Water soluble packaging

Abstract

This invention relates to improved water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging. More particularly, this invention relates to the use of polyvinyl alcohol based films having a defined crystalline structure, in antimicrobial packaging applications.

Claims

1. A water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging comprising: i. a sealed, water soluble polyvinyl alcohol based film; wherein water soluble polyvinyl alcohol based film is sealed around a predetermined amount of antimicrobial; and ii. three separate crystallinity index values of greater than 5, greater than 9 and greater than 0.75, respectively.

2. The use of the water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging of claim 1 in cooling water systems, hydrotesting waters, waters associated with the production or recycling of energy related hydrocarbons, reverse osmosis membranes, metalworking solutions, pulp and paper applications, and mineral slurries in addition to equipment and plant cleaning, paint and colorant manufacture, and raw material clean up applications.

3. A water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging product comprising multiple packages wherein at least 60% of the packages comprise the packaging of claim 1.

4. The water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging of claim 1 comprising an antimicrobial that is 2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide.

5. The use of the water soluble, polyvinyl alcohol based film packaging of claim 4 in cooling water systems, hydrotesting waters, waters associated with the production or recycling of energy related hydrocarbons, reverse osmosis membranes, metalworking solutions, pulp and paper applications, and mineral slurries in addition to equipment and plant cleaning, paint and colorant manufacture, and raw material clean up applications.

Description

EXAMPLES

(1) Packages were formed from polyvinyl alcohol film (Ultiloc XHC-1) commercially purchased from Sekisui, Chemical Co., LTD.

(2) XRD Experimental Conditions

(3) A section of package was cut and affixed to a sample holder with double sided tape for X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. A Bruker D8 Advance - X-ray diffractometer equipped with a copper sealed-source tube and Vantec-1 linear position sensitive detector was used to collect diffraction patterns. The tube was operated at 35 kV and 45 mA and the samples were illuminated with copper K.sub. radiation (=1.541 ). XRD data were collected with a 3 detector window from 5 to 45 2, with a step size of 0.026 and 1 s/step collection times.

(4) Analysis

(5) The XRD patterns for the package samples were compared to a pattern of DBNPA powder contained in a package to determine which peaks came from the packages and which peaks came from DBNPA residue on the packages.

(6) A broad reference peak (D) at 19.400.35 2 was present in all package samples. Peaks at 11.60.2 2, 23.30.2 2, and 35.30.2 2 (Peaks A-C) were not present in all samples. It was determined that the ratio of the height of these peaks to the peak height at 19.400.35 2 (Peak D) could be used as crystallinity indices to determine the quality of the packages. Crystallinity Index A is defined as the ratio of the peak height at 11.60.2 2 (Peak A) to the peak height at 19.400.35 2 (Peak D). Crystallinity Index B is defined as the ratio of the peak height at 23.30.2 2 (Peak B) to the peak height at 19.400.35 2 (Peak D). Crystallinity Index C is defined as the ratio of the peak height at 35.30.2 2 (Peak C) to the peak height at 19.400.35 2 (Peak D). In instances where no peak is located at the listed peak location (i.e. bad packages), the intensity of the XRD pattern at the approximate 2 location is used to calculate the crystallinity index instead.

(7) Some care must be taken to ensure that peaks from the package material are being used and not peaks from the DBNPA residue, especially near 11.60.2 2 (Peak A) and 35.30.2 2 (Peak C). DBNPA peaks are located at 12.10.2 2 and 34.80.2 2. Additional DBNPA peaks are located at 18.30.2 2 and 25.30.2 2 and can be used to aid in identification.

(8) Crystallinity Index A values were preferred to be greater than 5.0, more preferred to be greater than 6.0, and most preferred to be greater than 6.5. Crystallinity Index B values were preferred to be greater than 9.0, more preferred to be greater than 10.0, and most preferred to be greater than 11.5. Crystallinity Index C values were preferred to be greater than 0.75, more preferred to be greater than 0.90, and most preferred to be greater than 0.95. The results are summarized in the table below.

(9) TABLE-US-00001 Package Peak Peak Peak Peak Crystallinity Crystallinity Crystallinity Package Quality Height A Height B Height C Height D Index A Index B Index C 1 Good 49795 87787 7729 9393 5.30 9.35 0.82 2 Good 58786 102135 8315 9197 6.39 11.11 0.90 3 Bad 4409 6839 3731 9645 0.46 0.71 0.39 4 Bad 4747 7479 3858 9468 0.50 0.79 0.41 5 Bad 3371 6564 3259 6518 0.52 1.01 0.50 6 Bad 25542 38397 5249 7686 3.32 5.00 0.68 7 Bad 7836 18165 4233 6363 1.23 2.85 0.67 8 Good 48911 85171 7196 7355 6.65 11.58 0.98 9 Bad 26776 35464 4185 8290 3.23 4.28 0.50

(10) In interpreting the results good packages represent bags which remained flexible but firm, clear, and colorless. Conversely bad bags were observed to be highly elastic, wrinkly, and slightly discolored (yellowed, grey, or milky). When handling bad bags, there was the appearance that the bags may break open at any point, while the good bags felt sturdy and maintained integrity. Additionally, bad bags became tacky and when in contact with other water soluble bags were difficult to separate.

(11) Of note about the data is: Packages 1-7 were formed from the same roll of film, further highlighting that inconsistencies in the film manufacture exist. Packages 8 & 9 were also from the same roll of film, but were taken in close proximity to each other.