The Plastic Dilemma: Another Perspective

In response to ever mounting criticism which the plastic industry is receiving presently, we would like to
offer an insiders alternative outlook, from within the industry, on the present situation along with
constructive propositions which have the potential to bring about tangible change.
Barely a day passes by without plastic making headline news. One such topic, receiving ever mounting
criticism, regards the supply and consumption of “one trip” plastic containers and the associated huge
quantities of used plastic which are going to landfill as opposed to recycling. As consumers, we are all
rightfully concerned at this ever increasing problem and the perceived lack of progress to tackle the issue.
As public awareness increases so does pressure on retailers, brand owners, sorters, government (local and
national), polymer producers, polymer converters, recyclers and all other linked supply chains. Whilst we
see this as excellent in motivating change, due to widespread misinformation surrounding this topic by
the media and other interested parties, we have huge concerns that ‘knee jerk’ responses are being
prompted which could actually compound the issues and exacerbate rather than solve. These are
decisions which should, and must not, be taken lightly as they will go on to have significant impacts on
our environment, economy, health and wellbeing.
To explore this topic we must first look at what plastic packaging has given continues to offer and enable in
our society and our ever growing population;

 Ensures the safe and hygienic transportation of our foods globally

 Has heavily contributed to the reduction in outbreaks of food contamination and poisoning, making
it virtually a thing of the past in much of the western world
 Has enabled a truly global network of food supply
 Greatly reduces food waste through the protection of foods from physical damage and air, thereby
enabling modified atmosphere packaging
 Has a comparatively small carbon footprint vs alternative packaging types, which on average,
require 80% more cumulative energy to produce (even those which are considered ‘green’
alternatives)
 It is lightweight, robust and less costly to transport than alternatives
 Provides a robust medium for the supply of clean water and sanitation, without which these
services would be greatly compromised in large swathes of the developing world.

We therefore refute the villainisation that plastics are receiving and argue instead that it is our dealing
with plastics at end of life, which could be much improved…..
Many headline solutions suggest the replacement of plastics with other materials, with little thought being
given to any associated issues or detrimental consequences that might result from changing to them, do
they truly offer the same benefits, but without any of the limitations / end of life considerations? We are
yet to see any tangible evidence which supports this as a sensible, pragmatic and scalable solution.
To further fuel the misinformation being circulated, arguments are being exacerbated by misguided and
ill-informed quotations that suggest either:

 a lot of non-polymer materials are recyclable – when in fact they are not
 various polymers are not easily recyclable, when in fact they are
Similarly, little thought has been given to the effectiveness of these “new” alternatives and the
environmental impact they might make. We all have a responsibility to correct these erroneous statements
and inaccurate claims to ensure the best and most sustainable possible outcomes.
Plastic packaging has given us many benefits over the years and can continue to fulfil the roles to which it’s
so admirably suited. In order to continue to meet the needs of society and that of its future we must
acknowledge this and continue to develop innovative, appropriate plastic products to meet new and
greater challenges.
However, there is a major obstacle which has yet to be systematically and consistently addressed,
composed of the following two elements which cannot be viewed in isolation:
1. the consistent designing of polymer applications for end of life reuse
2. a reliable, scalable, cohesive and consistent approach towards the separation of mixed, post-
consumer waste, across all geographic areas, thereby strategically maximising our recycling
potential and minimising landfill
Plastics can be recycled into new products [including packaging] and we already recycle thousands of
tonnes of plastic per year but, realistically, this can only happen where both of the above points are
addressed, something we are finding that we too often are failing at, resulting in polymer which
theoretically could be reused ending up at landfill. Do the solutions to this issue already exist though?

If we can recycle the plastic from packaging we would significantly reduce the amount that goes to landfill
and produce a valuable feedstock source. Both of these are admirable goals, which will meet the
requirements of the Bruntland Sustainability Report of 1992 and will also make a significant contribution to
the last two goals of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, tackling pollution
and the health of the land, sea and air. It will also meet increasing consumer demands to reduce the
quantity of scrap “one trip” packaging.
The figures in the latest UK Household Plastic Collection Survey [2017] produced by Recoup are often
quoted in the press or used in articles advising of recycling rates or targets. The survey states that 45% of
the plastic packaging placed onto the market in the UK is collected for recycling. This begs two further
questions:
1. How can we strategically increase the proportion of plastic which ends up being sent / collected for
recycling?
2. If this figure includes the black plastic collected, that we are told is not recyclable, are we to assume
that the true quantity of plastic actually recycled is significantly less than the tonnage claimed?
Surely, if all the collected plastics were recyclable, without the adverse publicity of the constant debate
that the black plastic attracts, the incentive to recycle plastics would be greater? This would both help to
improve the collection figure as well as increase the yield of recycled material.
So, how can we sort mixed plastic waste effectively? The use of Near Infra-Red [NIR] spectrography
together with high speed identification algorithms is a highly efficient, accurate and consistent method of
sorting mixed plastic waste by polymer types. Operating within the 700 -2400 nm wavelengths, the major
packaging polymers can be readily identified. This technology is already used for the reclamation of PET
bottles and some other clear plastics.
Coupled with additional optical sorting methods, plastics can also be sorted by colour as well as polymer
types. Operating at over 96% accuracy NIR sensor technology can quickly and effectively identify and sort
all the primary types of plastics commonly found in post-consumer, kerbside recycling more accurately
than any other sorting technology. The main issue with this process is that if the plastic is coloured and the
colourant in the package absorbs, rather than reflects, NIR then the sorter is unable to identify the
“signature” from the spectrophotometer. Hence the misguided concerns about black plastic being
unrecyclable.
For humans the waveband of the visible spectrum is between 390 to 700nm. We refer to this simply as
‘light’, and it is this light that is responsible for the colours we see. A colour that absorbs all these
wavelengths appears black and conversely one that reflects them all appears white. A colour that absorbs
some wavelengths but reflects other light with a narrow band wavelength of will appear coloured. The
apparent colour is dependent on the wavelength of the reflected light and in the case of black, carbon
black the most common black pigment, all light, both in the visible and the IR is absorbed.
Pigments are selected for their strong absorption and reflectance characteristics in the visible spectra.
Although wavelengths lower than 380nm [ultra violet] and above 700nm [infra-red] are not visible to the
human eye, pigments also behave in the same fashion in these parts of the spectrum as they do in the
visible i.e. some wavelengths are reflected and others absorbed. This does not affect our perception of the
colour in the visual spectrum. We need to understand how they behave in these regions if we are to use
these parts of the spectra in other ways.

The particular interest for sorting post-consumer plastic waste is the absorbance in the higher
wavelengths, especially in the near infra-red. We want to utilise these wavelengths to identify the polymer
and so the spectrophotometer must not be inhibited by the choice of the colourant in the plastic. If we
can reduce the absorption of this IR scanning radiation by using non-absorbing or IR reflective [IRR]
pigments this will make detection possible, easier or more accurate. So, in this instance we are using
pigments to impart additional properties to the product without changing the colour, this is defined as
using a “Functional Pigment”. Infrared Reflective Pigments have been altered, physically and chemically, to
reflect infrared radiation while still absorbing the same wavelengths of visible light, thus appearing visually
as the same colour as non IR reflective pigments. This will allow them to be sorted using NIR technology.
A major inhibitor of sorting is carbon black and its exceptional ability to absorb light energy in the visual,
ultra violet and infrared spectra, which makes black plastics [and any other carbon black containing
colours] impossible to sort using NIR techniques. Back in 2011 Colourtone Masterbatch worked with a
WRAP sponsored project that addressed this problem and developed a solution that overcame all the
technical issues. This is proven technology and has been readily available since then [see WRAP report:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Recyclability%20of%20black%20plastic%20packaging.pdf ]

There was a pilot trial undertaken in the South East of England which was successful, reported by WRAP in
2013:-
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/In_market_trial_to_prove_recycling_process_for_black_CPET_tr
ays_case_study.pdf
Retailers and waste management companies are aware of these proven developments. Why haven’t
they been introduced on a wider scale? Why has there been a continuous refusal about the possibility of
introducing sortable black plastics and instead persist in promoting introduction of extreme, unproven
options?
Under the Courtaulds 3 Commitment of 2013, signed by the major UK retailers, committed themselves to
improve packaging design to:-

 Help consumers reduce waste

 Make it easier to recycle
 Increase recycled content
 Ensure there is no increase in total carbon impact of packaging. This could mean an average reduction
in carbon intensity per pack of a further 3%.

One of the three key targets of this commitment was:-

Improve packaging design through the supply chain to maximise recycled content as appropriate, improve
recyclability and deliver product protection to reduce food waste, while ensuring there is no increase in the
carbon impact of packaging by 2015.

One has to question why this option was not pursued and other less environmentally friendly
alternatives have instead been proposed?
Development timeline:

One reason has been attributed to the cost of this alternative, non carbon black, colouring solution. Since
the original studies there have however been recent developments with the NIR detectable solutions that
have significantly reduced the additional cost associated with these products (over 60% reduction over the
costs quoted in the original Wrap report, bringing the price to an economic 0.21 pence per tray). Improved
colour and better coverage are also available. However, the mixing of functional pigments to achieve non
black colours that are infra-red reflective in the areas we are using to sort them is significantly more
complicated.

There is a common belief that just removing carbon black from the colour formulation, or reducing it
below a threshold value, will ensure colours are detectable. Like many beliefs there is an element of truth
in this but it is only part of the problem. NIR detectable colours do need to be formulated without carbon
black. Having a “safe” threshold quantity places a large responsibility on the packaging suppliers to ensure
this threshold level is not accidently exceeded so as to make the product unsortable. The only “safe”
solution is to ensure all colours are carbon black free.
However, the problem is significantly more complex than this. As we mentioned earlier all pigments absorb
and reflect in the NIR region. For a pigment not to inhibit NIR sorting it must not absorb the critical
wavelengths where detection takes place. Many colours are made from combinations of pigments, four or
five is not uncommon, so we must look at the overall absorbance and reflection in the near infra-red of the
composite colour as each pigment will have an overall effect on the performance of the composite colour.
One could possibly have a situation where a colour utilising a number of pigments, all having the individual
ability to be sortable, could absorb so much across a wide IR band that the resultant colour affects or
inhibits sorting. Combinations of pigments can result in a lower degree of reflectance than one might
expect. One needs to be aware of this and all colours need to be tested prior to introduction.
This brings us to the final part of this presentation, “How do I know that my product is NIR sortable?”
A very simple test for thin wall containers is the “TV Controller” test where the container is placed over a
standard TV remote [which utilises IR to send messages to the TV] and then operated.

If the controller fails to operate the TV then the container absorbs IR and is not NIR sortable

It’s our belief that one day all plastic items can be recovered for recycling, either by kerbside collection or
taken to a specialised recycling centre, even our old patio furniture! There is already one UK supplier now
making NIR sortable horticultural containers in anticipation of this day. It does seem ridiculous that one
puts old domestic plastic products in the landfill bin yet we sort plastic packaging for recycling! If designing
for end of life became a mandatory part of the plastic component design criteria then the amount of
plastic recycled would significantly increase and we would be taking advantage of the sustainable benefit
of plastics.
It may be that we have to adopt different attitudes to the incorporation of reprocessed materials into
components. We might need to develop new products to use these new feedstocks? Some products may
need to be over engineered if it presents a good outlet for the sudden surfeit of recycled packaging
materials? We have the technology to reprocess these materials back to a performance specification; one
challenge will be to find markets for them all.
The plastic industry has met many challenges over the last 50 years and it is only right that we all
contribute to meet this one with the same commitment and innovative approach that has been employed
successfully in so many ways.

For more information please contact Tony Gaukroger:

Email: AGAUKROGER@aol.com
Phone: 07971 000495