Talk:Plastic recycling

Section Cleanup

The "Financial justification" section seems very muddled and out of place. Further, the source it cites seems to be hand-written ("distric" was likely meant to be "district") and the title "Waste distric raises recycling fees" seems to present the opposite conclusion of that made by the section (that recycling became cheaper). Could someone check this out? 98.176.236.30 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

=="But in today’s new eco-friendly world there has been more of a demand for “green” products."

that phrase just doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me 67.204.6.114 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the external links section heading just now but cannot determine if the link pointing to http://www.3d-pim.eu/ was supposed to be a reference or a new additional link (in which case it ought to have been below the header line). - phi (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A research paper to be incorporated

Kelsey Papst has released the following material for use under the GFDL: Plastic, although recycled less than paper and even glass and metal, has had a very large growth since its recycling process was introduced in the late 1980’s (AF&PA; Beck 2). In 2001, 1.6 million pounds of plastic was recycled, an increase in 580% since 1990 (Beck 2). However, in 1999, plastic only made up about 4% of packaging recycled with 1.1 million pounds of plastic packaging recovered (AFPA). The percent of plastic packaging recycled is actually higher than the total amount of plastics recycled in 1999, 9.7% vs. 5.6% respectively (Recycling in Ohio). In 1999, the amount of municipal solid waste created by plastics was 11.2 million tons. Obviously, plastic still has a long way to go in fulfilling its recycling potential. Different types of plastic are recycled differently. PET (polyethylene terephthalate) makes up 53% of recycled plastic, while HDPE (high-density polyethylene) makes up 47% (Beck 3). These materials are recycled 30-40% of the time, and are usually beverage bottles, jugs, and some bags (Recycling in Ohio). PET usually goes on to create fiber/carpet, and HDPE usually creates new bottles, although thick and not for food containers (Beck 10-11). Their demand is continually stronger and could certainly stand to be recycled more (11). LDPE (low-density polyethylene) is the most common packaging plastic (Plastics: Waste Management 49; Plastics 17) and is recycled the most after PET and HDPE (although exceptionally less). LDPE is plastic film and is most commonly seen (and recycled) as grocery bags. It is recycled less because of the high contamination rate and processed less because of this and its difficulty in separating from other plastics (Plastics 17-18). After recycling, it usually becomes dark trash bags (18) or a wood-polymer lumber (FBF). There are several different processes for the recycling of plastic, but the two most commonly used for LDPE are reprocessing and burning. In reprocessing, the polyethylene is sorted, shredded and ground into “fluff,” heated to melt it, and mixed to make other products (Baird 529; FBF). Burning, also called “energy recycling” or “waste-to-energy” uses incineration to create energy to be used elsewhere; this also decreases the volume of municipal solid waste (plastics’ biggest waste problem) by up to 90% (Waste-to-Energy). There are no proven environmental damages from these recycling processes, and actually, recycling plastic has a major advantage. Plastic is primarily made from oil, a limited resource, and oil has a high value of energy stored in it. Plastic recycling is more uncommon for probably two reasons: one, there is an opposition to burning plastic because of a fear of dioxin and furan formation (which is actually more possible in the creation of virgin plastic), and two, plastic is fairly expensive to recycle (Baird 528). Unfortunately, the page listing references has been lost. Many of the articles cited were found using Yahoo web search; the others are Environmental Chemistry, by Colin Baird, and several papers found using Scifinder Scholar at UCSD.

Expansion request

Not very much is said about how plastic is successfully recycled, or what it is recycled into. The current version makes it sound like it is too hard to do at all. -- Beland 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a lot more information. It has very outdated information on current techniques. It should also include more information on what more countries around the world are doing about recycling plastic.

Begin of talk from Sam Tomato: The preceding paragraph is not signed and I did not write it. I think this article is a good example of a bunch of technical talk that most people do not understand or need and not much about what most people really need and want. It would help to make it more clear what can be recycled. Also, the various plastics can be categorized in terms of what is designated as reusable (not the same as recyclable). Sam Tomato (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced assertion about cost of transporting plastic waste.

In accordance with WP:CITE, I reverted the edit [2] by Nsoltani that stated "However the cost of transporting plastic waste is equal or greater than the gain of it. 250% less carbon dioxide does not account the emission by transportation and the emission from the machines used to recycle plastic" because it did not have a source cited. If a source for this assertion could be cited, it can go back in the article. 70.133.83.58 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in for that. PenguiN42 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added source, the actual episode does cite its sources if anyone can bother writing them all. Nsoltani 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, a television program as a source, i'd rather look up a book with a similar quote to confirm this, since television shows usually aren't on my top list of trusted sources, as they often misquote. --AnotherDutchGuy 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherDutchGuy (talk • contribs)

It has been 5 years now, so probably no one cares, but... "250% less carbon dioxide"? You can't have 250% less of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.141.142 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

UK

The section about the UK is simply not true. Almost every council provides either Kerbside collection or plastic bottle banks, and there is not always any idea of the source. "It all being sent to China" therefore can't be verified.

One problem, however, is the different types of plastic, many councils will not accept recyclable food containers to avoid confusuion. Almost all Supermarkets have plastic bag recycling points. Mojo 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that section about the UK is incredibly confusing. And there are no citations for the stuff about China, which just logically I find ridiculous. The UK has the means to send all its recyclables to China? Shouldn't that section be removed or rewritten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.141.22 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Although plastics are collected widely across the UK they are not necessarily reprocessed here. We have very limited capacity for re-processing - maybe just 1 or two plants (Dagenham and N Wales?). Most of our post consumer plastics are therefore sent abroad for sorting and reprocessing. In most western countries we are visited frequently by large ships from China full of all the stuff we like to buy and discard- so yes there are many otherwise empty ships returning to china which we fill up with post consumer recyclables including Cardboard, Paper and Plastics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.90.182 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Entropy and Enthalpy

I think the thermodynamics should be moved. I think it should be removed or at least moved to a later point in the article. Better to start out with some more general statements. If it must stay, I would like to see it expanded and referenced. neffk (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbering system

It seems very odd, and not good, that of the numbering system of 7 numbers, only numbers 1 and 2 are mentioned in this article. All the numbers should be mentioned, and what they are. Badagnani (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately just because there is a recycling symbol with a number, doesn't mean that it can be recycled. PETE (1) bottles, HDPE (2) bottles, and stretchy plastics (like bags and wraps, often LDPE (4), or HDPE) are most commonly recycled. I found an article on PVC (3) recycling, which i added to the 'see also' section. Recently i found a website where you can mail in styrofoam, or E(xpanded)PS (6). There are other types of PS and HDPE containers that cannot be recycled because of how it is chemically structured, even though they are technically the same 'type' of plastic. Also a site explaining why no one recycles PP (5) with a link at the bottom, How to Recycle Different Types of Plastics, which is also informative. (7) is just a catch-all. (more on the resin id codes) Now if i only could have written that all into the article instead...Quickmythril (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much is mentioned on the main page concerning how easily different types of plastics can be recycled. I came here to try and figure out which plastics to avoid buying due to difficulty in recycling and the main article provides very little insight. Maybe another column could be added to the numbering chart titled something like "Ease of Recycling" or "Recycling Opportunities" where some of the info in the paragaph above this one could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.232.69 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Come to think of it, PVC recycling and Recycling of PET Bottles should both probably be merged into this article.Quickmythril (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that each of the 7 codes should have a page describing the pros and cons of recycling them. So rather than merge pages we should probably work on expanding the section with this page referencing the others. Neillawrence (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree-anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.135.227 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. It is a notable topic that deserves its own article. There is also sufficient info for a standalone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The table in Resin identification code is nearly a duplicate of the table here, correct? Sam Tomato (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How do they reprocess the plastic?

How do they regrind the plastic back into a usable form? Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.11.170 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PICs

The article says Manufacturess of plastic food packaging and containers can voluntarily mark their products with the PIC, but according to Holt Chemestry (Florida edition), some countries/regions require manufacturers to label their products with the appropriate PIC. Also, PICs ca be found on all kinds of stuff, from prescription bottles to sheds, not just food containers. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Structure

There is still an issue with overlap of content with the "process" section and "applications" section. One solution might be to have a section for each type of plastic and then describe the processes used to recycle that plastic within that section. A separate section could then include novel processes that are not yet widely utilized. I would need to do more research before I can make that change to give each section significant content. John 14:23 (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the "process" section. It seems like the first paragraph describes the most common method of recycling, and then the subsections describe other, less common methods. This is a very confusing structure. The first paragraph should introduce the topic, discuss common themes and describe things such as which techniques are used where or how much plastic is recycled using each technique, or perhaps a cost/benefit or why a decision might be made to use a specific technique. Then there should be a subsection for each technique. Also, it's unclear to me that each of these techniques, some of which seem quite experimental, deserve so much relative space. 108.6.2.66 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost efficiency

Is recycling actually worth it, or does it use more energy then making plastic from scratch? I would like see more about this debate since I find it quite difficult to make a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.224.70 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quantity of Recycled Plastic in Road Building

In the last paragraph of section 3.5 "Other plastics", there is this sentence:

"The test road used 60 kg of plastic for an approx. 500m long, 8m wide, two-lane road."

Is 60 kg of plastic the correct quantity? That is a tiny amount of plastic compared to the other materials that make up a 500m by 8m road. Just to guesstimate, that's 4000 sq. meters, and if I assume the asphault thickness is 8" (0.2m), then we are talking about 800 cu. meters of material (still guestimating, maybe 1000 kg per cu. meter?), which might equate to 800,000 kg. of material. And 60 kg. of that is recycled plastic--something like 0.0075%? That is such a tiny amount, surely something is wrong with these numbers.

UPDATE: By the way, I looked at the article given as a reference for that paragraph and found nothing about the amount of material used in the road surface (or, really, anything about road surfacing):

^ Patel, Almitra H. (October 2003), Plastics Recycling and The Need For Bio-Polymers, 9, International Society of Environmental Botanists

Rhkramer (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Segment reads like advertisement

This segment needs properly rewritten to avoid the advertisement-like tone, though it is technically neutral. I have made a cursory rewrite with a more encyclopedic tone, but it lacks the detail present in the moved section. Find the original text below.

Moved source

But in today's new eco-conscious world there has been more of a demand for "green" products. As a result, many clothing companies have started looking for ways to take advantage of this new market and innovations in the use of recycled PET fabric are beginning to develop. These innovations included different ways to process the fabric, to use the fabric, or blend the fabric with other materials. Some of the fabrics that are leading the industry in these innovations include Billabong's Eco-Supreme Suede, Livity's Rip-Tide III, Wellman Inc's Eco-fi(formerly known as EcoSpun), and Reware's Rewoven. Some additional companies that take pride in using recycled PET in their products are Rethink Fabrics, Crazy Shirts and Playback.

References

Odd

'Typically a plastic is not recycled into the same type of plastic,'

A very odd thing to say. When plastic'c chopped, cleaned and melted it doesn't change into some other type of plastic! 82.31.66.207 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

This was reverted, not sure why.

please reinstate KVDP (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The woman who started plastic recycling

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/04/1319112/-RIP-The-woman-you-never-heard-of-who-changed-our-world

Milly Zantow has passed away is Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin at 91. You likely never heard of her. And yet she affected your life every day for decades.

You know the little triangle symbols on plastics, with the numbers (1-7) inside, that tell you how to recycle? That's the "plastic identification code." We all know it, and we think it's been there forever. It hasn't. It began in the late 1970s, and it all goes back to a very sweet lady, a neighbor of mine, Milly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.3.98 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

PYROLYSIS mention - Plastic-to-oil conversion

Perhaps plastic to oil conversion can be mentioned ? http://www.rexresearch.com/ito/ito.htm See http://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/eco-csrjapan/en/blest.html 2A02:A03F:12D5:1A00:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Annnnddd... perhaps it should be deleted. Pyrolysis is NOT recycling. It's greenwashing of an incineration technique. Centerone (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

New plastic sorting system

I want to know whether this can be efficient way of plastic recycling or not. Let me know your feedbacks about this.
1. chop the unsorting plastic wastes
2. shake it softly
3. then you can find the layers of materials caused by the density. This effect has name but i can't remember XD.
4. sorting complete!
5. Also you can use various kind of liquid that has specific density to sort the plastic wastes.
6. you can use water for washing wastes. is this too basic? XD

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.193.130.225 (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 

Ioniqa and Umincorp

Can we mention the plastic waste sorting system by Imincorp (99% effective, using liquid with iron oxide particles), and Ioniqa's system to make new plastic from old plastic (the latter uses an ioniq liquid). Genetics4good (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposing a re-write.

I've been meaning to edit this page for while but when I started it snowballed and now I have a complete re-write sitting in my sandbox. I expect a page such as this has a number of lurking editors who keep an eye on it and I'm hoping to get some consensus for these changes before I push them across. That said, if I don't hear anything back in a week I'll make the change and just see what happens. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So some first observations:

• that overhaul minimizes the promotion of plastic recycling by the plastics industry as was heavily reported in the last few years -- that is in paragraph two of the lead in the current version of the article. Removing that history from the lead doesn't feel appropriate or very accurate.
• We need to maintain the resin identifiers -- these are the main way in which folks have an interaction with plastic recycling (for better or worse), so its worth thinking about how to work that in.

Can you make the edits section-by-section -- so that its easier to interpret and see the differences in the diff? Generally, it feels right-ish -- but its hard to process that much overhaul all at once in a single edit, Sadads (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, the new version doesn't make much distinction between different geographies, and the geopolitics of sorting/sale in different parts of the world -- for example, the high concentration of plastic processing in east Asia is the key component -- not sure how that is supposed to survive in the proposed structure? Sadads (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. To address your points in order:

• Promotion by the plastic industry is mentioned in my history section and a mention can easily be included in any new lead. That said, the current wording seems a bit conspiratorial to me, what the industry knew 50 years ago is about as valid as my prediction of the 2070's.
• The resin identification section is just a content-fork from Resin identification code. For large scale recycling (which is what we need) the codes aren't that important. People aren't picking things up off conveyer belts, looking for the code. It's becoming increasingly automated but there's currently no mention of any of that technology. Nor really way it's important.
• I've changed the lay-out of the article in the re-write so section-by-section changes might be a bit tricky; not everything overlaps now. I can try if that's you preference?
• Geopolitics on the existing page is limited to China's National Sword​ policy and I have retained mention of that, admittedly with decreased prominence. I could try and write a section on plastic trading... it's a murky area though (probably intentionally). I actually didn't want to do too much of a region by region comparison, gets hard to see the wood from the trees that way.

Trying to compare the 2 version by diff-view is probably hopeless I'm afraid. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To your points:

• The promotion by the plastics industry is well documented, including by NPR and PBS frontline and has since been confirmed by a number of other reputable investigative reporting groups (here is the early report: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled).
• I think the problem with the resin codes (per the above) is that this is one of the most distinctive signs of the recycling system even though its an elaborate branding and marketing scheme. The public things the resin codes are part of the impact of recycling -- even though thats not the case any more.
• I think lets try some incremental changes, and then I am happy to work from your draft in the future (its more for readability being able to understand what happened and for future folks digging into the edit history). Try to explain why you are adding or removing elements in each edit -- so that we get a sense of just how much is changing and why -- it also helps with being able to
• I think lets make sure that the international plastics trade gets its own section, and next week I will dig into writing that -- but there is some of that outlined in the current article, including the redistribution because of national sword to other countries like Turkey (which is getting a lot of the European trade) and Indonesia, Vietnam and other SE asia countries getting the rest of the global trade. Its murky, but documented -- its actually causing a huge change in international policy --including some movement for new rules that might come into effect under the Basel Convention. If you look for plastic waste in the recent news that is alot of what is being paid attention to.

Anyway hope this is helpful. Sadads (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, although I feel some of these points are already addressed in what I've written.

• I'm not arguing for this to be removed. I've included that NPR ref, and added to it. I just wasn't sure it belonged in the lead. Plastic wasn't recyclable in the 1970s but that wasn't a secret at the time, and it can be recycled now. I feel we agree that it should be content, and ultimately I'm not that bothered either way about it being in the lead. So I think this isn't a barrier to us moving forward.
• I see you point on the resin codes. Perhaps the table can be compressed somehow?
• I'll start with the least objectionable changes, such as a section of sorting technology. That's just filling a hole rather than replacing anything.
• I've included information on this, including the Basel Convention (which isn't mentioned in the current article). Spinning it out to it's own section will be hard. The area is rapidly evolving but it also seems to take a while for figures to be compiled. The most recent open access data I could find was for 2016.--Project Osprey (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that to me the current page is poor. It doesn't discuss mechanical recycling, even though that's the most common recycling method (the closest it gets is 'Heat compression​' but is misses all the key points). There's little mention as to how plastic gets sorted and none at all on why it needs to be sorted. There are 2 different sections on pyrolysis, 3 if you include chemical recycling, which gets confused with it (even though they're at crossed purposes). There's almost no discussion on how the technical problems can be mitigated. I could go on. I had originally intended to do normal edits, but as I made my way though the page I found little worth keeping. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

For sure the current version is a mess, but erasing marginal to the process, but important to the public engagement with the topic important sections and elements without discussion, and transparency on the thinking is where I am pushing back. Hopefully my feedback is helpful, and lets move as much as we can -- be ready for a bit more back and forth on it :D Sadads (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your improvements. Pkgx (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrapping-up

I think I'm coming to the end of this process now, although there are still some bits that need wrapping up.

• I've redone the lead but I'm not really happy with it. It's supposed to summarise the page but there's a lot of key points to cover concisely without the prose going all choppy
• National Sword has become merged in with the history section. To me it feels like part of a story, but you may want to lift it back out. I don't know if that section isn't big enough for sub-headings now anyway.
• I'm not really sure what to do about the regional data. Should we just display the official rates from say the top 10 biggest players. I feel like we're entering systematic review territory here, there's bound to be some spin on those numbers.
• I'm think of putting this in for copyediting once it's stable. I've found several typos thus far but there are doubtless more.

--Project Osprey (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Potentially missing an important part of reuse vs recycling

Wanted to capture a note here for @Project Osprey -- we are missing beneficial reuses that divert plastic from recycling wastestreams but need consistent quality (i.e. art from recycled plastic or Ecobricks). I am wondering if we need to work that into this article or the main article Plastic pollution? Sadads (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe... though I'd worry about giving a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Are those things important, or just interesting? Do they reduce the need for new plastic to be produced, or do they just divert waste away from landfill. There's so much plastic to get rid of that I feel the focus needs to be on big solutions that can operate on the megaton scale. Plastic pollution feels bloated and unfocussed to me (although I am very fussy) but I think that plastic itself is in more need of attention. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Also I'm pretty sure artwork and ecobricks count as reuse rather than recycling, as there's no reprocessing involved. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing POV on the ineffectiveness of plastic recycling

There have been a number of recent articles and investigations (including a recent subpoena by the California state government on the matter against ExxonMobil) discussing the ineffectiveness of plastic recycling:

• Dell, Judith Enck, Jan (2022-05-30). "Plastic Recycling Doesn't Work and Will Never Work". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Newburger, Emma (2022-04-28). "California subpoenas Exxon for details on role in global plastic pollution". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
• "Exxon doubles down on 'advanced recycling' claims that yield few results". the Guardian. 2022-05-11. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
• "Plastic Recycling was a Myth. We're Living the Consequences". Time. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
• "Recycling plastic is a total bust, industry critics say". CBS News. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

I feel that their exclusion undermines the neutral point of view (NPOV). ViperSnake151  Talk  15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a fairly US-centric argument, driven in part it seems by a dip in plastic recycling during the Covid years. In the EU about a third of plastic is recycled at present, so its not entirely ineffective. What are you proposing exactly? --Project Osprey (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)