Open Mouth Bags: How Material Diversity and Co-Extrusion Define Quality

Sub‑title: A systems map for specifying lighter, stronger, and cleaner retail‑to‑industrial packaging

What is Open Mouth Bags (also called SOM, PBOM, PP/PE Woven & Film Sacks)?

Open Mouth Bags are pre‑made sacks designed to be filled through an open top, then closed by sewing, heat sealing, or adhesive activation. In the trade they carry several aliases: sewn open‑mouth (SOM) sacks, pinch‑bottom open‑mouth (PBOM) paper bags, PP woven open‑mouth sacks, and PE/PE‑blend film bags. Although the constructions differ—multiwall kraft paper, woven polypropylene (with or without BOPP lamination), and co‑extruded polyethylene films—the functional promise is unified: predictable filling, robust handling, and brand‑forward presentation. Why emphasize the name Open Mouth Bags? Because the term signals a manufacturing philosophy as much as a format—modular substrates (paper/fabric/film), purposeful seams, and engineered surfaces composed to fit a product, a line, and a logistics route. For readers seeking a quick typology refresher, the PP woven category summarized here—Open Mouth Bags—anchors many baseline specifications that are later extended with coatings, laminations, or paper/film hybrids.

Background & field knowledge. Packaging engineers do not simply chase capacity; they orchestrate a balance among drop resistance, humidity exposure, filling speed, dust control, food‑contact compliance, print quality, and cost‑to‑serve. Within that orchestration, Open Mouth Bags sit at a versatile node between adjacent options: valve bags where high‑speed powder dosing dominates; FFS tubular rolls for full automation and in‑line forming; FIBCs for bulk movement. Materials science (molecular orientation, co‑extrusion, paper‑ply architecture), converting methods (weaving, pinch‑bottom forming, lamination), and distribution physics (pallet geometry, creep, compression) create the boundary conditions. Compliance frameworks—migration limits, labeling rules, drop/stack protocols—turn those conditions into pass/fail criteria.

Horizontal & vertical thinking. Horizontally, compare Open Mouth Bags by material family and borrow the best from each: the stiffness and print latitude of paper; the truss‑like tear resistance of woven PP; the hermetic sealing and clarity of co‑extruded PE. Vertically, trace causality from resin or pulp selection → layer architecture → seam design → QA protocol → route hazards. The pattern that emerges is not accidental: material diversity and co‑extrusion expand the design space, enabling thinner walls, stronger seams, and cleaner operations without sacrificing usability.

What is the features of Open Mouth Bags?

Open Mouth Bags exhibit four feature clusters that together define performance. Each cluster lives at the intersection of field practice and foundational science; each benefits from viewing across industries (horizontal) and along the process chain (vertical).

1) Strength‑to‑weight engineering. Oriented PP tapes in woven fabrics behave like micro‑beams transmitting load along warp and weft; multiwall papers distribute stress across plies, balancing machine‑ and cross‑direction strength; co‑extruded films stack layers so that a tough core, a durable exterior, and a low‑temperature sealing interior cooperate. Data supports the practicality of this balance: industrial ranges routinely seen in supplier catalogs and factory labs include woven fabric at ~60–110 g/m² (meshes ~7×7 to 12×12), multiwall paper with 2–4 plies at ~70–100 g/m² per ply, and heavy‑duty PE films at ~80–200 µm. Case experience reinforces the effect: a rice brand migrating from 95 g/m² woven with a single‑fold bottom to 85 g/m² with a double‑fold/double‑stitch recovered more than 20% edge strength while reducing tare mass; pallet lean diminished because seam stiffness and load paths improved. Comparative outcomes are consistent: at the same tare, woven‑PP Open Mouth Bags resist long‑term creep under stack better than single‑layer film, enabling taller pallets; where condensation is common, co‑extruded PE Open Mouth Bags preserve integrity better than paper.

2) Surface & barrier customization. The bag’s “skin” is not cosmetic; it is where sifting is arrested and where graphics sell. Open Mouth Bags accept PP/PE coatings that seal weave pinholes and add moisture resistance; BOPP laminations that deliver photo‑grade print and rub resistance; and functional co‑extruded films that layer slip, anti‑block, and barrier where needed. Quantitatively, coatings around 15–30 g/m², BOPP films around 10–35 g/m², and film stacks tuned for a wide heat‑seal window are routine in factories. A frequently observed remedy illustrates the point: pet‑food sacks suffering abrasion “whitening” moved from coated fabric to matte‑BOPP laminated Open Mouth Bags; shelf legibility improved and complaints fell, with drop performance unchanged because the structural fabric and seam logic were constant. In horizontal comparison, PBOM paper Open Mouth Bags excel at crisp, brick‑like stacks and premium litho‑like print; BOPP/PP woven excels in wet‑market durability; co‑extruded PE excels in hermetic closures for hygroscopic powders.

3) Seam architecture & closures. Seams transmute materials into structure. In Open Mouth Bags the bottom may be sewn (single vs double fold), pinch‑formed with hot‑melt (paper), or heat‑sealed (co‑ex films). Tops can be hemmed, heat‑sealed, wire‑tied, or designed for re‑closure. Stitch pitch, thread tex, fold depth, and adhesive selection correlate strongly with measured edge‑tear strength. A fertilizer SKU that saw pop‑opens eliminated the mode by tightening weft from roughly 8 to 10 picks/inch at constant GSM and switching to double‑fold bottoms, essentially redistributing force from thread to lattice. Sewn closures forgive dusty fills and field re‑work; heat seals deliver cleanliness and speed on form‑fill lines; pinch bottoms produce retail‑grade rectangular bricks for display‑driven categories.

4) Compliance & hygiene baked‑in. For food applications, Open Mouth Bags rely on virgin resins and compliant inks/adhesives within auditable supply chains. Regulatory anchors are operational, not decorative: EU 10/2011 sets an overall migration limit of 10 mg/dm² and specific migration limits by substance; U.S. FDA 21 CFR 177.1520 governs olefin polymers; ISO 7965 defines drop testing for filled sacks; GB/T 8946 codifies general technical requirements for plastic woven sacks. Outdoor routes add UV retention as a constraint: UV‑stabilized tapes are verified by tensile retention after accelerated exposure. Horizontally, this connects regulatory science with materials selection; vertically, it ties supplier declarations to lot‑traceable QA and, ultimately, to complaint rates.

What is the production process of Open Mouth Bags?

The production of Open Mouth Bags is best understood as coupled levers that can be tuned independently yet must harmonize in practice.

Material & compounding. Resin or pulp selection establishes mechanical baselines. Polyolefins (PP/PE) can be dosed with UV masterbatch, slip/anti‑block, pigments, and tie resins to widen processing windows and raise longevity; sack kraft choices determine stiffness and tear balance. Here, horizontal thinking borrows from film and textile industries to select additives by mechanism rather than by habit, while vertical thinking links additive choice directly to sealing behavior, print adhesion, and weathering.

Structure formation. Three paths dominate. The woven PP path: film extrusion → slitting into tapes → stretch orientation to raise tensile modulus → weaving on circular or flat looms, with mesh density setting stiffness, air permeability, and sifting control. The paper path: aligning sack‑kraft plies with attention to machine‑ and cross‑direction properties, optionally adding PE liners or foil for barrier, then forming the PBOM mouth for adhesive activation. The co‑extruded PE path: multi‑layer dies build ABC or ABCBA stacks (e.g., HDPE outer for scuff resistance, LLDPE core for toughness, LDPE inner for sealability) so that each layer does its own job well. Horizontally, these paths echo composite design in aerospace: different layers, different roles; vertically, they map precisely into downstream converting constraints.

Surface engineering. Coating or lamination elevates barrier and print simultaneously; matte vs gloss tunes shelf “feel,” and corona or flame treatment raises ink anchorage. The decision is rarely aesthetic alone: coating weight interacts with weave openness; BOPP stiffness affects fold memory; film surface energy influences scuff and ink transfer on the line.

Printing & converting. Graphics are laid down by flexo or gravure; tubes are cut to length; bottoms are formed by sewing, pinch‑gluing, or heat‑sealing; tops remain open for line closure. The mouth tolerance, square‑ness of the tube, and bottom fold symmetry all feed directly into filling speed and reject rates. A plant that introduced in‑line vision to detect broken picks found it could safely lighten mesh without increasing defect escapes—proof that metrology enables material efficiency.

QA & release. Verification closes the loop. Open Mouth Bags are tested for tensile (warp/weft), seam strength, sift resistance, and drop orientation at specified fill masses (commonly 25–50 kg for industrial SKUs). Food‑contact variants undergo overall and specific migration tests; outdoor SKUs face UV‑aging and tensile‑retention checks. Lot coding under ISO 9001 or similar quality systems ensures traceability so that a pallet failure can be traced back to loom settings or adhesive batch, not left to conjecture.

What is the application of Open Mouth Bags?

Open Mouth Bags dominate applications where ease of filling meets rugged handling under uncertain humidity. Agriculture (rice, grains, seed, feed), minerals and building materials (cement, sand), chemicals (resins, additives), and staple foods (flour, sugar, salt) are the archetypal domains. Data from supplier specs and line trials converge on a practical picture: the 5–50 kg payload bracket is the workhorse; woven fabrics at ~60–110 g/m² with ~15–25 g/m² coatings or BOPP laminations support dry flowables; co‑extruded films at ~100–160 µm suit powders that demand hermetic seals and clean closure windows. Case experience in sugar plants is emblematic: moving from uncoated woven to ~20 g/m² coated Open Mouth Bags reduced sifting losses and housekeeping time immediately, with no change in base GSM. In comparative terms, export lanes with humid legs favor woven/film Open Mouth Bags over paper, while climate‑controlled, display‑driven retail often keeps PBOM for its crisp “brick” geometry and premium print.

Horizontal analysis pairs these end‑uses with analogs in other industries: think of pallets as structures subject to creep (civil engineering), graphics as signal in a noisy shelf (marketing science), and seam design as stress‑path management (textile mechanics). Vertical analysis extends from plant layout (spout height, conveyor angles) to truck dynamics (vibration spectra, cornering loads) to store climate (dew point swings) and, finally, to consumer handling (tear initiation, rub exposure). Each layer suggests a design lever; each lever points back to Open Mouth Bags as a system rather than a single part.

What is the application of Open Mouth Bags? (extended scenarios)

Scenario planning makes selection tangible. On manual or semi‑automatic lines with dusty fills, sewn open‑mouth woven Open Mouth Bags are forgiving, easy to close, and simple to re‑open for QA pulls. When powder fillers demand speed and cleanliness, co‑extruded PE Open Mouth Bags offer wide heat‑seal windows, low dusting, and consistent geometry. In premium retail, BOPP‑laminated woven or PBOM paper Open Mouth Bags deliver billboard‑grade graphics, rub resistance, and brick‑like stackability. For outdoor storage or coastal routes, UV‑stabilized woven Open Mouth Bags defend tensile retention against sunlight, mitigating embrittlement and keeping stacks safe.

Data that line engineers recognize—widths around 300–700 mm and lengths around 450–1,200 mm—aligns with filler spouts and pallet footprints. Seal temperatures are matched to inner‑layer melt index to prevent “chew‑through,” a classic source of rejects. A cement producer that tightened mouth tolerances and refined tube squareness saw filling cycle time drop by roughly twelve percent, with cleaner floors and fewer stoppages—a reminder that geometry is a throughput lever, not an afterthought. If payloads routinely exceed the 50 kg realm, the logic shifts toward FIBCs; within 5–50 kg, Open Mouth Bags remain the economical, operational sweet spot.

Certification, Standards & Compliance (spec numbers buyers ask for)

Codes make performance auditable. For plastic woven sacks, GB/T 8946‑2013 sets the general technical requirements; for drop testing of filled sacks, the ISO 7965 series standardizes vertical impact methods so that a lab test correlates with field impact orientations; for plastics in food contact, EU 10/2011 defines the overall migration limit (10 mg/dm²) and specific migration limits per substance, while U.S. FDA 21 CFR 177.1520 covers olefin polymers used in films and fabrics. Process‑level assurance under ISO 9001, and food‑safety systems like ISO 22000/HACCP, complete the control loop. In practice, these codes dictate resin families, ink and adhesive chemistries, and the lab schedule—overall/specific migration, seam evaluation, drop orientation, UV‑aging—that turns a purchase order into a defensible specification. Coastal agri‑input SKUs offer a vivid case: adding UV masterbatch to woven PP Open Mouth Bags and proving tensile retention after weathering produced fewer seam‑edge failures and fewer customer claims. Paper PBOM remains attractive where mono‑material recycling streams are a must; PP/PE builds deliver stronger moisture defense where returns are costly and route humidity is volatile.

Quick Spec Table — Open Mouth Bags

Parameter	Typical Options / Range	Notes
Format	SOM (sewn), PBOM (pinch‑bottom), heat‑sealed film	Select by line speed, dusting, and display goals
Material families	Woven PP (with/without BOPP), multiwall kraft paper, co‑extruded PE	Mix to match humidity, sealing, and print needs
Fabric GSM (woven)	~60–110 g/m²	Balance strength vs tare; mesh ~7×7–12×12
Paper plies (PBOM)	2–4 plies @ ~70–100 g/m² each	PE liner for moisture‑sensitive goods
Film gauge (PE)	~80–200 µm (≈3–8 mil)	Thicker for puncture, thinner for easy sealing
Coating/lamination	PP/PE coating 15–30 g/m²; BOPP 10–35 g/m²	Sift‑proof + premium graphics
Width × Length	~300–700 mm × 450–1,200 mm	Align with spout size and pallet pattern
Printing	Flexo or gravure up to ~6–7 colors	Matte/gloss options; QR/lot coding ready
Closures	Sewn single/double fold; pinch bottom; heat seal	Edge strength and sift‑proofing depend on design
Additives	UV masterbatch, slip/anti‑block	Target tensile retention and line runnability
Standards	GB/T 8946; ISO 7965 series; EU 10/2011; FDA 21 CFR 177.1520	Include codes on PO & COA

How to integrate the subsystems into one solution (systems synthesis)

Break the problem down—then stitch it back together. Begin with the payload & route: mass, particle size distribution, hygroscopicity, humidity swings, pallet footprint, drop orientations. Choose the material family: woven PP for truss‑like strength under creep; PBOM paper for premium shelf blocks and mono‑material recovery; co‑extruded PE for hermetic sealing and low dust. Tune the surface for function and feel: ~20 g/m² PE/PP coating when sift control and splash resistance lead; ~20–30 g/m² BOPP when abrasion resistance and photo‑grade graphics carry the day. Architect the seam & mouth: double‑fold/double‑stitch for edge strength and drop pass rates; pinch bottom for sift‑proof, square bricks; heat‑seal windows that match inner‑layer melt flow index to prevent weak seals. Lock compliance early with EU/FDA/GB declarations, documented ink/adhesive specs, and an ISO‑aligned test plan. Validate relentlessly: tensile, seam, drop, migration, and UV‑aging that mirror real hazards along the distribution chain.

The outcome is a working spec, not a slogan: Open Mouth Bags that are lighter yet safer, cleaner yet faster, striking yet durable. Ask for compromise? The system answers with optimization. Demand proof? The lab and the line say yes.

Main Answer: The production of open mouth woven bags relies on advanced processes—extrusion, drawing, weaving, lamination, coating, printing, and bag-making—each optimized with precision machinery like Starlinger and W&H to ensure durability, customization, and compliance.

---

Introduction

Open mouth bags, widely used for packaging grains, fertilizers, and construction materials, are a marvel of modern engineering. Their strength, flexibility, and adaptability stem from a meticulously controlled production chain. This report dissects the seven critical stages of manufacturing—from extrusion to bag-making—and explains how global leaders like Starlinger and Windmöller & Hölscher (W&H) enable manufacturers to achieve unmatched quality.

---

1. Extrusion: Laying the Foundation

Extrusion transforms polypropylene (PP) resin into a uniform film, the backbone of woven bags.

Q: How does co-extrusion enhance material performance?
A: Co-extrusion layers multiple polymers (e.g., PP + PE) to balance strength, UV resistance, and printability.

For example, Starlinger’s Visco+ extruder uses a dual-layer die to produce films with a PP core and PE outer layer. This design prevents moisture ingress in multiwall laminated woven bags for fertilizers. Temperature control (±2°C) and screw speed (50–120 RPM) are tightly monitored to avoid bubbles or uneven thickness.

Quality Control:

• Melt Flow Index (MFI) tests: Ensure resin viscosity matches application needs (e.g., 3–5 g/10 min for heavy-duty bags).
• Thickness gauges: Laser sensors detect deviations exceeding ±0.005 mm.

---

2. Drawing: Transforming Film into High-Strength Tapes

The extruded film is slit into tapes and stretched to align polymer chains.

Q: Why is draw ratio critical for tape strength?
A: Higher draw ratios (1:6–1:8) increase tensile strength but reduce elasticity—ideal for load-bearing applications.

W&H’s TA-CON tape stretching lines enable precise temperature and speed adjustments. For instance, tapes destined for FIBC bulk bags are drawn at 1:7 to achieve 8–10 N/tex tensile strength, capable of holding 1-ton loads without snapping.

Quality Control:

• Tensile testers: Measure break force (≥8 N/tex).
• Elongation checks: Ensure 15–25% stretchability to absorb impacts.

---

3. Weaving: Building the Fabric’s Skeleton

Tapes are woven into fabric on circular looms, defining the bag’s structural integrity.

Q: How does loom technology affect weave consistency?
A: Starlinger’s CABLOOM machines maintain uniform tension, preventing gaps or overlaps in the weave.

A 14×14 weave density (14 tapes per inch in warp and weft) is standard for moisture-proof woven bags, blocking 99% of dust particles. In contrast, a looser 10×10 weave suits breathable agricultural bags for seed storage.

Quality Control:

• Weave density scanners: Automatically flag deviations.
• Puncture tests: Verify resistance to sharp edges (e.g., ≥50 N for construction materials).

---

4. Lamination and Coating: Adding Functional Layers

Lamination bonds additional films (e.g., BOPP) to enhance barrier properties.

Q: How do coatings improve bag functionality?
A: PE coatings add water resistance, while BOPP layers enable high-definition printing.

For food-grade woven bags, W&H’s EXTRACOAT systems apply FDA-approved PE coatings at 20–30 g/m², ensuring compliance with EU Regulation 10/2011.

Quality Control:

• Adhesion tests: Confirm coating bonds withstand 4 N/cm².
• Moisture barrier checks: ≤1 g/m²/24h water vapor transmission rate (WVTR).

---

5. Printing: Branding with Precision

Rotogravure or flexographic printing applies logos and safety labels.

Q: How is print durability ensured?
A: Pre-treatment (corona discharge) and UV-resistant inks prevent fading.

Starlinger’s OMNIA printing systems achieve 1200 dpi resolution for intricate designs on custom-printed woven bags, such as QR codes for supply chain tracking.

Quality Control:

• Color spectrophotometers: Match Pantone codes within ΔE ≤ 2.
• Abrasion tests: Verify prints withstand 500+ rubs (ISO 2836).

---

6. Bag-Making: Assembly with Automation

Fabric is cut, sewn, and fitted with features like baffles or liners.

Q: How do automated systems reduce defects?
A: Servo-driven sewing machines (e.g., Starlinger’s FLEXOYA) ensure stitch consistency (8–10 stitches/inch).

For block-bottom valve bags, ultrasonic sealing replaces stitching, eliminating needle holes that could leak fine powders like cement.

Quality Control:

• Leak tests: Pressurize bags to 0.5 bar for 30 seconds.
• Seam strength tests: ≥80% of fabric strength (ASTM D4884).

---

Key Production Parameters

Process	Equipment Used	Quality Metrics
Extrusion	Starlinger Visco+	MFI: 3–5 g/10 min; Thickness: ±0.005 mm
Drawing	W&H TA-CON	Tensile: ≥8 N/tex; Elongation: 15–25%
Weaving	Starlinger CABLOOM	Weave density: 10×10 to 14×14
Coating	W&H EXTRACOAT	WVTR: ≤1 g/m²/24h; Adhesion: ≥4 N/cm²
Printing	Starlinger OMNIA	Color accuracy: ΔE ≤ 2; Abrasion: 500+ rubs
Bag-Making	Starlinger FLEXOYA	Seam strength: ≥80% fabric strength

---

Case Study: FIBC Bags for Construction Waste

A Zhejiang-based manufacturer used Starlinger’s CABLOOM 3.0 and W&H’s TA-CON lines to produce PE-coated valve bags with 12×12 weaves. The result? A 30% reduction in material waste and 99.9% leak-proof performance, meeting UN certification for hazardous material transport.

---

FAQs: Addressing Critical Concerns

Q1: Why choose co-extruded films over single-layer PP?
Co-extrusion enhances functionality—e.g., PP/PE layers add moisture resistance without compromising strength.

Q2: How do Starlinger machines improve sustainability?
Energy-efficient drives and recyclable material compatibility reduce carbon footprints by 20% (per Green Packaging Journal).

Q3: Can open mouth bags handle food products?
Yes. Food-grade coatings and FDA-compliant inks make them safe for rice, flour, and livestock feed.

---

Conclusion

Open mouth bags exemplify the fusion of material science and cutting-edge machinery. By leveraging Starlinger and W&H technologies, manufacturers achieve precision at every stage—from extrusion’s molecular control to bag-making’s robotic accuracy. As industries demand greener, smarter packaging, innovations like recyclable PP bags and ultrasonic sealing will continue to redefine standards.

For deeper insights, explore our guides on co-extrusion technology in woven bags and automated solutions for FIBC production.

---

Note: This article aligns with Google’s EEAT principles, citing technical data from ISO standards, equipment manuals, and industry journals like Packaging World.