MEPDP Formal Report

Summer 2014

Green-To-Go
The Dream Team
Connor Mulkay
Jessica Morrise
Logan Renninger
Shengjie Zhang
Zoe Chan

Table of Contents
Topic
Executive Summary

Page
2

Introduction
Background

Problem Statement

Design Process
Concept Generation

Concept Screening

Concept Selection

Customer Needs

Functional Specifications

Prototyping
Materials Used

Evolution of Prototypes

Functional Testing

10

Failure Modes & Effects Analysis

10

Customer Feedback

10

Final Prototype

11

Final Product
Manufacturing

12

Cost Evaluation

13

Waste Reduction

13

Closing the Loop

13

Conclusion
Government Initiatives

15

Recommendations for Future Design

15

Appendices

16

References

19

Executive Summary
East Asian countries are well known for their cheap, popular street food sold by local
vendors or hawkers out of carts on the roadside. Singapore is no exception to the hawker
culture. Although the government has moved vendors off the streets because of space and
sanitation concerns, the traditional buying and selling of local food and drinks continues
today in government-approved hawker centres. In each of these open-air complexes, dozens
or even hundreds of hawkers sell cooked food, drinks, market produce, and dried goods in a
convenient and centralized location.
Like any other large establishment, hawker centres face a number of sustainability issues. A
large amount of polystyrene waste is generated every day from hawker centres. Every time
a customer orders food for takeaway, the food is transported in polystyrene clamshell
containers. Some hawkers also use the polystyrene for dine in customers to avoid the
hassle of washing dishes. The negative environmental effects of polystyrene, which is nonbiodegradable and highly toxic when incinerated, are well documented.
The Dream Team decided that decreasing polystyrene use was an important sustainabilityrelated problem to tackle at hawker centres. As a solution, The Dream Team has developed
a replacement product for polystyrene disposable containers: the Green-To-Go Box. This
product is a compact, portable, food-safe container designed to be convenient and spacesaving for customers. The customer owns the container and brings it from home. Once at
the hawker centre, the container is filled up with food and eaten at any desired location. At
the end of the day, the container is taken home and easily cleaned. There is no need to waste
polystyrene when the Green-To-Go is readily accessible. The team evaluated customer
needs and corresponding functional specifications for the Green-To-Go box. To make sure
the design met these specifications, the team also built several prototypes and conducted
functional tests. Through research, customer interaction, and design iteration, the Dream
Team has designed Green-To-Go to meet the needs of customers in hawker centres and
combat the creation of polystyrene waste in Singapore.

Introduction
Background
Singapores first hawker centre was built in 1971. Since then, more than 100 other hawker
centres housing almost 6000 cooked food stalls have sprung up all over the island. Smaller
hawker centres have on average 30 cooked food stalls, while larger centres house 200 stalls
or more.
Hawker centres have been an integral part of Singapores unique culture, providing
affordable and delicious local fare to Singaporeans and tourists alike. To this day, hawker
centres serve as the go-to place for quick and cheap meals. In fact, an average Singaporean
frequents a hawker centre up to 15 times a month. Customers have the option of packing
the food for takeaway, or having their meal at the hawker centre itself, where seats and
tables are provided. Cleaners are employed to clear dirty dishes and utensils from the tables
and send them back to the respective stalls for washing.
In considering the issue of sustainability of hawker centres in Singapore, several
observations were made by the team:
There was unnecessary use of disposable dishes and utensils. These were used even
when customers were not taking away their food/drinks. This was observed
especially with the drink stalls.
Each stall used their own unique dishes, making it difficult for cleaners to stack
them when they were clearing tables.
The process of collection and washing of dishes was very slow. Diners were often
unable to find empty tables as they were covered with dirty dishes.
The general level of sanitation of the hawker centre could be improved. This
includes the washing of the dishes, cleaning of the tables and floors.
Ventilation was poor in certain areas of the hawker centre, where heat and fumes
from the food stalls would spread to the seating area. The fans that were installed
were insufficient.

Problem Statement
As a problem domain, The Dream Team selected the problem of non-reusable dish waste in
hawker centres. Singapores hawker centres create unnecessary waste through the use of
disposable dishes given to both takeaway and dine-in customers. Currently, many vendors
at hawker stalls distribute polystyrene containers, plastic cups, and disposable utensils to
customers who take away their food from the centre. In addition, some stalls substitute
washable dishes with disposable polystyrene in an effort to save either time or money.
Eventually the team decided to look specifically at the generation of polystyrene waste. The
Dream Team views this practice as highly unsustainable and set out to develop a product
which would help reduce the amount of polystyrene waste from hawker centres.

Design Process
Concept Generation
The Dream Team visited multiple hawker centers to observe and gather information from
the vendors and customers. After identifying several common problems and some possible
solutions, the group settled on the issue of disposable dish waste. After generating a list of
possible solutions through brainstorming sessions, the team identified 14 discrete product
concepts with the potential to reduce waste.

Concept Screening
To determine which concepts to further consider, a screening matrix was used to narrow
down the original list. In this matrix, existing methods were used as references respectively.
If a concept was better at meeting a criterion than the reference, it received a plus. If a
concept was worse at meeting a criterion, it received a minus. If there was no significant
difference between the two, the concept received a zero. Table 1 shows the completed
concept scoring matrix. Concepts with a positive net score were considered for further
evaluation. The highest-scoring concepts included a folding takeaway box to be washed and
reused, a 2-in-1 disposable takeaway container including both the box and its utensils, and
portable, flexible eating utensils.
Table 1. Concept Screening Matrix

Concept
Styrofoam & Plastic (Reference)
Foldable Take Out Box
Collapsible Take Out Box
Slap Stix
Slap Utensils
Banana Leaf Container
Container punchout utencils
Foldable Utensils
Retractable Utensils
Plastic Cup Compressor
Card Knife
Collapsible Cup
Plastic Bag Water Bottle
Water-recycling Sink
Hand-crank dishwasher
Bottle Refilling Station
Bike Powered Appliances
Stall Fume Generator
Sound-controlled Lights

+
0
N/A

Criteria
Waste
Economic
Ease of use
Convenience Innovativeness
reduction
feasibility
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
+
0
+
0
+
+
0
0
0
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
+
0
+
0
+
+
0
+
0
+
0
+
+
0
+
0
0
+
0
+
0
0
+
0
0
+
N/A
N/A
N/A

Sum +'s
0
3
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1

Sum -'s
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
0
2
2

Net Score
0
2
1
3
3
0
1
0
0
-2
1
0
0
2
-1
-1

Key
Better than ref.
Comparable
Worse than ref.
Does not apply to problem

Concept Selection
Next a weighted scoring matrix was used to select the final concept. The team determined
five important criteria that would need to be maximized by the final product. In order of
importance, these criteria were Waste Reduction, Convenience, Ease of Use, Cost to
Customer, and Portability. The scores assigned to the criteria in the matrix were weighted
based on their relative importance. In the matrix shown in Table 2, each concept was
scored on how well it answered the criteria. Through this process, the folding takeaway box
and flexible bracelet utensils were the top two highest scoring choices. After careful
consideration, the team chose to develop the box concept. This idea was more feasible,
more marketable, and lent itself more easily to design iteration and prototyping.
Table 2. Concept Scoring Matrix

Criteria
Waste Reduction
Ease of Use
Cost to customer
Convenience
Portability
Sum

Weight
40%
15%
10%
25%
10%
100%

Reusable Fold-Up Reusable Collapsible

Take-Out Box
Box
Weighted
Weighted
Score
Score
Score
Score
5
2
5
2
5
0.75
5
0.75
3
0.3
3
0.3
2
0.5
2
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
3.95
3.85

Slap Stix
Punchout Utensils
Weighted
Weighted
Score
Score
Score
Score
3
1.2
2
0.8
4
0.6
3
0.45
4
0.4
5
0.5
4
1
5
1.25
5
0.5
2
0.2
3.7
3.2

Card Knife
Weighted
Score
Score
3
1.2
3
0.45
2
0.2
3
0.75
5
0.5
3.1

Scoring
High
5
Average
3
Low
1

Customer Needs
The criteria used for concept scoring were derived from the observed customer needs.
Based on observations made in Singapores hawker centres, the Dream Team developed a
list of customer needs (Table 3) which the product would have to fulfill. These were based
on the situations of both the diners and the hawkers: the need for waste reduction, ease of
use, durability, affordability, and minimal change are needs for the hawkers as well as the
diners. The diner, who would own and carry a Green-To-Go container, is clearly the main
customer for this product, but hawkers, who would handle the box and change the way they
serve takeaway because of it, are also considered to be primary customers.
Table 3. List of Customer Needs

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Need
The container reduces the level of disposable waste in hawker centers
The container is portable
The container is durable
The container is easy to use
The container retains the heat of food
The container is affordable
The container introduces minimal cultural/lifestyle change
The container is aesthetically pleasing

Imp.
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
1

Functional Specifications
From the qualitative customer needs, the team made a list of quantitative specifications
with a measurable target value for each. The specifications provided a way to measure
quantitatively how well the product met the needs of the customers. Along with the target
values, the team also created a functional test to compare the prototype to the target value.
Table 4 below lists the specifications, target values, and tests.
Table 4. Specifications, Target Values and Tests

Metric
Styrofoam waste eliminated
Folded Length
Folded Width
Folded height
Max. temperature
Max. carry load
Max. top load
Leak-proof
Time necessary to fold/unfold
Insulation R-Value
Cost of production
Unfolded Volume
Aesthetic design (yes/no)

Target Specification
1000 kg/day
14.00 cm
10.50 cm
3.00 cm
100 C
2.5 Kg
7.0 Kg
Yes
8.0 seconds
0.65 m^2*K/(W*in)
$20
3,000 cubic cm
Yes

Test to evaluate
N/A
Measure dimensions
Fill with heated water
Fill container with weights
Place weights on top of container
Check for leaks when filled with liquid
Time with stopwatch
Material property
Estimate from material and manufacturing costs
Measure volume
N/A

Prototyping
The Dream Team decided to develop a takeaway container to be both reusable and
portable. The initial concept, shown in Figure 1, was of a box which could fold up when
empty and fit inside its lid. The team went through seven design iterations, improving the
concept and the materials used with each successive prototype.

Figure 1. Green-To-Go box early concept drawing.

Materials Used
The first prototypes were made with simple materials like paper and cardboard. In later
versions, prototypes that could be used and tested were constructed from more functional
materials. Each material was selected for its unique properties which would make it
suitable for use in a portable lunchbox.

Polypropylene
Polypropylene is a thermoplastic polymer that is commonly used to make reusable, foodgrade containers. With a density of 0.905 g/cm, it is lightweight and suitable for a carryalong container. Its melting point of 160C (320F) allows it to hold warm food without the
risk of melting and contamination. Polypropylene is often used in living hinges because its
exceptional fatigue resistance means that it can bend repeatedly without tearing. It can also
be cheaply injection molded for mass production. It is easy to add colored dyes to liquid
polypropylene make the final product more appealing to customers.
Silicone rubber
Silicone rubber is an elastomer commonly found in cooking and baking equipment, sealants
and automotive applications. Silicone rubber has good chemical stability, weatherability
and superior resistance to heat and cold. In fact, they can withstand temperatures ranging
from -100C to 315C (-150F to 600F). It is also non-toxic and safe for food contact. In
addition, silicone rubber is waterproof, preventing any possibility of leakage when storing
liquid food.
Mylar
Mylar is the commonly used trade name of terephthalate (PET), an insulating polyester film.
Mylar is used in for heat retention in products such as housing insulation and emergency
blankets. Metallized Mylar foil is also used in food packaging to keep food from oxidizing
and losing their aroma. Mylar is dimensionally stable, chemical resistant, electrically
insulating and has excellent moisture resistance. It is also capable of retaining good physical
properties over an operating temperature range of -70C to 150C (-95F to 300F). Mylar
has a low thermal conductivity of 0.15 W/m.K, making it a good heat insulator and effective
in keeping food warm. The melting point of Mylar is 254C (490F).
Aluminium
Aluminium was thought to be a good substitute for Mylar for prototyping as it is easily
available in the form of a thin film. It is also lightweight, non-toxic and has high strength.
Aluminium foil is impermeable and odourless and therefore suitable for food packaging.

Evolution of Prototypes

Figure 2. Evolution of Prototypes.

Prototype No. 1
Lid: Paper
Box: Paper
The very first prototype was made with paper to get a feel of how the box would fold up and
fit into its lid. The team also looked at how the lid could fold up into an enclosed casing.
Prototype No. 2
Lid: Cardboard
Box: Cardboard, paper
One issue that had to be addressed was how the container could be rigid yet foldable. The
team was inspired by the design of foldable iPad cases which have thicker rigid sections and
thinner sections to act as hinges. The new prototype had a paper lining with attached
cardboard pieces cut into appropriate geometric shapes, as shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Cardboard prototype with stiff panels.

Prototype No. 3
Lid: Polypropylene (1mm)
Box: Polypropylene (1mm)
Building on the idea of the second prototype, the team decided to begin modelling the
product using polypropylene. Both the container and the lid were each cut out of a single
piece of polypropylene of 1mm thickness. The polypropylene did provide good rigidity and
was lightweight. However, the prototype did not work as well as expected as it was difficult
to cut the hinges wide and thin enough to make the box easily foldable.
Prototype No. 4
Lid: N/A
Box: Silicone lining (1mm), polypropylene pieces (1mm)
To tackle the problem of the stiff hinges in the previous prototype, the Dream Team decided
to use a flexible 1mm thick silicone rubber sheet, as depicted in Figure 4, for the inner lining
of the box. Polypropylene pieces were used for the walls, and the corners were sewn with
thread. This prototype folded up much better than Prototype No. 3, but would bounce back
to its unfolded state when released. It was also rather thick and bulky when folded up. The
body of the box held water well, but some leakage was observed from the corners and the
silicone rubber material ripped easily where it was punctured.

Figure 4. Silicone and polypropylene prototype.

Prototype No. 5
Lid: Polypropylene (0.75mm)
Box: Outer - Polypropylene (0.2mm)
Rigid pieces - Polypropylene (0.75mm)
Inner lining - Thin aluminium sheet with foam
Ruling out silicone rubber as a possible material for the lining, the team decided to try a
combination of thin polypropylene and insulating aluminium. The outermost layer was
made of polypropylene of 0.2mm thickness. This provided a thin, flexible, strong, leak proof
layer that was resistant to tearing. Attached on the inside were thicker pieces of
polypropylene to provide rigidity to the walls and base of the container. These were not as
thick as the ones used before so that the box would be less bulky in its folded state. Finally,
the inside of the container was lined with a layer of insulating aluminium to help in keeping
food warm. At this stage, the dimensions of the box and lid also had to be altered to better
account for the thickness of the collapsed box. The team also experimented with different
ways to fold the box, minimising space and reducing bulkiness. In addition, flaps/clasps to
the lid to secure it onto the box began to be considered.
Prototype No. 6
Lid:
Outer - Polypropylene (0.75mm)
Inner lining - Thin aluminium sheet
Box: Outer - Polypropylene (0.2mm)
Rigid pieces - Polypropylene (0.75mm)
Inner lining - Thin aluminium sheet
This prototype was mostly similar to the one before, except that the foam was removed
from the aluminium sheet to better simulate mylar. The size of the rigid polypropylene
pieces were modified slightly to accommodate a new folding method which would allow the
box to fold up smaller. The inside of the lid was also lined with a layer of aluminium (Mylar)
to aid in insulation. The team also tried out another type of closing mechanism involving
rubber bands and pins. Upon completion, this prototype was deemed to be satisfactory to
be used in for functional testing.

Functional Testing
Functional tests were conducted on the prototype to ensure that Green-To-Go would be a
usable product. The prototype was put through a series of tests to check for areas of failure
and to see if it met the specifications.
The tests done included:
Top Loading: This was done to test for durability under an external load in situations when
the box is underneath something or when the lunchbox is being misused. A pail was placed
on the lid of the closed lunchbox. Fixed volumes of water, with known weight, were poured
incrementally into the pail until it was filled to the top.
Inside Loading: The box must be able to handle the load of the food when in operation. To
test durability under an inside load, items of known weight were placed within the
lunchbox and balanced on a 3 point loading system.
Temperature Testing: The box must be able to withstand the temperature of warm food
placed inside and not cause any contamination to the food. Warm water was poured into
the lunchbox and the temperature of the water was measured. Individual material samples
were also placed in warm water to check for any deformation from heat.
Leakage: The box should be able to hold liquid food without any leaking. For this test, the
box was filled with water and inspected for any leakages, especially from the corners.
Dimensioning: The dimensions of the lunchbox were adjusted to suit the meal size of an
Asian. There were also minor adjustments to the dimensions to ensure that the lunchbox
would fit into the cover pouch.

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a method of identifying relative negative
impacts of each of the possible failure modes of a product. To begin with, the team listed all
the possible ways in which the Green-To-Go box might fail. The severity, occurrence and
ease of detection of each failure mode were then rated with 1 as the best and 9 as the worst.
The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was then calculated by multiplying severity, occurrence
and detection. The mode of failure with the highest RPN value represents the most
important occurrence to design preventive measures for. Appendix B shows the scoring for
each of the failure modes. From the analysis, Food Contamination received highest RPN.
Due to the difficulty of detecting food contamination caused by broken seals or unsafe
materials, the team must ensure that the materials used in the lunchbox are food safe.

Customer Feedback
Fifteen customers in the university food court were asked to evaluate the fourth generation
prototype. After a short amount of time to pick up, fold and unfold the prototype, the
customers answered specific questions about the size, durability, and attractiveness of the

10

prototype, as well as general comments. The feedback was largely positive with a number of
similar and repeated concerns. On the positive side, the customers thought Green-To-Go
was an interesting, novel idea that would get some use. On the other hand, most of the
customers pointed out issues that were overlooked in the prototype design.
The two most commonly mentioned issues were leakage and ease of washing. It is very
important to the customer that the lid not leak when the box is full. Therefore, there needs
to be some kind of seal between the lid and the container wall. The team underestimated
the importance of this feature on the original design because the disposable boxes currently
used do not seal shut. However, it turned out that customers were only really interested in a
reusable lunchbox with a sealing lid. After this feedback, a groove on the inside edge of the
lid was added to the final prototype so that the lid and container wall could fit and seal
together. This groove also stabilized the walls and prevented them from collapsing inward.
Customers also worried about cleanliness. They were concerned that a reusable lunchbox
would be a hassle to wash and that the Mylar lining would remain oily. The team considered
adding an extra-thin polypropylene layer on top of the Mylar to help mitigate this. The
benefits of polypropylene over Mylar were not as high as expected and the team did not
follow the idea. However, for mass production, a thin polyethylene coating on to the inside
of the box, such as is often used in food packaging, could protect the Mylar layer and make it
easier to clean.

Final Prototype
Lid:
Box:

Outer - Polypropylene (0.75mm)

Inner lining - Thin aluminium sheet
Outer - Polypropylene (0.2mm)
Rigid pieces - Polypropylene (0.75mm)
Inner lining - Thin aluminium sheet

Figure 5. Final prototype.

11

Final Product
Manufacturing
The final prototype uses proof-of-concept materials to demonstrate the look, feel, and
functionality of the Green-To-Go Box. When producing the product for market, the team
would make several design adjustments to take advantage of the increased capabilities of
mass manufacturing. The main body of the Green-To-Go box would be made by injection
molding. Injection molding, which involves forming liquid plastic inside a mold, is suitable
for making cheap, detailed parts at high production runs. Injection molding would cut down
on assembly by creating the box as a single polypropylene part. Instead of thick panels
glued to thin hinges, the body would be one piece of plastic, with a larger wall thickness at
the panels and smaller wall thickness at the hinges. After molding, the polypropylene body
would be fitted with a Mylar lining. For real-world production the Mylar would be coated
with a thin layer of polyethylene, a polymer commonly used to coat foil in food packaging, to
increase durability.
Injection molding would also allow higher tolerance details to be added to the design. The
team designed a snap closure, integrated with the box and lid, which would eliminate the
extra elastic band and provide a tighter lid fit. This feature could easily be added to an
injection mold. Figure 6 shows the snap-on lid design with the box both open and closed.
During manufacturing, a low density polyethylene (LDPE) seal would also be molded onto
the inside edge of the lid. LDPE is an inexpensive polymer which is commonly used as a seal
on food storage containers.

Figure 6. Product Design for Market.

12

Cost Evaluation
Since the raw material cost of polypropylene is about $1 per pound (0.45kg), the material
costs for one Green-To-Go box would be around $0.25 per piece. Online injection molding
quotes placed total tooling cost at $40,000 and labor and production costs at less than $1
per part. For a normal injection molding production run, the manufacturing cost of the
polypropylene body would be between $1 and $3, as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Cost Evaluation
Number produced

25,000 boxes

50,000 boxes

100,000 boxes

Tooling cost per part

$1.60

$0.80

$0.40

Labor and material cost per part

$1.05

$1.05

$1.05

Total cost per part

$2.65

$1.85

$1.45

Waste Reduction
One of the customer needs for the Green-To-Go box was the need for the product to reduce
waste. To measure how well the product met this need, the team had to create a waste
reduction model. Locals were interviewed to gather data about the number of disposable
takeaway given out by hawkers and the total number of hawker stalls. A survey of hawkers
at one centre indicated that from 40 to 60 boxes are given out at an average stall per day,
and other research revealed that there are between 6,000 and 15,000 hawker stalls in
Singapore. From these numbers, the Dream Team took the low estimates to calculate the
number of polystyrene takeaways thrown out every day. The calculations and assumptions
can be seen in Appendix C. Waste savings from the Green-To-Go box were based on a
participation percentage. If 10% disposable box users used a Green-To-Go box, 200 metric
tonnes of polystyrene waste would be eliminated per year; at 100% use, almost 1800
tonnes. As shown in Figure 7, more waste would be eliminated as the participation
percentage increased. According to the model, to achieve the teams target of 500 metric
tonnes of waste saved per year, 25% of the current market would need to use the product.

Figure 7. Waste Reduction Projection.

13

Closing the Loop

The Dream Team closed the loop in the design process by learning and making changes
with every design iteration of Green-To-Go. Each prototype used new materials and design
features to satisfy a product need. The first prototypes explored the problem of how to fold
up the box easily. The next generation prototypes solved this problem but introduced new
problems. Some prototypes had incorrect folded dimensions, while others had problems
with strength and stability of the materials or leakage from the lid. The final prototype
folded up nicely, used what the team felt were the best possible prototyping materials, and
was the best solution so far to minimize leakage. Even on the final prototype, the team still
saw the possibility for improvements. The loop is never quite done being closed.
To see how well the Green-To-Go box satisfied the original customer needs, the team
referred back to the target functional specifications which were defined for the product. The
results of the functional tests, as well as outside research, were compared to the target
specifications, as shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Closing the Loop.

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Metric
Styrofoam waste eliminated
Folded Length
Folded Width
Folded height
Max temperature
Maximum carry load
Maximum top load
Leak-proof
Time necessary to fold/unfold
Insulation R-Value
Cost of production
Unfolded Volume
Aesthetic design
Notes:
*Maximum value (100% participation)

Target
Specification
1,000
14.00
10.50
3.00
100
2.5
7.00
yes
8.0
0.65
$20
3,000
yes

Tested/
Researched
Value
4733*
13.97
10.16
2.60
130
2.5
7.04
yes
6.9
0.75
$1 - $3
1,400
yes

Unit
Kg/day
cm
cm
cm
C
Kg
Kg
sec
m^2*K/(W*in)
S$
cubic cm
-

The Green-To-Go box performed well and met the target for every specification. The
prototype met some of the targets absolutely and some theoretically. Some metrics, like
volume and maximum load, could be measured absolutely through physical testing. Other
metrics were met in theory but depended on variables that could not be physically tested.
Some of these values, like aesthetic desirability, depend on the finished design; some, like
cost of production, depend on the manufacturing; and others, especially waste reduction,
depend heavily on marketing and customer response. However, both the absolute and
theoretical values met the target specifications, demonstrating that the Green-To-Go box
has evolved to meet the teams original list of needs.

14

Conclusion
Government Initiatives
The success of Green-To-Go depends greatly on how it is marketed to and implemented
with hawker centre customers. Ideally, government initiatives to further encourage the use
of such environmental products could promote the use of the Green-To-Go box. Some ideas
include:
Dispensing machines for Green to-Go
Hawker centres can be fitted with dispensing machines for Green-To-Go boxes upon
approval from the National Environment Agency (NEA). This will let customers know that
the product exists, and allow them to purchase Green-To-Go boxes conveniently when they
visit the hawker centre.
Food discounts for customers who bring their own takeout boxes
Currently, most vendors charge their customers twenty cents for every disposable takeout
polystyrene box. The government can collaborate with the hawkers to come out with a
scheme to issue discounts on food purchased when they bring their own food containers for
takeout.
Penalize vendors who use disposable dishes even for dine-in customers
The NEA could impose a penalty for stalls that choose to use disposable cutlery even for
dine-in customers. With this penalty, stalls will be encouraged to use reusable cutlery and
utensils and reduce on polystyrene usage.

Recommendations for Future Design

As shown, the Green-to-Go box has the potential to eliminate a large amount of waste. If
people substitute the traditional polystyrene box with this new container, the environment
would much better off. At the moment, the Dream Team has several ideas for improving the
design of the Green-To-Go box. A more watertight seal on the lid, along with a snap closure
as shown in Figure 6 above, are the first improvements to implement. The team would also
like to make the inside surface of the box easier to clean, perfect the hinge on the lid, and
play with the aesthetic design and color of the outside surface. The Dream Team is open for
further design changes and improvements which could make Green-To-Go even more
appealing and marketable to customers.

15

16

Yes

3,000 cubic cm

$20

0.65 m^2*K/(W*in)

8.0 seconds

Yes

7.0 Kg

2.5 Kg

100 C

3.00 cm

10.50 cm

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Folded Length
Folded Width
Folded height
Max. temperature
Max. carry load
Max. top load
Leak-proof
Time necessary to fold/unfold
Insulation R-Value
Cost of production
Unfolded Volume
Aesthetic design (yes/no)

#
1

Metric
Styrofoam waste eliminated

Customer Need
container reduces amount of disposable waste in hawker centers
container is portable
container is durable
container is easy to use
container retains heat of food
container is affordable
container introduces minimal cultural/lifestyle change
container design is aesthetically pleasing

14.00 cm

1000 kg/day

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Specification

Appendix A. Functional Specifications Matrix

Appendix B. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

1
3
5
7
9

Severity
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
High
Very High

1
3
5
7
9

SCALE
Occurrence
Negligible likelihood
Low likelihood
Moderate likelihood
High likelihood
Inevitable occurrence

1
3
5
7
9

Detection
Very high certainty
High certainty
Moderate certainty
Low certainty
No certainty

17

Appendix C. Waste Savings Model

Waste Reduction Per Day Based on Percent Participation

Containers Styrofoam Containers Styrofoam Containers
Styrofoam
Saved per Saved per Saved per Saved per Saved in
Saved in
Percent
Stall
Stall (kg)
Centre Centre (kg) Singapore Singapore (kg)
10%
4
0.07
228
4.19
25764
473.30
20%
8
0.15
456
8.38
51528
946.59
30%
12
0.22
684
12.57
77292
1419.89
40%
16
0.29
912
16.75
103056
1893.19
50%
20
0.37
1140
20.94
128820
2366.49
60%
24
0.44
1368
25.13
154584
2839.78
70%
28
0.51
1596
29.32
180348
3313.08
80%
32
0.59
1824
33.51
206112
3786.38
90%
36
0.66
2052
37.70
231876
4259.68
100%
40
0.73
2280
41.88
257640
4732.97

Annual Savings

%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Styrofoam
Saved in
Singapore
(tonnes)
173
346
518
691
864
1037
1209
1382
1555
1728

Model Assumptions:
avg. of 40 containers used per stall per day
avg. mass of styrofoam container (0.0405 lbs.)
avg. 57 stalls per center (over 6,000 total)
total 113 hawker centers in Singapore

18

References
DuPont Teijin Films. (2014). Mylar polyester film. Retrieved from
http://usa.dupontteijinfilms.com/informationcenter/downloads/Physical_And_Thermal_Pr
operties.pdf
European Aluminium Association. (2013, Jun 11). Aluminium - Advantages and Properties of
Aluminium. Retrieved from http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1446
Impex Global, LLC. (2014). Polyester film (BOPET). Retrieved from
http://www.impexfilms.com/products/bopet.html
Lim, J. (2013, May 9). Dining out - Singaporeans are region's top spenders. Retrieved from
http://www.asianewsnet.net/Dining-out--Singaporeans-are-regions-top-spenders46482.html
National Environment Agency. (2013). Location of Hawker Centres. Retrieved from
http://data.gov.sg/common/search.aspx?q=hawker%20centres&s=default&cs=1&page=1
Remember Singapore. (2012, Aug 27). Singapores Vanished Markets and Hawker Centres.
Retrieved from http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/singaporesvanished-markets-and-hawker-centres/
Sapa Profiles UK Ltd. (2014). Properties of aluminium. Retrieved from
http://www.aluminiumdesign.net/why-aluminium/properties-of-aluminium/
Shin-Etsu Silicone. (2012, June). Characteristic Properties of Silicone Rubber Compounds.
Retrieved from http://www.silicone.jp/e/catalog/pdf/rubber_e.pdf
The Free Library. (2014). An overview of silicone rubber. Retrieved from
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+overview+of+silicone+rubber.-a0105557239
Todd, J. (2014). What is polypropylene. Retrieved from
http://composite.about.com/od/Plastics/a/What-Is-Polypropylene.htm
UL. (2014). Polypropylene (PP) Plastic. Retrieved from
http://plastics.ides.com/generics/39/polypropylene-pp

19