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.
RelatedWork
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 DesignIdeas
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

DesignDecisions
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
16 ozpb jar no lid 16 oz cut pb jar-top 16 oz top pb jar-
bottom
Prototype pb jar-top Prototype pb jar-
bottom
GramsofPeanutButterRemaining
Amount of Peanut Butter Left In Jar
0
5
10
15
20
25
16 oz pb jar no lid 16 ozcut pb jar-top 16 oztop pb jar-
bottom
Prototype pb jar-
top
Prototype pb jar-
bottom
GramsofPeanutBarRemoved
Amount of Peanut Butter Removed From Jar

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
16 oz pb jar no lid 16 oz cut pb jar-
top
16 oz top pb jar-
bottom
Prototype pb jar-
top
Prototype pb jar-
bottom
TimetoRemovePeanutButter(Seconds)
Average Time to Remove Peanut Butter from Jar

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 youngerand 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-molding
[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-NAAABFg6fW49:20151005173837: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”. Proceedingsof 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.

Peanut Butter Jar Redesign

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Peanut Butter Jar Redesign

Similar to Peanut Butter Jar Redesign (16)

More from Tom Schnieders, PhD, A.Eng, AEP

More from Tom Schnieders, PhD, A.Eng, AEP (9)

Peanut Butter Jar Redesign