The existence of Patent info and a cold shoulder.
Hello to you all,
I have recently approached a few companies that claim to have developed a plastic additive for PET bottles, which when added in the production process renders the bottle bio-degradable under landfill conditions. After exhaustive inspections of their well developed websites, as well as many provided links, I have found very little information regarding any patents or patents pending. In a few cases MSDS PDF's are available as well as some testing data, but rarely do they even use the word “patent” or “patented” on the site. Please keep in mind, these are some of the better represented sites when you do a search for biodegradable PET additive.
So, I decided to contact the various companies, providing some background on myself and the significant Asian markets I represented for their respective PET additives. They seemed interested and discussions ensued. I requested general patent and testing documentation, being that my research was to be presented to foreign entities eventually and everything seemed to be on track, until it wasn't. These organizations expressed interest initially and suddenly did an about face. Why??
I probably did something wrong as most engineers do regarding business etiquette, or they felt I was perhaps embellishing a bit regarding my contacts and affiliations. If so wouldn't they have asked questions? Any question at all? Could they have been spooked by the patent request? It just seems strange that they would start to play ball and then decide to take their ball and go home. Any thoughts?
I thank you for your time.
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Biodegradable PET
Alexis
Dear sammysam,
You did perfectly right to ask for documentation (supporting the biodegrability of PET with additives), and I can assure you that you will never receive it because it does not exist.
There are of course additives (mostly Ni and other metal complexes) which initiate photodegradation of polymers (Example: Low PE used for shopping bags). This photodegradation process leads to polymer bond cleavage and degradation and formation of small particles and powders (but never to CO2 and H2O). There are several companies (EPI, ADD-X Biotech, NEOSAC, Symphony Plastics etc) supplying additives which make the polymers (including PET) photo-degradable or OXO-degradable.
But this is by no means a biodegradation process. The standard for characterizing a material compostable or biodegradable is EN 13432. I should add that polymers which are “biodegradable” according to EN 13432 (like PLA) cannot be composted under normal home or community composting conditions (together with kitchen and garden materials). The reason is that in order to transform PLA into CO2 and H2O you must first thermally hydrolyze it into lactic acid. This is the so called industrial composting.
For more information you could contact me by mail stas@otenet.gr
Regards
Alexis Stassinopoulos
PET oxo-biodegradation
MF Stephens
Dear Sammysam,
I agree in part with the comments of Alexis Stassinopoulos. There is lttle evidence of successful oxidative induced degradation of PET. The oxo-biotechnology has many papers and test documents that verify biodegradation of polyethylene and polypropylene. These are simple hydrocarbons and work well for oxo' technology applications. Howeve, the complex nature of a polyester like PET is a different kettle of fish. We are working on it -but it is not easy.
Where I differ with Alex is in regards to definitions of biodegradation. The hydro- degradable industry has successfully lobbied to get the term compostable synonymous with biodegradabilty. This is not the case, in fact items such as leaves and wood and paper ( considered biodegradable) could not comply with ASTM 6400. The test method in 6400 is designed for industrial composting -nothing else. The consequeces of marine or field pollution are not addressed. Virtually all 6400 compliant polymers will not degrade outside of a highly active compost environment. Oxo-biodegradable materials- albeit much slower- will biodegrade anywhere oxygen is present. Surely it is better to share the inevitable carbon conversion between atmosphere and micro-organisms in the bio-background. Carbon14 labelling tests have verified this process. Converting to 90% CO2 is the equivalent of burning in my view and should not be regarded as recovery - and hence recycling.
When, and if, we succeed in developing a viable ( realsitic time frame) biodegradable PET - rest assured we will let you know.
regards
Michael
The existence of Patent info and a cold shoulder
Thomas Oris
sammysam;
As a "non-engineering" professional, perhaps I will put a different spin on this, although the two responses you have received to date are pin point accurate and informative.
First, why biodegrade PET to begin with? PET can be reclaimed and reused (assuming it is not colored too significantly). I would be more inclined to investigate post consumer resin content in your PET packaging. In relation to biodegradability with the additives, my thinking is that if newspapers and even food items are "preserved" in a landfill, I don't see how an additive can turn a resin into something that can biodegrade?! The term itself "biodegradable" scares me, as their is no clear definition. For example, you could have a package that could take over 100 years to biodegrade under conditions that support the process, and you can then make the claim that it is biodegradable. However, most waste goes to landfill, which does not support this, nor does a term of 100 years really meet with a consumers perception of what they believe biodegradability means.
Again, strictly my opinion, but it sounds that adding a additives to PET to improve biodegradability is like putting lipstick on a pig. And again, I am not an engineer and I don't wish to insult anyone, but from the practical point of view, I would need to see real solid evidence and data, which is not present.
Biodegradability vs recycled content
Stephan Berthiaume...I agree with Thomas on this.
A great example of lowering the impact of packaging on the environment while adding customer benefits can be seen in the traditional paint cans (galllons and quarts).
While metal or tin can prices increased dramatically in 09, major players turned to alternatives. Companies like KW Plastics or Central Can Company (now BWay) in Thomas's hometown are supplying up to 100% recycled polypropylene containers that are dent-free and leak-resistant.
Since great efforts are being put towards curb-side programs, market outlets for the collected materials are greatly appreciated.
There is more than 1 R in the eco-loop. Remove (from landsite) and Reuse functions would generate a much healthier impact on the environment than additives to break down plastics in smaller particules.
As well, like Thomas, this is from a non-engineering view!
Hello gentlemen I thank you
sammysam
Hello gentlemen
I thank you all for your prompt, honest, and insightful responses to my query and apologize for not being able to return to this forum more quickly.
Many organizations (additive suppliers) that I've assessed have been operating for years and have significant sales numbers, allowing one to infer that the additives perform as described. It is easy for a potential consumer of said additives ( a plastics manufacturer or bottled water distributor ) to suspend their belief just enough to “enhance” their product lines.
I'm going out on a limb here, but aren't some additive suppliers embellishing a bit as to the effectiveness of their additives? I can see it now....many years down the road when a landfill is in the process of reclamation the various plastic products are still there, biodegradable logos in tact. I guess they give themselves some wiggle room with a variety of fine print. The haze surrounding EN and ASTM definitions doesn't help much either.
Mr. Stassinopoulos, I almost felt like I shouldn't have to ask for documentation. I would expect them to be waiving it around to anyone that cared to look at it. “Hey look at our great product!” As time went on I forced myself to ask and hoped that I didn't offend. Regarding Low PE shopping bags, are the particulate remnants the very end of the life cycle? Does there exist any situation, natural or manufactured that can convert said remnants to CO2 or H2O?
Mr. Stephens, how can people claim degradation of PET if there exists little evidence? Please keep in mind, my intent is to simply understand. Is anything happening industry wide to address the inaccuracies in terminology? Compostable being synonymous with biodegradability for example.
Mr. Oris, I fully agree that recycling is the way to go in both the short and long term. How can we hope to instill this mindset into the populations of developing nations when we ourselves only occasionally break the 25% mark regarding total PET recycled? I hope my figure is not too far off the mark. Additionally, how do we deal with the wide array of plastic products bearing recycling symbols numbered 3 to 7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these items simply sorted out of the recycling stream (due to the lack of quantity that enters the system), and disposed of as trash? I have also read that landfills behave much like tombs for the residents within. How will hydro and oxo-degradables fare in similar landfill environments?
Again many thanks to all that have taken the time to read and share.
Kindest regards and Happy Holidays!
Biodegradable and Recyclable Questions
Danny Clark...SammySam,
Interesting comments about PET biodegradable additives. There are two technologies on the market today which claim they are a biodegradable additive for PET. Those are oxo-degradables, which are not truly a biodegradable technology but mechanical degradable technology and EcoPure, the technology in which our company "ENSO Bottles" utilizes. There are other biodegradable additive technologies on the market but not currently for PET. As a note to the comment on PLA. PLA is NOT a biodegradable polymer, it requires a mechanical initial breakdown (just like oxo or photo degradables) before the polymer can be assimilated in the biodegradation process. A true "biodegradable" polymer should require NO initial mechanical processesing.
I can assure the readers that you have not made any such requests with our company. Much of the data supporting what we offer is open to the public and can be found on our website www.ensobottles.com. Also, any patent information filed in the US can be found on the www.uspto.gov website. You don’t need a company to provide you with information to find a particular patent.
It is an interesting topic to discuss patents with companies (or individuals) who are bringing innovation to the market. Patents usually focus on the details behind what compounds are being used which would provide a means for someone to duplicate the process. Someone with an innovative idea must figure out if they want to submit a patent and tell the world what they are doing or keep it proprietary. Having an engineer call asking about patents without any signing of non-disclosure agreements would send anyone on high alert. Try calling Coke and start asking about their recent patent application for using Ethylene Glycol derived from a sugarcane fermentation process in their new plant bottle. My guess is that you will receive the same response.
There are some very good comments to your post which would make great discussion topics. Recycling PET is definately a smart and environmentally sound approach. That is assuming we can be successful at implementing it. Currently over 90% of recyclable PET is NOT being recycled. This is an issue with both of the recyclers and consumers. We pat ourselves on the back for a 27% recycle rate in California or a 90% rate in Michigan but these numbers don't include the percentage of all recyclable PET containers. For example, in CA it is claimed that there is a 27% recycle rate for PET. But this rate only takes into consideration the bottles which fall within the bottle bill. It does not include the beverage bottles excluded from the bill or the non-beverage, packaging, etc bottles. Most of those bottles are not even accepted by recyclers.
Another issue behind recycling is that we think once it makes a material makes it into the recycle stream we saved it and we are doing good. In 2009, over 80% of all recycled PET in CA was shipped to China and a majority of that is being incenerated to create energy and heat. Yes, PET has a pretty good innceneration footprint but it is being destroyed and not used for a second or third life product. This is NOT recycling.
Can we and should we work towards improving this process? Yes! But in the meantime, billions of bottles are still ending up in landfills and marine environments. With technologies such as what we are utilizing it provides a work towards a better solution while we continue to improve the sytem and develop the perfect solution. The technology we utilize does NOT impact the recycle stream in any way. The additive we use behaves no differently than a colorant in that it does not affect the polymer in any way. Only when the packaging is placed into a microbial environment, microbes will begin to biodegrade the polymer, leaving behind only gases and biomass. They have been studying the topic of biodegradation of polymers for the past 15 years, a web search will find some of these studies.
I do find it a bit interesting that you would make comments about these companies being protective about their intellectual property as being strange and yet you choose to remain quite protective about your identity, posting no real name or information about who you are or where you are from. It seems to me that maybe these companies might be a bit more forthright than you? Just a thought.
If you would like to discuss a bit more about patents and the technologies on the market for PET please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail.
Sincerely,
Danny Clark
President
ENSO Bottles
Post new comment