Minimizing the Amount of Packaging Material

Used for A ‘Click N Go’ Mineral Water Bottle

Mathematics Analysis & Approaches Standard Level
 Utilizing Optimization to Minimize the Amount of Packaging Material

Used for A ‘Click N Go’ Mineral Water Bottle

Introduction and Rationale

According to data from Indonesia’s Ministry of the Environment and Forestry, 17% of the waste produced in

Indonesia is plastic waste. Though this percentage may not seem like a whole lot (after all, it does not even

amount to 1/5th of the waste), when the number is placed in the context of all 68.5 million tons of total waste,

it would equate to 11.6 million tons (Simangunsong).

Despite the prevalence of the issue, my mother has taken it upon herself to buy my sister and I plastic ‘Click N

Go’ mineral water bottles for us to bring to school, claiming that it is a very convenient alternative due to its

shape and the open and close cap it comes with. She gets around 3 of these bottles per week, usually of the

750 ml size.

Having been part of many sustainability workshops, I have come to understand first-hand the damage this

type of indifference breeds, and how this contributes to irreversible change within our planet. Small changes,

even one as simple as eradicating the use of such bottles from our day-to-day lives is a step towards a

greener direction. I would like to show how even objects that appear insignificant and convenient can have

detrimental effects in the long run. Hopefully, even my mother can’t argue against mathematical reasoning.

Aim and Methodology

Through this investigation, I aim to mathematically gauge how much excess plastic waste is produced by each

Click N Go water bottle. I was initially confused because the bottle does not seem to fit into any definite

polygon shape. So, for the sake of simplicity, it occurred to me that I can divide it up into two segments: the

bottom portion of the bottle resembles a cylinder, while the top part looks like a cone stacked on top of the

cylinder with the same radius (Fig.1). This investigation will employ two steps, which will be divided into further

subsections:

1
1. Finding Generalized Conditions

Since I have divided the shape of the

bottle into a cylinder and a cone, I will first

have to derive generalized conditions that

minimize the surface area of a cylinder and

a cone. For each shape, I will find two

conditions in terms of the minimized

surface area: the volume and the

relationship between the height and radius.

The reason I chose to do this before

application to the actual product is

because I wish to understand the steps that created these conditions in the first place. By

understanding the optimization process, I will be able to apply these conditions to a wider range of

products. The conditions for the minima will then be subjected to verification. I will apply the conditions

I explore to the dimensions of the Click N’ Go bottle in the second step.

2. Application to the Click N’ Go Bottle

I will model the bottle my mother usually buys using Geogebra. This model will be used to calculate

the volume used up by different parts of the bottle, employing the formula for volume of revolution. For

this investigation, I’ve decided to just use bottles my mother has bought for the week, measuring their

dimensions in order to apply my findings. Since storage (e.g plastic melting) and transport of these

bottles may have induced structural damage and subsequent alterations in its dimensions, I have

decided to measure 3 of the available bottles and averaged the measurements. These averaged

values will be used throughout the investigation. The total waste of the bottles will be calculated by

subtracting the optimal surface area of cylindrical and conical shapes from the one measured.

Calculations will be done using both a Graphing Display Calculator (GDC) and online graphing tools.

2
The table below highlights the recurring symbols that are used throughout my exploration:

Table 1: Defining symbols and variables used

Symbol / Variable Quantity Represented

𝑟 Radius of Bottle

𝑟opt Optimized Radius

ℎ Height of Bottle

ℎopt Optimized Height

𝑉 Volume of Bottle

𝑆 Surface Area of Bottle

𝑆opt Optimal Surface Area

𝑆used Surface Area (SA) Used in Product

𝑊** Wasted Surface Area (Excess Packaging)

**𝑊 = 𝑆used - 𝑆opt

Finding Generalized Conditions

Minimizing the Surface Area of a Cylinder

The cylinder represents the bottom portion of the bottle. I will be

manipulating two formulae in order to find the conditions after

minimizing the surface area: its volume and surface area formula.

Utilizing the Formula for the Volume of a Cylinder

2
𝑉 = π𝑟 ℎ Equation 1.1

⇨ Rewrite Equation 1.1, expressing ℎ in terms of 𝑉

𝑉
ℎ= 2
π𝑟

Utilizing the Formula for the Surface Area of a Cylinder

2
𝑆 = 2π𝑟 + 2π𝑟ℎ Equation 1.2

3
 𝑉
⇨ Substitute ℎ in Equation 1.2 with 2 (rewritten Equation 1.1)
π𝑟

2 𝑉
𝑆 = 2π𝑟 + 2π𝑟 2
π𝑟

2 𝑉
𝑆 = 2π𝑟 + 2 𝑟
{simplify}

Differentiating Generalized Conditions

⇨ Use the power rule to differentiate surface area equation, with respect to 𝑟

𝑑𝑆 2𝑉 𝑑 𝑛 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑟
= 4π𝑟 − 2 {power rule: 𝑑𝑥 (𝑥 ) = 𝑛 · 𝑥 }
𝑟

⇨ Determining critical points by equating derivative to zero (surface area minima / maxima)

2𝑉
4π𝑟 − 2 =0
𝑟

3
𝑉 = 2π𝑟 opt Condition 1.1 {rearranged for 𝑉}

3
Condition 1.1 (𝑉 = 2π𝑟 ) expresses the volume in terms of the optimal radius. This is important because it

can be used later on to maintain a constant volume for the cylindrical part of the bottle whilst I find the

optimum radius

Verifying That This Condition is the Minimum

3
⇨ Use the second derivative to verify that the condition of 𝑉 = 2π𝑟 is indeed the minima
2
𝑑𝑆 2𝑉 𝑑𝑆 4𝑉 𝑑 𝑛 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑟
= 4π𝑟 − 2 → 2 = 4π + 3 {power rule: 𝑑𝑥 (𝑥 ) = 𝑛 · 𝑥 }
𝑟 𝑑𝑟 𝑟

2 3
𝑑𝑆 4(2π𝑟 )
2 = 4π + 3
𝑑𝑟 𝑟

2
𝑑𝑆
2 = 4π + 8π {simplify}
𝑑𝑟

2
𝑑𝑆
2 = 12π > 0.
𝑑𝑟

As the second derivative for Condition 1.1 is greater than zero, we can accept the condition as the minima.

Using this generalized condition, we can find the relationship between the height and radius that satisfies the

4
conditions of the minima. This, in turn, can be applied to a wide range of cylindrical products, including the

bottom portion of the bottle.

Finding the Relationship Between Height and Radius for Minimized Condition

⇨ Use Equation 1.1 and Condition 1.1 to determine the relationship between optimum height and radius

3 2
2π𝑟 = π𝑟 ℎ

ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 2𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑡 Condition 1.2

Combining the original equation and Condition 1.1 allowed me to see how in order to achieve a minimized

surface area, the height of the cylinder has to be equal with the diameter (Condition 1.2).

Minimizing the Surface Area of a Cone

In order to minimize the surface area of the top part of the bottle, I will

be manipulating the volume and surface area formula for cones.

Utilizing the Formula for the Volume of a Cone

1 2
𝑉= 3
π𝑟 ℎ Equation 2.1

2
⇨ Rewrite Equation 2.1, expressing 𝑟 in terms of 𝑉

2 3𝑉
𝑟 = πℎ

Utilizing the Formula for the Surface Area of a Cone

2 2 2
𝑆 = π𝑟 + π𝑟𝑙, where 𝑙 = 𝑟 + ℎ (𝑝𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑚) Equation 2.2

⇨ Rewrite Equation 2.2 (refer to Fig.3)

2 2 2 2 4 2 2
𝑆 = π𝑟 + π𝑟 𝑟 + ℎ → 𝑆 = π𝑟 + π 𝑟 + 𝑟 ℎ

5
Differentiating Generalized Conditions

2
I knew I wanted to differentiate Equation 2.2 with respect to ℎ, so I decided to substitute 𝑟 according to

Equation 2.1, replacing 3𝑉 with the variable 𝑘 just so my calculations are easier to follow along visually.

2 𝑘
⇨ Substitute 𝑟 with πℎ
in Equation 2.2 for simplicity in differentiating, where 𝑘 = 3𝑉 (Equation 2.1)

2 2
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 2 𝑘 𝑘
𝑆=π πℎ
+ π 2 2
+ πℎ
ℎ →𝑆= ℎ
+ 2 + 𝑘πℎ {simplify}
πℎ ℎ

⇨ Using the power rule and chain rule to differentiate Equation 2.2

−1 2 −2 1/2
𝑆 = 𝑘ℎ + (𝑘 ℎ + 𝑘πℎ ) {rearrange terms}

𝑑𝑆 𝑘 1 2 −2 −1/2 2 −3 𝑑 𝑛 𝑛−1
𝑑ℎ
=− 2 + 2
(𝑘 ℎ + 𝑘πℎ ) (− 2𝑘 ℎ + 𝑘π) {chain rule: 𝑑𝑥 [(𝑓(𝑥)) ] = 𝑛(𝑓(𝑥)) · 𝑓'(𝑥)}
ℎ

2 −3
𝑑𝑆 𝑘 −2𝑘 ℎ +𝑘π
𝑑ℎ
=− 2 + 2 −2
{rearrange terms}
ℎ 2 𝑘 ℎ +𝑘πℎ

⇨ Determining critical points by equating the derivative of Equation 2.2 to zero (SA minima / maxima)
2 −3
𝑘 −2𝑘 ℎ +𝑘π
− 2 + 2 −2
= 0
ℎ 2 𝑘 ℎ +𝑘πℎ

I decided to go a slightly different route when finding the generalized volume for the minimized surface area

condition. I initially tried to force the same steps I used for the cylinder (i.e finding the volume condition first

and using that to identify the relationship between 𝑟opt and ℎopt ), however, this turned out to overcomplicate

things. The progression of my calculations made it easier to: (1) identify the conditions for optimum height

(with 𝑘 = 3𝑉), (2) substitute back the variables of Equation 2.1 to derive the condition for the radius, and then

(3) use the relationship to find the volume condition. So, I decided to switch the steps around to do so.

⇨ Finding the condition for optimum height using the critical points of Equation 2.2
−3
𝑘(−2𝑘ℎ +π) 𝑘
2 −2
= 2 {factor out the 𝑘 and rearrange}
2 𝑘 ℎ +𝑘πℎ ℎ

−3
(−2𝑘ℎ +π) 1
2 −2
= 2 {divide both sides by 𝑘}
2 𝑘 ℎ +𝑘πℎ ℎ

6
 −1 2 2 −2
− 2𝑘ℎ +ℎ π = 2 𝑘 ℎ + 𝑘πℎ {cross multiply and expand}
2
−1 2 2 𝑘
(− 2𝑘ℎ + ℎ π) = 4( 2 + 𝑘πℎ) {square both sides}
ℎ

2 2 2
4𝑘 4𝑘ℎ π 4 2 4𝑘
2 − ℎ
+ℎ π − 2 − 4𝑘πℎ = 0 {expand and rearrange terms}
ℎ ℎ

4 2
ℎ π − 8π𝑘ℎ = 0 {simplify}

2 3
ℎ(π ℎ − 8𝑘π) = 0 {factor out ℎ}

2 3
This means there are two conditions for the critical point, either ℎ = 0 or π ℎ − 8𝑘π = 0. Since it is not

2 3
possible for the height of the bottle to be 0, let us isolate ℎ using π ℎ − 8𝑘π = 0.

2 3
⇨ Finding the condition for optimum height using π ℎ − 8𝑘π = 0.

3 8𝑘π
ℎ = 2
π

3 8𝑘
ℎ = π

3 8𝑘
ℎ= π

3 𝑘
According to the critical point, ℎopt = 2 π
will result in the optimum height.

Verifying That This Condition is the Minimum

3 𝑘
I initially thought that in order to verify that ℎ = 2 π
is the minimum, I would have to do the second derivative

test as I did with the cylinder. However, in order to simplify the process and present the information more

3 𝑘
effectively, I decided to use the sign diagram instead (Fig.4). My calculations showed that when ℎ = 2 π
,

7
 𝑑𝑆 3 𝑘
the sign diagram for 𝑑ℎ
changes signs from negative to positive. This diagram further confirms that ℎ = 2 π

is a local minimum value for the cone surface area.

Finding the Relationship Between Height and Radius for Minimized Condition

3 𝑘
By substituting back the 𝑟 variable into ℎ = 2 π
, I can easily find the relationship between ℎopt and 𝑟opt.

Since 𝑘 = 3𝑉, I need to rewrite the volume equation (Equation 2.1) to express 𝑟 and ℎ in terms of 3𝑉.

⇨ Rewrite Equation 2.1, expressing 𝑟 and ℎ in terms of 3𝑉

1 2
𝑉= 3
πℎ𝑟 Equation 2.1

2
3𝑉 = πℎ𝑟

2
Now, I can easily substitute 𝑘 with πℎ𝑟 , instead of 3𝑉, in order to find the conditions for ℎopt and 𝑟opt, which I

will continue referring to as Condition 2.2—despite the change in order—for uniformity.

2
⇨ Deriving a relationship between 𝑟opt and ℎopt (ℎ, 𝑟 > 0) by substituting 𝑘 with πℎ𝑟

3 2
πℎ𝑟
ℎ= 2 π

3 2
ℎ = 2 ℎ𝑟

3 2
ℎ = 8ℎ𝑟 {raise everything to the power of 3}

2 2
ℎ = 8𝑟 {simplify}

2
ℎ = 8𝑟

ℎopt = 2 2𝑟opt Condition 2.2

According to my findings, in order to achieve the minimum surface area, the height has to be approximately

2.828 times the radius. I can now use this relationship to substitute the ℎ in the volume equation (Equation

2.1), finding the condition for the volume (Condition 2.1) in terms of the minimized surface area.

8
Finding the Condition for Volume (Condition 2.1) Using Condition 2.2

⇨ Substitute the ℎ variable in Equation 2.1 with 2 2𝑟

1 2
𝑉= 3
π𝑟 · 2 2𝑟

2 3
𝑉= 3
2π𝑟 Condition 2.1

2 3
Condition 2.1 (𝑉 = 3
2π𝑟 ) expresses the volume in terms of the optimal radius. I’ll use this condition to

calculate the optimum radius of the conical part of the bottle after I find out what the volume constraint will be.

This will, in turn, allow me to calculate the optimum height. In hindsight, I do not regret the decision to first

identify these generalized conditions for both the cone and cylinder because it allows my findings to be

applied to a wider range of products as opposed to just the water bottle being investigated. For example, my

findings for the cone can be used to identify excess waste in other conical products such as ice cream,

widening the scope of its applicability.

Application of the Conditions on the 750ml ‘Click N Go’ Mineral Water Bottle

Modeling the Bottle

I used the online graphing software Geogebra to model the shape of the bottle.

Table 2: Average Measurements of Three Bottles Rounded up to 1 Decimal Point (cm)

Height 24.7

Radius** 3.76
**Measured where the conical and cylindrical parts meet

In order to scale my model accurately, I decided to correspond 1cm of the bottle with 1 unit on the graph.

9
It took me a while to decide how exactly I was going to approach modeling. I had a couple of options:

1. Create a polynomial regression of all the points I had plotted.

2. Create a piecewise function divided into separate outputs (see Fig.6 for an example).

I decided to do the second option as the first one prevented me from dividing the bottle up into intervals

according to the cylindrical and conical parts I identified in Fig.1. Option 2 allowed me to employ the volume of

revolution formula in order to calculate the volume of the different parts of the bottle.

Dividing the Bottle Into Separate Sections

In the end, I decided to divide the function up into 4 sub-functions instead of only 3 (Fig.7).

Parts 1 & 2 represent the cylinder part whilst 3 & 4 represent the cone part. I decided not to include part 4 in

the volume calculations as the water only fills the bottle up to around the 20cm height. However, part 4 will be

considered as part of the cone during surface area measurements.

10
Creating the Piecewise Function

⇨ Finding the function for limits [0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 11; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 1 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7]

To begin, I decided to try out both a quartic and quintic polynomial model. Upon quick observation, it was clear

that the quintic model was a better fit for the curve in these particular limits. Additionally, since I have the odd

number 5 as the highest degree, if my lead coefficient is positive, then I could easily ensure that the right end

of my graph will point upwards while the left end goes down. So, using the tools provided in my digital

software, I obtained the following equation:

5 4 3 2
𝑓(𝑥) = 0. 000084𝑥 − 0. 0035𝑥 + 0. 052𝑥 − 0. 32𝑥 + 0. 69𝑥 + 3. 5

Yet, as shown in Fig.8, this particular model was not as accurate as I hoped it would be.

Taking a leap of faith, I decided to scrap the polynomial regression and tried a completely different function,

opting instead for a sine curve. I began by inputting the general function:

𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑏𝑥 − 𝑐) + 𝑑

I knew that the value for 𝑑 would be 3.5 due to the value of the y-intercept, but it took some trials to figure out

the values for the amplitude, period, and phase shift. In the end, I came up with the following function:

𝑓(𝑥) = 0. 3𝑠𝑖𝑛(0. 8𝑥 − 0. 6) + 3. 5

Though the model still is not perfect, as shown in Fig.9, I believe the sine function more accurately represents

the shape of the bottle.

11
⇨ Finding the function for limits [11 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 14. 8; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 2 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7]

Since this part of the model is essentially just a straight line, I didn't even have to find a function. I just had to

find the constant that most accurately fit into the model. Following the points I originally plotted to outline the

bottle, the constant turned out to be: 𝑓(𝑥) = 3. 7617 (Fig.10).

⇨ Finding the function for limits [14. 8 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 3 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7]

Upon analyzing the shape of this part, I thought it looked like a parabola cut in half. I decided to start by simply

inputting the vertex form:

2
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑎(𝑥 − ℎ) + 𝑘

I first made sure that this function connected with the constant used to represent Part 2. After a couple of tries,

I decided to make 𝑘 = 3. 78 and moved the x-coordinate of the vertex to 14.35. Now, all I had to do was

figure out how wide the parabola’s cavity should be. I experimented with different values for each variable,

and I was most satisfied with the function that resulted from the following combination (Fig.11):

2
𝑓(𝑥) = − 0. 07(𝑥 − 14. 35) + 3. 78

As with the other parts of the model, the function used to represent Part 3 still has room for improvement. Yet,

I believe that it provides a representation that is reliable enough as it defines the shape quite accurately.

12
Ultimately, excluding limits [20 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 24. 7; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 4 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7], the three segments of the piecewise function 𝑓(𝑥)

provided below can be used to calculate the volume:

Finding the Volume of the Bottle

The reason I had to model the bottle was because I need function 𝑓(𝑥) to calculate the volume for each part in

order to employ them as constraints. I learned that if I rotated the function about a line in the plane, I could

produce a solid of revolution (Fig.12) and use integration to find the volume of the solid. During my

exploration, I also discovered that I could use the disc method in order to do so (Maltby et al):

𝑥2
2
𝑉 = π ∫ 𝑦 𝑑𝑥 Formula for Disc Method
𝑥1

Calculating the Volume of the Solid of Revolution

I used a TI-Nspire CX II GDC in order to solve for the following volumes of each segment (cm3).

⇨ Finding the volume for limits [0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 11; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 1 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] using the disc method

11
2
𝑉 = π ∫(0. 3𝑠𝑖𝑛(0. 8𝑥 − 0. 6) + 3. 5) 𝑑𝑥
0

3
𝑉 = 434. 462 𝑐𝑚

13
⇨ Finding the volume for limits [11 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 14. 8; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 2 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] using the disc method

14.8
2
𝑉 = π ∫ (3. 7617) 𝑑𝑥
11

3
𝑉 = 168. 928 𝑐𝑚

⇨ Finding the volume for limits [14. 8 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 3 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] using the disc method

20
2 2
𝑉 = π ∫ (− 0. 07(𝑥 − 14. 35) + 3. 78) 𝑑𝑥
14.8

3
𝑉 = 151. 244 𝑐𝑚

Summarizing Volume Findings

The actual volume of the bottle that my mother always buys is 750cm3. As depicted in Table 3 below, the

volume calculated for the modeled solid is only roughly 4cm3 off the actual one, meaning that the model was

quite accurate despite not being perfect.

Table 3: Results of Volume Calculations for Different Segments

Section Volume (cm3)

Part 1, limits [0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 11] 434.462

Part 2, limits [11 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 14. 8] 168.928

Part 3, limits [14. 8 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20] 151.244

Cylindrical Part (Parts 1 & 2) 603.390

Conical Part (Part 3 & 4)** 151.244

Total (Parts 1-3 Combined) 754.634 ≈ 754 (three significant figures)

**Although Part 4 is not included for the volume calculations, it will be considered as part of the cone’s surface area (Fig.1)

Finding the Surface Area of the Bottle

All the previous steps and measures were taken in preparation for this final part, which will bring it all together.

Now, I can finally calculate how much excess plastic is used up by one 750ml Click ‘N Go bottle. It is worth

noting that this approach may be reductionist because, as depicted in Fig.1, the assumption that the bottle

can simply be divided into a cylinder and cone does lead to underestimations.

14
Calculating Surface Area Used

This shape will be considered a cylinder for limits [0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 14. 8; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 1 & 2 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] and a cone for limits

[14. 8 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 24. 7; 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 3 & 4 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7].

⇨ Finding the surface area for the cylindrical part [0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 14. 8 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] of the actual product

Following the measurements of the model, during the following calculations, 𝑟 = 3. 76 and ℎ = 14. 8

2
𝑆 = 2π𝑟 + 2π𝑟ℎ Formula for Surface Area

The cylinder makes up the bottom portion of the bottle and the cone is then stacked above it. Therefore, the

cylinder will consist of only one circle, as the top will be left open. So, for my calculations, I made sure to only

count that one circle for the surface area.

2
𝑆used = π(3. 76) + 2π(3. 76)(14. 8)

2
𝑆used = ​394. 061276273𝑐𝑚

2
𝑆used (Cylinder) ≈ ​394 𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Finding the surface area for the conical part [14. 8 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 24. 7 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑖𝑔 7] of the actual product

Following the measurements of the model, during the following calculations, 𝑟 = 3. 76 and ℎ = 9. 9.

2 2 2
𝑆 = π𝑟 + π𝑟 𝑟 + ℎ Formula for Surface Area

However, since the cone is stacked on top of the cylinder, it will have no circular base, leaving the bottom of

the cone open ended. I adjusted the formula to reflect this.

2 2
𝑆used = π𝑟 𝑟 + ℎ Adjusted Formula for Surface Area

2
𝑆used = ​125. 09291406 𝑐𝑚

2
𝑆used (Cone) ​≈ 125​𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Finding the surface area for the entire bottle

𝑆used (Total) = 𝑆used (Cylinder) + 𝑆used (Cone)

2
𝑆used (Total) =​519 𝑐𝑚

15
Calculating Optimum Surface Area

After finding the total surface area of the bottle, I need to calculate the optimum surface area before I can

consider the excess. Using the previously derived conditions (Condition 1.1, Condition 1.2, Condition 2.1,

Condition 2.2), I can calculate the optimal radius, height, and surface area for both the cylinder and cone.

⇨ Using Condition 1.1 to determine the optimal radius for the cylindrical portion.

3
𝑉 = 2π𝑟 opt Condition 1.1

As shown in Table 3, the volume for the cylindrical part is 603.390 cm3.

3
603. 390 = 2π𝑟 opt

𝑟opt (cylinder) ≈ 4. 58𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Using Condition 1.2 to determine the optimal height for the cylindrical portion

ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 2𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑡 Condition 1.2

ℎopt (cylinder) = 9. 16𝑐𝑚

⇨ Using 𝑟opt (cylinder) & ℎopt (cylinder) to determine optimal surface area for the cylindrical portion

During the following calculations, 𝑟 = 4. 58 and ℎ = 9. 16.

2
𝑆 = π𝑟 + 2π𝑟ℎ Adjusted Formula for Surface Area

2
𝑆opt (cylinder) ≈ 329𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Using Condition 2.1 to determine the optimal radius for the conical portion

I rearranged the variables of this condition in reference to Equation 2.1 in order to isolate 𝑟opt (cone):

6 2
9𝑉
𝑟opt = 8π
Rearranged Condition

As shown in Table 3, the volume for the conical part is 151.244 cm3.

𝑟opt (cone) ≈ 4. 49𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

Although for this particular volume constraint the optimum radius is 4.49cm, the bottle would be shaped

awkwardly if the conical part had a smaller radius. Hence, I decided to keep using 𝑟opt (cylinder) ≈ 4. 58𝑐𝑚 for

the following calculations.

16
Upon using Condition 2.2 to find the height, I got ℎopt = 13𝑐𝑚, which is a bit too tall especially when

compared with the original height (9.9cm) of the conical part in the actual product. I tried looking for a different

way to find height using radius, and decided to rearrange Equation 2.1 to do so:

⇨ Using Equation 2.1 to determine the optimal height for the conical portion (𝑟 = 4. 58, 𝑉 = 151. 244)

3𝑉
ℎopt = 2 Rearranged Equation 2.1
π𝑟

ℎopt (cone) ≈ 6. 89𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Determining optimal surface area for the conical portion using 𝑟opt (cone) and ℎopt (cone).

During the following calculations, 𝑟 = 4. 58 and ℎ = 6. 89.

2 2
𝑆opt = π𝑟 𝑟 + ℎ Adjusted Formula for Surface Area

2
𝑆opt (cone) ≈ 119𝑐𝑚 (three significant figures)

⇨ Finding the optimal surface area for the entire bottle

𝑆opt (Total) = 𝑆opt (Cylinder) + 𝑆opt (Cone)

2
𝑆opt (Total) = 448𝑐𝑚

Calculating Excess Packaging

𝑊 = 𝑆used - 𝑆opt

𝑊 = 519 − 448

2
𝑊 = 71𝑐𝑚

2
These calculations show how for each 750ml Click ‘N Go bottle, 71𝑐𝑚 is wasted in excess packaging.

Conclusion and Evaluation

Through my method, I have managed to achieve my aim of calculating how much plastic is wasted in excess

packaging for each 750ml Click ‘N Go bottle that my mother buys. Considering the fact that each week she

2
buys three of these bottles, I am, on a weekly average, wasting 213𝑐𝑚 of plastic just for the water bottles I

bring to school. My method also led me to some other findings:

17
 Table 4: Summary of findings from all previous workings

Cylinder Conditions for Minimal Surface Area

3
𝑉 = 2π𝑟 opt (Condition 1.1)

ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 2𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑡 (Condition 1.2)

Cone Conditions for Minimal Surface Area

2 3
𝑉= 3
2π𝑟 (Condition 2.1)

ℎopt = 2 2𝑟opt (Condition 2.2)

750ml Click ‘N Go Bottle Surface Area Used

2
𝑆used (Total) =​519 𝑐𝑚
(calculated using conditions
Optimal Surface Area
for cylinder and cone) 2
𝑆opt (Total) = 448𝑐𝑚

Excess Packaging
2
𝑊 = 71𝑐𝑚

Before I apply my findings to any other scenario, it is important to consider the strengths and limitations of this

mathematical investigation:

Strengths

● Found generalized conditions that are applicable beyond the scope of the investigation.

● Created a model that decently captured the shape and volume of the actual product.

● Minimized discrepancies when measuring the dimensions of the actual product by using the average

measurements of three bottles for each calculation.

18
Limitations

Calculations for the surface area of the actual product was done based on the assumption that the shape can

be represented by a cone stacked on top of a cylinder. This does not provide a realistic portrayal of the actual

packaging. For example, my calculations would have been more accurate if I likened the top half of the bottle

to a frustum of a cone instead of just simply a cone. I have considered this limitation from the start of the

investigation, and at one point, I thought about finding the surface area of revolution for the model I had

created. Yet, the understanding of integration needed to do so went too far beyond my current scope of

knowledge. A good extension for this investigation may be to more accurately calculate the surface area of

the bottle instead of just reducing it to two simple shapes.

Regardless of these limitations, after finding the optimum conditions for both cylindrical and conical shapes, I

can extend my investigation and apply my findings to other bottle shapes to see which ones are more

sustainable in the long run. I can perhaps even use my calculations for the Click N Go bottle’s measurements

(i.e its volume) in order to propose a new packaging model that employs the minimized conditions.

I understand that many companies, such as the manufacturer of these Click N Go bottles, would probably

struggle to implement the conditions and optimal surface area calculated throughout this investigation.

Minimizing the amount of plastic used for packaging may be better for the environment, yet, it does pose the

risk of reducing the product’s aesthetic value / branding and might even increase production costs. However,

my investigation has made me more aware of my own bottle-buying habits and how it contributes to the

ongoing waste issue. I hope to use my findings to be more conscious of the products I use on a daily basis

and to encourage those around me to do the same.

19
 Works Cited

Maltby, Henry, et al. “Volume of Revolution.” Brilliant, https://brilliant.org/wiki/volume-of-revolution/. Accessed

17 January 2023.

Simangunsong, Tonggo. “Tons of trash, less to recycle: The irony of recycling plastic waste.” The Jakarta

Post, 24 May 2022,

https://www.thejakartapost.com/culture/2022/05/24/tons-of-trash-less-to-recycle-the-irony-of-recycling-

plastic-waste.html. Accessed 24 November 2022.

20