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)

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.

Removed unsourced assertion about cost of transporting plastic waste.

In accordance with WP:CITE, I reverted the edit [1] 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.

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)

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.