mechanical properties of polystyrene and polypropylene based mate.pdf

7/21/2019 Mechanical properties of polystyrene and polypropylene based mate.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mechanical-properties-of-polystyrene-and-polypropylene-based-matepdf 1/126

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

e'e' e'i'/Di''e&ai$# C$!!eci$#'

1999

Mechanical properties of polystyrene andpolypropylene based materials aer exposure to

hydrogen peroxide John Torres

F$!!$* hi' a#d addii$#a! *$&' a: h0%://'ch$!a&*$&'.&i.ed/he'e'

i' e'i' i' b&$gh $ $ f$& f&ee a#d $%e# acce'' b he e'i'/Di''e&ai$# C$!!eci$#' a RIT Sch$!a& W$&'. I ha' bee# acce%ed f$& i#c!'i$#

i# e'e' b a# ah$&i-ed adi#i'&a$& $f RIT Sch$!a& W$&'. F$& $&e i#f$&ai$#, %!ea'e c$#ac &i'ch$!a&*$&'@&i.ed.

Rec$e#ded Ciai$#T$&&e', J$h#, "Mecha#ica! %&$%e&ie' $f %$!'&e#e a#d %$!%&$%!e#e ba'ed ae&ia!' ae& e+%$'&e $ hd&$ge# %e&$+ide" (1999).e'i'. R$che'e& I#'ie $f Tech#$!$g. Acce''ed f&$

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Ftheses%2F797&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Ftheses%2F797&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/etd_collections?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Ftheses%2F797&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


mailto:[email protected]




http://scholarworks.rit.edu/etd_collections?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Ftheses%2F797&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://scholarworks.rit.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Ftheses%2F797&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages



Mechanical

Properties

Polystyrene

nd

Polypropylene

Based

Materials

After

Exposure

to

Hydrogen

Peroxide

y

John M

Torres

A

thesis

su mitted

in

p rti l

fulfillment

th e

requirements fo r the

degree Master

Science in

the

Department

Packaging

Science

in

th e

College Applied Science

nd

Technology

th e

Rochester

Institute

Technology

December

999



College Applied Science and Technology

Rochester Institute Technology

Rochester New York

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

M S DEGREE THESIS

The M S degree thesis

John

M

Torres

has been examined and approved

by the thesis committee as satisfactory

for the thesis requirements for the

Master Science Degree

Fritz

J

Yambrach

r

David Olsson

Stephen Yucknu t

Date



Thesis Reproduction Permission Statement

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Title o Thesis:

Mechanical Properties o

Polystyrene and Polypropylene Based

Materials after Exposure to Hydrogen Peroxide.

John M. Torres, prefer to be contacted each time a request for reproduction is made.

permission

granted, any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit. I can be

reached at the following address:

PO Box 8524

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914 335-6204

Date: _ --- -·

/ I _ t ; - J / - q - - ~



Abstract

This

study

ddresses

specific

problem

faced

by

company

in th e

food

industry

lthough ll

food

comp nies

face simil r

issues. In

n

effort

to reduce

costs

th e pursuit

to

down-gauge

packaging

m teri ls

is

const nt

In

th e

c se

o this

study

th e

primary

p ck ge

o

dairy

product

is

being

considered

fo r

reduction

from th e

current 57

mil

thickness

to

52

mils In

the

past

s

th e

m teri l

w s

down-gauged

from

62

mils

loss in

m teri l

strength

nd n

increase in

damage

were

observed

Initial

rese rch

into

the issue

by

line personnel

found

that

the

increase

in

damage

w s

occurring

when

the

forming

equipment

stopped

running

nd m teri l

w s held

in

th e hydrogen

peroxide

H202

nd

heating

tunnels fo r

extended mounts o

t ime.

Further

investigation

confirmed that

extended durations o

th e

m teri l submerged in

th e

H202

steriliz tion tank

c used the

m teri l

to

embrittle

Therefore

this

study

w s

constructed

to

determine

th e

effects

o

H202

on

tw o

materials

polystyrene

nd

polypropylene

nd t tw o

thickness

57 nd 52

mils

nd 55

nd

50

mils

respectively The

m teri ls were exposed to

increasing

durations o

H2 2

time

20

seconds

60

seconds

120

seconds

300

seconds

600

seconds

1200

seconds

nd

subsequently

tested

fo r tensile

strength

elongation

nd modulus

o

el sticity

It

w s

expected

that

these properties

would

decrease s

th e exposure w s

increased

but the

results

did

not

demonstrate that.

The

polystyrene

based

m teri l

exhibited

very

little

or

no

ch nge

in

mech nic l

prop rti s

th t

could

be

ttributed to

H202.

Indications

were that

any

v ri tions

in



mech nic l

properties

were

based

more on

other

factors

such

s

m teri ls

impurities or

v ri tions

in th e

extrusion

process

than

th e

exposure

to

H202

The polypropylene

based

m teri l

did

exhibit

some

rel tion

between

m teri l

properties

nd exposure to

H202

lthough

these

ch nges

were

very

sm ll

nd

left

signific nt

doubt

s

to

their

neg tive

impact

in

th e

septic

process



Il l

cknowledgements

I

would

like to

thank

Fritz

Yambrach

fo r

being

my

thesis

dvisor

nd

providing

me with

th e

guid nce

necessary

to

conduct

effective

rese rch

He has

been

supportive

throughout

my

rese rch

nd

kept

me

moving

forward I would

lso

to

thank

Dr

Olsson

fo r

providing

important

direction

on

gener l

thesis

guidelines nd I

would

like to

thank

Steve

Yucknut

fo r

being

positive

influence nd

consistently pushing

me to complete

my

rese rch

while

allowing

me th e t ime

to

do it

I

would

lso like

to th an k

l

delCastillo

who

has

lw ys

been

supportive nd helped

me

in

anyway

necess ry

Finally

I

would

like to th an k

my

Father

nd

Mother

who have

m de

my

educ tion

possible

nd through

their support

nd guid ncehave given

me the

opportunity

to m ke

this

thesis

possible



Table

Contents

IV

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table

Contents

List

of

Tables

List

Figures

I

Introduction

A

Sterile

Packaging

Food

Product

Preservation

Chemical

b

Biological

c

Physical

2

Package

Sterilization

Canning

b

Aseptic

c

Radiation

B

Shelf

Life

Product

Perishability

b

Bulk

Density

2

Environment

Climatic

b

Physical

3 Package

MVTR

b

OTR

II Focus

Research

III

Hypothesis

A

Materials

B

Material

Degredation

C

Statement

Problem

D

Research

Proposal

IV

Methodology

A

Test

Description

Tensile

Strength:

ASTM

D638

2

Elongation:

ASTM

D638

3

Modulus

Elasticity:

ASTM

D638

i

iii

iv

vi

vii

2

2

3

3

6

7

1

12

13

14

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

18

19

24

24

26

27

29

3

3

3

31

31



B

Testing

Preparation

3

Material

Variables

32

Polystyrene

Material

32

b

Polypropylene Material

33

2

Sample

Size

nd

Preparation

34

C

Testing

Procedure

35

V.

Results

39

A.

Data

Analysis

39

F ratio

39

2.

Coefficient

Correlation

42

3

Coefficient

Determination

44

Tensile

Strength

45

b

Elongation

Break

46

c

Elongation

Yield

46

d

Modulus

Elasticity

47

VI.

Conclusion

Recommendation

48

A.

Discussion

Results

48

Polystyrene 57 mil

48

2

Polystyrene

52

mil

50

3

Polypropylene 55 mil

5

4.

Polypropylene 50 mil

53

5

Scanning

Electron

Microscope

Photographs 54

B.

Recommendations for Further

Study

56

Work

Cited

57

Appendix A Scatter

Plots

59

Appendix B Raw

Data

65

Appendix

C

Regression Results

8

Appendix

D

SEM Photographs

97

Appendix E ANOVA

Results

99

Appendix F

Crit ical Values

F

Table

5



List

Tables

V I

Table 4

Materials

Selected

fo r

Testing

Table 5

Tensile

Strength

F

v lues

Table

5 2

Elongation

Break

F

v lues

Table

5 3

Elongation

Yield

F

v lues

Table

5 4

Modulus

Elasticity

F

v lues

Table

5 5

Tensile Strength

Correlation

Table

5 6

Elongation

Break

Correlation

Table 5 7

Elongation

Yield

Correlation

Table 5 8

Modulus

Elasticity

Correlation

Table

6

Polystyrene 57

mil

Data

Analysis

Table 6 2

Polystyrene

52

mil

Data

Analysis

Table

6 3

Polypropylene

55 mil

Data

Analysis

Table

6 4

Polypropylene

5

mil

Data

Analysis

33

4

4

42

42

45

46

46

47

49

5

53

54



V ll

List

Figures

Figure

2.1

Hydrogen

Peroxide Bath

illustration

2

Figure

4.1

Test

Sample

34

Figure 5.1

Direct

Positive

Linear

Relationship

43

Figure 5 2

Direct

Inverse

Linear

Relationship

43

Figure

5 3

N o L in ea r

Relationship

43

Figure

5 4

Sample Scatter Plot

PS52MD Tensi le Strength

Data

44



Chapter

1

Introduction

Aseptic

processing

and

packaging

refers to

th e

continuous

flow

product

through

a

sterilization

process,

filling

into a

sterile high

barrier

package,

application a

sterile

and

hermetic

seal,

all

within

a

sterile

environment

This allows

a

sterile

product ,

which

does

not

require

refrigeration,

to be

offered

to

th e

consumer

Although

aseptic

processing

and

packaging

is

a

growing

segment

th e

food

industry,

there

are

other

methods

that

provide

a

sterile

product

to

the

consumer

A.

Sterile

Packaging

The

packaging

a

food

product

includes

four

main

functions;

containment

the

product,

protection

the

product,

convenience to the

consumer,

and

communication

to

th e consumer

Robertson,

3 .

Sterile

packaging

specifically

addresses

th e

protection

the product

from

the

environment

and

microorganisms,

and

in

doing

so ,

will

also

increase

the shelf

life

th e

product

The fundamental

concept

sterile

packaging

is

to

capture

a

sterile

product

within a

sterile,

high

barrier,

package In

food

applications,

sterile

may

better be

t e rmed

commercially

sterile ,

which does

not

mean

that

th e

product

is

completely

free

from

microorganisms,

but rather

it

is

free

from

viable

organisms

which

might be

a

public

health

risk

or might

multiply

under

normal

storage

conditions

and

lead

to

spoilage

Bakker,

86 . The

sterilization

process

can

be done in

several

ways ,

with

the

oldest

being

canning ,

and

more recent applications

including

th e

aseptic

process

and

th e

use

th e

Tetra

ak



1.

Product

Preservation

Chemical,

biological,

or physical

means

are th e

primary

applications

to

accomplish

food

preservation,

or

extend

shelf

life. Shelf

life

can

be

defined as

th e

duration

from

th e

product s

date

manufacture until

th e

t i m e that

th e

product becomes

unacceptable

under

defined

environmental

conditions

Bakker,

578 .

With chemical

preservation,

substances

such

as

sugars,

salts or

acids are

added to

th e product

to

prolong

th e

product s

life,

while

biological

preservation

normally

involves

fermentation th e

product

There

are

several

physical

approaches

to

preserving

food.

These

include

heating

or

irradiating

a

product,

which

temporarily

increases

th e product s

energy

level

and

destroys,

or

inactivates,

enzymes

Chilling

or

freezing

can

also

preserve

food

t h r o u g h a

controlled

reduction

th e

food s

t e m p e r a t u r e t h u s

slowing

or

delaying

enzymatic,

chemical and

microbial

activity Other

physical means

preserving

food

include

dehydration,

which

is

a controlled reduction

in

th e

product s

water

content,

or

modified atmosphere

packaging

MAP

or

controlled atmosphere

packaging

CAP

is

employed,

a g a i n ,

to hinder

an y

e n z y m a t i c ,

chemical,

and

microbial

reactions

Robertson,

304-305 . In

m a n y

cases,

biological,

chemical,

and

physical

approaches are

used

t o g e t h e r

in

some

combination

a

C h e m i c a l

Chemicals

have

long

been added to foods

to

prolong

their

lives,

such

as

salting

or

smoking

meats

These

processes and chemicals are

p e r f o r m e d ,

or

added,

to

retard

biological or

chemical

deterioration th e food

p r o d u c t ,

which can

result in

undesirable

changes

in th e

flavor,

nutritive

v alu e, o do r,

c olor, texture,

or

other

properties

th e

product

Chemical

preservatives can be added

to

foods to

prevent

both

biological

and



chemical

deterioration.

Antioxidants,

anti-browning,

and

anti-staling

compounds

are

added

to

prevent

chemical

deterioration,

while th e

primary

additives

used

to

prevent

biological

deterioration

are

th e

anti microbials

Examples

of

anti microbials

are

salts

and

sugars,

acids

such as

sorbic,

acetic and

lactic,

carbon

dioxide

C02 ,

and

antibiotics

Robertson,

327 .

b.

Biological

The

biological

approach

to

food

preservation

utilizes one

of

th e

oldest

known

food

processes,

fermentation.

Fermentation is

controlled to confer microbiological

stability

as

well

as

produce

desirable

organoleptic

changes

Primarily

th e

foods

and

products that

employ

fermentation

include

dairy

products such

as cheese

and

yogurt;

meat

products

such

as

salamis;

plant

products such

as cocoa

beans,

coffee

beans,

sauerkraut

and

olives;

and beverages such

as

whiskey,

beer,

wine,

and cider In

some

instances

pasteurization, refrigeration,

or other

type

of

inhibitor

is

needed

as well

Robertson,

305 .

c Physical

The use

of

physical preservation

is

probably

th e most

easily

understood

and

known method

of food preservation

Heat, irradiation,

chilling

and

freezing,

and

concentration

and

dehydration,

which will be discussed

later,

are

all

commonly

used

preservation

methods

with food

packaging The

use

of

heat

to

preserve

food is

based on

th e

destructive

effects

of

high

temperature

on

microorganisms Heat

is

used

to

control

mi roorg nisms in

foods

by applying

th e

necessary

temperature

fo r a

known

duration,

which is

adequate

to

kill

or

injure

th e

microorganisms

that

are

common

to

that

particular

food

product

Normally,

very

high

heat

130 150

C

is

used fo r

a

short

duration

few



seconds several

minutes

so

as

not

to

negatively

affect

th e

quality

th e

food

product.

Robertson,

307

Irradiation

is

another

method

used

to

eliminate

harmful

microorganisms

from

food,

and

can

include

alpha

particles

beta

rays

X

rays

and

gamma rays.

Due

to

their

ability

to

break

chemical

bonds

when

absorbed

by

materials

they

are

referred to as

ionizing

radiations.

Similar

to

th e

use

high

heat,

th e

effectiveness

the

irradiation

processes is

dependant

on

th e

microbial

species

with

yeasts

and molds

being

readily

destroyed,

spore

forming

bacteria

being

more

resistant

and

viruses

being

unaffected

by

th e

dose

levels

used in

commercial

irradiating

processing.

During

irradiation,

changes to

th e

product can

occur

due

to the

oxidation

fats and

fatty

acids

which can

include

th e

development

rancid

off flavors.

Because

many

foods are

irradiated after

packaging

th e effect

the

radiation

on th e

packaging

material

itself

must be

taken

into

consideration.

There

are

added

benefits

irradiating

a

sealed package where

th e

introduction

new

microorganisms is

retarded or

eliminated

Yambrach,

154 .

Chilling

and

freezing

are

also

commonly

used fo r

th e

preservation

food.

Chilling

is a

widely

used

short term

preservation

method

which

has

the

effect

hindering

the

growth

microorganisms

deteriorative chemical

reactions

and

moisture

loss. Wh ile

chilling

has th e

effect

slowing

and

eventually

stopping

the

growth

most

microorganisms

certain

microorganisms

are

able to grow in

a

chilled

state

therefore,

th e

chilling

method

food

preservation

cannot

be

relied

on

absolutely

to

keep

foods

safe.

Also,

while

bringing

th e

product down

to the chilled

state

injury

can

occur

if

th e

temperature

drop

is

to o

sudden

or below

th e desired

level.

Every

food

also

has

a

minimum

temperature

in

which it cannot be

held

without

some

undesirable

changes



occurring

in

t h a t

food

Robertson,

318 .

However,

in

proper

conditions

chilling

is

an

effective

w ay

to

prolong

th e

shelf

life

food.

While

chilling

can

be

an

effective

short term

food

preservation

m e t h o d ,

it

is

widely

held

that

th e

most

satisfactory

long-term

method

is

freezing.

This

is

due to th e fact

that

freezing,

when

done

properly,

effectively

retains

th e

flavor,

color,

and nutritive value

th e

food.

It

is

important

t h a t

each

phase

th e

freezing

process,

pre-freezing

treatments,

frozen

storage,

and

thawing,

be

done

correctly

fo r

th e

maximum

effectiveness

Improper

freezing

can

lead

to

m a ny

changes

occurring

in

foods,

including

th e

degradation

pigments

and

vitamins

Also,

different

foods h eld

at

an y

given

temperature

will

have

substantially

different

shelf

lives,

and

also

have

different

sensitivities

to

changes in

storage

t e m p e r a t u r e s

Robertson,

325 .

Controlled and

modified

atmosphere

preservation is

often

coupled with

chilling,

and can

be

very

effective

Controlled

atmosphere

packaging

CAP

entails

th e

enclosure

food in

a gas

impermeable

p a c k a g e ,

while

monitoring,

changing

and

selectively

controlling

th e

gaseous

e n v i r o n m e n t ,

with

respect to

C02,

02, N

and water

vapor,

over

th e life th e

product to increase it s shelf life.

Modified

atmosphere

packaging

MAP

is

th e enclosure food in a gas impermeable

package,

and

modifying

th e

atmosphere

inside th e package

so

t h a t its composition

is

other than

that

air

G as

flushing

is

a

common t y p e

MAP,

and

involves th e removal

air

and

replacing

it with

a

controlled

mixture

gases

Nitrogen

is

frequently

used

in

this

application

to

reduce

th e

concentration

other

gases

in th e

package

and

to

keep

th e

package

from

collapsing

as

C02

dissolves

into

th e

product

M A P is

c om m onl y

used in

food

packaging,

while

only

limited

t y p e s

C A P

are

being

used

in

commercial

applications

today.

Vacuum



packaging

is

another

form

of

MAP

that is

commonly

used

in

which

food is

placed in

a

gas

impermeable

package

and air

is

removed

to

prevent

growth

aerobic spoilage

organisms,

shrinkage,

oxidation,

and

color

deterioration.

There

are

many

factors

that

influence

th e

shelf

life

and

safety

any

MAP

food

and

include

th e nature

the

food

th e

gaseous

environment

inside

th e

package,

th e

nature

the

package,

th e storage

temperature

and

the

packaging

process

and

machinery

Research

continues

to

be

conducted

in

this

area,

with

many

unknowns

still

existing

regarding

its overall

effectiveness

Robertson

320 .

Concentration and

dehydration

processes

involve

the

removal

water

and

the

consequent

lowering

water

activity

in

foods.

The

distinction

between

th e

tw o

involves

th e

water

content

the

product

post-process,

with

th e

concentration

process

reducing

to

a

final

concentration

20

water weight or

above,

whereas

the

dehydration

process

reduces

it b elow

20

water weight

There

are several

separation processes with which

water

is

removed and

include

vaporization,

crystallization,

sublimation

and

solvent

extraction These

processes can change certain

characteristics

food

products to

varying

degrees.

Also

these processes are not

intended to

destroy

microorganisms,

but

rather

to

inactivate th em th ro ug h the elimination

water

Commonly

dehydrated

foods

include

sugar,

starch,

coffee,

milk

products,

breakfast

foods

snacks,

fruits

and

vegetables

2.

Package Ster il iza tion

As was

mentioned

previously,

tw o th e

primary

purposes

a

package

are

to

contain and

protect

a

product In order

to

protect th e

product,

it

is

necessary

fo r

th e

package

to be

free

from

harmful microorganisms

Therefore

th e

package

is

sterilized

prior

to

filling

as

in

the

aseptic

process ,

or

after

filling

and

sealing,

as

in

th e

retort



process

In

order

to

m int in

th e

sterility

th e

product,

m an y

p ck ges offer barrier

properties,

which

protect

th e

product

from

g ses

nd

moisture,

nd th e reintroduction

microorg nisms

Canning

Canning

w s

discovered

in

th e

early

1800 s in

response to

prize

offered

by

Napoleon

fo r

n

invention

t h a t

would

llow

food

to

be

preserved fo r

long

periods

time,

nd

have

th e

capability

to

be

c rried

into

battle.

A

common

definition

canning

is

th e

packaging

perish ble

foods

in

hermetically

se led

cont iners that

re to

be stored

t

mbient

temperatures fo r

extended

periods

time,

even

up

to

ye rs

Bakker,

86 .

The

predomin nt

food

canning

p ck ge

is

still

th e

double-seamed

can,

which

most

c nned

veget bles nd

fruits re

sold

in

today.

A nd

lthough

th e

term

can ,

in

most

cases,

brings

thoughts

th e

double-seamed

c a n,

there re

m a ny

other

m teri ls

that

re used

in

canning,

such

s

glass,

flexible

p o u c h e s ,

rigid

plastics,

nd

thin

luminum

Som e food s

re lmost

exclusively

c a nne d,

such

s

t u n a nd

th e

tomato

crop

Bakker,

86 .

Whatever th e

m teri l

u s e d ,

canning

c n

be

generally

described

s

process in

which se led

cont iner is

sterilized th ro ug h th e

use heat.

The

p ck ged

food is

virtually

cooked inside

th e

container,

t

t e m p e r a t u r e s which

re

lethal

to

harmful

m i c r o o r g a n i s m s ,

nd th e product is t h e n

protected

from

any

reintroduction

microorg nisms

T he

processing

c nned food must produce

commercially

sterile

product

nd

minimize

degradation

in th e food

product,

which requires

differing

processing

conditions

fo r

differing

products

There re combin tions

temperature

nd

t i m e

that

will

adequately

sterilize

p r o d u c t ,

nd t h o s e

combin tions will

vary

fo r

different

foods,



p n ing

on

several

factors

such

as th e

product s

density

and

pH.

In

general

though

it

is

best

to

use

high

heat

fo r

a

shorter

duration

and

bring

th e

temperature down

quickly

which

will

preserve

th e

quality

of

th e

food.

Some

microorganisms

require a longer

exposure

to

high

temperatures

than

others

do to

be

adequately

killed.

To

determine

the

proper

time/temperature

ratio

fo r

a

product

first

th e

required

heat to

kill

th e most heat

resistant

microorganism

is

determined.

Then

a

thermocouple

is

placed

inside

th e center

of

th e

package

which

will

be

th e

area

most

difficult

to

sterilize

to

determine the

amount

of

time

at

a

given

temperature

is

necessary

to

kill

that

organism.

These

tests

and

calculations

are

strictly

regulated

and

monitored

by

authorized

authorities

which

are

determined

by

th e

Food

and

Drug

Administration

Bakker

87 .

There

is

a

standard

sequence

of

operations

that

take

place in

th e

canning

process:

product

preparation

container

preparation

vacuum

and

retorting.

Product

preparation

involves

washing

inspecting

and

sorting

out

defective

product.

Separating

th e

edible

portions of a

product from

th e

non edible

portions

is also

done

when

applicable.

Also

fruits and

vegetables are

put through a

blanching

operation

which

exposes

them

to

either

steam

or hot water

to inactivate

enzymes that

would

otherwise

cause

discoloration

or

deterioration

of

th e

product.

It

also serves to

clean

soften

and

degas the

product.

Finally

when

necessary

peeling coring

dicing

and/or

mixing

operations

are

completed

and the

product is

ready

fo r

filling

Bakker

87 .

Prior

to

filling

containers

must

be free from

contaminants

and

foreign

material.

Cans

are

washed in an

inverted

position so that

all

water

and

debris will

drain

out.

Once

th e

container is

through th e

washing

operation

it

is

ready

fo r

filling.

The

filling

op r tion

needs

to

be

precise

so

that th e

minimum

labeled fil l

requirements

are

met

yet



enough

headspace

is

left

fo r

th e proper

v cuum

level

to

be

chieved

during

closure

In

most

products

brine,

broth

or

oil

is

dded

with

th e

product to

reduce th e

mount

of

ir

trapped

inside

th e

can

nd

lso

to

llow

fo r

more

efficient

heat

transfer

during

the rmal

processing

Bakker,

87 .

Once

th e

cont iner

is

filled

with

product

it

is

ready

to be

closed

This is one of

th e

most

critic l

steps

in

th e

canning

process

due

to

th e

high

speed nd

th e

bsolute

requirement

of

achieving

strong

hermetic

seal

while

lso

producing

n

interior

v cuum

of

10-20

inHg.

This

v cuum is

necessary

to

reduce

th e

oxygen

content nd

hinder

corrosion

nd

spoilage

nd

leaves

th e

c n

end

in

conc ve

sh pe

during

storage

nd

prevents

perm nent

distortion

during

retorting

To

chieve

th e proper

vacuum

sever l

methods

c n

be

imposed.

Products

which

re hot

filled

t

temperatures

ne r

boiling,

naturally

cre te

v cuum

s

they

cool

Products that

re

not

hot

filled

c n

be

heated

post-filling

to

chieve

th e

s me effect

There

re lso

mech nic l me ns

of

creating

internal

v cuum

that c n

be utilized

Filled c ns

re pl ced

in

v cuum

chambers

put

under

v cuum

nd

then

se led Although

th e most common

method

of

creating

internal

v cuum

is

with

th e use of

live

ste m

This

is

ccomplished

when th e

ste m

is

used

to

displace th e ir in the

headspace

of th e

can

nd n tur l v cuum

occurs s

th e

ste m

condenses nd th e

cont iner

cools

Bakker,

87 .

Once th e

cont iner

is

sealed

convention l

canning

oper tions of

low

cid

foods

thermally

process th e cont iners

in retorts

There

re

many

types of

retorts

which

vary

between

discontinuous batch

nd

continuous

systems

differing

heating

methods

git ted

nd

non git ted

systems

both

vertic l

nd

horizontal

layouts

of

th e

pressure

vessel

methods

of

loading

nd

unloading

th e

pressure

vessel

nd

th e

cooling

procedure

used



10

after

thermal

processing

The

fundamental

design,

which

is

common

to all

retort

processes

starts

when

th e

contained

product

is

placed

in

a

pressure

vessel

and

is

heated

up

to

5

C,

or

75

C

fo r

some

specific

flexible

containers

Pressure is

increased

inside

th e

vessel

to

counterbalance

th e

in re sing

internal

pressure

th e

container

Bakker,

88 .

The

length

time

that

th e

container

is

held

at

that

tempera tu re is

dependent

on

th e

temperature /

t ime

calculations

that

were

discussed

previously

The

cooling

process is

dependent on

th e

material

th e

container

is

constructed of

With

some

containers

such

as

glass

flexible,

and

semi-rigid

they

must

be

cooled

under

pressure

Even

cans

will

buckle

if

taken

directly

to

atmospheric

pressure

while

th e

internal

contents

are at

high

processing

temperatures

Bakker,

89 .

Canning

is

still a

major

contributor

in

th e

packaging

food

items

today,

and

will

continue

to be

as

further

advances in

alternate

materials and

processes are

made

b.

Aseptic

Aseptic

food

processing

and

packaging

was

originally

developed

to

provide

consumers

with

shelf

stable

products that

couldn t

be

manufactured

with

conventional

methods

such as

dairy

foods.

With this new

technology,

food

processors

were

able to

provide better

quality

foods at reduced costs

As

discussed

earlier

th e

fundamental

concept aseptic

packaging

is to package sterile

product

into

a

high

barrier

sterile

package

all within a sterile environment

To

aseptically

package a

product

four

factors

need to

be

adapted

to

th e

product

and

coordinated: th e

packaging

material

th e

sterilization

for

th e

packaging

material

th e

packaging

machinery

and th e

processing

environment

There

are

certain

prerequisites

that

need

to

be

met

fo r a functional aseptic

system:

a

packaging

material

suitable

fo r

a



11

product s

requirements

a

suitable

process

to

adequately

sterilize

th e

surface

of

th e

packaging

material

a

suitable

aseptic

machine

which

can

adequately

fill

and

seal

th e

package

and

one

that

can

meet

stringent

processing

requirements

Reuter

95 .

It

is

not

enough

to

just

have

a

sterile

container

The

product

must

be

aseptically

processed

and

remain

commercially

sterile

through

th e

filling

operation

and

then

through

sealing

Bakker

20 .

Processes

that

apply

heat

treatment

at

specific

temperatures

and

residence

t imes

affect

both

desirable

and

undesirable

changes

Although

the

elimination

of

undesirable

microorganisms

may

be

achieved

there

also

may

be

undesirable

changes

in

a

product s

taste

color

texture

or

nutritional

content

Reuter

5 .

Aseptic

processing

offers a

method

of

reducing

th e

undesirable

effects

by

heating

th e

product

quickly

over

a

short

period

of

t ime.

This

is

accomplished

by

utilizing

a

constant flow

of

product

and

using

direct

heat

such

as

culinary

steam

or

indirect

heat

such as

heat

exchangers

By

running

product

through

heat

exchangers

there

is

an

equal

distribution

and

transfer of

heat

throughout

th e

product

allowing

th e product

to be

adequately

sterilized

over

a

very

short

t ime

period

The

product is

then cooled

very

quickly

through

additional

sets of

heat

exchangers

preventing

overprocessing

With

direct

heating

culinary

steam

is

injected

into

th e

product

which

allows

fo r

extremely

rapid heating.

The concern

with

this

method is

th e

dilution

of

th e

product

which

may

require vacuum

cooling

to

remove th e

added

moisture

Once th e

product is

adequately

sterilized

it

is

ready

to

be

filled

into

a

sterile

package The

package

can be

sterilized

through

either chemical or

physical

treatments

or

a

com in tion of

th e

two . Thermal

treatments

can also be

used

such

as

dry

or

moist

heat

but

drastically

limit

th e

materials

that can be

used

due

to

their

destructive

nature

Many



12

septic

packaging

m teri ls

c n

not st nd

up

to

th e

heat

that

is

required

fo r

thermal

sterilization.

UV

irradiation

c n

lso be

used,

lthough

many

mould

spores re

resist nt

to

th e

ction

of

UV

r ys

Cerny,

78 .

By

far,

th e

most

widespre d

method

fo r

sterilizing

packaging

m teri ls in

th e

septic

process is

th e

use

of

hydrogen

peroxide

[H202].

Concentrations

vary

between

15

to

35 ,

nd

may

be

pplied

vi

spray,

or

th e

m teri l

may

p ss

through

bath.

Once

th e

H

has

been

applied,

nd

llowed

to

rem in

fo r

th e

llotted

duration,

it

must

be

removed

with

hot,

sterile

forced

ir

The

factors

which

influence

th e

efficacy

of

th e

H

steriliz tion

process

re

th e

concentr tion

of

th e

H202,

th e

temperature of

the

H202,

th e

cont ct

duration,

th e

method

of

application,

nd

th e

degree

of

cont min tion

of

th e

m teri l

Cerny,

78 .

All

components

of

th e

primary

p ck ge

must be

sterilized,

then

th e

product is

filled

nd

se led

into

th e

p ck ge

c

Radiation

For

th e

steriliz tion

of

food,

ionizing

r di tions

have

been

pproved

by

th e

FDA

nd

re

of

primary

interest,

nd

include lph

particles,

beta

rays,

X

rays,

nd

g mm

r ys

Ionizing

r di tions

re

important to

steriliz tion

due

to their

ability

to

break

chemic l

bonds when

bsorbed

by

materials,

producing

ions or

neutr l

free

r dic ls

Robertson,

316 . These products re then ble

to inactivate

th e

enzyme

system in

both

th e food product nd

any

microbi l cont min nts

Newsome,

00 .

The

disruption

of

th e

DNA molecule results in th e

prevention

of

cellul r

division,

which

in

turn

prevents

th e

continu tion of

biological l ife Radiat ion

Sterilizers

Inc.,

1).

The tw o

predomin nt

methods

fo r th e

irradiation

of

food

re

g mm

ray

nd

l tron

beam

r di tion Performed

correctly,

both

methods re

equally

effective

nd

in



13

general

have

th e

s me

effect on

packaging

m teri ls

Bakker s,

562 .

Electron

beam

steril ization

is

limited

by

its

penetrating

ability

especially

into

dense

products

Its lack of

penetr tion

requires

that

cases

nd

even

p ck ges

in

some

cases

be

sterilized

individually.

Gamma

r di tion

offers

deep

penetr tion

into

th e

product

allowing

th e

steriliz tion

of

p llets

of

product

in

continuous

feed

nd

discharge

system

Unfortunately,

g mm

r di tion

systems

re

expensive

nd

complex

They

often

require

extensive

conveyor

systems

to

provide

equ l

exposure

to

e ch

side

of

th e

unit

nd

cont inment

re

that

will

offer

protection

to

th e

outside

re

Irradiation

c n

be

used in

tw o

ways

to

sterilize

th e

packaging

m teri l

prior

to

filling,

nd

fo r

steriliz tion

fter

filling

nd

sealing

is

complete

Both

re

effective

in

destroying

living

microorganisms

but

lso

c n

have

degrading

effects

Irradiation

ffects

polymers

in

tw o

ways

first,

through

ch in

scission

of

th e

polymer

molecule

which

results

in

reduced

molecul r weight

And

second

cross-linking

of

the

polymer

molecules

which

results in

th e

formation

of

large

three-dimensional

m trices

Both of

these

occurring

simultaneously

then

results in

degradation,

which

c n

include

extreme

softening

of

th e

material

hardening

nd

embrittling

or

even

browning.

Material

c n

lso

lose

physic l

properties such

s tear

strength

tensile

strength

elongation

nd

flex

resist nce

Komerska,

893 . This

needs

to

be taken

into

consider tion

when

selecting

packaging

m teri l

B. Shelf Life

The shelf life of

product

is

directly

dependent

on

three

things;

th e

h r teristi s of th e

product

the environment

that

th e

product

is

exposed

to

urin

distribution,

nd the properties of the

p ck ge

itself

Robertson,

340 .



14

Product

There

are

tw o

basic

product

characteristics

that

contribute

to

the

shelf

life

of

that

product

th e

perishability

of

th e

product

and

th e

bulk

density

of

th e

product.

a.

Perishability

Foods

can

be

divided

into

three

categories

perishable

semi-perishable

and

o

perishable

or

shelf stable.

Perishable

foods

need

to

be

held

at

chilled

or

frozen

temperatures

if

they

are

to

be

held

fo r

anything

other

than

a

short

duration.

Milk

meats

and

vegetables

are

examples

of

perishable

foods.

Semi-perishable

foods

can be

subjected

to

harsher

conditions

due

to

th e

application

of

some

type

of

preservation

treatment

or

th e

presence

of

natural

inhibitors.

Examples

include th e

smoking

of

meats

pasteurization

of

milk

and

th e

pickling

of

vegetables.

Finally

shelf stable

foods

are

those

which

are

unaffected

by

microorganisms at

room

temperature.

This

may

be

due

to

the

product

having

a

very

low

moisture

content

having

been

sterilized

having

had

preservatives

added

or

processed

to

remove its

natural

water

content.

These

methods

will

only

be

effective

if

they

are

contained in a high

barrier

package

which

remains

intact

Robertson

341 .

b.

Bulk

Density

The free space

volume

of

a package will effect

th e shelf

life

of

a

product

thus a

change

in

a product s

density

will

subsequently

effect its shelf

life.

Although

th e

true

density

of

a food cannot be

changed

significantly

processing

and

packaging

can

affect

th e

bulk

density

of

food powders. The

free space volume

inside a

package

has

a

signific nt influence on

th e

rate of oxidation

of

foods. If

packaged

in

air

there

will

be

a

large

oxygen

reservoir

or if

packaged

in an

inert

gas

there

will

be

free

space

that

will



15

minimize

th e

effect

of

oxygen

transferred

through

th e

film.

Therefore

a

large

free space

area

and

a

low

bulk

density

will

result in

greater

oxygen

transmission

Robertson

342 .

2.

Environment

The

environment

that

a

package

is

subjected

to

can

play

a

major

role in

th e shelf

life

of

th e

product

it

contains

Packaged

foods

may

gain

or

lose

moisture,

and

will

also

reflect

th e

temperature

of

its

environment,

either

hot

or

cold,

because

most

packages,

unless

specifically

designed

to

will

not

provide

much

insulation

to

temperature

changes

Also

th e

physical

environment

can

also

play

a

role

a

package s

integrity

and in

th e

shelf

life

of

th e

product

a

Climatic

The

degradation

in

product

quality

is

most

often

related

to

th e

amount

of

p st

production

thermal

changes

th e

product

goes

through

prior

to

consumption

and

th e

transfer

of

moisture

and gases

into

and out

of

th e

package

Variances

in

heat

are

usually

accompanied

by

changes in

moisture,

and

they

accumulatively

will

degrade

certain

characteristics

of

th e

product

When

the

major

deteriorative

reaction

is

known

then

shelf

life

plots

and

calculations can

be used

to

predict

th e proper

shelf

life

of

a

product,

and

also be

used to

derive bes t when

used

y

dates

Robertson

343 .

To

counter

these

temperature

and moisture

variations

in

sensitive

products,

the

product can

be

stored

in

conditioned or refrigerated

warehouses,

and t ransported

in

refrigerated

trucks.

Transportation routes can also

be

devised to avoid

high

altitudes,

which

will

prevent

drastic

changes

in

th e pressure a package

is subjected to .

When

a

product

is

m nuf tured

at,

or

about ,

sea

level

and

transported across

mountains

of

high

elevation,

a

sealed package

will

expand and

try

to

force

internal

gases

out

of

th e

package

While



6

one

manufactured

t

high

elev tion nd

brought

back

to

lower

elev tion

will

c use

the

p ck ge

to

implode

nd

th e

p ck ge will

try

to

draw

extern l

g ses

into

th e

p ck ge

b

Physical

The

physic l

environment

that

product

nd

p ck ge

re

subjected

to

involves

th e

post

production

distribution

from

th e

manufacturing

facility

to

th e

ret il

shelf

That

distribution

environment

usually

includes

transportation

by

either

truck

or

rail

nd

even

by

ship

fo r

some

products

For

domestically

produced

nd

sold

products

they

re

normally

p lletized

off

th e

production

line

nd

stored in

buffer

warehouse

then

shipped

vi

truck

to

mixing

center

nd

subsequently

onto

th e

customer

Depending

on

th e

size

th e

customer

th e

shipments

m ay

be

p llet

qu ntities or

individual

c ses

Larger

customers

m ay

have

mixing

centers

their

own

t

which

they

break

down

p llet

qu ntities nd

send

mixed

p llet

loads

to

their

ret il

stores

Each

these

steps

involves

th e

handling

th e product

nd

therefore

has

th e

potenti l

fo r damage Damage

c n

result

from

many

points

in the

distribution

cycle

such

s

during

th e

loading

nd

unloading

p llets on

trailers vi fork

trucks

the

vibr tions

encountered

during

shipping

th e

crushing

that c n

result

from

compression

during

storage

or

the

breaking

down

p llets

by

hand nd

repalletizing

onto mixed

load

Any

these

steps

c n

result

in damage that

will

compromise th e barrier

th e

primary

p ck ge

nd

the

stability

th e

product

inside These factors need to be

taken

into ccount

when

t rmining

shelf

life nd lso

during

th e

development

th e p ck ge to

gu rd

g inst

harsh

environments

3

Package

The

packaging

which

cont ins

product

is

vit l in

determining

th e

shelf

life

th t

product Not

only

does

p ck ge

need to

cont in

th e

product

nd

protect

it

from



17

physical

abuse,

but

also

needs

to

protect it

from

external

moisture

and

gases through

barrier

properties

The

optimum

barrier

for

some

food

products

requires high

barrier

packaging

materials,

while

others

need

low

barrier

materials

to

maximize

shelf

life.

Dry

foods,

such

as

cereals,

crackers,

or

powdered

mixes

require

a

high

moisture

barrier,

while

certain

meat

and

poultry

products

require a

high

oxygen

barrier.

These

products

would,

therefore,

be

packaged

with

different

materials

to

achieve

maximum

shelf

life

Strupinsky

Brody,

397 .

The

size

th e

package

also

influences

th e

barrier

requirements,

because

as

th e

size

th e

package

increases,

th e

surface

to

product

volume

ratio

decreases.

Therefore,

if

all

factors

remain

equal,

barrier

requirements

decrease

as

package

size

increases

Bakker s,

579 .

Although

all

packaging

materials

have

some

degree

barrier

property,

however

high or

low,

th e

degree

barrier

is

one

component

that

designates

its

use

For

instance,

products

that

require a

very

long

shelf

life

are

normally

packaged

in

a

very

high

barrier

material,

such

as

metal or

glass

At

adequate

thi kness

and

qualities,

these

materials can

be

considered

impermeable,

fo r

all

intensive

purposes

For

foods

that

do

not

require

extended shelf

lives,

the

use

permeable

packaging

is

often

employed

Plastic

packages

have

varying

degrees

barrier

properties

depending

on

th e

materials

used,

but

can

not

be

considered

impermeable.

The material chosen is can

be driven

by

many

factors,

but

permeability

is

always one

th e factors.

In

general,

plastics are

considered

short term

barriers

and

used

with

products

having

shelf lives one year or

less.

a Moistu re Vapor

Transmission Rate

[MVTR]

Prior

to

developing

th e proper

package,

foods

first need

to

be

analyzed

to

determine th e amount

protection that

is

required

to prevent

degradation

to

th e

quality



18

the

product

Once

that

is

established,

packaging

m teri l

c n

then

be

selected

As

discussed

above,

gl ss

nd

met l

offer

n

impermeable

barrier,

while

p per

based

structures

re

relatively

permeable,

nd

pl stics

offer

varying

degrees

permeability

Robertson,

354).

Plastics

such

s

high ensity

polyethylene

HDPE

nd

polypropylene

PP

offer

excellent

moisture

barrier

properties

nd

re

very

common

in

food

packaging

Paine,

118 .

b.

Oxygen

Transmission

Rate

[OTR]

As

with

MVTR,

it

is

necessary

to

determine

th e

g s

barrier

requirements

food

product

prior

to

t rmining

its

p ck ge

design

nd

m teri l

selection

The

g s

most

cruci l

to

food

packaging

is

oxygen,

because

its

many

re ctions

that

ffect

th e

shelf

life

foods.

Oxygen

c n

c use

or

facilitate

microbi l

growth,

color

changes,

oxid tion

lipids

causing rancidity,

nd

senescence

fruits

nd

veget bles

Robertson,

369 .

Like

with moisture

vapor, glass, metal,

nd cer mic

c n

be

nearly

perfect

barriers to

oxygen

transmission.

Plastics

lso

provide

varying

degrees

oxygen

barrier,

from

very

we k to

lmost

perfect

High

barrier

properties

c n

be

chieved

in

pl stics

through

sever l

means,

monol yer

oxygen

barrier

polymers,

multil yer

structures,

surf ce

treatments,

surf ce

coatings,

resin

blends,

nd

through

processing

The

most

common

barrier

pl stics used in

th e food

industry

re

ethylene

vinyl

lcohol

EVOH

nd

polyvinylidene chloride

VDC). EVOH

c n

have

relatively

high

g s

nd

oxygen

barrier,

making

it

very

effective t

retarding

th e transfer

odors

nd

reducing

flavor

loss

Strupinsky

Brody,

129).



19

Chapter

2

Focus

Research

This

ch pter

is

concentra ted

on

specific

septic

packaging

process

nd

th e

packaging

dairy

product

The

discussion

will

focus

on

th e

form

fill

nd

se l

process

ginning

with

pl stic

roll

stock

moving

through

sterilization

into

forming

nd

through

th e

sealing

nd

cutting

functions

The

factors

that

effect

e ch

process

step

will

be

discussed

nd

th e

v ri bles

that

c n

contribute

to

th e

degradation

th e

mech nic l

properties

th e

roll

stock

or

th e

effectiveness

th e

package

will

lso

be

reviewed

In

review

th e

septic

process

consists

packaging

sterile

product

into

sterile

p ck ge

in

sterile

environment

For

this

discussion

th e

p ck ge

will

consist

pl stic

roll

stock

that

is

purch sed

in

roll

form

unwound

sterilized

nd

subsequently

formed

into

cups in

sterile

environment

The

roll

stock

is

laid

on

its

side

nd

st cked

tw o

per

pallet

with

e ch

th e

rolls

weighing

approximately

1250

lbs

nd

measuring

47

inches

in

diameter

wound

on

n

eight

inch

core

These

rolls

re

inventoried

until

they

re

needed

lthough

there

is

24

hour

minimum

necessary

to

condition

th e

material

then

brought

to

th e

production

line

nd

uprighted with

hydraulic

lifting

device The

rolls

re

then

st ged

nd

subsequently

lifted onto

th e

machine

nd th e

m teri l

is

spliced

into

th e

previous

roll

The

physic l

buses th e

m teri l

endures prior to

being

used in

production

c n

ffect

its

perfo rmance

Shipping

damage

nd

improper stor ge

conditions

c n

c use

th e

over ll

strength

of

th e



20

m teri l

to

be

compromised

and,

or,

barrier

properties

Therefore,

any

m teri l

seen

to

have

physic l

damage

should

not

be used

in

production

Once

th e

new

m teri l

is

spliced

into

th e

m teri l

in

use,

it

begins th e

steriliz tion

process,

which

uses

hydrogen

peroxide

H202

nd

heated

sterile

ir

to

chieve

level

commerci l

sterility

Currently

in

th e

United

States,

th e

combin tion

H202

nd

heat

is

th e

primary

method

steriliz tion

th e

septic

zone

in

packaging

equipment

nd

m teri ls

that

re

used

with

low

cid

foods

Bernard,

Gavin,

Scott,

Shafer,

Stevenson,

Unverferth,

nd

Chandarana,

120 .

Hydrogen

peroxide

has

been

used

in

combin tion

with

heat

in

th e

septic

process

since

th e

FDA

pproved

its

use

in

1981

Mans,

106 .

As

th e

m teri l

enters

th e

septic

machine,

it

first

travels

through

bath

H202

which

is

heated

to

C

to

increase its

lethality

to

microorg nisms

Ito,

Denny,

Brown,

Yao,

nd

Seeger,

66 .

The

bath

incorporates

four

rollers,

which

the

m teri l

winds

through,

that

re

necessary

fo r

sufficient

dwell

t ime

in

th e

H202

to

adequately

sterilize

th e

m teri l

See

Figure

2. 1

below.

i

*b

Forming

Section

Heating

Section

\ J -UUUVAT

Figure

2.1

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Bath

illustration



21

The

steril ization

parameters,

such as

the

required

residence

time

in

th e

H2 2

bath,

are

first

determined

through

formulas

and

then

tested

through

micro-challenges,

which

will

ultimately

establish

th e

operational

limits

of

each

critical

factor

that

permit

commercially

sterile

operation

Elliott,

Evancho,

and

Zink,

116 .

To

micro-challenge

the

packaging

material,

it

is

first

inoculated

with

a

strain

of

bacteria

of

known

H2 2

resistance,

and

at

spore

concentrations

of

1 3

10\

and

1 5

Elliott,

Evancho,

and

Zink,

119 . In

th e

case

of

this

machine

qualification

th e

strain

used

was

Bacillus

subtilis

A,

which

is

the

organism

of

choice

fo r

systems

which

utilize

H2 2

and

heat

fo r

sterilization,

and

was

also

tested

at

a

concentration

of

1 6

Ito

Stevenson,

61 .

The

micro challenge

is

conducted

using

sterilizing

critical

operating

parameters

at

th e

minimum

possible

values

that

would

be

run

during

normal

production,

thereby

assuring

that th e

lethality

will

be at

parity

or

greater

than

at

test

conditions

Elliott,

Evancho,

and

Zink,

119 .

The

inoculated

materials

are

then

filled

with

a

media

which

will

promote

th e

growth

of

th e

particular

spore,

incubated,

and

monitored fo r

growth

The

sterilization

efficiency

of

the

packaging

system

needs

to

be at

parity

to,

or

better

than,

then

that

provided

for

th e

product

Basically,

th e

package

sterilization

must provide

the same

amount

of

protection

as

the

product

sterilization

This

is due

to th e fact

that

th e

contamination

factor

for th e

package is

much

lower

than

that of

th e food

product

Bernard,

Gavin,

Scott, Shafer,

Stevenson,

Unverferth,

and

Chandarana,

122). Once

acceptable results

of

testing

are

achieved,

those

results

and

the

given

operating

parameters are filed with th e

National

Food

Processing

Authority

NFPA .

During

the

sterilization of the

bodystock,

several

factors

can

affect

its

performance The minimum amount

of

residence t ime in

the

peroxide

is

set,

but

th e

maximum

amount of t ime

is

an unknown

Machine

stoppages

can

last

a

few

hours,

or



22

several

days

The

affect

of

stoppages

of

varying

times

has

not

been

absolutely

identified

and

is

th e

main

reason

fo r

this

thesis

There

are

several

factors

that

could

have

an

impact

on

th e

material

such

as

th e

concentration

of

H2 2

th e

temperature

of

th e

bath

th e

tension

placed

on

th e

material

in

th e

bath

th e

size

of

th e

rollers in

th e

bath

th e

location

of

the

rollers

in

th e

bath

and

th e

temperature

of

th e

drying

air

After

the

material

is

sterilized

in

th e

H2 2

bath

and

dried

it

enters

th e

heating

section

of

th e

machine

Individually

controlled

contact

heater

plates

are

used

to

bring

th e

plastic

sheet

up

to

temperature

Normally

several

heating

plates

are

incorporated

and are

set

at

increasing

temperatures

as

th e

sheet

moves

toward

th e

forming

station

The

forming

station

incorporates a

bottom

mold

which

has

cavities that

forms

th e

cups

and a

top

mold

which

has

plugs that

help

to

stretch

the

material

and

air

assists

that

blow

th e

material

against

th e

walls

of

th e

cavities

when

th e

tw o

molds

are

closed

together

With

each

cycle

of

th e machine th e

heating

plates

come

together

and

contact

th e

material

to

heat

it

and

th e

forming

molds come

together

to

form a

cycle

of

cups

At

th e

end

of

each

machine

cycle

the

heating

plates

and th e

molds

retract to

le t

th e

sheet

index

forward

freely

The

sheet

then

indexes

forward and is

filled with

product

During

th e

heating

and

forming

processes

it

is

important to heat th e

sheet to the

correct

temperature

and

use

th e

proper

forming

parameters Too much heat can

cause

to o much

material to

be

drawn

to

th e bottom of

th e

cup

to o

little heat can cause th e

material to

stretch

during

forming

and

result

in a

thin bottom which can

easily

rupture

Variables

in

the

forming

process

such

as

plug

timing

plug

depth

plug

size

plug

shape

air assist

timing

and air

assist

pressure

can

all

have

equally

as

significant effects

Proper

cup

forming

is

important

so

that

th e

stru tur l

integrity

of

th e package is

maintained

and

th u s th e

barrier

is

maintained

Once



3

th e

structural

integrity

of

a

package

is

compromised

damage

can

occur

more

easily

and

reduce

or

eliminate

its

barrier

properties.

After

filling

th e

sheet

continues to

index

forward

to

th e

pre sealer.

At

this

point

th e

lid

stock

which

has

been

sterilized

with

th e

same

process

as

th e

cup

stock

is

introduced

to

th e

cup

stock

and

th e

tw o

are

pre sealed

along

th e

outside

edge.

This

process

forms a

sterile

envelope

which

prevents

an y

contamination

from

gaining

access

to

the

product.

The

material

then

exits

the

sterile

zone

th e

machine

and

enters

th e

sealing

station

which

seals

a

full

cycle

cups

simultaneously.

Positive

air pressure

prevents

any

contaminant

from

gaining

entry

into

th e

sterile

zone

the

machine

as

th e

material

exits.

Once

th e

cups

are

sealed

the

sheet

moves

to

th e

cutting station

which

cuts th e

cups

into

individuals

pairs

or

fours

The

sealing

th e

package

involves

three

parameters

which

are

time

temperature

and

pressure.

These

parameters

need

to

be

optimized

through

testing

to

ensure

a

good

hermetic

seal.

Falling

outside

th e

optimized

parameters

can

result

in

a

weak

seal

that

is

susceptible

to

failing

thus

compromising

the

sterility

the

product.

Improper

alignment

th e

sealing

heads

in

relation to

th e

cups

can

also

result in

a

poor

seal.

And

misalignment th e

cutting

tool can also

cause the

seals to be

partially

or

completely

in

severe

cases

to be cut

away.

In

any

these

cases

th e

integrity

th e

package s

barrier

is

compromised

and

therefore

the package should be

discarded



24

Chapter

3

Hypothesis

H202

Sterilization

Systems

c n

Lead

to

Specific

Material

Degradation

th t

Affects

the

Machinability

of

that

Material

This

rese rch

project

w s

conducted

t

th e

packaging

rese rch

facility

of

leading

food

comp ny

In

this

project

tw o

problems

relating

to

th e

use of

H

with

pl stic

packaging

m teri l

were

ddressed

Body

stock

web

breaks

during

production

2-

Increased

damage

r tes

of

product

in

th e

field

During

th e

septic

form,

fill,

nd

se l

process

degradation in

th e

mech nic l

properties

of

th e

packaging

m teri l

w s

evidenced

Specifically,

it

w s

believed

that

th e

problems

occurred

s

result of

th e

method

of

steriliz tion

of

th e

cup

body

stock

used

to

cont in

shelf

st ble

food

product

A

Materials

The

m teri ls that

were

tested in

this

rese rch

were

chosen

fo r

tw o

re sons

The

polystyrene

m teri l

w s chosen

because

it is the

current

m teri l

used

in

production

with

the

polypropylene m teri l

being

chosen

due

to its

low

cost

nd

th e

desire

to

use

it

in

th e

future

fo r

production

purposes The

s me

vendor

using

th e

s me

processing

equipment

m nuf ctured

both

m teri ls

They

re

both

coextruded

materials

with

n

interior layer of

ethylene

vinyl

lcohol

EVOH)

which

is

used

s

barrier

layer

The

coextrusion process

st rts with pellets

of

e ch

resin

melts

them,

nd

then

forces

the

m teri l

through

wide

flat,

thin

opening

which results

in

continuous

flow



25

pl stic

sheet

Although

that

description

m kes

it

sound

simple

there

re

many

factors

which

need

to

be

closely

controlled

to

m ke

good

finished

product

Both

th e

test

m teri ls

re

composed

five

layers

tw o

outside

layers

tw o

ti e

layers

nd

middle

layer

These

structures

require

that

th e

extruder

have

five

m teri l

hoppers nd

five

screws

one

for

e ch

layer

Each

r w

m teri l

is

filled

into

its

own

hopper

which

feeds

its

own

extrusion

screw

The

screw

st rts

out

with

large

gap

between

its

threads

nd

s

th e

m teri l

continues

to

travel

down

th e

screw

th e

threads

get

tighter

nd

c n

lso

get

wider

The

barrel

th e

extruder

is

lso

heated

with

sever l

controll ble

zones

nd

together

with

th e

heat

c used

by

th e

fiction

th e

screw

th e

pellets

re

melted

to

viscous

st te

The

base

layer

m teri l is

run

through

th e

m in

screw

then

th e

other

layers re

introduced

from

ltern te

screws

s

th e

base

m teri l

travels

down

th e

barrel

The

complete

m teri l

structure

is

then

forced

through

heated

extrusion

die

The

die

size

is

normally

th e

pproxim te

sheet

thickness

in

width nd

twice th e

pproxim te

sheet

width

in

length

After

th e

m teri l

is

forced

through

the

die

it

immediately

travels

through

set

c lender

rollers

These

rollers cool

th e

sheet

nd

put

finish

or

polish

onto

the

sheet

These

rollers

help

determine th e

final

thickness

th e

m teri l

through

th e

distance

their

separation

nd

controlling

their

speed

A

continuous

nd

automated

device

that

monitors g uge then

inspects

th e

m teri l fo r

any

v ri tions

The

m teri l is

then

slit in three

places

in the

middle nd t

e ch

edge

After

th e

edges

re

t r immed

away

nd th e

m teri l is

slit into tw o

webs

both

webs

re

rolled

onto

sep r te

cores

Once th e rolls re

finished

they

re

palletized

one on

top

th e

other



26

B.

Material

Degradation

Material

degradation

can

occur

in

most

plastics

although

it

is

difficult

to

generalize

across

all

thermoplastics

certain

elements

and/or

conditions

that

cause

degradation

Ogorkiewicz

72 .

It

has

been

proven

that

degradation

does

occur

given the

right

conditions

and

can

happen

as

early

as

processing

or

after

years.

Some

th e

most

common

elements

associated

with

degradation

are

due

to

processing

conditions

radiation

temperature

changes

time

oxygen

humidity

and

ultra violet

rays

Ogorkiewicz

67 .

Only

th e

factors

related

to

this

thesis

oxidation

heat

and

time

will

be

covered in

this

discussion.

It

is

also

important to

note

that

past

research

has

shown

that

the

amount

clarity

a

thermoplastic

possesses

and

polypropylene

in

specific

will

effect

th e

amount

degradation

that

occurs

over

t ime.

This is

due

to

pigment

in

th e

material

blocking

th e

ultra violet

rays

and can

drastically

reduce

the

amount

impact

strength

that is

lost

over

t ime

Ogorkiewicz

68 .

Heat can

also have

detrimental

effects

on

material

which

is

often

present

with

direct

light.

Accelerated

testing

done on

polypropylene

showed

that

excessively

high

heat

caused

severe

embrittlement

when

compared

to

samples

stored

under

normal

weathering

conditions

Ogorkiewicz

69 . High

heat

can

also be

degrading

in

processing

th e material. It

has been shown

that it

is

quite

typical

fo r

thermal

degradation

to

occur in both

polystyrene and

polypropylene

if

th e

residence

t ime

in

th e

barrel is

prolonged

Ogorkiewicz

113 . Some correlation

has

been

shown

between

th e

relative

stability

a material s

chemical bonds and that

materials

resistance

to

some

forms

deg rad ation. A lthough th e

stability

th e

pure

polymer

has

only

limited



27

relevance

due

to

th e

amount

additives,

pigments,

and

impurities in a material

Ogorkiewicz,

71).

Hydrogen

peroxide

has

also

been

shown

to

have

detrimental

effects on

some

thermoplastics,

and

polypropylene

in

particular

The

surface

characteristics

polypropylene

were

investigated

prior

to,

and

after,

exposure to

H202.

Samples

evaluated

by

a

Fourier

Transform

Infrared

Spectrophotometer

FTIR ,

in

combination

with

Attenuated

Reflectance

Spectroscopy ATR ,

found

that

possible

chemical

alterations,

or

reactions,

caused

by

a

H

sterilization

process

were

most

likely

limited

to

th e

surface

th e

polypropylene,

and

were

not

sufficient

to

show

a

marked

change

from

th e

control

Caudill

Halek,

149).

Although

using

another

analysis

method,

th e

water

droplet

contact

angle

method,

it

was

found

that

heat

was

causing

an

increase

in

th e

materials

surface

polarity,

and

H

was

emphasizing

th e

reaction

Caudill

Halek,

153 .

C.

Statement

Problem

The

first

problem

was

observed

during

the

actual

aseptic

process

During

this

process,

plastic

sheet,

which will

be

formed

into

cups,

is

unwound

a

roll,

put

through

a

sterilization

process

involving

H202, formed,

filled,

sealed and

cut

The

sheet is

mechanically

driven th rough the

machine

by

tw o

methods,

a

motorized

drive

roller

located after th e sterilization

process,

and also

from

a

mechanical

pulling

device

outside

th e sterile zone th e

machine

During

normal

product ion,

th e

web

cup

stock

was

cracking,

propagating

across th e entire

sheet,

resulting

in a

complete

web

break.

A

single

web

break

causes

th e

machine

to

be

down

fo r

several hours

while

th e

sheet

is

fed

back

through th e

machine ,

and

the

machine

is

re sterilized



28

In

investigating

these

occurrences

it

was

noted

that

prior

to

th e break th e machine

had

stopped

fo r

varying

lengths

t ime

This

would

cause

th e

sheet

located

in the

H

bath

to

be

held

there

fo r

th e

complete

duration

th e

machine

stop. It

was further

determined

that

th e

breaks

were

occurring

in

th e

material

that

had

been

held in th e

H

bath

Some

degradation in

th e

material s

mechanical

properties

was

being

caused

by

prolonged

duration

in

th e

bath

A

less

severe

instance

th e

same

issue

was

seen

on

a

similar

machine.

After

th e

cups

are

formed

filled

sealed

and

cut

th e

remaining

material

or

trim

strip

is

pulled

into

a

shredding

machine.

This

shredding

machine

requires

continuous

tension on

the

trim

strip

in

order

to

maintain

continuous

flow

When

th e

trim

strip

is

broken

th e

flow

is

interrupted

and

production is

halted

An

unacceptable

degradation

in

th e

material s

tensile

strength will

cause

this

breakage

to

occur

at

an

unacceptably

high

rate.

It

was

also

found that

in

most

cases

machine stoppages

had

occurred prior

to

trim

strip

breaks

and

th e material

that

was h eld in

th e

H

bath

was

th e

material that

broke

The

second

problem

was a

post process

issue

Unusually

high

rates

distribution

damage

were

being

seen

following

normal

transportation

and

handling

th e

finished

product.

Oddly

damage

was

being

reported that

was

inconsistent

with

th e

severity

th e

environment.

Lab

testing

showed that there

was a

significant

difference

in

th e

impact

resistance

samples

from

different

production

lots It

was

postulated

that

th e

variations

in

impact

strength the

formed cups

were

being

caused

by

variations

in

th e

H

sterilization

process.



29

2W 2

Through

this

research

it

is

intended

to

determine

if

th e

method

H20

sterilization

is

th e

primary

cause

th e

degradation

th e

material s mechanical

properties,

and

what

sensitivity,

if

any,

can

be

attributed

to

th e

duration

exposure

D.

Research

Proposal

It

is

proposed

that

as

th e

materials

used

in

th e

fabrication

th e

food

packages

discussed

above

are

exposed

to

H

for

in re sing

periods

time

there

will

be a

proportionate

increase

in

th e

degradation

its

mechanical

properties

This

hypothesis

will

be

tested

by

determining

th e

tensile

strength,

elongation,

and

modulus

elasticity

th e

samples

before

exposure

and

after

varying

periods

exposure

to H202

It

is

also

proposed

that

as

th e

materials

thicknesses

decrease

there

will

be an

increasing

vulnerability

to

th e

H

sterilization

process

If

this is

found to

be

true

any

attempts

to

reduce the

material

thickness

would

require

testing

to

determine

whether

a

corresponding

change

in

the

sterilization

process would

be

required

Testing

will

therefore be

conducted

on four

sample

ty pes: tw o

thicknesses each

a

polypropylene

material

and a

polystyrene

material This will

determine if

th e

variability

in

observed

results in

th e field stem from

variations

in

material

thickness.



30

Chapter 4

Methodology

To

test

th e

forementioned

rese rch

proposal,

test

method

w s

devised

in which

s mples

were cut

from

pl stic

sheet,

subjected

to

increasing

durations

H202,

nd then

tested

fo r

cert in

mech nic l

properties

The

results

this

testing

were

then used

to

depict

th e

validity

th e

rese rch

propos l

A.

Test Description

The

Standard

Test

Method

for

Tensile

Properties

Plastics

ASTM-D638

w s

selected

s th e

method

determining

the

mech nic l

properties

th e

m teri ls

This is

commonly

used

testing

methodology,

important

for th e

comp rison

critic l

mech nic l

properties

During

these

tests,

die

cut

test

specimen

is

elong ted in

uni xi l

tension

t

const nt r te until

th e break point

is re ched

Resistance nd

displacement

re

me sured th r oughout th e

test,

with

v lues recorded t

th e yield point

nd

th e

break

point

Storer,

48 .

In this

case,

th e

m teri ls selected were tested

fo r

tensile

strength,

elongation,

nd modulus

el sticity

1.

Tensile

Strength

Tensile

strength is c lcul ted

by

dividing

th e m ximum

load

by

the

origin l

minimum

cross

section l

re

the

specimen,

thus:

Tensile

Strength

m x

load

/

sample

width

x

thickness

The

results

re

c lcul ted

nd

reported to th re e

signific nt

figures

Storer,

52 .



31

2.

Elongation

Elongation,

n

indication

of the

ductility

of

material,

is

figured

by

th e

increase

in

length

of

given

specimen

subjected

to

given

tensile

load.

The

elong tion

is

c lcul ted

s

percent ge

of

elong tion

t

th e

yield

point,

or

t

th e break

point,

whichever

is

higher.

In

these

tests,

th e

v lue

t

th e

break

point

w s

greater,

nd

therefore

that

v lue

w s

used

To

determine

elongation,

the

extension

which

is

ch nge in

g uge

length

is

me sured

t

th e

point

where

th e

pplic ble

load

is

re ched

That

extension

is

then

divided

by

th e

origin l

g uge

length

nd

th e

result

is

multiplied

by

100,

being

expressed

s

percent ge

Thus:

Elongation

elongation t

break

/

initial

grip

separation)

x

100

The

results

re

c lcul ted

nd

reported

to

tw o

signific nt

figures

Storer,

53).

3.

Modulus

of

Elasticity

The

modulus

of

elasticity is

n

indication

of

brittleness,

nd

is

determined

by

th e

r tio

of

stress

to

corresponding

str in

below th e

proportion l

limit

of

m teri l

The

v lue

is

c lcul ted

by

extending

th e

initial

linear

portion

of

th e

load-extension

curve

nd

dividing

the

difference

in

stress

by

th e

corresponding

difference

in

str in

Stress

is

defined s th e load per unit

of

origin l

cross section l re

Strain

is

defined

s

th e

elong tion

of

th e te st

specimen If th e

stress

/

str in data re

plotted,

th e

slope

of

th e

line

t th e

steepest

portion

of

the linear section of th e

curve,

is

th e

modulus of

elasticity

Storer,

53).

B.

Testing

Preparat ion

The

m t ri ls

selected

fo r

testing

were

those

currently

in

use

by

th e

food

manufacturing

company

fo r

packaging

of

shelf st ble

food

products



32

1

Material

Variables

Two

materials

were

chosen

fo r

testing.

The

first

was

th e

current

structure

used

in

actual

production

which

was

a

multi layer

co extruded

polystyrene based

material

The

second

material

was

chosen

as

a

possible

lower

cost

alternative

to

th e

current

and

was

a

multi layer

co extruded

polypropylene based

material

In

addition

to

testing

tw o

materials

each

th e

materials

chosen

were tested

at

tw o

thicknesses.

It

has

been

indicated

above

that

th e

sensitivity

to

th e

material

thickness

is

concern

As

cost

savings

and

material

reduction

projects

are

pursued

these

test

results will

determine

whether

this

concern

is

valid

As

these

materials

are

both

formed in

sheets

through

a

co extrusion

process

they

are

considered

anisotropic

or

that

they

have a

machine

direction.

Physical

properties

m ay

vary

depending

on

the

orientation

th e

material

Therefore

samples

were

cut

in

tw o

orientations: machine

direction

which

is

parallel

to th e

direction

extrusion

and

transverse

which is

perpendicular

to th e

direction

extrusion

a

Polystyrene

Material

The

polystyrene based material

is a five

layer material

comprised

PS

EVOH

and

PE

with

ti e layers between.

The

PS

layer

offers structural

support and

rigidity

to

th e

container

This also offers high

clarity

fo r

good product

visibility

Although

one

th e

lower

cost

resins

certain

additives used to

increase

performance

characteristics

can

also

substantially

increase its

cost

EV OH is

included

in

th e material fo r

its

excellent

barrier

characteristics

It

is

also

moisture

sensi t ive

and

therefore

needs to be

extruded

between

tw o

layers

of

relatively



33

moisture

resist nt

m teri l

When

comparing

high

barrier

materials,

EVOH

is

relatively

inexpensive.

PE

is

included

in

th e

structure

because it

is

FDA

pproved

to

have

cont ct

with

food,

nd

lso

has

relatively

low

melting

point,

which

m kes

it

good

heat

sealing

m teri l

PE

is

lso

one

of

th e

low

cost

resins

commonly

used in

food

p ck ging

b.

Polypropylene

Material

PP

is

lso

FDA

pproved

to

have

direct

cont ct

with

food,

nd is

th e

lowest

of

th e

low

cost

resins

used in

food

p ck ging

Although

its

melting

temperature

is

higher

than

that

of

PE,

it

still

m kes

n

ccept ble

heat

se l

ltern tive

EVOH

is

included

fo r

th e

s me

re sons

detailed

previously

Material

Variable PP50

PP55 PS52 PS57

Total

Thickness mils

/

50

55

52

57

Layer

Composition

Layer

1

outside)

23.5 mil

PP

25.8 mil

PP

37.6

mil

PS

42.6

mil

PS

Layer

2

tie)

0.75 mil

0.85 mil

mil

mil

Layer 3

EVOH)

1.5 mil

1.7

mil

mil

mil

Layer

4

tie)

0.75 mil

0.85 mil

mil

mil

Layer

5

inside)

23.5

m il PP

25.8 mil PP

11.4

mil

PE

11.4

mil

PE

Regrind

of

v r

m tl

69

39

9

9

Table 4.1

Materials

Selected

for

Testing



34

2.

Sample

Size

nd

Preparation

All

m teri l

w s

obt ined in

sheet

form

from

single

vendor

with

s mples

fo r

testing

being

cut

from

it.

Both

m teri ls

were

manufactured

within

day

of

th e

other

nd

e ch

m teri l

thickness

v ri ble

w s

run

within

n

hour

of

th e other

nd

used th e

s me

batches

of

resins

The

m teri ls

were

prep red

s

die

cut

Type

IV

specimens

in

ccord nce

with

ASTM

Standard

D

638,

then

conditioned

s

required

by

Paragraph

7.1

of

th e s me

standard

nd

tested

in

th e

environment

s

specified

in

Paragraph

7.2.

Note

that

th e

conditions

specific

to

hygroscopic

m teri ls

outlined in

Paragraph

7.1.1

were

not

dhered

to,

since

th e

requirement

did not

pply

The

s mples were

lso

me sured fo r

thickness in

ccord nce

with

Paragraph

10.1.

There

were ten

s mples

of

e ch

m teri l

type,

fo r

both

m chine

direction

MD

nd

transverse

direction

TD ,

prep red

nd

conditioned

Each group

of

te n

s mples w s

subjected

to the hydrogen

peroxide bath

for

varying

periods

of

time.

There

were

seven

specific

test

durations,

during

which

th e s mples

were

exposed to

th e

H

bath: 0

seconds

20

seconds

60

seconds

120

seconds

300

seconds

600

seconds

nd

1200

seconds

Thus,

there were ten test s mples fo r e ch m teri l

type

thickness,

nd

extrusion

direction

8

total ,

t e ch exposure

t ime

7

total ,

requiring

th e

prep r tion

of

560 test

s mples Each s mple w s identified

with m rkings on

e ch

end

with

m teri l

type

thickness

nd m teri l

direction,

on one

end

nd

H

exposure

duration

nd

s mple

num r

on th e

other See Figure 4.1 on th e

following

p ge



35

:

W

rt

PS

S7mil

Sample

Figure

4.1

Test

Sample

Note

the

PS

57

MD

marked

at

th e

top

to

denote a

Polystyrene

57 mil

sample

cut

in

th e

machine

direction

and 2

marked at th e

bottom

to

denote a

tw o

minute

exposure

t ime

and

sample

number

one

C.

Testing

Procedure

After

th e samples

were

prepared,

th e samples

were then

conditioned and

tested

in

a

conditioned

laboratory

held

at

7

F

and

50 RH. The

following

items

were

used

during

sample

conditioning

Hot

plate

[agitating]

2.

Digital temperature

probe

3.

Custom

sampling holding

device

[10

sample

capacity]

4.

Pyrex

dish

5.

Stop

watch

6.

Hydrogen

peroxide

[35

concentration]



36

7

Hydrogen

peroxide

concentration

test

kit

including

th e

following:

Hydrometer

tube

Thermometer

Hydrometer

Conversion

charts

Hydrogen

peroxide

was

first

poured

into

th e

Pyrex

dish

which

was

then

placed

on th e

heating

plate

and

heated

The

digital

temperature

probe

was

placed

into

the

H202

and

monitored

The

H202

was

then

tested

fo r

concentration

using

th e

following

procedure

Fill

hydrometer

tube

with

sample

H202

approximately

500 ml

2

Submerge

thermometer

into

H202

in

hydrometer

tube

3

Record

temperature

[C]

after

reading

has

stabilized

4

Submerge

hydrometer

into

H202

in

hydrometer

tube

being

careful

not

to

allow

th e

hydrometer

to

contact

the

hydrometer

tube

5

Record

specific

gravity

[g cm3]

from

th e

bottom

th e

meniscus

after

reading

has

stabilized

6

Refer

to

H202

Concentration

Conversion

Chart A

to

determine the

concentration

from the

H202

temperature and

specific

gravity

readings

H 0

Concentration

Conversion

Char t

A:

Hydrogen Peroxide

Temperature

Specific

Gravity

[g/cm

3]

4

C

C

4

C

43

C

44

C

45

C

46

C

47

C

8

C

9

C

1 090 28 28 28

28 28 29

29

29 29

29

1 095

29 29 29 30 30 30

30

30

30

31

1 100

30 31 31 31 31 31

31

32

32

32

1 105

32 32 32 32 33 33

33

33

33

33

1 110

33 33

33

33 33 34

34

34

34

34

1 115

34

34

34 35 35 35

35

35

35

36

1 120

35 35 36

36

36 36

36

37

37

37

1 125 36

37

37 37 37

37

38

38

38

38

1 130

38

38

38

38

38 39 39

39

39

39

1 135

39

39

39

40

40

40

40

41

41

41

1 140

40

41 41 41 41

41

41

42

42

42



37

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Temperature

Specific

Gravity

[g/cm

3]

5

C

5

C

52

C

53

C

54

C

55

C

56

C

57

C

58

C

59

C

1.090

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

31

31 31

1.095

31

31

31

31

31

32

32

32 32 32

1.100

32

32

32

33

33

33

33

33 33 34

1.105

33

34

34

34

34

34

34

34

35

35

1.110

35

35

35

35

35

35

36

36

36 36

1.115

36

36

36

36

36

37

37

37

37

37

1.120

37

37

37

38

38

38

38

38

38

38

1.125

38

38

39

39

39

39

39

40

40

40

1.130

40

40

40

40

40

41

41

41 41

41

1.135

41

41

42

42

42

42

42

42

43

43

1.140

42

43

43

43

43

43

43

44

44

44

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Temperature

6

C

C

62

C

63

C

64

C

65

C

66

C

67

C

68

C

69

C

1.090

31

31

31

32

32

32

32

32

32

33

1.095

32

33

33

33

33

33

33

34

34

34

1.100

34

34

34

34

34

34

35

35

35

35

1.105

35

35

35

35

36

36

36

36

36

36

Specific

1.110

36

36

37

37

37

37

37

37

38

j

38

Gravity

1.115

37

38

38

38

38

38

38

39

39

39

[g/cm3]

1.120

39

39

39

39

39

40

40

40

40

40

1.125

40

40

41

41

41

41

41

42

42

42

1.130

42

42

42

42

42

42

43

43

43

43

1.135 43 43

43 43 43

44

44

44

44

45

1.140 44

44

45

45

45

45

45

46

46

46

After

th e

concentration

H

was

verified to be within

the

required

range

34-36

and at the

required temperature

C

th e

conditioning

samples

began.

Samples

were placed

in a fixture designed to hold ten

samples

simultaneously

and

placed

in

th e

H

bath. A stopwatch was used

to

monitor the tim e

exposure

and

a

digital

t he rmomete r was

used to

monitor

th e

bath temperature . After

samples

were

given

th e

appropriate

exposure

they

were

removed from

th e bath

and

placed

on

paper

towels

and

allowed

to

dry

at

ambient

temperature

which was

72

F /

50

RH.

The

samples

were



38

then

reconditioned

in

th e

same

manner

as

discussed

previously

prior

to te sting .

After

reconditioning

was

complete

th e

samples

were

tested

on

th e

following

equipment

Equipment:

Instron

Model

5500R

serial

1010

Software:

Instron

Corporation

Series

IX

Automated

MaterialsTesting

System

PS

Testing

Parameters:

pp

Testing

Parameters:

Load

Cell:

10001b

10001b.

Crosshead

Speed:

2

in min

5

in./min.

Grip

Seperation:

2.5

in

2.5

in

The

results

were

recorded

through

th e

use

th e

Instron

software

package

and

printed

out

These

results

were

then

analyzed

using

init b

release 12

statistical

software

and

icrosoft

Excel

97

data

analysis

software



39

in

on

Chapter

5

Results

In

discussing

th e

results

testing,

th e

data

must

first

be

analyzed

to

determine its

relevance

and

whether

conclusive

results

can

be

drawn

from

th e

data.

The

first

step

is to

determine

th e

significance

the

data

variances

within

each

sample

set,

and

then i

relation

to

th e

total

group

all

sample

sets

Therefore,

an

analysis

will

be

performed

each

material

variable,

and

each

subset

within

those

variables,

that

will

provide

th e

following

statistical

values:

.

F-ratio,

which is

an

analysis

variance

means

2.

The

coefficient

correlation,

r .

3.

The

coefficient

determination,

r2 .

A.

Data

Analysis

1.

F-ratio

To

begin,

th e null

hypothesis

is

a

method

analysis

to

determine

th e

lack

difference

between

tw o

or more

groups

data.

The

null

hypothesis

holds that

there

are

no

significant

differences between

tw o

or

more groups

data,

and

certain

tests,

like

F

ratio,

prove

that

th e

hypothesis either holds

true

or that

it

fails

Freund

Simon,

298).

The

F-ratio is

a

statistical

analysis

variance,

which

in

th e

case

this

thesis,

will

be

used

to

te st th e

hypothesis

that the

data

indicate

there

is no

difference in

th e

mechanical

properties

each

material

as it

is

exposed to

increasing

durations

heat

and

H

Freund

Simon,

394-396). So

then,

if

null

hypothesis

holds

true,

then there

is

no



40

significant

effect

due

to

th e

increasing

exposure

to

H202.

Conversely,

if

th e null

hypothesis is

proven

false,

then

there

is

enough

statistical

variation

to

indicate

that the

alternative

hypothesis

is

true,

i.e.,

that

exposure

to

H202

has

an

effect on

th e mechanical

properties

th e

test

samples.

So

th e

comparison

th e

changes in

one

mechanical

property

is

only

made

within

a

group

consisting

th e

te n

samples

th e

same

material

exposed

to

H202

fo r

th e

seven

varying

durations

t ime.

The

F-ratio

must

exceed

a

certain

value

fo r

th e

null

hypothesis

to

be

rejected.

This

value

is

determined

using

an

algorithm

and

an

F

value

table

(Appendix

F).

First,

th e

F

value

that

will

be

used

as a

comparison

limit

to

either

accept

or

reject

the

null

hypothesis

is

determined

using

the

following

equation:

Fo os

k

/

k

n

,

when

F0

05

F

factor

@

0.05

level

significance

k

sample

sets

(exposure

times

7

n

samples

in

each

set

10

Fo os

7-1

/

7 10-1

6 /

63,

and

using

Appendix F

we find:

^0 05

2.2j

Then,

th e

null hypothesis will be

accepted

if

th e

F-ratio

values are

less

than

2.25,

and

rejected

if

they

are greater than 2.25.

When

th e

F-ratio is

very

large,

it

is an

indication

that

th e variation in

mechanical

properties due to the

H202

exposure is

much

greater

than

that

due

to

random

error.

Conversely,

when th e F-ratio is

very

small it

indicates

that

th e

variations

in

mechanical

properties can be attributed

to

random

error or

other

unknown

variables.

The

actual

F-ratio

values

are

determined

by

th e

following

equations

(Freund

Simon,

396):

Fratio

variation

among

sample

set means

/

variation

within

samples

or



41

rati

me n

squ re

factor

MSFactor

/

me n

squ re

error

MSErior

Tables

5 1

5 2

5 3

nd

5 4

detail

th e

F ratio

results

for

e ch

mech nic l

property

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

MD

CD

E.0.05

2 25

2 25

F<2 25

1 91

F>2 25

10 31

Polystyrene

57mil

Polystyrene

52mil

MD

CD

2 25

2 25

0 60

2 69

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

CD

2 25

2 25

7 78

4 12

Polypropylene

50mil

MD

CD

2 25

2 25

9 23

6 65

Table

5 1

Tensile

Strength

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

MD

o 05

2 25

F<2 25

1 98

F>2 25

Polystyrene

57mil

CD

2 25

0 70

Polystyrene

52mil

MD

2 25

2 19

CD

2 25

0 83

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

2 2 5

2 77

CD

2 2 5

6 85

Polypropylene

50mil

MD

2 25

5 23

CD

2 2 5

3 72

M icrosof t

Excel 97

SR 2

Table

5 2

Elongation

@

Break



42

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

MD

CD

Eo 5

2.25

2.25

F<2.25

1.43

F>2.25

24.42

Polystyrene

57mil

Polystyrene

52mil

MD

CD

2.25

2.25

2.15

0.30

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

CD

2.25

2.25

10.64

18.36

Polypropylene

50mil

MicrninftrS

Fvrel

7 SO

MD

CD

2.25

2.25

7.42

9.99

Table

5.3

Elongation

@

Yield

Material

Variable

Polystyrene

57mil

Polystyrene

52mil

Polypropylene

55mil

Polypropylene

50mil

Material

Direction

F 5

MD

2.25

CD

2.25

MD

2.25

CD

2.25

MD

2.25

CD

2.25

MD

2.25

CD

2.25

Microsoft

Excel

97 SR-2

Table 5.4

Modulus

o

Elasticity

F<2.25

F>2.25

3.24

4.18

2.49

0.62

5.65

4.17

10.78

5.39

2.

Coefficient

of

Correlation

The

next important statistical determinant

is

a

measure

o

how

well

th e

dependant

variable

in this

case th e

mechanical

property

o

interest

relates

to

th e

independent

variable

duration

o

exposure

to

heat

and

H202 The

coefficient

of

correlation

r

is

used

in

onjun tion

with

a scatter

plot

diagram

as a

strong

indicator

o

th e

linear

relationship



43

can

between

tw o

variables

Freund

Simon,

468

471).

The

coefficient

of

correlation

range

from

+1

to

1

inclusive.

A

value

of

+1

would

indicate

a perfect

direct

linear

correlation

between

th e

tw o

variables,

whereas

a

value

of

would

indicate a

perfect

inverse

linear

correlation

A

value

of 0

zero ,

on

th e

other

hand,

would

indicate

that

no

linear

relationship

exists

between

th e

tw o

variables

Minitab,

4-5).

The

graphs

in

Figures

5.1,

5.2,

and

5.3,

below

illustrate

an

example

of

each

6

5

4

3

2

0

0

Direct

Positive

Linear

Relationship

r=+1

6

5

4

3

2

0

Direct

Inverse

Linear

Relationship

r=-1

^X

>^^

^x^

>\

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

5

4

3

2

0

No Linear

Relationship

r=0

3 4 5

6

Figures

5.1, 5.2,

5.3.

Examples

of

Positive,

Negative,

and

Zero

Correlation

Indications



44

The

coefficient

of

correlation

is

most

readily

understood

in

conjunction

with

a scatter

plot

diagram

with

a

best-fit

curve

indicated.

The

graph

fo r

PS52MD

samples is shown

in

Figure

5.4,

below.

As

th e

reader

can

see

there

is

large

standard

deviation

observable

which

ranges

from

0.574

fo r

th e

20

second

samples

to

9 5

fo r

th e

10

minute

samples.

PS52MD

Plot

Y

45.4124

3.

19E-04X

50

R-Sq

0.6

49

43

t

?

47

___

Q

?

^

CM

LO

46

?

45

?

?

Q_

44

?

t

?

43

t

42

?

0

50 0

1000

Time

Figure

5.4.

Sample

Scatter

Plot

of

PS52MD

Tensile

Strength

Data

3. Coefficient

of

Determination

The

coefficient of

determination,

designated as

r2 ,

is

a

measure

of

th e

proportion

of the

change in th e

dependent

variable

or the

mechanical

property

of

interest,

which

can

be

attributed to th e

variation in the

independent

variable

or

duration

of

H202

exposure

in



45

this

case.

The

coefficient

is

expressed

as a

percentage

and

is

equal

to

square

of the

value

of

th e

coefficient

of

correlation,

r,

multiplied

by

100

Freund

Simon,

470).

For

example,

as

indicated

in

th e

title

block

area

of

Figure

4.4,

above,

th e

lvalue

is

calculated

to

be

0.6 ,

indicating

a

very

low

variation

in

th e

mechanical

property,

tensile

strength,

due

to

changes

in

th e

length

of

t ime

th e

test

samples

were

exposed

to

H202.

The

line

fit

equation,

Y

45.41

3.19E-04

X,

would

support

this

conclusion

i.e.,

th e

tensile

strength

would

change

by

only

0.319

lb f

fo r

every

thousand

seconds of

exposure .

This

statistical

measure,

r2,

therefore,

has

been

selected

as

a

dependable

indication

of

th e

relative

strength

of

the

relationship

between

th e

mechanical

properties

of

interest

and

th e

duration

of

exposure

to

H

fo r

th e

given

periods

of

0

(the

control

samples),

20,

60,

120,

300,

600,

and

1200

seconds.

The

calculations

for

each

material

are

listed

in

Tables

5.5,

5.6,

5.7

and

5.8.

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

r

1^(100)

0.5

Linear

Equation

y

=

45.4

0.00031

9x

olystyrene

52mil

MD

0.074

CD

0 077

0.6

y

=

34.8

0.000205X

Polystyrene

57mil

MD

0 048

0.2

y

=

51.0-0.000182x

CD

0 321

10.3

y

=

36.7-0.000314x

Polypropylene

50mil

MD

0 109

1.2

y

=

64.6

0 00041 5x

CD

0 428

18.3

y

=

63.6-0.00126x

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

0 072

0.5

y

=

73.0-

0.0001

95x

CD

0 284

8.1

y

=

72.0-0.000668x

Minitab

Statistical

Software,

release 12 fo r

Windows

95/NT

Table

5.5

Tensile

Strength



46

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

MD

CD

0 186

0 145

HflOO

3.5

2.1

Linear

Equation

y

=

71.6-0.00481x

y

=

103-0.00937x

Polystyrene

52mil

Polystyrene

57mil

MD

CD

0 125

0 100

1.6

1.0

y

=

82.8

0.00666x

y

=

81.9-0.00760x

Polypropylene

50mil

MD

CD

0.262

0 050

6.9

0.3

y

=

408

0.163x

y

=

562

0.044x

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

CD

0 219

0.517

4.8

26.7

y

=

228

0.053x

y

=

43.7

0.1

72x

Table

5.6

Elongation

@

Break

Material

Variable

Polystyrene

52mil

Polystyrene

57mil

Polypropylene

50mil

Polypropylene

55mil

Material

Direction

r

MD

0.312

CD

0.010

MD

0.163

CD

0.042

MD

0.436

CD

0.620

MD

0.443

CD

0.620

initab

Statistical

Software,

release 12

fo r

Windows

95/NT

Table 5.7

Elongation

@

Yield

Hnoo

Linear

Eauation

9.7

y

=

8.23

0.000222x

0.0

y

=

12.0

0.000059x

2.7

y

=

8.32

0.0001x

0.2

y

=

20.7

0.0001

92x

19.0

y

=

18.4

0.000633x

38.4

y

=

17.9

0.000865x

19.6

y

=

18.1 0.000708x

38.4

y

=

17.2

0.000975x



47

Material

Variable

Material

Direction

MD

CD

0 087

0 171

1^ 100 1

0.8

2.9

Linear

Equation

y

=

78920

0.658x

y

=

55836

0.72x

Polystyrene

52mil

Polystyrene

57mil

MD

CD

0 263

0 088

6.9

0.8

y

=

79187_ 2.19x

y

=

49579

0.274x

Polypropylene

50mil

MD

CD

0 199

0 555

4.0

30.8

y

=

85815

2 32x

y

=

83906

5.26x

Polypropylene

55mil

MD

CD

0 421

0 406

17.7

16.5

y

=

89028

3.73x

y

=

86529

3.73x

Table

5.8

Modulus

of

Elasticity



48

Chapter

6

Conclusions

Recommendations

The

ppro ch

taken

in

this

section

is

to

ddress

e ch

of

th e

m teri l

v ri bles

independently

then

to

integrate

those

findings

to

determine

if

consistent

relationship

exists

Each

discussion

will

include

table

with

th e

relev nt

st tistic l

data

derived

from

th e

testing

results

This

data

will

form

th e

basis

fo r

th e

n lysis

nd

deductions

A.

Discussion

Results

1

Polystyrene

57

mil

For

this

material

th e

data

w s

consistent

fo r

s mples cut

in

th e

m chine

direction.

For

three

th e

four

mech nic l

properties

th e

null

hypothesis

w s

accepted

which

indicates

that

there

w s

no

or

little

difference

in

th e

mech nic l

properties

induced

by

exposure to

H202

For

th e

one

mech nic l

property

modulus

elasticity

in

which

th e

null

hypothesis

w s

rejected

th e

coefficient

correlation

r

w s

slightly

neg tive

showing

degrading

effect

Further

the

coefficient

determination

r2

indicated

that

very

sm ll

proportion

th e

ctu l

degradation

w s

due to

th e

H

exposure

The

linear

equ tion

supports

this

being

very

flat

line.

See

Table

6 1

below

fo r

data

nd

Appendix

fo r

sc tter

plots nd r w data.

The

conclusion

therefore

is that

there is

no

statistically

signific nt degradation

th e 57 mil polystyrene c used

by

any

tested

exposure

to

H202



49

Polystyrene

57mil

Machine

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Elongation

@

Break

Elongation

@

Yield

Modulus of

Elasticity

Null

Hypothesis

f

F

Accept

1.91)

0 048

Accept

1.98)

0 125

Accept

1.43)

0.163

Reject

3.24)

0 263

accept if

x

<

2.25)

rMlOOl

Linear

Equation

0.2

y

=

51.0

0.0001

82x

1.6

y

=

82.8

0.00666x

2.7

y

=

8.32

0.0001x

6.9

y

=

79187-2.19x

Polystyrene

57mil

Cross

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Null

Hvnothesis F

Reject

10.31)

0 321

rMlOOl

10.3

Linear

Equation

y

=

36.7

0.000314x

Elongation

@

Break

Accept

0.70)

0 100

1.0

y

=

81.9-0.00760x

Elongation

@

Yield

Reject

24.42)

0.042

0.2

y

=

20.7

0.000192x

Modulus

of

Elasticity

Reject

4.18)

accept

if

x

<

2.25)

0 088

0.8

y

=

49579

0.274x

Table 6.1

Polystyrene 57

mil

For

th e test

samples cut

in

th e cross

direction,

statistical

indicators

were

slightly

more

mixed.

Although

th e null hypothesis

was rejected

fo r

three

of

th e

four

mechanical

properties,

th e

r

values remained

low and th e linear

equations,

again,

yielded

very

flat

results. In

fact,

fo r the mechanical

property,

tensile

strength,

that

exhibited

th e

strongest

correlation

statistically,

th e

linear

equation

would

predict

a

very

minor

change

in

that

property,

e.g.,

less than

1

change

over

1000 seconds

of

exposure.

In

addition,

th e

coefficient

of

determination,

r2,

indicates

that

only

10.3

of

that variation

should

be



50

attributed

to

that

variable,

H2 2

exposure

The

conclusion,

in

regard to

th e 57 mil

polystyrene

material,

is

that

any

degradation

in

mechanica l

properties

should not

be

attributed

to

exposure

to

H202,

based

on

th e

statistical

evidence

collected in

this

study

2.

Polystyrene

52

mil

In

both

sets

of

data,

samples

cut

in

th e

machine

direction

and

those

cut

in th e

cross

direction,

there

is

strong

statistical

convergence

indicating

very

little

effect

on

any

Polystyrene

52mil

Machine

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Elongation

@

Break

Elongation

@

Yield

Modulus of

Elasticity

Polystyrene

52mi l

Cross

Direction

Null

Hvnothesis

F

Reject

2.69

0.074

rMlOO)

0.5

Linear

Equation

y

=

45.4

0.00031

9x

Accept

2.19

0 186

3.5

y

=

71.6-0.0048x

Accept

2.15

0.312

9.7

y

=

8.23

0.000222x

Reject

2.49

0 087

0.8

y

=

78920

0.658x

accept if x

<

2.25

Tensile

Strength

Null

Hvnothesis

F

Accept

0.60

0 077

dOO

0.6

Elongation

@

Break

Accept

0.83

0 145

2.1

Elongation

@

Yield

Accept

0.30

0.010

0.0

Modulus

of

Elasticity

Accept

0.62

accept

if

x

<

2.25

0 171

2.9

Linear

Equation

y

=

34.8

0.000205X

y

=

103-0.00937x

y

=

12.0

0.000059X

y

=

55836

0.72x

Minitab

Statistical

Software,

release

12

fo r Windows

95/NT

Table 6.2

Polystyrene

52 mil



51

o

th e

mech nic l

properties

o

th e

test

s mples

due

to

any

tested

duration

o

H

exposure

For

six

o

th e

eight

s mple

groups,

th e

null

hypothesis

w s

accepted,

nd

th e

coefficient

of

correl tion

lso

showed

negligible

relationship,

be it

positive or

neg tive

The

linear

equ tions

ll

predict

very

sm ll

ch nge

in

mech nic l

property

fo r

extended

periods

o

exposure

to

H202.

And

th e

coefficient

o

determination

indicates

that

any

ch nges

that

would

occur

re

more

likely

to

be

c used

by

other

factors.

Table 6.2

summ rizes

th e

st tistic l

indicators

to

support

this

ssertion

3.

Polypropylene

55

mil

Prior

to

discussing

th e

results

o

th e

st tistic l

indicators

previously

used

to

determine

th e

relationship

between

H

exposure

duration

nd

degradation

o

mech nic l

properties,

it

is

necessary

to

ddress

th e

validity

o

th e

data.

A

study

o

th e

elong tion

t

break

data

has

suggested

that

th e

data

may

not

be

statistically

v lid

due

to

large

st nd rd

deviations.

Specifically

th e

st nd rd

deviations for

th e

55

mil

polypropylene

ver ged

86 o

th e

ver ge

elongation

t

break

v lue fo r

s mples

cut

in

th e

cross

direction

nd 40

fo r

th e

s mples

cut

in

th e

m chine

direction.

In

addition,

review

o

th e

sc tter

plots fo r these

me surements

support

th e

exclusion

o

this

data

s

source

o

degradation

prediction

For

ll test

groups

th e null

hypothesis w s

rejected,

indicating

that

there

w s

difference

in th e

mech nic l

properties

fter

exposure to

H202.

This

leads

to

further

investigation into wh t type

o

difference would be

expected,

nd

to

wh t

degree

th e

exposure to

H

contributed

to the

ch nge In this

case,

th e

coefficient

o

correl tion

is

consistent

among

ll

three

us ble

indicators

tensile

strength,

elong tion

t

yield,

nd

mo ulus

o

el sticity

Tensile

strength

nd

modulus

o

elasticity

predictors

show

that

s



52

th e

exposure

duration

increases

there

will be

a

decrease

in

those

properties.

Conversely

elongation

at

yield

has

a

positive

relationship,

with

th e

predictors

showing

that

this

property

would

increase

as

exposure

duration

increases.

These

results

are

consistent

in

th e

physical

manifestation

th e

plastic s

properties,

i.e.

as

th e

tensile

strength

decreases

and

th e

elongation

at

yield

increases

it

would

cause

th e

modulus

elasticity

to

decrease.

The

modulus

elasticity

is

equal

to

stress

divided

by strain,

which

reduces

to

force

divided

by

elongation,

when

gauge

length

and

cross

section

area

are

held

constant.

Given

that

th e

tensile

strength

is

decreasing

and

elongation

at

yield

is

increasing

the

modulus

should

decrease

which

it

does.

These

factors

all

point

to

increasing

elasticity

as

a

function

increased

exposure,

with

coefficient

determination

values

ranging

from

less

than

one

percent to

38 . A

study

th e

raw

data

however

shows

that

th e

values

te nd to

change in

a

non linear

manner,

which

is

consistent

with

plastics

ASTM D

638 94b

note

A2.3). This

result

would

indicate

that th e

exposure

to

H

is

not

creating

the

problems

that

led

to this

study.

Refer

to Table

6.3 fo r

statistical

reference

data

and

Appendix

A

fo r

scatter

plots and

Appendix B fo r

th e

raw data.



53

Polypropylene

55mil

Machine

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Elongation

@

Break

Elongation

@

Yield

Modulus

of

Elasticity

Null

Hypothesis

F

)

Reject

7.78)

Reject

2.77)

Reject

10.64)

Reject

5.65)

(accept if

x

<

2.25)

Polypropylene

55mil

Cross

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Elongation

@

Break

Elongation

@

Yield

Modulus of

Elasticity

Null

Hypothesis

F

Reject

4.12)

Reject

6.85)

Reject

18.36)

Reject

4.17)

(accept

if

x<

2.25)

M initab

Statistical

Software,

release

12

fo r

Windows

95/NT

Table

6.3

Polypropylene

55

mil

0 072

0 219

0.443

0 421

0 284

0.517

0.620

0 406

i^dOOl

0.5

4.8

19.6

17.7

r dOO )

8.1

26.7

38.4

16.5

Linear Equation

y

=

73.0

0.0001

95x

y

=

228

0.053x

y

=

18.1

+0.000708X

y

=

89028

3.73x

Linear

Equation

y

=

72.0

0.000668X

y

=

43.7

0.172x

y

=

17.2

0.000975x

y

=

86529

3.73x

4.

Polypropylene

50

mil

The above

discussion

regarding

th e

results found

in

th e

analysis

of

th e

55

mil

polypropylene

test

data,

is

equally

valid fo r

th e

50 mil

polypropylene

material.

The

inexplicably

high standard deviations on th e

elongation

at

break

data,

give

sufficient

reason

to

disregard that

property

as a subject

of

further

analysis.

The

statistical

predictors

fo r

tensile

strength,

elongation

at

yield,

and

modulus

of

elasticity

also

follow

in

line

with



54

th e

results

fo r

th e

55

mil

material.

The

results

of

th e

analysis,

therefore,

are

identical.

Use

Table

6.4

as a

compar i son

of

th e

statistical

results

fo r

th e

50

mil

polypropyl

ene

material.

Polypropylene

50m

iI

Machine

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Elongation

@

Break

Elongation

@

Yield

Modulus of

Elasticity

Null

Hypothesis

F

Reject

9.23)

Reject

5.23)

Reject

7.42)

Reject

10.78)

accept if

x <

2.25)

Polypropylene

50m i

I

Cross

Direction

Tensile

Strength

Null

Hypothesis

F

Reject

6.65)

0 109

0.262

0.436

0 199

0 428

Minitab

Statistical

Software,

release

12

fo r

Windows

95/NT

Table

6.4

Polypropylene 50

mil

rMlOO)

1.2

6.9

19.0

4.0

dOO)

18.3

Elongation

@

Break

Reject

3.72)

0 050

0.3

Elongation

@

Yield

Reject

9.99)

0.620

38.4

Modulus of

Elasticity

Reject

5.39)

accept if

x <

2.25)

0 555

30.8

Linear

Equation

y

=

64.6

0.00041 5x

y

=

408

0.163x

y

=

18.4

0.000633x

y

=

85815

2 32x

Linear

Equation

y

=

63.6-0.00126x

y

=

562

0.044x

y

=

17.9

0.000865x

y

=

83906

5.26x

5.

Scanning

Electron Microscope

SEM)

Photographs

A

sample

each

of

th e polystyrene and

polypropylene

materials

was

subjected

to

an

examination

by

a

SEM

at

a

magnification

of

10,000x,

with

photographs

taken

to



55

document

th e

results

A

comp rison

s mples

subjected

to

H

for

test

periods

zero

t ime

nd

twenty

minutes

provided

n

indication

that

no

degradation

to

th e

surf ce

th e

m teri ls

w s

occurring

This

would

support

th e

deduction

that

since

no

physic l

ch nge

w s

observable

no

ch nge

in

mech nic l

properties

would

be

expected

See

Appendix

D

for

SEM

photogr phs

In

conclusion

testing

performed

on

th e

polystyrene

nd

polypropylene

m teri ls

did

not

support

th e

origin l

hypothesis

that

increased

exposure

to

H

would

degrade

th e

mech nic l

properties

those

m teri ls

Nor

w s

there

any

indication

that

s

th e

m teri ls

thickness

w s

reduced

there

would be

n

increased

propensity

to

degrade

due

to

n

increased

exposure

to

H202

The

polystyrene

m teri l

exhibited

very

little

or

no

ch nge

in

mech nic l

properties

that

could

be

ttributed

to

th e

exposure

to

H202

This

would

indicate

that

v ri tions

were

based

more

on

other

factors

such

s

m teri l

impurities

differences

in

m teri l

ch r cteristics

due

to

v ri tions in

th e

extrusion

process

imprecision

in

testing

procedures

etc

One

is lead

to th e

conclusion

therefore

that

th e

issues

that

led

to

this

rese rch

project

i e

increased

brittleness

leading

to

web nd

edge

strip

breaks

in

th e

septic

process

c n not

be ttributed

to n

increase in

H

exposure

The

polypropylene

material

alternatively

did

exhibit

some

rel tion

between

m teri l

properties

nd exposureto

H202 Both

th e

5

nd 55

mil

m teri ls

demonstrated

consistent

t rends in

t e rms

th e

physic l

property

ch nges

These

changes

however

were

not

negligible

but

very

sm ll nd left

signific nt

doubt

s to

their

neg tive

impact

in

th e

septic

process



56

B

Recommendations

for

Further

Study

As

described

in

th e

st tement

th e

problem

in

Chapter

3

th e

cup

stock

m teri l

w s

e oming

brittle

when

m chine

stopp ges

c used

it

to

be

trapped

motionless

in

th e

hydrogen

peroxide

bath

Initially

it

w s

widely

ssumed

that

th e

c use

th e

problem

lay

in

th e

increased

exposure

to

H202

As

result

of

th e

findings

this

study

further

ex min tion

th e

possible

c uses

of

th e

observed

increase

in

m teri l

brittleness

during

th e

septic

process

w s

completed

Other

potenti l

c uses

th e

degradation

in

th e

mech nic l

properties

th e

m teri l

included

heat

tension

nd

stress

due

to

curv ture

round

roller

It

w s

found

that

th e

m ximum

mount

degradation

occurred in

locations

in

cont ct

with

th e

rollers

Further

lab

testing

w s

performed

to

corrobor te

this

observ tion

nd it

w s

proven

correct

The

problem

has

been

resolved

by

in re sing

th e

diameter

th e

roller

nd

thereby

reducing

th e

stress

gr dient

resulting

from

th e

sm ll

r dius

th e

origin l

rollers

Although

th e

problem

has

been

resolved

with

empiric l

testing

nd

trial

nd

error

corrective

action

it

would be

useful

to

follow

up

with

more

formal

investigation

nd

sensitivity

n lysis to

est blish

the

signific nce

e ch

th e

forementioned

factors

In

this

way

mech nic l design

guidelines fo r

future

packaging

equipment

could

be

est blished



57

Works

Cited

Bakker Marilyn.The

Wiley

Encyclopedia

of

Packaging

T__hnology

New

York:

John

Wiley

Sons

1986.

Bernard

D.

T.

A.

Gavin

III

V.

N.

Scott

B.

D.

Shafer

K.

E.

Stevenson

J.

A.

Unverferth

n

D.

I.

Chandarana.

Validation

of

Aseptic

rocessing

n

Packaging

Food

Technology

December

1990:

119-122.

Caudill

Vance

E.

n

George

W.

Halek.

Polypropylene

Surface

Characteristics

fter

Exposure

to

Hydrogen

Peroxide

n

Heat

Processing

Journal

Plastic

Film

Sheeting. 8

(1992):

140-154.

Cerny

G.

Testing

Aseptic

Machines fo r

Efficiency

Sterilization

Packaging

Materials

by

Means

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Packaging

Technology

n

Science

March

1992:

77-81.

Elliott

Philip

H.

George

M.

Evancho

n

Donald

L. Zink.

Microbiological

Evaluation

Low-Acid

Aseptic

Fillers

Food

Technology

May

1992:

16-122.

Freund

John

E.

n

Gary

A.

Simon.

Modern

Elementary Statistics.

Englewood

Cliffs:

Prentice

Hall

1992.

Ito

Keith

A.

n

K. E.

Stevenson.

Sterilization

Packaging

Materials

Using

Aseptic

Systems

Food

Technology

March

1984:

60-62.

Ito

Keith

A.

Cleve

B.

Denny

Charles

K.

Brown

Modesto

Yao

n

Marcia

L.

Seeger.

Resistance

Bacterial

Spores

to

Hydrogen

Peroxide

Food

Technology

November

1973:

58-66.



58

Komerska,

Jim.

Constraints

Imposed

bv

Sterilization

Method

on

Selection

of

Packaging

Materials-

1991

Polymers,

Laminations

Coatings

Conference,

Sept.

3-6,

1991,

San

Diego.

Atlanta:

Tappi

Press,

1991.

Mans,

J.

Showcase:

Aseptic

Packaging

Prep.

Foods

157.3

(1988):

106.

Meet

Minitab:

Release

12

fo r

Windows

State

College:

Minitab

Inc.,

1997.

Newsome,

Rasetta L.

ed

Perspective

on

Food

Irradiation

Food

Technology.

February

1987.

pp

100-101.

Ogorkiewicz,

R.

M.

Thermoplastics:

Effects of

Processinp

Cleveland:

The

Chemical

Rubber

Co.,

1969.

Paine,

F.

A.

The

Packaging User's

Handbook

New

York:

Chapman

Hall

USA,

1995.

Radiation

Sterilizers

Incorporated.

RSI

Gammagram.

Illinois:

Radiation

Sterilizers

Incorporated,

1988.

Reuter,

H.

Aseptic

Packaging

of

Food.

Lancaster:

Technomic

Publishing

Company,

Inc.,

1989.

Robertson,

Gordon L.

Food

Packaging:

Principles

and

Practice.

New

York:

Marcel

Dekker,

Inc.,

1993.

Storer,

Roberta,

ed

1995 Annual Book

of

ASTM

Standards.

08.01:47-58

Easton:

1995.

Strupinsky,

Gene,

and

Aaron L.

Brody.

A

Twenty

Year

Retrospective

on

Plastics:

Oxygen Barr ier

Packaging

Materials.

1988

Polymers,

Laminations

Coatings

Conference,

Aug. 30

Sept.

3, 1988,

San Francisco.

Atlanta:

Tappi

Press,

1998.

Yambrach,

Fritz.

Modified

Atmosphere

Packaging

of

Sea foods.

Journal

of

ck ging

Technology

1.5

(1987):

154



Tensile

Strength

Scatter-Plots

Appendix

A

59

PS52MD Plot

Y-

45.4124

+

119E 04X

50

R Sq

-08

40

.

*

?

a

46

47

t

'

2

46

45

44

<

.

10

W

Q

t

?

43

t

42

0

SCO

I

wo o

Time

PS57MD

Plot

Y .51.0182

1 62E 04X

R Sq

-

0.2

S

54 5

.

5X 5

.

52 5

.

t

fe

51.5

51 5

6

.

t

Q.

?.

40 5

<

.

t

*

*

t

4S.5

.

t

*

i

i

PS52CD Plot

Y-

34.8164

-Z06E-04X

R Sq

-

0.6

37

*

36

<4

.

t

. .

t

n

?

o

CM

35

.

CO

*

0_

?

*

:

.

34

*

*

:

t

t

t

1

t

33

Time

PS57CD Plot

Y

36.7346

-3.14E-04X

R-Sq-

103

37 5

?

*

t

37.0

*

a

o

-

t

.

i*o

1

1

*

CO

38.5

a.

38.0

*

?

4

t

i

Time

Time

a

s

o

io

0L

a.

67

60

5

64

es

62

61

PP50MD

Plot

Y.M.eon.4.ise^Kx

R-Sq-1.2

Time

1000

06

t

64

n

?t-

o

o

S3

10

,

n.

D.

62

PP50CD

Plot

Y'

63

5854-

1.26E-03X

R~Sq-

18.3

I

500

WOO

Time



60

PP55MD

Plot

Y 72.MM 1.KE 04X

R Sq

-

0.5

S

7J 5

.

n

.

?

a

74.5

i

t

?

10

m

CL

73S

725

f

?

?

LL

.

?

71.S

1

70 5

Time

PP55CD

Plot

y

2-e.eae-04x

R-Sq.8.1

1000

Time

Elongation

@

Break

Scatter-Plnts

PS52MD

Plot

Y-

715640-

4.S1E 03X

R-Sq15

O

O

CM

lO

w

0-

PS52CD

Plot

103221

-BJ7E-C3X

R Sq

>

21

Time

Time

PS57MD

Plot

PS57CD

Plot

Y.

62.7562 6 66E 0K

R-Sq>1.6K

Y.61.9355 7.60E O3X

R-Sq1.0

150

100

V

?

?

.

t

?

?

50 l

-i

l

'

?

150

Q

O

O

a.

103

?

?

SO

i

i

i

Time

Time



61

D

5

Q.

PP50MD

Plot

Y

407.707

?

0.162S6SX

R-Sq*

8.9

WOO

?

900

800

<

700

? '

800

600

?

*

400

300

200

t

?

t

t

*

100

0

1000

Time

a

if

Q.

0 -

PP50CD

Plot

Y-

561.737

-4.35E-02X

R-Sq

-

0 .3

Time

m

400

m

n

n

.

<

200

.

t

PP55MD

Plot

Y-

236.494

-S.30E-OW

R-Sq.

4.8

1000

D

O

in

lO

0.

0.

PP55CD

Plot

43.6999+

Q.171640X

R-Sq2BJ%

700

800

>

500

400

.

300

*

'

6>

200

*

^

100

6

0

I

|

Time

Time

Elongation

a .

Yield

Scatter-PIots

PS52MD

Plot

PS52CD Plot

Y-\23133222-0

R-Sq*

8.7

Y-

11.8721

+

5.87E-OSX

R-Sq

>

0.0

Q

O

oj

in

OT

Q.

17

18

IS

?

14

?

*

i

>

J

*

13

12

?

*

?

,

10

*

9

, ?

*

i

i

r

1000

Time

Time



62

PS57MD

Plot PS57CD Plot

Y

631850

4

1 0OC O4X

R-Sq-

26

Y>

206656.

1.82E-04X

R-Sq.

02

Q

O

r

in

w

0.

18

17

4

1

t

0

Time

Time

PP50MD

Plot

PP50CD

Plot

Y.

164264.

6L-04X

R-Sq-

18.0

Y 17.8373

+

aeSC CKX

R-Sq.

36.4

195

*

?+

:

ws

175

+

Q

O

o

m

CL

0.

195

?

+

*

185

?

*

?

*

*

**

175

Time

Time

PP55MD

Plot

PP55MCD

Plot

18.1216

+

7 06E 04X

R-Sq*

19.6

Y*

17.1963

9.75E-04X

R Sq

=305

165

*

Time

1000

Time



Modulus

of

Elasticity

Scatter Plnts

63

PS52MD

Plot

Y.7S320.3.

0.8570931

R-Sq.

07*

PS52CD

Plot

Y. 55535.6

07201

47X

R-Sq.

28

Time

Time

PS57MD

Plot

Y 78187.4 2.1S541X

R Sq

C. i

o

O

O

0.

PS57CD

Plot

Y-

49579.0

-0-~O2SX

R Sq

as

52000

:

51000

+

U

t

.

<

50000

*

?

.

?

i

46000

*

?

*

47000

*

t

i

i

Time

Time

PP50MD

Plot

PP50CD

Plot

Y*656145-

Z31G62X

R Sq

4.0

Y*

83905.7

- 2S937X

R Sq

-

30.6

Time

Time



64

PP55MD

Plot

Y

690262

.J.73075X

R Sq.

17.6

Time

n

o

?

in

65000

m

n

Q_

{

t

PP55CD

Plot

Y-B95269- 73009X

R-Sq

165

~ ~

1000

Time



Appendix

B

65

PS52MD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20 min

44 16

45 15

42 42

47 60

48 38

49 37

49 21

2

45 37

45 13

43 11

47 03

44 46

45 48

48 54

3

47 28

45 56

43 25

45 91

46 55

46 76

44 62

4

44 51

45 34

43 79

44 32

44 35

42 79

44 43

5

44 13

44 48

44 11

45 50

45 99

44 27

44 51

6

45 15

45 66

47 38

43 92

47 09

43 81

45 99

7

47 19

45 99

41 96

44 35

47 41

45 91

44 62

8

46 07

45 37

45 64

47 70

44 03

44 24

45 69

9

48 03

44 16

43 92

48 08

44 13

44 94

45 29

1

49 10

44 59

42 58

48 70

48 05

47 33

44 27

Average

46 099

45 143

43 816

46 311

46 044

45 49

45 717

SD

1 729299

0 573567

1 628463

1 741311

1 693066

1 934919

1 765151

Range

4 97

1 83

5 42

4 78

4 35

6 58

4 94

High

49 1

45 99

47 38

48 7

48 38

49 37

49 21

Low

44 13

44 16

41 96

43 92

44 03

42 79

44 27

PS52CD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime

20

s

min 2

min

5 min

1

min

20

min

34 52

33 91

34 42

34 44

33 88

34 71

36 67

2

34 36

36 00

33 72

34 34

33 83

34 25

35 11

3

34 52

35 36

33 80

34 23

33 80

36 24

35 60

4

36 48

33 88

33 56

33 37 33 29

33 93

32 97

5

33 74

33 48 35 73

33 50 33 64

34 01

33 85

6

36 16 35 54

35 17 35 81

35 73

36 03

33 66

7

35 97

35 95

36 30

35 84 36 27 36 11 35 84

8

36 32

36 51

36 32

35 97 35 41

35 76

33 88

9

33 99

36 00 33 66

34 63

34 93

35 84

33 93

1

34 15

33 61

33 93

33 64

33 37

33 48

33 58

Average

35 021 35 024

34 661

34 577 34 415

35 036

34 509

SD 1 075768

1 168239

1 11922

0 9859 46 1 074474

1 063685

1 2 6947

Range

2 74

3 03 2 76

2 6 2 98

2 76

3 7

High

36 48

36 51

36 32

35 97 36 27

36 24

36 67

Low

33 74 33 48

33 56

33 37

33 29

33 48

32 97



66

PS57MD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

0

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

10

min

20

min

52 89

50 36

51 68

50 36

51 79

53 99

51 03

2

53 34

52 62

51 14

51 01

52 38

48 86

52 51

3

51 30

49 02

50 28

54 36

51 73

51 73

53 32

4

51 95

49 99

52 48

51 65

51 14

49 32

52 83

5

51 87

51 03

49 93

53 18

49 34

50 50

49 72

6

50 42

49 58

51 36

54 28

48 54

48 81

51 41

7

50 09

49 64

53 07

51 89

49 18

49 56

49 93

8

54 04

50 55

50 76

51 03

48 46

48 72

50 36

9

51 70

52 21

49 13

49 10

51 60

48 51

50 79

10

48 46

52 13

51 36

49 42

49 18

49 21 51 97

Average

51 606

50 713

51 119

51 628

50 334

49 921

51 387

SD

1 648988

1 24549

1 168698

1 843552

1 523484

1 730603

1 240995

Range

5 58

3 6

3 94

5 26

3 92

5 48

3 6

High

54 04

52 62

53 07

54 36

52 38

53 99

53 32

Low

48 46

49 02

49 13

49 1

48 46

48 51

49 72

PS57CD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

0

t ime

20 s

min 2

min

5

min

10

min

20

min

37 58

36 72

37 37

36 11

37 18

37 37

36 67

2

37 34

36 75

36 19

36 91

37 15

36 78

36 24

3

37 23

36 59

36 30

36 91

36 86

37 10

35 95

4

36 75

36 24

36 83

36 56

36 59

36 89

36 35

5

37 07

36 56

36 56 36 64

36 78

36 78

36 03

6

36 99

36 13

37 10

36 32

36 70

36 78

36 03

7 36 91

36 38

36 13 36 48

36 67

37 32

36 27

8 36 91

36 32

35 76

36 40

36 97

36 59

36 05

9

36 86

36 32

36 59 36 40

36 81

36 67 36 24

10 36 78 36 32

36 27

36 56 37 05

36 24

35 95

Average

37 042 36 433 36 51

36 529 36 876 36 852

36 178

SD

0 26645 0 209181

0 484195

0 24933

0 204298

0 340287

0 224093

Range 0 83

0 62 1 61 0 8 0 59

1 13

0 72

High

37 58

36 75

37 37

36 91

37 18

37 37

36 67

Low

36 75

36 13

35 76

36 11

36 59

36 24

35 95



67

PP50MD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1 min

20 min

63 1

66 93

66 58

64 75

63 79

63 54

65 88

2

64 97

66 44

67 36

63 65

65 05

62 28

64 89

3

64 43

64 38

66 93

64 81

63 60

63 68

65 91

4

63 44

64 78

63 17

65 07

63 65

63 62

63 65

5

63 87

65 21

64 56

64 67

63 57

63 11

62 42

6

62 66

67 36

64 00

63 97

64 62

62 98

64 13

7

63 38

68 24

64 19

67 11

65 61

63 09

64 30

8

61 74

67 52

62 55

66 34

65 40

63 33

64 78

9

61 53

66 36

63 25

66 60

65 37

62 87

64 43

1

6 91

65 07

63 25

65 64

64 38

62 28

66 07

Average

62 994

66 229

64 584

65 261

64 504

63 078

64 646

SD

1 3 1821

1 309923

1 744402

1 136852

0 818647

0 501194

1 135559

Range

4 06

3 86

4 81

3 46

2 04

1 4

3 65

High

64 97

68 24

67 36

67 11

65 61

63 68

66 07

Low

60 91

64 38

62 55

63 65

63 57

62 28

62 42

PP50CD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2 min

5

min

1

min

20

min

63 54

65 56

64 64

65 32

64 56

64 3

64 13

2

63 17 64 11

62 17

63 49

62 63

60 54

64 00

3

62 93

64 99

64 27

63 11

63 25

61 50

62 23

4

62 52

65 18 62 44

62 90

63 44

62 68

62 87

5

62 93 65 10

63 36

62 95

63 19

61 58

63 17

6

63 22 63 92

62 20

61 50

63 97

61 61

62 42

7 63 95

64 38 64 38 63 54 62 42

60 91

62 39

8

64 81 64 27

63 57 62 07 63 46

63 06

6 83

9

65 40 63 89

62 98 62 07 63 62 62 63 59 92

1

64 86

63 44 62 63 62 12 62 23

61 74

63 09

Average

63 733 64 484 63 264 62 907 63 277

62 028

62 505

SD 0 979479 0 685974

0 927616 1 085583

0 711931

1 57343

1 3 7128

Range

2 88

2 12

2 47

3 82 2 33

3 49

4 21

High

65 4 65 56

64 64

65 32 64 56

64 03

64 13

Low

62 52 63 44

62 17

61 5 62 23

60 54

59 92



68

PP55MD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

72 89

76 32

73 40

72 59

71 62

72 46

74 34

2

72 08

74 07

73 88

74 36

72 19

71 95

73 23

3

71 70

74 71

71 68

73 4

72 48

73 21

71 87

4

71 65

74 58

73 77

73 26

75 17

73 05

72 19

5

72 56

73 61

74 36

72 16

73 64

72 05

74 09

6

72 75

73 83

72 05

71 14

73 21

73 37

72 08

7

72 48

73 83

71 95

70 60

72 91

72 59

72 75

8

71 89

75 22

71 60

71 41

73 29

72 78

72 38

9

72 51

74 25

72 00

72 13

73 13

72 83

74 09

1

72 67

75 09

72 38

71 57

73 61

72 03

71 84

Average

72 318

74 551

72 707

72 262

73 125

72 632

72 886

SD

0 4506

0 826014

1 033345

1 157294

0 961391

0 50686

0 981305

Range

1 24

2 71

2 76

3 76

3 55

1 42

2 5

High

72 89

76 32

74 36

74 36

75 17

73 37

74 34

Low

71 65

73 61

71 6

70 6

71 62

71 95

71 84

PP55CD

Max

Tensile

Strength

Sample

t ime 20

s

min

2

min

5 min

1

min

20

min

74 55

71 01

71 79

73 45

73 72

72 19

72 70

2

73 77

71 84

71 81

72 46

72 86

71 70

71 46

3

72 56

71 92

71 14

71 87

72 78

71 22

71 1

4

73 15

71 95

71 81

71 89

72 70

71 19

71 1

5

72 81

71 84

72 30

71 84

72 32

71 46

71 09

6

72 19

72 48

70 25

71 87

71 73

72 83

71 03

7

71 62

71 68 70 58

71 38

71 62

72 78

70 63

8

71 46

71 14

71 22

72 48 70 95

72 27

70 63

9 71 46 70 28 71 14 72 64 70 42 71 95 69 74

1

71 41

70 58 70 60

73 13

69 48

71 52

70 55

Average 72 498

71 472

71 264

72 301

71 858

71 911

70 985

SD

1 083172

0 691179

0 659616

0 64815

1 285118

0 596852

7581 1

Range

3 14 2 2

2 05

2 07 4 24

1 64

2 96

High

74 55

72 48

72 3

73 45 73 72

72 83

72 7

Low

71 41

70 28

70 25

71 38 69 48

71 19

69 74



69

PS52MD

Elongation

@

Break

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

10

min

20

min

89.3

74 1

77.3

78.7

93.3

77.6

90.7

2

85.9

59.7

83.8

72.8

78.8

80.4

55.5

3

61.5

65.3

62.7

81

69.6

76.9

65.3

4

66 1

64.3

78

57

68.4

67.6

68.7

5

69.3

55.9

79.7

67.3

78.7

53

55.5

6

68.7

58.3

83.2

64.5

70.9

71.6

71.6

7

81 1

62.1

79.9

68 1

60.8

54.7

70.8

8

67 1

82.7

80.7

57

74.7

71.3

65.5

9

84.2

76

80 1

68.1

54.9

58.4

48.5

10

59.6

46.1

64.4

65.5

86 1

71.9

60.1

Average

73.28

64.45

76.98

68

73.62

68.34

65.22

SD

10.79494

10.72932

7.363695

7.941033

11.36494

9.759576

11.68092

Range

29.7

36.6

21.1

24

38.4

27.4

42.2

High

89.3

82.7

83.8

81

93.3

80.4

90.7

Low

59.6

46.1

62.7

57

54.9

53

48.5

PS52C

D

Elongation

Break

Sample

Otime

20

s

min 2

min

5

min 10

min

20

min

103.7

123.5

98.1

110

112.3

96.4

75.4

2

82.6

109

79.5

134.8 117.7

111 1

96.3

3

97.7

97.8

134.6

147 1

138

141 1

94.8

4

154.8

140.2

72.3

106.8

99.5

150.5

52.6

5

70.4 104.5

109.1

75.1

68.8

80

53.1

6

90.1

72.1

73.3

122.8 135.9

35

85.4

7 106.9 71.9

100.6

64.4

83.1

66.4

116 5

8 130.2

78.5

112.4

106.9

97.2 117.6

91

9

72.4

113.3

104.4 63.3

105.1

144.8

119.6

10

100.4

86 95.7

91.4

100.4

149.9

66

Average

100.92 99.68 98 102.26

105.8

109.28

85.07

SD

2 5.8 45 82 22.795 02

19.25265

28.67497

21.48462

39.54634

23.49889

Range

84.4

68.3 62.3 83.8

69.2

115 5

67

High

154.8

140.2

134.6 147.1 138

150.5

119.6

Low

70.4

71.9

72.3 63.3 68.8

35

52.6



70

PS57MD

Elongation

@

Break

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

10

min

20

min

101.7

111 1

96.2

92.2

92.3

77 1

104.3

2

108.9

56.3

148.7

115 3

84

63

53.8

3

100.7

72.8

82.7

72.3

69.5

49.4

44.6

4

122

71.9

66.5

57.6

74.6

82.4

48.9

5

90.9

61 1

100.8

41.2

64.7

47.7

78.5

6

58.2

66.5

71

61.6

86.6

84.5

66.8

7

111.4

83.2

92.5

89.5

98.9

66.2

83 1

8

51.7

76.6

75.4

101.2

100.5

96.3

127.5

9

94.6

48

86.5

61

102 8

71.4

99.7

10

105.9

50.2

66.6

78.3

78.6

66.8

74.5

Average

94.6

69.77

88.69

77.02

85.25

70.48

78.17

SD

22.68592

18.47858

24.33418

22.644

13.36656

15.27924

26.50891

Range

70.3

63.1

82.2

74.1

38 1

48.6

82.9

High

122

111 1

148.7

115.3

102.8

96.3

127.5

Low

51.7

48

66.5

41.2

64.7

47.7

44.6

PS57C

D

Elongation

@

Break

Sample

Otime 20

s

min 2

min 5

min

10

min 20

min

56

69.4

103

79.7

164.4

68.2

73.5

2

148

83.7

80.5

87.2

55.3

52.9

68.7

3

148.7

84

86.1

42

92.8

68.6

60.6

4

59.9

54.4 42.9

37.9

119.4

78.6

63.4

5

94.6

76

115 3

39.6

42.4

75.5

76.6

6

51.4

107.4 72.1

104.8

48.5

68.3

80.8

7

50.4 95.1

76

48.2

76.8

62.8

143.6

8

69 57.1 94.3 42.3

42.6

64.7

62.4

9 147.4 83.3

146.2 96.2

41.1

95.2

95.1

10

66.5 162.7

53 112.9

60

76.3

56.4

Average

89.19

87.31 86.94

69.08

74.33

71.11

78 11

SD

42.46885

30.97025

30.00308

30.00084

40.62892

11.28937

25.6862

Range

98.3

108.3 103.3 75 123.3

42.3

87.2

High

148.7

162.7

146.2

112.9

164.4

95.2

143.6

Low

50.4

54.4

42.9 37.9 41.1

52.9

56.4



71

PP50MD

Elongation

a ,

Break

Sample

Otime

20

s

1

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

1

300.6

465

256.8

615

555.7

971

900.2

2

40.2

335.9

460

384.3

631

988.5

116.2

3

247.1

106.7

418.7

226.8

535.7

551.3

175.4

4

458.6

539.6

412.1

340.4

544.4

627.3

970.5

5

493.6

295.5

255

415.8

251.1

829.4

199 1

6

311

222.8

392.7

199 8

308.5

213.6

853.8

7

267.6

356.4

426.6

296.9

283.7

723.4

207.9

8

996.9

232.9

318.6

280.7

539.4

992.7

489.6

9

711

222.9

285

392.9

624.8

994.4

249.1

1

570

350.5

424.2

325.4

971.1

85 8

469.7

Average

439.66

312.82

364.97

347.8

524.54

774.96

463.15

SD

272.1401

126.4039

77.85584

117.1802

211.3341

253.6546

330.9302

Range

956.7

432.9

205

415.2

720

780.8

784

High

996.9

539.6

460

615

971.1

994.4

900.2

Low

40.2

106.7

255

199.8

251.1

213.6

116.2

PP50CD

Elongation

@

Break

Sample

t ime

20

s 1

min

2

min 5

min

1

min

20

min

1

786.2

36.4

970.9

361.9

49.5

971.2

675.7

2

945.5

171.6

112.3

65.5

535.7

995.9

57.5

3

323.3

54.7

975.4

947.6

437.8

162.9

216.7

4

828.3 54.5

866.3

971.2

651.8

257.6

516.4

5

971.6

164.4

995.9

970.9

638.6

873.2

407.5

6

591.1 28.5

269.6

975.3

802.8

987.1

188

7

333.7 468.6

425.4

953.7

691.8

822

928

8

257.3 450.8

847.7

970.9 126

333.7

974.9

9

104.2 45.4

971.1

976.6

971.1

868.1

258.6

1

431.1

462.5

971.2

451.1

28.9

29.9

296.1

Average

557.23

193.74 740.58

764.47

493.4

630.16

451.94

SD

310.0719

190.903 3 37 .1 24 7 3 39 .2 11 4

326.9612

385.184

315.9765

Range

867.4

440.1 883.6

911.1

942.2

966

917.4

High

971.6

468.6

995.9

976.6

971.1

995.9

974.9

Low

104.2

28.5

112.3 65.5

28.9

29.9

57.5



72

PP55MD

Elongation

Break

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

247.5

203.2

247

196 4

227.3

266.1

178 3

2

352.4

265.4

767.3

179 5

1 5 3

238.5

244.9

3

283.8

174.6

163 1

178 1

153 5

144.7

237.3

4

224.5

13 2

227.9

151 7

154 3

156.7

185 8

5

351.6

146.4

143 2

198 8

151.9

213.1

175.6

6

216.1

127 5

209.8

270.2

173.7

165 8

33.8

7

446.5

312.3

124 2

32 4

183 1

181.4

251.5

8

293.2

51.4

215.2

240.8

18 4

145.3

168 1

9

284.8

282.3

217

29.4

148.7

159

230.8

1

313.1

214

206.5

253.7

171 4

124 1

160.8

Average

301.35

19 73

252.12

202.26

164.96

179.47

186.69

SD

69.16918

80.78574

185.1857

79.68884

31.28866

45.57136

63.84113

Range

230.4

260.9

643 1

294.6

122

142

217.7

High

446.5

312.3

767.3

32 4

227.3

266.1

251.5

Low

216.1

51.4

124.2

29.4

1 5 3

124 1

33.8

PP55C

D

Elongation

Break

Sample

Otime 20

s

min

2

min 5

min

1

min

20

min

36.3

242

43.4

27.5

43.8

36.8

64.5

2

23.2

45.7

43.7

45.6

33.6

27.3

60.7

3

44.4

23.5

435.2

1

42.6

37.3

150.4

4

38.7

38.9

39.7

50.7

28.3

27.6

287.9

5

24.1 46.7

27.3

211.8

30.5

38.3

54.8

6

39.3 47.5

45.4

49.1

247.1

32.8

379.1

7

23.9

42.1

28.1

48.1

199.2

82.4

480.7

8 49.7

48.9

45.4

33.3

53.6

42.3

703.9

9 27.1

47.7 48.9

55.2

68.5

30.3

265.6

1

27.4

41.7 200.2 45.4

301.5

35.1

537.4

Average

33.41

62.47

95.73

66.67

104.87

39.02

298.5

SD

9.512968

63.51542

129.6382 54.5262

103.1841

15.98213

224.8304

Range

26.5 218.5 407.1

184.3

273.2

55.1

649 1

High

49.7

24 2

435.2

211.8 301.5

82.4

703.9

Low

23.2

23.5

28.1

27.5 28.3

27.3

54.8



73

PS52MD

Elongation

a

Yield

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20 min

8 1

8 3

8 1

8 2

8 3

7.9

8 2

2

8.2

8 2

8 3

8.0

8 3

8 4

8 3

3

8.2

8

8 1

8 3

8 6

8.4

8 8

4

8 5

8

8.4

8 4

8 4

9 1

8.7

5

8 1

8 1

8 2

8 1

8.4

8.2

8 3

6

8.2

8

8 1

8 5

8 6

8 3

9.0

7

8.0

7.9

9.6

8 4

8 2

7.9

8.4

8

8 3

8 2

8.0

8 7

8 3

8.4

8 1

9

8 1

8 1

8.0

8.4

8 3

8.4

8 2

1

8 1

8 1

8.6

8 3

8 2

8 5

8 8

Average

8.18

8.09

8.34

8 33

8.36

8.35

8.48

SD

139841

0.119722

0.481202

0.200278

0.142984

0.337474

0.315524

Range

0.5

0.4

1.6

0.7

0.4

1 2

0.9

High

8 5

8 3

9.6

8 7

8.6

9 1

9.0

Low

8.0

7.9

8.0

8.0

8.2

7.9

8 1

PS52CD

Elongation

@

Yield

Sample

Otime

20 s

1

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

14 5

13 8

13 9

13 5

13 9

14 1

9.4

2

13.2

9.4

14 7

13

14 7

13 9

9 3

3

14 5

9.8

14 4

14 7

9 5

9.4

9 5

4

9.2

15 7

13 1

14

15

12 8

14 2

5

15.9 14.7

9 3

13 9

11.4

12 8

14

6

9 1

9.6

9.5

9.6

9.6

9.5

15 9

7 9 1

9.9

9.1

9.2

9 3

9.3

9.7

8

9

9 3 9 3

9.4

9.5

9.4

13 7

9

16 9

9.5

12 9

8 8

9.9 9.5

13 9

1

15 9

13.5

14 6

13 8

15

14 1

14

Average

12 73

11.52 12.08

11.99

11.78

11 48

12 36

SD 3 .2 77 88 9 2 .5 706 89

2.463421

2.403447

2.554647

2.219009

2.556995

Range

7.9

6.4 5.6 5.9

5.7

4.8

6.6

High 16.9

15.7

14.7

14 7

15

14 1

15 9

Low

9.0

9 3

9 1 8.8 9 3

9 3

9 3



74

PS57MD

Elongation

a

Yield

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1 min

20 min

1

8.2

8.4

8.2

8 3

7.9

8 3

8.4

2

8 2

8 1

8 2

8 5

7.9

8 5 8.4

3

8.7

8 5

8.4

8 1

8 3

8 4

8 1

4

8 2

8 4

8 5

8 6

8 5

8 6

8

5

8 3

8.2

8 3

8

8.6

8 3

8 5

6

8.2

8 1

8 7

7.9

8 1

8.7

8 3

7

8.6

8 3

8 2

8 5

8 5

8 8

8.4

8

8 1

8 2

8.4

7.9

8 8

8 8

8 3

9

8.5

8 2

8.4

8 3

8 5

8.4

9

1

9 1

8.2

8

8 3

8 1

8 3

8 5

Average

8 41

8.26

8 33

8.24

8.32

8.51

8.39

SD

0.314289

0.13499

0.194651

0.254733

0.308401

0.202485

0.268535

Range

0.4

0.7

0.7

0.9

5

High

9 1

8 5

8.7

8.6

8 8

8 8

9.0

Low

8 1

8 1

8.0

7.9

7.9

8 3

8.0

PS57C

D

Elongation

@

Yield

Sample

Otime

20 s

min

2

min

5 min

1

min

20 min

1

20.5

17 7

20.3

17.5

21.4

23.9

19.6

2

17 3

20.7

17.8

20.7

22.3 24.2

18 5

3

19.4

21

18

22

20.8

23.8

19 5

4

17.6 19 2

20.9

21.4

20.7

24 1

19 1

5

20.6

19

20.5

21.1 22

24

18 8

6

17.4

20.9

21.7

21.3

22

24.5

17

7

18.9 21.1

20.8

21.9 20.4

24

19

8

20.5 20.6 21 1 20.3

21.9

24.2

18 9

9

20.8 20.8

19 8

21 1

20.6 24.2 20.8

1

20.6

20.5

20.3

21.4

22 1

24 1

19 6

Average

19.36 20.15

20.12 20.87 21.42

24.1

19 8

SD

1 .4 58 46 2 1.1 286 67

1.278715 1.286727

0.726942

0.194365

0.969307

Range 3.5

3.4

3.9

4.5 1 9

0.7

3 8

High

20.8

21.1

21.7

22.0

22.3

24.5

20.8

Low

17 3

17.7

17.8

17.5 20.4

23.8

17



75

PP50MD

Elongation

o>

Yield

Sample

0

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

10 min

20

min

18 5

18.4

17 2

18 3

18 2

18 9

19 3

2

19

18 9

17

18 5

18 5

18 5

18 7

3

19 5

18 3

16 6

18 5

18 6

19 2

18 8

4

18.6

18 3

18 4

18 3

18 6

19 3

19 6

5

18 6

19 3

18 8

18 7

19

18 9

18 7

6

18 1

17 8

18 1

18 5

18 1

19

19 2

7

18 4

18

18 3

17 3

19 1

19 3

19 2

8

19 5

18 8

18 2

17 8

19

19 3

19 2

9

19 3

18 3

18 8

18 7

19 4

19

19 1

10

19 3

18 4

18 3

18 4

19

18.4

19 3

Average

18.88

18 45

17.97

18 3

18 75

18 98

19 11

SD

0.502881

0.440328

0.764562

0 434613

0.417

0.32249

0.292309

Range

1 4

1 5

2.2

1 4

1 3

0.9

0.9

High

19 5

19 3

18 8

18 7

19 4

19 3

19.6

Low

18 1

17 8

16 6

17 3

18 1

18.4

18.7

PP50C

D

Elongation

Yield

Sample

0

t ime

20 s

min

2

min

5

min

10

min

20

min

18.2

17 7

17 7

18 1

17 8

19 1

18 6

2

18.4

17 4

17 3

18 8

17.4

18 5

19.2

3

17.9

17.7

17 9

18.4

18.2

17 9

19.2

4

18 3

17 8

17 5

18 3

18

18

18 5

5

17 9

17.7

18

18 9

18 2

18 7

18 8

6

19.4

17 7

17 5

17 9

17.8

18 3

19 3

7 17.4

18 2 18.4

18 7

17 6

19 1

19 6

8

17.7 17 8 18 1

18

18 1

19 1

19 1

9

17.9

18.4

18 3

18.2

17 8 18 9

19

10

17 3

18 8 17 4 17.8

18 1

18 6

18 2

Average

18.04

17.92

17 81 18 31

17 9

18.62

18 95

SD

0.596657

0.418463 0.387155 0.384274

0.266667

0.446716

0 422295

Range

2.1 1 4

1 1 1 1 0.8

1 2

1 4

High 19.4 18.8

18.4 18 9

18 2

19 1

19 6

Low

17 3

17.4 17 3

17 8 17 4

17 9

18 2



76

PP55MD

Elongation

Yield

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

18 4

18 2

18 3

17 6

19

18 6

17 9

2

18 2

18 3

18 1

17 9

19 5

19 4

19 1

3

18 8

17 5

18 1

16 5

19 3

18 9

18 9

4

19

17 7

18 3

16 7

17 7

19 2

19 6

5

17 9

17 2

18 2

18

17 7

18 9

19

6

18 2

17 9

18 2

18 1

18 2

18 7

18 8

7

18 6

17 3

18 8

17 8

18 1

19 3

19 4

8

18 6

18

18 1

17 9

18 8

18 2

18 9

9

19

18 2

18 2

17 7

18 3

18 5

17 9

1

18 5

17.4

18 6

17 9

19 3

19 5

18 3

Average

18 52

17.77

18 29

17 61

18 59

18.92

18 78

SD

358391

0.405654

0.233095

0.55267

0.675689

0.426354

0.578888

Range

1 1

1 1

0.7

1 6

1 8

1 3

1 7

High

19

18 3

18 8

18 1

19 5

19 5

19 6

Low

17.9

17.2

18 1

16 5

17.7

18.2

17 9

PP55CD

Elongation

Yield

Sample

t ime

20 s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

16.7

16 6

17.2

17 5

17 5

17 6

18.2

2

16 5

17 3

17 9

17.7

16 5

18 1

18 6

3

16.5

17.7

17 7

16 7

16 8

18.2

18 3

4

16 7

16 8

17.6

18.2

17

18

18 3

5

16 1

16.7

17 7

16 8

17.2

18 3

18 2

6

16.4

17 1

17.9

18 2

17 1

17 8

18 2

7

16.4

16 7 18 1

17 7

17 5

17.8

18.2

8

16 8

17.7

17 9 17 5

18 6

18.2

18 1

9

16.6

16.9

17 7

17 3

18 1

17 8

18 1

1 17.4

17 5 18 1

17 1

18 2

18

18 2

Average

16 61 17 1 17.78

17.47

17 45

17.98

18.24

SD 0 .3 414 02 0 .42 426 4

0.265832

0.51435

0.668747

225 93

0.142984

Range

1 3

1 1 0.9 1 5 2 1

0.7

5

High 17 4 17.7

18 1 18 2 18 6

18 3

18 6

Low

16 1 16.6

17.2 16.7 16 5

17 6

18 1



77

PS52MD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

77273

77826

74726

829 1

839 2

84212

84338

2

78638

78638

75851

81734

77400

77206

83283

3

81544

80044

76471

79877

79997

78446

76780

4

76276

79066

76471

75852

75542

72137

76471

5

76896

77826

78329

78948

79377

76471

76276

6

78638

80360

81425

75852

80186

75233

78446

7

83 97

80496

70075

76276

80902

78019

75543

8

8 8 5

79397

78948

83097

76830

76471

78329

9

83718

77546

76471

82972

77206

77400

79220

1

85140

77826

72756

84265

83283

80806

75232

Average

8 2 2 5

78902 5

76152 3

80177 4

79462 5

77640 1

78391 8

SD

3111 21

1136 488

3184 225

3285 052

2765 664

3215 652

3141 795

Range

8864

2950

1135

8413

8360

12075

9106

High

85140

80496

81425

84265

83902

84212

84338

Low

76276

77546

70075

75852

75542

72137

75232

PS52CD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5 min

1

min

20

min

54210

53870

55191

54180

56432

54799

56038

2

56656

58824

52013

55191

54881

55728

54798

3

55728

56432

52942

53560

56656

56657

55894

4

58419

56348

53951

54881

54489

53251

52941

5

54489

55419

57538

54489

54180

53319

55811

6

58205

55109

56122

55418

56122

57585

55108

7 58514

55191

58514

58205

58824

57895

53728

8 58292

59481

57585

57052

55727

56432

55418

9

52941

56742 55108 57672 52632 55091

54799

1

55191 53560

54799 55191

53561

54180

55728

Average 56264 5 56097 6

55376 3

55583 9

55350 4

55493 7

55 26 3

SD

2043 715

1918 674

2099 238

1544 952

1782 675

1651 866

1 1 89

Range

5573

5921

6501 4645

6192

4644

3097

High

58514

59481

58514 58205 58824

57895

56038

Low 52941 53560

52013

53560

52632

53251

52941



78

PS57MD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1 min

20

min

82472

77954

79648

77575

82191

82880

76542

2

83728

836 3

80496

78236

81359

73262

79931

3

77515

74394

78518

857 8

80617

78237

81343

4

8 213

76374

80900

79932

79084

73435

81626

5

80213

79083

76542

83885

75694

77222

76091

6

8 51

77034

78637

86557

75420

71565

77389

7

77788

76824

82473

80617

75242

73357

74847

8

85426

788 1

77222

8 213

72414

73152

77671

9

80617

81626

76374

76374

78637

73152

76114

1

72697

82473

80634

75413

75573

75730

78236

Average

80072

78816 6

79144 4

80451

77623 1

75199 2

77979

SD

3563 307

2937 51

2034 538

3833 278

3206 429

3406 606

2305 876

Range

12729

9209

6099

11144

9777

11315

6779

High

85426

83603

82473

86557

82191

82880

81626

Low

72697

74394

76374

75413

72414

71565

74847

PS57C D

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

t ime

20 s

min

2

min

5 min

1 min

20

min

50274

50274

49965

49145

48653

50275

50388

2

50067

50840

49145

47804

48862

49501

49992

3

50840

50850

49095

48223

49710

49992

49710

4

51482

50558

50274

46107

50275

48653

49709

5

48936

49715 47884

49427

49501

48579

48015

6

50839 48862

51199

50382

50350

49427

50557

7

51687

46673

48298 46480

51122

49338

49710

8

50817

50350 50275

47732

48297

46320

48862

9

50916

47521

52252

49427 49144

48653

48580

1

51122

48580 50237 48862

49784

48580

50274

Average

50698 49422 3

49862 4

48358 9

49569 8

48931 8

49579 7

SD 785 7667

1460 849 1310 308 1356 727

864 6415

1 99 879

834 9293

Range

2751 4177 4368 4275 2825

3955

2542

High 51687

50850 52252

50382

51122

50275

50557

Low

48936

46673 47884 46107

48297

46320

48015



79

PP50MD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

87916

91784

85671

91716

86189

75493

86756

2

86240

91986

94420

83482

84513

77298

88250

3

81681

92243

82224

83482

84257

81133

88120

4

78377

9 621

89666

78506

83998

79150

83533

5

81038

84694

85256

83791

82583

78846

80779

6

87 91

92815

82966

82324

89463

83870

85983

7

87090

94877

88174

94749

87220

72963

84384

8

77300

89979

86369

82707

88948

82581

85544

9

79618

88948

84256

8539

87220

82839

862 3

1

78377

90440

86446

87787

81342

76443

85338

Average

82472 8

90838 7

86544 8

85393 4

85573 3

79061 6

85489

SD

4184 774

2721 787

3552 712

4797 924

2677 166

3559 273

2215 132

Range

10616

10183

12196

16243

8121

10907

7471

High

87916

94877

94420

94749

89463

83870

88250

Low

77300

84694

82224

78506

81342

72963

80779

PP50CD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

0

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1 min

20

min

86447

88766

90182

90183

83999

84022

81213

2

82583

84128

84951

81808

86189

78377

79747

3

87605

85029

81604

78588

81937

81060

77944

4

85287

85415

83662

83998

80649

78974

77217

5

85029

85545

84514

83999

82373

79490

74595

6

71374

79408

83026

80817 87605

78974

78459

7 83612

88819 81084

85030

75497

78020

72090

8

86498 85803 82195

83096

78119

79490

8 711

9

83999 79279 85030

78331

82711

79360 78893

1

85080 86561 83998

82502

78248

80262

81342

Average

83751 4 84875 3 84024 6 82835 2

81732 7

79802 9

78221 1

SD

4595 429

3281 672

2560 499

3418 051

3743 85

1718 201

2973 055

Range

16231

9540 9098

11852

12108

6002

9252

High

87605

88819

90182 90183

87605

84022

81342

Low 71374

79279

81084

78331

75497

78020

72090



8

PP55MD

Modulus

Elasticity

Sample

Otime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20 min

9 471

93461

87723

93228

85967

85315

90066

2

89597

92102

91291

9311

85849

85783

85616

3

87020

95184

86669

83972

86252

86318

85549

4

84561

90652

87841

95804

90588

83859

75969

5

87934

94750

90769

91119

92698

88244

86955

6

85783

91588

86955

87255

88427

88289

83205

7

85966

94221

79808

862 1

88661

83624

84377

8

86435

89479

88659

89862

85549

88192

87254

9

87541

88660

89246

88 75

88191

86252

85592

1

89416

91003

86369

8 393

85616

81372

86366

Average

87472 4

92110

87533

88901 9

87779 8

85724 8

85094 9

SD

1896 819

2239 767

318 471

4682 067

2413 988

2276 722

3689 975

Range

5910

6524

11483

15411

7149

6917

14097

High

90471

95184

91291

95804

92698

88289

90066

Low

84561

88660

79808

8 393

85549

81372

75969

PP55C D

Moduli

is

Elastic

;ity

Sample

t ime

20

s

min

2

min

5

min

1

min

20

min

93110

82571

85966

88309

89246

83975

85498

2

89245

87658

83858

82571

92932

81867

81447

3

86955

81516

89065

91822

83155

79642

75426

4

86709

90299

86135

82920

88191

80930

82799

5

82736

90651

87 21

89246

87372

83155

84494

6

88713

88778

78238

87020 88074

83674

83975

7

86669 91588

81399

89534

88948

83624

83791

8

85029

88191

84677 90095

78166

82385

83273

9

81985

90471 85967

86955 83322 84678 83506

1 82335

85901

80275 87541

78704

82335

82922

Average

86348 6

87762 4

84260 1 87601 3

85811

82626 5

82713 1

SD 3499 818

3454 612

3345 255 2961 827

4804 811

1524 036

2776 48

Range

11125

10072

10827

9251

14766

5036

1 72

High

93110

91588

89065 91822

92932

84678

85498

Low 81985

81516

78238 82571 78166

79642

75426



Appendix

C

Tensile

Strength

Regression Results

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

45.4

+0.000319 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

45.4124

27 7

167.79

0.000

X

0.0003187

.

0005184

0.61

0.541

S

=

1.760

R Sq

=

0.6

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=

0.0

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

1.

170

1.170

0.38

0.541

Residual

Error

68

210.

6 5

3

097

Total

69

211.

776

Polystyrene

52 mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

34.8

0 000205

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

34.8164

0.1671

208 32

0.000

X

0 0002051 0.

0003201

0 64

0.524

S

=

1.087

R Sq

Analysis of Variance

=

0 6

R-Sq adj)

=0 0

Source

DF SS MS

F

P

Regression

1 0.485

0.485

4

0.524

Residual

Error

68

80.305

1.181

Total

69

80.790



82

olystyrene

57

mil

achine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

51.0

0 000182

x

Predictor

coef

StDev

Constant

51.0182

0.2422

x

0.0001823

0.0004639

T

210.63

0 39

S

=

1.575

R-Sq

=

0.2^

Analysis

of

Variance

P

0.000

0.696

R-Sq adj

=0.0

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression

1

0

383

0.383

0.15

0.696

Residual

Error

68

168.

671

2

48

Total

69

169.

54

Polystyrene

57

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

36.7

0 000314

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

36.7346

0. 0587

625.76

0.000

X

0 0003140

0.

0001124

2 79

0.007

S

=

0.3817

R-Sq

=

10.3

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=9.0

Source DF

Regression 1

Residual

Error 68

Total

69

SS

S

F

P

1.

1365

1.1365

7.80

0.007

9.

9 79

0.1457

11,

0445



Polypropylene

50

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

64.6

0 000415 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

64.6073

0.2406

268.53

0.000

X

0 0004154

0

46 8

0 90

0.371

S

=

1.564

R-Sq

=

1.2

R-Sq adj )

=

0.0

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

Residual

Error

1

68

1.989

166.434

1.989

2

448

0.81

0.371

Total

69

168.423

Polypropylene

50

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

63 6

0

126 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

63.5854

0.1686

377.22

0.000

X

0

0012609

0.0003228

3 91

0.000

S

=

1.096

R-Sq

=

18.3

R-Sq adj)

=

17.1

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression 1

18

325

18.325

15.25

0.000

Residual Error

68

81.

69

1.201

Total

69 100,

015



84

olypropylene

55

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

73

-0.000195

x

Predictor

Constant

X

Coef

72.9899

0

0001949

StDev

0.1717

0.0003288

T

425.10

0 59

P

0.000

0.555

S

=

1.H6

R Sq

=

0.5

R-

-Sq adj

=

0,

0

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression

1

0.438

0.438

0.35

0.555

Residual

Error

68

84.759

1.246

Total

69

85.197

Polypropylene

55

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

72.0

0.000668 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

71.9752

0.1428

503.97

0.000

X

0

6684

0

.

0002735

2 44

0.017

S

=

0.9286

R Sq

=

8.1

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=6.7

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression 1

5 492

5.1492

5.97

0.017

Residual Error

68 58,

64 6 0.8624

Total

69 63

7897



Elongation

a .

Break

Regression Results

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

71.6

0.00481

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

71.564

1.610

44.45

0.000

X

0.004808

0.003083

1 56

0.124

S

=

10.47

R-Sq

=

3.5

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj

=2 =

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

266.5

266.5

2.43

0.124

Residual

rror

68

7451.5

109.6

Total

69

7718

Polystyrene

52

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

103

0.00937

x

redictor

Coef

StDev

Constant

103.221

4.049

x

0 009365

0.007755

T

25.49

1 21

S

=

26.33

R-Sq

=

2.11

Analysis

of

Variance

P

0.000

0.231

R-Sq adj)

=0.7

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

1011.0

1011.0

1.46

0.231

Residual rror

68 47138.9

693.2

Total

69 48149.9



Polystyrene

57

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

82.8

0.00666

x

Predictor

Constant

X

Coef

82

758

0 006664

StDev

3.356

0.006428

T

24.66

1 04

P

0.000

0.304

S

=

21.82

R Sq

=

1.6

R-

-Sq adj

=

0,

1

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

511.9

511.9

1.07

0.304

Residual

Error

68

32385.7

476.3

Total

69

32897.6

Polystyrene

57

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

81.

9

0

00760 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

Constant

81.935

4.810

x

0 007599

0.009212

T

P

17.03

0.000

0 82

0.412

S

=

31.28

R Sq

=

1.01

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj

=0 01

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression 1 665.7

665.7

0.68

0.412

Residual Error 68

66521.3

978.3

Total 69

67186.9



87

olypropylene

50

mil

achine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

408

+

0.163

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

407.71

37.86

10.77

0.000

X

0.16259

0.07251

2

24

0.028

S

246.2

R Sq

6.9

R-

-Sq adj

5,

5

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression

1

304711

304711

5.03

0.028

Residual

Error

68

4121040

60604

Total

69

4425750

Polypropylene

50

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

562

0

44

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

561.74

55.04

10.21

0.000

X

0 0438

0.1054

0 42

0.679

S

357.9

R Sq

0.3

R-Sq adj)

0.01

Analysis

of

Variance

Source DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression

1

22070

22070

0.17

0.679

Residual

Error 68

8710564

128097

Total

69 8732635



Polypropylene

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

228

0.0530

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

228.49

14.92

15.32

0.000

X

0 05299

0.02857

1 85

0.068

S

=

97.00

R-Sq

=

4.8

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj

=

3.4

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

32365

32365

3

0.068

Residual

rror

68

639870

9410

Total

69

672235

Polypropylene

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

43.7

+

0.172

x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

43.70

17.98

2.43

0.018

X

0.

17164

0.03444

4.98

0.000

S

=

116.9

R-Sq

=

26.8

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=

25.7

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

339583

339583

24.84

0.000

Residual

rror 68

929775

13673

Total

69 1269358



89

longation

Yield

Regression

Results

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

8.23

+0.000222

x

Predictor

Constant

x

Coef

StDev

8.23133

0.04286

0.00022204

0.00008208

T

192.07

2

71

P

0.000

0.009

S

=

0.2787

R-Sq

=

9.7

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=

8.4

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

p

Regression

1

0

5683

0.56830

7.32

0.009

Residual

Error

68

5,

28 42

0.07765

Total

69

5.

84871

Polystyrene 52

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

12.0

0 000059 x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

Constant

11.9721

0.3898

x

0.0000587

0.0007465

T

30.71

0.

08

S

=

2.535

R-Sq

=0 0

Analysis of

Variance

P

0.000

0.938

R-Sq adj)

=0 0

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

0 4

0.040

0.01

0.938

Residual Error 68 436.

815

6.424

Total

69

436. 8



90

olystyrene

57

mil

achine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

8.32

+0.000100

x

Predictor

Coef

Constant

8.31850

0.03849

216.13

x

0.00010021

0.00007371

_ 6

S

0.2503

R-Sq

2.6

R-Sq adj

StDev

p

0.000

0.178

1.2

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

S

F P

Regression

1

0

11576

0.11576

1.85

0.178

Residual

Error

68

4

2591

0.06263

Total

69

4,

37486

Polystyrene

57

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

20.7

0 000192

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

20.6656

0.2919

70.80

0.000

x

0.0001916

0.0005590

0.34

0.733

S

1.898

R-Sq

0.2

R-Sq adj)

0.0

Analysis of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression 1

0

423

0.423

0.12

0.733

Residual Error 68 244

96

3.602

Total 69

245.383



Polypropylene

5

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

18.4

+0.000633

x

Predictor

Constant

X

Coef

18.4264

0.

0006327

StDev

0.

828

0.

1585

T

222.59

3.99

P

0.000

0.000

S

0.5383

R Sq

19.0

R-

-Sq adj

17

8

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1 4

6148

4.6148

15.93

0.000

Residual

Error

68

19,

7 29

0.2897

Total

69

24,

3177

Polypropylene

5

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

17.9

+0

865

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

17.9373

0.0693

258.76

0.000

X

0.

0008649

0.0001328

6.51

0.

000

S

0.4507

R Sq

38.4

R-Sq adj)

37.51

Analysis of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

8

62 9

8.6219

42.44

0.000

Residual

Error

Total

68

69

13

22,

8 59

4379

0.2032



92

Polypropylene

mil

Machine

irection

The

regression

equation

is

y

18.1

+0.000708

x

Predictor

Constant

x

Coef

StDev

18.1216

0.0908

0.0007080

0.0001739

S

0.5903

R-Sq

19.6

Analysis

of

Variance

T

P

199.61

0.000

4.07

0.000

R-Sq ad j

18.4

Source

DF

SS

MS

Regression

1

5

7786

5.7786

Residual

rror

68

23

695

0.3485

Total

69

29,

4737

16.5}

P

0.000

Polypropylene

55

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

17.2

+0

.

000975 x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

17.1983

0.0780

220.47

0.000

X

0.

0009747

0

.

0001494

6.52

0.

000

S

0.5072

R-Sq

38.5

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

37.61

Source DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1 10

95

10.950

42.56

0.000

Residual rror 68

17.

496

0.257

Total 69

28,

446



9

Modulus

of

Elasticity

Regression Results

Polystyrene

5

mil

Machine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

78920

0.658

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

p

Constant

78920.3

479.3

164.65

0.000

X

0.6577

0.9180

0 72

0.476

S

=

3117

R-Sq

=

0.7

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj

=0.0

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

4986086

4986086

0.51

0.476

Residual

rror

68

660580379

9714417

Total

69

665566465

Polystyrene

52

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

55836

0

72

x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

55835.6

263.5

211.88

0.000

X

0 7201

0.5047

1 43

0.158

S

=

1713

R-Sq

=

2.9

Analysis of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=1.5

Source DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1 5977967

5977967

2.04

0

58

Residual

rror 68 199651638

2936053

Total

69 205629605



94

olystyrene

57

mil

achine

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

79187

2.19

x

Predictor

Constant

x

Coef

79187.4

2.1854

StDev

506.8

0.9706

S

=

3295

R-Sq

=

6.9

Analysis

of

Variance

T

p

156.25

0.000

2 25

0.028

R-Sq adj)

=

5.6

Source

DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression

1

55052413

55052413

5.07

0.028

Residual

Error

68

738433557

10859317

Total

69

793485969

Polystyrene

57

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

49579

0.274 x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

49579.0

197.3

251.32

0.000

X

0 2739

0.3778

0 73

0.471

S

=

1283

R-Sq

=

0.8

Analysis of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=0.0

Source DF

SS

S

F

P

Regression 1

864915

864915

0.53

0.471

Residual rror

68

111886324

1645387

Total 69

112751239



95

Polypropylene

50

mil

achine

irection

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

85815

2.32

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

85814.5

720.9

119.04

0.000

X

2 317

1.381

1 68

0.098

S

=

4688

R-Sq

=

4.01

Analysis

of

Variance

R-Sq adj

=2 61

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

61861487

61861487

2.82

0.098

Residual

Error

68

1494189016

21973368

Total

69

1556050502

Polypropylene 50

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

83906

5.26 x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

83905.7

498.8

168.20

0.000

X

5 2594

0.9554

5 50

0.000

S

=

3244

R-Sq

=

30.81

Analysis of Variance

R-Sq adj

=

29.81

Source DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression 1 318844433

318844433

30.30

0.000

Residual rror 68 715456936

10521426

Total

69

1034301369



96

Polypropylene

mil

Machine

irection

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

89028

3.73

x

Predictor

Coef

StDev

t

p

Constant

89028

508.4

175.13

0.000

X

3 7308

0.9736

3 83

0.000

S

=

3306

R-Sq

=

17.8

R-Sq adj

=

16

5

Analysis

of

Variance

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

160438731

160438731

14.68

0.000

Residual

rror

68

742999191

10926459

Total

69

903437923

Polypropylene

55

mil

Cross

Direction

The

regression

equation

is

y

=

86529

3

73 x

redictor

Coef

StDev

T

P

Constant

86528.9

531.2

162.88

0.000

X

3 730

1.017

3 67

0.000

S

=

3454

R-Sq

=

16.5

Analysis of

Variance

R-Sq adj)

=

15.3

Source

DF

SS

MS

F

P

Regression

1

160380174

160380174

13

44

0.000

Residual rror

68

811405876

11932439

Total

69

971786050



97

Appendix

D

SEM

Photographs

US

:

,

Polystyrene 52

mil

Sample

10,000x

m gnific tion

PS

side

zero t ime

control)

?

.

. ;.

.

/.

Polystyrene

52

mil

Sample

10,000x

magnification

PS

side

20 minutes

variable)



98

-

v:?-::

>: -.

0

..

.

:;;SiA

-

.--.-

: a^:A: 4a

.

::..i b ;. vV. :

A^ ̂ At^^A^A:A0AEAAA:\.-:

^ J

if

:

;

;^;

Polypropylene 50

mil

Sample

-

10 000x

magnification

-

P P

side

@

zero

t ime

(control)

Polypropylene

50

mil

Sample

-

10 000x

magnification

P P

side

@

20

minutes

variable)



99

Appendix

E

Strength

ANQVA Resu lts

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column 4

Column 5

Column

6

Column 7

1

1

1

1

10

1

10

460 99

451 43

438 16

463 11

460 44

454 9

457 17

46 099

45 143

43 816

46 311

46 044

45 49

45 717

2 99 476667

0 328978889

2 651893333

3 32165556

2 866471111

3 743911111

3 115756667

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

43 20894857

168 56688

211 7758286

6

63

69

7 201491429

2 675664762

2 691477472

0 02170913

2 246409281

52

mil

Cross

Direction

Single

Factor

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

10

350 21

35 021

1 157276667

2

10

350 24

35 024

1 364782222

3

10 346 61

34 661

5 654444

4

10

345 77

34 577

0 97209

5

10 344 15

34 415

1 154494444

6

10

350 36 35 036

1 131426667

7 10

345 09

34 509 1 456721111

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Groups

4 38462

6

0 73077

0 602558785

0 72722343

2 2464 9281

Groups

76 40501

63

1 212777937

80 78963

69



100

Polystyrene

57

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column 3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

10

10

1

1

10

1

1

516 06

507 13

511 19

516 28

503 34

499 21

513 87

51 606

50 713

51 119

51 628

50 334

49 921

51 387

2 71916

1 551245556

1 365854444

3 398684444

2 321004444

2 994987778

1 54 67778

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

26 03535429

143 01904

169 0543943

6

63

69

4 339225714

2 270143492

1 911432352

0 09271407

2 246409281

Polystyrene

57 mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count Sum

Average

Variance

Column

olumn

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

370 42

37 042

0 070995556

10

364 33

36 433

0 043756667

10

365 1

36 51

0 234444444

10

365 29

36 529

0 062165556

10

368 76

36 876

0 041737778

1 368 52

36 852

0 115795556

10

361 78

36 178

0 050217778

Source o Variation SS

df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

5 472437143

5 57202

6

0 912072857

63

0 088444762

10 31234454

6 21575E 08

2 2464 9281

11 04445714

69



1 1

Polypropylene

50

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

1

10

1

10

1

1

1

629 94

662 29

645 84

652 61

645 04

630 78

646 46

62 994

66 229

64 584

65 261

64 504

63 078

64 646

1 694737778

1 715898889

3 042937778

9 43

67 182222

251195556

1 289493333

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

78 81124857

89 6119

168 4231486

6

63

69

13 1352 81

1 422411111

9 234466739

2 981

74E 07

2 246409281

Polypropylene

50 mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column 6

olumn

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

637 33

644 84

632 64

629 07

632 77

620 28

625 05

63 733

64 484

63 264

62 907

63 277

62 028

62 505

0 959378889

0 47056

0 860471111

1 17849

0 506845556

1 117973333

1 708583333

Source o Variation

SS

df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

38 79398857

6

6 465664762

6 653578723

1 74039E 05

2 2464 9281

61 22072 63

0 97175746

100 0147086

69



102

Polypropylene

55

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column 7

1

1

1

1

10

1

1

723 18

745 51

727 07

722 62

731 25

726 32

728 86

72 318

74 551

72 707

72 262

73 125

72 632

72 886

0 20304

682298889

1 678 1111

1 339328889

924272222

0 256906667

0 96296

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

36 26782857

48 92947

85 19729857

6

63

69

6 044638095

0 776658254

7 782880133

2 7741

1E 06

2 246409281

Polypropylene

55 mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column 7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

724 98

714 72

712 64

723 01

718 58

719 11

709 85

72 498

71 472

71 264

72 301

71 858

71 911

70 985

1 173262222

0 477728889

0 435093333

0 420098889

1 651528889

0 356232222

0 574716667


df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

17 99177714

6

2 998629524

4 124937033

45 79795

63

0 726951587

0 001483178

2 2464 9281

63 78972714

69



Elongation

a . Break

ANOVA

esults

103

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

10

10

10

732.8

644.5

769.8

73.28

64.45

76.98

116.5306667

115.1183333

54.224

Column

4

10

680

68

63.06

Column

5

Column

6

10

10

736.2

683.4

73.62

68.34

129.1617778

95.24933333

Column 7

10

652.2

65.22

136.444

ANOVA

Source

of

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

1329.879714

6388.093

6

63

221.646619

101.3983016

2.185900706

0.055951258

2.246409281

Total

7717.972714

69

Polystyrene 52

mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

olumn

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

1009.2

100.92

668.0062222

10

996.8

99.68

519.6128889

10

980

98

370.6644444

10

1022.6

102.26

822.2537778

10 1058

105.8

461.5888889

10

1092.8 109 28

1563.912889

10

850.7 85.07

552.1978889

Source

of

Variation

SS

df MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

3525.739714

6

587.6232857

0.829601933

0.551490649

2.246409281

44624.133

63

708.3195714

48149.87271

69



1 4

Polystyrene

57

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

10

946

94 6

514 6511111

Column

2

10

697 7

69 77

341 4578889

Column

3

1

886 9

88 69

592 1521111

Column

4

10

770 2

77 02

512 7506667

Column 5

1

852 5

85 25

178 665

Column

6

1

704 8

70 48

233 4551111

Column

7

1

781 7

78 17

702 7223333

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

5214 882857

27682 688

32897 57086

df

MS

P value

F

rit

6

63

69

869 1471429

439 407746

1 977996862

0 082100417

2 246409281

Polystyrene

57 mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count Sum

Average

Variance

olumn

olumn

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

10

10

10

1

10

1

891 9

873 1

869 4

690 8

743 3

711 1

781 1

89 19

87 31

86 94

69 08

74 33

71 11

78 11

1803 603222

959 1565556

900 1848889

900 0506667

1650 709

127 4498889

659 781


df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

4178 488857

6

696 4148095

0 696321779

0 653460212

2 2464 9281

63008 417 63

1000 133603

67186 90586

69



105

Polypropylene

50

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column 7

10

1

10

1

1

1

1

4396 6

3128 2

3649 7

3478

5245 4

7749 6

4631 5

439 66

312 82

364 97

347 8

524 54

774 96

463 15

74060 216

15977 93956

6061 531222

13731 2 444

44662 10933

64340 63822

1 9514 82 6

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

1470614 289

2955136 134

4425750 423

6

63

69

245102 3815

46906 92276

5 225292282

0 000202776

2 246409281

Polypropylene

50 mil

Cross

Direction

nova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

olumn

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

5572 3

557 23

96144 59344

10 1937 4

193 74

36443 956

10

7405 8

740 58

113653 0729

10

7644 7

764 47

115064 3801

10

4934

493 4

106903 6311

10

6301 6

630 16

148366 6804

1

4519 4 451 94

99841 15378


df MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

2284877 398

6

380812 8997

3 720861673

0 003137262

2 2464 9281

6447757 21 63

102345 3525

8732634 608

69



1 6

Polypropylene

55

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

C olu mn 2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

1

1

1

1

1

10

1

3013.5

1907.3

2521.2

2022.6

1649.6

1794.7

1866.9

301.35

190.73

252.12

202.26

164.96

179.47

186.69

4784.376111

6526.335667

34293.73067

6350.311556

978 98 4444

2076.749

4075 689889

ANOVA

Source

of

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

140459.8794

531775.56

672235.4394

6

63

69

23409.9799

8440.881905

2.773404505

0.018604284

2.246409281

Polypropylene

55 mil

Cross

Direction

Single

Factor

UMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum A

ver ge

2

3

4

5

6

7

Variance

10

334.1

33.41

90.49655556

10 624.7

62.47

4034.209

10

957.3 95.73

16806.05789

10 666.7

66.67

2973.106778

1

1048.7

104.87

10646.96011

10

390.2 39.02

255.4284444

10

2985 298.5

50548.72

Source

of Variation SS

df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

501163.1397 6

83527.18995 6.850102221

768194.809

63

12193.5684

256 1

E 05

2 2464 9281

1269357.949

69



107

Elongation a .

Yi^lH

ANQVa Results

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

81 8

80 9

83 4

83 3

83 6

83 5

84 8

8 18

8 09

8 34

8 33

8 36

8 35

8 48

0.019555556

0 014333333

0.231555556

0.040111111

0 020444444

0 113888889

0 099555556

ANOVA

Source o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

0 993714286

4 855

5 848714286

6

63

69

0 165619048

0 077063492

2 149124614

0 059899314

2 246409281

Polystyrene 52

mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column 2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

10

127 3

12 73

10 74455556

10 115 2

11 52

6 608444444

10

120 8

12 08

6 068444444

10

119 9 11 99

5 776555556

10

117 8

11 78

6 526222222

10

114 8 11 48 4 924

10

123 6 12 36 6 538222222

ANOVA

Source

o Variation SS

df MS P value

F

rit

Between Groups

Within

Groups

12 17685714

6

2 0 29 47 61 9 0 30 10 68 10 3

0 934077572

2.246409281

424 678

63

6 740920635

Total

436 8548571 69



108

Polystyrene

57

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

10

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

84 1

8 41

98777778

Column

2

1

82 6

8 26

18222222

Column

3

10

83 3

8 33

37888889

Column

4

1

82 4

8 24

64888889

Column

5

10

83 2

8 32

95111111

Column

6

1

85 1

8 51

41

Column 7

1

83 9

8 39

72111111

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

0 522857143

6

0 087142857

1 425233645

21912 6 1

2 2464 9281

Wthin

Groups

3 852

63

0 061142857

Total

4 374857143

69

Polystyrene 57

mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column 4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

Sum

Average

1

193 6

1

201 5

10

201 2

1 208 7

10 214 2

10

241

10

190 8

Variance

19 36

2 127111111

20 15

1 273888889

20 12

1 635111111

20 87

1 655666667

21 42

0 528444444

24 1

0 037777778

19 08

0 939555556

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS df

MS

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

171 6048571

6

28 60080952

24 42260565

73 778 63 1 171079365

9 91647E 15

2 2464 9281

Total

245 3828571

69



1 9

Polypropylene

50

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column 6

Column

7

1

10

1

1

10

1

1

188 8

184 5

179 7

183

187 5

189 8

191 1

18 88

18 45

17 97

18 3

18 75

18 98

19 11

252888889

193888889

584555556

188888889

0 173888889

0 104

0 085444444

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

10 06571429

14 252

24 31771429

6

63

69

1 677619 48

0 226222222

7 415801291

4 98901

E 06

2 246409281

50 mil

Cross

Direction

Single Factor

Groups

2

3

4

5

6

7

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

1

1

10

1

1

10

10

180 4

179 2

178 1

183 1

179

186 2

189 5

18 04

17 92

17 81

18 31

17 9

18 62

18 95

0 356

0 175111111

0 149888889

0 147666667

0 071111111

0 199555556

0 178333333

Source

o Variation

SS

df MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

10 93885714

6

1 823142857 9 988520741

9 88117E 08

2 246409281

11 499 63

0 18252381

22 43785714

69



11

Polypropylene

55

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

olumn

7

10

1

10

1

1

10

10

185 2

177 7

182 9

176 1

185 9

189 2

187 8

18 52

17 77

18 29

17 61

18 59

18 92

18 78

128444444

164555556

54333333

3 5444444

456555556

181777778

335111111

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

etween

Groups

Groups

14 83771429

14 636

29 47371429

6

63

69

2 472952381

0 23231746

10 64471167

3 88771

E 08

2 246409281

55 mil

Cross

Direction

Single Factor

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

166 1

16 61

0 116555556

1 17 1

17 1

0 18

10

177 8

17 78

0 070666667

10 174 7

17 47

0 264555556

1

174 5

17 45

0 447222222

10

179 8 17 98

0 050666667

10 182 4 18 24

0 020444444

Source o

Variation SS

df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

18 09485714

6

3 015809524 18 35532799

10 351 63

0 164301587

3 37747E 12

2 2464 9281

28 44585714 69



Elastirity

ANQVA

Results

111

Polystyrene

52

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

1

802025

80202 5

9678448 944

1

789025

78902 5

12916 4 722

1

761523

76152 3

1 139286 46

1

801774

80177 4

1 791564 93

1

794625

79462 5

7648896 5

10

776401

77640 1

1 34 416 99

1

783918

78391 8

987 878 622

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

127716590 8

537849874 5

665566465 3

df

MS

P value

F

rit

6

63

69

21286098 46

8537299 595

2 493305784

0 031512048

2 246409281

52

mil

Cross

Direction

Single

Factor

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

562645

56264 5

4176771 833

10 560976

56097 6

3681310 489

10 553763

55376 3 4406801 344

10

555839

5 55 83 9 23 868 76 54 4

10

553504 55350 4

3177930 489

1

554937 55493 7 2728661 567

10 550263 55026 3 1020280 678


df MS P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

11421908 37

6

1903651 395

0 617534938

0 715458768

2 2464 9281

194207696 5

63

3082661 849

205629604 9

69



112

Polystyrene

57

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column

4

Column

5

Column

6

Column

7

10

1

10

1

10

1

1

800720

788166

791444

804510

776231

751992

779790

80072

78816 6

79144 4

80451

77623 1

75199 2

77979

12697156 67

8628967 6

4139345 378

14694 19 56

1 281184 99

11604966 4

5317064 889

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F rit

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Total

18722162 1

606264349 3

793485969 4

6

63

69

31203603 36

9623243 64

3 242524509

0 007686668

2 246409281

Polystyrene

57 mil

Cross

Direction

Single

Factor

Groups

Count Sum

Average

2

3

4

5

6

7

Variance

1

506980

50698

617429 3333

10

494223

49422 3

2134078 456

10

498624

49862 4

1716908 044

1 483589

48358 9

1840708 544

10

495698

49569 8

747604 8444

1 489318

48931 8

1209734 4

10

495797 49579 7

697106 9

Source

o Variation SS df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

32079104 29

6

5346517 381 4 175302863

0 001351785

2 2464 9281

80672134 7

63

1280510 075

112751239

69



113

Polypropylene

50

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Sum

824728

908387

865448

853934

855733

790616

854890

Average

82472 8

90838 7

86544 8

85393 4

85573 3

79061 6

85489

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column

7

17512336 18

7408122 233

12621764 84

23020075 6

7167215 567

12668423 6

4906810

ANOVA

Source

o

Variation

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

788307770 1

767742732 2

1556050502

6

63

69

131384628 4

12186392 57

10 78125684

3 21206E 08

2 246409281

50

mil

Cross

Direction

Single

Factor

Groups

Count

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sum

Average

Variance

10

837514

83751 4

21117970 93

10

848753

84875 3

10769369 57

10

840246

84024 6

6556154 489

10 828352

82835 2

11683075 73

10

817327

81732 7

14016416 46

10 798029

79802 9

2952213 878

10 782211

78221 1

8839054 544

Source o Variation

SS

df

MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

350893068 4

6

58482178 07

5 391180084

Groups

683408300 4

63

10847750 8

1034301369

69

0 000151305

2 246409281



114

Polypropylene

55

mil

Machine

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column

3

Column 4

Column

5

Column

6

Column 7

10

10

10

874724

921100

875330

889019

877798

857248

850949

87472 4

92110

87533

88901 9

87779 8

85724 8

85094 9

3597924 044

5016557 778

10115396 67

21921750 32

5827338 844

5183461 511

13615914 32

ANOVA

Source

of

Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P value

F

rit

Between

Groups

Wthin

Groups

Total

315932831 4

587505091 4

903437922 8

6

63

69

52655471 9

9325477 641

5 646410181

9 6802E 05

2 246409281

Polypropylene

55 mil

Cross

Direction

Anova:

Single

Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

A

ver ge

Variance

Column

Column

2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column

6

olumn

7

10

863486

86348 6

12248725 38

10

877624

87762 4

11934341 82

10

842601

84260 1

11190730 99

876013

87601 3

8772421 344

10

858110 85811

23086206 22

10

826265

82626 5

2322685 167

827131

82713 1

7708840 544

Source of

Variation

SS

df MS

P value

F

rit

Groups

Groups

276410487 1 6

46068414 51

4 173730381

0 001355703

2 246409281

695375563 2 63 11037707 35

971786050 3

69



115

Appendix

F

Critical Values

nfF

Table

TABLE IV

Critical Values

ofP

Values

of

F00 s

Degrees

ot

freedom

to r numerator

T

B

9

1 12 6

12

2

3

4

5

161

2

216

225

230

234

237

239

241

242 244 246 248 249

250

251 252 253 254

18.5

10.1

7.71

6.61

19.0

9.55

6.94

19 7

19 7

19.3

19.3

19.4

19.4

19.4

19.4 19.4

19.4

19.4 19.5 19.5

19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5

9.28

9.12

9.01 8 94

8.89

8.85 8.81

8.79 8.74

8.70

8.66 8.64

8.62

8.59

*S7

8.55

8.53

6.59

6.39

6.26

6 16

6.09

6.04

6

5 9 6 5.91 5.86 5.80 5.77

5.75

5.72

5.69 5.66

5.63

.

5.79

5.41

5.19

5.05

4 95

4.88

4 82

4 77

4 7 4

4 68 4.62 4 56 4.53

4.50

4 4 6

4.43

4 4

4.37

6

7

8

9

1

5.99

5.14

4.76

4.53

4 39

4.28 47 1

4.15 4 1

4.06

4 3.94 3.87

3 84

3.81

3.77 3.74 17

3.67

5.59

4.74

4.35

4.12

19 7

3.87

3.79

3.73

16 8

3.64 3.57 3.51 3.44

141

3.38

3.34

3.30

37 7

37 3

5 32

5.12

4.96

4.46

4.07

3.84

16 9

3.58

3.50 14 4

3J9

3.35 37 8 3.22 3.15

3.12

1 8

3.04

1 1

19 7

19 3

47 6

3.86

3.63

14 8

3.37

3.29 3.73

11 8

3.14

3.07 3.01

19 4

19

18 6

18 3

179 175

171

4 1

3.71

3.48

13 3

37 2 3 14

1 7 1 2

198 191 185 177 17 4 17

16 6 16 2

15 8

15 4

11

12

13

4.84

3.98

3.59

3.36

37

3.09 1 1

19 5

19 18 5

17 9

17 2

16 5 161

15 7

15 3

149 145

14

4.75

3.89

14 9

37 6

3.11

1 19 1 18 5 18 17 5 169 162 154 151 14 7 143 138 134 13

4 67

3.81

3 4 1

3.18

1 3

2.92

18 3

17 7

17 1

167 16

15 3

146 142

13 8 13 4

13

12 5

12 1

14

4:60

3 74

3.34

3.11

2.96 18 5

17 6

17

165 16 153

14 6

139 135

13 1

27 7

12 2

118 113

15

4.54 3.8

37 9

3.06

2.90

2.79

171 16 4

15 9

15 4

14 8

14

133 279

12 5

27

11 6

111 1 7

16

4.49

3.63

37 4

3.01

2.85

2 74

16 6

15 9

15 4

14 9

14 2

13 5

27 8

12 4

11 9

11 5

111 1 6 1 1

n

4.45 3 59

37

2.96

78 1

2 7

16 1

15 5 14 9

14 5

13 8

13 1

273 279

11 5

11 1 6

1 1

1 96

18

4.41

3.55 3.16

2.93

2.77

2.66

15 8 15 1

14 6 14 1 134 127 119 115

111

1 6

1 2

1.97

1.92

19

4.38 3.52

3.13

2.90

2.74

2.63 15 4

14 8 14 2

13 8 13 1

12 3

11 6 111

1 7

1 3

1.98 1.93

1.88

2

4J 5 3.49

3.10

2.87

2.71

16

15 1

14 5

13 9

13 5

27 8

27

11 2 1 8

1 4

1.99 1.95

1.90 1.84

21 4 32 3 47

3.07

2 8 4

2-68 75 7

14 9 14 2

13 7

13 2

12 5

11 8

11 1 5

1 1

1.96 1.92 1.87 1.81

22

4J0 3 44

3.05 2 8 2

2 66

2.55

14 6

14 134

13 123

11 5

1 7 1 3

1.98 1.94

1.89 1.84

1.78

23 47 8

3.42 3.03

2 8

2 6 4

153 144

13 7

2J2

27 7

27

113 1 5 1 1

1.96

1.91 1.86 1.81

1.76

24 47 6

3.40

1 1

2.78

2.62 15 1

14 2

136 13 275

118 111

1 3

1.98

1.94

1.89 1.84

1.79

1.73

25

47 4

13 9

2.99

2.76

2.60

14 9

14 13 4

12 8

27 4

11 6

1 9 1 1 1.96

1.92

1.87 1.82 1.77

1.71

3

4 1 7

3J 2 19 2

2 6 9

2 53 14 2

133 127

27 1 116 1 9 1 1

1.93

1.89

1.84 1.79

1 74 1.68 1.62

4

4 8

373 184

2.61

2.45 13 4

125 118

11 2

1 8

1

1.92

1 84

1.79 1.74

1.69 1 64

1.58

1.51

6

4

3.15

2 7 6

2.53

13 1

27 5

11 7

11 1 4

1.99 1.92 1.84

1.75

1.70

1.65

1.59 1.53

1.47

U9

120

3.92

3 7

2.68

2.45 27 9

2.18

1 9 1 2

1.96 1.91 1.83 1.75 1.66

1.61

1.55 1.50

1.43

1.35

175

CO

3 1 4 3.00 2 6

13 7

27 1 11

1 1 1.94 1.88 1.83 1.75 1.67 1J 7 1.52

1.46 1.39

U2 17 2

1.00

Reproduced

from

M.

Merrinfton udCM

Thompson,

Tiblel

of

percentage points of

th e

inverted beU

F

distribution

Bumtlrlka,

vo L

33

1943 ,

by

permission of

th e Biomctrika

trustees

Freund,

John E

and

Gary

A

Simon,

529

mechanical properties of polystyrene and polypropylene based mate.pdf

Documents