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
WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 5
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
WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 6
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.
WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 7
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
.
WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 17
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
Not reported 0.1% 299
8 Urban Kerbside and bring bank
19,000 Yes Bottles, PTT
Not reported 0.3% 708
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
WRAP Plastics Compositional Analysis at MRFs 19
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