Category Archive Uncategorized

New Pyrolysis Plant in Virginia

Company to invest $31.7 million to establish first-of-its-kind waste plastics facility and manufacturing operation.

Governor Ralph Northam today announced that Braven Environmental, a leader in deriving fuel from landfill-bound plastic, will invest $31.7 million to establish a manufacturing operation in Cumberland County’s shell building. Virginia successfully competed with North Carolina and South Carolina for the project, which will create 52 new jobs. This is the first economic development announcement for Cumberland County since 2009.

“Braven Environmental will bring well-paid job opportunities to the citizens of Cumberland County while lessening our overall environmental footprint in the years to come,” said Governor Northam. “Providing the business environment and infrastructure to attract operations of this kind to rural Virginia is critical to our efforts to generate economic growth in all corners of the Commonwealth. Our economy is hurting right now, and these new jobs will have a great impact in the region.”

Braven Environmental uses the science of pyrolysis, not incineration, to break down waste plastics with minimal emissions. The output can be used to create new plastics or as fuel produced with much lower carbon emissions than traditional oil or gas production. Braven Environmental’s new plant will stop waste plastics from entering landfills, oceans, and waterways, while also reducing Virginia’s greenhouse gas emissions by ending the impact of long distance transportation used in current waste plastic solutions. Braven Environmental is committed to hiring locally and providing good jobs in the Cumberland County community. The company plans to create a total of over 80 new jobs within 18 months of the first phase of this project.

“Job creation announcements are especially important as we work to repair the economic impacts of COVID-19,” said Secretary of Commerce and Trade Brian Ball. “Braven Environmental’s decision to establish its new fuel manufacturing operation in Cumberland County is an exciting win for the Commonwealth, and it underscores the competitive advantages available to industry-leading companies in the Southside Virginia. We welcome Braven to the Commonwealth, and we look forward to working together to ensure Virginia is proactively reducing its carbon footprint.”

“Braven’s decision to develop its next site in Virginia as part of its planned U.S. expansions was driven by the state’s pro-business and innovation economy, and the fact that Virginia sees an enormous amount of waste that is either transported long distance for processing or ends up in local landfills,” said Nick Canosa, President and CEO of Braven Environmental. “With this facility, we’re looking forward to working hand-in-hand with Cumberland County to address the existing plastic waste issue with proven technology, while bringing long-term jobs to the community.”

The Virginia Economic Development Partnership worked with Cumberland County and Virginia’s Growth Alliance to secure the project for Virginia. Governor Northam approved a $150,000 grant from the Commonwealth’s Opportunity Fund to assist Cumberland County with the project. The Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission approved $65,000 in Tobacco Region Opportunity Funds for the project, and funding and services to support the company’s employee training activities will be provided through the Virginia Jobs Investment Program.

“Cumberland County’s Board of Supervisors is proud to welcome Braven Environmental to the County,” said Chairman of the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors Brian Stanley. “Through the diligent work of our Economic Development Authority, opportunity and prosperity has been delivered.”

“Braven’s investment and development of technology to transform a global problem into a clean fuel solution is revolutionary,” said Chairman of the Cumberland County Economic Development Authority Fred Shumaker. “This type of forward thinking not only reduces the use of traditional fuels, therefore lowering the state’s carbon footprint, but also reduces the volume of waste in the environment. This is a great win for Virginia and her environment, but specifically for Cumberland County.”

“Braven Environmental’s investment is a gamechanger for Cumberland County and these new jobs will change lives in Southside Virginia,” said Congressman Denver Riggleman. “I am very excited about this announcement and the potential of the project. Braven brings an innovative technology project that will increase prosperity in Cumberland and reduce carbon emissions in Virginia.”

“This reaffirms that Virginia’s current policies toward business and growth are attractive to commercial interests,” said Senator Mark Peake. “Beyond the much-needed jobs that Braven Environmental will provide, the total impact on Cumberland is almost unimaginable. I am very excited about how this project will bolster local government, generate growth in area businesses, and offer new educational opportunities in Cumberland County Public Schools. I welcome Braven Environmental and offer my support in my capacity in the Senate of Virginia.”

“We are always looking for innovative businesses to join our community here in Cumberland County and Southern Virginia, and Braven Environmental is exactly that,” said Delegate Thomas Wright. “I am pleased that Virginia was able to successfully compete against other states for this project, and I believe that our strong business climate and more-than-capable workforce will play a strong role in the success of this new venture.”

Americans Start Ocean Clean Up

Ocean Voyages Institute’s marine plastic recovery vessel, S/V KWAI, docked at the port of Honolulu today, after a 48-day expedition, successfully removing 103 tons (206,000 lbs.) of fishing nets and consumer plastics from the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone, more commonly known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch or Gyre.

Establishing its lead in open ocean clean-up, Ocean Voyages Institute has set a new record with the largest at sea clean-up in the Gyre to date, more than doubling its own results from last year.

“I am so proud of our hard working crew,” says Mary Crowley, founder and executive director of Ocean Voyages Institute. “We exceeded our goal of capturing 100 tons of toxic consumer plastics and derelict ‘ghost’ nets, and in these challenging times, we are continuing to help restore the health of our ocean, which influences our own health and the health of the planet.”

Crowley adds: “The oceans can’t wait for these nets and debris to break down into microplastics which impair the ocean’s ability to store carbon and toxify the fragile ocean food web.”

Known as the “Ghost Net Buster,” Crowley is renowned for developing effective methods to remove significant amounts of plastics out of the ocean, including 48 tons (96,000 lbs.) of toxic plastics during two ocean clean-ups in 2019, one from the Gyre and one from the waters surrounding the Hawaiian islands.

“There is no cure-all solution to ocean clean-up: It is the long days at sea, with dedicated crew scanning the horizon, grappling nets, and retrieving huge amounts of trash, that makes it happen,” says Locky MacLean, a former director at Sea Shepherd and ocean campaigner in marine conservation for two decades.

The GPS satellite trackers used by Ocean Voyages Institute since 2018 are proving Crowley’s theory that one tracker can lead to many nets. The ocean frequently sorts debris so that a tagged fishing net can lead to other nets and a density of debris within a 15 mile radius.


The Pacific Gyre, located halfway between Hawaii and California, is the largest area with the most plastic, of the five major open ocean plastic accumulation regions, or Gyres, in the world’s oceans.

“We are utilizing proven nautical equipment to effectively clean-up the oceans while innovating with new technologies,” says Crowley. “Ocean Voyages Institute has been a leader in researching and accomplishing ocean clean-up for over a decade, granted with less fanfare and attention than others, but with passion and commitment and making meaningful impacts.”

Ocean Voyages Institute will be unloading the record-breaking haul of ocean plastic debris while docked alongside Pier 29 thanks to the support of Honolulu-based Matson, in preparation for upcycling and proper disposal.

“In keeping with our commitment to environmental stewardship, Matson has been searching for a way to get involved in cleaning up the Pacific Gyre,” said Matt Cox, chairman and CEO. “We’ve been impressed with the groundbreaking efforts of Ocean Voyages Institute and the progress they’ve made with such a small organization, and we hope our support will help them continue this important work.”

An Expanded 2020 Expedition

When the sailing cargo ship, S/V KWAI, arrived in Honolulu today, it completed a 48-day at sea clean-up mission that began at the Hawaiian port of Hilo on May 4, after a three week self- imposed quarantine period to ensure the health of crew members and safety of the mission, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the expedition, the KWAI’s multinational crew collected marine plastic pollution with the help of GPS satellite trackers that Ocean Voyages Institute designed with engineer Andy Sybrandy, of Pacific Gyre, Inc. These beacons are placed on nets by volunteer yachts and ships. Drones, as well as lookouts up the mast, enable the ship’s crew to hone in on the debris. They then recover the litter, place it in industrial bags, and store it in the ship’s cargo hold for proper recycling and repurposing at the end of the voyage.

S/V KWAI, led by Captain Brad Ives, and Ocean Voyages Institute are planning a second voyage to the Gyre departing the end of June to continue clean-up of this area, which is so besieged by toxic debris. The length of a second summer leg will be determined by how successful Ocean Voyages Institute is in securing additional donations.

“Our solutions are scalable, and next year, we could have three vessels operating in the North Pacific Gyre for three months all bringing in large cargos of debris,” says Crowley. “We are aiming to expand to other parts of the world desperately needing efficient clean-up technologies.”

Crowley adds: “There is no doubt in my mind that our work is making the oceans healthier for the planet and safer for marine wildlife, as these nets will never again entangle or harm a whale, dolphin, turtle or reefs.”

Who is Kaneka?

Who is Kaneka and Kaneka Biopolymers? The complete history and all you need to know about Kaneka including their circular economy and bioplastics portfolio.

In Short

Kaneka is a Japanese chemical company with a wide range of business activities such as chemicals, functional plastics, expandable plastics & products, foodstuffs products, life-science products, electronic products and synthetic fibers.

History

  • 1949 – Kaneka is created in Osaka as a spin off from the Kanegafuchi Spinning Company.
  • 1950 – Mass production of PVC (Kanevinyl).
  • 1953 – Large scale production of margarine.
  • 1965 – Production of expandable polystyrene (Kanepearl).
  • 1968 – Europe office and New York office. Production of chlorinated PVC.
  • 1970 – Production of extruded polystyrene foam board (Kanelite Foam).
  • 1973 – Production of polyethylene foam.
  • 1985 – Production of polypropylene foam.
  • 2011 – Production of bio-based polymer with soft and heat-resistant properties.
  • 2017 – Granted a certificate of biodegradability in marine environment for biodegradable plastics.

Kaneka Biopolymers

Kaneka Biopolymers is a division of Kaneka Corporation and was created out of the need to provide an alternative solution to single-use plastics. The Kaneka Biopolymers brand is Kaneka PHBH™. It’s a plant-based biopolymer.

Kaneka PHBH

Kaneka PHBH are biopolymers in the family of PHAs or Polyhydroxyalkanoates.

Kaneka PHBH grades are polyesters produced by microorganisms. Kaneka PHBH grades are produced via the fermentation of plants. Kaneka’s PHBH is made from plant oil and fat, and other ingredients. Kaneka uses Cupriavidus necator bacteria to produce their PHBH.

Kaneka PHBH combines 2 monomers together: 3-Hydroxyhexanoate with 3-Hydroxybutyrate to make different types of PHBH.

kaneka phbh

The concentration of each monomer during the polymerization process will create a different type of copolymer that can lead to different types of applications. This technique allows the creation of multiple PHBH grades that will mimic a wide variety of plastic shapes.

Kaneka PHBH is marine biodegradable, soil biodegradable and compostable.

Kaneka PHBH has superior advantages compared with other biopolymers.

biodegradability of kaneka PHBH
Biodegradability of PHBH™ 60m film in soil @ 30°c

kaneka biopolymers

Kaneka PHBH production

Kaneka started producing PHBH at their Takasago headquarters in Japan in 2011. The production capacity was 1.000 metric tonnes per year.

They scaled up their Takasago plant to an annual capacity of 5.000 tonnes / year in December 2019 and they’re considering increasing PHBH production to 20.000 tons in the future.

Read more: Kaneka Builds 5.000 tons PHBH Plant

Kaneka PHBH Applications

PHBH bioplastics is exported to Europe to make bags. PHBH is also used to make agricultural mulch films, straws, cutlery, food containers and packaging materials.

Kaneka and Shiseido are working together to develop cosmetic containers.

In the future, Kaneka may want to explore the production of bottles and containers, auto interiors and electrical equipment.

Kaneka Today

  • 2018 Annual Sales: 5.4 billion USD
  • 2019 Employees: 10,571
  • HQ: Tokyo, Japan

Half Year Bioplastics Ranking 2020

Here’s the Brands and Companies Ranking for the period January to June 2020. There’s a bonus today: we’ve given the absolute numbers, no percentages.

Column “Jan to Jun” represent the number of pages viewed that have been tagged with the company or brand name. Example: your company issues 3 press releases. The first press releases is read 600 times, the second 500 times and the third 400 times in the period January to June 2020; well then the number in the column would be 1500 (addition of 600 + 500 + 400). The numbers were very low due to the corona crisis.

Conclusion

I’m not gonna discuss everything in details; but to make a long story short … with the top 10 you’ve got the deal makers … the champions … the guys who have resisted the storm… the kings of the bioplastics industry.

Bioplastics Ranking Half Year 2020

NAMES Ranking JAN to JUN
NOVAMONT 1 5666
BASF 2 5596
BIO-ON 3 5424
DUPONT 4 4816
AVANTIUM 5 4787
SYMPHONY ENVIRONMENTAL 6 3846
NATUREWORKS 7 3368
BRASKEM 8 3288
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC 9 3096
STORA ENSO 10 2918
NESTE 11 2882
CLARIANT 12 2536
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL 13 2220
METABOLIX 14 1915
ALPLA 15 1846
COVESTRO 16 1789
SULAPAC 17 1719
ARKEMA 18 1698
LYONDELLBASELL 19 1691
CORBION 20 1689
TOTAL CORBION 21 1665
MITSUI CHEMICALS 22 1652
VERSALIS 23 1471
BIOAMBER 24 1283
API 25 1281
MATER-BI 26 1260
CELLOPHANE 27 1212
NODAX 28 1200
I’M GREEN 29 1194
KANEKA 30 1101
SOLVAY 31 1068
GENOMATICA 32 1066
FUTAMURA 33 997
TIPA 34 960
DSM 35 958
SYNVINA 36 924
SK CHEMICALS 37 917
CARGILL 38 915
FLOREON 39 910
VERDEZYNE 40 889
NOVOZYMES 41 888
REVERDIA 42 832
EASTMAN 43 768
MYRIANT 44 743
GC INNOVATION AMERICA 45 710
ARCTIC BIOMATERIALS 46 706
DOWDUPONT 47 680
AVANTIUM RENEWABLE POLYMERS 48 665
YIELD10 BIOSCIENCE 49 639
WOODLY 50 637
BIOME BIOPLASTICS 51 630
LACTIPS 52 621
SULZER 53 619
GOOD NATURED 54 619
TRIFILON 55 559
FKuR 56 548
TAGHLEEF INDUSTRIES 57 528
LANZATECH 58 511
SWEETFOAM 59 492
AVA BIOCHEM 60 489
BIOSPHERE PLASTIC 61 483
ECHO INSTRUMENTS 62 482
ARBOBLEND 63 476
METGEN 64 470
EVONIK 65 462
NATUREFLEX 66 453
TECNARO 67 409
VINMAR 68 408
ECOZEN 69 403
GREEN DOT BIOPLASTICS 70 402
ROQUETTE 71 395
TEIJIN 72 388
CORNWARE 73 381
INNOVIA FILMS 74 380
PLA-NET 75 371
INGEO 76 362
BIOCHEMTEX 77 359
TORAY 78 354
MYKAI 79 334
DURASENSE 80 334
ALGOPACK 81 327
ANELLOTECH 82 295
URTHPACT 83 295
RILSAN 84 267
ARBOFORM 85 261
LUMINY 86 253
TERRAVERDAE 87 244
CARDIA BIOPLASTICS 88 225
MINERV 89 224
DURABIO 90 220
VIRENT 91 211
DEINOVE 92 207
BIOLOGIQ 93 204
ECOFLEX 94 200
NATIVIA 95 195
BEYOND GREEN 96 186
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND (ADM) 97 183
BIORGANI 98 163
TREVA 99 162
CIMV 100 149
GUALAPACK GROUP 101 148
RENMATIX 102 141
RADICI GROUP 103 135
POLYSORB 104 127
BIO4PACK 105 125
MOBIUS 106 117
METEX 107 108
NAFIGATE 108 75
BIOBATCH 109 74
NUREL 110 72
ARBOFILL 111 64
CELUS-BI 112 55
SOLON 113 53
DOMTAR 114 42
LIGNOBOOST 115 42
CARBIOLICE 116 33
GLYCOSBIO 117 28
ABM COMPOSITE 118 15
BIOMER N/A
BIOTEC N/A
BIO-FLEX N/A
YULEX N/A
TEREOS SYRAL N/A
DO GREEN N/A
TEKNOR APEX N/A
BIOSUCCINIUM N/A
ARNITEL ECO N/A
GLOBAL BIOPOLYMERS N/A
BIOHYBRID N/A
METSO N/A
TERRALOY N/A
RADILON N/A
SUCCINITY N/A
BIO-SA N/A
NUPLASTIQ N/A
BIOPLAST N/A
DYADIC N/A
BIOCHOICE N/A
BIODOGRADABLE N/A
GOGLIO N/A
KINGFA N/A
MHG N/A
POLYONE N/A
PSM N/A
TREEMERA N/A
TRELLIS BIOPLASTICS N/A
ZHEJIANG HISUN BIOMATERIALS N/A
MAISTIC N/A
BIO-PDO N/A
BIOAPPLY N/A
BIOBENT N/A
BIOFORM N/A
BIOFRONT N/A
BIOGEM N/A
BIOGRADE N/A
BIOLITE N/A
BIOPAR N/A
BIOPLASTICS INTERNATIONAL N/A
BIOSTEEL N/A
BRONTIDE N/A
CHENQI N/A
CUPFORMA NATURA N/A
ECOPEXX N/A
ECOSPRAY N/A
EPICEROL N/A
FIBROLON N/A
HOFFMANN NEOPAC N/A
MIREL N/A
NEOPAC N/A
PERSTOP N/A
PLANEXT N/A
PLANTIC ECO PLASTIC N/A
PLANTRO N/A
RADELAST N/A
RODENBURG BIOPOLYMERS N/A
SOLANYL N/A
SPECTALITE N/A
STARCHPAK N/A
TECHNYL N/A
TERRALENE N/A
TERRAPRENE N/A
TETRA REX N/A
TORAYCA N/A
FRX POLYMERS N/A
NOFIA N/A
XINHUARUN N/A
GRABIO N/A

Notes

This ranking is based on website statistics of BioplasticsNews.com for the period 1 January – 30 June 2020.

First Wine Bottle in Paper

Meet the Frugal Bottle – the biggest innovation for wine and spirits since the launch of the glass bottle.

The 75cl Frugal Bottle is made from 94% recycled paperboard with a food-grade liner to hold the wine or spirit. It can be refrigerated and keeps the liquid cooler for longer.

The Frugal Bottle, which is comparable in cost to a labelled glass bottle, is the brainchild of British sustainable packaging firm Frugalpac, which creates and supplies recycled paper-based products with the lowest carbon footprint that are easily recycled again so they don’t need to go to landfill.

The Frugal Bottles are made at Frugalpac’s facility in Ipswich.

vertoro
woodly

The first wine to go on sale in the Frugal Bottle is from the award-winning Italian vineyard Cantina Goccia. 3Q is an unwooded Sangiovese red with a hint of Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon.

There are six reasons why the Frugal Bottle is unique.

It’s lighter. The Frugal Bottle weighs just 83g so it is up to five times lighter than a normal glass bottle, making it easier to carry and lighter to transport.

It’s better for the environment. An independent Life Cycle Analysis by Intertek found the Frugal Bottle, which is made from recycled paperboard with no chemicals, has a carbon footprint up to six times (84%) lower than a glass bottle and more than a third less than a bottle made from 100% recycled plastic.

The Frugal Bottle’s water footprint is also at least four times lower than glass.

It’s easy to recycle again. Simply separate the plastic food-grade liner from the paper bottle and put them in your respective recycling bins. Or you can put the whole bottle in your paper recycling bin and the liner will be easily separated in the paper re-pulping process.

It uses less plastic than a plastic bottle. The Frugal Bottle uses up to 77% less plastic. Only 15g compared to a 64g bottle made from 100% recycled plastic.

It stands out. As the Frugal Bottle is made from recycled paperboard, it allows for 360-degree branding across the bottle. No other wine or spirits bottle looks or feels like it, so it stands out on shelf and table.
It’s better for wine producers.

The Frugal Bottle can be produced in the heart of their bottling facility, offers complete freedom on design and print, is more cost effective to transport while reducing their carbon footprint.

The Cantina Goccia Frugal Bottle will initially be available to buy online from http://www.cantinagoccia.com and in Scotland from Woodwinters Wines & Whiskies retail stores and online.

The Frugal Bottle is also under active consideration by a number of leading UK supermarket chains and hospitality groups keen to promote sustainable packaging and will be available from other retail outlets across the UK, in Denmark, and Holland over the next few weeks.

The Frugal Bottle, which can also be used for sprits such as gin, vodka and rum, has already sparked a huge amount of interest in a drinks industry keen to cut their emissions and appeal to a new audience of consumers interested in sustainability.

For example, Spanish wine producer Torres has launched the International Wineries for Climate Action (IWCA) with members targeting an overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 80% by 2045, with a shorter-term target of 50% by 2030.

Moving to the Frugal Bottle will allow wine producers to cut the carbon footprint of each bottle by up to 84% and reduce emissions from transporting bottles as the Frugal Bottles can be made and filled on site.

According to WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, the UK imports more than 1.6 billion bottles of wine a year.

Frugalpac also developed the Frugal Cup, the world’s first take-away coffee cup made from 96% recycled paper that has a carbon footprint up to 60% lower than conventional cups when sent to landfill and is easier to recycle again.

Frugalpac Chief Executive Malcolm Waugh said:

“Our mission is to design, develop and supply sustainable packaging. The Frugal Bottle is up to five times lighter than a glass bottle, has a carbon footprint up to six times lower and is easy to recycle again.

“We’ve had fantastic feedback from people who’ve trialled the Frugal Bottle. As well as the superior environmental benefits, it looks and feels like no other bottle you have ever seen.

“We want to deliver great wine and spirits in innovative packaging whilst helping our customers and consumers reduce their impact on the environment.

“The Frugal Bottle offers a major point of difference for the global wine and spirits sector through stand out design and positive sustainable benefits.

“Frugalpac’s business model is to supply Frugal Bottle machines for wine producers or packaging companies to manufacture the bottles on their site, cutting carbon emissions even further. Materials can be purchased locally through existing paperboard printers to give maximum freedom of design and the best commercial offering.”

Cantina Goccia owner Ceri Parke, the Frugal Bottle’s launch customer, said:

“We’re delighted to be making history with the most sustainable wine bottle in the world.

“For us, the Frugal Bottle is about achieving a considerably more sustainable form of packaging for an industry crying out for innovation. It will help us decarbonise the drinks industry.

“When some of our top hotel customers saw samples of our paper wine bottle, there was no hesitation in their minds that this type of bottle would be well received in their dining rooms. The launch of the Frugal Bottle is a big leap in sustainability without compromising wine quality.

“It’s much lighter than glass, easier to transport and friendlier to the planet. Just as important, our wine still tastes as wonderful in a paper bottle as it does in glass.

“We passionately believe this is a real game changer for the wine industry, allowing us to sell and transport our award-winning wines in a much more sustainable way whilst still providing a beautiful bottle.”

Douglas Wood, founder, Woodwinters Wines and Whiskies, the Cantina Goccia Frugal Bottle launch supplier, said:

“Woodwinters’ team and customers are huge fans of the delicious wines of Cantina Goccia. Innovation in sustainability at all stages of wine’s journey from vineyard to glass is something that we believe is hugely important.

“We are, therefore, obviously very excited to support the availability of one of our favourite wines in this new format with all its potentially great positive environmental impact.”

 

BASF Chemical Recycling of Mattresses

The materials from old mattresses are to be recycled in such a way that they can be used for the production of new mattresses.

“The target is to recover the raw materials with a quality comparable to that of non-recycled/virgin raw materials”, says Shankara Keelapandal, Business Management Isocyanates Europe.

 

In doing so, BASF is breaking new ground and responding to the raised expectations regarding sustainability of the foam and mattress industry as well as those of consumers.

It is an important step to possibly re-enter post-consumer waste back into product lifecycles.

BASF’s process breaks down the flexible polyurethane and delivers the initially used polyol.

 

From there BASF can produce new foam with a significantly lower carbon footprint, because fewer fossil resources are used.

“It makes projects of that nature quite attractive because, while mattresses are easy to collect and to sort out, at the end of their lifecycle they currently end up being either incinerated or in a landfill, explains technical project manager Arno Volkmann.

First volumes of the recycled material will be delivered to project partners later this year to develop pilot projects together.

“The project is technically complex, but the potential to reduce waste volumes and save resources makes it all worth it” comments Keelapandal.

With the new process, BASF steps up its efforts to increase sustainability and takes one step further toward a circular economy.

Aiming to decouple economic growth from the use of finite resources, BASF accelerates the adoption of the circular economy principle into its day-to-day operations.

“This is why we develop a solution to closing the loop for soft polyurethane foam with the chemical recycling of mattresses,” adds Keelapandal.

Germany Bans SUP Straws and Food Containers

Germany is banning the sale of single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and food containers, bringing it in line with a European Union directive intended to reduce the amount of plastic garbage that pollutes the environment.

The Cabinet agreed Wednesday to end the sale of plastics including single-use cutlery, plates, stirring sticks and balloon holders, as well as polystyrene cups and boxes by July 3, 2021.

Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said the move was part of an effort to move away from “throw-away culture.” Up to 20% of garbage collected in parks and other public places consists of single-use plastic, mainly polystyrene containers.

Plastic takes decades to degrade and microscopic particles have been found inside the bodies of fish, birds and other animals.

OXO Biodegradable Vs Compostable Plastics

Let’s look at the similarities and differences between OXO biodegradable (Oxo-bio) and compostable plastics.

The purpose of this article is not to say which technology works better, but to understand both technologies better by comparing them. Compostable plastic is a big family so I may reduce the scope to PLA and PBAT when needed.

  • Applications

OXO-bio plastics and compostable plastics such as PLA and PBAT can be used for similar applications such as bags, packaging and mulch films.

  • Carbon origin

Most compostable plastics are biobased (PLA, PHA, PBS, PBAF). However, some are fossil-based such as PBAT and PCL.  OXO-bio plastics are usually fossil-based but the masterbatch can be mixed with bio-based polymers such as Bio-PE for instance.

  • Nature

OXO-bio is not a plastic resin on itself. It’s a catalyst to reduce the molecular weight of ordinary PE and PP to make them biodegradable.

Compostable plastics are plastics (resins) on their own and it’s possible to blend (mix) them with other compostable plastics (resins). PBAT and PLA can be blended together, and both can be blended with starch for instance.

  • Production and Brands

OXO-bio masterbatches are produced by a dozen companies worldwide. The market leader is  Symphony Environmental who market their masterbatch under the brand “d2w”.

PBAT is produced by BASF. They sell it pure under the brand “Ecoflex” and blended with PLA under the brand “Ecovio”. Novamont sells that same PBAT/ PLA blend under the brand “Origo-bi” and the PBAT/ starch blend under the brand “Mater-bi”.

  • Marketing Claim

OXO-bio are marketed as a solution to littered plastics. Plastic should not end up in the environment, but unfortunately recyclable plastic are not always collected and recycled. OXO-bio is a kind of plan B or insurance policy in case plastic ends up in the open environment.

Compostable plastics are marketed as a primary solution, a kind of alternative to recycling. Compostable plastics provide an industrial end-of-life solution to deal with plastic waste.

  • Waste Management in reality

Neither Oxo-bio and compostable plastics are sorted, collected or processed separately. Both have a high chance to end up incinerated in which they are no better or worse than ordinary plastic; with the exception of PLA that emits less toxic fumes than regular plastic when incinerated.

They may also end up on landfills. Oxo-bio will be inert in anaerobic conditions, while some compostable plastics such as PLA will generate methane.

OXO-bio can be recycled with the normal PE or PP waste streams. Plastic recyclers cannot be sure that plastic waste is free from contaminants and will usually add stabilisers if they want to make recycled plastic resins for long-term applications.

PLA is recyclable in theory. It can be mechanically recycled on its own or may be chemically recycled with other plastics. However, it’s hard to recycle PLA alone: there’s too little PLA in circulation and it’s too dispersed. Chemical recycling doesn’t exist on an industrial scale at this point-in-time.

  • End-of-life

Both OXO-bio and compostable plastics are end-of-life options for plastics. OXO-bio will biodegrade in the open air, in the open environment.  Compostable plastics like PLA will degrade in a controlled environment, a composting facility, where the degradation process is started by a human intervention.

  • Residue

OXO-bio and compostable plastics both claim that the biodegradation process will transform their plastic into CO2 (90%), water and biomass.

The biodegradation time frame is different. Compostable plastics degrade in a time frame of 2 to 6 months in an industrial compost. OXO will degrade in a timeframe of 1 to 3 years in the open environment.

In both cases, bacteria and microorganisms consume the plastic and the microorganisms breathe out the CO2. The degradation of compostable plastics releases the CO2 in the atmosphere much faster than OXO-bio. OXO-bio releases the CO2 much slower; so the CO2 has time to be absorbed by the vegetation.

Eventually, the bacteria die and the resulting biomass are the “dead bodies” of the microorganisms. Compostable plastic calls this biomass “compost”. The biomass resulting from the biodegradation of compostable plastics is not compost in the etymological sense of the word but more in the functional sense of the word: it’s referred to as compost because the process takes place at a composting facility. OXO-bio doesn’t claim to produce compost.

  • Degradation Process

In both cases, biodegradation has two phases.

Both technologies start with an “abiotic degradation” phase. The goal of this first phase is to reduce the molecular weight of the polymer to enable microorganisms to digest it. Microorganisms do not play a role in this phase, that’s’ why it’s called abiotic.

The abiotic phase is started by oxygen (oxydative, OXO refers to oxygen) in the case of OXO-bio and can be accelerated by U/V light and /or heat.

In the case of compostable plastics, it’s usually water/moisture that causes the first phase. It’s a hydrolytic degradation (hydrolysis). The degrading phase of PLA can also start with high temperatures. You can see the deformation of pure PLA on a hot summer day for instance. It will “melt” in the sun…the molecular structure will degrade to say it bluntly.

Both technologies have a biotic second phase which is similar but with a different timescale. Bacteria and other microorganisms start eating the residues. Water is released in the process, the microorganisms breath out CO2 and they die to form the biomass.

  • Problems 

Both technologies face problems.

The EU SUP directive bans “OXO degradable plastics” but does not distinguish between oxo-degradable and oxo-biodegradable. Technically speaking, OXO-bio has a second phase that is “biotic” so it would be more etymologically correct to refer to it as “OXO biodegradable” plastics.

There has been an anti-OXO campaign for many years.

OXO Technology has been accused of causing microplastics.

PLA is accused of using food crops (corn, sugar cane) in the production. Technically speaking, it’s only the 1st generation PLA that uses food crops.

There have been court decisions and jurisprudence that disallowed PLA to be referred to as “fully biodegradable”or “leaving nothing behind” as it is misleading as PLA will only biodegrade in an industrial composting facility.

Most industrial composters are not in favour of compostable plastics such as PLA or PBAT because it takes too long to compost and the biomass should not be referred to as compost as it makes the soil more acidic and contains microplastics.

  • Representation

OXO-bio is represented by the Oxo-Biodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) worldwide. Compostable plastics are represented by European Bioplastics at EU level, BBIA in the UK and BPI in the US.

  • Business and Industry

OXO-bio is quite a small industry with around a dozen small companies. Symphony Environmental is the only quoted company and it produces around 70 % of OXO-bio masterbatches. The worldwide OXO-bio market is approximately worth between € 15 to 50 million.

Compostable plastics is a much bigger industry, with big companies. PBAT is produced by BASF (world’s largest chemical company). PLA is produced by Nature Works ( a joint venture between “Cargill” and a Thai state-owned oil company “PTT”) and Total-Corbion (a joint venture between French oil company “Total” and Dutch biotech company “Corbion”). The worldwide compostable market is approximately worth between € 1 to 3 Billions.

  • Certifications

The OPA certifies products as “OXO biodegradable” if you can provide a report from an independent laboratory on successful testing according to American Standard  ASTM D6954 or British standard 8472 or similar standards.

There are two certificates relating to compostable plastics. “Seedling” and “OK compost”. Seedling is owned by European Bioplastics and OK compost is owned by TUV Austria (ex-Vincotte). Din Certco and TUV Austria are certification bodies authorised by European Bioplastics to award the compostable labels “Seedling and OK compost”. The Seedling label refers to and is in compliance with European standard EN 13432. The OK compost label doesn’t refer to the European standard.

  • Geopolitics

OXO-bio technology has a strong British accent. The technology was invented in Britain, the leading producer is British and the OPA is based in London.

Compostable plastics have a strong German accent. Compostable plastics started as a German industry (PBAT and BASF). European Bioplastics used to be a German association called IBAW (Interessengemeinschaft Biologisch Abbaubare Werkstoffe – Interest Group Biodegradable Polymers). European Bioplastics is probably the only EU association based in Berlin instead of Brussels. Din Certco is a German organisation and TUV Austria is an Austrian organisation.

  • History

OXO-bio was the first to market “biodegradable plastics”. Compostable plastics came after.

  • Efficiency

Which one is more efficient: (1) PLA or PBAT in an industrial composting plant or (2) OXO-bio in the open air? The PLA and PBAT will eventually disappear after one or two months in the composting facility. It will take OXO-bio one to three years to biodegrade in the open environment.

  • My Personal Experience

I have published critical content about OXO-bio. Nobody made a complaint. I have published “very” critical content about recycling. Nobody made a complaint.

I have written ( a few years ago) that “I didn’t believe PBAT mulch films were compostable” ….. I was approached by the Vice-President of a German company who told me … “Nobody from the industry (*) will work with you anymore.” (*referring to members of European Bioplastics)

This is Intimidation and a threat. This is also cowardice because he wouldn’t have threatened a New York Times journalist … but who cares about a little blogger, right? Eventually, since that day I haven’t worked with almost any members of European Bioplastics…coincidence or not!

I wrote to another Vice-President of that same German company to share my story and concerns. They didn’t reply. You know what I think: poor corporate ethics and lame code of conduct!

It reminds me of what my first boss told me in the beginning of my career; he was an Englishman working for an American company.

“Our company is listed on the stock market. We’re regulated. We have to respect our shareholders and stakeholders, our behaviour has to be impeccable. Irreproachable!”

You don’t buy ethics or gentlemenship. You have it or you don’t.

In the meantime, a few members of European Bioplastics have asked me not to allow OXO-bio spokespersons to publish content on BioplasticsNews.com … as if there was some kind of omerta.

My answer was clear: “We shouldn’t exclude someone because of their ethnic origins, religious or scientific beliefs. It’s against our “right of opinion” and “freedom of expression” not to allow someone to express himself or herself publicly because he or she is a representative from a particular industry, sector or technology.”

We’re not in the 1930s; this ain’t Nazi-Germany! Everyone has the right to speak, every one has the right to work, everyone has the right to make a living, everyone has the right to live with dignity. I shall not be part of a kabal against a minority.

What about: OXO is a source of microplastics and should be banned!

Is this a farce? You think a € 25 million industry is the greatest source of microplastics?  You want to stop microplastics seriously? Then you ban the use of synthetic fibres in textiles. You ban the downcycling of PET into polyesters. You regulate the use of plastics nets in fisheries; you ban the use of plastics in agriculture, etc. Oxo comes at the bottom of the list. But hé, you don’t ban the big guys, right? No kabal against them! To be honest, compostable plastics are as much source of microplastics than OXO-bio if not more!

Banning OXO and the anti-OXO campaign is not based on a sincere environmental concerns. It’s a smear campaign that finds its root in commercial interests.

In memory of all the great people who have fought to give us “right of opinion”, “freedom of speech” and “protection of minorities”…. I won’t be part of this kabal!

Chemical Recycling Europe Position on EU Waste Policy

Although the “10 priorities to transform EU Waste Policy” developed by various European Union (EU) NGOs and associations points at ambitious directions for the waste policy that Chemical Recycling Europe generally supports, restrictions mentioned in Priority 9 represent missed opportunities to improve the current waste and recycling system, leading to some inconsistencies between priorities. We would like to provide some clarification on chemical recycling to refine Priority 9.

Chemical Recycling Europe supports many of the priorities mentioned in the NGO’s joint statement:

Priority to favour waste prevention and reduction as well as reuse in full alignment with the EU Waste Hierarchy.

Priority to prevent shipping of plastic waste to non-EU countries, especially if they do not have the necessary infrastructure, to stimulate recycling and recycling infrastructure in the EU and to avoid pollution elsewhere.

Most Advanced Technology to Measure Plastic Polymer Biodegradation

Priority to encourage the creation of plastic products that follows the principle of the waste hierarchy. This implies support for eco-modulation and measures to incentivize increased amount of recycled content in plastic products, and more generally, in a circular design. The purpose of which is to stimulate the demand for recycled content and circular materials. On this basis, we support an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) expanded to other groups beyond packaging and WEEE.

Priority to clarify the definition and framework for chemical recycling.

We would, however, like to bring some elements of clarification related to Priority 9 regarding chemical recycling:

Symphony Wins Battle of Words with Compostable Plastics Industry

  • I. Chemical Recycling is circular by definition: Chemical recycling represents an overarching category composed of different technologies that aims to close the material loop by converting plastic waste currently not recycled into high-quality products.

These recycling techniques (sometimes described as Upcycling or Advanced Recycling) reflects the essence of what circularity is by enabling the direct replacement of virgin material with its identical quality and properties.

They, for instance, enable the inclusion of recycled content in food-grade applications. These various technologies convert polymeric waste in different value-added materials like monomers, naphtha, syngas, waxes and etc.

Chemical recycling takes on a clear circular approach as the definition of chemical recycling excludes energy recovery: “Chemical Recycling is defined as any reprocessing technology that directly affects either the formulation of the polymeric waste or the polymer itself and converts them into chemical substances and/or products whether for the original or other purposes, excluding energy recovery”.

  • II. Input characteristics should not be restricted: The input of chemical recycling has very little value compared to the input of mechanical recycling. Therefore, chemical recycling input naturally falls into a category that tends to be contaminated and/or degraded.

We, however, fail to see the reason for restricting chemical recycling to contaminated and degraded plastics.

Some plastics are more complex and some do not represent a stream economically viable for mechanical recyclers and therefore this restriction prevents the possibility for these plastics to be recycled. Opening broader plastic waste streams to chemical recycling would enable more plastics, that are currently not being recycled, to be recycled and would therefore complement current efforts made by mechanical recyclers.

  • III. Input origin should not be restricted: Saying that the input should not come from a separate collection, would mean that chemical recycling would not be able to capture the rejects from mechanical recyclers, which represent a significant amount of plastic waste.

In addition, mechanical recycling is also not able to recycle some separate collected waste streams e.g. EPS, LDPE,… Therefore, we ask what the best recycling alternative would be for those separate collected waste streams rather than chemical recycling?

On the other hand, in addition to new plastics, the output of chemical recycling can be used in the production of a variety of materials which might bring more value than plastics and therefore the output should not be limited to new plastics.

Furthermore, unwanted plastic waste of a larger variety can be transformed into alternative oils, waxes, and solvents.

This also results in a reduction of crude oil as a raw material and creation of necessary and useful materials for various industries.

  • IV. Restrictions lead to inconsistencies with Priority 10: Restricting the input characteristics and origins for chemical recycling would be inconsistent with Priority 10 phasing out waste incineration.

Given that the plastic waste going to chemical recycling would otherwise be sent to Energy-from-Waste, the restrictions above imply that you implicitly favour this waste going to Energy-from-Waste.

This represents a missed opportunity to recycle the plastic waste coming from the rejections of mechanical recycling (and therefore from separate collection) or a waste stream technically or economically difficult to recycle by mechanical recyclers.

  • V. Chemical recycling targets a new demand: Chemical recycling specifically targets the demand for virgin-quality recycled content that mechanical recycling can fulfil only for PET and HDPE for a few cycles under strict conditions (for now, and we hope that innovation will enable more!). It targets a circular product and demand that currently cannot be fulfilled.

Praj and Lygos Partner on Lactic Acid Technology

As part of this MOU, Lygos will provide its proprietary yeast platform to Praj for jointly developing into various solutions for commercial applications.

Praj has already developed and offers bacterial fermentation technology to produce lactic acid and downstream products from sugary feedstock.

Lactic acid is also used in food and beverages, in cleaning agents as well as in the electronic industry.

Most Advanced Technology to Measure Plastic Polymer Biodegradation

The global lactic acid market size is estimated at around $1 Bln USD (2019).

Lygos will provide its innovative and high-performance technology, LP1 Ultra™ Yeast Platform and Carbon Sequestration Superhighway™, which is well suited to produce acid compounds.

Praj will assemble other segments of technology backed up by its expertise in process development, optimization, design scale-up and will further integrate lactic acid as a source material in to making Bioplastic, called as Polylactic Acid (PLA).

Symphony Wins Battle of Words with Compostable Plastics Industry

Demand for PLA acid is ~ 200, 000 tons/year, which is expected to increase substantially in the near future. PLA is an appropriate solution to replace single use plastics and reduce the burden on the waste disposal system.

Due to its unique characteristics, PLA offers an improved replacement for many applications. Rising consumer awareness with respect to the need for recyclability, green packaging, and sustainability is driving significant demand globally.

Unlike conventional plastic, PLA does not take decades to degrade, and as such, reduces adverse environmental impact.

Pramod Chaudhari, Executive Chairman of Praj, said,

“True to its vision to make the world a better place, Praj continues to deploy advanced technologies to produce sustainable products. Our focus over the past three decades on environment, energy and agri-process industry complements global efforts to mitigate climate change and is in tune with global circular bioeconomy. We are happy to work with Lygos to co-develop their advanced yeast platform to produce highly valuable organic acid to offer our customers a better opportunity while supporting rural economy. I am confident that this association will open opportunities for both of us in the global renewable chemicals & materials industry.”

Eric Steen, CEO of Lygos, stated

“We are pleased to partner with Praj and the Praj Matrix team whose deep expertise spans commercialization, engineering, and scale-up, construction and operation of similar industrial processes. This is an exciting time where the world’s demand for sustainable, safe products not produced from toxic petroleum continues to grow. We believe our LP1 Ultra™ platform will complement the Praj team’s goal in the lactic acid marketplace. We look forward to accelerating the technology commercialization through this partnership,”

Both companies will jointly pursue identified commercial opportunities globally to establish a leading position in compostable polymers.