Practical 1 paper towel PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Practical 1 paper towel PDF

Description

Investigating competitor paper towel products for strength and absorbency to create better brand 1. Projected Objectives The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the absorbency and strength of Company A and Company B’s paper towel, with the intention designing a paper towel that has greater absorbency and strength than those of the competitors. This was done by performing various experiments on both companies’ products, observing, and analysing the results. It was hypothesised that paper towel for Company A (A) would excel in both strength and absorbency greatly over paper towel for Company B (B) due to difference in surface texture/patterns and increase in sheet thickness.

2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Absorbency For this section of the experiment, it was decided to measure how much water each sheet retains after being wet. The classification of wet in this experiment having the paper towel being full submerged in water for a complete minute. Following that, the towel was removed and allowed to drip for one minute to remove any excess water that was attached to it but not absorbed. The towel was then weighed in a predetermined weight of the beaker and the weight was recorded, with the beakers weight subtracted from the total. This was performed three times on each company’s towels.

2.2 Strength Both wet and dry conditions were used to determine the strength of company paper towels A and B. For the wet condition, a single sheet was placed in a tub and allowed to be fully submerged for one minute. The sheet was then placed over a 500 mL beaker rim and secured using a rubber band without giving it time to drip. Weights of 50 grams was then added at increments of 10 seconds in the centre of the paper towel and stacking them on top of each other till the sheet broke. Weights were counted and recorded; and was repeated a total of three times. Similarly to the wet strength test, a dry sheet of paper towel was placed over the rim of a 500 mL beaker and secured with a rubber band, without the sheet absorbing any water. The beaker was then placed onto a scale with a 50-gram weight in the centre of the paper towel. The scale was then zeroed and carefully, the weight was pushed down slowly with the force of a person’s finger whilst observing the scale, awaiting the measurement once the layer broke. The experiment in dry conditions was completed a total of 7 times to rule out any results that could have potentially been outliers.

3. Results: 3.1 Absorbance Results Table 1. Volumes of Water Recovered from Paper Towel A and Towel B. Volume (mL) Trial #

1

2

3

Towel A

214.42

216.32

215.98

Towel B

212.06

212.70

211.99

3.2 Strength Results Table 2. Measurements of weight held as it broke in dry conditions of Towel A and Towel B. Wet

Weight (g)

Trial #

1

2

3

Towel A

500

650

600

Towel B

100

150

150

Table 3. Measurements of weight held as it broke in wet conditions of Towel A and Towel B. Dry

Weight (kg)

Trial #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Towel A

2.40

2.03

1.71

2.10

2.15

1.70

2.40

Towel B

1.00

0.75

1.25

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

4. Discussion: This investigation aimed to compare and test the absorbency and strength of Towel A and Towel B and suggest ways that the new design can be approved according to results. Towel A had an overall better outcome in both absorbency and strength in both wet and dry conditions. The methods for strength between wet and dry differed as there was a need for excessive weight required to break Towel A which exceeded the number of weights available. The method using the balance was improvised during the experiment and as seen from the acquired results, varied dramatically. This could have been due to the difficulty of reading the scale due to its heightened sensitivity or force applied to the paper towel. This process was run seven times to combat the difficulty and improve validity, however a new method of testing is still required due to the greatly skewed results to ensure validity. But this did not stop the overall trend that company towel A held a greater amount of weight, almost double, than company towel B. Results testing the absorbency and strength of both company towels for wet conditions proved valid due to the repetition of the experiment three times and results were within the same narrow range. Company Towel A excelled in all testing over Company Towel B, and ways that a design can be created for Company Towel C should incorporate some of the techniques used in Towel A to achieve great absorbency and strength such as its physical features. Towel A sheet was less transparent than Towel B meaning that there were fewer pockets or holes in the towel. Also, these would include increasing the surface area of the towel by creating folds in the surface in terms of patterns and increasing the overall thickness of each sheet. All these suggestions are ways in increasing strength by having the fibres in the tissue more compact and increasing the surface area to be able to absorb the most water. The strengths of this study overall were being able to see a clear trend in which paper towel was most dominant in testing variables but could not have precise and sometimes not truly valid results in terms of testing strength in dry conditions. An improvement would be to design a more meticulous method and the repetition of it multiple times that allows for precise measurements and valid ones. The limitation of using set weights rather than increasing pressure is that there is a range of 50g in which it can hold, rather than knowing the exact weight at which the paper towel will break under pressure.

5. Conclusion: It can be concluded from the experiment that Towel A is stronger in dry and wet conditions and can absorb more water than Towel B. A recommendation in the design of the new towel is having folds in the surface of the sheet in terms of patterns to increase surface area, having a thick sheet of paper, and having compact fibres in the tissue making it not too transparent. These recommendations will allow for a stronger and more absorbent sheet than that of Company A and Company B.

6. Appendices: 1-

2-...