Talk:Cellophane

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polymers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PolymersWikipedia:WikiProject PolymersTemplate:WikiProject PolymersPolymers articles

Materials Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Cling film

Most "cling film" (i.e. plastic food wrap) I've ever seen has said it's made of PVC, not cellulose...? Tjwood 18:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right (although there are non-PVC versions, which are still not made of cellulose). I changed the article. --Heron 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I heard there is currently only one supplier of cellophane in the entire world. Does anyone know if that is true? And if it is, would it be relevant enough for the article? Qaddosh 12:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

With one noticeable exception, every punctuation mark in this article is either a comma or an exclamation point. --67.171.78.104 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invention

On the British Cellophane page it states that "The process for manufacturing cellulose film from viscose was discovered by three English chemists, Charles Frederick Cross, Edward John Bevan and Clayton Beadle in 1898."

On this page it states "Cellophane was invented in 1908 by Jacques E. Brandenberger, a Swiss textiles engineer."

Seems to need a bit of clarification.

lol

From the page: "It is also used in the making of bendy rulers, although it is not common."

Strange line to end the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.106.168 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I was all like, wuuuut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph says "...low permeability to...water..." whilst the second-to-last paragraph implies a high permeability to "moisture". Oh-kay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.32.239 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, it has a relatively low permeability to liquid water, but not water vapors (moisture). Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genericised Trademark in the UK

I disagree with this statement: "The word cellophane has become genericized in the US ... However, in the UK and in many other countries it is still a registered trademark and the property of Innovia Films Ltd."

The implication here is that "Cellophane" is not a generic term in the UK, when it most definitely is. It may still be a registered trademark, but it is widely used to refer to any type of film wrapping, which I thought was the very definition of a genericized trademark. The reference cited is 27 years old. 86.132.58.253 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind my joining this topic, because my observation of some 35 years' experience is that "cellophane" has not become genericised [sic] in the other sense as implied further down in the same section. Some merchandisers don't know the difference - an issue more to do with "dumbing down" than with genericisation [!] in my view - but the example shown (ref 7) is of a polypropylene converter trying to claim properties he's not entitled to with a cutely misleading term implying cellophane, but even he is not saying polypropylene is cellophane. The totally generic "plastic" (film, wrap, and the like) is even less pertinent to the issue of cellophane's loss of identity: for those uninformed folks using "plastic" seems to have no specific meaning at all. Not to sharpen the point too much, reference 7 should be removed and the attending comment taken out as irrelevant to the topic heading as well as being free advertising for the converter.William Hoffman (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Are you sure that the printed bag is cellophane? It's much more likely to be PET film.

82.33.164.165 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. The products in question are modern German Xmas bakery goods and the chance of these being cellophane-wrapped is zero. I should know, I live in Germany and have eaten these things regularly for 13 years. How about a nice image of a cellophane-wrapped cigar? Nrubdarb (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is cellophane a plastic?

Is cellophane a plastic? The article should clarify this point. How can an ordinary person test a piece to see if it is really cellophane, instead of some other ordinary clear plastic? Real cellophane seems to have very poor resistance to tearing; the article should discuss this aspect. -96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

biodegradable

The article claims:

"cellophane itself is 100% biodegradable"

What is the source/proof of this? Under what conditions does it biodegrade? How long does it take? -96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reference might be useful, but the anonymous user sounds doubtful in a way I infer to mean there is reasonable doubt. Cellophane is reconstituted cellulose and will degrade like plant leaves based simply on its nature and the known (bio)chemistry of cellulose. The decomposition will yield CO2 and water.William Hoffman (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to assume that cellophane will degrade somewhat harmlessly under some conditions, if you wait long enough. But I don't think that is enough to claim "100% biodegradable". I'm inclined to think that claim requires that it degrades sufficiently under fairly ordinary composting conditions, in a reasonable amount of time. What is most at issue is whether it degrades under typical home compost pile conditions, and how long it takes. -71.174.176.121 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch Tape

The article implies that cellophane is the current base material of Scotch Tape. This may have been true far in the past, but it seems very dubious that it would be true in modern times. The Scotch Tape article does not seem to agree with this article. -96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor tear resistance

www.collectingcandy.com/wordpress/?p=1228

"The other major issue with cellophane is wear-and-tear over time and damage from initial opening.

More than any other wrapper type, cello wrappers seem to only open through a destructive series of tears. It’s tough to open a cello wrapper without causing it to rip, and once that rip starts, it can’t be stopped.

When you find an older cello package – it’s not unusual to find all manner of deformations and destruction."

The article should say much more about the physical characteristics. Cellophane is not stretchy and is quite fragile compared to modern plastic films. In particular, it has very poor resistance to tear propagation. -96.233.19.113 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News

http://cjonline.com/news/business/2016-05-18/japanese-firm-invest-30-million-tecumseh-cellophane-plant-last-plant-its# • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Impacts

An environmentally friendly alternative to the viscose process exists and it is used to produce Lyocell (rayon). Any consensus on if it can be used to produce cellophane as well? Frisbii (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in lede re: "some countries" generic vs. trademarked

I just altered a sentence that read "in some countries X, but in some countries Y" because it semi-implies there is a third possibility, Z. Now it reads like -- generic in some countries and trademarked in others.

But is more precise to just say it is a trademarked term in some countries but generic "in the rest of the world" or "everywhere else" or maybe better still "every other place where the term is used"? Arbalest Mike (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history of cellophane on wikipedia is not accurate. Cellophane was developed at Brown Company laboratories in Berlin NH. Brown Company patented cellophane and sold the patent to dupont. This was considered a big mistake for brown co selling the patent to dupont because cellophane became very profitable for dupont. Brown Co was stollen from the Brown family by a bank in Boston during the great depression and the history of this company disappeared even though this company was the biggest paper company in the world in its time. The company held 800 patents in total developed in 2 laboratories in Berlin NH. Brown Co was owned by 3 brothers who controlled 18 million acres in quebec ,Maine, New Hampshire and Florida. The brothers held title to 3,750,000 acres in quebec, 650,000 acres in new england and 78,000 acres in florida. The 3 brothers were Herbert Brown, Orton Brown,and WR brown. Herbert was my great grandfather. I knew very close to nothing about my dads family in Berlin NH prior to a visit by my uncle Eric to Taos NM in 1999.

Seth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethbrow (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history of cellophane on wikipedia is not accurate. Cellophane was developed at Brown Company laboratories in Berlin NH. Brown Company patented cellophane and sold the patent to dupont. This was considered a big mistake for brown co selling the patent to dupont because cellophane became very profitable for dupont. Brown Co was stollen from the Brown family by a bank in Boston during the great depression and the history of this company disappeared even though this company was the biggest paper company in the world in its time.

Seth Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethbrow (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permiability

The article starts with " Its low permeability to air, oils, greases, bacteria, and water makes it useful for food packaging." But later on it says "Cellophane is the most popular material for manufacturing cigar packaging; its permeability to moisture makes cellophane the perfect product for this application as cigars must be allowed to "breathe" while in storage." I think the first statement is the correct one. See - "Cellophane is a transparent film made from cellulose that has low permeability to oxygen, moisture, oil, grease, and bacteria." from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/cellophane - Or maybe it depends on the type of cellophane - "Initial versions of cellophane were waterproof, but not moisture-proof. So, while it was effective for wrapping products like candy and cigarettes, it wasn’t effective for packaging fresh food. In 1927, DuPont developed moisture-proof cellophane" - from https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/06/26/how-cellophane-changed-the-way-we-shop-for-food/ twfowler (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah wtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.206.63 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it has low permeability, not zero permeability. It is low enough for food wrapping purposes, but has enough permeability for cigar breathability purposes. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moldable?

There is no mention of whether cellophane can be injection moulded, or blow moulded, I'm guessing not, it would be useful for the article to mention this, and if it can't be moulded to state why this is the case.

Further assistance required.

I am a newbie at this, so I'd like for someone with moderate experience to take a look at the "Branding" section. At the end of the section, it says <ref name="gc">. I'm don't want to outright delete it, but it's obvious that it shouldn't be there. I'm suspecting that it is a link to a citation that was incorrectly entered in the source code. Like I said, I'm not sure how to fix this, so some help would be appreciate. It is of upmost importance to me that we fix the "cellophane" Wikipedia page! (Not really) MatthewMcFly (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)MatthewMcFly[reply]

Branding section

I've removed the following sentence from the Branding section (added on 5 November 2022 by GBS2):

Transparent sticky tape was marketed by Texcel Cellophane Tape, a New Jersey industrial tape corporation from early 1940s.

This may belong in the history section (it's hard to tell how significant they were without a source), but the sentence doesn't make any specific claim about the Cellophane brand.

I've also replaced the (only) reference in the section, as it was a dead link. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Regenerated"

What is the meaning of this term in the context it is used in the lead? It either needs in situ explanation, or a link to somewhere it is explained. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]