This statement was explained to me one of the very first times I performed a changeover. Although it was small scale and so were the sample sizes, it seemed fitting. But is this the most effective thought process when considering all the costs associated with a changeover?
I want to break this down into a few critical areas all processors should be attentive to when ‘diluting their pollution’ on their next change over. The three areas we should focus on are running costs, amount of material purged, and replacement resin used.
When you use the concept of ‘dilution of pollution’ you find yourself using a large amount of production resin to displace the previous resin. This, in turn, creates excess costs and inefficiencies. In a scenario of black to white, this could take hours and excessive amounts of product to make good parts. It may even require a complete tear-down. Substituting a purge compound can reduce this time wasted simply because it has a lower-flow and additives designed to pull colorant out of the machine.
If you take that same concept of substituting a purge compound for production resin, you will see a huge reduction in scrap and waste. This is simply because purge compounds have the backbones to remove build-up and colorant that a production resin does not.
Adding to the thought of using less material, what happens? You have less down time. Although this is not a law of Physics, it is a good theory that can be proven true time and time again using our Cost Savings Analysis to help conduct this experiment. This tool calculates all the costs, we as processors, should be focused on when conducting a changeover.
Ready to reduce your production downtime to protect your profits? Learn more about how purging compounds and process efficiency work in tandem.
Comments