rPET Quality Report

2.0 Quality issues related to recovery and collection of PET packaging
This section summarises the key findings on rPET quality from surveys with UK PET
reprocessors, converters and end users such as retailers and brand owners. Feedback was
also obtained from a large EU based recycler that has processed UK plastic bale feed stocks.
The comments from reprocessors were from the perspective of reprocessing clear rPET to
produce a food grade material and it is important to note that reprocessors are not a
homogenous group and different reprocessors are geared up to handle different types of
feedstocks. For example, one facility may be able to sort mixed plastics (e.g. pots, tubs and
trays) whereas another may be dedicated to bottle-only processing and may view mixed
plastics as a contaminant.
2.1 Changes in bale composition
PET reprocessors identified an overall shift from mixed bottle bales to mixed plastic bales
(including pots, tubs and trays) from UK sources over the past three years, resulting in a
reduction of PET content of bales.
Bottle bales used to contain 85-90% bottles, but now most deliveries (>90%) of bales have
poor quality with up to 30-40% contamination and the perception is that it is getting worse
from a PET perspective.
They also observed that more PET was mixed with other materials in the products in their
feedstock. Examples included multi-layer blister packs, trigger packs and a variety of
thermoforms. They acknowledged that some steps had been taken to reduce the mixing of
PET with other materials, such as substituting PVC sleeves and aluminium caps, but felt that
significant challenges remained.
PRFs are typically designed with particular infeed materials in mind and variation in
feedstock compositions results in yield losses and increased levels of contamination as the
equipment may not be set-up in an optimum manner to deal with mixed compositions.
2.2 Effect on PET reprocessors
A key issue is that virgin PET resins in the UK are primarily fast re-heat resins, which are
already dark and contain small levels of carbon black. Feedback from a number of
reprocessors suggests that virgin PET resin used for bottles in Europe has better clarity and
results in better clarity of flake and rPET pellets.
PET reprocessors said that the poorer quality bales are presenting a significant challenge for
them. Despite often having various arrangements for quality testing and carefully assessing
suppliers, all of them were finding problems directly related to increasing levels of
contaminants in bales resulting in contamination impacts on flake and/or pellet that they
produced. Key contaminants impacting on rPET quality are discussed in section 4.0.
Some reprocessors highlighted how their processes were struggling to keep up with the
changes in bale composition. Those designed to process mixed bottles-only were
experiencing difficulties in separating PET from mixed plastics bales (consisting of bottles
and pots, tubs, and trays) whereas the more modern facilities which were designed to cope
with mixed plastic in-feed, were better able to handle a wider range of plastics.
The consequence of this for some PET reprocessors has been a significant reduction in yields
of PET. It was suggested that at least 20% of PRF throughput has no value. Some
reprocessors claim that their PET yields from PET material input are now as low as 40-50%.
In order to improve yields and PET material purity, further investments in sorting will be
required at MRFs and PRFs to handle the increase in mixed plastics required in order to meet
UK plastic packaging recycling targets. The MRF Code of Practice will also help to deliver
Improving food grade rPET quality for use in UK packaging 11