Tag: Plastics

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

The “Plastic Numbers" Get a Makeover

Resin Identification Codes (RICs), also known as the “plastic numbers” or “recycling numbers,” are getting a makeover.

Contrary to popular belief, a RIC does not equal “recyclable.” RICs are plastic identification codes developed in 1988 by SPI. The goal of RICs was to assist recyclers in identifying materials. They were never intended as a consumer communication tool. However, consumers and local recycling programs quickly adapted to use the ubiquitous “recycling numbers,” even as consumer testing continues to show that RICs confuse consumers and they do not understand their meaning.

RICs became an ASTM International standard in 2008. ASTM uses industry consensus via subcommittees to develop standards.

To decouple resin identification from recycling labeling, ASTM International Subcommittee D20.95 on Recycled Plastics approved a switch from chasing arrows to a triangle.

But not so fast.

RICs are required by law in 39 states. Herein lies a speedbump. Each state writes statutes in its own way with its own requirements. Many specifically require numbers with chasing arrows and specific letters.

While the international standard changed, state laws did not. It may take some time before consumers see the change. Meanwhile, companies must navigate between fulfilling the different state statutes or following the new ASTM standard.

Concurrently, GreenBlue’s How2Recycle label continues to take off. How2Recycle is an on-package recycling label that helps companies provide clear recycling instructions to consumers. How2Recycle replaces RICs as a clearer first line of communication with consumers. We anticipate great growth and exciting announcements in the near future.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

How Important Are the Plastic "Numbers" to Recycling?

The relevance of the plastic “numbers”—officially known as the “Resin Identification Codes” or RICs under ASTM D7611—depends on who you ask. Adamant recyclers often believe they are useful, while time and time again both research and anecdotes show that at least half of the population is confused by them, and this confusion can result in recycling stream contamination.
While participating in the ASTM process for the RICs, I found that there is no clear answer as to whether supply chain players actually find the RICs useful. Brand owners and retailers? Not really, as specification requirements for packaging are much more detailed than a number. MRF and recovery facilities? Not really, as lines move too fast for numbers to be identified during hand-picking, and optical sorters certainly don’t use them. Reprocessors? Not really here either, as density and converting technology are more relevant factors. This presents a conundrum: while the RICs were never intended for consumer communication and generally fail at efforts to do so, it seems that consumer communication is the only real potential usefulness of the RICs.
In particular, the widely understood chasing arrows appearing as part of the RIC contribute greatly to the confusion. There has been discussion and pushback on the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR’s) “education without the numbers” campaign (see Plastics News articles here and here for more information), which represents an effort based on solid evidence that shape/format is a much better way to help consumers understand what to recycle. This creates another conundrum, in that certain formats, such as thermoformed clamshells, are made from a variety of resins and thus the differentiation of resin type is often necessary where mixed plastics are not currently accepted. Couple that with the fact that so many local governments and recyclers do educate the general public using the RICs, and the RICs aren’t going away anytime soon.
These conundrums were taken into consideration when the SPC designed the How2Recycle Label. For the “Check Locally” version of the Label—for those materials that have between 20 and 60 percent consumer access—the RIC will likely remain an indicator that local recyclers use to answer recyclability questions regarding packaging bearing this label. The how2recycle.info website includes extensive information on the RICs for consumers, and many people ask us questions on the topic of the RICs through our consumer survey.
Simultaneous to the development of the design of the Label, the SPC became involved in the ASTM group working on RICs and continues to advocate for an upgraded system that replaces the chasing arrows and brings more clarity to issues such as varying types of PET and bio-resins. Neither the SPC or APR are advocating for abandoning the RICs, however their use as a primary communication tool for recyclability is necessarily being questioned. The SPC’s and APR’s tools provide a path forward that allows these communication efforts to peacefully co-exist with an updated version of the RICs.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

How Do We Close the Loop for Non-biodegradable Plant-based Plastic?

You may have seen the recent news that Coca-Cola is ramping up its production of PET made with plant-based glycol instead of petroleum-derived glycol. In the language of sustainability, this would be described as replacing a non-renewable feedstock with a renewable feedstock. This isn’t a new concept for those of us who are immersed in the sustainability community, but this beginning-of-life change introduces a bit of complexity when it comes to the end-of-life for the PET. What does sustainable recovery look like for this material?
Let’s first refresh our memories on the basic concept of sustainable recovery. The SPC’s Definition of Sustainable Packaging refers to both biological closed loop cycles as well as technological closed loop cycles, which are two distinct concepts. The idea behind a biological closed loop cycle is that living things are built from nature’s inputs, and when they die they must give those inputs back to the natural environment. This ensures that nature won’t run out of inputs for new living things–nature’s closed loop, if you will.
Conversely, the idea behind a technological closed loop cycle is that non-living things don’t automatically renew themselves (at least not at a rate that’s anywhere close to being useful), and their use will only be sustainable in the long run if we keep using the finite amount that exists and avoid total depletion. Therefore instead of giving these materials back to nature (“discarding” might be a better word than “giving”), we must keep them in use by people–a technological closed loop.
So what about this PET with its plant-based constituent? The first complexity is that only a portion is plant-based, so the PET is also composed of some things that ought to stay within a technological closed loop. There’s no easy way (yet) to separate the different constituents and put them in their respective preferable recovery systems.
The other complexity is that there must be a mechanism by which the plant-based material may return to nature and participate in the biological cycle. Even if the first complexity were resolved by making PET entirely from plant-based materials (which is not truly possible today, considering all the catalysts and polymer chemistry whatsits that are not made from plants), the PET would still be an inherently non-biodegradable material. While that helps traditional PET stay in the technological cycle, it prevents it from returning to the biological cycle. I wonder, could the always-controversial biodegradability additives finally have a home? Probably not, but it still makes one wonder what the answer would look like.
Fortunately for Coca-Cola, and anyone else who’s thinking big and making major changes to the way packaging is made, innovation is crucial and the “complexities” can usually be worked out in time. Right now we don’t have a perfectly sustainable way of making and recovering plastic at all, regardless of whether it’s made from plants or petroleum. In the long run, it certainly can be argued that plant-based feedstocks are a step in the right direction. To get there, we just have to keep innovating away the complexities.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Oxo-degradables and GreenBlue’s Not-So-Scientific Rooftop Lab

This article is by GreenBlue’s experimenters extraordinaire: Project Manager Adam Gendell and Project Associate Eric DesRoberts.
Back in August 2011 we serendipitously came across an oxo-degradable LDPE film wrap (for those of you who may not be enveloped in packaging lingo, that means it’s a thin piece of plastic with special additives that are activated under prolonged exposure to sunlight and oxygen to make the plastic film decompose into plastic dust, which may then be biodegraded by microbes).
Degradable plastic packaging like this is pretty controversial in the packaging community. In favor of oxo-degradable plastic is the argument that it will cease to persist in the environment if littered. Against oxo-degradables are arguments that the plastic dust is equally hazardous to human and environmental health, that they pose a risk to the plastic recycling stream because they downgrade the durability of the plastic with which they are mixed, and allegations that the degradability additives simply don’t work as advertised.
At GreenBlue we strive to maintain a level head and objective viewpoint, so we decided to conduct a scientific, on-the-ground (okay, on the roof) experiment to test the validity of the latter allegation that oxo-degradable additives don’t work. We did not measure the amount of sunlight and oxygen present, nor did we conduct multiple trials, nor did we use a non-degradable LDPE film as a control. What we did do is open a roof-accessible window in the GreenBlue office, place the film on the roof, throw some rocks on top of it to weigh it down, write down the date on which the “experiment” commenced, and proceeded to forget about it. About a week ago we had noted that 180 days had passed*, so we pulled it back in the office. It looked like this:

The film was definitely still recognizable as its original self, but noticeable fragmentation had indeed occurred. The film was brittle to the touch, and little bits of plastic ranging from quarter-size to dust-size were everywhere as pictured on the sticky note below.

Did we prove or disprove anything? Not really. We successfully littered little bits of plastic on the office roof, so we earnestly hope that they will continue to disintegrate until they are small enough to become a meal for some microorganisms. Our “test” results have suggested to us that this particular oxo-degradable additive works as advertised, and we threw it back out onto the roof for further observation.
It’s possible that the film may in fact disappear one day, but these authors remain skeptical that degradable plastics are a step in the direction of sustainability. After all, that LDPE film was likely made from petroleum resources, of which we only have a limited (and coveted) quantity. Can we find other ways to combat litter so that we can keep that valuable material from becoming dust in the wind?
* 180 days is the standard amount of time in which a compostable plastic is required to disintegrate completely, but oxo-degradable plastic is not intended to be compostable. Oxo-degradable manufacturers acknowledge that the time period necessary for total disintegration is considerably longer than 180 days, so it should not be expected that the film was supposed to have disappeared when we pulled it back in the office.