Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

shows a hang tag of clear plastic partially coated with a

pressure-sensitive adhesive. The coated portion of the tag

is applied to the merchandise, and the die-cut hole is used

to hang the merchandise on the rack.

Tags used for price marking are generally produced as

continuous tags. These tags satisfy the special needs of

large retail organizations by affording them the opportu-

nity to ship preprinted price tags along with stock ship-

ments to their various distribution locations. The tags

come in a variety of sizes and shapes are generally afﬁxed

with plastic barbs by tagging guns to prevent price switch-

ing. The accelerated use of computers in the retail indus-

try has had a dramatic effect on the appearance and use of

tags. Price-marking tags are now being produced with

magnetic stripes (Figure 7a), which can contain informa-

tion such as style, lot number, and manufacturer. In

addition, bar code and OCR (optical character recognition)

technologies have gained acceptance in the retail tag

market.

Tags can also aid in theft prevention, which is one of

the biggest concerns in the retail industry. Hard plastic

tags such as those shown in Figure 7b are afﬁxed to

articles of clothing in many large retail stores. The tags

must be removed at the time of sale to prevent triggering

an alarm as the garment passes through a special gate

that contains a scanner that is sensitive to the tag.

Because of their bulk, these tags are used primarily for

clothing. Recent innovations in miniaturization have

Figure 5. (a) Die-cut outline. (b) Three-dimensional die-cut tag.

Figure 6. (a) Jewelry display tag. (b) Display-rack tag. (c)

Transparent hang tag.

1188 TAGS

produced tags with what appears to be a strip of alumi-

num foil (Figure 7c), but which is actually a built-in

security device. If not deactivated by another strip of foil

afﬁxed at the time of sale, these circuits interrupt radio-

waves being transmitted from the exit gate and set off an

alarm. These tagging systems are currently marketed by

companies that sell retail-security systems.

Industry indicators predict that the future of the tag

industry in retail operations will not be adversely affected

by advances in computer technology. As long as there are

products to be identiﬁed, inventoried, and priced, there

will be a market for tags of all kinds in the retail industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Linda L. Butler, ‘‘Tags’’ in M. Bakker, ed., The Wiley Encyclopedia

of Packaging Technology, 1st edition, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, 1986, pp. 624–628; 2nd ed., R. J. Brody and K. S.

Marsh, eds., 1997, pp. 875–879.

TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING

JACK L. ROSETTE

Forensic Packaging Concepts,

Inc., Jefferson City, Tennessee

HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM

Since 1982 the entire industry, including the consumer,

has become aware of tamper-evident packaging. This

awareness has beneﬁted the consumer by a reduction in

loss of life due to consumption to adulterated products

from tampering. Never before has an industry reacted so

swiftly to resolve a problem that could be the ruination of

most manufacturers.

In 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died from

consuming cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules. The incident

resulted in a total product recall, massive negative pub-

licity for the product, new requirements for safe packa-

ging, and a federal statute making product tampering a

crime. Since that time, the packaging industry has become

visible to most consumers.

HISTORY OF INCIDENTS

Although there were incidents prior to 1982, product tam-

pering became highly visible after the Chicago incidents.

The exact number of incidents per year is unknown because

of various methods of reporting. Beginning with the 1982

deaths, there have been deaths from product tampering

that are widely known such as those in 1982, 1986, and

early 1991. All deaths due to targeted tampering are not

included, because we are discussing random tampering, not

tampering with a speciﬁc person in mind. It is probably a

coincidence on the timing as the various incidents are

unrelated, and in some instances the violator in earlier

cases was incarcerated at the time of the ensuing incidents .

According to government ﬁgures, the problem peaked

in the United States in 1986, when there were almost 1800

claims of possible product tampering. The number has

decreased to around 500 per year now. Is the decrease due

to better packaging or less interest on the part of potential

violators, due to the penalties for violating product-tam-

pering laws? Considering the experience in assisting law-

enforcement agencies, the decrease appears to be caused

by a change in the way claims are recorded as well as a

reluctance on the part of manufacturers to report all

claims of possible product tampering.

If the experience of other developed nations is an

indication of the future, it is expected that the problem

of product tampering will escalate in this country in the

future. Every developed nation has experienced product-

tampering incidents. The main difference between domes-

tic incidents and what is happening elsewhere is the

motive of the tamperers: extortion prior to injury, with

money appearing to be the primary motive, versus appar-

ently random tampering without prior threat in this

country. Most developed nations are either implementing

or modifying their rules on the use of tamper-evident

Figure 7. (a) Marking tag with magnetic stripe. (b) Plastic

electronic security tags. (c) Security tag with miniaturized radio

circuit.

TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING 1189

packaging. Some features as they are used in the United

States would have to be modiﬁed, or the use of a secondary

feature would be required to meet the standards of various

countries.

The problem of state-sponsored terrorism is so serious

that a series of meetings were held in the late 1970s were

the problem was addressed in great detail. Participating

in the meetings were representatives of the FBI, Com-

merce Department, Defense Department, State Depart-

ment, and CIA. One of the chief concerns at the time was

the threat of retail-product tampering by a state-spon-

sored organization. The term ‘‘state-sponsored terrorism’’

refers to any group of terrorists that is supported ﬁnan-

cially, logistically, or in intelligence by a government body

of any country. It has been documented that training in

ways to tamper with retail products and how to use such

acts to further their agenda is being conducted in certain

countries that sponsor terrorist groups. Picture, if you

will, the potential for disaster that exists if a potential

tamperer has the ﬁnancial and human resources available

to build a complete packaging line and can print duplicate

labels. It sounds far-fetched, but a similar incident oc-

curred in South America when a drug organization bought

a beverage plant to smuggle cocaine into the United

States. In that case at least one bottle in a specially

marked case contained the drug in a liquid form. When

the contents of the bottle was distilled in the United

States, it would yield a powder that could then be cut in

strength and distributed to the dealers. Unfortunately,

one bottle was overlooked and sold to a consumer who died

from a massive cocaine overdose.

While most incidents of retail product tampering in the

United States have been perpetrated by individuals, the

potential exists for even greater harm from the same acts

committed by a state sponsored terrorist group.

THE FDA RULE

In 1982 the FDA passed a rule (21 CFR 211.132) requiring

the use of tamper-evident packaging on all over-the-

counter (OTC) drugs and some cosmetics, while ignoring

other products they regulate. The fact that your product is

not required to use tamper-evident (TE) packaging does

not protect you in the event of a claim of product

tampering.

According to attorneys specializing in packaging and

product liability, product tampering is a foreseeable pos-

sibility, and manufacturers have a responsibility to protect

consumers against such possible acts. If your product in

an adulterated form could harm a consumer, you have a

responsibility to protect the product and consumer against

such acts. This means that the use of tamper-evident

packaging transcends FDA regulations.

The Rule speciﬁes which packaging features are accep-

table for use in providing resistance to tampering, and the

list was modiﬁed in 1988. At the current time there is a

proposal to modify the Rule again and to make the

acceptability of a feature based on performance.

What if the feature you want to use is not on the

approved list of the FDA? The FDA has a procedure by

which methods of providing protection that are not on the

approved list may obtain approval on a case-speciﬁc basis.

To obtain approval, samples of the complete package must

be submitted to the FDA along with a written request for a

waiver. Contact the local FDA compliance ofﬁcer to ﬁnd

out the current procedure to obtain approval.

The inclusion of a speciﬁc form of protection does not

warrant that the feature will deter violation, nor does it

prevent legal action in the event of a claim of injury

related to product tampering. There are variances in

designs, and even tooling of the same design that affect

the effectiveness of each feature. Any evaluation of a

package relates to the exact components used in the tests,

and material from a different manufacturer will usually

result in a different level of effectiveness, much the same

as using a different resin or closure liner will affect a

stability study.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES

Studies into consumer preferences for tamper-evident

packaging have consistently revealed that the consumer

prefers products that are resistant to tampering and

prefer the features to be shelf-visible. The same studies

indicated a willingness to pay slightly more than a com-

peting brand that is not TE. The exact amount is incon-

sistent among the studies, but the consistent replies of

concern indicate consumer awareness of packaging. This

awareness increases with publicity of tampering inci-

dents, and it decreases with time until the next publicized

incident.

COST OF CLAIM OF PRODUCT TAMPERING

The cost of responding to a claim of possible product

tampering would boggle the mind of the average person.

The cost begins when the complaint is received by com-

pany personnel, and it includes the following:

. Meetings that Will Be Held to Determine How to

Respond to the Claim. A complaint of possible pro-

duct tampering requires participation of top manage-

ment in all phases of meeting the problem.

. Expenses Related to High-Level Managers Visiting

the Locale Affected. Top management or their repre-

sentative will usually visit the location involved to

get a better feel for the situation.

. Cost of Picking Up All Stock and Possible Restocking

of Retail Displays. .

If the brand is to remain viable,

fresh

supplies must replace

all product that may

have been vulnerable to violation.

. Cost of Complete Inspection of Targeted Stocks or

Destruction of Those Not Capable of Inspection.

Since it is unlikely that the entire supply of product

on the shelves at the time of the incident was

affected, inspection of the stock may prevent destruc-

tion of the entire inventory.

. Lost Sales When Consumers Changed to Other Pro-

ducts. Many consumers will switch to other brands

until they regain conﬁdence in the brand affected.

1190 TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING

. Rewards for Information on Incident. Rewards

usually lead to information as to the identity of the

violator and result in ending further incidents.

. Fees for Packaging Consultants. Since it is impossi-

ble for every company to have employees who are

experts on every contingency, outside consultants

will be required to assist in meeting the challenge.

. Cost of Legal Counsel to Respond to Litigation. Self-

explanatory.

. Damage Awards Where Determined in Court. See

above.

The list can go on. Many of these costs will be incurred

even in false claims of possible product tampering.

When compared to the potential expense for defending

a single claim of tampering, the cost of effective tamper-

evident packaging becomes insigniﬁcant. Some in the

industry will take the moral position that we have an

obligation to protect the consumer and they are right.

Beyond the moral position is the reality that many ﬁrms

simply cannot afford the cost of responding to product

tampering claims, especially if the ﬁrm is a small, with a

very limited product line where the reputation of the

entire product line can be affected by adverse publicity

on one item in the product line. Liability insurance cannot

restore lost-customer conﬁdence.

A recent incident, later determined to be suicide, al-

most caused a household name brand to go out of business

because of the high cost of produced recall and package

redesign, even though the product and company were

linked to the incident only by circumstance.

In considering cost, the cost associated with responding to

one claim of product tampering far exceeds the cost of

incorporating tamper-evident features in the package de-

sign. Would you want to explain to your boss how your

companycouldnotaffordthepennyortwoformakingeach

package tamper-evident, and how you can afford the 10

million dollars or more your company is spending on defend-

ing a claim of possible product tampering? Who can put a

value on human life that would justify not using effective

tamper-evident packaging? The reality is, tamper-evident

packaging should be utilized if it will provide any protection

for your product, regardless of government regulation.

SELECTING WHICH FEATURE TO USE

Everyone has a preference for one type of package over

another. This preference has been developed by either the

products we manufacture or our experience with various

types of packaging in our everyday living. Selecting which

feature to use should not be affected by these preferences, but

by objective testing during the package development stage.

During the design stage, the package engineer should

consider the function of the product and how the consumer

intends to use it. Next, each TE feature that is usable on

the package should be tested to determine which feature

will offer the greatest protection to the consumer. The test

used should be objective, consistent, and replicable. Re-

cords of the test results should be retained indeﬁnitely. If a

feature selected for use achieves a lower value than others

that were rejected, reasons for the selection should be

recorded and retained with the test results. Remember,

cost cannot be a factor in selecting which feature to use.

You would not want to be questioned by attorneys for the

other side as to why you were willing to accept less

effectiveness to save a few pennies and to compare those

few cents to the value of injury to a consumer.

One form of testing the effectiveness of tamper-evident

packaging is the Rosette Protocol, which measures the

degree of difﬁculty in violating a speciﬁc package and

restoring it to a nearly original condition. The Protocol

also measures increases in effectiveness through the use of

multiple features. The value for a speciﬁc combination of

features is not equal to the sum of each feature. Some

factors cover the combination, rather than each feature

separately. For example, the knowledge factor is applied

once, regardless of the number of features in the combined

package, and only one knowledge level was required. Time

is cumulative; if it takes 20 min to violate each feature, the

time required is not the value for 20 min multiplied by the

number of features used on the package. In this example

the time factor is the value for 1 h. Only one category of

equipment may be required if all tools or equipment

required to violate the different features in the combination

are in the same class. The feature visibility values for all

used on multiple feature packages are multiplied; even the

use of multiple features that are not shelf-visible increases

the effectiveness of the package. The feature material is

added for each feature replaced or reused to determine the

feature material value. The value of the feature, used with

the speciﬁc package components, on the speciﬁc product

and form of product tested, is the sum of all the factors.

The FDA and the Non-prescription Drug Manufac-

turers Association have expressed concern that the in-

dustry would gravitate to the feature achieving the

highest score in any testing procedure. In reality,

the value for a speciﬁc feature will vary, depending on

the exact product and all other packaging components

used in a speciﬁc package. The same feature from different

manufacturers may achieve different values, because

there

are slight variations

in design and manufacture,

even though the features may appear to be identical. If a

value were to be established at 20 on a scale of 0–50 for a

single feature, the value of 20 could be attained through

the use of multiple features if necessary. This would

preclude any single feature from becoming the industry

mandated method to provide protection. The above value

of 20 is for illustration purposes only; prior testing has

shown the minimum design for FDA acceptance to be

around 11, with some minimum values for approved

features scoring much higher. A standard requiring 20

as the minimum value would require most packages to be

improved before the package would meet the standard.

The use of multiple features can result in a value higher

than 50. While the Rosette Protocol has been tested and in

use for several years, there are others that may be as

objective and in use by other companies.

Certain tamper-evident features in use today, and

approved for use by the FDA, are at best window dressing.

Such features can be violated without the use of tools of

TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING 1191

any type, the feature removed and replaced after violation

of the package, and all without leaving any indication of

possible violation. Some very effective alternatives to the

features are not being used because of a slightly higher

per unit cost. Other features used to provide resistance to

violation are being used in a form that does not meet the

FDA standards and can be duplicated very easily—all to

save a penny per unit. It is time for the packaging

industry—the producers and the users—to accept their

responsibility and provide effective packaging to their

customers. The best way to do this is through the use of

an objective approval process that disregards minor costs

or inconveniences.

WHAT IS THE BEST TE FEATURE?

A lot of people ask ‘‘What is the best TE feature?’’ No

single TE feature is best for all products! There are

variations in effectiveness of similar features from differ-

ent manufacturers as well as variations in effectiveness

where the product contributes to the effectiveness. An

example is a metal can which is much more effective for a

carbonated product than for a noncarbonated product. The

product can determine which feature provides the most

protection; for instance, a product that can be adulterated

effectively by penetration would require a more rigid outer

container than one that degrades visibly on violation by

penetration. The best feature for your product is the one

that provides the greatest resistance to violation for that

product in its current form and size. All features can be

violated in some manner; effective TE features provide

greater difﬁculty in violating the product than do ineffec-

tive features. In some cases the packaging was violated by

being opened, just as any consumer would do, and then

the tamperer replaced the original product with a toxic

substance, not making any attempt to restore the package

to its original appearance. The package worked as in-

tended—it showed that it had been opened, but still

resulted in injury to the consumer. The violation does

not have to be exotic to harm the consumer. Tamperproof-

ness does not exist!

DOES TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING WORK?

Since the implementation of the FDA rule (21 CFR

211.132) in 1982, the consumer has increased awareness

of packaging. This awareness has led to an increase in the

number of complaints of possible product tampering,

although most incidents are later dismissed as unfounded.

Tamper-evident packaging prevents tasting in stores,

prevents in-store violation, and, if the feature is intact,

ensures the consumer that the product is safe. Effective

tamper-evident packaging acts as a deterrent to most

persons who would commit such acts of violation and

makes it difﬁcult for others to violate the package and

restore it to its original appearance. Yes, effective tamper-

evident packaging works, provided that consumers are

aware of the feature and pay attention to what they are

about to use.

Most experts agree that the consumer should be more

aware of what to look for in tamper-evident packaging.

Educating the consumer could include pictures of the

feature and product on the label and in media ads. One

recent case resulted in loss of life where the package met

this test with two indicators: The product was pictured on

the label and the actual product consumed did not resem-

ble the picture on the label in two different ways, as well

as numerous other indications of violation. The consumer

used the product anyway and died from consuming the

substituted item. If the consumer had examined the

product and package, it should have been obvious that

the product was not to be used. Better consumer aware-

ness may have prevented this incident.

The consumer today is different from those in previous

generations. You may remember as a child that if a can was

dented, it would be passed over by shoppers until it was the

last package on the shelf. Most dented cans were sold at a

discount in a special bin. Today consumers are so conﬁdent

of the quality of the product, and accustomed to manufac-

turing defects, transporation damage, and other variations

in the package, that they accept without question packages

their parents and grandparents would have rejected. This

demonstrates the conﬁdence the consumers have in our

products, which we can be proud of, but insulates them

from taking responsibility for their own safety.

Both the products themselves and their manufacturers

have taken the entire blame for past incidents of product

tampering. Another weak link in the chain of package

security is the retailer. In prior cases, the retailer has not

been held accountable for the violation of any package, or

the sale of packages with obvious indication of prior

opening. During research, many stores were visited to

observe what products are converting to the use of tam-

per-evident packaging and to determine which features

are used on what types of products. During those visits,

many packages were observed where the tamper-evident

feature indicated possible prior opening. In every case the

package was taken to the store manager, with an explana-

tion of what was observed. Their statements have ranged

from ‘‘I will put it aside for the salesman to pick up’’ to

‘‘there’s nothing wrong with it, it happens all the time’’ to

‘‘put it back on the shelf and I will have the company pick

it up.’’ What if the package had been violated and a

consumer died from using the product? How does the

manager know that another consumer will not buy the

package before the company picks up the product? Retai-

lers need to participate more in making tamper-evident

packaging work as intended, rather than being a weak

link in the chain of package security.

PRODUCT TAMPERING AS AN INTERNATIONAL

TERRORISTS TOOL

The compalcency of the world was shattered on 9/11.

When the World Trade Center collapsed, so did the feel-

ings of sereness and security of most Americans. On 9/11

all potential acts of terrorism— biological and others—

became real-world and increased our awareness of

our

surroundings and actions

by others that may indicate

1192 TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING

a potential threat to our safety and wellbeing. The

risk of retail product tampering being used by interna-

tional or domestic terrorists has existed for decades, and

9/11 did not change the potential threat for its use

as a terroristic tool. The author proposed a means for

identifying potential large—scale product tamperers to

Federal law enforcement agencies in 1991. The laws at the

time precluded their ability to implement such a domestic

threat identiﬁcation program. Perhaps someday we will be

able to take a proactive position and reduce the potential

use of product tampering as a terroristic tool.

MAKING TAMPER-EVIDENT PACKAGING WORK

Making tamper-evident packaging work as it should

requires the efforts of all involved: The manufacturers of

packaging components should promote effective packa-

ging for use in providing protection, product manufac-

turers should use the most effective feature for their

product, retailers should be aware of the potential for

violated products being in their display, the consumer

should maintain an awareness of what to look for in a

secure package and refuse to buy packages that look

suspicious, law-enforcement agencies should conduct pro-

fessional investigations and prosecute all violations, gov-

ernment agencies should provide for legal relief to

companies meeting or exceeding government standards,

and the media should report only those incidents that are

veriﬁed as representing a threat to the health and welfare

of the public without causing hysteria through false

alarms. It all begins with you as packaging professionals.

Product tampering will not disappear. We as an indus-

try must remain committed to providing the consumer

with quality products in packages that provide protection

to the consumer. Since 1982, we have come a long way, but

we must continue to research and develop improvements

in packaging to ensure the availability of safe products for

the next generation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

General References

Books

J. L. Rosette, Development of an Index for Rating the Effectiveness

of Tamper-Evident Packaging Features, Master’s thesis, Cali-

fornia Coast University, Santa Ana, CA, 1985.

J. L. Rosette, Improving Tamper-Evident Packaging, Technomic

Publishing, Lancaster, PA, 1992.

J. L. Rosette, Product Tampering Detection, Forensic Packaging

Concepts, Inc., Atlanta, 1993.

Walter Stern, Packaging Forensics; Package Failure in the Courts,

Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co. 2000.

Publications

Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 21, Government Printing

Ofﬁce, Washington, DC.

Federal Register.

Food & Drug Packaging, published monthly.

Articles and Technical Papers

D. Lowe, ‘‘Crisis Management Marketing, Tampering Strategies

for International and Domestic Marketplace Terrorism,’’ San

Francisco State Univ. J. 1 (1990).

J. L. Rosette, ‘‘Defending Against Terroristic Tampering,’’ 1991.

Incident Reports, 1986 to 2006, reports of claims of possible

product tampering from various law-enforcement agencies.

J. L. Rosette, ‘‘Product Tampering as It Affects Consumers and

Law Enforcement,’’ 1992 FBI Law Enforcement Bull. (Septem-

ber 1991).

Product Tampering in the Marketplace’’ Foundation for American

Communications, 1986.

Product Tampering Problems, Foundation for American Commu-

nications, 1993.

J. Sneden, H. Lockhart, and M. Richmond, Tamper-Resistant

Packaging, Michigan State University, 1983.

Trends in Product Tampering, 1990, FDA & FBI data on product

tampering.

TAPE, GUMMED

R. W. MC KELLAR

The Gummed Industries

Association

INTRODUCTION

Gummed paper tape and reinforced gummed paper tape

have always been very effective carton sealing materials.

Technological advancements in paper, laminates, adhe-

sives, reinforcements, and dispensing and application

equipment provide today’s user with a scientiﬁcally pro-

duced high-quality product. Gummed tapes are environ-

mentally friendly because they are made from natural raw

materials and are 100% recyclable. Depending on the

packager’s need, gummed tape can be obtained with a

wide range of tailor-made special features. Advantages of

using gummed paper tape include the following: (a) It is

tamper-proof, that is, the tape cannot be removed from a

carton without leaving traces; (b) water-activated adhe-

sives in gummed paper tape penetrate right into the liner

of the carton, creating a total bond; and (c) extreme

temperatures do not change the characteristics of

gummed tape. The closure is resistant to aging (1).

TYPES

There are two basic forms of gummed tapes: single-ply

nonreinforced ‘‘paper’’ sealing tape and double-ply ﬁber-

glass ‘‘reinforced’’ sealing tape. Both varieties begin with

what is commercially known as ‘‘gumming kraft,’’ which

differs from ordinary kraft paper in that it is sized to

prevent the adhesive from penetrating too deeply into the

paper. Following application of a vegetable-based remois-

tenable adhesive (see Adhesives), single-ply paper-sealing

tape is slit into roll lengths of 375–6000 ft (114–1829 m).

TAPE, GUMMED 1193

Depending on the basis weight of the paper (35#, 60#, or

90#) (see Paper), the product is categorized for light-,

medium-, and heavy-duty application.

PRODUCTION

Double-ply reinforced gummed sealing tapes are produced

by sandwiching ﬁberglass yarns between two sheets of

kraft paper with either a hot melt of water-based adhe-

sive. The use of recycled pulp in the paper is encouraged

(2). Fiberglass yarns generally run in three directions

(machine direction and both transverse directions), form-

ing a diamond or ‘‘three-way’’ pattern. As in single-ply

paper tapes, a water-remoistenable adhesive of vegetable

and/or animal glue formulation is applied to the bottom

sheet before or after lamination. Depending on the user’s

needs, paper basis weight, yarn spacing and denier, and

laminate- and adhesive-coating, weight can be varied to

produce products for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty

application. Finally, the parent or ‘‘jumbo’’ roll is slit into

smaller rolls ranging in size from 360 to 4500 ft(110–

1372 m).

Both paper and reinforced sealing tapes are usually

wound gummed-side-in on a cardboard core. Most manu-

facturers also supply coreless rolls. Tape widths generally

range from 1 to 3 in. (25 to 76 mm) in 1/2-in. (13-mm)

increments. Gummed tapes are available in a range of

colors, widths, and lengths. They can also be custom-printed

and can be obtained in strippable grades or with special

antitheft, tamper-evident, or inventory-control features.

USES

When properly purchased and applied, both paper and

reinforced sealing tape fully meet the requirements and

speciﬁcations for rail (UCC Rule 41), truck (NCB Rule

222), plane, parcel post, UPS, and other parcel delivery-

service shipments. General Services Administration Com-

mercial Descriptions (CIDs) A-A-1492A, A-A-1671A, and

A-A-1672A govern the purchase of gummed tapes by the

federal government.

Gummed tape sticks well to a wide range of products, but

will not adhere to plastic products . T apes are strong and can

be used for very heavy cartons . They are odorless, so they

can be used in the food industry. They are hygienic, which is

ideal for pharmaceutical products. The tapes will hold ﬁrm

and do not stretch, making them ideal for bar-code read-

ability. Gummed paper tapes’ strength and tamper -evident

qualities are important for packaging high value products ,

such as alcohol and jewelry. The tape’s printability adds to

safety by enabling batch and transport information to be

printed onto the tape at the very moment of closing the box.

Last-minute printability allows for savings because fewer

preprinted boxes are needed (1).

Gummed tape dispensing and application equipment

fall within several categories: (1) hand-operated dispen-

sers; (2) electrically operated dispensers; (3) automatic

taping machinery for ﬁxed-size boxes, and (4) automatic

taping machinery for random-size boxes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. R. W. McKellar, ‘‘Taped, Gummed’’ in M. Bakker, ed., The Wiley

Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 1st edition, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 631–632; 2nd ed., A. J. Brody and

K. S. Marsh, eds., 1997, p. 883.

Cited Publications

1. ‘‘Why Natural Paper Tape,’’ FIPAGO, Natural Paper Tapes,

http://www.ﬁpago.org, accessed October 2008.

2. ASTM D5749, Standard Speciﬁcation for Reinforced and Plain

Gummed Tape for Sealing and Securing, ASTM, http://

www.astm.org, 2006/Standards.

TAPE, PRESSURE SENSITIVE

R. L. SHEEHAN

3M Corporation,

Minnesota

Updated by Staff

INTRODUCTION

Pressure-sensitive tape (PSA) can be deﬁned as a contin-

uous ﬂexible strip of cloth, paper, metal, plastic, or foam

coated on one side or both with a permanently tacky

adhesive at room temperature which will adhere to a

variety of surfaces with light pressure (ﬁnger pressure)

with no phase change and usually available on a roll (1).

PSA is used for closing boxes, combining packages, attach-

ing packaging lists, color coding, pallet unitizing, adding

carrying handles, splicing, providing ease of package

opening, protecting labels, reinforcing critical package

components, holding documents, and a variety of other

jobs.

The ﬁrst pressure-sensitive tape was developed in 1925

for paint masking; it had a paper backing and a glue–

glycerol adhesive. Today, there are hundreds of specialty

tapes available for speciﬁc applications in packaging.

TAPE TESTING

As with all package components, tape testing must be

focused on the function of that component on the package.

An engineering analysis of the package followed by pack-

age testing are excellent beginnings. The critical physical

properties of the tape can then be chosen, in conjunction

with technical input from a reputable tape supplier (2).

One of the most important tape properties is often the

strength of the backing. ASTM D3759 is the standard

laboratory method for measuring the tensile strength and

elongation of pressure-sensitive tapes. Some packages re-

quire a tape with very little stretch; others require a

relatively high elongation to achieve the desired breaking

energy. For many narrow tapes, only the machine-direction

1194 TAPE, PRESSURE SENSITIVE

strength is of importance. For wider tapes, however, the

cross-direction strength can be more critical.

Peel adhesion, ASTM D3330, is perhaps the most often

quoted adhesive measurement. It measures the force in

ounces per inch of width (N/100 mm) required to peel a

strip of tape back onto itself (1801) from a stainless-steel

surface. Test conditions and rubdown are closely con-

trolled. The relationship of this test to tape functioning

correctly on a package is often questionable; the angle of

pull for the test is not seen on most packages, and the

stainless-steel substrate does not represent package sur-

faces well. However, for a given adhesive type, the test

may be useful as a quality-assurance procedure.

A packaging tape adhesive must have good tack to

allow it to adhere to a variety of package surfaces with

only a light rubdown. The literature on pressure-sensitive

tape includes several methods of measuring the initial

tack or ‘‘wet grab’’ of an adhesive. These can be valuable

research test methods, but, because most of them use glass

or steel as a test surface, it can be difﬁcult to correlate tack

test results with the performance of tape on a package.

Tapes are often used on packages where the tape must

hold in shear: The Force on the tape acts in parallel with

the package surface. One test that can relate to this is

ASTM D3654-A, holding power of pressure-sensitive tapes

to ﬁber-board. A

-in: 

-in: area of tape is applied to a

ﬁberboard surface (NIST Standard Reference Material). A

1-kg mass is attached to an end of the tape. The test

measures the time it takes for the mass to pull the tape

from the surface.

ASTM test methods and other standards relating to

pressure-sensitive tape are listed in Table 1. Other test

methods are published by the Pressure Sensitive Tape

Council (PSTC). Tape test methods are workable in both

the inch-pound system of units and the SI metric system;

physical properties are convertible from one system to the

other. The standard widths of tape are a little different in

the two systems. The metric replacement widths are based

on uniform slitting increments, resulting in standard

widths shown in Table 2; these are based on PSTC-71,

Guide for Width and Length of Pressure Sensitive Tape.

Most packaging uses of pressure-sensitive tape will read-

ily allow these metric sizes.

PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVES

Pressure-sensitive adhesives are unusual materials because

they are are somewhere between the viscous and rubber

states at room temperature. They show sufﬁcient liquid-like

behavior to deform or ﬂow into contact with a smooth

surface under light contact. Yet they must show appreciable

resistance to ﬂow duing a separation or debonding process .

The main advantage of pressure-sensitive adhesives com-

pared with other types of adhesives is convenience of use.

There is no storage, activation, or waiting involved. Often

the bond is reversible. The disadvantages of pressure-

Table 1. ASTM Standards Relating to Pressure-Sensitive Tape

ASTM Title

D1974 Practice for Methods of Closing, Sealing and Reinforcing Fiberboard Boxes

D2860 Adherence of Pressure Sensitive Tape to Fiberboard at 901 Angle and Constant Stress

D2979 Pressure Sensitive Tack of Adhesives Using an Inverted Probe Machine

D3121 Tack of Pressure Sensitive Adhesives by Rolling Ball

D3330 Peel Adhesion of Pressure Sensitive Tapes a 1801 Angle

D3611 Accelerated Aging of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3652 Thickness of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3654 Holding Power of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3759 Tensile Strength and Elongation of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3662 Bursting Strength of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3715 Quality Assurance of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3811 Unwind Force of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3813 Curling and Twisting on Unwinding of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3815 Accelerated Aging of Pressure Sensitive Tapes by Carbon Arc Exposure Apparatus

D3816 Water Penetration of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3833 Water Vapor Transmission of Pressure Sensitive Tapes

D3889 Adherence to Linerboard of Pressure Sensitive Tape at Low Temperature

D5105 Performing Accelerated Outdoor Weathering of Pressure Sensitive Tapes Using Natural Sunlight

D5264 Abrasion Resistance of Printed Materials by the Sutherland Rub Tester

D5330 Speciﬁcation for Pressure Sensitive Tape for Packaging, Filament Reinforced

D5375 Liner Removal at High Speeds from PSA Label Stock

D5486 Speciﬁcation for Pressure Sensitive Tape for Packaging, Box Closure and Sealing

D5570 Water Resistance of Tapes and Adhesives Used as a Box Closure

Table 2. Common Widths of Pressure-Sensitive Tape

Inch-Pound System (in.) SI Metric System (mm)

124

248

372

496

TAPE, PRESSURE SENSITIVE 1195

sensitive adhesives are as follows: The adhesive strength is

low, and they are unsuitable for rough surfaces. They are

also expensive in terms of cost per unit bond area. The most

well-known type of adhesive consists of natural rubber

blended with a tackiﬁer resins and a small amount of

antioxidant. Rigid PVC and polypropylene are used

exrtensively as backing materials for general-purpose tapes.

Plastic ﬁlms are used in specialized products. Polyacrylates

are generally used in high-quality tapes for their better

technical properties . The most recent development in pres-

sure-tape manufacture is the hot-melt coating process. Al-

most all of melt adhesives are based on SIS thermoplastic

rubber, mixed with hydrocarbon tackiﬁer resins and

oils in substantial amounts and an antioxidant in minor

amounts (3).

BOX-SEALING TAPE

The largest use of pressure-sensitive tape in packaging is

the closure of regular slotted containers. Figure 1 depicts a

typical construction of a box-sealing tape; a plastic ﬁlm is

coated on one side with a pressure-sensitive adhesive. The

ﬁlm may have a release treatment on one side to allow

easy removal of the tape from the roll during dispensing.

Some ﬁlm backings also are treated or coated on the

adhesive side to increase the bond of the adhesive to the

backing; although for a box sealing tape, this is not a

critical factor.

The standard application of a box sealing tape is

described in ASTM D1974, Standard Practice for Closing

and Sealing Fiber Boxes. A 2-in. (48-mm)-wide tape is

applied over the center seams of a regular slotted con-

tainer (RSC) and extends about 2

in. (65 mm) onto the

end panels of the box. This seals the center seam and helps

keep dust and dirt out of the box. If a total seal is needed,

cross-strips of tape can be added at the end edges of the

box. This ‘‘six-strip seal’’ or ‘‘H-seal’’ is speciﬁed for some

military and export packages but is seldom used for

domestic shipments.

The choice of tape for box closure is very important and

affects the performance of the entire package during

storage and distribution. The most common backing ma-

terial is biaxially oriented polypropylene. Some tape back-

ing is made of a relatively ‘‘square’’ ﬁlm with the machine-

direction and cross-direction properties about the same.

Most heavier-duty tapes are made of a tentered ﬁlm with

the cross-direction strength higher than the machine-

direction strength; this usually results in better perfor-

mance on boxes. Polyester, unplasticized PVC, and satu-

rated papers are also used as backings.

A proper backing for a box-sealing tape is a good start,

but the tape must have an aggressive adhesive if the

backing strength is to be realized. Many box-sealing tapes

use an adhesive based on rubber and a tackifying resin,

but acrylics and other synthetic adhesive systems are also

used. Critical adhesive properties are tack (for production

efﬁciency) and shear-holding power (for package ware-

housing and shipping).

Tape is applied by handheld dispensers (Figure 2) or

with box-sealing equipment. A range of equipment is

available for both semiautomatic (operator feeds the boxes

into the box sealer) or fully automatic operation. Box

sealers are either adjustable to boxes of a single size or

random, able to take a mixture of boxes of varying sizes.

Most pressure-sensitive box-sealing tapes hold well in

damp and humid conditions. Water resistance (ASTM

D5570) is required by the United Nations (UN) and the

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for tapes used

on boxes containing hazardous materials.

Standard Speciﬁcation ASTM D5486, Pressure Sensi-

tive Tape for Packaging, Box Closure, and Sealing, re-

placed Federal Speciﬁcations PPP-T-60 and PPP-T-76.

Type I is a polyester-backed tape used in H-type closure.

Type II is a polyester-backed tape used in single-strip

closures. Type III is a polypropylene-backed tape used in

single-strip closures. Type IV is a cloth-backed tape, and

Type V is a paper-backed tape.

FILAMENT TAPES

A second broad category of packaging tape is pressure-

sensitive ﬁlament tape, sometimes known as ‘‘strap-

ping tape.’’ Figure 3 shows that this is typically made of

Figure 1. A typical box-sealing tape consists of a backing ﬁlm (1)

and a layer of pressure-sensitive adhesive (2). It is used most

often as a closure for regular slotted containers.

1196 TAPE, PRESSURE SENSITIVE

a ﬁlm backing (polyester or polypropylene) with reinfor-

cing ﬁlaments embedded in the pressure-sensitive adhe-

sive. The most common ﬁlament is ﬁberglass, which

provides a high tensile strength with very little elonga-

tion. A few tapes have polyester or rayon ﬁlaments for

extra impact or cut resistance. Tapes are also available

with integral polymeric ﬁlaments. The adhesive require-

ments for ﬁlament tapes are at least as critical as those of

box-sealing tapes. Care should be taken to choose a tape

with a balance of tack (initial adhesion) and shear-holding

power.

Box closure can be accomplished with ﬁlament tape on

a variety of box styles. In ASTM D1974, ﬁlament tape is

recommended for use with boxes with fully overlap-

ping ﬂaps such as a ﬁve-panel folder, full-telescope box,

or full-overlap box. A high-performance ﬁlament tape may

be applied in L-shaped strips as small as

in (12 mm) wide

by 4

in. (105 mm): two in (50 mm) on each side of the L-

clip. A tape with lower tensile and adhesive properties

may have to be used in

- in:  6

- in: (18-mm 155-mm)

L-clips for equivalent performance on a box.

Filament tape is used in dozens of other packaging

applications where high strength is required. These include

reinforcing boxes, combining boxes for shipment, bundling,

recooperage, and pallet unitizing. Special ﬁlament tapes

are available for use directly on appliance surfaces to hold

doors and drawers in place during shipment.

Standard Speciﬁcation ASTM D5330, Pressure Sensi-

tive Tape for Packaging, Filament Reinforced, replaced

Federal Speciﬁcation PPP-T-97. It includes four classes of

ﬁlament tape: Type I—cut-resistant, Type II—medium-

tensile-strength, Type III—high-tensile-strength, and

Type IV—high-tensile-strength, weather-resistant. Other

grades of ﬁlament tape are also available for industry,

institution, and home use.

SPECIALTY TAPES

With a full choice of ﬁlms, papers, and foils for backings,

along with a wide range of adhesives available, it has been

Figure 2. Use of a handheld dispenser for applying box-sealing

tape to close RSC.

Figure 3. A typical ﬁlament tape has a backing ﬁlm (1) and

ﬁlaments (2) embedded in a pressure-sensitive adhesive (3). One

of the uses is the L-clip closure of full-overlap boxes.

TAPE, PRESSURE SENSITIVE 1197