CONFORMABLE WIPES CONTAINER WITH ENHANCED MOISTURE RETENTION

Abstract

A wipes container with side walls including pleats so that the wipes container is collapsible. A collapse force is required to collapse the container body. A cover is sealed to the container body. The seal has a seal thickness and a seal strength. The wipes container has a combination index of 200,000 or less, where the combination index is calculated based on the following equation: combination index=(collapse index) (recovery index) (moisture loss index), where collapse index=((collapse force)/(side wall thickness))(1,000), recovery index=((1−% recovery of original height)/(side wall thickness))(1,000), and moisture loss index=[((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/(seal strength))+((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/seal thickness))](10).

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to containers for wipes, and in particular to collapsible containers for wet wipes.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A wipes container according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention comprises: a container body comprising side walls and a bottom wall that define a container opening, the side walls h comprising pleats so that the wipes container is collapsible from a first wipes storage configuration in which the wipes container has an original height to one or more second wipes storage configurations in which the wipes container has one or more corresponding second heights that are less than the original height, a collapse force being required to collapse the container body from the original height to a fully reduced height; and a cover disposed over the container opening, the cover being sealed to the container body and comprising a lid that provides access to the container opening, the seal having a seal thickness and a seal strength, wherein the wipes container has a combination index of 200,000 or less, where the combination index is calculated based on the following equation: combination index=(collapse index) (recovery index) (moisture loss index), where collapse index=((collapse force)/(side wall thickness)) (1,000), recovery index=((1−% recovery of original height)/(side wall thickness)) (1,000), and moisture loss index=[((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/(seal strength))+((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/seal thickness))](10).

In an exemplary embodiment, the collapse index is within the range of 0 to 1,000.

In an exemplary embodiment, the recovery index is within the range of 0 to 20.

In an exemplary embodiment, the moisture loss index is within the range of 0 to 10.

In an exemplary embodiment, the moisture loss of the wipes container over a 20 day period is less than 6%.

In an exemplary embodiment, the seal strength is at least 10 in. of Hg.

In an exemplary embodiment, the seal thickness is within the range of 15 to 80 mils.

In an exemplary embodiment, the side walls have a thickness within the range of 10 to 40 mils.

In an exemplary embodiment, the cover has a thickness within the range of 5 to 40 mils.

In an exemplary embodiment, the collapse force is within the range of 0 to 10 lbf.

These and other features of this invention are described in, or are apparent from, the following detailed description of various exemplary embodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The above and related objects, features and advantages of the present invention will be more fully understood by reference to the following, detailed description of the preferred, albeit illustrative, embodiment of the present invention when taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a wipes container according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a planar view of a portion of a side wall of the wipes container of FIG. 1 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention;

FIGS. 3A and 3B show conventional wipe containers.

FIGS. 4A-4E are side profile views of the container of FIG. 1 in use; and

FIG. 5 is a top planar view of the container of FIG. 1.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT(S)

Conventional wipes packages are susceptible to moisture loss before they reach an end user, and also after the wipes package is opened. This moisture loss may be quite substantial over time, and since one to two years may pass before wipes packages are used by a consumer, conventional wipe packages have a certain acceptable usable “shelf life” timeline. Elevated temperatures increase the level of moisture loss both before opening and after the package is opened and stored. Storing a wet wipes package for more than the “shelf life” or in an environment in which there are elevated temperatures (for example, in a hot warehouse or automobile) typically results in drying out of the wipes to an unacceptable level within the package. That is, the wet wipes within the package transform over time into non-usable “dry wipes”. Therefore, containing the most amount of moisture in the package is very important before opening and use, as well as after the package is opened.

Conventional soft packs somewhat address the “dry wipes” issue by offering a more air tight product, but the moisture retention exhibited by these types of containers are still not at the level required to achieve extended shelf life and an acceptable level of moisture during the use of the pack. Further, a conventional soft pack tends to take on a sloppy appearance as the wipe stack is reduced in height as wipes are removed from the pack.

FIG. 1 shows a container, generally designated by reference number 1, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. The container 1 may be referred to herein as a “hybrid tub” or “hybrid wipes container”. The container 1 is generally rectangular in shape, but of course may have any other suitable shape, and includes a bottom wall 10 and a plurality of side walls 12 that define a storage opening 14 for storing flexible sheets, such as, for example, wet wipes. The bottom wall 10 and side walls 12 are preferably formed as an integral unit, for example, as a molded one-piece element. The side walls 12 define a lip 16 that extends around the storage opening 14. The container 1 also includes a cover 18 disposed over the storage opening 14. As described in further detail below, an air tight seal is formed between the outer edge portions of the cover 18 and the lip 16 so that the container maintains the moisture content of the wipes with an enhanced shelf life compared to conventional wipes packages. The cover 18 also includes a wipes dispenser opening 20 that provides access to the wipes stored in the container 1 and a lid 22 disposed over the wipes dispenser opening 20. The various elements of the container 1 are preferably made of a flexible plastic material, such as, for example, synthetic, recycled synthetic and natural polymers. Exemplary materials for the container elements include, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, high-density polyethylene (HDP) and polylactide (PLA).

As more clearly shown in FIG. 2, the side walls 12 include a number of pleats 24. Each pleat 24 extends continuously around the perimeter of the container 1. The pleats 24 allow the height of the container 1 to be adjusted between an original height and a number of reduced heights. In this regard, the container 1 may include any number of pleats 24. It should be appreciated that the pleats provide a continuum of reduced heights between the original height and the smallest compressed height.

For comparison, FIGS. 3A and 3B show conventional wipe containers. In particular, FIG. 3A shows a conventional hard wipe container 100 and FIG. 3B shows a conventional soft pack wipe container 200. The hard wipe container 100 includes a removable cover 110, and is not compressible in the sense that a user can not press down on the hard wipe container 100 to reduce its height. The soft pack wipe container 200 is compressible, but as shown in FIG. 3B, the soft pack wipe container 200 does not hold its shape while being compressed.

FIGS. 4A-4E are side planar views of the container 1 showing operation of the container 1 as wipes are removed. In FIG. 4A, the container 1 is shown as initially available to a user, where the container 1 is at an original height h1. FIGS. 4B-4C show the container 1 after the lid 22 is opened to gain access to the wipes. As the wipes are used and the wipes stack height is reduced, the container 1 may be compressed in order for the user to grasp the top wipe in the stack. The opened lid 22 allows air within the container 1, which otherwise remains sealed by the cover 18, to be released, which in turn allows the container 1 to be compressed. The rush of air through the wipes dispenser opening 20 as the container 1 is compressed results in the top wipe in the wipes stack being pulled/pushed upwards towards the wipes dispenser opening 20. This feature of the container 1 is referred to in the present disclosure as “self-threading”. Self-threading will occur when there is a sufficient volume of air inside the package. In this regard, it has been found that at least 33 cu. in. of air is required in order for self-threading to occur. In particular, when the container 1 is provided with a conventional wipes dispenser opening, which is basically an oval shape with an open area of 1.1 sq. in., and a wipes stack made up of 70 wipes, the container 1 yields a self-threading capability beginning at wipe 30. Self-threading also occurs at wipe 30 when the opening is a 1 in. by 1 in. square opening (1 sq. in.), at wipe 40 when the opening is a 2 in. by 2 in. square opening (4 sq. in.), and at wipe 60 when the opening is 4 in. by 4 in. square opening. In contrast, a conventional hard pack does not provide self-threading because of its inability to be collapsed, and the conventional soft pack will not provide self threading because the soft pack would need to be manually expanded from a collapsed configuration in order for any type of threading to occur (i.e., the soft pack does not “self-thread”).

The lid 22 may be a label including adhesive that allows the label to be removed and re-applied to expose and cover the opening 20. The use of a label provides a substantially air-tight seal over the opening 20 when the container 1 is not in use. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 4D, once the container 1 is reduced to a desired height h3, the lid 22 may be closed, resulting in the container 1 once again being in a substantially air tight configuration and the container 1 being held at the height h3. In contrast, the cover of a conventional hard pack is not sealed to the side walls of the pack but is instead constructed so as to be easily removed and replaced using a snap fit connection. Since the container 1 with the label applied is substantially airtight, the container 1 will not expand from its reduced height until the lid 22 is opened. Thus, as compared to conventional “soft-pack” wipes dispensers, the container 1 can be reduced in size for easy storage without compromising shape and aesthetics. Further, conventional rigid wipes containers do not allow the same level of access to stored wipes as that provided by the container 1, and also do not provide the same level of moisture retention. It should be appreciated that the lid 22 of the container 1 is not limited to a label, but any other type of lid may be used, including a hinged lid. The use of a hinged lid does not necessarily provide an airtight seal over the opening 20, but nonetheless, the container 1 can still be reduced in height while generally maintaining its shape and aesthetics.

As shown in FIG. 4E, in order to maintain a consistent appearance, the container 1 retracts when the lid is opened to a height h4 that is the same or approximately the same as its original height h1. In this regard, according to exemplary embodiments of the invention, the container 1 may have a percent recovery within the range of 90%-100% of its original height from each of the reduced heights, and preferably may have a percent recovery of 80% or greater. The percent recovery is determined using the test procedure described herein.

It should be appreciated that the thickness of the side walls 12 is a factor that effects the percent recovery of the container 1. If the thickness of the side walls 12 is too great, the container 1 will not provide appropriate flex to allow a user to easily reduce the height of the container 1, and if the thickness of the side walls 12 is too small, the container 1 will not retract with sufficient spring force to allow the container 1 to return to the same or approximately the same as its original height. In this regard, the thickness of the side walls 12 is preferably within the range of 10-40 mils., and the collapse force is preferably 10 lbf or less. The collapse force is determined using the test procedure described herein.

FIG. 5 is a top planar view of the container 1 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. As shown in this figure, a continuous seal 26 is formed between the cover 18 and the lip 16. The seal 26 may be formed by any suitable sealing method, including, for example, ultrasonic, vibration or heat sealing. The strength of the seal 26 is preferably at least 10 in. of Hg, based on results of the ASTM D3078-02 test standard. The thickness of the seal 2 may be in the range of 15 to 80 mils, where the seal thickness is dependent on the thickness of the side walls 12 that form the lip 16 and the thickness of the cover 18. In this regard, the cover 18 may have a thickness within the range of 5 to 40 mils.

The following examples illustrate the advantages of the present invention:

Example 0

E0

A wipes container was assembled using a thermoformed tub whose sidewalls have a substantially fluted architecture with a nominal lay-flat wall thickness of 20 mils. The container tub was made from a clear polypropylene copolymer (the tub material was a sheet sourced from Spartech Corporation, located in Clayton, Mo., Product Code 120124). The tub is nominally 140 mm wide, 205 mm long, and 70 mm high. The sidewall contains 6 flutes with each flute nominally 3 mm deep (peak to valley) and 8 mm apart (valley to valley). The container's cover is a 12 mil white polypropylene (the cover material was sourced from Spartech Corporation, located in Clayton, Mo., Product Code 112734) and is 140 mm wide and 205 mm long. The cover is sealed to the tub via ultrasonic welding. There is an opening on the cover that is generally centered, oval shaped, and is nominally 32 mm long and 22 mm wide. The opening is sealed with a removable adhesive strip and a “pop-up” lid that is attached via an adhesive. The cover seal strength is 21.7 in. of Hg and has a seal thickness of 32 mils. Collapse force, recovery and percent moisture loss (over a 20 day period) were tested.

The collapse force and percent recovery were measured using the following equipment: IMADA—Force Gauge DPS-44R; Vertical Manual Lever Test Stand; Large Plate Attachment for Force Gauge.

The following steps were performed to determine collapse force:

1) Affix the large plate attachment to the force gauge.

2) Affix the gauge to the vertical manual lever test stand.

3) Turn on the power for the force gauge.

4) Adjust the height of the force gauge on its stand to allow the container being tested to fit directly under the large plate and touching the large plate with zero pressure.

5) Press the “zero button” on the gauge to reset the gauge reading to zero.

6) Press the “peak button” on the gauge to enable the gauge to measure the peak force to collapse a container.

7) Pull down on the lever to compress the container completely (“completely down”).

8) While maintaining the lever in the “completely down” position, record the peak force on the gauge (the collapse force) and prepare for the recovery force test.

The following steps were performed to determine recovery force:

1) With the lever in the “completely down” position, press the “zero button” to reset the gauge reading to zero.

2) Press the “peak button” to enable the gauge to measure the peak force of recovery of a container.

3) Release the lever and let the collapsed container push back upward on the gauge.

4) Record the peak force on gauge (the recovery force).

Recovery force was determined as follows:

1) With the lever in the “completely down” position, press the “zero button” to reset the gauge reading to zero.

2) Press the “peak button” to enable the gauge to measure the peak force of recovery of a container.

3) Release the lever and let the collapsed container push back upward on the gauge.

4) Record the peak force on gauge (the recovery force).

Recovery percentage was determined as follows:

1) Prior to conducting the Collapse Force test procedure, measure and record the initial height of the container.

2) Conduct the Collapse Force test procedure.

3) Conduct the Recovery Force test procedure.

4) Upon completion of the Recovery Force test, measure the “recovered height” of the tested container and record.

5) To calculate the Recovery Percentage apply the following formula:

(Recovered Height/Initial Height)*100=Recovery Percentage

Percent moisture loss was measured using the following equipment: Scale: AND GF-4000; and VWR Model: 1565 Incubator. The following steps were performed:

1) Condition the incubator. Set incubator temperature to 55° C.

2) Determine the initial weight(s). Using a scale, weigh a sample(s) of a stack of wet wipes sealed in its packaging (i.e., tub, soft pack, etc.) and record the result(s).

3) Accelerate Age the Sample(s). Place the sample(s) in the incubator that has achieved 55° C.

4) Evaluate for Moisture Loss. Re-weigh the sample(s) every other week day and record the results (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). Repeat for a period of 20 days to obtain 10 data points.

5) Calculate the Weight Loss. Use the following formula: [(Initial Weight−Re-Weighed Weight)/Initial Weight]*100=Moisture Loss %

Comparative Example 1

CE1

A standard hard wipes container (without accordion pleats) was provided with a side wall thickness of 31 mils, a cover thickness of 38 mils, a snap-on seal strength of 0.5 in. of Hg and a seal thickness of 69 mils (since the standard hard wipes container includes a removable cover, any sealing is achieved through the snap fit connection between the cover and the side walls). The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

Comparative Example 2

CE2

A hard wipes container commercialized by Proctor & Gamble under the Pampers brand (UPC no. 0-37000-28248-8) was provided. The Pampers wipes container has a side wall thickness of 36 mils, a cover thickness of 40 mils, a snap on seal strength of 0.5 in. Hg and a seal thickness of 76 mils (since a hard wipes container includes a removable cover, any sealing is achieved through the snap fit connection between the cover and the side walls). The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

Comparative Example 3

CE3

A wipes container commercialized by Kimberly Clark under the Huggies brand (UPC no. 0-36000-12110-0) was provided. The Huggies wipes container has a side wall thickness of 40 mils, a cover thickness of 32 mils, a snap on seal strength of 1.3 in. of Hg and a seal thickness of 72 mils (since a hard wipes container includes a removable cover, any sealing is achieved through the snap fit connection between the cover and the side walls). The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

Comparative Example 4

CE4

A soft pack wipes container was provided having a side wall thickness of 2.5 mils, a cover thickness of 2.5 mils, a seal strength of 16.4 in. of Hg and a seal thickness of mils. The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

Comparative Example 5

CE5

A soft pack wipes container commercialized by Proctor & Gamble under the Pampers brand (UPC no. 0-37000-50197-8) was provided. The Pampers soft pack has a side wall thickness of 3 mils, a cover thickness of 3 mils, a seal strength of 22 in. of Hg and a seal thickness of 6 mils. The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

Comparative Example 6

CE6

A soft pack wipes container commercialized by Kimberly Clark under the Huggies brand (UPC no. 0-36000-11692-2) was provided. The Huggies soft pack has a side wall thickness of 2 mils, a cover thickness of 2 mils, a seal strength of 19.1 in. of Hg and a seal thickness of 4 mils. The container was subjected to the same test procedures described in Example 0.

The results of these tests are shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1
				D
		B		%		F	G
	A	Average	C	Recovery	E	Seal	Seal
	Cover	Side Wall	Collapse	(of	%	Strength	Thickness
	Thickness	Thickness	Force (in	original	Moisture	(inches	(in mils)
Example	(in mils)	(in mils)	lbs force)	height)	Loss	of Hg)	A + B
E0	12.0	10.0	1.40	98.0%	1.35%	21.7	22.0
CE1	38.0	31.0	100.00	91.0%	22.34%	0.5	69.0
CE2	40.0	36.0	100.00	91.0%	19.23%	0.5	76.0
CE3	32.0	40.0	100.00	91.0%	12.85%	1.3	72.0
CE4	2.5	2.5	0.31	10.0%	4.63%	16.4	5.0
CE5	3.0	3.0	0.34	9.5%	3.85%	22.0	6.0
CE6	2.0	2.0	0.25	23.1%	5.37%	19.1	4.0

In-use moisture loss was also tested for Example 0 and Comparative Examples CE1-CE6 using an AND GF-4000 scale and performing the following steps:

1) Condition the test samples at ambient temperature (approximately 70° F.) for a minimum of 2 hours.

2) Determine the Initial Stack Weight(s): Weigh the full stack of wipes, inside its original sealed packaging, on the scale and record the initial stack weight

3) Open the package and ready the product for use as per the instructions on the package.

4) Determine the Beginning Wipe Average Weight(s): Individually remove the 1st five (5) wipes from the wipes package, place them all on a scale and weigh them as a group to determine the “zero-time” weight. Record the result(s). Close the package as per the instructions on the package.

5) Determine the In-Use Average Wipe Weight(s): Every two (2) hours, up to fourteen (14) hours, individually remove five (5) wipes from the previously used package, weigh them as a group, and record the result(s). Be sure to close the package as per the instructions on the package after every measurement interval.

6) Continue to Determine the In-Use Average Wipe Weight(s): Resume testing twenty-four (24) hours after recording the Beginning Wipe Average Weight. Every two (2) hours, up to thirty-six (36) hours or until all wipes are removed from the package, individually remove five (5) wipes from the previously used package, weigh them as a group, and record the result(s). Be sure to close the package as per the instructions on the package after every measurement interval.

7) Calculate the in-use moisture loss:

Weighed Wipe Weight (in g)=Sum of all wipe weight measurements.

Moisture Lost (in g)=Initial Stack Weight (−) Weighed Wipe Weight

Moisture Lost (in %)=(Moisture Lost/Initial Stack Weight)*100=N %

Moisture Lost Difference vs. Hybrid Tub (in multiples)=Moisture Lost (in %)/Hybrid Tub Moisture Loss (in %)

Average Moisture Lost/Wipe (in g)=Moisture Lost (in g)/Wipe Count (Each)

The results of the in-use moisture loss testing are shown in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2
					Moisture
					Lost
	Beginning	Weighed			Difference
	Wet Stack	Wipe	Moisture	Moisture	vs. Hybrid	Moisture
	Wt	Weight	Lost	Lost	Tub	Loss/Wipe
Example #	(in g)	(in g)	(in g)	(%)	(in multiples)	(g)
E0	525.6	516.0	9.6	1.8%	0.0	0.13
CE1	674.1	621.1	53.0	7.9%	4.3	0.74
CE2	712.3	655.2	57.1	8.0%	4.4	0.79
CE3	688.6	641.2	47.4	6.9%	3.8	0.66
CE4	658.1	634.8	23.3	3.5%	1.9	0.32
CE5	702.1	681.2	20.9	3.0%	1.6	0.29
CE6	655.3	631.1	24.2	3.7%	2.0	0.34

The combination of features of the wipes container according to various exemplary embodiments of the present invention as summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 provide a combination of advantages that is not provided by either the conventional standard wipes container or the conventional soft pack wipes container. For example, both the standard wipes container and the inventive wipes container provide a high percent recovery so as to maintain a consistent presentation, but unlike the standard wipes container, the inventive wipes container also provides high seal strength to prevent moisture loss and allows easy access to the stored wipes by, for example, self-threading. Further, both the soft pack wipes container and the inventive wipes container retain moisture due to high seal strengths, but unlike the soft pack, the inventive wipes container provides a consistent presentation. Also, the inventive wipes container provides relatively low in-use moisture loss as compared to conventional soft and hard packs. For example, conventional hard packs exhibit approximately four times more in-use moisture loss and conventional soft packs exhibit approximately two times more in-use moisture loss as compared to the inventive wipes container.

In order to demonstrate the advantages of the present invention, various indices may be calculated that take into account percent recovery, seal strength, collapse force, side wall thickness and percent moisture loss. In this regard, a combination index may be calculated for each container using Equations 1-4, shown below:

combination index=(collapse index)(recovery index)(moisture loss index),  (1)

where collapse index=((collapse force)/(side wall thickness))(1,000),  (2)

recovery index=((1−% recovery of original height)/(side wall thickness))(1,000), and  (3)

moisture loss index=((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/(seal strength))+((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/seal thickness))  (4)

The results of the combination index calculations for each of the Examples and Comparative Examples is provided below in Table 2:

TABLE 2
	H	I	J	K
	Collapse	Recovery	Moisture	COMBO
	Index	Index	Loss Index	INDEX
Example	C/B	(1 − D)/B	E/F + E/G	H*I*J
E0	140.0	2.0	1.2	346
CE1	3,225.8	2.9	450.0	4,214,713
CE2	2,777.8	2.5	387.1	2,688,405
CE3	2,500.0	2.3	100.6	566,049
CE4	124.0	360.0	12.1	539,393
CE5	113.3	301.8	8.2	279,364
CE6	125.0	384.7	16.2	780,774

In general, it is desirable for a wipes container to exhibit a relatively low collapse index with greater side wall thickness than conventional soft packs, a relatively low recovery index and a relatively low moisture loss index. Table 2 shows that the present invention exhibits a combination index that is much lower than that exhibited by other types of conventional wipes containers as a result of the relatively low collapse, recovery and moisture loss indices. In particular, the wipes container according to various exemplary embodiments of the present invention may have a combination index of less than 200,000, with a collapse index within the range of 0 to 1,000, a recovery index within the range of 0 to 20, and a moisture loss index within the range of 0 to 10.

Now that the preferred embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described in detail, various modifications and improvements thereon will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art. The present embodiments are therefore to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive, the scope of the invention being indicated by the appended claims, and all changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are therefore intended to be embraced therein.

Claims

1. A wipes container comprising:

a container body comprising side walls and a bottom wall that define a container opening, the side walls comprising pleats so that the wipes container is collapsible from a first wipes storage configuration in which the wipes container has an original height to one or more second wipes storage configurations in which the wipes container has one or more corresponding second heights that are less than the original height, a collapse force being required to collapse the container body from the original height to a fully reduced height; and

a cover disposed over the container opening, the cover being sealed to the container body and comprising a lid that provides access to the container opening, the seal having a seal thickness and a seal strength,

wherein the wipes container has a combination index of 200,000 or less, where the combination index is calculated based on the following equation: combination index=(collapse index) (recovery index) (moisture loss index), where collapse index=((collapse force)/(side wall thickness))(1,000), recovery index=((1−% recovery of original height)/(side wall thickness))(1,000), and moisture loss index=[((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/(seal strength))+((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/seal thickness))](10).

2. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the collapse index is within the range of 0 to 1,000.

3. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the recovery index is within the range of 0 to 20.

4. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the moisture loss index is within the range of 0 to 10.

5. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the moisture loss of the wipes container over a 20 day period is less than 6%.

6. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the seal strength is at least 10 in. of Hg.

7. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the seal thickness is within the range of 15 to 80 mils.

8. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the side walls have a thickness within the range of 10 to 40 mils.

9. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the cover has a thickness within the range of 5 to 40 mils.

10. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein the collapse force is within the range of 0 to 10 lbf.

11. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein each of the side walls have a single layer structure.

12. The wipes container of claim 1, wherein each of the side walls are made up of a plurality of layers.

13. A wipes container comprising:

a container body comprising side walls and a bottom wall that define a container opening, the side walls comprising pleats so that the wipes container is collapsible from a first wipes storage configuration in which the wipes container has an original height to one or more second wipes storage configurations in which the wipes container has one or more corresponding second heights that are less than the original height, a collapse force being required to collapse the container body from the original height to a fully reduced height; and

a cover disposed over the container opening, the cover being sealed to the container body and comprising a lid that provides access to the container opening, the seal having a seal thickness and a seal strength,

wherein the wipes container has a collapse index within a range of 0 to 1,000 and a recovery index within a range of 0 to 20, wherein the collapse index=((collapse force)/(side wall thickness))(1,000) and recovery index=((1−% recovery of original height)/(side wall thickness))(1,000).

14. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the wipes container has a moisture loss index within a range of 0 to 10, where the moisture loss index=[((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/(seal strength))+((% moisture loss of wipes container over 20 day period)/seal thickness))](10).

15. The wipes container of claim 14, wherein the moisture loss of the wipes container over a 20 day period is less than 6%.

16. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the seal strength is at least 10 in. of Hg.

17. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the seal thickness is within the range of 15 to 80 mils.

18. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the side walls have a thickness within the range of 10 to 40 mils.

19. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the cover has a thickness within the range of 5 to 40 mils.

20. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein the collapse force is within the range of 0 to 10 lbf.

21. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein each of the side walls have a single layer structure.

22. The wipes container of claim 13, wherein each of the side walls comprise a plurality of layers.