metallization layer (as indicated by the results of
FT-IR analysis).

5
 Figure 2 – Retention of adhesion over time for AluBond® PET

Figure 3 – Retention of adhesion over time for AluBond® BOPP

Figure 4 – Retention of adhesion over time for AluBond® CPP

AluBond® adhesion levels are, furthermore, maintained over months of sample storage (under
ambient conditions) as depicted in Figure 2 for PET, Figure 3 for BOPP and Figure 4 for CPP.
Even at very high optical density (OD) levels, where it is typically more difficult to achieve good

6
adhesion levels, AluBond® offers outstanding metal adhesion properties as shown in Table 2.
Also for the three different OD levels, the AluBond® failure mechanism was full metal removal
with partial or full BOPP skin layer removal and EAA film elongation.

Table 2 – AluBond® metal adhesion results for metallized BOPP at various ODs

Metal adhesion
Structure Description Adhesion failure mode
N/(15 mm)
AluBond® 2.5 OD 4.27 ± 0.21 Full metal removal with partial/
BOPP/Al AluBond® 2.8 OD 4.11 ± 0.18 full BOPP skin layer removal/
20 µm AluBond® 3.3 OD 3.41 ± 0.54 EAA film elongation
Standard metal 2.7 OD 0.62 ± 0.21 Full metal removal

Finally, it should be noted that the adhesion of AluBond® metallized films can be tuned to a
certain degree by changing the AluBond® intensity level (AIL). The relationship between those
two parameters is depicted in Figure 5 for a metallized 25 µm CPP film. As can be seen, the
correlation between ‘treatment’ level and metal adhesion is not linear and for lower AluBond®
levels, rather small improvements in metal bond strength are seen. However, from a certain
point onwards, typically AluBond® level 5, a significant step change in metal adhesion is
obtained, increasing the average metal adhesion by a factor of 5 for the CPP film used in this
investigation (from around 0.6 N/(15 mm) for non-AluBond® to 3.1 N/(15 mm) for AluBond®
level 5).

Non-
AluBond®

Figure 5 – Metal adhesion as a function of AluBond® level for CPP

3.2 ADHESION – LAMINATE BOND STRENGTH

In addition to the EAA peel test, laboratory adhesive lamination was carried out and metal
adhesion was assessed using a 90° unsupported T-pee l test as well as 180° supported peel
test (comparable to the 180° EAA peel test). Whilst this is a more elaborate and time-
consuming test method (due to the adhesive coating process and curing time required) and

7
does not give the quick results that the EAA peel test delivers, it is assumed that this may be
a more representative test, since the metallized films will be laminated in their final packaging
application (although this can be extrusion as well as adhesive lamination). Using the adhesive
lamination method also gives the opportunity to use a thicker secondary film to laminate on
top of the metal surface (in this case a 70 µm CPP film), which has a higher intrinsic strength
than the 2 mil (50.8 µm) EAA film. Additionally, the adhesive layer helps as a reinforcement
layer and thus avoids excessive stretching/elongation of the CPP sealant film (unlike the EAA
film) during peeling, as stated by Jesdinszki et al. [10].

Results for AluBond® metallized PET and BOPP films are summarized in Table 3. Again, it
can be seen for all tests conducted that AluBond® delivers significantly higher laminate bond
strength than the non-AluBond® reference samples on the same film, which is in line with the
EEA peel test results.

Table 3 – AluBond® laminate bond strength results on PET and BOPP (duplex laminate with CPP)

Laminate bond
Structure Description strength Adhesion failure mode
N/(15 mm)
180° supported peel test (50 mm/min)
PET/Al Standard metal 3.03 ± 0.26 Full metal removal
12 µm AluBond® 4.48 ± 0.49 Partial metal removal
90° unsupported peel test (100 mm/min)
Standard metal 2.19 ± 0.29 Full metal removal
PET/Al
PET film break (average
12 µm AluBond® 3.55 ± 0.34
max. load value given )
180° supported peel test (50 mm/min)
Standard metal 2.54 ± 0.08 Full metal removal
BOPP/Al
20 µm Partial metal removal/
AluBond® 5.34 ± 0.22
CPP film delamination
90° unsupported peel test (100 mm/min)
Standard metal 2.69 ± 0.08 Full metal removal
BOPP/Al
20 µm Partial metal removal/
AluBond® 3.22 ± 0.27
BOPP film break

However, the laminate bond strength of the standard metal layer is considerably higher than
measured during the EAA peel test, although in both cases full metal removal is achieved
(refer to Table 1 and Table 3). This could possibly be caused by the heat exposure during
EAA film sealing, which may weaken the metal-to-substrate bond in the case of non-AluBond®
film samples and could indicate a better high-temperature resistance of AluBond® metallized
film (potentially beneficial for extrusion coating/lamination). Similar to the EAA peel test, one
cannot only look at the metal adhesion/laminate bond strength values obtained, but also needs
to take the failure mode into account. During the 90° unsupported T-peel test, substrate film
break (PET & BOPP) was typical for AluBond®. In the case of AluBond® metallized PET, the
PET film tore at the start of the peel test and no actual peeling was possible (note: the laminate
bond strength given is the maximum load before film break), whilst the AluBond® metallized
8
BOPP did peel to a certain degree until BOPP film break occurred. No material break failure
was obtained when a 180° supported peel test was us ed. In this case, peel forces are typically
higher compared to the forces measured during the T-peel test.

In addition to the duplex laminate structure, also triplex laminate structures were produced
using a printed PET film (blue & white ink) and a CPP film in order to simulate higher
demanding packaging applications. Results of this investigation are summarized in Table 4.
Here, the 90° and 180° peel test deliver very simil ar results. In the case of non-AluBond®
metallized film samples, the peel forces measured are very low and the mode of failure is
nearly complete metal removal (over 90 % of the aluminum is taken off by the printed PET,
with some spots of aluminum remaining on the originally metallized PET). For AluBond®,
however, considerably greater peel forces (about 5 to 7 times higher) are achieved with the
failure mode changing to delamination of the printed PET with a very small level of metal
removal and also film break of the printed PET. In summary, these investigations prove that
also in laminate structures AluBond® process technology outperforms standard metallization.

Table 4 – AluBond® laminate bond strength results on PET (triplex laminate PETprint/metPET/CPP)

Laminate bond
Structure Description strength Adhesion failure mode
N/(15 mm)
180° supported peel test (50 mm/min)
Standard metal 0.70 ± 0.22 > 90 % metal removal
PET/Al
PET print delamination/break
12 µm AluBond® 3.62 ± 0.21
some Al spots removed
90° unsupported peel test (100 mm/min)
Standard metal 0.51 ± 0.12 > 90 % metal removal
PET/Al
PET print delamination/break
12 µm AluBond® 3.91 ± 0.82
some Al spots removed

Overall it should be stated here that different adhesion measurement techniques (e.g. sealing
web type, peel angle, peel speed etc.) will result in different peel force values, since the force
value measured represents the energy required to break the actual bond between metal and
polymer plus “the work spent in other processes, such as the inelastic deformation of the
polymer” [14]. Consequently, only results obtained using exactly the same test protocol should
be compared.

3.3 BARRIER PERFORMANCE

In addition to the adhesion and bond strength evaluation, AluBond® metallized samples have
also been assessed for their barrier performance and results are presented in Table 5 for
metallized BOPP and CPP substrate films at different optical densities. As can be clearly seen,
AluBond® process technology provides significant enhancement of oxygen as well as water
vapor barrier performance. For BOPP films, OTR values are decreased to less than
10 cm³/(m² d), whilst for CPP OTRs of even less than 5 cm³/(m² d) are achieved through
AluBond® metallization. Furthermore, WVTR levels < 0.1 g/(m² d) are obtained on both
substrates.

9
 Table 5 – Barrier performance of AluBond® metallized BOPP and CPP films

OTR WVTR
Structure Description
cm³/(m² d) g/(m² d)
AluBond® 2.5 OD 8.45 ± 0.08 0.06 ± 0.01
BOPP/Al AluBond® 2.8 OD 5.12 ± 0.34 0.03 ± 0.01
20 µm AluBond® 3.3 OD 4.82 ± 0.57 0.03 ± 0.01
Standard metal 2.5 OD* 50 0.4
AluBond® 2.3 OD 3.17 ± 0.42 0.05 ± 0.01
CPP/Al AluBond® 2.7 OD 2.60 ± 0.09 0.04 ± 0.01
25 µm AluBond® 3.3 OD 2.48 ± 0.21 0.03 ± 0.01
Standard metal 2.5 OD* 50 0.15
*Datasheet information

In addition to the tailored AluBond® coating composition boosting the barrier performance of
metallized films, as seen from
Table 5, the intrinsic stability and corrosion resistance of the aluminum metal layer are also
enhanced.
When assessing metallized film samples for WVTR under tropical test conditions (37.8 °C,
90 % RH gradient), it is common practice to face the metal layer away from the 90 % RH test
cell half in order to avoid corrosion of the metal layer. Nevertheless, even when doing so,
corrosion of the metal layer still occurs. Although not necessarily visible to the naked eye
(unlike when the aluminum layer is facing the high RH side of the test cell and corrosion leads
to clear areas where the aluminum has been oxidized to transparent oxide/hydroxide) the
aluminum is slowly attacked, which leads to a continuous rise in the measured WVTR value
and no permeation equilibrium being reached. After prolonged WVTR testing under these
conditions, the attack of the metal layer can also be seen using a light microscope. In some
cases, this continuous rise of WVTR can be avoided by dropping the test RH below 90 % (and
calculating the WVTR for 90 % RH assuming a linear relationship). Nevertheless, we have
also found that during these tests, the WVTR values frequently don’t stabilize for standard
metallized film and show a rising trend. When testing AluBond®, however, none of this
behavior is seen; even at 90 % RH the WVTR values either stabilize or behave the opposite
way and continuously drop. Figure 6 illustrates this behavior during WVTR measurement on
representative samples of AluBond® and non-AluBond® metallized BOPP. As can be seen,
both samples initially start at a value around 0.1 g/(m² d) on their first data point of the test
graph. Nevertheless, whilst the AluBond® sample continues to drop to a value of less than 0.1
g/(m² d), the reference sample continuously rises until the test was stopped at around 0.45
g/(m² d). These results indicate that AluBond® additionally offers a more stable and less
humidity/corrosion sensitive aluminum coating.

10
 Non-AluBond® metallized BOPP

g/(m² d)

AluBond® metallized BOPP

g/(m² d)

Figure 6 – Water vapor transmission rate graphs showing measurement of non-AluBond® reference
(top) and AluBond® (bottom) metallized BOPP

3.4 METALLIZING DEFECTS

Samples of AluBond® metallized PET and the corresponding non-AluBond® metallized

reference samples were additionally examined for metallizing defects such as
pinholes/windows and starry-night using an optical microscope. Two representative images
for metallized PET are depicted in Figure 7. As can be clearly seen, AluBond® had a drastic
impact in reducing the smaller-sized starry-night type defects in the metallized PET film. Whilst
larger pinholes/windows are visibly present for both metallized film samples, starry-night
defects are completely absent for the AluBond® metallized film investigated. This suggests
that the enhanced metal adhesion performance of AluBond® metallized film can reduces the
likelihood of metal pickoff from small antiblock particles embedded in the film surface, which
is typically assumed to be the origin of this type of defect [15].

11
 AluBond® Non-AluBond®

300 µm 300 µm

Figure 7 – Light microscope images of AluBond® metallized PET (left) and the corresponding
standard metallized PET film (right)

3.5 DYNE LEVEL RETENTION

Despite one of the main properties of AluBond® being the high metal adhesion, the process
technology has also has shown to offer further benefit to the metallizing and converting
industry in terms of higher dyne level and better dyne level retention. Unlike metallized PET
films, which typically do maintain a high dyne level for longer storage periods, metallized
polyolefin based films suffer from unwanted surface energy decay. This effect is considered
to be caused by the transfer of mobile low-molecular-weight polymeric material (oligomers)
and migratory additives (if present) from the reverse side of the coated film onto the coating,
and also migration from the bulk polymer through the coating onto its surface (via defects in
the coating). The freshly deposited aluminum layer would exhibit a very high surface energy
(several 100 mN/m for clean metals [16, 17]) and, therefore, is extremely reactive.
Consequently, the surface can readily (and rapidly) attract mobile materials and contaminants,
in order to lower its surface energy. This inevitably occurs as soon as the film is wound into a
roll after the coating process, and the fresh coating surface is in direct contact with the
uncoated back surface of the polymer film. The process is driven by thermodynamics, with the
aim to minimize the surface energy and to obtain an energetically favorable and stable state.
To which extent the dyne level drops hence depends on the amount of migratable material
and film additive that is available in the substrate film, the storage temperature (elevated
temperatures promote quicker migration/transfer and hence faster dyne level decay) and also
the glass transition temperature of the polymer film (e.g. differences between metalized PET
and CPP/BOPP).
During our investigation, A4 swatch samples were kept under ambient conditions (23 ± 2 °C)
and regular dyne level assessments were conducted over a period of several month. Results
are shown in Figure 8 for metallized BOPP and in Figure 9 for metallized CPP.

12
 Figure 8 – Retention of dyne level over time for AluBond® metallized versus a non- AluBond®
metallized BOPP film

Figure 9 – Retention of dyne level over time for AluBond® metallized versus a non- AluBond®
metallized CPP film

As can be clearly seen, the AluBond® metallized samples outperform the standard metallized
films in that they offer an improved dyne level and maintain a higher dyne level for longer. In
the case of the BOPP film, the AluBond® sample has upheld a dyne level of ≥ 60 mN/m for
over 200 days, whilst the surface energy of the non-AluBond® sample has dropped to 50 mN/m
in the same period of time, although both initially exhibited the same surface energy level after
metallization. For the metallized CPP samples, Figure 9 depicts that for both samples the dyne
level drops with storage time; however, with AluBond® this drop is to a smaller degree. This
shows that in addition to the factors affecting the dyne level of metallized films which have
been stated above, also the specific characteristics of the deposited metallization layer play
a critical role. The tailored stoichiometry/composition of the AluBond® metallization layer
makes the coating less susceptible for polymer transfer from the reverse side of the film, thus
13
creating a more stable metal coating surface and promoting improved dyne level retention.
This can add benefit during subsequent conversion steps such as printing, coating or
lamination by initiating better ink receptivity or coating/adhesive wettability and may even
eliminate the need for additional boost treatment before conversion, such as corona refresh
on the laminator or printing press.

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

BOBST AluBond® technology has been shown to offer three main benefits to producers and
convertors of metallized film: significantly enhanced metal adhesion to the polymer substrate;
improved barrier performance (OTR and WVTR) including moisture resistance at high relative
humidity; defect reduction and enhanced dyne level together with better dyne level retention.
Therefore, AluBond® technology addresses and satisfies several current market demands for
enhanced performance packaging materials.
The benefit of added barrier performance for AluBond® metallized films may also eliminate the
need for high optical density metallization (4 OD and higher, which is perceived to deliver
better barrier properties), as similar barrier levels can be achieved at much lower OD. In this
way, the thermal load to the substrate can be reduced, which is the limiting factor when
metallizing heat-sensitive or thinner gauge substrates and less raw materials are required,
thus reducing the overall fixed cost of the metallization process.
Moreover, with the quest for recyclability and more sustainable packing materials, there is an
increasing trend of moving towards completely polyolefin based packaging structures.
However, oxygen barrier levels of ≤ 1 cm³/(m² d), i.e. metallized PET film equivalent, are still
the target, which is very difficult to achieve on non-polar polyolefin substrates and, hence,
provides challenges for metallizing as well as film formulation. With the use of AluBond®
technology, it is, for the first time, possible to come close to this target barrier level and further
development of the AluBond® process together with film substrate optimization are likely to
lead towards reaching this milestone.

5 FUTURE WORK & DEVELOPMENTS

Further characterization work is currently planned in order to assess the benefit of BOBST
AluBond® process technology in combination with extrusion coating/lamination and more
demanding triplex laminate applications. Also the corrosion resistance associated with
AluBond® will be investigated further.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the R&D and competence center staff at Bobst Manchester
Ltd. for their patience and support in producing and analyzing the large amounts of trials and
associated film samples required for the AluBond® development and characterization project.

6 REFERENCES

[1] Test procedure metal adhesion - Seal test, 1999, European Metallizers Association
(EMA) - Technical Committee Films.
[2] AIMCAL Test Procedure TP-105-92 for Qualitatively Determining Metal Adhesion of
Metallized Films, AIMCAL Metallizing Technical Reference, 2012, p. 6 - 11.

14
[3] BS EN ISO 11339:2010 Adhesives - T-peel test for flexible-to-flexible bonded
assemblies 2010, International Organization for Standardization.
[4] ASTM F88 / F88M - 15 Standard test method for seal strength of flexible barrier
materials, 2015, ASTM International.
[5] ASTM F1927 - 07 Standard test method for determination of oxygen gas transmission
rate, permeability and permeance at controlled relative humidity through barrier
materials using a coulometric detector, 2007, ASTM International.
[6] ASTM F1249 - 06 Standard test method for water vapor transmission rate through
plastic film and sheeting using a modulated infrared sensor, 2006, ASTM International.
[7] ISO 15106-3 - Plastics - Film and sheeting - Determination of water vapour
transmission rate - Part 3: Electrolytic detection sensor method, 2003, International
Organization for Standardization.
[8] ASTM D2578 - 09 Standard test method for wetting tension of polyethylene and
polypropylene films, 2009, ASTM International.
[9] ISO 8296 - Plastics - Film and sheeting - Determination of wetting tension, 2003,
International Organization for Standardization.
[10] M. Jesdinszki, C. Struller, N. Rodler, D. Blondin, V. Cassio, E. Kucukpinar, H.-C.
Langowski, Evaluation of adhesion strength between thin aluminum layer and
poly(ethylene terephthalate) substrate by peel tests — A practical approach for the
packaging industry, Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 2012, 26 (20-21),
p. 2357-2380.
[11] A. Hagemeyer, H. Hibst, J. Heitz, D. Bauerle, Improvements of the peel test for
adhesion evaluation of thin metallic films on polymeric substrates, Journal of Adhesion
Science and Technology, 1994, 8 (1), p. 29-40.
[12] K. L. Mittal, Adhesion measurements of films and coatings: A commentary, in Adhesion
measurements of films and coatings, K. L. Mittal, ed., 1995, VSP, Utrecht, p. 1-13.
[13] C. F. Struller, P. J. Kelly, N. J. Copeland, C. M. Liauw, Characterization studies of
aluminum oxide barrier coatings on polymeric substrates, Journal of Vacuum Science
& Technology A, 2012, 30 (4), p. 041502.
[14] K. L. Mittal, Adhesion measurement of thin films, Electrocomponent Science and
Technology, 1976, 3, p. 21-42.
[15] L. Harland, S. Serednycky, N. Copeland, Characterisation of typical process defects
found on an industrial R2R metalliser, AIMCAL Fall Technical Conference, 2013.
[16] D. M. Mattox, Handbook of physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing, 1998, Noyes
Publications, Park Ridge, NJ.
[17] J. E. Castle, The composition of metal surfaces after atmospheric exposure: An
historical perspective, The Journal of Adhesion, 2008, 84 (4), p. 368-388.

15