In early 2011, independent testing provider Intertek Expert Services generated a carbon footprint of OCTAL DPET™-branded PET sheet and compared the results to other leading alternative plastics. The study considered all emissions related to the production of resin and DPET at the OCTAL Salalah facility in Oman, and established a carbon footprint characterizing the delivery of OCTAL resin and DPET sheet to the U.S.

In its evaluations, Intertek employed as its standard the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG), which classifies according to direct and indirect emissions. The direct emissions are those that are directly emitted by the organizations that are reporting under the GHG protocol. The indirect emissions are those emitted by organizations from which the reporting organization purchases goods, energy, and services. Accordingly, all companies under analysis are categorized as to their ability to comply with three sets of criteria called "scopes."

Intertek's initial comparisons yielded these results: The DPET savings versus APET for Scope 1 emissions (emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company) are 69%; for Scope 2 (emissions from the generation of purchased electricity by the company), 67%; and Scope 3 (indirect emissions generated by the supply chain), 2.1%.

OCTAL says that these results underscore, with respect to Scope 2, a greater required use of grid electricity during extrusion and drying for conventional APET sheet. OCTAL's Scope 2 savings per kg of sheet is 67%.

Following the above analysis, Intertek then focused on comparative carbon footprints as they relate to the processing of sheet material. In its study of the carbon footprint of DPET sheet versus APET sheet when thermoformed, it found that DPET uniformity enables significant downgauging when compared to non-downgauged APET. Intertek factored this potential into the life-cycle analysis of DPET and APET. The comparative carbon footprints results were:

• DPET—3.357 kg CO2 (e)/886 g of thermoformed product
• APET—4.622 kg CO2 (e)/1000 g of thermoformed product

Therefore, it concluded, substituting DPET for APET can generate a 27% saving in the carbon footprint of a thermoformed product providing an identical function.

Put into perspective, the company says, by using DPET versus APET, the user could save 1.265 tons of CO2 per 1,000 g of thermoformed product—the equivalent of the total emissions generated by driving an average passenger vehicle over a distance of 3,288 miles.

Intertek then compared DPET versus alternative plastics with a variety of density values. The following results were reported:

• 27% lower carbon footprint than conventional APET
• 33% lower carbon footprint than conventional PLA
• 38% lower carbon footprint than conventional HIPS
• 38% lower carbon footprint than conventional PS
• 13% lower carbon footprint thanconventional PVC
• 13% lower carbon footprint than conventional PP
• 21% lower carbon footprint compared to “non-Zero” rPET at 50%
• Equal carbon footprint compared to “Zero” rPET at 50%