We tested the adhesive strength of six varieties of adhesive bandages with the TA.XT2 Texture Analyzer using a TA-220 Multiple Puncture Fixture with a TA-53 5 mm diameter punch probe.  The bandages tested were 3M's Active Strip Brights Flexible Foam, Curad's Sheer Strips, Sensitive Skin, Neon Strips Flexible Fabric, Payless' Clear Bandages, and Tsumura Int'l's Kid Care Printed Adhesive Batman Bandages.  All bandages were store-bought.

The adhesive sides of each of the bandages were trimmed from the bandages' pad sections, and placed adhesive side facing upwards across the bottom of the TA-220 Multiple Puncture Fixture's openings.  These adhesive sections of the bandages were firmly, but not too taut, placed across the openings.  The TA-52 puncture probe was consistently positioned approximately 3 mm over the adhesive bandages within the fixture's openings.

During the test the probe traveled until it the surface detection feature detected the bandage at 10 grams of force, at which point it applied 150 grams of force onto the adhesive bandages at a speed of 2.0 mm/second for a period of 10 seconds.  The probe withdrew 10 mm at 5.0 mm/second.

The below graphs are each the average of ten test replicates.  The portion of the curve where the bond was made has been cropped in order to highlight the bandages' debonding behaviors, which are clearly well differentiated.

Comparative Results:  TTests confirm that the graphically apparent results are statistically significant.  The Kid Care brand demonstrated the most adhesive strength (peak force, total work).  3M's Flexible Foam was the most flexible in that its hold on the probe continued for the longest distance.  The least adhesive (peak force and total work) was Curad's Sensitive Skin bandage. 
Conclusion:  The tests indicate that the TA.XT2 Texture Analyzer can be used to quantify the adhesive strength as well as a variety of other adhesive characteristics of adhesive bandages and similar products.

The fixture we used was the TA-305 Peel Test Rig. The TA-305 (illustrated below) has a free flowing stainless steel wheel with a polished surface.  The wheel is 3/4" (19.05 mm) wide and has a radius of 50.8 mm and a diameter of 319.2 mm.  The wheel is mounted on a ball bearing to ensure a resistance-free roll.  The upper end of the tape is held with a TA-96T adjustable grip, with a 3/4" deep and 1 1/4" wide face.

The tapes were unwound directly onto the wheel from the rolls using a light amount of tension, and ensuring that the tape was evenly applied.  In the event the tape deviated from an even application, the entire tape was re-applied after the wheel was wiped cleaned with a paper towel damp with alcohol cleaner and then wiped dry with a second paper towel (cleaning also applied between tests).  The last 1/2" of tape was folded over itself and placed into the TA-96T grip and the grip was fastened finger tight.  Apparent slack in the tape was taken up by raising the cross arm slightly.

Test Protocol. The grip traveled upward at 1.0 mm/second until any remaining slack was taken up until 12 grams of force was detected.  At that point the grip traveled upward for 120 mm at a speed of 3.0 mm/second.  The grip returned to its starting point at a rate of 10.0 mm/second. Data was collected at 25 points per second (the Texture Expert software can collect data as slowly as 0.10 points per second to as fast as 500 pps).

The brands of masking tapes tested were: 3M's Scotch brand Professional Grade Painter's Masking Tape, 3M's Scotch brand Long Mask Blue Masking Tape, 3M's Scotch brand Drafting, and Ace Hardware's Masking Tape.  All tapes were purchased at a local office supply store.  Two complete rotations of tape were removed from each roll to avoid any "end of roll" effect.

Among the parameters are the following items: (1) the average adhesive force over a particular length of peel travel, (2) the total area of adhesive work for a particular length of peel travel, and (3) the jaggedness of the graph (possibly a function of the evenness of adhesive distribution on the tape, or the strechability / quality of the tapes' backing).

We calculated: item (1) above by using the mean force between -20 m to -100 mm of peel travel, item (2) above by integrating the area under the graph for the same travel range, and item (3) above by counting the number of peaks using force thresholds of 15 grams, 25 grams, and 50 grams. The number of peaks is an indication of the magnitude of jaggedness. All calculations were made on the individual test replicates.

Application Study Conclusions
These peel tests provided very repeatable differentiation between the masking tapes, including the adhesive strength of the tapes (as measured by average forces and integrated areas of work) and the evenness or unevenness of the adhesive pull.  The test results' coefficient of variations (standard deviation divided by the mean) are low relative to adhesive tests on individual locations of a tape (refer to Study I-3W on pressure sensitive tapes). The decreased variability is consistent with this test's design which measures the tape's average adhesive behavior over a particular length.

The relative adhesive strengths of all tapes as measured by the peel test results are consistent with the results of the adhesive tests conducted in Study I-3W.   Because of the decreased variability, the peel tests may provide better differentiation between groups of similar tapes.   Of course, the tests conducted in Study I-3W provide information on other adhesive properties which are not measured with peel tests

The tests presented in this study indicate that the TA.XT2 Texture Analyzer, along with the Texture Expert for Windows  Software, can used to quantify the peel strengths of adhesive tapes (and similar products) in a manner which can provide excellent differentiation between products.