F02.20 - Physical Properties

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coating weight is an indicator of certain functional characteristics of coated substrates (for example, sealability, peelability, appearance). The methodology described in this practice is a means of determining coat weight.  
5.2 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.  
5.3 The methodology described in this practice includes operator assessment of effective coating removal. This is a subjective assessment and requires operator training for consistent results.  
5.4 This practice is applicable to coated substrates in which only the coating is soluble in the chosen solvent. The solvent used is critical to the success of the coating removal process. The coated substrate manufacturer must provide guidance in choice of solvent.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for determining the amount of coating applied to a substrate, (for example, film, paper, nonwoven). The amount of coating is expressed as a weight per given area, (for example, g/m2, lb/ream).  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Seal strength is a quantitative measure for use in process validation, capability, and control. Seal strength is not only relevant to opening force and package integrity, but to measuring the packaging processes’ ability to produce consistent seals. Seal strength at some minimum level is a necessary package requirement, and at times it is also desirable to have an upper limit to the strength of the seal to facilitate opening.
Note 1: Seal strength values are a measurement of the output of the seal separation and may also involve mechanical properties of the materials that form the seal, given the potential for deformation or elongation over the course of the test. This separation is indicative of the area of the package being sampled and does not take into account simulation of a user interfacing with an entire package during the opening process.
Note 2: Lower seal strength specifications are typically utilized to provide assurance of package closure, which can contribute to seal integrity.
Note 3: Upper seal strength specifications are typically utilized to limit the amount of force required to open a package, ensuring that a user is able to open the design. Upper seal strength specifications are typically limited to seals that are intended to be peeled by the end user.  
4.1.1 The maximum seal force is important information, but for some applications, average force to separate the seal may be useful, and in those cases also should be reported.  
4.2 A portion of the force measured when testing materials may be a bending component and not seal strength alone. A number of fixtures and techniques have been devised to hold samples at various angles to the pull direction to control this bending force. Because the effect of each of these on test results is varied, consistent use of one technique (Technique A, Technique B, or Technique C) throughout a test series is recommended. Examples of techniques are illustrated in Fig. 1.  
4.2.1 Technique A: Unsuppor...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the strength of seals in flexible barrier materials.  
1.2 The test may be conducted on seals between a flexible material and another flexible material, a rigid material, or a semi-rigid material.  
1.3 Seals tested in accordance with this test method may be from any source, laboratory or commercial.  
1.4 This test method measures the force required to separate a test strip of material containing the seal. It also identifies the mode of specimen failure.  
1.5 This test method differs from Test Method F2824. Test Method F2824 measures mechanical seal strength while separating an entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.  
1.6 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Materials such as engineered thermoplastic films are often used for flexible barrier packaging. However, handling and transportation can cause abrasion to the packaging film and possibly compromise the integrity of the contents (for example, sterility of a medical device). This test method provides a comparative ranking of material performance that can be used as an indication of relative end-use performance.  
5.2 The resistance of material surfaces to abrasion, as measured on a testing machine under laboratory conditions, is only one of several factors contributing to wear performance or durability as experienced in the actual use of the material. While abrasion resistance and durability are frequently related, the relationship varies with different end uses and different factors may be necessary in any calculation of predicted durability from specific abrasion data.  
5.3 The resistance of material surfaces to abrasion may be affected by factors including test conditions of temperature and humidity, type of abradant, pressure between the specimen and abradant, mounting or tension of the specimen, and type, kind, or amount of finishing materials such as coatings or additives. Other causes of variation include local material movement during testing, material direction alignment, material characteristics, and mandrel and stylus wear. For consistency, samples to be evaluated under special environmental conditions shall be conditioned under those same conditions. It is important that the test instrument be shown to operate properly under special environmental conditions.  
5.4 This test method may not be suitable for all films, including the following cases:  
5.4.1 Films that stretch and generate a ripple in the abraded region during testing,  
5.4.2 Films that have a thickness greater than 0.25 mm (0.010 in.), or are of such rigidity that forming over the mandrel would cause internal stresses that weaken the film, and  
5.4.3 Conductive films.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the abrasion resistance of flexible non-conductive films and packaging materials using a weighted stylus that wears completely through a film by oscillating or reciprocating back and forth along a linear path until an electrical circuit is completed shutting down the test.  
1.2 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In form-fill operations, sealed areas of packages are frequently subject to disruptive forces while still hot. If the hot seals have inadequate resistance to these forces, breakage can occur during the packaging process. These test methods measure hot seal strength and can be used to characterize and rank materials in their ability to perform in commercial applications where this quality is critical.
SCOPE
1.1 These two test methods cover laboratory measurement of the strength of heatseals formed between thermoplastic surfaces of flexible webs, immediately after a seal has been made and before it cools to ambient temperature (hot tack strength).  
1.2 These test methods are restricted to instrumented hot tack testing, requiring a testing machine that automatically heatseals a specimen and immediately determines strength of the hot seal at a precisely measured time after conclusion of the sealing cycle. An additional prerequisite is that the operator shall have no influence on the test after the sealing sequence has begun. These test methods do not cover non-instrumented manual procedures employing springs, levers, pulleys and weights, where test results can be influenced by operator technique.  
1.3 Two variations of the instrumented hot tack test are described in these test methods, differing primarily in two respects: (a) rate of grip separation during testing of the sealed specimen, and (b) whether the testing machine generates the cooling curve of the material under test, or instead makes a measurement of the maximum force observed following a set delay time. Both test methods may be used to test all materials within the scope of these test methods and within the range and capacity of the machine employed. They are described in Section 4.  
1.4 SI units are preferred and shall be used in referee decisions. Values stated herein in inch-pound units are to be regarded separately and may not be exact equivalents to SI units. Therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. The operator of the equipment is to be aware of pinch points as the seal jaws come together to make a seal, hot surfaces of the jaws, and sharp instruments used to cut specimens. It is recommended that the operator review safety precautions from the equipment supplier.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring a thickness dimension. Accurate measurement of thickness can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process, product, and material performance.  
4.2 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurement is shown in the Precision and Bias section. Attention should be given to the inherent variability of materials being measured as this can affect measurement outcome.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of thickness of flexible packaging materials using contact micrometers.  
1.2 The Precision and Bias statement for this test method was developed using both handheld and bench top micrometers with foot sizes ranging from 4.8 mm to 15.9 mm (3/16 in. to 5/8 in.).  
1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring linear dimensions. Accurate measurement of dimensions can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process performance.  
4.2 This test method should not be applied to tolerance ranges of less than 3 mm (1/8 in.) when it is preferable that test error does not exceed 30 % of tolerance range. See Precision and Bias Section for gauge repeatability and reproducibility results.  
4.3 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of linear dimension of flexible packages and packaging materials. It is recommended for use with an allowable tolerance range of 3 mm (1/8 in.) or greater based on gauge repeatability and reproducibility presented in the Precision and Bias section.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Laminates are made by bonding together two or more layers of material or materials, where each layer might be a single or multi-layer material. When the bonding agent is reactive and requires time to reach full performance, the bond strength is typically measured as a green (un-cured) bond and a cured bond. For processes that intentionally create a nonlaminated edge, that edge is generally used to initiate the bond strength measurement. The techniques described in this practice can be used to initiate separation of plies when a non-laminated edge is not present.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes techniques for separating plies of laminates made from flexible materials such as cellulose, paper, plastic film, and foil to enable the measurement of the bond strength or ply adhesion of the laminate. This includes laminates made by various processes: adhesive laminates, extrusion coatings, extrusion laminates, and coextrusions.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information purposes only.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 6.1.1.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 These practices facilitate the determination of laboratory heat sealability of flexible barrier materials. While it is necessary to have a heat seal layer that provides adequate seal strength for the application, other material properties, such as the overall construction and thickness, will impact the sealing properties of the material. These practices allow the impact of changes in material properties on heat sealability to be measured.  
4.2 Due to differences between a laboratory sealer and manufacturing equipment (for example, scale, size of sealing area, and processing speed), there may be a significant difference between the capability and output of a laboratory heat sealer and that of manufacturing equipment. Hence, care must be taken when applying a heat seal curve study as outlined in these practices to manufacturing equipment. The heat seal curve and the corresponding seal strength data are intended to provide a starting point for determination of sealing conditions for full scale manufacturing equipment.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover laboratory preparation of heat seals. These practices also cover the treatment and evaluation of heat seal strength data for the purpose of determining heat sealability of flexible barrier materials. It does not cover the required validation procedures for the production equipment.  
1.2 Testing of seal strength or other properties of the heat seals formed by these practices is not included in this standard. Refer to Test Method F88 for testing heat seal strength. These practices do not apply to hot tack testing, which is covered in Test Methods F1921.  
1.3 The practices of this standard are restricted to preparing heat seals using a sealer employing hot-bar or impulse sealing methods, or both.  
1.4 These practices are intended to assist in establishing starting relationships for sealing flexible barrier materials. Additional guidance may be needed on how to set up sealing conditions for flexible barrier materials on commercial/production sealing equipment.  
1.5 Seals may be made between webs of the same or dissimilar materials. The individual webs may be homogeneous in structure or multilayered (coextruded, coated, laminated, and so forth).  
1.6 Strength of the heat seal as measured by Test Method F88 is the sole criterion for assessing heat sealability employed in these practices.  
1.7 Other aspects of heat sealability, such as seal continuity, typically measured by air-leak, dye penetration, visual examination, microorganism penetration, or other techniques, are not covered by these practices.  
1.8 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Penetration resistance is an important end-use performance of thin flexible materials where a sharp-edged product can destroy the integrity of a barrier wrap. This will permit package entry/exit of gases, odors, and unwanted contaminates, causing potential harm to the product and reducing shelf-life. Material response to penetration will vary with numerous factors, such as film thickness, elastic modulus, rate of penetration, temperature, shape and type of probe. Consequently, material responses from puncture to stretch may be observed and quantified using this method. Although numerous combinations of experimental factors can be devised and used to simulate specific end-use applications, the recommended conditions in this method should be followed for standard comparisons of materials.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method permits flexible barrier films and laminates to be characterized for slow rate penetration resistance to a driven probe. The test is performed at room temperature, by applying a biaxial stress at a single test velocity on the material until perforation occurs. The force, energy, and probe penetration to failure are determined.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 This material challenge is presented in ISO-11607-1 Annex C as a normative test method to demonstrate that a material is nonporous and satisfies the microbial barrier requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is to be used to verify a specific material design property. Some flexible barrier materials are designed to have a resistance to the passage of air through the membrane structure. These materials are characterized as nonporous. This test method provides a means to verify this property by challenging a material with a given volume of air under pressure over a specific time period.  
1.2 This test method is not intended to measure the diffusion properties of a material nor to identify or quantify the presence of pinhole damage to the design that may result in leaks.  
1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 These test methods provide a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during processes such as sterilization and transportation.  
5.2 These test methods are frequently used to quickly evaluate packages during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made, it is important that all parameters of the test method be exactly the same. Typical parameters may include, but are not limited to, package size, material, seal configuration, test equipment, rate of air flow into the package, sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), and position of test article (see Fig. 1).
FIG. 1 Open Package Test Positions  
5.4 These test methods do not necessarily provide correlation with actual package seal strength as typically measured using Test Method F88 (or equivalent).
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods explain the procedure for determining the ability of packages to withstand internal pressurization.  
1.2 The burst test increasingly pressurizes the package until the package fails.  
1.3 The creep test maintains a specified pressure for a specified time or until the package fails.  
1.4 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Test Method F88 has been the standard for the mechanical peel strength testing of peelable seals since the 1960s. Normally the testing is run on a portion of the seal. The result is an actual seal strength picture of that portion of the seal. This test method is different in that the entire package seal is peeled open and data collected for the entire sealed area.  
5.2 This test method is a tool for quality assurance use as well as performance evaluation of a seal during separation.  
5.3 With appropriate software, data is collected depicting the seal strength of the entire length of the seal. As a result, it is possible to see seal strength variations, as the seal is peeled apart, thereby evaluating the consistency and uniformity of the seal (see Fig. 1).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a method for the measurement of mechanical seal strength while separating the entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.  
1.2 This test method differs from Test Method F88. Test Method F88 tests a portion of the seal where as this test method tests the force required to separate the entire lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.3 This test method is used to determine the continuous and maximum forces required to separate the lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.4 This test method uses an angle of pull of 45°, however other angles of pull may be used provided results are documented noting the used angle of pull and said procedure is validated.  
1.5 Typical examples of container shapes that could be tested using this or a similar method include oval, rectangular, and circular with single or multiple cavities having a sealed lid (cover/membrane). Examples of products packaged in these types of containers are: ready meals, creamers, coffee, yogurts, household fresheners, chemical and pharmaceutical products, and numerous others not mentioned. However, this test method, described within, is specifically for round containers.  
1.6 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test provides a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package seal failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during such processes as sterilization and transportation. This test method provides an indicator of the burst strength of a package, where the burst will normally occur in one or more areas of the seal. An indicator of the minimum burst strength may be of importance to the package manufacturer and end user in ensuring adequate package integrity. This test method cannot provide a measure of package seal uniformity. This test method also cannot provide an evaluation of overall package integrity or the burst strength of areas of the package that contact the surface of the restraining plates used. This test method should be combined with other methods of evaluating overall package integrity, uniformity of the package seal, or opening functionality, if so required.  
5.2 This test frequently is used to quickly evaluate package seal strength during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made it is important that all parameters of the test be equivalent. Typical parameters can include, but are not limited to the package size, material, type and configuration of seal, rate of air flow into the package, pressure detection sensing mechanism and sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), position of test article, rigidity of restraining plates, and distance between restraining plates. See Appendix X2 for further information.  
5.4 This test may not necessarily provide correlation with package seal strength as typically measured using Test Methods F1140 or F88 (or equivalents).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the procedure for determining the minimum burst strength of a seal placed around the perimeter of a flexible package as it is internally pressurized and enclosed within restraining plates.  
1.2 The test methods described herein are functionally similar to Test Methods F1140 with the exception of the use of restraining plates. Test Methods F1140 describes methods of burst testing that do not include the use of restraining plates and are suitable to determine a packages general ability to withstand pressurization stresses. Under Test Methods F1140 the stresses are not distributed uniformly to all areas of the package seal. Under unrestrained conditions the stress on the package is highest at the middle of the pouch where it inflates to the packages maximum diameter; therefore, Test Methods F1140 may not reliably detect the weakest area of the seal.  
1.3 The burst test internally and increasingly pressurizes a package until an area of the package seal around the perimeter “bursts” open in response to pressurization. By placing the package within restraining plates during pressurization, the dimensional stability of the package is maintained in a manner that results in stresses applied more uniformly along the perimeter of the package, where seals are normally placed. This allows the test to have a higher probability of detecting the weakest area of the seal and provide a measurement of the pressure required to “burst” open the package.  
1.4 This test only applies to flexible packages with seals placed around the perimeter of a flexible package (often referred to as a pouch). In particular it is intended as applicable to packages with seals that have a peelable seal feature (peeled open by end user to remove contents of package).  
1.4.1 Porous barrier materials' failure to reach adequate pressure to burst the package seals may be due to insufficient volume flow. See Appendix X4 for information.  
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with t...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Poor adhesion of ink or coating to the base substrate can impact the readability of printed materials, affect the functionality of coated materials, or create a source of contamination. This practice provides a means for evaluating the adhesion of ink or coating to a flexible packaging material.  
3.2 For purposes of resolving inter-laboratory disagreements, test methods developed from this practice may be improved by defining and controlling the pressure and method of tape application, (for example, using weighted roller), and the speed and angle of tape removal.  
3.3 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a means of evaluating ink or coating adhesion to flexible packaging materials. This practice is intended for use on flexible packaging materials whose surfaces are not damaged by the application and removal of tape.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Packaging materials may be exposed to chemicals such as water, alcohol, acid, etc. during their life cycle. If it is anticipated that the packaging material will be exposed to a chemical, it is important that the ink or coating, or both, not degrade, soften, or dissolve as a result of that contact.  
3.2 The testing included in this practice is applicable to surface printed and coated materials designed to be resistant to a specific chemical.  
3.3 The chemicals to be tested should be compatible with (that is, not damage or degrade) the substrate being printed or coated, or both.  
3.4 There are four separate methods detailed in this practice. The methods represent increasing degrees of severity from Method A to Method D. Selection of method should be based on the type of exposure anticipated. For example, the pouring method (Method A) is typically used where incidental exposure is anticipated, such as a spill or splash of chemical on the material surface. Method B or C is typically used when chemical resistance is desired depending on the level of exposure (B) and abrasion (C) anticipated. Method D would represent continual contact between the chemical and material and would need to be chemical-proof, (for example, if the package were to be submerged in the chemical and exposed to abrasion over a period of time.)  
3.5 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product, based on the type of exposure that is anticipated.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes the procedure for evaluating the ability of an ink, overprint varnish or coating to withstand chemical exposure. Typical chemicals, which may come in contact with the package, include water, alcohol, acid, etc. The specific chemical and method of choice as well as determination of measurement outcome are left to users to agree upon in joint discussion. Suggestions for ways to measure and collect information are offered in the various methods listed in this practice.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Seal strength is a quantitative measure for use in process validation, process control, and capability. Seal strength is not only relevant to opening force and package integrity, but to measuring the packaging processes’ ability to produce consistent seals. Seal strength at some minimum level is a necessary package requirement, and at times it is desirable to limit the strength of the seal to facilitate opening.  
4.1.1 The maximum seal force is important information, but for some applications, average force to open the seal may be useful, and in those cases also should be reported.
FIG. 1 Tail Holding Methods  
4.2 A portion of the force measured when testing materials may be a bending component and not seal strength alone. A number of fixtures and techniques have been devised to hold samples at various angles to the pull direction to control this bending force. Because the effect of each of these on test results is varied, consistent use of one technique (Technique A, Technique B, or Technique C) throughout a test series is recommended. Examples of fixtures and techniques are illustrated in Fig. 1.  
4.2.1 Technique A: Unsupported—Each tail of the specimen is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains unsupported while the test is being conducted.  
4.2.2 Technique B: Supported 90° (By Hand)—Each tail of the specimen is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains hand-supported at a 90° perpendicular angle to the tails while the test is being conducted.  
4.2.3 Technique C: Supported 180°—The least flexible tail is supported flat against a rigid alignment plate held in one grip. The more flexible tail is folded 180° over the seal and is held in the opposing grip while the test is being conducted.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the strength of seals in flexible barrier materials.  
1.2 The test may be conducted on seals between a flexible material and a rigid material.  
1.3 Seals tested in accordance with this test method may be from any source, laboratory or commercial.  
1.4 This test method measures the force required to separate a test strip of material containing the seal. It also identifies the mode of specimen failure.  
1.5 This test method differs from Test Method F2824. Test Method F2824 measures mechanical seal strength while separating an entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.  
1.6 This test method differs from Test Method F904. Test Method F904 measures the bond strength or ply adhesion of laminates made from flexible materials such as cellulose, paper, plastic film, and foil.  
1.7 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring a thickness dimension. Accurate measurement of thickness can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process, product, and material performance.  
4.2 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurement is shown in the Precision and Bias section. Attention should be given to the inherent variability of materials being measured as this can affect measurement outcome.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of thickness of flexible packaging materials using contact micrometers.  
1.2 The Precision and Bias statement for this test method was developed using both handheld and bench top micrometers with foot sizes ranging from 4.8 to 15.9 mm (3/16 to 5/8 in.).  
1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring linear dimensions. Accurate measurement of dimensions can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process performance.  
4.2 This test method should not be applied to tolerance ranges of less than 3 mm (1/8 in.) when it is preferable that test error does not exceed 30 % of tolerance range. See Precision and Bias Section for gage repeatability and reproducibility results.  
4.3 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of linear dimension of flexible packages and packaging materials. It is recommended for use with an allowable tolerance range of 3 mm (1/8 in.) or greater based on gage repeatability and reproducibility presented in the Precision and Bias section.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coating weight is an indicator of certain functional characteristics of coated substrates (for example, sealability, peelability, appearance). The methodology described in this practice is a means of determining coat weight.  
5.2 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.  
5.3 The methodology described in this practice includes operator assessment of effective coating removal. This is a subjective assessment and requires operator training for consistent results.  
5.4 This practice is applicable to coated substrates in which only the coating is soluble in the chosen solvent. The solvent used is critical to the success of the coating removal process. The coated substrate manufacturer must provide guidance in choice of solvent.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for determining the amount of coating applied to a substrate, (for example, film, paper, nonwoven). The amount of coating is expressed as a weight per given area, (for example, g/m2, lb/ream).  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Materials such as engineered thermoplastic films are often used for flexible barrier packaging. However, handling and transportation can cause abrasion to the packaging film and possibly compromise the integrity of the contents (e.g., sterility of a medical device). This test method provides a comparative ranking of material performance that can be used as an indication of relative end-use performance.  
5.2 The resistance of material surfaces to abrasion, as measured on a testing machine under laboratory conditions, is only one of several factors contributing to wear performance or durability as experienced in the actual use of the material. While abrasion resistance and durability are frequently related, the relationship varies with different end uses and different factors may be necessary in any calculation of predicted durability from specific abrasion data.  
5.3 The resistance of material surfaces to abrasion may be affected by factors including test conditions of temperature and humidity, type of abradant, pressure between the specimen and abradant, mounting or tension of the specimen, and type, kind, or amount of finishing materials such as coatings or additives. Other causes of variation include local material movement during testing, material direction alignment, material characteristics, and mandrel and stylus wear. For consistency, samples to be evaluated under special environmental conditions shall be conditioned under those same conditions. It is important that the test instrument be shown to operate properly under special environmental conditions.  
5.4 This test method may not be suitable for all films, including the following cases:  
5.4.1 Films that stretch and generate a ripple in the abraded region during testing,  
5.4.2 Films that have a thickness greater than 0.25 mm (0.010 in.), or are of such rigidity that forming over the mandrel would cause internal stresses that weaken the film, and  
5.4.3 Conductive films.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the abrasion resistance of flexible non-conductive films and packaging materials using a weighted stylus that wears completely through a film by oscillating or reciprocating back and forth along a linear path until an electrical circuit is completed shutting down the test.  
1.2 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In form-fill operations, sealed areas of packages are frequently subject to disruptive forces while still hot. If the hot seals have inadequate resistance to these forces, breakage can occur during the packaging process. These test methods measure hot seal strength and can be used to characterize and rank materials in their ability to perform in commercial applications where this quality is critical.
SCOPE
1.1 These two test methods cover laboratory measurement of the strength of heatseals formed between thermoplastic surfaces of flexible webs, immediately after a seal has been made and before it cools to ambient temperature (hot tack strength).  
1.2 These test methods are restricted to instrumented hot tack testing, requiring a testing machine that automatically heatseals a specimen and immediately determines strength of the hot seal at a precisely measured time after conclusion of the sealing cycle. An additional prerequisite is that the operator shall have no influence on the test after the sealing sequence has begun. These test methods do not cover non-instrumented manual procedures employing springs, levers, pulleys and weights, where test results can be influenced by operator technique.  
1.3 Two variations of the instrumented hot tack test are described in these test methods, differing primarily in two respects: (a) rate of grip separation during testing of the sealed specimen, and (b) whether the testing machine generates the cooling curve of the material under test, or instead makes a measurement of the maximum force observed following a set delay time. Both test methods may be used to test all materials within the scope of these test methods and within the range and capacity of the machine employed. They are described in Section 4.  
1.4 SI units are preferred and shall be used in referee decisions. Values stated herein in inch-pound units are to be regarded separately and may not be exact equivalents to SI units. Therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. The operator of the equipment is to be aware of pinch points as the seal jaws come together to make a seal, hot surfaces of the jaws, and sharp instruments used to cut specimens. It is recommended that the operator review safety precautions from the equipment supplier.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This practice facilitates the determination of laboratory heat sealability of flexible barrier materials. While it is necessary to have a heat seal layer that provides adequate seal strength for the application, other material properties, such as the overall construction and thickness, will impact the sealing properties of the material. This practice allows the impact of changes in material properties on heat sealability to be measured.  
4.2 Due to differences between a laboratory sealer and manufacturing equipment (for example, scale, size of sealing area, and processing speed), there may be a significant difference between the capability and output of a laboratory heat sealer and that of manufacturing equipment. Hence, care must be taken when applying a heat seal curve study as outlined in these practices to manufacturing equipment. The heat seal curve and the corresponding seal strength data are intended to provide a starting point for determination of sealing conditions for full scale manufacturing equipment.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover laboratory preparation of heat seals. These practices also cover the treatment and evaluation of heat seal strength data for the purpose of determining heat sealability of flexible barrier materials. It does not cover the required validation procedures for the production equipment.  
1.2 Testing of seal strength or other properties of the heat seals formed by these practices is not included in this standard. Refer to Test Method F88 for testing heat seal strength. This practice does not apply to hot tack testing, which is covered in F1921.  
1.3 The practices of this standard are restricted to preparing heat seals using a sealer employing hot-bar or impulse sealing methods, or both.  
1.4 This practice is intended to assist in establishing starting relationships for sealing flexible barrier materials. Additional guidance may be needed on how to set up sealing conditions for flexible barrier materials on commercial/production sealing equipment.  
1.5 Seals may be made between webs of the same or dissimilar materials. The individual webs may be homogeneous in structure or multilayered (coextruded, coated, laminated, and so forth).  
1.6 Strength of the heat seal as measured by Test Method F88 is the sole criterion for assessing heat sealability employed in these practices.  
1.7 Other aspects of heat sealability, such as seal continuity, typically measured by air-leak, dye penetration, visual examination, microorganism penetration, or other techniques, are not covered by these practices.  
1.8 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Laminates are made by bonding together two or more layers of material or materials. Their performance is often dependent on the ability of the laminate to function as a single unit. If the plies have not been properly bonded together, the performance may be adversely affected. Laminates may maintain adequate bond strength under standard test conditions, but under conditions of use may exhibit an increase or decrease in bond strength. Applying heat, such as in boilable pouch applications, may adversely affect bond strength, as may cold temperatures, such as those encountered in freezer storage of foods. Fats and oils may also influence bond strength as well as the softness or moduli of the plies. This test method can be used to compare bond strength of similar materials and to study changes under these and other conditions of end use, providing caution is used with respect to the effects of the included force to bend the separated plies.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for comparing the bond strength or ply adhesion of similar laminates made from flexible materials such as cellulose, paper, plastic film, and foil. This includes laminates made by various processes: adhesive laminates, extrusion coatings, extrusion laminates, and coextrusion.  
1.2 Because of the impact of the bending force, direct comparisons between different materials or even between the same materials of different thickness cannot be made.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information purposes only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 7.1.1.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Penetration resistance is an important end-use performance of thin flexible materials where a sharp-edged product can destroy the integrity of a barrier wrap. This will permit package entry/exit of gases, odors, and unwanted contaminates, causing potential harm to the product and reducing shelf-life. Material response to penetration will vary with numerous factors, such as film thickness, elastic modulus, rate of penetration, temperature, shape and type of probe. Consequently, material responses from puncture to stretch may be observed and quantified using this method. Although numerous combinations of experimental factors can be devised and used to simulate specific end-use applications, the recommended conditions in this method should be followed for standard comparisons of materials.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method permits flexible barrier films and laminates to be characterized for slow rate penetration resistance to a driven probe. The test is performed at room temperature, by applying a biaxial stress at a single test velocity on the material until perforation occurs. The force, energy, and elongation to perforation are determined.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Seal strength is a quantitative measure for use in process validation, process control, and capability. Seal strength is not only relevant to opening force and package integrity, but to measuring the packaging processes' ability to produce consistent seals. Seal strength at some minimum level is a necessary package requirement, and at times it is desirable to limit the strength of the seal to facilitate opening.  
4.1.1 The maximum seal force is important information, but for some applications, average force to open the seal may be useful, and in those cases also should be reported.  
4.2 A portion of the force measured when testing materials may be a bending component and not seal strength alone. A number of fixtures and techniques have been devised to hold samples at various angles to the pull direction to control this bending force. Because the effect of each of these on test results is varied, consistent use of one technique (Technique A, Technique B, or Technique C) throughout a test series is recommended. Examples of fixtures and techniques are illustrated in Fig. 1.  
4.2.1 Technique A: Unsupported—Each tail of the specimen is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains unsupported while the test is being conducted.  
4.2.2 Technique B: Supported 90° (By Hand)—Each tail of the specimen is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains hand-supported at a 90° perpendicular angle to the tails while the test is being conducted.  
4.2.3 Technique C: Supported 180°—The least flexible tail is supported flat against a rigid alignment plate held in one grip. The more flexible tail is folded 180° over the seal and is held in the opposing grip while the test is being conducted.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the strength of seals in flexible barrier materials.  
1.2 The test may be conducted on seals between a flexible material and a rigid material.  
1.3 Seals tested in accordance with this test method may be from any source, laboratory or commercial.  
1.4 This test method measures the force required to separate a test strip of material containing the seal. It also identifies the mode of specimen failure.  
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 This material challenge is presented in ISO-11607-1 Annex C as a normative test method to demonstrate that a material is nonporous and satisfies the microbial barrier requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is to be used to verify a specific material design property. Some flexible barrier materials are designed to have a resistance to the passage of air through the membrane structure. These materials are characterized as nonporous. This test method provides a means to verify this property by challenging a material with a given volume of air under pressure over a specific time period.  
1.2 This test method is not intended to measure the diffusion properties of a material nor to identify or quantify the presence of pinhole damage to the design that may result in leaks.  
1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Test Method F88 has been the standard for the mechanical peel strength testing of peelable seals since the 1960s. Normally the testing is run on a portion of the seal. The result is an actual seal strength picture of that portion of the seal. This test method is different in that the entire package seal is peeled open and data collected for the entire sealed area.  
5.2 This test method is a tool for quality assurance use as well as performance evaluation of a seal during separation.  
5.3 With appropriate software, data is collected depicting the seal strength of the entire length of the seal. As a result, it is possible to see seal strength variations, as the seal is peeled apart, thereby evaluating the consistency and uniformity of the seal (see Fig. 1).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a method for the measurement of mechanical seal strength while separating the entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.  
1.2 This test method differs from Test Method F88. Test Method F88 tests a portion of the seal where as this test method tests the force required to separate the entire lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.3 This test method is used to determine the continuous and maximum forces required to separate the lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.4 This test method uses an angle of pull of 45°, however other angles of pull may be used provided results are documented noting the used angle of pull and said procedure is validated.  
1.5 Typical examples of container shapes that could be tested using this or a similar method include oval, rectangular, and circular with single or multiple cavities having a sealed lid (cover/membrane). Examples of products packaged in these types of containers are: ready meals, creamers, coffee, yogurts, household fresheners, chemical and pharmaceutical products, and numerous others not mentioned. However, this test method, described within, is specifically for round containers.  
1.6 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring a thickness dimension. Accurate measurement of thickness can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process, product, and material performance.  
4.2 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurement is shown in the Precision and Bias section. Attention should be given to the inherent variability of materials being measured as this can affect measurement outcome.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of thickness of flexible packaging materials using contact micrometers.  
1.2 The Precision and Bias statement for this test method was developed using both handheld and bench top micrometers with foot sizes ranging from 4.8 to 15.9 mm (3/16 to 5/8 in.).  
1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring linear dimensions. Accurate measurement of dimensions can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process performance.  
4.2 This test method should not be applied to tolerance ranges of less than 3 mm (1/8 in.) when it is preferable that test error does not exceed 30 % of tolerance range. See Precision and Bias Section for gage repeatability and reproducibility results.  
4.3 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of linear dimension of flexible packages and packaging materials. It is recommended for use with an allowable tolerance range of 3 mm (1/8 in.) or greater based on gage repeatability and reproducibility presented in the Precision and Bias section.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Poor adhesion of ink or coating to the base substrate can impact the readability of printed materials, affect the functionality of coated materials, or create a source of contamination. This practice provides a means for evaluating the adhesion of ink or coating to a flexible packaging material.  
3.2 For purposes of resolving inter-laboratory disagreements, test methods developed from this practice may be improved by defining and controlling the pressure and method of tape application, (for example, using weighted roller), and the speed and angle of tape removal.  
3.3 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a means of evaluating ink or coating adhesion to flexible packaging materials. This practice is intended for use on flexible packaging materials whose surfaces are not damaged by the application and removal of tape.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Packaging materials may be exposed to chemicals such as water, alcohol, acid, etc. during their life cycle. If it is anticipated that the packaging material will be exposed to a chemical, it is important that the ink or coating, or both, not degrade, soften, or dissolve as a result of that contact.  
3.2 The testing included in this practice is applicable to surface printed and coated materials designed to be resistant to a specific chemical.  
3.3 The chemicals to be tested should be compatible with (that is, not damage or degrade) the substrate being printed or coated, or both.  
3.4 There are four separate methods detailed in this practice. The methods represent increasing degrees of severity from Method A to Method D. Selection of method should be based on the type of exposure anticipated. For example, the pouring method (Method A) is typically used where incidental exposure is anticipated, such as a spill or splash of chemical on the material surface. Method B or C is typically used when chemical resistance is desired depending on the level of exposure (B) and abrasion (C) anticipated. Method D would represent continual contact between the chemical and material and would need to be chemical-proof, (for example, if the package were to be submerged in the chemical and exposed to abrasion over a period of time.)  
3.5 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product, based on the type of exposure that is anticipated.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes the procedure for evaluating the ability of an ink, overprint varnish or coating to withstand chemical exposure. Typical chemicals, which may come in contact with the package, include water, alcohol, acid, etc. The specific chemical and method of choice as well as determination of measurement outcome are left to users to agree upon in joint discussion. Suggestions for ways to measure and collect information are offered in the various methods listed in this practice.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 Poor adhesion of ink or coating to the base substrate can impact the readability of printed materials, affect the functionality of coated materials, or create a source of contamination. This practice provides a means for evaluating the adhesion of ink or coating to a flexible packaging material.  
3.2 For purposes of resolving inter-laboratory disagreements, test methods developed from this practice may be improved by defining and controlling the pressure and method of tape application, (for example, using weighted roller), and the speed and angle of tape removal.  
3.3 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a means of evaluating ink or coating adhesion to flexible packaging materials. This practice is intended for use on flexible packaging materials whose surfaces are not damaged by the application and removal of tape.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test provides a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package seal failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during such processes as sterilization and transportation. This test method provides an indicator of the burst strength of a package, where the burst will normally occur in one or more areas of the seal. An indicator of the minimum burst strength may be of importance to the package manufacturer and end user in ensuring adequate package integrity. This test method cannot provide a measure of package seal uniformity. This test method also cannot provide an evaluation of overall package integrity or the burst strength of areas of the package that contact the surface of the restraining plates used. This test method should be combined with other methods of evaluating overall package integrity, uniformity of the package seal, or opening functionality, if so required.  
5.2 This test frequently is used to quickly evaluate package seal strength during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made it is important that all parameters of the test be equivalent. Typical parameters can include, but are not limited to the package size, material, type and configuration of seal, rate of air flow into the package, pressure detection sensing mechanism and sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), position of test article, rigidity of restraining plates, and distance between restraining plates. See Appendix X2 for further information.  
5.4 This test may not necessarily provide correlation with package seal strength as typically measured using Test Methods F1140 or F88 (or equivalents).
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods cover the procedure for determining the minimum burst strength of a seal placed around the perimeter of a flexible package as it is internally pressurized and enclosed within restraining plates.  
1.2 The test methods described herein are functionally similar to Test Methods F1140 with the exception of the use of restraining plates. Test Methods F1140 describes methods of burst testing that do not include the use of restraining plates and are suitable to determine a packages general ability to withstand pressurization stresses. Under Test Methods F1140 the stresses are not distributed uniformly to all areas of the package seal. Under unrestrained conditions the stress on the package is highest at the middle of the pouch where it inflates to the packages maximum diameter; therefore, Test Methods F1140 may not reliably detect the weakest area of the seal.  
1.3 The burst test internally and increasingly pressurizes a package until an area of the package seal around the perimeter “bursts” open in response to pressurization. By placing the package within restraining plates during pressurization, the dimensional stability of the package is maintained in a manner that results in stresses applied more uniformly along the perimeter of the package, where seals are normally placed. This allows the test to have a higher probability of detecting the weakest area of the seal and provide a measurement of the pressure required to “burst” open the package.  
1.4 This test only applies to flexible packages with seals placed around the perimeter of a flexible package (often referred to as a pouch). In particular it is intended as applicable to packages with seals that have a peelable seal feature (peeled open by end user to remove contents of package).  
1.4.1 Porous barrier materials' failure to reach adequate pressure to burst the package seals may be due to insufficient volume flow. See Appendix X4 for information.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 These test methods provide a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during processes such as sterilization and transportation.  
5.2 These test methods are frequently used to quickly evaluate packages during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made, it is important that all parameters of the test method be exactly the same. Typical parameters may include, but are not limited to, package size, material, seal configuration, test equipment, rate of air flow into the package, sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), and position of test article (see Fig. 1).
5.4 These test methods do not necessarily provide correlation with actual package seal strength as typically measured using Test Method F88 (or equivalent).
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods explain the procedure for determining the ability of packages to withstand internal pressurization.  
1.2 The burst test increasingly pressurizes the package until the package fails.  
1.3 The creep test maintains a specified pressure for a specified time or until the package fails.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coating weight is an indicator of certain functional characteristics of coated substrates (for example, sealability, peelability, appearance). The methodology described in this practice is a means of determining coat weight.  
5.2 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.  
5.3 The methodology described in this practice includes operator assessment of effective coating removal. This is a subjective assessment and requires operator training for consistent results.  
5.4 This practice is applicable to coated substrates in which only the coating is soluble in the chosen solvent. The solvent used is critical to the success of the coating removal process. The coated substrate manufacturer must provide guidance in choice of solvent.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for determining the amount of coating applied to a substrate, (for example, film, paper, nonwoven). The amount of coating is expressed as a weight per given area, (for example, g/m2, lb/ream).  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test provides a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package seal failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during such processes as sterilization and transportation. This test method provides an indicator of the burst strength of a package, where the burst will normally occur in one or more areas of the seal. An indicator of the minimum burst strength may be of importance to the package manufacturer and end user in ensuring adequate package integrity. This test method cannot provide a measure of package seal uniformity. This test method also cannot provide an evaluation of overall package integrity or the burst strength of areas of the package that contact the surface of the restraining plates used. This test method should be combined with other methods of evaluating overall package integrity, uniformity of the package seal, or opening functionality, if so required.  
5.2 This test frequently is used to quickly evaluate package seal strength during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made it is important that all parameters of the test be equivalent. Typical parameters can include, but are not limited to the package size, material, type and configuration of seal, rate of air flow into the package, pressure detection sensing mechanism and sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), position of test article, rigidity of restraining plates, and distance between restraining plates. See Appendix X2 for further information.  
5.4 This test may not necessarily provide correlation with package seal strength as typically measured using Test Methods F1140 or F88 (or equivalents).
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods cover the procedure for determining the minimum burst strength of a seal placed around the perimeter of a flexible package as it is internally pressurized and enclosed within restraining plates.  
1.2 The test methods described herein are functionally similar to Test Methods F1140 with the exception of the use of restraining plates. Test Methods F1140 describes methods of burst testing that do not include the use of restraining plates and are suitable to determine a packages general ability to withstand pressurization stresses. Under Test Methods F1140 the stresses are not distributed uniformly to all areas of the package seal. Under unrestrained conditions the stress on the package is highest at the middle of the pouch where it inflates to the packages maximum diameter; therefore, Test Methods F1140 may not reliably detect the weakest area of the seal.  
1.3 The burst test internally and increasingly pressurizes a package until an area of the package seal around the perimeter “bursts” open in response to pressurization. By placing the package within restraining plates during pressurization, the dimensional stability of the package is maintained in a manner that results in stresses applied more uniformly along the perimeter of the package, where seals are normally placed. This allows the test to have a higher probability of detecting the weakest area of the seal and provide a measurement of the pressure required to “burst” open the package.  
1.4 This test only applies to flexible packages with seals placed around the perimeter of a flexible package (often referred to as a pouch). In particular it is intended as applicable to packages with seals that have a peelable seal feature (peeled open by end user to remove contents of package).  
1.4.1 Porous barrier materials' failure to reach adequate pressure to burst the package seals may be due to insufficient volume flow. See Appendix X4 for information.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 These test methods provide a rapid means of evaluating tendencies for package failure when the package is exposed to a pressure differential. Pressure differentials may occur during processes such as sterilization and transportation.  
5.2 These test methods are frequently used to quickly evaluate packages during the manufacturing process and at various stages of the package's life cycle.  
5.3 If correlations between pieces of test equipment are to be made, it is important that all parameters of the test method be exactly the same. Typical parameters may include, but are not limited to, package size, material, seal configuration, test equipment, rate of air flow into the package, sensitivity (machine response to pressure drop), and position of test article (see Fig. 1).
FIG. 1 Open Package Test Positions  
5.4 These test methods do not necessarily provide correlation with actual package seal strength as typically measured using Test Method F88 (or equivalent).
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods explain the procedure for determining the ability of packages to withstand internal pressurization.  
1.2 The burst test increasingly pressurizes the package until the package fails.  
1.3 The creep test maintains a specified pressure for a specified time or until the package fails.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test method provides a means for measuring linear dimensions. Accurate measurement of dimensions can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process performance.  
4.2 This test method should not be applied to tolerance ranges of less than 3 mm (1/8 in.) when it is preferable that test error does not exceed 30 % of tolerance range. See Precision and Bias Section for gage repeatability and reproducibility results.  
4.3 This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of linear dimension of flexible packages and packaging materials. It is recommended for use with an allowable tolerance range of 3 mm (1/8 in.) or greater based on gage repeatability and reproducibility presented in the Precision and Bias section.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coating weight is an indicator of certain functional characteristics of coated substrates (for example, sealability, peelability, appearance). The methodology described in this practice is a means of determining coat weight.  
5.2 This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.  
5.3 The methodology described in this practice includes operator assessment of effective coating removal. This is a subjective assessment and requires operator training for consistent results.  
5.4 This practice is applicable to coated substrates in which only the coating is soluble in the chosen solvent. The solvent used is critical to the success of the coating removal process. The coated substrate manufacturer must provide guidance in choice of solvent.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a procedure for determining the amount of coating applied to a substrate, (for example, film, paper, nonwoven). The amount of coating is expressed as a weight per given area, (for example, g/m2, lb/ream).  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In form-fill operations, sealed areas of packages are frequently subject to disruptive forces while still hot. If the hot seals have inadequate resistance to these forces, breakage can occur during the packaging process. These test methods measure hot seal strength and can be used to characterize and rank materials in their ability to perform in commercial applications where this quality is critical. ^SCOPE:  
1.1 These two test methods cover laboratory measurement of the strength of heatseals formed between thermoplastic surfaces of flexible webs, immediately after a seal has been made and before it cools to ambient temperature (hot tack strength).  
1.2 These test methods are restricted to instrumented hot tack testing, requiring a testing machine that automatically heatseals a specimen and immediately determines strength of the hot seal at a precisely measured time after conclusion of the sealing cycle. An additional prerequisite is that the operator shall have no influence on the test after the sealing sequence has begun. These test methods do not cover non-instrumented manual procedures employing springs, levers, pulleys and weights, where test results can be influenced by operator technique.  
1.3 Two variations of the instrumented hot tack test are described in these test methods, differing primarily in two respects: (a) rate of grip separation during testing of the sealed specimen, and (b) whether the testing machine generates the cooling curve of the material under test, or instead makes a measurement of the maximum force observed following a set delay time. Both test methods may be used to test all materials within the scope of these test methods and within the range and capacity of the machine employed. They are described in Section 4.  
1.4 SI units are preferred and shall be used in referee decisions. Values stated herein in inch-pound units are to be regarded separately and may not be exact equivalents to SI units. Therefore, each system shall ...
SCOPE
1.1 These two test methods cover laboratory measurement of the strength of heatseals formed between thermoplastic surfaces of flexible webs, immediately after a seal has been made and before it cools to ambient temperature (hot tack strength).  
1.2 These test methods are restricted to instrumented hot tack testing, requiring a testing machine that automatically heatseals a specimen and immediately determines strength of the hot seal at a precisely measured time after conclusion of the sealing cycle. An additional prerequisite is that the operator shall have no influence on the test after the sealing sequence has begun. These test methods do not cover non-instrumented manual procedures employing springs, levers, pulleys and weights, where test results can be influenced by operator technique.  
1.3 Two variations of the instrumented hot tack test are described in these test methods, differing primarily in two respects: (a) rate of grip separation during testing of the sealed specimen, and (b) whether the testing machine generates the cooling curve of the material under test, or instead makes a measurement of the maximum force observed following a set delay time. Both test methods may be used to test all materials within the scope of these test methods and within the range and capacity of the machine employed. They are described in Section 4.  
1.4 SI units are preferred and shall be used in referee decisions. Values stated herein in inch-pound units are to be regarded separately and may not be exact equivalents to SI units. Therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability o...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
In form-fill operations, sealed areas of packages are frequently subject to disruptive forces while still hot. If the hot seals have inadequate resistance to these forces, breakage can occur during the packaging process. These test methods measure hot seal strength and can be used to characterize and rank materials in their ability to perform in commercial applications where this quality is critical.
SCOPE
1.1 These two test methods cover laboratory measurement of the strength of heatseals formed between thermoplastic surfaces of flexible webs, immediately after a seal has been made and before it cools to ambient temperature (hot tack strength).
1.2 These test methods are restricted to instrumented hot tack testing, requiring a testing machine that automatically heatseals a specimen and immediately determines strength of the hot seal at a precisely measured time after conclusion of the sealing cycle. An additional prerequisite is that the operator shall have no influence on the test after the sealing sequence has begun. These test methods do not cover non-instrumented manual procedures employing springs, levers, pulleys and weights, where test results can be influenced by operator technique.
1.3 Two variations of the instrumented hot tack test are described in these test methods, differing primarily in two respects: (a) rate of grip separation during testing of the sealed specimen, and (b) whether the testing machine generates the cooling curve of the material under test, or instead makes a measurement of the maximum force observed following a set delay time. Both test methods may be used to test all materials within the scope of these test methods and within the range and capacity of the machine employed. They are described in Section 4.
1.4 SI units are preferred and shall be used in referee decisions. Values stated herein in inch-pound units are to be regarded separately and may not be exact equivalents to SI units. Therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. The operator of the equipment is to be aware of pinch points as the seal jaws come together to make a seal, hot surfaces of the jaws, and sharp instruments used to cut specimens. It is recommended that the operator review safety precautions from the equipment supplier.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Test Method F88 has been the standard for the mechanical peel strength testing of peelable seals since the 1960s. Normally the testing is run on a portion of the seal. The result is an actual seal strength picture of that portion of the seal. This test method is different in that the entire package seal is peeled open and data collected for the entire sealed area.
This test method is a tool for quality assurance use as well as performance evaluation of a seal during separation.
With appropriate software, data is collected depicting the seal strength of the entire length of the seal. As a result, it is possible to see seal strength variations, as the seal is peeled apart, thereby evaluating the consistency and uniformity of the seal (see Fig. 1).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a method for the measurement of mechanical seal strength while separating the entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.
1.2 This test method differs from Test Method F88. Test Method F88 tests a portion of the seal where as this test method tests the force required to separate the entire lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.3 This test method is used to determine the continuous and maximum forces required to separate the lid (cover/membrane) from the container.
1.4 This test method uses an angle of pull of 45°, however other angles of pull may be used provided results are documented noting the used angle of pull and said procedure is validated.
1.5 Typical examples of container shapes that could be tested using this or a similar method include oval, rectangular, and circular with single or multiple cavities having a sealed lid (cover/membrane). Examples of products packaged in these types of containers are: ready meals, creamers, coffee, yogurts, household fresheners, chemical and pharmaceutical products, and numerous others not mentioned. However, this test method, described within, is specifically for round containers.
1.6 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Test Method F88 has been the standard for the mechanical peel strength testing of peelable seals since the 1960s. Normally the testing is run on a portion of the seal. The result is an actual seal strength picture of that portion of the seal. This test method is different in that the entire package seal is peeled open and data collected for the entire sealed area.
This test method is a tool for quality assurance use as well as performance evaluation of a seal during separation.
With appropriate software, data is collected depicting the seal strength of the entire length of the seal. As a result, it is possible to see seal strength variations, as the seal is peeled apart, thereby evaluating the consistency and uniformity of the seal (see Fig. 1).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a method for the measurement of mechanical seal strength while separating the entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid round container.
1.2 This test method differs from Test Method F88. Test Method F88 tests a portion of the seal where as this test method tests the force required to separate the entire lid (cover/membrane) from the container.  
1.3 This test method is used to determine the continuous and maximum forces required to separate the lid (cover/membrane) from the container.
1.4 This test method uses an angle of pull of 45°, however other angles of pull may be used provided results are documented noting the used angle of pull and said procedure is validated.
1.5 Typical examples of container shapes that could be tested using this or a similar method include oval, rectangular, and circular with single or multiple cavities having a sealed lid (cover/membrane). Examples of products packaged in these types of containers are: ready meals, creamers, coffee, yogurts, household fresheners, chemical and pharmaceutical products, and numerous others not mentioned. However, this test method, described within, is specifically for round containers.
1.6 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Seal strength is a quantitative measure for use in process validation, process control, and capability. Seal strength is not only relevant to opening force and package integrity, but to measuring the packaging processes' ability to produce consistent seals. Seal strength at some minimum level is a necessary package requirement, and at times it is desirable to limit the strength of the seal to facilitate opening.
The maximum seal force is important information, but for some applications, average force to open the seal may be useful, and in those cases also should be reported.
A portion of the force measured when testing materials may be a bending component and not seal strength alone. A number of fixtures and techniques have been devised to hold samples at various angles to the pull direction to control this bending force.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the strength of seals in flexible barrier materials.
1.2 The test may be conducted on seals between a flexible material and a rigid material.
1.3 Seals tested in accordance with this test method may be from any source, laboratory or commercial.
1.4 This test method measures the force required to separate a test strip of material containing the seal. It also identifies the mode of specimen failure.
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Penetration resistance is an important end-use performance of thin flexible materials where a sharp-edged product can destroy the integrity of a barrier wrap. This will permit package entry/exit of gases, odors, and unwanted contaminates, causing potential harm to the product and reducing shelf-life. Material response to penetration will vary with numerous factors, such as film thickness, elastic modulus, rate of penetration, temperature, shape and type of probe. Consequently, material responses from puncture to stretch may be observed and quantified using this method. Although numerous combinations of experimental factors can be devised and used to simulate specific end-use applications, the recommended conditions in this method should be followed for standard comparisons of materials.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method permits flexible barrier films and laminates to be characterized for slow rate penetration resistance to a driven probe. The test is performed at room temperature, by applying a biaxial stress at a single test velocity on the material until perforation occurs. The force, energy, and elongation to perforation are determined.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Penetration resistance is an important end-use performance of thin flexible materials where a sharp-edged product can destroy the integrity of a barrier wrap. This will permit package entry/exit of gases, odors, and unwanted contaminates, causing potential harm to the product and reducing shelf-life. Material response to penetration will vary with numerous factors, such as film thickness, elastic modulus, rate of penetration, temperature, shape and type of probe. Consequently, material responses from puncture to stretch may be observed and quantified using this method. Although numerous combinations of experimental factors can be devised and used to simulate specific end-use applications, the recommended conditions in this method should be followed for standard comparisons of materials.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method permits flexible barrier films and laminates to be characterized for slow rate penetration resistance to a driven probe. The test is performed at room temperature, by applying a biaxial stress at a single test velocity on the material until perforation occurs. The force, energy, and elongation to perforation are determined.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Poor adhesion of ink or coating to the base substrate can impact the readability of printed materials, affect the functionality of coated materials, or create a source of contamination. This practice provides a means for evaluating the adhesion of ink or coating to a flexible packaging material.
For purposes of resolving inter-laboratory disagreements, test methods developed from this practice may be improved by defining and controlling the pressure and method of tape application, (for example, using weighted roller), and the speed and angle of tape removal.
This practice does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes a means of evaluating ink or coating adhesion to flexible packaging materials. This practice is intended for use on flexible packaging materials whose surfaces are not damaged by the application and removal of tape.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.: Practice

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This test method provides a means for measuring a thickness dimension. Accurate measurement of thickness can be critical to meeting specifications and characterizing process, product, and material performance.
This test method does not address acceptability criteria. These need to be jointly determined by the user and producer of the product. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurement is shown in the Precision and Bias section. Attention should be given to the inherent variability of materials being measured as this can affect measurement outcome.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of thickness of flexible packaging materials using contact micrometers.
1.2 The Precision and Bias statement for this test method was developed using both handheld and bench top micrometers with foot sizes ranging from 4.8 to 15.9 mm (3/16to 5/8 in.).
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Laminates are made by bonding together two or more layers of material or materials. Their performance is often dependent on the ability of the laminate to function as a single unit. If the plies have not been properly bonded together, the performance may be adversely affected. Laminates may maintain adequate bond strength under standard test conditions, but under conditions of use may exhibit an increase or decrease in bond strength. Applying heat, such as in boilable pouch applications, may adversely affect bond strength, as may cold temperatures, such as those encountered in freezer storage of foods. Fats and oils may also influence bond strength as well as the softness or moduli of the plies. This test method can be used to compare bond strength of similar materials and to study changes under these and other conditions of end use, providing caution is used with respect to the effects of the included force to bend the separated plies.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for comparing the bond strength or ply adhesion of similar laminates made from flexible materials such as cellulose, paper, plastic film, and foil. This includes laminates made by various processes: adhesive laminates, extrusion coatings, extrusion laminates, and coextrusion.
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are provided for information purposes only.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 7.1.1.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This practice allows determination of the heatsealability of a surface or sealant layer. While it is necessary to have a heatseal surface layer that has adequate seal strength for the application, other material properties, such as the specific construction and total thickness, both chosen to satisfy requirements other than heatsealability, will impact the sealing properties of the material. This practice allows the impact of changes in material properties on heatsealability to be measured.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices cover laboratory preparation of heatseals and the treatment and evaluation of heatseal strength data for the purpose of determining heatsealability of flexible barrier materials. It does not cover the required validation procedure for the materials and production equipment.
1.2 Testing strength or other properties of the heatseals formed by these practices is not included in this standard. Refer to Test Method F 88 for testing heatseal strength.
1.3 The practices of this standard are restricted to sealing with a machine employing hot-bar jaw(s). Impulse, high-frequency, and ultrasonic heating methods are not included.
1.4 These practices apply primarily to webs intended to be used on commercial machines employing reciprocating sealing jaws, such as most form-fill-seal packaging machines, platen heatsealers, and so forth. Conditions of dwell time and sealing pressure on machines of this type typically are different from those on rotary machines.
1.5 The procedure of this practice with respect to choice of heatsealing conditions apply to ultimate seal strength or hot tack measurement.
1.6 Seals may be made between webs of the same or dissimilar materials. The individual webs may be homogeneous in structure or multilayered (coextruded, coated, laminated, and so forth).
1.7 Strength of the heatseal as measured by Test Method F 88 is the criterion for judging heatsealability employed in these practices.
1.8 Determination of heatsealability as judged by seal continuity, typically measured by air-leak, dye penetration, visual examination, microorganism penetration, or other techniques, are not covered by these practices.
1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.