Water Bubbles

By: Eliza Roesler & Caitlin Dwyer

1
 Table of Contents
Title Page……………………………………………………………………………………..…1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………..…..2
Contributions……………………………………………………………………………….…...3
Problem Definition………………………………………………………………………….…..4
Design Requirements…………………………………………………………………..……4-6
Conceptual Design
Alternative Concepts……………………………………………………………..…..6-8
Evaluation of Alternatives……………………………………………………...…..8-10
Selection of a
Concept……………………………………………………...……..10-11
Detailed Design
Main Features and How They Work…………………………………………….11-15
Results of Analysis, Experiments, and Models…………………………………15-17
Manufacturing Details……………………………………………………………..17-18
Performance Evaluation…………………………………………………………………..18-19
Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………………………..19-21

2
 Individual Contributions
Caitlin Dwyer:
● Title cover
● Problem Definition
● Design requirements
● Results of Analysis, Experiments, and Models
● Manufacturing Details
● Performance evaluation
● Lessons learned

Eliza Roesler:
● Table of contents
● Conceptual design
● Alternative concepts
● Evaluation of alternatives
● Selection of a concept
● Main features and how they work

3
 Problem Definition

The problem we are trying to help solve is plastic pollution that is helping

contribute to global warming. The strain of plastic pollution is seen all over the world

especially in our oceans. Currently there are 315 billion pounds of plastic waste in the

ocean. In fact only 9% of the 8,300 metric tons plastic ever produced has been

recycled, showing how so much of this plastic is ending up in our beautiful oceans. This

mass amount of plastic waste strains wildlife and contaminates our waters. By straining

the wildlife that lives in these waters it is not only hurting our environment, but also

second handedly hurting humans as humans rely on many species and animals that live

in these waters. By creating the “water bubble”, we hope to reduce the amount of plastic

waste generated from the use of plastic water bottles. Although it doesn’t seem like

much, it is a small step towards ending a huge crisis and each small step is a huge step

for our planet as it is rapidly deteriorating.

Design Requirements

Our design strategy for this project was to first send out a student survey to see

what design features the public were most interested in and then performing many tests

to see if we could make the design we wanted possible. We sent out a survey asking

three main components of the design: what size it should be, what liquid it should

contain in it, and where they should be distributed. The survey results showed that a

one inch in diameter water bubble containing water with added electrolytes and

4
distributed at races was the clear winner. We then took that information and began

testing to see if we could produce one inch water bubbles with propel, which has added

electrolytes and flavor compared to water, and that were also durable enough to be

distributed without popping. Once we were able to accomplish this, we wanted to see if

we could also gear the water bubbles towards dogs, and treat them like a pill pocket but

a better pill pocket as it would also provide nutrients and water in addition to the pill.

Then for the packaging, we began by creating many models on autodesk fusion 360. It

took us a few tries and many small adjustments to the model to get it exactly how we

wanted it. As we went we also figured out we could add our logo onto the packaging

and though that would be another great design aspect to it.

Next are the list of performance requirements:

● Water Bubble Itself

○ One inch in diameter

○ Be Able to contain other liquids besides water

○ In the shape of a sphere

○ Thick enough to survive a 13 cm drop and not pop

○ Durable enough to transport

○ Made from all biodegradable materials

● The Water Bubble Packaging

○ Be water tight

○ Be Able to hold 6 water bubbles in each

○ Have a lockable latch to keep it shut

5
 ○ Have a hinge to open and close

○ Be eco friendly

Conceptual Design

Alternative Concepts

In this project, there was a big focus on picking different concepts to try out, and

then choosing the best one. Our first criterion was durability, which was also the most

important. We had to make sure the bubbles wouldn’t burst when they were picked up

or when they were being held and they also needed to be easily transported for

distribution, which was our second criterion which was not as important. From the

survey we created, people said they should be distributed at races and since there are

many races around marin and the city, we would need to be able to drive a car with

them in it and not have them pop. The third thing we considered was the ease of

manufacturing, so that we could easily make them turn out the way we want to (size,

flavor, look). We would also need this for the strict deadlines of the project so we could

finish on time and run the tests necessary. We found that this aspect would not be as

high of value as durability, and we also already had a fairly short creation process. The

fourth was flavor, which was important to the consumer, and about the second most

important thing to us. No one would purchase the product if it tasted bad, even if it was

good for the environment. The fifth criterion was packaging, which was the third most

important thing to us. It needed to be appealing to the consumer as well as

6
compostable, or else our product wouldn’t actually be a solution to water bottles. Below

are our three concepts we tested with different solutions to our criteria.

Concept 1:

● added thick shell gives it a strong durability (6g calcium lactate)

● Durable shell makes it easier to transport and not break

● Will be harder to produce this thick shell & will take time to figure out how to do

this

● The added mio flavoring will give it a yummy flavor & there will be lots of variety

(didn’t work when we tested it)

● The packaging is decomposable so very good for environment but isn’t eye

catching or protective of the bubble (using a reused egg carton with compostable

bags as the waterproof lining)

Concept 2:

● The shell is thinner but by mixing different amounts of sodium alginate and

calcium chloride

● the shell will be firmer/more dense & the padded packaging will make it less likely

to pop

● The padded packaging will make it easy to transport because it will make the

bubble less likely to pop while it's being moved

7
 ● The bubble will be easier to manufacture because we just have to figure out the

right ratio of ingredients to form the shell and don't have to worry about making it

thicker

● Propel has a variety of flavors with added electrolytes, and since it is a water it

may be easier to manufacture the bubbles

● The packaging would be padded and make the bubble more durable as well as

eye appealing, downside = may not be compostable

Concept 3:

● The water bubbles would be in a tub filled with water, each individually wrapped,

allowing the bubbles to move around the tub and not burst

● With the bubbles in the water, they will be able to move around a little and be

less likely to pop

● It will be easy to manufacture the bubble because we will produce them the way

we have already been making them

● The propel in the bubbles would give it a good flavor and added electrolytes

● The packaging would make the bubbles very durable during transportation, it is

decomposable, the bin would be recyclable, only downside = people may not like

grabbing the bubbles with a ladle out of a bucket

Evaluation of Alternatives

8
 In order to test which concept was best, we did three experiments to first test the

durability of the bubbles. The first we kept exactly the same with no variation to serve as

our control. This experiment went as follows:

1. Add one gram of sodium alginate to one cup of purified water in a mixing bowl.

Mix until fully dissolved and let sit for 15 minutes, or until there are no bubbles.

2. Dissolve 5 grams of calcium lactate in 4 cups of purified water.

3. Take a spoon and scoop the sodium alginate solution and drop it gently into the

calcium lactate solution. It should form a sphere. Repeat this until all of the

sodium alginate is used up.

4. Gently stir the bubbles so that the gel can fully form, about 3 minutes (should

help it form a thicker shell).

5. Use the slotted spoon to take out the bubbles and place it in another bowl of

water to stop the reaction.

In the next two experiments, we changed the amounts of each ingredient to see

how that would affect the durability of the bubbles, with one gram extra of sodium

alginate, and then one gram extra of calcium lactate. We found that the extra gram of

calcium lactate helped it be more durable. Results are in the table below.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Height dropped from that it popped at 13 cm 13 cm 13 cm

9
 Mass 7.77 g 6.38 g 9.62 g

Force 76.2 N 62.6 N 94.3 N

Trial 1 - 5 g calcium lactate & 1 g sodium alginate (control) (left photo)

Trial 2 - 5 g calcium lactate & 2 g sodium alginate (middle photo)

Trial 3 - 6 g calcium lactate & 1 g sodium alginate (right photo)

Selection of a Concept

After doing the durability experiments and finding an ideal recipe to make the

bubble more durable, we began to eliminate other concepts. Because the egg carton

packaging was not appealing to the customer, and the mio flavoring didn’t work, we did

not choose concept one. Since we were unable to make padded packaging that was

also reusable, as detailed in concept two, we did not pick this concept either. The final

concept was a clear winner because it had propel in it, which worked during testing and

improved the taste. However, we ended up not using the packaging described in this

concept either because, through further testing, found that a 3D printed model for the

packaging would be best because it was made of a corn-based plastic that was

10
biodegradable, and we could perfectly sculpt it to increase durability and include all of

the design requirements we needed.

Detailed Design

Main Features and How They Work

There were three main parts to our design: the bubbles, the packaging, and the

items we put inside the bubble. All three of these went hand in hand to to create the

best possible bubble that is a true alternative to plastic.

The first feature of the bubble was the bubble itself. Sodium alginate (NaAlg)

coagulates when exposed to calcium chloride (CaCl​2​) and forms​ ​calcium alginate

(CaAlg​2​) and sodium chloride (NaCl), according to the following reaction:

2NaAlg + CaCl​2​ --> CaAlg​2​ + 2NaCl

1 cup sodium alginate

1 cup water

5 g calcium lactate

4 cups water

According to this recipe, the bubble is created. It is an opaque, gel-like sphere.

The full procedure on how to make it is below.

11
 1. Add one gram of sodium alginate to one cup of purified water in a mixing bowl.

Mix until fully dissolved and let sit for 15 minutes, or until there are no bubbles.

2. Dissolve 5 grams of calcium lactate in 4 cups of purified water.

3. Take a spoon and scoop the sodium alginate solution and drop it gently into the

calcium lactate solution. It should form a sphere. Repeat this until all of the

sodium alginate is used up.

4. Gently stir the bubbles so that the gel can fully form, about 3 minutes (should

help it form a thicker shell).

5. Use the slotted spoon to take out the bubbles and place it in another bowl of

water to stop the reaction.

The consumer can either pop it and drink the water inside, or eat the shell as

well. The two main ingredients are Sodium Alginate and Calcium Lactate. ​Sodium

alginate is a colorless or light yellow powdery or crystalline polysaccharide, the sodium

salt of alginic acid, which is used as a food thickener and stabilizer. It is also commonly

used in medicines, paint, and paper coating. Calcium lactate is a black or white

crystalline salt made by the action of lactic acid on calcium carbonate. It is used in foods

(as an ingredient in baking powder) and given medicinally. These both are very

common in food service, known as “molecular gastronomy”, which is the emphasis of

scientific manipulation to produce food with unique properties that are unlike regular

food. They are also two major ingredients in a traditional Japanese jelly cake dessert,

and are also used in making spherical mozzarella (mozzarella balls) in addition to many

12
new sphere takes on traditional recipes, like spherical yogurt. This is due to the process

of reverse spherification, which produces the thin shell around the product that is

dropped into the calcium lactate bath.

The next big part of the project was the packaging. Initially it started out that the

packaging would be an egg carton lined with compostable bags. This idea was not used

because of the difficulty to manufacture because the lining would have to be carefully

applied and could probably leak fairly easily. It also would not be appealing to the

consumer, because it would look like it came directly out of their garbage can. The next

idea was to have a giant tub where the bubbles would be individually packaged in

plastic bags. This again was not ideal, because the weight of the tub filled with water

would be difficult to transport and easily could spill. It could also seem like trash

because of the tons of compostable bags in there, and pulling them out soaking wet

would be inconvenient for the consumer. This idea also does not solve the problem of

individual distribution. Selling a huge tub of bubbles to someone who wants to bring

them on runs or walks with their dog is impractical, because it would be difficult to

refrigerate and also adds plastic to their garbage later, making the bubble useless. After

analysis of all of these aspects, the conclusion was to create an entirely customizable

package. Through Autodesk Fusion 360, the current container was born. It was loosely

based off of an egg carton, with some added features. Below are pictures.

13
 It started with a rectangle. Circles were then cut out, about 1 inch in diameter.

Then the edges were curved to save material and make it more lightweight. Another

side was then added so that there could be a top and a bottom that could potentially

latch. This was the hardest part of creating the packaging, because the program was

fairly new to us and we would have no idea if it would work until we waited the 30+

hours for it to print. There ended up being eight drafts, each one with a new tweak or

function added onto it. In order to make the hinge, all parts had to fit perfectly together,

and had to be registered into the program as a “joint” so that one could run an animation

of the part to see if it would function properly and rotate 180 degrees to align perfectly

over the top of the other side. The next challenge was to make the supports strong

enough so it would not snap when the hinge was first turned, as it prints fully attached

14
and one has to wear down the inside for it to move. After many tries and drafts, it was

eventually perfected, and the next step was to create a latch. We used a simple design

and it took about three tries to get it thick enough to not break, and to shave down the

inside of the packaging so that it could fully close.

The final part of the project was the inside of the bubble. The plan was to put

glucosamine pills as well as other vitamins for dog consumption, and to make a version

of the bubble with propel in it ideal for runners. The encapsulation of these was not

difficult, and was able to be produced after the first try.

Results of Analysis, Experiments, and Models

Through our experiments we were able to complete our final model. We tested for three

main things: durability, acidity, and shelf-life.

For the first experiment, we tested for durability of the one inch in diameter water

bubble to ensure the water bubble could withstand transportation and not pop while

people were just holding them. Through our experiment we discovered the water

bubbles could withstand a drop from 13 cm. However, changing the proportion of

chemicals did not have an effect on the water bubbles durability. No matter the

proportions, every water bubble popped when dropped at a height of 13 cm and stayed

in tact when dropped from any height below that. However, each bubble did have a

different force that popped it. This is because of their differing masses and the

governing equation “Force = mass x acceleration”. However since each bubble was

being dropped from a point in the air, the acceleration was acceleration due to gravity

which is 9.8 m/s/s. This isolates the mass to be the sole variable in how much force it

15
will take to pop the bubble. Through our testing, we discovered we can’t make it more

durable by changing the proportions as we had hoped however were able to see that

they are durable enough to transport.

Next we tested for acidity to see if the chemicals forming the shell of the water

bubble affected the pH of the liquid inside the bubble. During our experiment, we

discovered that the calcium lactate and sodium alginate shell had no effect on the ph of

the liquid inside. We took the ph of the liquid before it was inside the water bubble and

after it had been sitting in the water bubble. In both tests, water and propel, we found

that the ph was not affected and stayed the same. The water stayed at a healthy ph of 6

and the propel remained at a ph of 4. Testing acidity was helpful so that we knew what

was in our product. If the pH was far too basic or far too acidic, it would have been vital

for us to know that, and inform our customers about. We found that the acidity was

within a healthy range and that modifying this was not necessary. We also found that

the pH did not affect the bubbles durability over time, so when we left the bubbles in

water for a week they lasted just like the regular water bubbles.

Finally we tested for how long the water bubbles shelf life was. We seperated the

bubbles into two bowls: one left out in room temperature and one left in the fridge. The

bubbles in the fridge lasted a whole 15 days while the ones left in room temperature

lasted only 9 days. All of these tests helped us perfect our model and ensure the safety

of them as they are an item people will consume.

Manufacturing Details

16
 To create the water bubbles, we used a process called reverse spherification that

relies on the chemical reaction between sodium alginate and calcium lactate. To create

the bubbles, begin by adding​ ​one gram of sodium alginate to one cup of purified water

in a mixing bowl. Next, mix until fully dissolved and let sit for 15 minutes, or until there

are no bubbles. In a separate bowl, dissolve 5 grams of calcium lactate in 4 cups of

purified water. Take a tablespoon measuring spoon (will achieve the 1 inch diameter)

and scoop the sodium alginate solution and drop it gently into the calcium lactate

solution. As it is dropped into the sodium alginate bath, it will begin to form a sphere.

Repeat this until all of the sodium alginate is used up. However ensure to continue to

stir the bath the bubbles are in so that the bubbles don’t stick to the bottom or to each

other. Leave them inside the bath for approximately 3 minutes so the gel can fully form

and is thick enough. Then a slotted spoon is used to remove the water bubbles from the

sodium bath to a pure H2O bath to stop the reaction. After this final step, the water

bubbles are complete.

Next for the packaging, a software such as autodesk fusion 360 is needed to

create the design. The main features of the design included creating a hinge that could

rotate 180 degrees, a lockable latch to keep the packaging closed, 1.5 in. indentations

for the water bubbles to fit into, a size of 6in. X 4in., and finally an etched in logo of our

product. Once the design was made, after many hours and attempts, it was important to

ensure all parts were connected and that there was no holes. If there was any of these it

would not have printed. However once it was done, it was saved onto a chip that was

taken from the computer and then inserted into the 3D printer. Then the 3D printer

17
worked its magic and brought the 3D design to life. One the model was finished printing,

it had to be cleaned up by breaking off all the supports to get down to what we wanted.

Once we cleaned it all up we had our final water bubble packaging.

Performance Evaluation

The water bubbles were able to meet all of our performance standards and

performed very well at our final presentation night. The goal was to create a small,

edible “water bottle” that could hold a liquid with added electrolytes to be geared

towards runners, and another idea of having them contain dog pills. In the end the water

bubbles hit all of the marks it needed to pass. The water bubbles were one inch in

diameter which the survey showed is what people wanted most, and was able to

withstand a 13 cm. drop without popping, showing they are durable for transport. The

water bubbles were also able to hold liquids like propel which are flavored and contain

electrolytes which is great for runners who need electrolyte replenishment to help them

push on. It was essential to our project that the water bubbles could hold more than just

water, and in the end they were able to. With being able to withstand drops and contain

the other liquid than water, it passed all the performance test/criteria that was crucial for

the design. Next performance test was its ability to hold dog pills inside. By letting the

sodium alginate solution to sit longer before reacting with the calcium lactate bath, it

was possible to have the shell form around the dog pill. The dog pill stayed inside the

water bubble the whole time and was as durable as the other normal water bubbles.

With passing the durable test and having the pill actually stay inside the water bubble, it

18
passed the performance tests. However, the dog pill idea was a sort of last minute idea

the team wanted to try to see if we could create more than something just for humans.

We didn’t have any real hopes for it working and so it succeeded our predictions the

team had for it and worked better than expected. The last performance test the team

had to perform was on the packaging. The packaging was 3D printed and needed to be

able to close with the latch and rotate 180 degrees. The team was able to get the

packaging to rotate 180 degrees on a hinge type rotator, however the latch was broken

off at some point by another class. In addition the one functioning prototype didn’t have

the etched in water bubble logo on the top of it. Therefore the packaging did not meet

the predictions of being able to function perfectly, however it did meet the ecofriendly

standard as it is a corn-based plastic, and was able to move 180 degrees to show how it

would function.

Lessons Learned

If the option to redesign was available, our team would focus heavily on making

the water bubble larger and more durable to improve its performance. After revaluation,

a one inch in size water bubble doesn't hold a lot of water. Therefore it would take

someone a few water bubbles before they would be replenished. However if they were

bigger then it would take less water bubbles to feel dehydrated and would be more

efficient. With the larger sized water bubble, it would need to be more durable.

Therefore the team would have to perform more experiments to modify the water bubble

to be able to withstand a larger drop and overall become more durable. This way the

bubbles would be able to be transported easier as well awe there wouldn’t be the worry

19
of the water bubbles popping. In hindsight, the project met the needs and wants of the

customers, but if there was more time to go back and change things within the design it

would definitely be with how large the water bubble is and how durable it is then.

Throughout this project, there was many lessons learned throughout the design

process including: it will take many attempts to perfect your project, your project will

never be fully perfect, and one must not let frustration get ahead of them. Throughout

the year, there was many frustrating times where the water bubbles wouldn’t work

because of a small error in the production of them which would waste time and

materials. Keeping calm and being able to look past it and restart was essential to being

able to complete the project on time and make it as best as possible. Especially with the

3D printer, there was many times were autodesk was very frustrating and made one

want to give up, however one just has to push past that feeling and they will be able to

complete their task. Furthermore, the team had to create many batches of the water

bubbles and models of the packaging before they had their final product. For the water

bubbles, it took many batches to find the right proportions of chemicals to create the

perfect thickness of shell and be able to hold other liquid than water as the team wasn’t

able to do it at first. For the packaging, it took many tries on the 3D printer to create our

final packaging as the print would stop halfway through the model, or when trying to

breakdown the supports would break the packaging itself. Even through all of the tests

and experiments, there is always a way to improve the product one created. For this it

would be making the water bubble more durable and larger which would bring the team

20
to a new design cycle where the team would begin by brainstorming new ideas to create

these improvements.

This project was a very long project where all the responsibility was on the team.

This means that the team had to be on top of sorting out tasks among members and

ensuring all work was turned in and done on time. For the team to work efficiently, it is

most useful to breakdown the work on an assignment and have each other working on

somewhat different things and not the exact same thing. This way the work could get

done faster and the team could then move onto the next part of the assignment. Going

off of that, it is crucial that all team members put forth their best effort and work so that

the project is at its best it can be. Since each team member is working on certain parts

of an assignment themselves, it is important to be able to trust that the other person will

pull their share of the work and that it will be with their best effort. Finally, each partner

must contribute the same amount of work so that neither of them get annoyed with each

other for not doing their share of the work. Overall, the main takeaway from working in

year long team is do the share of the work that is yours and make sure to communicate

with the other team members if something goes wrong or if they aren’t doing their part.

21