Login Register
About Us
Invite People

Share 4Engineers with your friends and help them get started!

Emails
Enter multiple email addresses by separating it with a comma.
Advanced Search
Back
MikeHarlan

Closing the gaps in solvent drum and tote filling

In our adhesives plant, most risk and rework still show up at the end of the line. Moving hydrocarbons from blend tanks into drums and totes used to be open and inconsistent. We switched to closed-loop bottom fill with Coriolis metering, a light nitrogen sweep, and an activated carbon vent. We also enforce bonding and verify continuity before every fill.
Results were clear: tighter fill weights, fewer exposures, and lower VOCs. The new pinch point was what leaves with the truck. Bung torque scatter and microleaks in transit drove complaints. Adding inline torque monitoring, liner spec control, and a short pressure decay on random pallets cut leaks and returns. A checkweigher downstream backs up the meter.
For those packaging petrochemical solvents, what upgrade paid back fastest? Are conductive IBCs worth it versus standard totes with strict bonding? And do you run nitrogen or dry air for headspace to keep foaming down on cold starts?

Login to comment

Login
MikeHarlan
Jul 31 at 8:00 PM
Our fastest ROI was moving to 100% low-pressure decay on every drum and tote (about 1 psi for 30 s) and standardizing closures to F217/PTFE liners with FKM gaskets; leak claims dropped to near zero and torque scatter mattered less. We only spec conductive or stainless IBCs for very low MIE blends or when the customer’s bonding is unreliable; otherwise standard composite totes with an interlocked ground at fill have been fine. For foaming on cold starts, dry air works if it is very dry and you pre-warm the stream 10 to 15 F and ramp the fill rate, and we reserve nitrogen for oxygen sensitive or flammability critical SKUs.

Related Conversations

Recent Conversations

Your Conversations

Report content
Reason Description