Gunnar |
Role
ConsultantComments
* 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.
Sorry you could´n get the
Sorry you could´n get the report. I suppose they don´t have available as easy as before. It´s a pdf formate report called "Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags Report: SC030148" Published by UK Environmental Agency in end Feb 2011. I could send you the report if I have your email address. To comment the potential biodegradability and fragmentation. As in aerobic biodegradation there is some standards on how to determine the degradation and then the biodegradation. You are maybe aware of this already. The fragmentaion is called ISO20200 and the biodegradation leading to compost is called ISO14855. There are oxobio system which fulfill the ISO20200 but not the ISO14855. The major issue is that these tests are limit in time as they have the only purpose to prove that a product is to be composted and that period is stated to be max 180 days if the compost is to be approved. Oxobio will have a problem to achieve the time based on technology reasons.. In order that the microbes are to start digesting the polymer molecules, the molecules need to be around 1/20 of the size it had from the beginning. If that is taking time the biodegradation will also take longer time, naturally. The oxobio system is also changing the properties of the plastics by making it being hydrophillic ("water dispersible") and not the opposite like normal plastics - hydrophobic. Being hydrophillic is also more attractive to the microbes, bacteria. The nonareobic technologies, Ecopure etc ate not really suitable for aerobic applications even if it seem like they are suitable.. They surely biodegrade plastics in anaerobic environments (landfills), but the process in general is very slow and if they do it under aerobic conditions is is even slower. There is no "one" solution to the problem but several options if you like to go for low carbon footprint alternative at also la ow cost.
I like to give you a few
I like to give you a few comments concerning the oxobio technology. The additives have only the purpose to prepare plastics molecules (the disintegration phase) to be digested by microbes if the final material is in such an environment. The issue with oxobio is not if it works or not, there are very many scientific reports and certified tests available to prove this (very many just to find on internet also), the issue is that the suppliers of oxobio do recommend too low concentration of the additives in order to get the business. One issue all suppliers of oxobio are aware of is that a low concentration like around 1% will not guarantee that the additive is homogenous spread in the final product and thus the technology might work or might not work. The technology itself is viable for a product to become biodegradable. I would say that the suppliers are marketing and selling viability, but when it comes to the final delivery and inclusion in the application this might not be viable, because of the low concentration. The only purpose of having a low concentration is to have a low impact on the final cost for the producer. As from a marketing point of view the oxobio market is a mature market with a number of established producers and in a mature market very often the competitive strategy the participants have to get the business is to compete on price primarily. This is exactly the case here. Thus the low inclusion rate and thus the potential viability issue. This is normal for any technology unless someone is breaking the behaviour. So called vegetable based plastics, starch etc, producers will have the same problem in due time when they compete on the market. The major issue in reality is instead that very few producers and also retailers believe that an added value should provide any extra cost to the product. In a mass market like plastics packaging this is the issue. You should also read the very comprehensive report on carrier bags published by the UK Environment Agency recently http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/Carrier_Bags_final_18-02-11.pdf and make your own conclusions. This will give you perspective.
Viability and mass market
Deep Dish - I like to give you a few comments concerning the oxobio technology. The additives have only the purpose to prepare plastics molecules (the disintegration phase) to be digested by microbes if the final material is in such an environment. The issue with oxobio is not if it works or not, there are very many scientific reports and certified tests available to prove this (very many just to find on internet also), the issue is that the suppliers of oxobio do recommend too low concentration of the additives in order to get the business. One issue all suppliers of oxobio are aware of is that a low concentration like around 1% will not guarantee that the additive is homogenous spread in the final product and thus the technology might work or might not work. The technology itself is viable for a product to become biodegradable. I would say that the suppliers are marketing and selling viability, but when it comes to the final delivery and inclusion in the application this might not be viable, because of the low concentration. The only purpose of having a low concentration is to have a low impact on the final cost for the producer. As from a marketing point of view the oxobio market is a mature market with a number of established producers and in a mature market very often the competitive strategy the participants have to get the business is to compete on price primarily. This is exactly the case here. Thus the low inclusion rate and thus the potential viability issue. This is normal for any technology unless someone is breaking the behaviour. So called vegetable based plastics, starch etc, producers will have the same problem in due time when they compete on the market. The major issue in reality is instead that very few producers and also retailers believe that an added value should provide any extra cost to the product. In a mass market like plastics packaging this is the issue.
Compostability vs. recyclability
I’m surprised that there is no discussion about why plastics should be made compostable at all. Where is the life cycle analysis (LCA) and carbon footprint equivalent measurement that compostable plastics would be superior to non-compostable from an environmental and climate point of view? Why should you make plastics, which can’t be recycled as they are degrading too fast, and what is the actual contribution from a so called compostable plastics if more than 90% is finally CO2 (a biogas). There is today no standard for running composts, especially industrial composts, there is only a standard (EN13432/ASTM6400) for the product compost to be ready within a certain period of time to be sold to farmers mainly. Due to the non-standard existence the efficiency of the compost will vary extensively and so called compostable plastics will not always fulfill the lab testing requirements when being in real full scale compost. There are many reports showing that recycling of plastics will be have a much lower impact on environment than composting. Finally so called compostable plastics are almost all vegetable based competing with the global land area on food production. It must be a priority to produce food instead of plastics made of renewable materials.