Plastic evaporation method could enable infinite recycling of bags and bottles

Polyethylene plastic bags are difficult to recycle

Robert Sanders/University of California, Berkeley

Plastic bottles and bags can be evaporated into their chemical components and turned into new plastic that has all the properties of virgin material. Though there are still hurdles to overcome, this new process is a big step towards a truly circular economy for plastics.

About 5 billion tons of plastic Plastics have been heading to landfills since the 1950s, but recycling efforts only address 9% of what we produce. With current technology, plastics degrade every time they are recycled, and after just a few rounds of this process they end up in landfills.

John Hartwig Dr. Hartz and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, had previously developed a process to break down waste plastic into its component parts, but it relied on expensive metal catalysts — iridium, ruthenium and palladium — that were lost in the process and couldn't be recovered. Hartwig says the technology is “good for academic papers and demonstrations, but it's not anywhere near what could be considered industrialized.”

Now his team has found an improved process that works for both polyethylene, the raw material in most plastic bags, and polypropylene, used to make stiffer objects. The process uses only a catalyst that's so common it's considered “earthy” in nature, Hartwig says.

Plastics are made up of large molecules called polymers, which are in turn made up of smaller units called monomers. The catalyst breaks the chemical bonds in the polymers, turning them into gaseous monomers from which new plastic can be made with all the properties of virgin, non-recycled material.

In their experiments, the team used two catalysts — sodium on aluminum oxide and tungsten oxide on silica — to convert a mixture of polyethylene and polypropylene into the monomers propylene and isobutylene with nearly 90 percent efficiency.

Benjamin Ward A researcher from Cardiff University in the UK, who was not involved in the study, says thousands of additives, including dyes, flame retardants and plasticizers, make plastics difficult to recycle. These additives can make up a third of the finished product and can contaminate the end product after it's recycled. “Additives delay landfilling. They delay the environmental problem. But they don't prevent it entirely,” he says.

Ward believes the new process solves the additive problem by stripping the material down to its constituent gaseous monomers, which also removes the additives.

Hartwig cautions that there are still many hurdles to overcome, and that the process has only been tested in the presence of a small number of common additives. “There will be additives that poison the catalyst or inhibit it,” he says. “We need to find a way to isolate them, which may not be optimal, or we need to find a different catalyst structure or composition that is more resistant to those additives. It's definitely a challenge.”

Cressida Bowyer Researchers from the University of Portsmouth in the UK say that even if there are processes in place that can break down waste plastic into its component parts and tolerate additives, further concerns remain: “The toxicity and disposal of the recycled end product.” [such as catalysts and additives] “These must be taken into account, and may outweigh the benefits of recycling technologies,” she says. “Recycling should not be seen as a solution or justification for maintaining or increasing the production of single-use or unnecessary plastics and continuing the current prevalent 'take, make and throw away' culture.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Is Stanley’s Craving for Cups Bringing Sustainability of Stainless Steel Water Bottles into Question?

Many people are passionate about reusable water bottles, from wide-mouth Nalgene bottles popular with Millennials to stainless steel containers like Hydro Flask, S’well, and Yeti tumblers. The latest trend is the giant 40 oz. Stanley tumblers, available in a variety of colors to match personal style and mood.

While these products are designed to offer an environmentally friendly alternative to single-use plastic bottles, some people question whether these trendy, reusable tumblers are actually part of the problem. This debate ties into the broader environmental conflict about individual contributions versus larger, systemic issues.

In the case of the 40 oz. Stanley tumblers, the popularity has surged in recent years, with social media influencers and collectors showcasing the cups. This popularity has propelled the company’s annual sales from $70 million to $750 million in the span of just a few years.

At first glance, Stanley tumblers appear to be environmentally responsible, known for their durability and long-lasting design. However, they have also become a symbol of overconsumption, raising questions about the true environmental benefits of these products.

According to experts, while the use of reusable water bottles can be sustainable when used properly, overconsumption of these products contributes to climate change and environmental degradation. The potential impacts of unnecessary consumption include greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, land use issues, pollution, and human health impacts.

Ultimately, experts emphasize the importance of using products like reusable tumblers thoughtfully and regularly to have a positive environmental impact. Additionally, companies are encouraged to prioritize sustainability and recycling initiatives to mitigate the environmental burden of their products.

Understanding the psychological and social factors that influence consumer behavior is also crucial in addressing overconsumption. Advocates urge individuals to make informed, mindful choices and to feel a sense of agency in contributing to environmental solutions without becoming discouraged or overwhelmed by global issues like climate change.

“We don’t want to get to the point where we’re completely discouraged about climate change,” said one expert. “We need to determine our real choices from the details. We can look at our own choices and find ways to help and encourage others, but we can’t shame or blame. But I don’t think we’re going anywhere.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com