Coin Cell Terminal Coating That Deters Ingestion Without Conductivity Loss

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Coin cell batteries pose a risk of severe injury and death due to accidental ingestion, as they can cause electrolysis reactions when in contact with bodily fluids, leading to alkaline burns, despite existing anti-swallow features like raised borders and bitter coatings, which do not fully prevent injuries.

Innovation Solution

Electrochemical cells are coated with aversive coatings comprising aversive taste agents like denatonium benzoate, capsaicin, or piperine, combined with water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol, and optional colorants, applied to 2-50% of the terminal area to deter ingestion and provide a visible indication of contact with saliva.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Object-affected harmful factors

If a bitter-tasting coating is applied to the battery surface, then children are deterred from putting the battery in their mouths, but the coating may interfere with electrical conductivity if applied to the terminals

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveingestion riskVSAvoidelectrical conductivity
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The aversive coating is applied selectively to specific regions of the battery exterior that do not compromise terminal conductivity. The coating covers 2% to 50% of the terminal area, strategically positioned to deter ingestion while maintaining electrical function through localized application rather than complete surface coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of coating the entire battery surface, only a partial area (2%-50% of terminal area) is coated with the aversive agent. This partial application provides sufficient deterrent effect while minimizing impact on electrical conductivity, balancing safety requirements with functional performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Object-affected harmful factors

If a raised border is added to prevent swallowing, then the battery becomes harder to swallow, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveswallowing difficultyVSAvoidstructural complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The aversive coating is integrated with the existing battery terminal structure, combining the safety function with the electrical contact surface. This merging approach adds the anti-ingestion feature without requiring separate structural modifications like raised borders, thereby avoiding increased device complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Object-affected harmful factors

If a thick coating is applied to provide strong aversive effect, then the taste deterrent is more effective, but the electrical conductivity is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaversive effect strengthVSAvoidelectrical conductivity
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The coating thickness and coverage are locally optimized to provide strong aversive effect only where needed for safety, while leaving critical conductivity areas thin or uncoated. The selective application to 2%-50% of terminal area ensures sufficient deterrent effect without compromising electrical function.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The coating composition parameters are adjusted to achieve the desired balance between aversive effect and conductivity. By controlling the concentration of aversive agents and binders, and limiting coverage to 2%-50% of terminal area, the coating provides effective deterrence while maintaining adequate electrical conductivity for battery operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The aversive coatings effectively deter children from ingesting the cells and provide a visible signal of ingestion, reducing the risk of alkaline burns by making the cells unpalatable and easily detectable, thus minimizing the severity of potential injuries.

Implementation Method 1

water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol, and optional colorants, applied to 2-50% of the terminal area to deter ingestion and provide a visible indication of contact with saliva

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectWater-soluble dissolution: Solvation

Implementation Method 2

aversive taste agents like denatonium benzoate, capsaicin, or piperine, combined with water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectTaste detection:

Data Source

PatentUS20240421389A1Lithium coin cell batteries with polymer and aversive-agent coating located exterior to the cell to avoid impacting conductivity
Publication Date: 2024.12.19 ENERGIZER BRANDS LLC
  • US20240421389A1 patent drawing
  • US20240421389A1 patent drawing
  • US20240421389A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Provided are electrochemical cells with an aversive coating covering 2% to 50% of an area of an exterior surface of at least one terminal to deter children from eating the electrochemical cells. Described are compositions and methods for applying aversive coatings to specific locations of electrochemical cell terminals.