Made with FlowPaper - Flipbook Maker
POLYMERS BOOST FUNCTION AND APPEAL OF EV CHARGING UNITS WEARABLES MEET DEMAND FOR FUNCTION AND COMFORT Sensor-Equipped Products Are Small, Accurate And Reliable PLUS MARCH/APRIL 2023INSIDE PLASTICS ENGINEERING VOLUME 79 NUMBER 2 MARCH/APRIL 2023 10 EMPOWERING SOLUTIONS Polymer technologies help make high-voltage EVs safer, lighter and more energy efficient. 16 GET YOUR OWN! Plastics Engineering keeps plastics industry professionals informed of the latest news and in-depth reporting on state-of-the-art and emerging technologies that impact the R&D and processing of plastics products. This is the magazine every plastics industry professional NEEDS to read. 4spe.org/Subscribe 4 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR ELECTRIFYING PROSPECTS EV charging system makers use plastics to improve and differentiate their products. COVER STORY 2022 Folio Eddie Award Winner for Single Article in the Non-profit Professional Membership Association category. Honorable Mention in the same category for Range of Work by a Single Author. 2022 TRENDY Award for Most Improved Magazine. www.plasticsengineering.org | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 146 | New Product News ANTEC TO HONOR MONTGOMERY SHAW Renowned colleagues will present their work in rheology and polymer processing at a special symposium. 8 | Set Point 3Dnatives, AM media platform, joins SPE; Robert Forger, heralded SPE director, dies. 47 | Calendar 48 | Ad/Editorial Index INSIDE PLASTICS ENGINEERING VOLUME 79 NUMBER 2 MARCH/APRIL 2023 38 | Hail To The Chief SPE’s new president, Bruce Mulholland, brings insight, experience and a can-do attitude to the job. 28 5 | The Legal Angle FTC seeks consumer input on sustainability for updated guides. POWER CONTROL U.S. manufacturers boost capacity for battery separator films to meet growing EV demand. 24 GOING IN STYLE Advanced polymers give wearables performance and comfort for health and recreational needs. ENLIGHTENED INNOVATIONS Lighting technologies increase EV visibility, build visual brand recognition. 20 DIAGNOSTICS TO GO UC San Diego researchers use SEBS copolymer to develop a wearable ultrasound patch. 32 40 | Sustainability Is Major Topic At SPE European Conference Experts gather in Brussels to discuss developments in additives, pigments, dyes and masterbatches. 42 | Thermosets To The Fore SPE’s annual Topcon conference will showcase developments and examine ways to grow the industry. 6 | CEO Letter Mutual understanding begins with mutual respect. 34 44 | SPE News 2 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | www.plasticsengineering.orgPatrick Toensmeier Editor-in-Chief (203) 777-1474 ptoensmeier@4spe.org Michael Greskiewicz Director, Sales & Advertising (203) 740-5411 mgreskiewicz@4spe.org Ryan Foster Art Director (203) 740-5410 rfoster@4spe.org Sue Wojnicki Chief Operating Officer (203) 740-5420 swojnicki@4spe.org Editorial & Publishing Staff President Bruce Mulholland CEO Patrick Farrey President-Elect Conor Carlin Director – Chapters ScottEastman Director – Business & Finance, Treasurer James Waddell Elected Director Todd Bier Elected Director Praveen Boopalachandran Elected Director Jeremy Dworshak Director – Secretary Lynzie Nebel Elected Director Diane Marret Elected Director Gustavo Nechar Elected Director Margaret Sobkowicz Past President Jason Lyons SPE 2023-2024 Board of Directors Contributing Editors NANCY D. LAMONTAGNE ndlamontagne@gmail.com Nancy D. Lamontagne reports on science, technology and engineering. Topics she covers for Plastics Engineering include thermoforming, blow molding, medical plastics, packaging, and education and career development. ROBERT GRACE bob@rcgrace.com Robert Grace has been in B2B journalism since 1980. He covers design and business for Plastics Engineering and is editor of SPE’s Journal of Blow Molding. Professional memberships include the Industrial Designers Society of America. JENNIFER MARKARIAN technicalwritingsolutions@comcast.net Jennifer Markarian has been reporting on the plastics industry for more than 20 years, covering a range of technology topics. She is also the newsletter editor for SPE’s Palisades-MidAtlantic Chapter. ERIC F. GREENBERG Eric Greenberg focuses on food and drug law, packaging law and commercial litigation. Work includes regulatory counseling, label and claims review, product development, GRAS, food contact materials evaluations and clearances, and related areas. www.plasticsengineering.org | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 3 PEGGY MALNATI peggy@malnatiandassociates.com Peggy Malnati has over 30 years’ experience covering plastics, composites and automotive. She has organized technical conferences for SPE and served as board member and communications chair for SPE’s Automotive Division. GEOFF GIORDANO geoffgio@verizon.net Geoff Giordano has been a contributor to Plastics Engineering since 2009, covering a range of topics, including additives, infrastructure, flexible electronics, design software, 3D printing and nanotechnology. FROM THE T he Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is investigating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in hiring and whether this discriminates against job applicants. AI programs are of some value in machine-learning applications. Many new plastics process machines are equipped with AI software that monitors manufacturing and “learns” to adjust process parameters to assure that machines are productive, produce high-quality parts and are cost-effective to operate. All of which, of course, is good for competitiveness. The EEOC, however, questions whether AI, when applied beyond part production, can be relied upon to accurately screen something as nuanced as job candidates and select for employment consideration those who meet a company’s recruitment criteria. The Commission held a public hearing on Jan. 31, in Washington, D.C., to examine the use of automated systems, including AI, in employment. The hearing, “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier,” included testimony from computer scientists, civil rights advocates, legal experts, an industrial psychologist and employers. They discussed how discrimination may occur when companies use automated systems, as well as ways in which AI and automated systems in the workplace might support or hinder diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility efforts. “The goals of this hearing were to both educate a broader audience about the civil rights implications of the use of these technologies and to identify next steps that the Commission can take to prevent and eliminate unlawful bias in employers’ use of these automated technologies,” said EEOC chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “We will continue to educate employers, workers and other stakeholders on the potential for unlawful bias so that these systems do not become high-tech pathways to discrimination.” With plastics and other industries dealing with a shortage of workers, AI is often used to speed the selection and hiring of qualified individuals. The problem is in the reliability of AI as a selection mechanism and if the EEOC could interpret its use as discriminatory. Should this happen, the next step could be laws that restrict AI, along with litigation by the plaintiffs’ bar to collect damages from allegations of discrimination via individual or class-action lawsuits. Almost all big employers in the U.S. use AI and automation in hiring, according to National Public Radio in a Jan. 31 report. NPR quoted Burrows as saying at the hearing that “Some 83 percent of employers, including 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies, now use some … automated tool as part of their hiring process. The stakes are simply too high to leave this topic just to the experts.” Interestingly, many experts are not sold on the intelligence of artificial intelligence—at least not now. While futurists—or soothsayers, whichever you prefer—predict that humanity is marching in lockstep to the Great Singularity, that time (as soon as 2030, some claim) when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, and results in unforeseeable changes to civilization, much will need to be done to improve the IQ of AI by then. In fact, in a broadcast by NPR on Feb. 2, reporter Geoff Brumfiel interviewed AI experts who said the technology is not now capable of developing accurate conclusions based on data it analyzes. “These systems make mistakes all the time,” said Gary Marcus, an AI scientist who, with Ernest Davis, co-wrote the book Rebooting AI. “[The systems] don’t really understand what they’re talking about.” Some AI researchers, Marcus added, think that the software just needs more development, but he isn’t so sure. “There are some people that I think have a fantasy that we will solve the truth problem of these systems by just giving them more data. And there are people that realize [AI systems are] missing something fundamental: the ability to look at a database and fact-check against that database.” A decision from the EEOC on this may come sooner than later. If the Commission finds a case for discrimination in using AI in hiring, one EEOC lawyer tells me, it will use a conciliation process and try and negotiate a settlement before attempting to litigate one. It would thus do well for plastics companies to keep an eye on decisions from the EEOC and to volunteer their input in any future hearings. PAT TOENSMEIER Editor-in-Chief ptoensmeier@4spe.org AI YAI YAI 4 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | www.plasticsengineering.orgTHE LEGAL ANGLE A long-anticipated effort has begun. An update to the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides” began last December with the agency’s request for public comments on a range of topics. It will be fascinating to watch the FTC deal with one of the specific claims it seeks input on: “sustainable.” The Dec. 20 Federal Register announcement said the deadline for public comments was Feb. 21, 2023, but, as I write in late January, I am predicting that by the time you read this, the FTC will have extended the deadline, as agencies commonly do when a topic is of wide public interest. Thus, if you are inclined to submit comments to the FTC, I am betting that when you read this, there will still be time to get your licks in. As I wrote in this space last year (November/ December 2022 Plastics Engineering, p. 9), the Green Guides, formally called the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, are the FTC’s attempt to help companies avoid misleading consumers when they tout the environmental attributes of their products and packages on labeling or in advertising, promotional materials or “any other forms of marketing.” The FTC says, “For each claim covered, the Guides: (1) explain how reasonable consumers likely interpret it; (2) describe the basic elements necessary to substantiate it; and (3) present options for qualifications to avoid deception.” By “qualifications” they mean caveats or explanatory text that would be added to a claim. The FTC’s invitation, published in the Federal Register (Vol. 87, No. 243), lists 19 general topics and 12 specific ones on which they’d like to hear from you. The general topics include: The need for the Guides; their benefits to business, especially small business; what modifications are needed; the impact they’ve had on the information conveyed and costs; evidence of consumer perception of and interest in environmental claims, and of the levels of industry compliance; whether there are claims covered by the Guides for which guidance isn’t needed anymore; and what claims that aren’t covered should be. The FTC also wants to hear about perceptions that “the Guides overlap or conflict with other federal, state or local laws or regulations,” and even international laws, regulations or standards. As for the specific topics they want to hear about, each is focused on questions about one claim term such as carbon offsets, climate change, degradability, recyclability and recycled content. But my favorite is “sustainable,” because way back in 2012 the FTC said they didn’t think the public had a clear enough idea of what the term means, so the commission could not offer guidance as to when it was or wasn’t misleading to use the term. Now they want to hear from folks about whether that’s still true, and what evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of the word “sustainable,” among other details. We’ll see what the FTC learns from public input, but my perception is that consumers still don’t have a consistent or clear understanding of what makes a product or package “sustainable,” even though since 2012, it’s become a wildly popular marketing word. What’s more, marketers appear to use the word to refer to many different product characteristics or manufacturing practices, that are in some way not wasteful and good to the Earth over time. Even Wikipedia’s entry on the word states “Specific definitions of sustainability are difficult to agree on …,” though it says it’s “commonly described as having three dimensions … environmental, economic and social.” As an indicator of how popular “sustainable” is as a marketing claim or product characteristic, I searched for the word on Amazon and got over 70,000 results. (For comparison, I also searched Amazon for two random terms, and got over 30,000 results for “rain gear,” and over 200,000 results for “novelty gifts.” Maybe the lesson here is that on Amazon, everything is popular.) As with many regulations or guidance documents about labeling and advertising claims, the Green Guides define what is and isn’t false or misleading and standardize the way terminology is used. With a little luck, FTC’s new request for public comments will yield grist for it to grind into more useful guidance, so industry doesn’t have to wonder whether it’s misleading consumers, and consumers will have confidence that such terms mean what they think they mean. Eric F. Greenberg is Principal Attorney of Eric F. Greenberg, PC, Chicago, with a practice concentrated in food and drug law, packaging law and commercial litigation. Website is www. Ericfgreenbergpc.com. This column is informational only and not legal advice. A version of this column appeared in the December 2022 edition of Packaging World. GREEN GUIDES GET ANOTHER LOOK BY ERIC F. GREENBERG www.plasticsengineering.org | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 5R egular readers of Plastics Engineering know that I am a proponent of the principles of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). I believe that any professional society, whether business or industry, is better if its workforce is diverse, its opportunities for success and advancement are equitable and its conversations are inclusive. Recently, some companies and DEI experts have begun adding a “+R” to their work, reflecting a commitment to fostering workplace diversity, equity, inclusion + respect. While “+R” is a noble goal, the fact that it is even necessary to work toward mutual respect is, to me, heartbreaking. When did acting disrespectfully become so commonplace that we now need an entire movement to retrain people to act respectfully toward each other in business, as well as in society? Today, I am setting aside my efforts to change hearts and minds about DEI+R. I am learning that it’s a “big ask” to get individuals and companies to change their beliefs or feelings. Perhaps it’s more realistic to instead ask us to change our behavior. SPE, as a professional society, encourages scientific debate. I love listening to two professionals with differing technical opinions fiercely defend their own positions. But the fierceness of these discussions should remain pointed at the topic of discussion, not at the other person with whom you disagree. To create a culture of respect, we need to be constantly mindful of our actions. Words matter. So do tone and volume of voice, body language and intent. Maybe SPE’s DEI+R work won’t change the world. Maybe we won’t change the way people feel or think. But maybe, just maybe, we can all see a little of ourselves in the following story, which was written by Amanda Peak, a relatively new member of the plastics industry whose first presentation at an SPE conference drew some contentious and unnecessary comments from one person in the audience. Maybe we have all sometimes been a little too harsh, a little too loud, a little too disrespectful, when trying to get our point across. Maybe, like our young colleague Amanda, we can recognize that such behavior is unnecessary, and we can resolve to be a little more self-aware and respectful in all our interactions. PAT FARREY CEO, SPE CAN WE BEGIN TREATING EACH OTHER MORE RESPECTFULLY AGAIN, PLEASE? I had a great time delivering a presentation at a recent SPE event and I received a lot of positive feedback from the audience. My goal was to deliver a logical and easy- to-understand presentation, blending older concepts of the topic I discussed with new ways of thinking. The topic was a basic tutorial for people new to the industry. I hoped that they would be excited and inspired about the technology and possible applications that I spoke about. Most of the audience believed that my presentation hit the mark, but I faced unwarranted criticism during the question-and-answer session. I have many identities. I introduce myself to people as Amanda. Because of my curiosity about how the world works, I became a scientist. I graduated from Penn State, and now work for Baerlocher. There are many other aspects to my identity, but on the day of my presentation, I was reminded that I am also a woman in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). SPE organizers invited me to present at the event because they are trying to introduce new faces to an aging industry. They believe that people with different backgrounds and identities have unique experiences which could lead to new ways of thinking. Many veteran plastics leaders and presenters also asked to hear from more voices to help move the industry forward and help shape its future. I was honored to participate in the SPE event and share my work. I wrote and edited my presentation many times over. I practiced my presentation with my peers, many of whom have deep knowledge in this field, and later with people newer to the industry. I asked for feedback: What are key pieces to include? How can I improve the flow? What background information should I include to convey the primary message? I wanted feedback because I knew that with broad and diverse insights, I would deliver a better presentation. I wanted to combine multiple perspectives delivered through the lens of my experience to help advance the future of our industry. I was proud of the presentation, both in terms of the content and my delivery. Unfortunately, when it came time for questions from the audience, instead of an honest inquiry grounded in actual curiosity, I was met with outright, and often misguided, criticism from some people in attendance. One individual restated information already included in the presentation as though he was teaching me. He stated random facts that were not meaningful to the presentation and claimed that I mispronounced a word. These critical comments emboldened others in the audience to weigh in. An audience member sought to explain a decades-old history of regulatory changes in Europe, all of which was immaterial. Another person questioned my knowledge of chemistry by stating a fact well-known to chemists. Instead of welcoming someone new to the stage, I was treated like I was defending a doctoral thesis by people who were more interested in their performance than in my RESPECT OTHERS AS YOU RESPECT YOURSELF 6 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | www.plasticsengineering.orgeducation. There were several presentations throughout the day, but I was the only person who was treated this way. Other presenters were shown respect. Following their presentations, people asked questions instead of voicing disagreement and random information. Questions are rooted in curiosity and a desire to better understand material people may not be familiar with. They are used to continue and expand a conversation. Negative comments place a cap on information flow and shut a conversation down. The negative feedback did not serve to improve my presentation or meet the needs of the industry. Peer review and feedback shapes our environment when done honestly and without bias. It can be a gift or a weapon, depending on the intent. While I don’t know why some audience members chose criticism instead of a nuanced conversation, the exchange did not feel like a gift. Nuanced conversations are how we grow and connect, add depth among our different experiences, and work together towards new opportunities. Disrespect runs counter to these goals and leads to disconnection and alienation. Throughout our careers, we will have opportunities to share our knowledge. This can be done on a small scale (e.g., mentoring or learning one-on-one with colleagues) or on a large scale such as presenting at a conference. Either way, it takes courage to speak your truth, but we walk through the fear because we value sharing of knowledge. No matter what your level is within an organization, you can be a leader by speaking truth and sharing knowledge. Doing so helps us discover ways to collaborate, innovate and grow together. Despite my experience at this one event, I continue to share my knowledge and to assume others want to hear what I have to say. My personal values helped me through the experience. Values are forward thinking and help define who we are, and when applied, they guide our decisions. When we follow our values, decision-making is easier, and our world is in balance. Organizations also have values. The core values of an organization set it apart from others. They guide a company over the years, define workplace culture and are the reason why employees stay. My values and the core values of my organization demand that people are treated with respect. On the day of my presentation, I expected everyone in the room to uphold certain values like respect of others. I think of these as “permission-to-play” values that we expect from peers—from anyone, really. These values guide how we relate to and communicate with each other. When teams hold these values, members feel a sense of belonging and psychological safety which are needed for self-expression and sharing knowledge. What does respect mean and how do we show it? Among the Oxford Dictionary’s definitions of respect are: “Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights or traditions of others. Avoid harming or interfering with.” Respect requires us to balance our needs with our treatment of others. Once understood, respect is something that can be learned, and as with all things, practice will make you more respectful. Respect means you share your attention, regardless of race, gender, abilities and other identifiers. The opposite of respect is excluding and alienating other people. Respect requires us to keep our egos in check. Sometimes we can be the expert in the room, and other times, we need to let the spotlight shine on others. If the expert is the same person every time, then we will end up siloed and stuck in our own group echo chambers. Respect also requires equitable opportunities. Equal opportunity is more than just having a chance at the same thing. It includes equitable opportunities resulting in equal outcomes. Without respect, we don’t have a chance to develop equal outcomes since there is a learning curve to all things in life. Having respect means we are oriented towards others and connection. Diversity, equity and inclusion requires respect. Freundefreude, or finding pleasure in another person’s good fortune, is a form of respect used to make connections, build teams and innovate. Delving into schadenfreude, or pleasure derived from another person’s misfortune, creates weak bonds. It might be nothing more than cheap fun at another’s expense, but it does not create a lasting connection and there is no base for those who want to build. At a more recent conference I was talking with some peers when I encountered one of the naysayers. He was not excited to see me, but some awkward small talk led to a simple human connection. He discovered that we attended the same college and root for the same team. We have something in common and thus have an opportunity to build on this connection. I choose freundefreude. He is a very smart and engaging person who has given his time to support people who are new to a challenging industry. Our industry needs to come together to solve big challenges. No one gets anywhere alone. AMANDA PEAK Technical Specialist, Baerlocher USA DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION IN MANUFACTURING WEB SERIES LEARN MORE AT 4SPE.ORG/DEI www.plasticsengineering.org | MARCH/APRIL 2023 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 7Next >