final report wrap plastics compositional analysis at mrfs plastics... · 2019-05-09 · wrap...

Final report

WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs

A study into the plastic packaging composition arriving at MRFs from established mixed plastics collections

Project code: IMT003-109 Research: February-June 2014 Publication: January 2015

WRAresou Our msustathrouprodhow re-derecyc

Find Document re[WRAP, 2014

Written

Front cover p While WRAP &arising out of material is accendorse or sug

AP’s visiurces a

missionainable ugh re-uce andwe use

efining cling an

out mo

eference (please u4, Banbury, WRAP

n by: LRS C

photography: Deliv

& LRS Consultancy haor in connection withcurate and not used ggest we have endor

on is a re used

n is to aresourinventid sell pe and cwhat is

nd re-us

ore at w

use this reference wP Plastics Composit

Consultancy

very of incoming mat

ave tried to make suh this information bein a misleading contersed a commercial pr

world d susta

accelerarce-efficng how

productsonsumes possibse.

www.w

when citing WRAPtional Analysis at U

y

terial at MRF

re this report is accuing inaccurate, incomext. You must identifroduct or service. Fo

in whicinably.

ate the cient ecw we des; re-the produble thro

rap.org

P’s work): UK MRFs]

urate, we cannot accemplete or misleadingfy the source of the mor more details pleas

ch

move conomyesign, hinking ucts; anough

g.uk

ept responsibility or b. This material is copmaterial and acknowe see our terms and

to a y

nd

be held legally responpyrighted. You can coledge our copyright. conditions on our we

nsible for any loss oropy it free of charge You must not use mebsite at www.wrap.

r damage as long as the

material to .org.uk

Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Project limitations .......................................................................................... 7 4.0 Key Findings ................................................................................................... 8

4.1 The proportion of comingled input materials that is plastic packaging ............ 8 4.2 The plastic fraction composition by format type ........................................... 11 4.3 The plastic fraction composition by polymer type ......................................... 11 4.4 Material quality .......................................................................................... 14

5.0 Summary of findings .................................................................................... 16 Appendix 1 Summary of contract data for participating MRFs .............................. 18 Figures Figure 1 Sorting of plastic grades at a MRF ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Composition of MRF input materials including both plastic packaging and non-plastics ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Average composition of the material inputs to each MRF .................................... 9 Figure 4: Composition of material inputs within the contracts that do and do not accept glass .............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5: Average plastics composition of MRF inputs by packaging format ...................... 11 Figure 6: Average polymer type within the plastics portion of MRF inputs (all formats) (grossed data) ................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 7: Polymer and colour composition of bottles (grossed data) ................................. 13 Figure 8: Polymer and colour composition of PTT (grossed data) ..................................... 14 Figure 9: A comparison of the contamination rate for different compositions of input materials ........................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 10: Material cleanliness at the sampled MRFs ....................................................... 16 Tables Table 1: Composition of MRF input materials including both plastic packaging and non-plastics ........................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Composition of material inputs within the contracts that do and do not accept glass ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Average plastics composition of MRF inputs by packaging format ........................ 11 Table 4: Average polymer type within the plastics portion of MRF inputs (all formats) (grossed data) ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5: Polymer and colour composition of bottles (grossed data) .................................. 13 Table 6: Polymer and colour composition of PTT (grossed data) ...................................... 14 Table 7: A comparison of the contamination rate for different compositions of input materials ........................................................................................................................ 15 Table 8: Material cleanliness at the sampled MRFs .......................................................... 16

WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 4

Glossary Contamination Any non-target material within the comingled recycling including

liquids and food within target material EPS Expanded polystyrene Fines Those materials that fell through a 45mm x 45mm wire mesh during

sampling and are assumed to be no more than 55mm in their longest dimension

HDPE High-density polyethylene HDPE natural An opaque white / clear colour of HDPE plastic packaging Identifying marker A label or code found on plastic packaging that identifies the polymer

type Jazz Mixed colours of plastic packaging materials Liquids Liquids contained within the plastic packaging that was sampled MRF A Material Recovery Facility that receives input from established

comingled collection schemes including plastics Non-plastics Other target and non-target materials delivered to the MRF within the

comingled load sampled that are not plastics e.g. paper, glass, cans and contaminants

Non-packaging plastic

Plastics that are not bottles, plastic pots, tubs or trays (PTT) or packaging films/single use carrier bags e.g. video cases, toys, coat hangers and CD’s

PET Polyethylene terephthalate PP Polypropylene PS Polystyrene PTT Plastic pots, tubs and trays PVC Polyvinyl chloride Sampling The activity of taking a small amount of material from an incoming

load, sorting the materials and recording the weights Unidentifiable plastic Plastic packaging that had no mark to indicate the polymer type and

therefore could not be reliably identified visually


1.0 Introduction WRAP has been working across the plastics packaging supply chain to assist with the delivery of the 2017 plastics recycling targets. This work has led to an industry initiative called the Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan1 (PIRAP) which is being guided by a Steering Group consisting of industry bodies and trade associations. The UK plastic packaging recycling targets were announced by Government in 2012 and included a target for businesses obligated by the Producer Responsibility Obligations for packaging to increase recycling from 32% in 2012 to 57% by 20172. This equates to a national achievement target of 42.3% recycling for plastic packaging. In order for this to be achieved there is a need for sufficient infrastructure within the waste management industry to deal with this additional plastics packaging. A number of local authorities have already broadened the plastics packaging material targeted by collections to include rigid pots, tubs and trays and it is expected that where appropriate other local authorities will follow. Therefore within the work of the PIRAP it was suggested that it would be of benefit to understand the composition of collected plastics packaging. WRAP therefore commissioned LRS Consultancy and its sub-contractor Waste Intelligence to undertake sampling of materials arriving at 12 UK municipal Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) to gain an insight of what proportion of mixed dry recyclables types would be plastic packaging and what the plastic fraction would be. A better understanding of the composition will allow those in the waste management sector to adapt infrastructure to maximise value. Although the project aimed to provide results that were sufficiently representative of the plastics received at MRFs, it must be recognised that the information is based on one-off sampling at individual sites and that assumptions had to be made and applied to unidentifiable proportion of plastics. Despite some limitations, it is still expected that the findings of this research would primarily be relevant and useful to local authorities, MRFs and plastics recyclers. 2.0 Methodology Twelve MRFs in the UK that receive material from well-established comingled collection schemes were recruited to participate in this study during February and March 2014. The facilities selected were in different geographical locations and received material from rural, urban and mixed (urban/rural) areas. The selection of MRFs also allowed inclusion of: Large facilities (with a yearly capacity of more than 150k tonnes), typically run by national

waste management businesses; Medium sized facilities (with a yearly capacity of 50-150k tonnes) typically run by

businesses with a strong regional presence, and; Small facilities (with a yearly capacity of 10-50k tonnes) typically run by small

independent businesses or directly by local authorities.

An anonymised summary of contract data for participating MRFs has been provided in Appendix 1.

1 http://www.wrap.org.uk/node/17485

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-and-managing-waste/supporting-pages/packaging-waste-producer-responsibility-regimes


The MRF operators each completed a questionnaire to provide background information on their operations and contracts, including: information regarding the source of materials delivered; contract input specifications; and details to support the sampling of materials undertaken as part of this project. Municipal contracts through which comingled materials were delivered to the MRFs were identified and used for the sampling element involved in this project. The following methodology was used for sampling: Samples of materials were taken from incoming loads from the selected local authority

contracts and the vehicle registration and sample size was recorded. The samples were put on a 45 x 45mm wire mesh and any material that fell through the

screen, without assistance was classed as “fines”. An indication of how clean the comingled material (both plastics and non-plastics) was

recorded against the following categories: Very clean (minimal / no dirt or food contamination); Clean (small amounts of dirt or food); Dirty (easily visible dirt or food contamination); Very dirty (large amounts of dirt or food contamination).

The material left on top of the screen was hand sorted into the following broad categories with additional subcategories as appropriate: Plastic film; Plastic bottles; Plastic pots, tubs and trays (PTT); Non-packaging plastics; Non-plastics.

Liquid contained in bottles was emptied into a bucket and the total weight of the liquids was recorded.

Plastics types were identified using visual assessment of the packaging (e.g. bottle or PTT), the polymer type by the identifying marker on the packaging and the colour. Material which did not have a marker was classified as “unidentifiable plastic”.

Once sorting of the larger items left on the top of the screen was complete the fines were collected and weighed. Between 10% and 50% of the fines were then further sorted into two categories, ‘plastic’ and ‘non-plastic’, in order to provide an indication of the percentage of fines that were plastic.

The data from the sampling undertaken at each of the MRFs were collated into a database. The source of the material was considered as part of the data analysis, using information provided by each of the MRFs about their supply contract. The standard deviation for the composition of the materials sampled was calculated to demonstrate the variability in the results. These data represent a sample of a larger population, so the standard deviation for the populations’ formulae (stdev.s) was applied to calculate the statistics. For the PTT stream, 48% of plastics (by weight) had no identifying marker and therefore the polymer type could not be identified. This material mainly comprised unmarked food packaging, primarily PET and PP with the majority being natural. This assessment was therefore used and applied for the data analysis.


Figure 1 Sorting of plastic grades at a MRF

3.0 Project limitations The following limitations were encountered during the project: As a result of the sample having a high percentage of PTT without identifying markers it

is recommended that a polymer scanner is used for future similar projects in order to increase the accuracy of outcomes.

In some instances the amount of material sampled was smaller than originally anticipated. This was, in part, because some MRFs do not accept glass, meaning the weight to volume ratio of materials was lower than those that did accept glass. In addition, not all deliveries of incoming material to the MRFs were made as scheduled, often with fewer than expected vehicles from the contract arriving at the site. A number of steps were taken to try to mitigate against this impacting on sample size, including: taking larger samples from the incoming vehicles (although this was often limited by the space available for storing and sorting samples), trying to identify with MRF managers particular vehicles that might not arrive, and spending part of an additional second day sampling.

In one instance a MRF had reported that it handled mixed plastics but later became apparent that some of the in-feed sampled stemmed from contracts that specified plastic bottles only (although the composition of plastics received did not appear to differ to those contracts also accepting PTT).

Material was sampled from 12 MRFs across the UK, but four of these MRFs had a significantly higher content of plastics in comparison to non-plastics compared to the other MRFs (Figure 3 below). The project team took the decision that the samples taken must have not been reflective of the intended co-mingled collections of dry recyclables

that from

4.0 KFindingsthis is b The

pack The The The q

4.1 TThe stuweight (the mos

Figure plastics

include plas these four

Key Findins from the s

based on the

proportion okaging (Sectplastic fractplastic fractquality of in

The proportdy indicates(14% of whst common

2: Compos

stics, and soMRFs has t

ngs study are sue reduced s

of the comition 4.1); tion compostion composnput materia

tion of comis that plastihich is bottleplastic form

sition of MR

o deemed ttherefore be

ummarised sample size

ngled dry re

sition by forsition by poals (Section

ingled inputic packaginges, PTT and

mats (Figure

F input mat

these as uneen exclude

in the followof eight MR

ecyclables a

rmat type (Solymer type n 4.4).

t materials tg representd film) and e ).

terials includ

WRAP Plastic

representated from the

wing sub-seRFs:

arriving at t

Section 4.2)(Section 4.

that is plastts around 1783% is non

ding both p

cs Composition

tive of typic analyses.

ections. As

the MRF tha

); 3); and

tics packagi7% of MRF

n-plastics. B

plastic packa

nal Analysis a

cal MRFs. Th

mentioned

at is plastics

ing input mate

Bottles and P

aging and n

t MRFs 8

he data

above,

s

erial by PTT are

non-

Table 1plastics

Fraction

Non-plas

Bottles

PTT

Films

Plastics f

Non-pac

Liquid

Figure 3varying accepteexclude

Figure

Half of tproportithe MRFassumesampled

1: Composit

n of the ma

stics

fines < 45mm

ckaging plast

3 shows thaslightly in t

ed glass or nd from the

3: Average

the eight Mion of plastiFs that did nd that it wad for the MR

tion of MRF

aterial input

m

ics

at eight of tterms of thenot. This figanalysis.

e compositio

RFs accepteics relative not accept gas contributRFs where i

F input mate

t

he 12 MRFse plastics togure also ex

on of the m

ed glass witto the non-glass (Figuring to a heat was accep

erials includ

s had a veryo non-plasticxemplifies w

aterial inpu

thin the con-plastics witre 4 - belowavier weighpted.

WRAP Plastic

ing both pla

Perce

83%

7%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0.3%

y similar comcs ratio, de

why the four

ts to each M

ntracts samthin the inpuw). As glasst per volum

cs Composition

astic packag

entage of o

mposition opending on r MRFs (out

MRF

pled and haut materialss is heavy m

me within th

nal Analysis a

ging and no

overall weig

of input mat whether thtliers) were

alf did not. s was highematerial it cae input mat

t MRFs 9

on-

ght

terial, he MRF

The er for an be terials

Figure glass

Table 2 Fraction

Non-plas

Bottles

PTT

Films

Fines

Non-pac

Liquids

The maj(urban /1 for andemogrthe plasthereforcollectereceived

4: Compos

2: Composit

n of the ma

stics

ckaging plast

jority of the/ rural) dem

nonymised craphic areasstics samplere that neithd, nor the cd.

sition of mat

tion of mate

aterial input

ics

e contracts mographic acontract dets, six of theed at this Mher the ruracontract spe

terial inputs

erial inputs

t

held by theareas and totails). One se were forRF was not al demograpecification (f

W

s within the

within the c

Glass acce

84%

6%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0.3%

e MRFs wereo accept all participatin

r plastic bott notably difphic of the afor bottles o

WRAP Plastics

e contracts t

contracts th

epted

e to receivetypes of pla

ng MRF heldttles only. Tfferent to otareas from only) were

Compositiona

that do and

hat do and d

Glass no

81%

8%

4%

3%

2%

2%

0.3%

e material frastic packagd seven conThe materiather MRFs awhich the minfluencing

al Analysis at M

do not acc

do not acce

ot accepted

rom urban oging (see A

ntracts fromal compositiand it suggematerials wthe plastics

MRFs 10

cept

ept glass

d

or mixed ppendix rural on of ested

were s

4.2 TBottles

Figure

Table 3 Fraction

Bottles

PTT

Films

Plastics f

Non-pac

Liquid

4.3 TAs outlinwere nesample.observethem by The polywere th

The plastic fmade up 61

5: Average

3: Average

n of the ma

fines < 45mm

ckaging plast

The plastic fned earlier eeded and a. Based on ted in the triay weight (se

ymer breake most com

fraction com1% of all pl

e plastics co

plastics com

aterial input

m

ics

fraction comin the repoapplied in othe grossedal were PETee Figure 6)

kdown for pmmon polym

mposition byastics follow

omposition o

mposition of

t

mposition byrt, 48% of rder to estim

d up figures T, PP and H).

lastic bottlemers for bot

W

y format tywed by PTT

of MRF inpu

f MRF input

y polymer tPTT had nomate the pr for the samDPE, accou

es and PTT ttles, and PE

WRAP Plastics

pe T which was

uts by packa

ts by packag

type o identifyingroportion ofmple, the mnting for 74

is presentedET and PP t

Compositiona

s 35% (Figu

aging forma

ging format

Percentag

38%

22%

18%

12%

8%

2%

g marker anf PET and P

most commo4% of all pla

d in Figure the most co

al Analysis at M

ure 5).

at

t

ge of overal

nd so assumPP for the enon polymersastic betwe

7. PET andommon for P

MRFs 11

l weight

mptions ntire s een

d HDPE PTT.

Figure (grossed

Table 4(grossed Polyme

PET

Unidentif

HDPE

PP

PS

EPS

PVC

6: Averaged data)

4: Average d data)

er type

fiable polyme

e polymer ty

polymer typ

ers (mainly m

ype within t

pe within th

mixed film)

W

the plastics

he plastics p

WRAP Plastics

portion of M

portion of M

W

3

2

2

1

1

1

0

Compositiona

MRF inputs

MRF inputs (

Weight

36%

24%

23%

15%

1%

1%

0.05%

al Analysis at M

(all formats

(all formats)

MRFs 12

s)

)

Figure

Table 5 FormaBottlesBottlesBottlesBottlesBottlesBottles

7: Polymer

5: Polymer a

at Polymes PET (cles PET (jas HDPE (s HDPE (js PP (all cs PVC (al

r and colour

and colour

er and coloear and lighzz) natural) jazz) colours) l colours)

r compositio

composition

our Coht blue)

W

on of bottle

n of bottles

ompositio45%7%

35%11%2%

0.05%

WRAP Plastics

s (grossed

(grossed d

n%%%%%%

Compositiona

data)

ata)

al Analysis at MMRFs 13

Figure

Table 6 FormaPTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT PTT

4.4 MAs showvolumesplastic pbottles, (such asplastics 3It should quality sam

8: Polymer

6: Polymer a

at PolymePP (jazzPP (natPP (blacPET (clePET (blaPET (alPS (all) PS (blacHDPE (aHDPE (HDPE (EPS (allPVC (naPVC (bl

Material quawn in Figures of plasticspackaging tyin the less

s food, cerastream. be noted that c

mpling regimes.

r and colour

and colour

er and coloz ) ural) ck packaginear) ack packagl other colo

ck packaginall other coblack packanatural) l colours) atural, whiteack packag

ality e 9 below, ts in their inpype notablecontaminat

amics and w

contamination ra

They were not

r compositio

composition

our

ng)

ing) urs inc. whi

ng) lours inc. w

aging)

e & Jazz ) ing)

he contamiput materiae for being lted MRFs. Iwood) being

ates are based oot assessed durin

W

on of PTT (g

n of PTT (g

Co

ite )

white)

nation ratesls3. This coless contamIt may also

g heavy and

on those reporteng the sampling

WRAP Plastics

grossed dat

rossed data

omposition

s were highould be the minated than be reflectiv

d this weigh

ted by the MRF ag.

Compositiona

ta)

a)

n 21%18%4%

20%10%3%7%1%6%

0.30%2%7%

0.40%0%

her in MRFs result of a pn others, nave of contamt being refle

as typical result

al Analysis at M

with lower preponderaamely plastiminant matected in the

ts from their inte

MRFs 14

ance of a ic terials e non-

ternal

Figure materia

Table 7materia AveragBottles Rigid paNon-pacFilms Liquid Non-pla The cleasamplin Very Clean Dirty Very

Results MRFs thaccept greported

9: A compals

7: A compals

ge compos

ackaging ckaging pla

astics

anliness of tg team and

clean (minn (small amy (easily visi

dirty (large

suggest thahat did not aglass. Additd that they

arison of th

rison of the

sition At 1

stics

the sampledd the mater

imal/ no dirmounts of di

ble dirt or fe amounts o

at nearly 60accept glasstionally, the had more v

e contamin

e contamina

10% conta

d material (ial was cate

rt or food cort or food cfood contamof dirt or foo

0% of mates had morefour MRFs

very clean m

W

ation rate f

ation rate fo

amination

0.3%3%2%4%3%6%

(both plasticegorised as

ontaminatiocontaminatiomination); aod contami

erial in MRFse ‘clean’ or ‘v

with high pmaterial in t

WRAP Plastics

for different

or different c

n At 13%

%%%%%%

cs and non-follows:

on); on); and nation).

s was eithervery clean’ proportions the samples

Compositiona

t compositio

composition

contamin

-plastics) wa

r clean or vmaterial thaof plastics (

s than the r

al Analysis at M

ons of input

ns of input

nation

0.3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 7%

was assessed

very clean, aan those th(the ‘outlierremaining M

MRFs 15

t

d by the

and that hat did rs’)

MRFs.

Figure

Table 8 Materiaquality

Very cleClean Dirty Very dir

5.0 S The follo The s

appro Bottl

averafract

The acco

The

4 Based on

10: Materia

8: Material c

al y

ean

rty

Summary o

owing outco

study indicaoximately 1es constitutage formingion. PTT fomost communting for 8most comm

n the grossed up

al cleanlines

cleanliness

MRFs acceptingglass (4) 19% 29% 40% 13%

of findings

omes are su

ates that pla17% of MRFted the largg 7% of theormed 4% omon polyme81%. mon polyme

p fraction

ss at the sa

at the samp

g MRacgla1350325%

s

ummarised

astic packagF input mategest proporte total inputof overall Mrs of the PT

er types for

W

ampled MRF

pled MRFs

RFs not ccepting ass (4)

3% 0% 2% %

from the an

ging (mainlyerial by weition of plastt materials aRF inputs a

TT and bott

bottles wer

WRAP Plastics

Fs

nalysis unde

y bottles anght. tics within tanalysed anand 35% of les fraction4

re PET at 52

Compositiona

ertaken:

nd PTT) com

he MRF inpnd 61% of tthe overall

4 were PET,

2% and HD

al Analysis at M

mprises

put materialsthe overall pplastics fra

, PP and HD

DPE at 46%

MRFs 16

s, on plastics action. DPE

.


The most common polymer types for PTT were PP at 43% and PET at 33%. The proportion of input material to a MRF that is plastic packaging is influenced by

whether or not the MRF accepts glass (as glass increases the proportional weight of non-plastics).

The data gathered within this study did not provide evidence that the urban / rural demographics of the area or a bottle-only specification influenced the composition of plastics received.

Material quality appeared to relate to whether or not glass was accepted (MRFs that accepted glass were less likely to have material noted as clean or very clean during sampling) and to the proportion of plastics within the input stream (those with a greater proportion of plastics reported lower contamination rates).

This project hopes to provide a useful insight into the composition of plastics packaging received at MRFs. Although it is only an indication of the potential spread of the material found, it should add to the intelligence that could be valuable to the waste management industry.

Appendix 1 Summary of contract data for participating MRFs MRF no.

Contract demographic

Collection type

Contract Volume5

Accept glass

Plastics accept

Reported contamination

Daily input

sampled

Sample size (kg)

1 Urban Kerbside - Yes All (bottles,

PTT, film)

10% 0.5% 609

2 Urban Kerbside and bring bank

55,000 Yes Bottles, PTT

Not reported 0.2% 383

3 Both Kerbside 7,500 No All 10% 3.0% 814 4 Both Kerbside 35,500 No Bottles,

PTT 13% 0.3% 510

5 Urban Kerbside 20,000 No All 10% 0.5% 963 5 Urban Kerbside 12,000 No Bottles,

PTT 10% 0.5% See above

5 Both Kerbside 3,000 No All 2% 0.5% See above 6 Both Kerbside 6,600 No Bottles,

PTT Not reported 6.6% 541

7 Urban Kerbside - No Bottles, PTT


8 Urban Kerbside and bring bank

19,000 Yes Bottles, PTT


9 Urban Kerbside 20,000 Yes Bottles 2% 0.5% 701 9 Urban Bring bank 5,000 No Bottles 0.50% 0.5% See above 9 Rural HWRC 330 No Bottles,

PTT 0.50% 0.5% See above

5 several rows for MRFs with several contracts


MRF no.

Contract demographic

Collection type

Contract Volume5

Accept glass

Plastics accept

Reported contamination

Daily input

sampled

Sample size (kg)

9 Rural Bring bank 312 No Bottles 0.50% 0.5% See above 9 Rural Kerbside 150 Yes Bottles 2% 0.5% See above 9 Rural Kerbside 5,000 Yes Bottles 2% 0.5% See above 9 Rural Kerbside 3,000 Yes Bottles 2% 0.5% See above 10 Not reported 0.1% 474 11 Not reported 259 12 Not reported 246

www.wrap.org.uk/plastics

final report wrap plastics compositional analysis at mrfs plastics... · 2019-05-09 · wrap...

Documents