MOSS GROVE JOINT EASE LOTION DISPENSERkevincoyledesigner.co.uk/pdf/mossGroveTechReport.pdfMOSS GROVE...

MOSS GROVE® JOINT EASE LOTION DISPENSER

Kevin Coyle University of Glasgow

Product Design Engineering MSc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Arthritis (coming from the Greek arthro meaning joint and itis meaning inflammation) is a term used to describe over 100 related conditions. Over 10 million people in the UK suffer from arthritis, 66% of whom are women. Despite being commonly seen as an affliction that only affects the elderly, nearly 60% of sufferers are of working age and there are around 27,000 arthritis sufferers under the age of 25 in the UK[1].

Although symptoms vary depending on the specific type of arthritis, some common complaints include: joint pain, tenderness and stiffness, inflammation in and around the joints, restricted movement in the joints and weakness and muscle wasting. The joints affected can include those in the neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, fingers, hips, lower back, knees, ankles and toes[2].

The limited strength and dexterity experienced by arthritis sufferers can make using standard products incredibly difficult. It is for this reason that Moss Grove has asked for their Joint Ease lotion dispenser to be redesigned. The lotion itself is made from 100% natural ingredients and has been shown to “reduce inflammation, improve mobility and ease pain” [see Appendix A]. Currently Joint Ease is supplied in a standard soap dispenser which has not been designed for use by arthritis sufferers. As a result, a user’s interaction with the product can be frustrating, convoluted and more time-consuming than it need be.

The “Roll On: Rub In :Refill” dispenser designed here has been shown through user testing to be both quicker and easier to use than its predecessor. The roll on ball allows for direct application of lotion to an affected area and the rub in brush means users will not be required to wash their hands afterwards - thereby increasing the number of places it can be used. The ergonomic form of the bottle affords users a better grip and its elongated shape serves to extend a user’s reach.

Moss Grove’s decision to sell its customers one permanent dispenser and additional refill bags will cut the amount of energy and material required to provide users with an equivalent amount of lotion by over a third. It is also expected to cause a significant increase in the company’s profits and will save customers money after their first 900ml (or 6 of the current bottles).

At the conclusion of the project, Moss Grove applied for a patent and hope to take the product to market in the near future.

KEVIN COYLE MSC PDE 2

CONTENTS


Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... Problem Definition ...............................................................................................................Section 1: Research and Investigation ......................................................................................... Research Into the Needs of Arthritic Users .................................................................. Design Guidelines ................................................................................................... Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... Existing Product Evaluations ............................................................................................. Evaluation of current Joint Ease dispenser .................................................... Evaluation of Parallel Products .......................................................................... Product Requirements ........................................................................................................Section 2: Concept Generation and Evaluation ........................................................................ Initial Prototypes ................................................................................................................... Modified Dispenser ................................................................................................ Automatic Dispenser ............................................................................................. Spray Gun .................................................................................................................. Roll On ........................................................................................................................ Chosen Concept ....................................................................................................................Section 3: Final Design ....................................................................................................................... Key features ............................................................................................................................. User Interaction ..................................................................................................................... Materials and Manufacture ...............................................................................................Section 4: Product Testing ................................................................................................................ Volume Dispensed ................................................................................................................ Comparison with Current Dispenser ...............................................................Section 5: Design for Manufacture ................................................................................................ Process Capability ................................................................................................................. Roll-on Ball ................................................................................................................ Roll-On Holder ......................................................................................................... Bottle ........................................................................................................................... Manufacturing Risk ............................................................................................................... Roll-on Ball ................................................................................................................ Roll-On Holder ......................................................................................................... Bottle ...........................................................................................................................Section 6: Product Costing ............................................................................................................... Current Dispenser: Moss Grove Income/Expenditure ............................................. Redesign: Moss Grove Income/Expenditure ............................................................... Current and redesigned Dispenser: Cost to the consumer ...................................Section 7: Life Cycle Analysis ........................................................................................................... Current Dispenser ................................................................................................................. Redesigned Dispenser .........................................................................................................Section 8: Conclusion and Future Work .......................................................................................References ..............................................................................................................................................

25566667779

1010101011111112121314151516171717181820202122232325273030323435


Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ Appendix A: Client’s Brief ................................................................................................... Appendix B: Questionnaire Results ................................................................................ GA Drawings ........................................................................................................................... 1. Brush/Gripper ...................................................................................................... 2. Roll-on Cap ........................................................................................................... 3. Roll-on ball ............................................................................................................ 4. Roll-on holder ...................................................................................................... 5. Bottle ...................................................................................................................... 6. Refill cap with gripper ...................................................................................... 7. Exploded view .....................................................................................................

3737384041424344454647

INTRODUCTION

This project has been undertaken in collaboration with Moss Grove Natural Products. Launched in 2012, the company’s Joint Ease lotion has sold over 10,000 bottles to date and has been proven to relieve many of the symptoms of arthritis. The lotion itself is made entirely from natural ingredients and is completely benign. As a result, the lotion can be used as often as desired with Moss Grove advising it be applied at least twice a day.

Concerned that their users may be experiencing problems using a standard pump dispenser, the company submitted a brief to the GSA which asked for a student to “unearth a design for a bottle that could be easily opened by people who have limited finger movement and who suffer with stiff and painful finger joints.”

Problem Definition

The first problem to be addressed is that the current dispenser has not been designed for its users. It is a standard component, designed to be used by those without dexterity problems. Any redesign should reflect the varying degrees of strength, mobility and dexterity within the arthritic population.

The second problem to be addressed is the overall user interaction. The pump dispenser has been designed solely for the application of liquid into a user’s hands. Consequently users are unable to apply Joint Ease directly to an affected area, making the process of applying the lotion a protracted one. In addition to this, the current design requires users who are not applying lotion to their hands to wash them after each use increasing the time taken to complete the interaction.

Finally, given Moss Grove’s eco-friendly ethos, it is also imperative that the new dispenser’s environmental impact be minimised.


SECTION 1: RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION

Research Into The Needs of Arthritic Users

Design GuidelinesCambridge University’s Inclusive Design Toolkit [3] gives a number of recommendations for designing for those with limited dexterity. These guidelines provide a valuable insight into the limitations of arthritic users and provide a set of criteria that any future designs must satisfy. Even if a product is usable, the satisfaction level will be greatly decreased if it causes pain or discomfort.Aim to ensure that only push forces are required.Design the product so that it can be used by those who are either right or left handed and also allow for either one or two-handed use.The task of using the product should be performed with the wrist in a neutral position.Avoid interactions that require simultaneous movement in different directions.If a user’s hand is wet, they will be required to use a greater amount of strength than they would otherwise.Surfaces should be slightly deformable and the available contact area should be maximised.To minimise the required gripping strength loops, handles or sudden changes in surface contours should be included.

Questionnaire

Using Moss Grove’s online mailing list, a questionnaire (which could be completed via surveymonkey.com) was circulated among existing Joint Ease users [Appendix B]. The purpose of the survey was to gain insights into current user’s habits and to inform of the areas in which the overall product experience could be improved. The main findings of the questionnaire were as follows:

66.7% of users are female.The areas of the body most affected are the knees (70%), fingers (55%) and back (45%).Nearly half of users only apply the lotion twice a day (the directions state this as a minimum with there being no maximum to the amount of lotion that can be applied).The lotion is applied most frequently in either the bedroom or bathroom.The most common times to apply the lotion were first thing in the morning (79%) and before going to bed (58%).29% of people use the dispenser outside the home.Nearly one in five have experienced problems or discomfort when using the current dispenser.The majority of users (52%) were between 65 and 75.


Existing Product Evaluations

Evaluations of existing products and concepts were carried out using two main methods: empathic testing and usability testing. Empathic tests involved an able-bodied subject limiting the mobility in their finger and wrist joints to mimic the effects of arthritis. Usability tests involved the products being tested by two life-expert users, Subject A and Subject B. Subject A is 85 years old and suffers from Osteoarthritis mainly affecting her knees and back. Subject B is 55 years old and suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis which mainly affects her finger and wrist joints.

Evaluation of Current Joint Ease Dispenser

The main problems identified with the current dispenser were that it was difficult to operate with the index finger alone and that it required the use of two hands at all times. The easiest method of use identified, involved the user sitting the dispenser on a flat surface, holding their hand out in a neutral wrist position before pressing down on the dispenser with the area below the thumb while holding their other hand underneath the nozzle. However, even when using this method, the dispenser had a tendency to topple over especially when used on a smooth surface (such as enamel).

Other weaknesses identified were that the lotion can only be directly applied to the wrists and fingers - for all other areas the lotion must first be applied to the hands and then rubbed in to the affected area. This not only means that the application of lotion takes longer but it also limits the use of the product to places where the user has access to washroom facilities.

Evaluation of Parallel Products

Voltarol™ Pain-Eze EmulgelMoss Grove’s main competitiors (such as Voltarol, Ibuleve and Jointace) all use a standard screw top squeeze tube. Both the screwing/unscrewing and squeezing motion can be difficult for arthritic users due to the loss of dexterity and strength. Subject B stated that she has trouble with both and generally requires a rubber “gripper pad” to open screw tops.


Figure 1: Current dispenser in use

Figure 2: Squeeze tube dispenser in use

Dettol™ No Touch Soap Dispenser

The No Touch dispenser eliminates the need for users to physically interact with the product when dispensing soap. This is obviously of great benefit to anyone with dexterity problems like the 55% of surveyed Joint Ease users with arthritis in their finger joints.

However the product is not without its faults. The plastic packaging that it is supplied in is difficult to cut through with scissors and its ON button is very small and difficult to operate.

There is also the problem of users accidentally dispensing soap when trying to move the product. To avoid this, the dispenser must either be switched OFF before attempting to pick it up or gripped from behind - neither of which are particularly intuitive. In addition, Subject B was unable to remove the soap “cartridge” due to the amount of force required to do so.

Nivea™ Sun Tan Lotion Spray

The Nivea spray bottle has the advantage of allowing users to directly apply Joint Ease to the affected area which should decrease the time taken to complete the application process.

It does, however, still have the disadvantage of requiring users to have dexterity in their finger joints to operate. Unlike the standard dispenser, pressing down with a larger area does not make the process any easier. Also, despite the theory that the time taken would

be decreased, when applying to areas such as the hips there is no real difference between a spray bottle and the current dispenser because users are still required to use their hands to rub the lotion in.


Figure 3: Automatic dispenser in use

Figure 4: Spray dispenser in use

Sure™ Roll-On Deodorant

The final parallel product to be evaluated was a roll-on deodorant. The advantages of the roll-on were that it allowed for easy application any joint and that it could be operated using only one hand. As Subject B noted, the consistency of the liquid dispensed using a roll-on means it does not need to be rubbed in as much as with the other dispensers. The size and weight of the roll-on makes it easily transportable and, unlike the current dispenser, it would not be required to sit on a flat surface when in use.

The only problem noted was the screw top which some users, including Subject B, would struggle to open.

Product Requirements

From both the desktop research and the user tests that were carried out, a set of product requirements was established to aid in the generation - and subsequent evaluation - of new concepts.

The product must be able to be used by a person with severe arthritis with minimal discomfort.

The product’s environmental impact must be minimised.

The product must make applying Joint Ease as quick and as easy a process as possible.

The product must not look like an arthritis product.

The product must be able to be manufactured for a price that allows Moss Grove to compete with its more established rivals.

The product must be suitable for mass manufacture.

The product must meet the needs of users from all age groups and social demographics.

The product must be able to be used almost anywhere at any time.


Figure 5: Roll-On dispenser in use

SECTION 2: CONCEPT GENERATION AND EVALUATION

Initial Prototypes

Modified Manual DispenserThe modified dispenser features a wider base for greater stability and a large, flat top surface to allow users to operate the dispenser in the manner identified in Section 1. Having not had any problems with the current dispenser, Subject A did not feel the new design was an improvement whereas Subject B found it far easier to use.

Although this design would be of benefit to some users, the overall interaction with the product would remain the same. The user would still be required to go back and forth

dispensing lotion before rubbing it in with their hands. The time taken to complete the interaction would remain largely unchanged and any users wishing to clean their hands afterwards would still require access to washroom facilities.

Automatic Dispenser

The basic prototype of an automatic dispenser sought to eradicate the flaws uncovered in the design of the Dettol No Touch dispenser. A carry handle was included above the sensor to prevent the user accidentally dispensing lotion and the refill method was altered to allow users to simply pour Joint Ease from a refill bag directly into the dispenser.

Despite the obvious advantage of a dispenser that requires no physical interaction, the same problems that were identified for the manual

dispenser (above) still remain. Given its size and weight, the automatic dispenser could only realistically be used in the home. With 29% of the users surveyed stating that they use the product outside the home and the relatively high production costs, the automatic dispenser was seen by both client and designer as unsuitable.


Figure 7: Modified automatic dispenser in use

Figure 6: Modified manual dispenser in use

Spray Gun

The spray gun prototype was created to allow users to directly apply Joint Ease to the affected area using only one hand. The “rub in pad” at the bottom meant also meant users could complete the interaction without being required to get any lotion on their hands.Test user B however struggled with the “trigger” mechanism of the spray gun and the concept was therefore abandoned.The rub in pad, however, was seen as being beneficial.

Roll On

The roll on concept sought to preserve the advantages of the Spray Gun while eliminating the trigger mechanism. The prototype shown left, includes a rub in brush on top of the cap covering the roll on ball and the cap itself is covered with rubber to afford users a better grip. There is also a screw cap at the opposite end that can be removed when the bottle needs to be refilled.

To apply the lotion, the user removes the brush cap and attaches it to the opposite end.

Next they use the roll on ball to apply the lotion to the affected area before turning the bottle over to rub in the lotion using the brush provided.

Chosen Concept

Through consultation with the client, the Roll On concept was chosen as it was the only prototype that satisfied the stated criteria.

In addition, Moss Grove have also decided that customers will now purchase one initial dispenser and then purchase refill pouches of Joint Ease lotion as required. The energy required to produce refill pouches will be far less than to produce the equivalent number of dispensers and the pouches themselves will use less material helping the company to minimise its carbon footprint. Also, unlike the current dispenser, refill pouches will fit through a standard letter box meaning users are no longer required to be at home to receive a delivery. For a company that operates mainly online and by phone, this will be of great benefit to its customers.

The client’s wish is to purchase refill bags off-the-shelf to minimise costs, therefore their design will not be covered in this project.


Figure 8: Spray gun prototype in use

Figure 9: Roll On and Rub In prototype in use

SECTION 3: FINAL DESIGN

Key features

The final design includes a rubber brush/gripper (part 1) that covers the roll-on cap allowing users to rub in lotion while keeping their hands clean.

The brush/gripper can also be removed and replaced when necessary.

Similarly the refill cap (part 6) is covered by a soft rubber grip which allows it to be more easily removed and re-attached.

The anthropomorphic form of the bottle was chosen though consultation with users and the client. It was deemed to afford users the best grip in a range of different positions and the varying diameter was seen to cater for the largest number of different hand sizes.


Figure 9: Exploded view of final design

PARTS LIST

1. BRUSH/GRIPPER2. ROLL-ON CAP3. ROLL-ON BALL4. ROLL-ON HOLDER5. BOTTLE6. REFILL CAP/GRIPPER

1

2

3

4

5

6

User Interaction


Step 1

User twists screw cap and then lifts it off to expose the roll-on ball.

Step 2

User attaches roll-on cap to opposite end.

Step 3

User rolls on lotion before turning the bottle around to rub it in with the included brush. This is the optimal method of application when applying lotion to the neck, elbows, wrists or fingers.

Step 4

The user can also hold the roll-on in one hand and the brush in the other. This is the optimal method of application when applying lotion to the lower back, hips, knees or ankles.

Additionally, the user can still rub the lotion in with their hands if they so choose.

Step 5

To refill the bottle, the user begins by unscrewing the refill cap.

Step 6

Next they cut open the refill pouch and pour the lotion in.

Materials and Manufacture

Brush/Gripper

The brush/gripper will be made from silicone rubber and manufactured using injection moulding. Silicone rubber was chosen for its flexibility[4] as well as its reliability and excellent service life[5]. Silicone rubber also has excellent chemical resistance and is physiologically inert, making it ideal for medical applications[5]. In addition, silicone rubber also has good tear strength and is relatively easy to colour[6]. Injection moulding was chosen as it is the most cost effective manufacturing method for high production rates and is capable of providing repeatable tolerances [7].

Roll-On Cap, Roll-On Holder & Bottle

The roll-on cap, roll-on holder and bottle are all to be made from HDPE and injection moulded. HDPE was chosen for its strength [8], toughness [9] and chemical resistance [10]. HDPE is also relatively easy to process [10] and easily recyclable [8].

Roll-On Ball

The roll on ball is to be made from Polypropylene and manufactured using blow moulding. The main advantages of polypropylene are its low co-efficient of friction, its toughness, its low cost and excellent moisture resistance [11]. PP is also tough and has good chemical and fatigue resistance [12].

Refill Cap/Gripper

The refill cap is to be made from HDPE and the gripper from TPE rubber with the two parts being co-moulded. TPE was chosen for its slip resistance, its soft texture, its flexibility [13] and its tear resistance [14]. In addition to this, TPE is also easy to process and can be recycled [15]. The benefits of co-moulding are that cycle time and handling errors are reduced [16].


SECTION 4: PRODUCT TESTING

Volume Dispensed

Experiment Aim

The following experiment was conducted to estimate the amount of lotion dispensed by the roll on ball during a single application.

Assumptions made

The average application was taken to be the amount dispensed as the boll rolls over a distance of 100mm.

Experimental Details

First, a previously created roll on prototype was thoroughly cleaned, removing all lotion.

5ml of Joint Ease was poured into a medicine cap.

The lotion was then poured into the roll on dispenser.

2 lines, 100mm apart were then drawn on the arm of a test subject.

The ball was rolled over the distance between the 2 lines.

After each application the subject’s skin was wiped clean and the process repeated.

Experimental Results

The 5ml of Joint Ease was completely dispensed after 42x100mm application.

This equates to roughly 0.12ml per application or 0.0012ml/mm.

For a bottle containing 150ml this would equal 1260 applications.

Estimated values for the number of applications per joint are: 5 for the neck, 5 for each shoulder, 4 for each elbow, 4 for each wrist, 1 for every finger, 5 for each hip, 6 for the lower back, 5


Figure 10: Experiment to determine the amount of lotion dispensed

for each knee, 4 for each ankle and 1 for each toe. This would give a total of 89 applications per treatment. If used twice a day this would equal 178 applications, which would use 21.36ml. At this rate,135ml (the redesigned bottle’s volume) of Joint Ease would last a little under a week. This is not an unreasonable period of time given that most will use far less than the amounts estimated here.

Comparison With Current Dispenser

The current bottle dispenses roughly 2ml of lotion each time the pump is pressed. The estimated amount of lotion used for each joint is as follows: one application for the neck, 2 for the shoulders, 1 for the lower back, 2 for the elbows, 2 for the wrists, 1 for each hand, 2 for the hips, 2 for the knees, 2 for the ankles and 1 for each foot. If used twice a day, this would give a total 36 applications per day (72ml). At this rate, a single bottle (150ml) would only last a little over 2 days.

As can be seen, the switch from a pump dispenser to a roll-on will likely result in users being more economical in their application of Joint Ease. Although this will result in users purchasing lotion less frequently, Moss Grove’s user-centred ethos will differentiate them from their more established competitors and will help them to grow their business more quickly.


SECTION 5: DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE

Process Capability

Given the noncritical nature of the application, an industry standard Cp of 1.33 [17] was seen as acceptable. Using online Process Capability calculator Tolcap [18], the tolerances for each characteristic dimension were found along with the standard deviation and standard normal variate. The roll-on ball, the roll-on holder and the bottle were chosen for analysis as the clearances between these components were seen to be of the greatest importance to the product’s functionality. Dimensions for each part were taken from a functioning prototype.

Roll-On Ball


Variable Equation Value Unit

Diameter (d) n/a 0.03294 mProcess Capability (Cp) n/a 1.33

Tolerance (m) ± 3.85E-04 mStandard deviation (σ) σ= tolerance/3Cp 9.64912E-05

Standard normal variate (z) z= tolerance/σ 3.99

Figure 11: Process Capability Map for roll-on ball using blow moulding[18]

Table 1: Process Capability for Roll-On Ball, blow moulding, polypropylene

Roll-On Holder

Bottle


Figure 12: Process Capability Map for roll-on holder using injection moulding[18]

Table 2: Process Capability for Roll on holder, Injection Moulding, Polyethylene


Maximum inner diameter (d) n/a 0.036 mTolerance (m) ± 1.89E-04 m

Process Capability (Cp) n/a 1.33Standard deviation (σ) σ= tolerance/3Cp 4.73684E-05


Table 3: Process Capability for Bottle, Injection Moulding, Polyethylene


Inner diameter (d) m n/a 0.042 mTolerance (m) ± 1.16E-04 m

Process Capability (Cp) n/a 1.33Standard deviation (σ) σ= tolerance/3Cp 2.90727E-05



Figure 13: Process Capability Map for roll-on holder using injection moulding[18]

Manufacturing Risk

To validate the choice of manufacturing method, the manufacturing risk for the three identified key components was calculated. The values for the adjusted tolerance were calculated from process capability maps found in [17].

Roll-On Ball

Table 4


Manufacturing Risk

Component name Roll On BallMaterial PP

Manufacturing Process Blow MouldingCharacteristic Description Ball Diameter

Characteristic Dimension "A" 32.94mmDesign Tolerance ± 0.385mm

32.94 ± 0.385 mm

Variable Equation Value

Characteristic dimension "A" (diameter) n/a 0.03294Design tolerance ± 3.85E-04

Material properties (Am) 1Material compatability (Bm) 1

Material process risk (Mp) Mp = AmxBm 1

Characteristic across (Ag) 1.7Number of planes (Bg) 1.3

Feasibility (Cg) 1Unsupported regions (Dg) 1

Irregular features (Eg) 1Set up required (Fg) 1

Geometry process risk (Gp) Gp = Ag x Bg x Cg x Dg x Eg x Fg 2.21Adjusted tolerance design tolerance/(Mp x Gp) 0.00017421

Process capability map value (At) 3Primary, scondary, tertiary (Bt) 1Tolerance to process risk (Tp) Tp =At x Bt 3

Surface roughness (As) 1.3Primary, scondary, tertiary [roughness] (Bs) 1

Surface roughness to process risk (Sp) Sp = As x Bs 1.3

Manufacturing viability risk (Qm) Qm = Tp x Sp 3.9

Roll-On Holder

Table 5


Manufacturing Risk

Component name Roll On HolderMaterial PE

Manufacturing Process Injection Moulding

Characteristic Description Maximum Inner Diameter

Characteristic Dimension "A" 33.6mmDesign Tolerance ± 0.189mm

33.6 ± 0.189 mm


Characteristic dimension "A" (diameter) n/a 0.0336Design tolerance ± 1.89E-04

Material properties (Am) 1Material compatibility (Bm) 1Material process risk (Mp) Mp = AmxBm 1Characteristic across (Ag) 1

Number of planes (Bg) 1.3Feasibility (Cg) 1

Unsupported regions (Dg) 1Irregular features (Eg) 1.3Set up required (Fg) 1

Geometry process risk (Gp) Gp = Ag x Bg x Cg x Dg x Eg x Fg 1.69Adjusted tolerance design tolerance/(Mp x Gp) 0.00011183

Process capability map value (At) 3Primary, secondary, tertiary (Bt) 1

Tolerance to process risk (Tp) Tp =At x Bt 3Surface roughness (As) 1.3

Primary, secondary, tertiary [roughness] (Bs) 1Surface roughness to process risk (Sp) Sp = As x Bs 1.3

Manufacturing viability risk (Qm) Qm = Tp x Sp 3.9

Bottle

Table 6


Manufacturing Risk

Component name BottleMaterial PET

Manufacturing Process Injection MouldingCharacteristic Description Bottle Inner diameter

Characteristic Dimension "A" 42mmDesign Tolerance 0.116mm

42 ± 0.116 mm


Characteristic dimension "A" n/a 0.042

Design tolerance ± 1.16E-04

Material properties (Am) 1Material compatibility (Bm) 1Material process risk (Mp) Mp = AmxBm 1Characteristic across (Ag) 1

Number of planes (Bg) 1Feasibility (Cg) 1

Unsupported regions (Dg) 1.3Irregular features (Eg) 1.1Set up required (Fg) 1

Geometry process risk (Gp) Gp = Ag x Bg x Cg x Dg x Eg x Fg 1.43Adjusted tolerance Design tolerance/(Mp x Gp) 8.112E-05

Process capability map value (At) 1.7Primary, scondary, tertiary (Bt) 1Tolerance to process risk (Tp) Tp =At x Bt 1.7

Surface roughness (As) 1.3Primary, scondary, tertiary [roughness] (Bs) 1

Surface roughness to process risk (Sp) Sp = As x Bs 1.3Manufacturing viability risk (Qm) Qm = Tp x Sp 2.21

Conclusion

All manufacturing risk values were deemed to be acceptable therefore the processes will remain as previously stated.

SECTION 6: PRODUCT COSTING

To allow Moss Grove to compete in such an established market, the product must be able to be manufactured for a reasonable price. To establish a business case for the product, analyses of the estimated income/expenditure for both the current design and redesign were carried out. The cost to the consumer was also considered as minimising this will help Moss Grove to increase its customer base and build brand loyalty.

The current bottle contains 150ml of Joint Ease. The redesigned dispenser would be sold with 100ml of lotion inside with users able to purchase refills with the same amount. Other costs such as marketing and transport are expected to remain constant regardless of whether or not the new design is implemented therefore will not be considered.All estimates and projections were taken from discussions with Moss Grove.

Current Dispenser: Moss Grove Income/Expenditure

Table 7: Year 1 Expenditure

Table 8: Year 1 Income

Profit

£140,000 - £53,700 = £86,300


Year 1

Number of bottles 10000Cost per bottle 0.67Cost of 150ml £ 1.7

Delivery £ 3

Total Expenditure £ 53700

Year 1

Number of bottles sold 10000Cost per bottle £ 11

Delivery £ 3

Total Income £ 140000



Profit

£210,000 - £80,550 = £129450



Profit£280,000 - £107,400 = £172600


Year 2Number of bottles 15000

Cost per bottle 0.67Cost of 150ml £ 1.7

Delivery £ 3


Year 2Number of bottles sold 15000

Cost per bottle £ 11Delivery £ 3


Year 3Number of bottles 20000

Cost per bottle 0.67Cost of 150ml £ 1.7

Delivery £ 3


Year 3Number of bottles sold 20000



Redesign: Moss Grove Income/Expenditure



Profit

£130,200 - £104,700 = £25,500 (-£60800 compared to current design)



Year 1

Tooling cost 70000Number of permanent dispensers 4000

Number of refills 6000Total amount ml sold 10000

Cost per dispenser £ 1.5Cost per refill pouch £ 0.2

Cost of 100ml £ 1.13Delivery of dispenser £ 3

Delivery of refill £ 0.7


Year 1

Number of dispensers sold 4000Number of refills 6000

Cost per dispenser £ 18Cost per refill £ 7

Delivery of dispenser £ 3Delivery of refill £ 0.7


Year 2Number of permanent dispensers 5000

Number of refills 20000Total amount of ml sold 25000






Profit

£259,000 - £68,750 = £190,250 (+£60800 compared to current design)



Profit

£374,500 - £99,200 = £275,300 (+£102700 compared to current design)


Year 2Number of dispensers sold 5000

Number of refills 20000Cost per dispenser £ 18

Cost per refill £ 7Delivery of dispenser £ 3



Year 3Number of permanent dispensers 5000

Number of refills 35000Total amount of ml sold 40000





Year 2Number of dispensers sold 5000

Number of refills 35000Cost per dispenser £ 18




Current and Redesigned Dispenser: Cost to the consumer

User 1: Year 1

User 1: Purchases average of 10x150ml bottle a year = 1500ml

Table 19: User 1 Year 1

Savings

£140 - 128.80 = £11.20

User 1: Year 2

Current Design: As above



Year 1: Current design

Number of bottles purchased 10Amount purchased (ml) 1500



Year 1: Redesign

Number of dispensers purchased 1Amount Purchased (ml) 1500

Number of refills purchased 14Cost per dispenser £ 18



Total Expenditure £ 128.8

Year 2: RedesignNumber of dispensers purchased 0





Savings

£140 - £107.80 = £32.20

User 2: Year 1

User 2: Purchases average of 30x150ml bottle a year = 1500ml


Savings

£420 - £359.80 = £60.20

User 2: Year 2

Current design: as above.


Year 1: Current design

Number of bottles purchased 30Amount purchased (ml) 4500



Year 1: Redesign

Number of dispensers purchased 1Amount Purchased (ml) 4500






Savings

£420 - £346.50 = £73.50

Conclusion

The estimates above show that the new business model will be of clear financial benefit to both Moss Grove and its customers. The one-off tooling costs associated with putting a new product into production is more than offset by the increase in profits over the following years. Users will also see their investment in a permanent dispenser save them money in both the medium and long-term. This mutually beneficial arrangement could see Moss Grove’s sales rise by more than the estimates used here and, given that none of their competitors currently operate on a similar model, allow them to genuinely challenge the current market leaders.


Year 2: RedesignNumber of dispensers purchased 0

Amount Purchased (ml) 4500Number of refills purchased 45

Cost per dispenser £ 18Cost per refill £ 7

Delivery of dispenser £ 3Delivery of refill £ 0.7


SECTION 7: LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

Life cycle analysis was carried out by examining the amount of energy used to produce the raw material required for each design and the amount of energy used to process it. The analysis compares the amount of energy needed to produce an estimated 3 year supply: 45,000 of the current dispensers and 15,000 roll on dispensers with 52,500 refills (both supplying 6750 litres to consumers).

Current Dispenser

The masses of the individual parts were taken from measurements of an existing dispenser. The values for the “Embodied Energy in Material Production” were taken from [19]. The embodied energy for injection moulding was taken from[20], CNC milling from [21] and extrusion from [22].

Table 23: Energy to produce Current Dispenser


Component Material Mass Units Number Produced Total Mass Units

Bottle PVC 0.025 kg 45000 1125 kgSpring SS 316 0.002 kg 45000 90 kgStem PP 0.007 kg 45000 315 kg

Piston HDPE 0.003 kg 45000 135 kgHousing HDPE 0.005 kg 45000 225 kgDip Tube LDPE 0.003 kg 45000 135 kg

Embodied Energy In Material Production Units Manufacturing Process

Embodied Energy in Manufacturing

ProcessUnits

99.1 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 15 MJ/kg24.4 MJ/kg CNC Milling 1.8 MJ/kg

115.1 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 21 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg78.1 MJ/kg Polymer Extrusion 6.2 MJ/kg

Total Energy Per Part Units

128362.5 MJ2358 MJ

42871.5 MJ13419 MJ22365 MJ

11380.5 MJ

Total Energy 220756.5 MJ

Recycling

This analysis assumes a scenario where 100% of the bottles are recycled with all other parts being sent to landfill. The value for the embodied energy in recycling was taken from [20].

Table 24: Energy to recycle Current DispenserTotal Energy

220756.5 + 40500 = 261256.5 MJ

Waste to landfill

90 + 315 + 135 + 225 + 135 = 900kg


Component Material Total Mass Units

Embodied Energy In Recycling

UnitsTotal

Energy In Recycling

Units

Bottle PVC 1125 kg 36 MJ/kg 40500 MJ

Redesign

To begin, the mass of each part had to be calculated. Using the volume taken from the previously created CAD model and using the density values for HDPE, silicone rubber, PP and TPE from [24],[25],[26] & [27] respectively, the mass was then calculated. The mass of the refill bag was taken from an existing product. As before values for the “Embodied Energy in Material Production” were taken from [20] and the values for the “Embodied energy in manufacturing Processes” were taken from [21].

Table 25: Component mass for the redesign

Table 26: Energy to produce the redesign


Component Material Density Units Volume Units Mass Units

Brush/Gripper Silicone Rubber 1325 kg/m³ 6.250E-06 m³ 0.008281 kg

Roll-On Cap HDPE 947.5 kg/m³ 1.142E-05 m³ 0.010823 kgBall PP 905 kg/m³ 5.000E-07 m³ 0.000453 kg

Roll-On Holder HDPE 947.5 kg/m³ 8.100E-06 m³ 0.007675 kgBottle HDPE 947.5 kg/m³ 3.055E-05 m³ 0.028946 kg

Refill Cap HDPE 947.5 kg/m³ 2.700E-06 m³ 0.002558 kgGripper TPE 370 kg/m³ 3.900E-06 m³ 0.001443 kg

Refill Pouch LDPE N/A kg/m³ N/A m³ 0.01 kg

Component Material Mass Units Number Produced Total Mass Units

Brush/Gripper Silicone Rubber 0.008281 kg 15000 124.21875 kgRoll-On Cap HDPE 0.010823 kg 15000 162.3493875 kg

Ball PP 0.000453 kg 15000 6.7875 kgRoll-On Holder HDPE 0.007675 kg 15000 115.12125 kg

Bottle HDPE 0.028946 kg 15000 434.191875 kgRefill Cap HDPE 0.002558 kg 15000 38.37375 kgGripper TPE 0.001443 kg 15000 21.645 kg

Refill Pouch LDPE 0.01 kg 52500 525 kg

Embodied Energy In Material Production

Units Manufacturing Process Embodied Energy in Manufacturing Process Units

120 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 15 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg

115.1 MJ/kg Blow Moulding 12 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Injection Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg76.7 MJ/kg Co-Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg

101.7 MJ/kg Co-Moulding 22.7 MJ/kg78.1 MJ/kg Polymer extrusion 6.3 MJ/kg

Recycling

This analysis assumes that 100% of the refill pouches sold will be recycled. Recycling of the roll-on dispenser is not considered as these estimates cover a three year period.

Table 27: Energy to recycle Current Dispenser

Total Energy

139188.465 + 26250 = 165438.465 MJ

Conclusion

From the Life Cycle Analyses carried out, it is clear that switching from the current disposable dispenser to a permanent roll-on with refills will drastically cut Moss Grove’s energy consumption and material usage (both by over a third). The benefits of this change will not only be felt by Moss Grove as a business, they will also be felt by their more eco-conscious users who will feel the satisfaction of knowing their carbon footprint has been reduced. This again will allow Moss grove to distinguish themselves from their far larger competitors.


Total Energy Per Part Units

16769.5313 MJ16137.5291 MJ862.69125 MJ

11443.0523 MJ43158.6724 MJ3814.35075 MJ

2692.638 MJ44310 MJ

Total Energy 139188.465 MJ

Component Material Total Mass UnitsEmbodied Energy In Recycling

UnitsTotal

Energy In Recycling

Units

Refill Pouch LDPE 525 kg 50 MJ/kg 26250 MJ

SECTION 8: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

This report clearly demonstrates the advantages this redesigned dispenser has over the current design. First and foremost, the user experience has been shown to be a significant improvement on that of the current “soap pump”. The roll-on is not simply more “easy-to-use” for those with dexterity problems, the process of applying lotion itself has been completely redesigned to be faster, simpler and more convenient. Users have also been given a greater degree of choice on how they wish to apply the lotion, allowing the product to more easily integrate into their lives.

The second benefit will be felt by both client and user alike: increased profits for the former and decreased costs for the latter. In any financial climate, consumers will look to save money where possible and if Moss Grove can effectively communicate the relatively low cost of its Joint Ease lotion, it could give them the competitive advantage they have sought to increase their foothold in such a well-established market.

The final advantage is the decrease in the amount of material and energy required to supply users with an equivalent amount of lotion. Minimising its carbon footprint is of great importance to a company like Moss Grove that prides itself on its eco-friendly ethos and providing a natural, organic solution to pain relief.

Future work on the project will focus on continuing the work begun on the product’s design for manufacture. In particular, highly accelerated life testing will have to be carried out on both the screw threads and roll-on ball to verify if the product’s desired life span of 5 years is viable. The testing of different grip patterns (hexagonal, circular, triangular etc.) should also be conducted to find if there is an optimal solution.

To conclude, the product designed here has been shown to meet all of the requirements established at the beginning of the design process and will be of benefit to all stakeholders.



REFERENCES

[1] “Arthritis Facts and Statistics,” The Arthritis Soceity, 2012. .

[2] “Arthritis - NHS Choices,” NHS Choices, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.nhs.uk/Con-ditions/Arthritis/Pages/Introduction.aspx. [Accessed: 31-May-2013].

[3] I. Hosking, S. Waller, J. Clarkson, U. Persad, P. Langdon, and C. Cardoso, “Inclusive De-sign Toolkit,” University of Cambridge, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.inclusivedesign-toolkit.com/. [Accessed: 20-Jan-2013].

[4] “Silicone Rubber,” A to Z of Materials, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.azom.com/ar-ticle.aspx?ArticleID=920. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2013].

[5] “Advantages of Silicone Rubber,” Siilicones Inc., 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.silicones-inc.com/advant.htm. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2013].

[6] “Silicones : Rubber Bringing Color and Performance to Life,” Silicone Europe, 2004. .

[7] “Advantages and Disadvantages of Injection Molding,” University of Moratuwa, 2007. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ent.mrt.ac.lk/~040087/index_files/Page1109.htm. [Ac-cessed: 24-Mar-2013].

[8] “What is HDPE?,” EPS Plastic, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://epsplasticlumber.com/in-dex.cfm/page/b_hdpe/what-is-hdpe.cfm. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[9] “HDPE | High Density Polyethyelene,” IDES, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.ides.com/pm/HDPE.asp. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2013].

[10] “Polyethylene (High Density) HDPE,” Plastipedia: The Plastics Encyclopedia, 2013. [Online]. Avail-able: http://www.bpf.co.uk/Plastipedia/Polymers/HDPE.aspx. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[11] T. Johnson, “PP Plastics - Polypropylene,” About Composites/Plastics, 2013. [Online]. Avail-able: http://composite.about.com/od/Plastics/a/Pp-Plastics.htm. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[12] “Polypropylene (PP),” Plastipedia: The Plastics Encyclopedia, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/polymers/pp.aspx. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2013].

[13] “What is TPE?,” Elasto, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.elastotpe.com/en/prod-ucts_what-is-tpe.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[14] V. Ryan, “Thermoplastic Elastomers,” Technology Student, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.technologystudent.com/despro_flsh/tpe1.html. [Accessed: 30-Jul-2013].

[15] “Thermoplastic Elastomers (TPE),” Timco Rubber, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.timcorubber.com/rubber-materials/tpe.htm. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[16] “Double Shot Injection Moulding | Co Moulding,” Manufature Link, 2013. [Online]. Avail-able: http://www.manufacturelink.com.au/processes/plastic-moulding-co-mould-


ing.aspx. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2013].

[17] J. Booker, M. Raines, and K. Swift, Designing capable and reliable products. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.

[18] “Tolerance Capability Expert Software,” Tolcap, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://guest.tolcap.com/. [Accessed: 01-Mar-2013].

[19] G. Hammond and C. Jones, “Inventory of Carbon & Energy: ICE,” Bath, 2008.

[20] M. F. Ashby, Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heine-mann, 2009.

[21] N. Duque Ciceri, T. G. Gutowski, and M. Garetti, “A tool to estimate materials and manufacturing energy for a product,” Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sus-tainable Systems and Technology, pp. 1–6, May 2010.

[22] “Typical Engineering Properties of High Density Polyethylene.” INEOS Olefins and Polymers, League City, pp. 1–2, 2010.

[23] “Solid and Liquid Silicone Rubber: Material and Processing Guidelines.” Wacker, Mu-nich, 2012.

[24] “Polypropylene (PP) Plastic,” IDES, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://plastics.ides.com/generics/39/polypropylene-pp. [Accessed: 02-Aug-2013].

[25] “TPE 210-S Data Sheet.” Advanced Laser Materials, Belton, 2008.


APPENDICES

Appendix A – Clent’s Brief

Moss- Grove Natural Products(MG) manufactures a range of unique health- care products. One such product (known as Joint Ease lotion) is proving to be very popular with people who suffer with arthritis where it has been able to demonstrate its ability to reduce inflammation, improve mobility and ease pain.

Launched twelve months ago, the company sold over 20,000 bottles to date. The customers are people who suffer with arthritis in its many forms. Many suffer with rheumatoid arthritis (the second most common form of arthritis) that typically involves the joints of the fingers, wrists, feet and ankles.

As a result many of these people find difficulty when opening a bottle. The current bottle as used by MG is shown on the website www.moss- grove.co.uk. It contains 150ml of a natural lotion and is dispensed by a lotion pump. The lotion is manufactured from a blend of sunflower oil, water and a blend of plant- based essential oils and other natural ingredients. It contains no synthetics.

To complement the Joint Ease product, MG would be grateful to unearth a design for a bottle that could be easily opened by people who have limited finger movement and who suffer with stiff and painful finger joints.

Appendix B: Questionnaire Results

1. Could you please specify your gender?

Male 7 (33.3%)Female 14 (66.7%)Not given

2. What kind of arthritis do you have?

Osteoarthritis 11 (52%)Rheumatoid arthritis 5 (24%)Juvenile arthritisOther 5 (24%)

3. What areas of your body are affected?

Neck 7 (35%)Shoulders 6 (30%)Elbows 1 (5%)Wrists 6 (30%)Fingers 11 (55%)Hips 5 (25%)Back 9 (45%)Knees 14 (70%)Ankles 4 (20%)Toes 3 (15%)

4. How long have you been using Joint Ease?

Less than a month 1 (5%)1-2 months 4 (20%)3-6 months 1 (5%)6 months -1 year 15 (70%)

5. On average, how often do you apply Joint Ease to a given area?

Once a day 7 (33.3%)Twice a day 10 (47.67%)3 times 4 (20%)4 times Over 4 times

6. In the home, where do you use Joint ease lotion?

Bedroom 11 (52%)Living room 6 (29%)Bathroom 10 (48%)


Kitchen 1 (5%)Other

7. When do you use Joint ease lotion?

First thing in the morning 15 (79%)After a shower 4 (21%)At lunchtime 3 (16%)In the evening 3 (16%)Before going to bed 11 (58%)In the middle of the night

8. Do you ever use joint ease lotion outside the home (at work for example)?

Yes 6 (29%)No 15 (71%)

9. Have you ever experienced any problems/discomfort when using the dispenser? (if yes please specify)

No 17 (81%)Yes 4 (19%)

10. How old are you?

Under 1818-30 30-45 1(5%)45-65 5 (24%)65-75 11 (52%)75+ 4 (19%)


GA Drawings

1. Brush/Gripper2. Roll-on Cap3. Roll-on ball4. Roll-on holder5. Bottle6. Refill cap with gripper7. Exploded view8. Surface Roughness


VIEW

1 (

1.5

)

VIEW

4 (

1.5

)A

( 3

: 1

)

A

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT


1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

roll

on g

rippe

r 2

Kevi

n02

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

50,96 ± 0.237mm

48,4

9 ±

0.2

31m

m

2,50 ± 0.091mm

VIEW

1 (

1.5

)

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

roll

on c

ap 2

Kevi

n02

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

46,5

1

0.22

5mm

50,00 0.235mm

30

,00

0.17

9mm

20,00 0.15mm

0,75

VIEW

1 (

3 )

A (

15 )

VIEW

3 (

3 )

A

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

rolle

r ba

ll

Kevi

n02

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

33,1

0 0.3

86mm

0,15

VIEW

1 (

2 )

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

roll

on h

olde

r 2

Kevi

n02

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

42,0

0

0.21

3mm

28,00 0.174mm

33,5

0

0.18

9mm

34,0

0

0.19

1mm

14,00 0.131mm

38,4

9

0.20

3mm

VIEW

1 (

1 :

1 )

VIEW

4 (

1.5

)A

( 3

: 1

)

A

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

hand

le 2

Kevi

n02

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

20,00 0.15mm

35,0

0

0.19

3mm

125,00 0.435mm

45,0

0

0.22

1mm

20,00 0.15mm

11,00 0.122mm

136,00 0.465mm

VIEW

1 (

2 )

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

co m

ould

Kevi

n07

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

14,00 ± 0.131mm45

,00

± 0

.221

mm

38

,52

± 0

.203

mm

4,00

± 0

.097

mm

4,00 ± 0.097mm

41

,00

± 0

.210

mm

34

,00

± 0

.191

mm

VIEW

1 (

1 :

1 )

PART

S LI

STD

ESCR

IPTI

ON

PART

NU

MBE

RQ

TYIT

EM

bott

le1

1

roll

on c

ap1

2

roll

on g

rippe

r1

3

roll

on h

olde

r1

4

rolle

r ba

ll1

5

refil

l cap

16

re

fill g

rippe

r1

7

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

3

2

5

4

1

7

PAR

TS L

IST

SURF

ACE

ROU

GH

NES

S (M

ICRO

M)

PART

NU

MBE

RQ

TYIT

EM1.

6Br

ush

Grip

per

11

1Ro

ll O

n Ca

p1

2

0.2

Roll

On

Ball

13

1Ro

ll O

n H

olde

r1

4

1.6

Bott

le1

5

1Re

fill C

ap1

6

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN A

UTO

DES

K ED

UC

ATIO

NAL

PR

OD

UC

T



1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

AA

BB

CC

DD

SURF

ACE

ROU

GH

NES

S

Kevi

n16

/08/

2013

Des

igne

d by

Chec

ked

byAp

prov

ed b

yD

ate

1 /

1 Ed

ition

Shee

t

Dat

e

MOSS GROVE JOINT EASE LOTION DISPENSERkevincoyledesigner.co.uk/pdf/mossGroveTechReport.pdfMOSS GROVE...

Documents

Transcript of MOSS GROVE JOINT EASE LOTION DISPENSERkevincoyledesigner.co.uk/pdf/mossGroveTechReport.pdfMOSS GROVE...