PFAS-Free Polymer Processing Aids for Polyolefin Film
Processing-aid orientation for polyolefin film: how PPAs are evaluated, what a PFAS-free launch claims and how to run a fair comparison.
Buyer summary
- What it is
- Processing aids for polyolefin film extrusion that reduce melt fracture (shark skin) and die build-up, offered as alternatives to fluoropolymer PPAs.
- Main applications
- Polyethylene blown and cast film for packaging, agriculture and construction; also pipe, sheet, cable and pigmented compounds.
- Critical purchasing specifications
- Resin grade and the additive package (antiblock, slip, HALS, pigments)
- Die design and the defect history
- Recommended dose range for your resin
- PFAS-status declaration, with the definition used
- Food-contact statement with scope
- Qualification considerations
- A launch announcement states claims, not data. Run a line trial with a clean line, a control resin, a dose ladder and enough conditioning time.
- First step
- Record your resin, die, line conditions and the defects you see now.
- How PAXOMER can assist
- Replacing a fluoropolymer processing aid is a processing trial, not a datasheet swap. PAXOMER can help record your resin, die and defect history, identify manufacturers offering PFAS-free processing aids or masterbatches, and coordinate line trials with agreed conditioning and purge plans. Commercial discussions with the manufacturer can follow a documented trial result. Manufacturer identification, qualification support and pricing discussions depend on manufacturer confirmation, specifications, quantities and terms.
Detailed technical guidance, data tables, FAQs and technical references follow below.
Regulated uses. Food-contact, drinking-water, medical, pharmaceutical, electrical, fire-rated and other regulated uses need documentation and approvals for the exact product, use and market. This page is general information and confirms none of them; request the evidence in writing.
General technical information published by PAXOMER Inc. to support preliminary material evaluation. It is compiled from the sources cited on this page and has not been independently reviewed or certified by a professional engineer, laboratory or certification body. Values marked typical, illustrative or requiring confirmation are not specifications. Confirm properties, standard editions, regulatory status and suitability for your specific application with the manufacturer and, where the use is regulated or safety-related, with a qualified professional or the relevant authority.
A polymer processing aid (PPA) is an additive used at very low levels in polyolefin extrusion, above all blown and cast film, to let the melt flow through the die without surface defects such as sharkskin (melt fracture), to lower die pressure and to reduce die build-up. For decades the standard chemistry has been fluoropolymer. Regulatory and customer pressure on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is now pushing converters to ask for PFAS-free alternatives, and suppliers have begun to launch them. The evidence base for those alternatives is still thin compared with the long record of fluoropolymer PPAs.
This page is general technical orientation for film converters, compounders and buyers. It uses the published fluoropolymer PPA literature as the reference for how PPAs are evaluated, summarises what one PFAS-free launch claims and does not quantify, and sets out how to run a fair comparison. It is not a formulation recommendation, it gives no legal advice, and it does not state that PAXOMER stocks, represents or has qualified any additive.
A. Product identity and terminology
1. What is a polymer processing aid?
A PPA is a small-dose additive that improves extrusion of polyolefins. The 3M comparison guide describes fluoropolymer PPAs as working by forming a dynamic, temporary coating on the die surface, noting that fluoropolymers have high chemical inertness, thermal stability and low surface energy and are mostly immiscible with other polymers (S1). The guides PFAS-free polymer processing aids and Specialty polymer processing aids cover the family in more general terms.
2. What does PFAS-free mean for a processing aid?
Clariant describes its AddWorks PPA line as free of PFAS, and also free of inorganic, silicone and polysiloxane materials (S3). The meaning of “PFAS” differs between regulators and customers, so a buyer should ask the supplier which definition the statement refers to and for the declaration in writing. This page does not classify any product.
3. Which terms and abbreviations will I meet?
Melt fracture, sharkskin, die build-up (die drool), maintenance level, conditioning time, masterbatch, ppm, shear rate, critical shear rate, throughput, die pressure, amperage. Glossary: melt fracture, die drool, masterbatch.
4. Where are PPAs used?
Polyethylene blown and cast film, and also pipe, sheet, cable and filled or pigmented compounds. The 3M guide lists uses by grade, for example transparent LLDPE, LLDPE with HALS or antiblock, cast film, BOPP, polypropylene tapes, pigmented HDPE, pipe, sheet and wire and cable (S1). Clariant’s launch targets polyethylene blown and cast film for packaging, agriculture and building and construction (S3).
B. Properties and performance
5. How do the published fluoropolymer grades compare?
The 3M guide (issued December 2016, document 11949HB) lists seven grades with form, active content, typical use level and recommended uses; physical property values are marked as not for specification purposes (S1). The table shows the grades and levels exactly as printed; the document does not say which grades are currently offered.
Typical use levels and recommended uses printed in the 3M Dynamar comparison guide (2016)
Manufacturer typical values; not specifications. The guide does not state current availability or regulatory classification, and 3M’s current offer was not checked.
| Property | Value or range | Unit | Test conditions | Test method | Grade or construction | Source | Verification status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FX 5920A use level | 400–1500 | ppm | Free-flowing powder; 97% active, 3% inorganic | Not stated | FX 5920A | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5927 use level | 200–1000 | ppm | Free-flowing powder; 96% active, 4% inorganic | Not stated | FX 5927 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5929 use level | 100–700 | ppm | Free-flowing powder; 95% active, 5% inorganic | Not stated | FX 5929 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 9613 use level | 400–1400 | ppm | Free-flowing powder; 90% active, 10% inorganic | Not stated | FX 9613 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 9614 use level | 200–800 | ppm | Free-flowing powder; 90% active, 10% inorganic | Not stated | FX 9614 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5911 use level | 100–1000 | ppm | Clear to off-white powder; 100% active; MFI 5–14 g/10 min (265 °C, 5 kg) | MFI test as stated | FX 5911 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5912 use level | 100–1000 | ppm | Clear to off-white powder; 100% active; MFI 15–25 g/10 min (265 °C, 5 kg) | MFI test as stated | FX 5912 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5911 and 5912 melting point | 110–126 | °C | Both grades | Not stated | FX 5911, FX 5912 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Effective range for the portfolio | 50–1000 (0.005–0.1%) | ppm | Typical effective levels | Not stated | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Antiblock-containing LLDPE with FX 5920A or FX 5927 | 300–1000 | ppm | Guide statement | Not stated | FX 5920A, FX 5927 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 9613 cast film statement | 300 or lower | ppm | Can provide significant productivity improvements, as stated | Not stated | FX 9613 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| FX 5911 die build-up chart | more than 60 | min | 1000 ppm; 0–50% CaCO3; cast film | Not stated | FX 5911 | S1 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
6. What does the PFAS-free launch claim?
Clariant announced on 5 June 2025 two grades: AddWorks PPA 101 FG (100% active fine-grain form, which can be added via host resin, masterbatch or concentrate) and AddWorks PPA 122 G (masterbatch form); both are described as readily commercially available (S3). Claims are improved extrusion efficiency, effective elimination of shark skin defects, improved film surface smoothness, a neutral effect on optical and mechanical properties and no stated negative impact on dyne level, sealability or coefficient of friction (S3). The announcement gives no numeric loadings for either product and no test data.
What the Clariant announcement states and does not state
Claims are the manufacturer’s news-release statements, not test results. No data tables were provided in the source.
| Property | Value or range | Unit | Test conditions | Test method | Grade or construction | Source | Verification status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AddWorks PPA 101 FG form | 100% active, fine-grain | description | Added via host resin, masterbatch or concentrate | Not applicable | PPA 101 FG | S3 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| AddWorks PPA 122 G form | Masterbatch | description | Targeted at Greater China and SEAP | Not applicable | PPA 122 G | S3 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Composition claim | Free of PFAS, inorganic, silicone and polysiloxane materials | description | Manufacturer statement | Not stated | AddWorks PPA line | S3 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Shark skin elimination | Effective (no numbers) | description | Polyethylene blown and cast film | Not stated | AddWorks PPA line | S3 | Manufacturer confirmation required |
| Optical and mechanical properties | Neutral effect (no numbers) | description | Manufacturer statement | Not stated | AddWorks PPA line | S3 | Manufacturer confirmation required |
| Dyne level, sealability, COF | No stated negative impact | description | Manufacturer statement | Not stated | AddWorks PPA line | S3 | Manufacturer confirmation required |
| Dosage level of PPA 122 G | Same as conventional PPA masterbatches (no number) | description | Manufacturer statement | Not stated | PPA 122 G | S3 | Manufacturer confirmation required |
| Food-contact suitability | Stated suitable (scope not given) | description | Manufacturer statement | Not stated | AddWorks PPA line | S3 | Manufacturer confirmation required |
| Equivalence with fluoropolymer PPAs at equal loading | Not demonstrated in the sources read | none | Requires comparative trial | Trial | All | None | Application-specific verification required |
7. How does the mechanism differ between chemistries?
The 3M guide describes fluoropolymer behaviour on the die wall (S1). Clariant’s announcement does not describe the mechanism of its PFAS-free grades (S3). The difference matters in practice because additive interactions, conditioning time and the effect on surface properties can differ. Ask the supplier for the mechanism as they understand it and for data on the properties that matter in your film (sealing, printing, adhesion).
8. Which interactions should be checked?
The 3M evaluation guidelines say antioxidants, slip additives and acid scavengers are generally compatible, while stearates, antiblocking agents, inorganic pigments and hindered amine light stabilizers may interfere slightly and at high levels may significantly affect performance (S2). The 3M guide recommends specific grades for LLDPE with HALS or antiblock (S1). A PFAS-free product needs its own interaction data. See UV stabilizers, HALS and antioxidants.
Unit and dosing conversions (own arithmetic)
Computed here; not published values. ppm by weight; letdown calculation assumes the masterbatch concentration is by weight of active PPA.
| Property | Value or range | Unit | Test conditions | Test method | Grade or construction | Source | Verification status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 ppm in percent | 0.01 | % | 100 / 10,000 | Arithmetic | Any | None | Hypothetical calculation |
| 1000 ppm in percent | 0.1 | % | 1000 / 10,000 | Arithmetic | Any | None | Hypothetical calculation |
| 50 ppm in percent | 0.005 | % | 50 / 10,000 | Arithmetic | Any | None | Hypothetical calculation |
| Letdown for 500 ppm from a 2% concentrate | 2.5 | % of total | 500 ppm / 2% | Arithmetic | 2% concentrate | None | Hypothetical calculation |
| Letdown for 300 ppm from a 3% concentrate | 1.0 | % of total | 300 ppm / 3% | Arithmetic | 3% concentrate | None | Hypothetical calculation |
C. Manufacturing and processing
9. How does 3M recommend evaluating a PPA?
The 3M evaluation guidelines (issued August 2017, document 12822HB) describe six steps: prepare clean equipment; add the PPA by concentrate or direct melt blending; set a control of the same host resin without PPA; benchmark the control’s processing limit; run the comparison by starting slightly above the control’s limit, conditioning the system until surface defects disappear and amperage or pressure drops, then raising throughput until imperfections return; and determine the maintenance level by starting at 200–400 ppm and increasing by 100–200 ppm every 30–60 minutes (S2). Conditioning typically takes 15–60 minutes, shorter at high shear rates and longer at low shear rates (S2).
Evaluation parameters printed in the 3M guidelines
Procedure figures from one manufacturer’s guide for its own fluoropolymer PPAs. They are a model for how to run a trial, not required values for other chemistries.
| Property | Value or range | Unit | Test conditions | Test method | Grade or construction | Source | Verification status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical effective levels | 50–1000 | ppm | Fluoropolymer PPAs | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Maintenance-level start | 200–400 | ppm | Very clean equipment | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Maintenance-level step | 100–200 | ppm | Every 30–60 min | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Concentrate for single-screw mixing | 2–3 | % | Adequate dispersion essential | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Conditioning time | 15–60 | min | Depends on equipment and shear rate | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Initial purge effects | Black specks, gels, pigment possible in first hour | description | Until flushed from the system | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Pre-conditioning with 2% concentrate | Not recommended for comparisons | description | Guide statement | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
| Cleaning to remove existing PPA | Purge with low-MI resin with 5–10% silica, or scour, or wipe with solvent | description | Safety practices apply | Evaluation guidelines | Dynamar PPAs | S2 | Manufacturer-specific value (one grade) |
10. Why must the line be clean before a comparison?
Residual PPA on the die or screw changes the result of a trial. The 3M guidelines require equipment to be confirmed free of the process aid by running the control resin until operating parameters return to known values, and describe purging with a low melt index resin containing 5–10% silica, scouring or wiping with solvent (S2). When changing from a fluoropolymer PPA to a PFAS-free one, apply the same discipline and record how cleanliness was confirmed.
11. What problems appear and how are they diagnosed?
| Observed problem | Possible cause | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Sharkskin persists | Dose too low; insufficient conditioning; interaction with other additives | Dose ladder; conditioning time; additive review |
| Improvement fades over a run | Additive consumed or masked by antiblock, pigment or HALS | Interaction check; dispersion quality |
| Die build-up returns | High filler or pigment loading; wrong grade | Supplier advice; die deposit samples |
| Specks or gels after a change | Initial purge of previous additive; poor dispersion | Purge time; masterbatch quality |
| Print or seal problems | Surface effect of the additive | Dyne, sealing and COF checks on film |
Source basis: S2 for purge and interaction statements; other causes are general practice.
D. Applications and qualification
12. How should a PPA be selected?
Define the resin and grade, die gap, melt temperature, output target, film thickness, additive package, end-use requirements (seal, print, food contact) and regulatory position on PFAS. Ask suppliers for a grade proposal with a dose range and a trial plan, then compare chemistries on your line.
13. How should a PFAS-free comparison be run?
- Fix the resin, additive package and line; confirm the line is clean with a control run.
- Benchmark the control: record the output at which sharkskin and pressure limits appear.
- Add the existing fluoropolymer PPA (if used) and each PFAS-free candidate in turn, at several levels, with equal conditioning time.
- Record die pressure, amperage, throughput limit, surface defects and time to condition.
- Test film properties: haze, gloss, seal strength, dyne level, coefficient of friction, printing and any food-contact requirements.
- Run longer to check die build-up, and repeat on a second lot of PPA.
Source basis: S2 for the evaluation structure; the property checks reflect the claims in S3.
14. Which documents should be requested?
Technical data sheet for the exact grade with date, recommended dose range for your resin and additive package, trial data with conditions, declarations on composition and PFAS status with the definition used, food-contact statements with scope, safety data sheet, and the supplier’s position on change notification.
15. What acceptance criteria are sensible?
Criteria belong to your specification: defect-free surface at target output, die pressure, conditioning time, film properties after conversion, absence of die build-up over the run and compliance declarations. This page provides no limits.
16. How should PPAs be stored?
Follow the supplier’s data sheet. The documents read do not state storage conditions.
E. Procurement, comparisons and decisions
17. Which commercial formats are common?
Powders, granules or fine-grain forms of the active, and masterbatches in a carrier resin. The 3M guide lists free-flowing powders (S1) and Clariant lists a fine-grain 100% active form and a masterbatch (S3). Specify the form your feeding equipment and mixing can handle, and the carrier compatible with the host resin.
18. What information is needed to request a quotation?
- Resin type and grade; film process (blown or cast), die gap, output and thickness.
- Existing additive package (antiblock, slip, HALS, pigments) and current PPA if any.
- Form preferred (masterbatch or neat), dose range and feeding method.
- Declarations required: PFAS status and definition, food contact, recyclability.
- Trial quantity and annual volume.
Use the RFQ brief tool to assemble this in the browser.
19. How should cost and performance be compared?
Compare cost per tonne of film: dosage, output gain, scrap rate, die cleaning frequency and film quality all enter. Clariant’s announcement gives no cost-in-use data (S3), and none is available from the other sources read. Measure it in your own trial.
20. What regulatory and sustainability questions arise?
Clariant notes that PFAS restrictions are tightening worldwide and states support for recyclability requirements under the upcoming EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (S3). These are supplier statements. Buyers should ask for written declarations and take legal advice where compliance depends on the PFAS definition. This page gives no legal advice and makes no declaration for any product.
21. What supplier qualification questions should be asked?
Who makes the additive and where; how composition is controlled; whether PFAS-free claims are backed by analysis; batch traceability; availability and change notification; and technical support on lines like yours. See the supplier qualification checklist. PAXOMER does not confirm any supplier’s approvals or capacity on this page.
22. Which related pages should I read next?
- Guide: PFAS-free polymer processing aids
- Guide: Specialty polymer processing aids
- Related page: UV stabilizers, HALS and antioxidants
- Related page: MDO-PE and BOPE films
- Tool: Solution Finder
Manufacturing Regions & International Supply
No country-level manufacturing evidence specific to PFAS-Free Polymer Processing Aids for Polyolefin Film was confirmed in the review.
If you are evaluating manufacturers abroad, list in your RFQ brief the destination market, the documents you require and the delivery terms.
Engineering and purchasing FAQs
Each answer is general technical information, not a specification or a quotation.
What does a polymer processing aid do?
It lets polyolefin melt flow through the die without surface defects such as sharkskin, can lower die pressure and can reduce die build-up. It is used at very low levels, typically tens to hundreds of parts per million for fluoropolymer grades.
Are PFAS-free processing aids as effective as fluoropolymer ones?
The sources read do not show it. Clariant claims effective elimination of shark skin but gives no data; 3M’s fluoropolymer guides offer detailed use levels. Equivalence at equal loading must be demonstrated in your own trial.
What loading should I use for a PFAS-free PPA?
The sources read give no loading for the Clariant grades beyond saying PPA 122 G uses the same dosing level as conventional masterbatches. Ask the supplier for a dose range for your resin and run a dose ladder.
Why is a clean line so important in a PPA trial?
Because residual PPA on the die or screw masks the result. The 3M guidelines require confirming the line is free of the process aid by running a control, and describe purging or cleaning methods.
How long does a PPA take to work?
The 3M guidelines give conditioning times of typically 15–60 minutes, shorter at high shear rates and longer at low shear rates, and note possible specks, gels and pigment residue in the first hour. Allow for this in comparisons.
Can antiblock or HALS affect a PPA?
According to the 3M guidelines, stearates, antiblocking agents, inorganic pigments and hindered amine light stabilizers may interfere slightly and at high levels may significantly affect performance. A PFAS-free product needs its own interaction data.
Does a PFAS-free PPA change sealing or printing?
Clariant states no negative impact on dyne level, sealability or coefficient of friction, without data. Check these properties on your film.
Is the 3M guide current?
No. The comparison guide was issued in December 2016 and the evaluation guidelines in August 2017. They are used here as a model of how PPAs are evaluated; current offer and regulatory status were not checked.
Does this page say which products meet a PFAS definition?
No. Definitions differ between regulators and customers, and this page classifies no product. Ask suppliers for written declarations stating the definition used, and take legal advice where needed.
Does the PFAS-free announcement establish food-contact suitability?
It states suitability for food contact and food packaging applications without giving scope. Treat this as a claim to be confirmed by the declaration for your application and region.
Does PAXOMER supply specific processing aids?
This page does not confirm stock, representation, supply or qualification for any product. PAXOMER works in technical supply and manufacturer development; describe your application in an inquiry to discuss whether a suitable qualified manufacturer can be identified.
Technical References
References below were opened on the access date shown. A source supports only the statement it is cited for. Standards are cited by number and title from public catalogue entries; their full text was not read unless stated.
- S1. 3M Dynamar PPAs product comparison guide (document 11949HB, issued 12/16). 3M, 2016-12-01. multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1027184O/3m-dynamar-ppas-product-comparison-guide.pd (opens in a new tab) manufacturer literature · accessed 2026-10-27
Per-grade table with form, active ingredients, typical use levels and recommended uses; physical values marked not for specification. No statement on current availability or on PFAS classification. - S2. 3M Dynamar PPAs evaluation guidelines (document 12822HB, 8/17). 3M, 2017-08-01. multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/88063O/dynamartm-ppas-evaluation-guidelines.pdf (opens in a new tab) manufacturer literature · accessed 2026-10-27
Evaluation procedure, conditioning, loadings and additive interaction statements for fluoropolymer PPAs. - S3. Clariant launches innovative PFAS-free polymer processing aids for more sustainable polyolefin extrusion (news release). Clariant, 2025-06-05. www.clariant.com/Corporate/News/2025/06/Clariant-launches-innovative-PFASfree-po (opens in a new tab) manufacturer literature · accessed 2026-10-27
News release: product names, composition claim, performance claims without data, targeted applications and regulatory statements. Not a data sheet.
Evidence notes and limitations
What the information on this page does not establish. Confirm these points with the manufacturer, the current standard or the relevant authority before relying on them.
- The Clariant source is a news release; no technical data sheet, loading, test method or comparative result was read.
- The 3M documents are from 2016 and 2017; current availability, grades and regulatory status of 3M products were not checked.
- No source read quantifies the performance of any PFAS-free grade against a fluoropolymer grade.
- The meaning of “PFAS” varies by regulator; no regulatory text was read for this page.
- Statements on defects, trial design beyond the 3M guidelines, and storage are general practice.
- This page has not been independently technically reviewed or certified.
Facts checked against the cited sources
- Grade table values, use levels and interaction statements were read in the 3M documents (S1, S2).
- Product names, composition claim, claims and regulatory statements of the Clariant release were read (S3).
Where this connects to the full guide
The primary technical guide behind this page is PFAS-Free Polymer Processing Aids. All its topics are indexed below.
Topics in the full guide
- Quick answer
- What is the product, and what function does it perform?
- Which technical differences distinguish the candidates?
- How should buyers select a candidate for the application?
- What information should a structured specification request contain?
- How should an application trial establish acceptance?
- What limitations and tradeoffs affect selection?
- What should a technical enquiry include?
- What evidence is required before approval?
- Which sources support the guidance, and what are their limits?
See all 23 topics in the guide
Related guides, comparisons and tools
- PFAS-Free Polymer Processing Aids Primary guide
- Specialty Polymer Processing Aids
- Specialty Polymer Additives & Processing Aids
Glossary: Intentionally added substance · Analytical reporting limit
Tools: Product Finder (Specialty polymer processing aids) · Manufacturer Finder
How can I submit an inquiry?
Describe your application, the specifications above and the qualification stage. The material and this page are carried into the form for you. PAXOMER replies by email; the form does not confirm stock, representation or qualification.