peanut butter jar redesign

Peanut Butter Jar Redesign

14 October 2015

Team 1: CATs Not RATs

Olivia Janusz

Nicole Kittleson

Karthik Sajikumar

Thomas Schnieders

I E 576

Human Factors in Product Design

Dr. Michael Dorneich

Dr. Richard T. Stone

Industrial Manufacturing Systems Engineering

P e a n u t B u t t e r J a r R e d e s i g n P a g e | 2

CATs Not RATs I E 576 Iowa State University

List of Figures

Figure 1: Jar with a Twist [11] 5

Figure 2: Jar with Two Lids 6

Figure 3: Amount of discarded peanut butter 7

Figure 4: Possibilities for the Reduction of Manufacturing Costs [6] 8

Figure 5: Two Lids 9

Figure 6: Twist Jar 9

Figure 7: Spring Mechanism 9

Figure 8: Ratcheting Bottom 9

Figure 9: Jar Split with Same Lid 9

Figure 10: Tear off Strip, Splits in Two 9

Figure 11: Prototype Sketch 9

Figure 12: The Bottom Jar Design 12

Figure 13: The Lid Design 12

Figure 14: Prototype 9

Figure 15: Standard 16 oz. Jar 13

Figure 16: Cut 16 oz. Jar Top 9

Figure 17: Cut 16 oz. Jar Bottom 13

Figure 18: Prototype Top 13

Figure 19: Prototype Bottom 94

Figure 20: Peanut Butter Smear 14

Figure 21: Amount of Peanut Butter Left in Jar 15

Figure 22: Amount of Peanut Butter Removed from the Jar 15

Figure 23: Average time to Remove Peanut Butter from Jar 16



List of Tables

Table 1: Frequency of Peanut Butter Consumption ...............................................................................6

Table 2: Container Type....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3: Peanut Butter Size .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4: Need for Redesign .................................................................................................................7



Abstract

Peanut butter users are frequently faced with problems associated with the current peanut butter jar

design. These problems include struggling to reach the bottom of the jar, preventing sticky kitchen

utensils and hands, and ensuring peanut butter is not wasted. A survey conducted to identify these issues

was administered and more than half of the population found a need for redesign of the current peanut

butter jar. Through extensive literature review on the topic, this project focuses on these problems and

proposes a redesign of the current peanut butter jar. Following design analysis, a prototype was designed

in SolidWorks as a two-part assembly model of the jar, and was tested for usability with a user group of

eight people. The experimental analysis showed that the new prototype design allows users to remove

more peanut butter from the jar therefore decreasing the amount of peanut butter left in the jar. The

average time needed to remove the peanut butter from the jar was also decreased. Although, the usability

testing produced positive results, future work is still needed to confirm the prototypes feasibility.



Introduction

Team CATs Not RATs has identified the peanut butter jar as a consumer product in need of a

redesign. Currently, most peanut butter comes in a standard cylindrical jar with size options of

12, 16, 28, and 40 ounces. Problems begin to arise with the peanut butter jar after it has been

opened and the amount of peanut butter begins to dwindle. When this occurs, the bottom and

edges of the jar become hard to reach causing users to implement awkward hand movements to

retrieve the peanut butter while getting both their hands and kitchen utensils sticky. This process

also leads to wasted time trying to remove all the peanut butter or wasted peanut butter when the

consumer cannot get it all out. As these problems are examined further, it can be seen that there

is a need for a peanut butter jar redesign.

Related Work

Based on the primary survey as well as a number of redesigns completed by others found later in

this document, peanut butter users are frequently looking for ways to reach the bottom of the jar,

prevent sticky kitchen utensils and hands, and ensure that peanut butter is not wasted. To solve

these problems, there have been different approaches used including utilizing the peanut butter

jar differently and complete redesigns of the jar.

To begin with, users implement crafty techniques to get all of the peanut butter out of the jar.

Some individuals have begun using their finished peanut butter jars to cook overnight oats or

oatmeal in order to soak up and absorb all of the remaining peanut butter with the oats and milk

[1]. Other users have reported cutting used jars in half with a utility knife so they can avoid the

lip at the top of the jar and scrape as much peanut butter from the bottom and sides as possible

[1]. There are many individuals who will also buy specialized knives and spatulas that are made

to specifically remove all of the contents from jars such as peanut butter [10] [12]. To ensure

they are getting the most for their money, dog owners will give peanut butter jars to their dogs as

toys so the dog can lick the jar clean [8]. Users are not only utilizing their peanut butter jars

differently, they are also redesigning the jars.

This is not the first time someone has attempted to redesign a peanut

butter jar. There are two ideas that have been developed to solve the

problem of the sticky fingers and wasted peanut butter. The first

design is the Jar with a Twist, see Image 1, right [11]. This design was

produced by a team of students at North Carolina State University and

features a jar with the same concept as a stick of deodorant where

turning the jar allows the peanut butter to rise closer to the top of the

jar. They believe their product can be manufactured with the extra

material needed for three cents more, moving the cost per jar to

thirteen cents [15]. They are marketing this product as a way to keep

Figure 1: Jar with a

Twist [11]



the peanut better fresher, because there is less oxygen in the container. Each

twist is also one serving, making it easier to keep track of how much peanut

butter is being used [11].

A different approach to the redesign of the peanut butter jar was having a jar

with two lids, one on each side as in Figure 2, left [5]. This dual lid design

offers a straight barrel design with two openings, so every bit of contents can

be used. This is a reusable design and can be used for many different

products, such as peanut butter, jelly, and honey [5].

Methods Part A: Initial Survey

Team CATs Not RATs began this project redesign by identifying the key issues individuals

experience when using peanut butter jars. In order to grasp exactly what problems individuals

dealt with when using standard peanut butter jars, a questionnaire was developed. The team

expected to see the majority of users getting sticky fingers when getting peanut butter out of the

jar, most of the participants buying plastic jars, as well as have some insights for how the jar

could be redesigned. The survey questions can be found in Appendix A located at the end of this

document. The questionnaire was completed through Google Form, and, over the course of a

week, feedback from 53 participants was gathered. Much of the information fell in line with

what was hypothesized and, some key findings from the results can be seen in the tables below.

Table 1, below shows the responses to the questions “How often do you consume peanut butter?”

Of the respondents, 43 of them ate peanut butter at least once a month. Some other responses

were: very rarely, once/twice a year, less than monthly but more than never, and rarely.

Table 1: Frequency of Peanut Butter Consumption

Never Daily Weekly Monthly

6 14 20 9

For the question “What kind of container does the peanut butter you purchase come in?”

responses are shown in Table 2, below. About 92% of the participants reported buying peanut

butter in plastic jars. This met the expectation because it is the most common type of jar to see on

grocery store shelves.

Table 2: Container Type

Plastic Glass Tube

45 4 0

Figure 2: Jar with Two Lids



Table 3 shows the various sizes of peanut butter jars that the participants purchase. The most

common size being a 16 oz. jar.

Table 3: Peanut Butter Size

12 oz 16 oz 28 oz 40 oz Other

8 23 9 8 48 oz jar

As shown in Table 4 below, 56% of the participants saw a need for a peanut butter jar redesign.

Table 4: Need for Redesign

Yes No

28 22

Figure 3 illustrates how much peanut butter participants leave in the container when throwing it

away. The scale was from 1-10, with 1 being no peanut butter left in the jar, and 10 being a

fourth left in the jar. Most participants ranged between one and four and none placed over five.

Figure 3: Amount of discarded peanut butter

There were two open-ended questions in the survey as well. One question was “What problems

do you face when using peanut butter from a jar, if any?” The key points participants brought up

were getting the last bit of peanut butter out and getting their hands sticky. The seconds question

was “please explain any design ideas you might have.” There were a few themes throughout the

answers, including a wider mouth to the jar, a squeezable tube, a shallower container, and

smaller/nonexistent lip on the top of the jar.



Initial Design Ideas

All the information collected from the survey was used to make design decisions. In order to

focus on the majority of the questionnaire population, the decision was made to redesign the

plastic peanut butter jar. The scope was also limited to the regular creamy style peanut butters, so

the oils separation in natural peanut butter was not addressed. The following images depict

different ideas regarding how to solve the issues with the current peanut butter jar.

Figure 4: Possibilities for the Reduction of Manufacturing Costs [6]

One important focus was on the cost and feasibility to manufacture. Ways to decrease

manufacturing costs are to use less material, use lower cost material, use fewer production

operations, use lower cost processes and tools, use fewer assembly operations, and use lower

cost assembly operations [6]. Each design was evaluated on these principles, for what operations

would need to be added, and if it would be feasible for a reasonable price. Our manufacturing

estimates do not include the cost of retooling or the purchase of new manufacturing machines.

Currently peanut butter jars are blow molded from preforms. The preform is made, heated up,

and blow molded into the desired shape [17]. This is an efficient process because it requires one

process to create the jar, and then there is one assembly operation to secure the lid on the jar, in

regards to the packaging operations. The current price to manufacture the plastic jar and lid is

about 10 cents [15]. Keeping the price of the current manufacturing operations for the standard

peanut butter in mind, six initial prototype ideas were created.



Peanut butter jar with two opposite lids

This proposed design would modify the current peanut butter jar by adding

a lid to the bottom of the jar, see Figure 5. This second lid would be

identical to the first. The person would use the primary top lid to access

the jar’s content until almost all of the peanut butter is gone. At this time,

the person would be able to open the secondary lid located on the

underside of the jar to scrape out the remaining peanut butter from both

ends. This design also helps ensure a clean jar for recycling purposes. This

design would add one more piece to produce, as well as one more

assembly operation, to put on the seconds lid. By making the middle

portion into a cylindrical tube with holes on each side, this part would

need to be made by plastic injection molding because blow molding

requires a mold cavity to blow into [7]. Also a version of this had been

developed, refer back to Figure 2.

Peanut butter jar with twisting mechanism

In this proposed design, a twist mechanism located on the bottom of the

inside of the peanut butter jar is attached to a flat plate allowing the

peanut butter to be raised closer to the mouth of the jar using the twist

mechanism, see Figure 6. Each twist would correlate to approximately

one serving of peanut butter (~2Tbsp) which could help prevent

spoilage [11]. Another advantage of this design is that the user will not

have to reach into the jar to scrape out the rest of the content. Upon

further investigation, the team found that this product design has already

been realized [11], see Figure 1, and wanted to create a new way to

solve the problem.

Peanut butter jar with a spring mechanism

A set of springs attached to a flat plate is located on the bottom of

the inside of the peanut butter jar, see Figure 7. The jar would have

a push up piece on the bottom which moves the peanut butter

upwards by pushing the base upwards. Similarly to the twisting

mechanism, the peanut butter would be pushed towards the mouth

of the jar allowing for easy access. In terms of the scope of this

project and the limitations therein, the feasibility of prototyping and

testing this design with multiple spring lengths and spring coefficients

to find an inexpensive, and more importantly, safe design was

dismissed.

Figure 5: Two Lids

Figure 6: Twist Jar

Figure 7: Spring

Mechanism



Peanut butter jar with a ratcheting system

For this design, the peanut butter jar utilizes a ratcheting system to

bring a flat surface up, bringing the peanut butter to the surface, see

Figure 8. The bottom of the jar could be pressed and the flat surface

would move up one notch. The ratcheting system will work

similarly to any other ratchet and pawl system and would not allow

backwards motion. In terms of cost, this system would be one of the

most expensive option that would require multiple parts to be

fabricated, as well as assembled together. Because of the

complexity for a single use item, this idea was dismissed.

Peanut butter jar split with same lid

Another concept the group discussed was using the

same lid for a peanut butter jar that could be split in

two, see Figure 9. Ideally, the jar would be split when

the peanut butter level reached below half. The top

portion of the jar could be removed, still leaving a

spiral portion for the lid to screw onto. The top lid can

now cover the remaining peanut butter at a smaller

height. This would allow easier access to the contents

located in the bottom of the jar. In order to fabricate this

jar, there would need to be two pieces created for the jar

part. The bottom one could be blow molded and the top

part would have to be plastic injection molded. This would

be more expensive than the current design, but would be

feasible to produce.

Peanut butter jar using tear strip

In this proposed design, a standard peanut butter jar would be split

into two leaving an upper container and a lower container of the

same diameter, see Figure 10. Once the peanut butter is almost

gone, the user could tear off the plastic strip holding the two

components together allowing for easier access to the bottom

portion of the container. This design was dismissed based on

potential rancidification of the product from oxygenation [2], but the

concept moved forward. The manufacturing cost would be similar to the

peanut butter jar with the same lid, as in there would be two parts needed

for the jar. The concept was feasible, but a way to connect the two parts

of the jar was needed.

Figure 8: Ratcheting Bottom

Figure 9: Jar Split with Same Lid

Figure 10: Tear off Strip,

Splits in Two



Design Decisions

After evaluating the questionnaire

responses and the feasibility of

manufacturing and cost of different

designs, it was decided to move forward

with a peanut butter jar that splits into two.

This design addressed the problem of

getting the last bit of peanut butter out of

the jar, and getting sticky fingers and

utensils. This feature would allow users to

get their peanut butter out normally and

provide the ability to split the jar in two,

and get the remaining peanut butter out of

the bottom easily. The height of this

bottom portion would be 1.5 inches.

A few different design options were looked into for how the jar would split into two. One way

was to use a tear off strip, but the concerns with this option were food and health regulations,

rancidification, dropping the jar, as well as the force needed to remove the strip.

Another option was to have the two portions held together by a pinch tab design. The primary

concern with this option was the force to pinch the tab to remove the top portion of the jar

especially with regards to elderly consumer market.

The twist off design was the design iteration selected. This design was chosen because of its

manufacturing feasibility, the assurance of the two portions being held together, and the ease of

use for a larger consumer market.

A secondary focus was the top of the jar. The results from the initial survey revealed that many

people mentioned the need for a wider mouth of the jar, and not liking the lip on the current jars.

This falls in line with the initial literature review [3][13] [18]. Different lid options were

considered in order to create a top with minimal lip. Inspiration was gained from thinking about

tennis ball containers and pre-ground coffee containers. The top is still cylindrical, and the lid

easily fits on. A coffee container was found with a similar style lid and top to be used for the

prototype. This design decreased the size of the lip, which lets the consumers reach the top and

minimizes sticky fingers. A literature review was performed on the current lid design for the

force it takes to open the jar. In order to design for the older population, it is recommended that

the required torque be less than two newton meters. With the current lid design of the peanut

butter jar, it requires 1.79 newton meters to open [3].

Figure 11: Prototype Sketch



Figure 13: The Lid Design

There was no readily available data on the torque required to open the lids of tennis ball

containers, coffee canisters, or other products with lids that are plastic and fit snuggly on the rim

of the container.

In order to manufacture this container, the bottom would be able to be blow molded. The top

portion would have to be made using plastic injection molding, which would be more expensive

and take longer. This kind of jar also requires an additional assembly operation to put the two

pieces of the jar together, before adding the lid. One other additional operation that would be

necessary would be a seal to the area where the two pieces meet. This would be done with the

label. The label would have a perforated tab, which could be pulled and removed to be able to

twist the jar apart. The lid would also be made of a different material, but would require less

material than the current design. The Jar with a Twist design, mentioned earlier, was made of

three different components, the outside of the jar, the twistable portion, and the lid. From looking

at the geometry, it would be most likely the two parts of the jar would be plastic injection

molded. The lid of the Jar with a Twist design also features the same style lid. Because of the

similarities between their product and this design, it was assumed the price point would be

similar with the same number of parts and assembly operations required. The investment in new

equipment would be spread out over all the jars produced and the expected cost per jar would be

around 13 cents just like the Jar with a Twist [11] [15].

The design was finalized and a CAD model of the same was designed using SolidWorks.

Figure 12: The Bottom Jar Design

Two parts were designed using SolidWorks, the bottom part with external threads which can go

into the top one as shown in Figure 11 and, the top part of the Lid as shown in Figure 12 which

was made with complementary internal threads for getting a perfect fit for the prototype. The

outer diameter of the jar was made at 10 cm with a thickness of 0.1 cm. The lid was extruded at

1.5 inches for the cylindrical surface and 0.5 inches for the threaded part while on the other hand

the lid was designed at 3 inches in height with the same internal thickness. The tolerance values

were given at 0.003 mm for making sure that the fit function is properly executed.



The models were then sent to a Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3D

printing machine for manufacturing of the prototype. The material used

for the same was Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS). The part

produced was then immersed in a caustic bath which removed the

support material that was used for the production of the part. In order to

make the complete prototype, the bottom of a coffee canister was cut out,

and the top was used, see Figure 14, right. The top 3D printed part was

inserted into the coffee canister and secured by strip adhesive. In order to

use the existing lid of a coffee canister, the 3D model was made to that

size. This was a constraint to the study outlined in the following section,

but was necessary with the resources available. Potential impact on the

design and results can be found in the Discussion section found later in

the body of this paper.

Methods Part B: Testing

In order to test the prototype against the current jar, a study was developed to examine various

metrics. The metrics of interest were the length of time to remove the peanut butter from the jar,

the weight of the container before filling with peanut butter and after filling with peanut butter,

and the ease of opening the traditional container verse the new prototype container.

In order to test these metrics, five different iterations of a peanut jar were used. It included a

standard 16 oz. peanut butter jar seen in Figure 15, two pieces of a standard 16 oz. peanut butter

jar cut 1.75 inches from the bottom seen in Figures 16 and 17, and the top and bottom pieces of

images 18 and 19.

Figure 136: Cut 16 oz. Jar Top

Figure 15: Standard 16

oz. Jar

Figure 17: Cut 16 oz.

Jar Bottom

Figure 18: Prototype

Top




Each of the iterations of the jar were weighed

without any peanut butter prior to testing and the

weights can be seen in Appendix D: Prototype

Testing Results, located at the end of this

document. After weighing each empty jar,

approximately 25 grams of peanut butter was

placed into each iteration of the peanut butter jar.

To emulate a peanut butter jar when it is at the

end of its use, the peanut butter was smeared

around the jar as seen in Figure 20. Each

iteration was weighed once again and the

participants were given a butter knife along with

the standard 16 oz. peanut butter jar and asked to

remove the peanut butter as they normally would until they reach the point where they would

throw away the jar. After this, the jar was weighed to determine the amount of peanut butter left

in the jar and the time was recorded for the task. This was repeated for each iteration of the jar

and the data collected from the study can be seen in Appendix D. Once complete, the participant

was asked a series of questions, found in Appendix F: Prototype Questionnaire Results. These

questions were aimed at gaining information about what the participants thought about the

prototype.

Results

The metrics that were tested for were the length of time to remove the peanut butter from the jar,

the weight of the container before filling with peanut butter and after filling with peanut butter,

and the ease of opening the traditional container verse the new prototype container.

There was a total of eight participants that were tested with ages ranging from 20 to 25. Of the

eight participants, two ate peanut butter three times per week, one two times per week, three

monthly, one daily, and one rarely. The amount of peanut butter left in the jar was examined first

and can be seen in figure 21 below. As one can see, participants were able to extract the most

peanut butter from the jars that implemented the split method.


Bottom

Figure 20: Peanut Butter

Smear



Figure 21: Amount of Peanut Butter Left in Jar

Next, the amount of peanut butter removed from the jar was examined and can be seen in figure

22 below. This again confirms that participants were able to remove the most peanut butter from

the jars that implemented the split method.

Figure 22: Amount of Peanut Butter Removed from Jar

Both figures 21 and 22 above show that participants were able to remove the most peanut butter

from both the top and bottom of the 16 oz. cut peanut butter jar. What is important to note, is that

team CATs Not RATs hypothesis was confirmed that the split method for the both the top and

bottom of the 16 oz. cut peanut butter jar and the top and bottom of the prototype allowed

participants to extract the most peanut butter therefore wasting less for users.

The average time to remove the peanut butter from the jar was examined as well. The results can

be seen in figure 23 below. On average, participants were able to remove peanut butter from the

top and bottom of the 16 oz. cut peanut butter jar the quickest.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

16ozpbjarnolid 16ozcutpbjar-top 16oztoppbjar-

bottom

Prototypepbjar-top Prototypepbjar-

bottom

GramsofPeanutButterRemaining

AmountofPeanutButterLeftInJar

0

5

10

15

20

25

16ozpbjarnolid 16ozcutpbjar-top 16oztoppbjar-

bottom

Prototypepbjar-

top

Prototypepbjar-

bottom

GramsofPeanutBarRemoved

AmountofPeanutButterRemovedFromJar



Figure 23: Average Time to Remove Peanut Butter from Jar

When examining the answers to the twelve questions, found in Appendix F participants noted

that they liked the bottom of the prototype best out of the five different iterations of the jar

because it allowed one to extract more peanut butter from the jar due to its ability to split in half

and its wide mouth and wide bottom. They felt their fingers and knife where the most sticky

when using the standard 16 oz. jar with no lid. Participants did feel that because they were using

a 3D printed prototype that the rough sides and divots in the top of the jar did not allow them to

extract as much peanut butter as they could have. They also would have enjoyed testing a smaller

prototype version but because of limited resources a lid that was already made needed to be used.

While the ease of use of opening the new lid on the prototype was not tested with the eight

participants, the team did a quick qualitative test comparing the relative force to open each

container. This was done by simply opening each container, and further study will be necessary.

Discussion and Future Work

The initial design process for this product redesign did not include an affinity diagram and

personas were not developed because of the timeline of the project. Team CATs Not RATs

began its initial literature review and survey prior to the I E 576: Human Factors in Product

Design lecture regarding affinity diagrams and personas. From the results of the primarily

multiple-choice survey there could not be enough variable information extrapolated to produce a

useful affinity diagram. As such, no personas were created. Additionally, the survey participants

were from a relatively non-diverse background (i.e. limited diversity in age) which could have

impacted the results.

One issue that came up a number of times in prototype testing was the size of the prototype.

While many participants enjoyed the larger sized mouth of the jar, they would like to test using a

jar more similar in size to the 16 oz. jar, the most commonly purchased jar size for our survey

pool.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

16ozpbjarnolid 16ozcutpbjar-

top

16oztoppbjar-

bottom

Prototypepbjar-

top

Prototypepbjar-

bottom

TimetoRemovePeanutButter(Seconds)

AverageTimetoRemovePeanutButterfromJar



With a cursory literature review, the torque required to open the flat, pop off lid found in the

coffee can aroma seal or tennis ball container was unable to be found. The team members were

able to qualitatively test the relative difficulty between the two lids simply by opening each

container themselves. Future work would include a more quantitative test measuring the force

and torque required to open the flat pop off lid and comparing it to the 1.79Nm force of the

screw off lid.

While the prototype is currently made from ABS plastic and a slew of salvaged components, the

mass manufactured jar, in compliance with traditional peanut butter jars, would be made of

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic [14]. PET plastic is considered the “easiest and most

common plastic to recycle” [16]. Due to this, participants were able to remove more peanut

butter from the top and bottom of the 16 oz. peanut butter jar rather than split prototype design

that had rough, rimmed edges. The material also played a factor in allowing participants to

remove the peanut butter from the top and bottom of the 16 oz. peanut butter jar in the least

amount of time. In addition, the coffee can lid used for the prototype could also be mass

manufactured and is easily recyclable made with the “same materials found in most laundry

detergent bottles, juice containers, and milk jugs” [9]. With these factors in mind, this product

should not only have a relatively small environmental impact (or at least at similar levels to the

current peanut butter jar) and should be sustainable.

Conclusion

Based on the initial survey conducted, it was found that ~87% of the surveyed population found

it irritating using the conventional peanut butter jar that’s used nowadays. The main issue that

they felt was the probability of getting sticky fingers when using the jar for getting the last few

scoops of peanut butter from the jar. The team was surprised to find that 56% of the population

that was surveyed asked for a change in design of the current peanut butter jar. Based on results

from the survey and some literature review, a new prototype was designed and tested for a

preliminary usability study of eight users. The results produced showed an indication that the

users preferred the new design over the old conventional one.

The participants found that the new design was easier to remove more peanut butter compared to

the current design. This can be attributed to the two piece assembly which provides more room

for a knife or spoon to scoop the last few scoops. Users found the new lid to be less strainful and

easy to use compared with the old twisting design. This can be because of less strain and twist

angle involved in the new design compared to the old one. The new design has addressed the

problem of fingers getting sticky, improved the lid design and reduced the torque. The future

work would be aimed at multiple user groups with a prototype of the exact same dimensions of

the current design.



Appendix A: Survey Questions

1. How often do you eat peanut butter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Never

e. Other:______

2. What kind of container does the peanut butter you purchase come in?

a. Plastic Jar

b. Glass Jar

c. Tube

d. Other: ______

3. What size of peanut butter do you purchase?

a. 12 oz.

b. 16 oz.

c. 28 oz.

d. 40 oz.

e. Other:______

4. How often do you purchase peanut butter?

a. weekly

b. twice a month

c. once a month

d. every 2-3 months

e. other:______

5. What problems do you face when using peanut butter from a jar, if any?

6. Do you see a need for a redesigned peanut butter jar?

a. Yes

b. No

7. If you answered yes, please explain any design ideas you might have



8. Do your hands get sticky when getting peanut butter out of a jar?

*Think about when you get to the bottom of the jar*

a. Yes

b. No

9. How much peanut butter do you leave in the jar when you throw it away?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Absolutely no peanut butter A quarter of a jar



Appendix B: Survey Results



**The fully detailed Excel Worksheet is included as an attachment.



Appendix C: Prototype CAD Files



Appendix D: Prototype Testing Results

**The fully detailed Excel Worksheet is included as an attachment.



Appendix E: Prototype Questionnaire

1. Age

2. How often do you eat peanut butter?

3. What is your impression about this new peanut butter jar design?

4. What did you like, if anything, about the new design?

5. What did you not like, if anything, about the design?

6. Which jar did you feel you could get more peanut butter out of? Why?

7. Did your fingers get stickier when using one of the jars?

8. Would you be willing to pay more for this design? If yes, how much?

9. Torsion (twist angle)

10. What feature(s), if any, do you think is missing in this jar?

11. On a scale from 1-5, how confused were you in using the new design? 5 being the most

confused.



Appendix F: Prototype Questionnaire Results

Tester 1

1. 21 2. 3 times per week 3. liked because jar was wider and opening allows you to get more peanut butter from the

crevices 4. ability to split the jar

5. it didn’t feel sturdy...but i know it is just the prototype material 6. prototype because wider and could get knife to more area 7. No

8. Yes..about 50 cents more 9. (Didn’t test)

10. Cool lid. I liked the new lid...it is much faster to open especially if you are running late in the morning

11. 1

Tester 2

1. 21 2. twice per week 3. much easier to get all out/ knife nor hand sticky after

4. no stick, get more peanut butter out of jar. wide mouth and and wide bottom. I like the twist a lot

5. smoother inside finish 6. redesign-bottom-->Smaller piece that separates 7. first jar because narrow

8. pay two dollars more especially if it is my favorite peanut butter. Wont pay 8 to 10 more 9. (Didn’t Test)

10. Would like to try smaller size (16 oz) of prototype 11. 1

Tester 3

1. 22

2. monthly 3. good idea, don’t line top with lines in it 4. how well it fit together, wouldn't leak out

5. The top lid awkward to get with the lines, too wide 6. The prototype

7. yes-the first full one 8. less than a dollar 9. Pictures

10. worried about unscrewing before halfway gone. more difficult, break a seal 11. 1

Like unscrewing better, don’t like getting nails under the prototype



Tester 4

1. 22

2. monthly 3. I think itds innovative help get more peanut buuter out waster less

4. like the middle to unscrew, don’t have to shove whole fist in jar 5. the sides were rough, made it harder to get into corner 6. bottom of the prototype

7. first one whole peanut butter jar 8. yes, not more than 3-5 dollars 9. 10. none

11. 1 12. easier for pop on, less time

Tester 5

1. 25

2. 3-4 times a week 3. Like the new one, way more easier, hands not sticky.

4. The lid, screw threads 5. It’s a prototype, the layers produced made it rough to take out the peanut butter 6. Bottom of the prototype. Easy design to understand, way more faster.

7. Yes, the 16 oz one 8. Yes, 50 cents for the smaller one, can go upto 1.5 dollars for the 4 lb jar 9. 10. Throw away the first half and use the lid to cover the bottom part for reusing.

11. 1 12. Like the bottom part of the new prototype.

Tester 6

1. 23

2. Daily 3. Bottom assembly, less wastage and less time consumption

4. Easiness to use peanut butter because of the 2 part assembly. 5. More liking towards the conventional lid 6. The bottom part of the 16 oz jar.

7. Yes, the 16 oz one. 8. Yes. 50 cents more 9.

10. preference for the twist lid ( the conventional one)\ 11. 1 12. New prototype



Tester 7

1. 20

2. Monthly 3. Less waste

4. Easy to scoop out 5. Jar is too wide 6. The prototype

7. Yes, the 16 oz. jar 8. Yes, maybe 25 cents 9. 10.

11. 1

12. New Prototype

Tester 8

1. 22 2. Rarely

3. It’s made of a weird material 4. Easy to scoop out of

5. Nothing 6. The prototype, wider mouth 7. Not really

8. No 9. 10.

11. 1 12. Prototype



Appendix G: References

[1] Bratskeir, K. (2015, January 30). Here's How To Get Every Last Bit Of Peanut Butter Out Of

The Jar (This Is Genius). Retrieved October 5, 2015.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/peanut-butter-jar-problems-fix-it_n_6571710.html

[2] Can Peanut Butter Go Bad? (2012, September 28). Retrieved October 8, 2015.

http://www.livescience.com/32178-can-peanut-butter-go-bad.html

[3] Crawford, O.J., Wanibe, E., & Nayak, L., (2002). “The Interaction between lid diameter,

height and shape on wrist torque exertion in younger and older adults.” Ergonomics, vol.

45, No. 13, pp. 022-933.

[4] Creamy Peanut Butter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015.

http://www.jif.com/products/creamy-peanut-butter

[5] Dual-Lid Design Turns Jar on Its Head, Opens at Both Ends. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2,

2015. http://dornob.com/dual-lid-design-turns-jar-on-its-head-opens-at-both-ends/

[6] Ehrlenspiel, K., & Kiewert, A. (2007). Factors that influence Manufacturing Costs and

Procedures for Cost Reduction. In Cost-efficient design. Berlin: Springer.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F97[18-3-540-34648-7_7#page-1

[7] Gerard, B. (2015, June 17). How It Works: Blow Molding. Retrieved October 8, 2015.

http://info.craftechind.com/blog/how-it-works-blow-mold ing

[8] Han, E. (n.d.). Every Last Bit: How Do You Finish a Jar Of Peanut Butter? Retrieved

October 7, 2015. http://www.thekitchn.com/every-last-bit-how-do-you-fini-126138

[9] How to Recycle Coffee. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, http://www.folgerscoffee.com/coffee-how-to/how-to-

recycle-coffee/

[10] Jar & Bottle Scraper/Spatula. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2015.

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105660/Jar%26BottleScraper%2fSpatula?gclid=CMf68d3vq8gCFYQAa

QodKd8BKQ&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105660&ef_ id=VDs-NAAABFg6fW 49:20151005173837:s

[11] Jar~with~a~Twist - Buy your jars now! (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2015.

http://jarwithatwist.com/#jar

[12] PB & J Spreader/Spatula. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2015.

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105661/PB%26JSpreader%2fSpatula?gclid=CJTSpoPvq8gCFZaHaQod

Q3AEBw&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105661&ef_id=VDs -NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173527:s

[13] Nagashima, K., Konz, S., 1986. “Jar lids: effect of diameter, gripping materials and

knurling”. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society -30th Annual Meeting.

[14] The 7 Most Common Plastics and How They are Typically Used. (n.d.). Retrieved October

5, 2015. http://www.reuseit.com/product-materials/learn-more-the-7-most-common-plastics-and-how-they-

are-typically-used.htm

[15] The Perfect Peanut Butter Jar Works Like A Push-Pop. (2013, July 29). Retrieved October

2, 2015. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1673115/the-perfect-peanut-butter-jar-works-like-a-push-pop

[16] The Seven Classifications of Plastics: Are They All Really Recycled?. (n.d.). Retrieved

October 5, http://polymerinnovationblog.com/the-seven-classifications-of-recyclable-plastics-are-they-all-

really-recycled/

[17] [TRR56]. (2010, September 20). How It's Made Plastic Bottles & Jars. [video file].

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfyPCujUPms

[18] Yoxall, A., Langley, J., Janson, R., Lewis, R., Wearn, J., Hayes, S.A., and Bix, L., (2010).

“How Wide Do You Want the Jar?: The Effect on Diameter for Ease of Opening for Wide -mouth

Closures.” Packaging Technology and Science, Vol 23, pp. 11-18.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/peanut-butter-jar-problems-fix-it_n_6571710.html

http://www.livescience.com/32178-can-peanut-butter-go-bad.html

http://www.jif.com/products/creamy-peanut-butter

http://dornob.com/dual-lid-design-turns-jar-on-its-head-opens-at-both-ends/

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F97%5b18-3-540-34648-7_7#page-1

http://info.craftechind.com/blog/how-it-works-blow-molding

http://www.thekitchn.com/every-last-bit-how-do-you-fini-126138

http://www.folgerscoffee.com/coffee-how-to/how-to-%09recycle-coffee/

http://www.folgerscoffee.com/coffee-how-to/how-to-%09recycle-coffee/

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105660/Jar%26BottleScraper%2fSpatula?gclid=CMf68d3vq8gCFYQAaQodKd8BKQ&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105660&ef_id=VDs-NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173837:s

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105660/Jar%26BottleScraper%2fSpatula?gclid=CMf68d3vq8gCFYQAaQodKd8BKQ&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105660&ef_id=VDs-NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173837:s

http://jarwithatwist.com/#jar

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105661/PB%26JSpreader%2fSpatula?gclid=CJTSpoPvq8gCFZaHaQodQ3AEBw&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105661&ef_id=VDs-NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173527:s

http://www.4imprint.com/product/105661/PB%26JSpreader%2fSpatula?gclid=CJTSpoPvq8gCFZaHaQodQ3AEBw&gfeed=1&mkid=1pla105661&ef_id=VDs-NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173527:s

http://www.reuseit.com/product-materials/learn-more-the-7-most-common-plastics-and-how-they-are-typically-used.htm

http://www.reuseit.com/product-materials/learn-more-the-7-most-common-plastics-and-how-they-are-typically-used.htm

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1673115/the-perfect-peanut-butter-jar-works-like-a-push-pop

http://polymerinnovationblog.com/the-seven-classifications-of-recyclable-plastics-are-they-all-really-recycled/

http://polymerinnovationblog.com/the-seven-classifications-of-recyclable-plastics-are-they-all-really-recycled/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGBX_7Q2vIJc-7j4DzMk4Qw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfyPCujUPms

peanut butter jar redesign

Documents