rPETFINALBootsM SReduced PDF

~z
Creating markets for recycled resources
Final Report: Plastics

Large-scale demonstration of viability
of recycled PET (rPET) in retail packaging.
Closed Loop London (M&S, Boots)
Project Code; PLA0032

Project Commencement: August 2004
Project Completion: February 2006
Written by:
Graeme Churchward
Achim Ebel
Edward Kosior
Olivia Tait
Andrew Jenkins – Boots
Steve Owen – Boots
Closed Loop London

1 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HR
Tel: 020 70616371 Fax: 020 70616391
www.closedlooplondon.com
Published by:
The Waste & Resources Action Programme
The Old Academy, 21 Horse Fair, Banbury, Oxon OX16 0AH
Tel: 01295 819900 Fax: 01295 819911
www.wrap.org.uk
WRAP Business Helpline: Freephone: 0808 100 2040
Wednesday, 21 June 2006

ISBN: 1-84405-274-5
Large-scale demonstration of viability
of recycled PET (rPET) in retail packaging.
1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................4

1.1 Synopsis ....................................................................................................................4
1.2 Project Targets ..........................................................................................................5
1.3 Project Methodology...................................................................................................6
1.4 Equipment Requirements............................................................................................6
1.5 Product Range for rPET Introduction ...........................................................................7
1.6 Success of the Introduction of rPET into Packaging ......................................................8
1.7 Tonnage of RPET used in Thermoformed Packaging .....................................................9
2 Project Scope ...........................................................................................................10
2.1 Background to the Project ........................................................................................ 10
2.2 Project Objectives .................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Project Partners, Roles and Key Contacts................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Relationships Between Project Participants ......................................................... 14
2.4 Timescales & Outputs............................................................................................... 15
2.5 Project Implementation Steps ................................................................................... 15
2.5.1 Equipment Requirements for rPET Introduction .................................................. 16
3 Technology Overview: rPET in Food Packaging .......................................................17
3.1 Use of Post Consumer Plastics in Food Packaging....................................................... 17
3.1.1 Regulatory Background ..................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Recent EU Regulatory Developments.................................................................. 18
3.1.3 Regulatory and Recommended Requirements Regarding Migration ...................... 19
3.1.4 Surrogate Contaminant Testing.......................................................................... 20
3.1.5 Plastic Containers from Non-Food-Contact Applications as Feedstock ................... 22
3.1.6 ILSI Guidelines for Recycling Plastics for Food Contact Use.................................. 23
3.1.7 Decontamination and Migration Analysis............................................................. 23
3.1.8 Migration into Food Simulants............................................................................ 24
3.1.9 Comparison of Processes used to Manufacture rPET............................................ 25
3.2 Comparison of 100% rPET with Virgin PET for Food Contact Applications .................... 28
3.3 Packaging Incorporating rPET ................................................................................... 29
3.3.1 Specification of Food Grade rPET ....................................................................... 30
4 Application of RPET into Packaging .........................................................................31
4.1 rPET in Thermoformed PET Food Packaging............................................................... 31
4.1.1 Production Trial of 50% rPET Sheet at Vitembal.................................................. 31
4.1.2 Evaluation of rPET and Virgin Sheet Colour......................................................... 33
4.1.3 Thermoforming of Trial rPET Sheet into Salad Bowls at Reynolds ......................... 34
4.1.4 Production Run of rPET sheet at Vitembal........................................................... 34
4.1.5 Production of Thermoformed Packaging at Reynolds ........................................... 36
4.1.6 Migration Tests at Fraunhofer IVV...................................................................... 38
4.1.7 Performance of the RPET Packaging in Contact with Food ................................... 38
4.1.8 Tonnage of RPET Used in Thermoformed Packaging ........................................... 39
4.1.9 Conclusions: Success of rPET in Thermoformed Packaging .................................. 39
4.2 rPET in PET Juice Bottles .......................................................................................... 40
4.2.1 Production of PET Bottles by the Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Process ............ 40
4.2.2 Initial Trial with Cleanaway rPET ........................................................................ 40
4.2.3 rPET Quality Checks at Cleanaway ..................................................................... 40
4.2.4 Microscopic Identification of Particles in rPET...................................................... 41
4.2.5 Production Run of rPET at RPC .......................................................................... 43
1
Final Report: Large-scale Demonstration of rPET in Retail Packaging
4.2.6 Migration Tests on rPET Bottles ......................................................................... 45
4.2.7 Filling of Bottles at Orchard House Foods Ltd...................................................... 45
4.2.8 Microbiological Examination ............................................................................... 46
4.2.9 Tonnage of rPET used in bottles ........................................................................ 46
4.2.10 Conclusions: Success of rPET in Juice Bottles...................................................... 46
4.3 Boots Toiletries in rPET Bottles.................................................................................. 46
4.3.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 46
4.3.2 Production of PET Bottles by the Injection Stretch Blow Moulding Process ............ 47
4.3.3 Purchasing and Supply ...................................................................................... 52
4.3.4 Production of Bottles and rPET Tonnage............................................................. 52
4.3.5 Conclusions: Success of rPET in Boots Bottles..................................................... 53
5 Marks and Spencer Sustainable Packaging Initiative .............................................54
5.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 54
5.1.1 Selection of Packaging Range Incorporating rPET ............................................... 54
5.2 On Pack Declarations and In- Store Promotion ........................................................... 56
5.2.1 On Pack Message.............................................................................................. 56
5.2.2 On Pack Labelling ............................................................................................. 57
5.2.3 Communication Tools ........................................................................................ 57
5.3 Recycling Collection Infrastructure............................................................................. 58
5.3.1 Front-of-Store Bins............................................................................................ 58
5.4 Public Relations Activities.......................................................................................... 60
5.4.1 Publicity ........................................................................................................... 60
5.4.2 Marks and Spencer Internal Activity ................................................................... 60
5.4.3 Marks and Spencer Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting..................... 61
5.5 Data Collection......................................................................................................... 62
5.5.1 Consumer Research Methodology ...................................................................... 62
5.5.2 Consumer Feedback Evaluation.......................................................................... 62
5.5.3 Marks and Spencer Customer Feedback.............................................................. 62
5.6 Award Recognition ................................................................................................... 63
5.7 Marks and Spencer rPET Initiative Roll Out ................................................................ 64
6 Boots Sustainable Packaging Initiative into Toiletry Packaging.............................66
6.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 66
6.2 Product Range Selected for rPET Application.............................................................. 66
6.2.1 On Pack Declarations and In-Store Promotion..................................................... 67
6.3 Public Relations Activities.......................................................................................... 68
6.3.1 Publicity ........................................................................................................... 68
6.3.2 Promotion......................................................................................................... 68
6.3.3 Consumer Feedback.......................................................................................... 69
6.4 Boots rPET Trial Findings .......................................................................................... 69
6.4.1 Future Opportunities within Boots for rPET Technology ....................................... 70
7 Conclusions from the rPET Retail Trial ....................................................................71
8 Appendices ...............................................................................................................73
8.1 Appendix 1. Fraunhofer IVV first evaluation: Measurements from the small scale test . 73
8.2 Appendix 2. Fraunhofer IVV Second Evaluation: Measurements from the full-scale
production run. ................................................................................................................... 78
8.3 Appendix 3. Fraunhofer IVV : Migration testing of Bottles with 30% rPET from RPC. ... 81
8.4 Appendix 4. Microbiological Examination of rPET Bottles from RPC ............................ 84
8.5 Appendix 5. Marks and Spencer: food to go in-store signage 1 ................................. 85
8.6 Appendix 6. Marks and Spencer: food to go in-store signage 2 ................................. 86
8.7 Appendix 7. Marks and Spencer: food to go Publicity 1............................................. 87
8.8 Appendix 7. Marks and Spencer: food to go Publicity 2............................................. 88
8.9 Appendix 8. Boots Publicity 1 ................................................................................... 89
2
8.13 Appendix 9. Leapfrog Evaluation Report of Closed Loop Packaging Initiative............... 93
9 References ...............................................................................................................96
3
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Synopsis
This project sought to demonstrate the viability of using recycled PET (rPET) in retail
packaging and was successful in achieving that significant outcome.
Prior to the outset of this project, no major retailer in the UK produced PET packaging
containing a significant level of recycled material derived from post consumer recyclate
(PCR).
Whilst collection rates for plastics within the UK continue to rise, it is imperative that
consumers are made aware of the value of their recycling efforts. Through the use of
PCR across a range of high volume and high value packaging lines in trusted, high
profile iconic British retailers such as Marks and Spencer and Boots, we were able to
demonstrate tangible end use applications for recycled materials. Closed Loop London’s
experience has shown that by developing strong local markets for recyclables,
participation and recovery rates for recycling increase dramatically.
The introduction of rPET packaging entailed the production and retail distribution of
products utilising rPET, addressing technical, economic and operational issues, as well as
ensuring consumer appeal and industry acceptance.
In excess of 1,100 tonnes of rPET material was consumed in the following applications;
• Marks and Spencer range of salad bowls based on the thermoforming of

extruded sheet with 50% rPET content
• Marks and Spencer non-carbonated blow moulded juice and “smoothie” bottle
with 30% rPET content
• Boots blow moulded toiletry bottles with 30% rPET content
An assessment of manufacturing premises and equipment was undertaken in order to

ascertain each manufacturer’s ability to incorporate the rPET material into their existing
facilities. Stringent audit and testing protocols were established to ensure due diligence
was performed on the process and the rPET packaging lines before being launched in-
store. Extensive research into the development and execution of a communications
message designed to educate, inform and encourage participation in recycling and
highlight the benefits of using rPET in the manufacture of these packaging lines.
The success of the project was the net result of the collaboration between all the key
stakeholders responsible for delivering the final product to market, providing their
specific technical, manufacturing, retailing and marketing skills, capabilities and
willingness to be part of an innovative and market leading initiative.
4
The ultimate indication of the projects success is the willingness of Marks and Spencer
and Boots to continue with the rollout of the use or rPET across a range of additional
lines within their offer. The use of rPET will continue provided the manufacturers are
able to secure consistent quality raw material supply at nett costs that are equivalent or
less than virgin material. The overwhelming customer support solicited through direct
feedback from consumers further consolidates the continued use or rPET content in
packaging applications thereby demonstrating the viability of the closed loop recycling
model to deliver environmental, economic and social benefits.
1.2 Project Targets

The specific objectives for the project were:
• to demonstrate the large scale feasibility of using recycled Polyethylene

Terephthalate (rPET) in retail packaging applications
• to establish producer acceptability of using recycled material and overcome real
or perceived barriers.
• build confidence in rPET and, by stimulating market demand, boost recovery
rates for PET packaging materials
• to generate information to be disseminated and made publicly available by WRAP
to facilitate and encourage the increased use of rPET in further retail packaging
applications
The project was started in August 2004 and completed by the end of February 2006.
The project had the following target outputs:
1. Develop products based on thermoforming of extruded sheet with 50% rPET

content, a (non-carbonated) juice bottle with at least 30% rPET content and a
toiletry range of bottles with 30% rPET.
2. To consume a total volume of 1,100 tonnes of rPET in Marks and Spencer retail
food packaging
3. To produce over 1,000,000 toiletry bottles from the Boots ‘Ingredients’ range
4. To provide the necessary equipment in appropriate sites to produce and test the
products:
5. To Conduct a range of customer consultation methods that reflect the wide
scope of products to be tested and the nationwide distribution network including:
• On pack declarations
• The development of in-store collection facilities
• Advertising and editorial exposure on the initiative
• Feedback into CSR objectives
• Customer survey and focus groups on the use of recycled PET
• Staff education programs – back and front of house
• Trade journal publications
5
1.3 Project Methodology
The project developed through a series of meetings between Marks and Spencer and
their packaging manufacturers and packaging fillers and Boots, who manufacture and fill
in-house. After the initial specification of the actual PET products by Marks and Spencer
and Boots, the team from Closed Loop London worked with the respective packaging
manufacturers and fillers to:
• Specify the resins

• Order the correct amount of rPET for the trials and production runs
• Review the processing conditions to be used in each plant
• Assess the need for new equipment to introduce rPET resin into production
facilities.
• Oversee the production runs with rPET
• Resolve any problems that arose from the trial runs.
• Test the intermediate and final products for important properties
• Conduct extraction and migration tests at Faunhofer IVV
• Conduct filling and food stability tests
• Prepare reports on the progress of the project
The success of the project was the nett result of the collaboration between all of the
parties providing their specific technical and manufacturing capabilities. One of the key
issues resolved by the manufacturers and fillers was the allocation of production time to
conduct the initial trials. These events need to be planned and conducted with minimal
impact on the busy production schedules of the plants.
1.4 Equipment Requirements

The implementation of controlled percentages of rPET into existing products has several
implications for a production facility. Prior to production, the manufacturer must be able
to:
• receive and store the rPET resin in a specific area

• transport the resin from storage to the production facility
• accurately mix the rPET with existing supplies of virgin PET
This meant that the separate storage, materials handling and dosing of rPET had to be
considered for each plant. Since these functions are carried out by most manufacturers
for materials that they mix into virgin resin, such as colorants, trim or re-work, they
already have most of the components required. For this project, the only additional
equipment required was a storage bin for one plant and a gravimetric blending unit for
another.
This means that in the long-term, the introduction of rPET into a larger cross section of
the manufacturing sector would only require minor additions of capital equipment to
introduce rPET into packaging products, such as dedicated recycled material bins and
possibly a silo.
6
1.5 Product Range for rPET Introduction
The decision to launch the rPET packaging range as part of a broader range of
sustainable initiatives coincided with the Marks and Spencer re-launch of the food to go
offer. Marks and Spencer nominated a range of beverages and salad lines that would
utilise the rPET material.
The two key packaging suppliers that were manufacturing these items were;
• RPC located at Llantrisant, Wales –making single stage Injection Stretch Blow
Moulding (ISBM) bottles
• Reynolds Food Packaging, Sedgefield, ( a part of the Alcoa packaging group)
making thermoformed products from extruded sheet for a range of
thermoformed salad bowls and recipe pots
RPC’s Llantrisant site specialises in the blow moulding PET bottles and is a key supplier
to Marks and Spencer. They supply a range of PET bottles, including 250ml, 300ml,
500ml and 1lt bottles for juices, smoothies and flavoured milks. For the purpose of the
trial, the new 300ml juice and smoothie bottle featured in the food to go range was
manufactured with 30% post consumer recyclate.
Reynolds Food Packaging developed a new bowl design for the new look food to go
range of salads. The bowl incorporates 50% post consumer recyclate and is used in
excess of 30 different salads (leaf salads) and pre-prepared side salad meal solutions
(couscous, rice, pasta, beans and pulses, layered cheese salads etc) throughout the
food to go and produce range.
As part of Boots commitment to sustainable product development outlined in its CSR

Strategy, the company instigated this project with WRAP and Closed Loop London to
incorporate rPET into a mainstream range of toiletry products.
7
The product range selected was the “Ingredients” range consisting of 12 product lines of
shampoos and conditioners manufactured at the Boots site in Nottingham.
1.6 Success of the Introduction of rPET

into Packaging
The introduction of food grade rPET into thermoformed packaging at 50% rPET content
and ISBM bottles at 30% rPET content has been fully implemented. This has been
demonstrated by the following successful achievements;
• production of thermoformed bowls and bottles at conditions identical to those

used for virgin resin in the respective processes
• production of packaging at the same cycle rate and process cost as for virgin
resin
• demonstration of the freedom from any contamination derived from rPET
• demonstration of freedom from microbiological contamination
• storage stability of foods identical to virgin PET resin
This was achieved with some minor additions to the equipment used to manufacture the
bottles. No new equipment was needed for the production of thermoformed sheet.
There was a need to closely specify material standards for rPET and related process
settings to ensure the highest quality of package was achieved.
There were no changes measured in the physical properties of packages containing

rPET. There was a very slight yellow to the products, which was not visually noticeable
in the case of the thermoformed packaging and more noticeable in the thicker neck
region of the bottle.
This very slight yellowing was not easily visually detected in isolation and was not seen
as impediment to the success of the packaging.
From a “life cycle analysis” viewpoint, rPET consumes 50% of the energy of virgin PET.
This would imply that packaging with 50% and 30% rPET content would have a reduced
energy demand during manufacture of 25% and 15 % respectively.
The detailed cost comparison between the recycled content blends and virgin materials
was difficult to make, and even though cost of rPET was cheaper than the virgin
equivalent there may not be a significant cost benefit. This, in part, is due to the fact
that the rPET material is currently sourced from Europe and any potential upside in the
purchase cost may be negated by the additional transport costs required. This however
is largely governed by the quantity of material ordered. The transport costs are
amortised over the delivery (24 tonnes), any order significantly less than this may be
subjected to disproportionately high transport costs per tonne.
Since the cost of virgin PET has been escalating in recent years, the use of significant
quantities of rPET may represent a move forward in controlling the cost of resins.
8
1.7 Tonnage of RPET used in
Thermoformed Packaging
The actual tonnages reported by Reynolds for production of the food to go salad bowl
product line was a total of 1062 rPET tonnes of roll-stock with 50% rPET content at the
end of March 2006.
The tonnage of rPET reported by RPC for the production of the food to go bottles was
168 rPET tonnes.
The tonnage used by Boots in the toiletries range was 12 tonnes.
The target for this trial was 1100 tonnes and by March 2006 the actual tonnages had
exceeded the target at 1241 tonnes tonnes.
9
2 Project Scope
2.1 Background to the Project

Prior to the outset of this project, no major retailer in the UK produced PET packaged
products containing a significant level of recycled material derived from post consumer
recyclate (PCR). The project aimed to demonstrate that food grade recycled PET (rPET)
can be successfully adopted and incorporated into food packaging by focussing on a
range of high profile, high value food and beverage lines with Marks and Spencer and a
range of non-food grade applications with the Boot ‘Ingredients’ toiletries range.
This entailed the production and retail distribution of products utilising packaging
containing recycled PET, addressing technical, economic and operational issues, as well
as consumer appeal and industry acceptance.
This project was developed in collaboration with the retail organisation Marks and
Spencer and the products selected for the demonstration were derived from their range
of food packaging.
Marks and Spencer was the ideal project partner as they recognised the benefits to be
derived from using post consumer recyclate (PCR) in their packaging ranges. The
project sought to deliver economic, environmental, strategic, CSR and consumer point of
difference benefits to Marks and Spencer, re-enforcing their core brand values of quality,
trust, innovation, value and service.
The food to go and fresh produce packaging lines selected to incorporate the rPET
material was chosen on the basis that they are clear packs, positioned at the premium
end of the market and provided a replicable example whereby the model for the use of
rPET can be proven across the supply chain.
The ‘Ingredients’ toiletry range selected by Boots to showcase the use of rPET was
chosen on the basis that the containers are manufactured at the Boots site in
Nottingham, consisting of 12 Sku’s (shampoos and conditioners) the range represents
standard formulations which are less aggressive to PET packaging than some other
formulations (e.g. Botanics).
2.2 Project Objectives

The specific objectives for the project were:
• to demonstrate the large scale feasibility of using recycled Polyethylene

Terephthalate (rPET) in retail packaging applications and to demonstrate that
rPET can be successfully adopted and incorporated
10
• to establish producer acceptability of using recycled material and overcome real
or perceived barriers
• build confidence in rPET and, by stimulating market demand, boost recovery
rates
• to generate information to be disseminated and made publicly available by WRAP
to facilitate and encourage the increased use of rPET in further retail packaging
applications
11
2.3 Project Partners, Roles and Key
Contacts
Partner Role Key Contacts
• Rob Pascoe, General
Closed Loop London Technical Expertise, Manager CLL
Project Management, • Achim Ebel, Project
Supplier Contact Manager PLA0032
• Olivia Tait, Marketing
Manager PLA0032
• Edward Kosior, Technical
Manager
• Graeme Churchward
• Jamie Blake, Project
London Remade, Project Administration and Administrator
Support • Michael Marriot, Project
London Assistant
• Helene Roberts, Head of
Marks and Spencer, Project Partner Packaging
• Clare Dunbar, To Go
London Marketing Manager
• Clare Scott, Produce
Marketing Manager
• Simon Lushy, Technical
Manager
• Jennie Emerson,
Customer In-sight Mgr
• Victoria Broughton,
Communications
• Rowland Hill, Corporate
Social Responsibility
• Steve Owen, Polymers
Boots, Nottingham Project Partner technical Consultant
• Andrew Jenkins,
Sustainable Development
Manager – Products
• Martin Sleath, Manager
Boots Blow Moulding
• Andy Atherton – NPD
Manager Blow Moulding
12
• Steve Buttery, General
Reynolds Food Supplier of thermoformed Manager
Packaging -Alcoa, containers for fresh food • Jeff Brunskill, Operations
Sedgefield, Durham fillers to M&S Manager
• Paul Scott, Sales Director
• Jean-Louis Flork,
Vitembal, Producer of PET Sheet Managing Director
• Jean-Claude Thierry,
Tarascon (France) (subcontractor to Prod. Manager
Reynolds)
Skylight Producer of PET Sheet • Contacts through
Denmark (subcontractor to Reynolds Packaging
Reynolds)
Geest Foods Ltd., Filler of salads, pasta, … • Karen Stacey,
Peterborough for Marks & Spencer Packaging Development
Manager
RPC, PET Blow Moulder • Bryan Glasper General
Llantrisant, Wales Manager
• Steven Jones, Technical
Manager
• Martin Plummer,
Commercial Manager
Orchard House Filler of Fruit juice for • Eileen Noble, Purchasing
Foods, Corby M&S Manager
• Tim Lowe, Company
Technical Manager
Fraunhofer Institut Testing laboratory for • Dr. Frank Welle
Verfahrenstechnik food compliance and
und Verpackung, packaging performance
Freising (Germany)
Cleanaway PET Int. Supplier of rPET • Frank Rosenboom,
Rostock (Germany) General Manager
• Stefan Bockmuehl, Sales
Manager
Poly Recycling ITW Supplier of PET • Casper van der Dungen,
Weinfelden General Manager
(Switzerland)
13
2.3.1 Relationships Between Project Participants
Retail Companies
(Marks and Spencer and Boots)
Project Management
(London Remade
Closed Loop London)
Thermoformed Packaging Testing Bottle

Product Fillers (Fraunhofer IVV, Germany) Product Fillers
(Geest) (Orchard House Foods-M&S and Boots)
Packaging Manufacturers Bottle manufacturers

(Reynolds Food Packaging) (RPC for M&S and Boots
Manufacturing)
Sheet Suppliers rPET supplier

(Vitembal, France (PolyRecycling, ITW Switzerland)
(Skylight, Denmark)
rPET supplier
(Cleanaway, Germany)
14
2.4 Timescales & Outputs
The project was started in August 2004 and completed by the end of March 2006.
The project had the following target outputs:
1. Develop products based on thermoforming of extruded sheet with 50% rPET

content and a (non-carbonated) juice bottle with at least 30% rPET content.
2. To consume a total volume of 1,100 tonnes of rPET in Marks and Spencer retail
food packaging
3. To produce over 1,000,000 toiletry bottles from the Boots ‘Ingredients’ range
4. To provide the necessary equipment in appropriate sites to produce and test the
products:
5. To Conduct a range of customer consultation methods that reflect the wide
scope of products to be tested and the nationwide distribution network including:
• on pack declarations
• the development of in-store collection facilities
• advertising and editorial exposure on the initiative
• feedback into CSR objectives
• customer survey and focus groups on the use of recycled PET
• staff education programs – back and front of house
• trade journal publications
2.5 Project Implementation Steps

The project developed through a series of meetings between Marks and Spencer and
their packaging manufacturers and packaging fillers and Boots, who manufacture and fill
in-house. After the initial specification of the actual PET products by Marks and Spencer
and Boots, the team from Closed Loop London worked with the respective packaging
manufacturers and fillers to:
• specify the resins

• order the correct amount of rPET for the trials and production runs
• review the processing conditions to be used in each plant
• assess the need for new equipment to introduce the rPET resin into production
facilities.
• oversee the production runs with rPET
• resolve any problems that arose from the trial runs
• test the intermediate and final products for important properties
• conduct extraction and migration tests at Faunhofer IVV
• conduct filling and food stability tests
• prepare reports on the progress of the project
15
The success of the project was the nett result of the collaboration between all of the
parties providing their specific technical and manufacturing capabilities. One of the key
issues resolved by the manufacturers and fillers was the allocation of production time to
conduct the initial trials. These events need to be planned and conducted with minimal
impact on the busy production schedules of the plants.
2.5.1 Equipment Requirements for rPET

Introduction
The implementation of controlled percentages of rPET into existing products has several
implications for a production facility. Prior to production, the manufacturer must be able
to:
• receive and store the rPET resin in a specific area
• transport the resin from storage to the production facility
• accurately mix the rPET with existing supplies of virgin PET.
This meant that the separate storage, materials handling and dosing of rPET had to be
considered for each plant. Since these functions are carried out by most manufacturers
for materials that they mix into virgin resin, such as colorants, trim or re-work, they
already have most of the components required. For this project, the only additional
equipment required was a storage bin for one plant and a gravimetric blending unit for
another.
This means that in the long-term introduction of rPET into a larger cross section of the
manufacturing sector there would be only minor additional capital required to fully
introduced rPET into packaging products, such as dedicated recycled material bins and
possibly a silo.
.
16
3 Technology Overview: rPET in Food
Packaging
3.1 Use of Post Consumer Plastics in Food

Packaging
3.1.1 Regulatory Background
UK Regulations require materials in contact with food to meet broad requirements which '...aim to
keep food safe and wholesome by requiring that contact materials and articles, such as packaging
do not transfer their constituents into food so as to endanger health or affect food quality'.1
Plastics that are to be used in food contact applications are always evaluated for any migration
that might occur when in contact with food material. By definition, any migrating substances are
considered to be indirect food additives and need to be evaluated against relevant regulations for
the approval of Food Packaging or standard Food Additive Approval procedures.
Food safety is the paramount consideration in use of recycled plastics in food contact applications.
Regulatory requirements have been a major factor controlling the development of recycling
processes that can demonstrate that they can produce recycled plastics suitable for food contact
applications. Without such regulations, it is not possible to gain approval or “non objection” for any
process that recycles PET back into food contact applications.
In the USA , the FDA have three main safety concerns associated with the use of recycled plastics
in food-contact applications: i) transfer of adventitious contamination from the recyclate to the
foodstuff, ii) incorporation of material not regulated for food contact, and iii) the presence of
adjuvants that may not comply with regulations for food contact use in the recycled plastic.
The FDA has specified a “Challenge Test” procedure to allow recycling processes to be validated as
being capable of removing severe contamination from bottles that have been deliberately
contaminated in a controlled way. This provides regulatory bodies with assurance that the much
lower level of contamination present in collected bottles will be readily removed to levels that
present negligible risks to consumers.
The existence of this procedure has meant that a large number of technologies and processes
have evolved in the USA and other countries (such as Australia) that refer to USFDA for standards
in Plastics in food contact applications. From February 1990 to August 2003 58 “letters of non-
objection” have been issued to 17 chemical processes and 41 physical recycling processes for
recycling PET back into food grade applications2.
The regulatory position with regard to chemically recycled plastic is clear. Monomers and starting
substances derived from feedstock recycling have to comply with EC Directive 90/128/EEC.
The USFDA have in the past issued letters on non-objection to processes that use chemical
recycling methods since the processes have been shown to be very effective in removing
contaminants. The USFDA Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) website October
17
2003 states “surrogate contaminant testing is no longer considered necessary to demonstrate that
post-consumer recycled (PCR) polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)
produced by a tertiary recycling process is suitable for food-contact use. Because FDA has
determined that tertiary recycling processes produce PCR-PET or PEN of suitable purity for food-
contact use, the Agency no longer sees a need to evaluate tertiary recycling processes for PET or
PEN or to issue individual opinion letters for them”.
Physical recycling, i.e. secondary recycling, processes have outnumbered the chemical processes
especially in the last seven years when 30 physical process and 8 chemical processes received
letters of non-objection from the USFDA. The commercial recycling operations for PET have
focussed on physical recycling due to the smaller capital cost, lower operating cost and the smaller
material inputs required to operate such a process.
3.1.2 Recent EU Regulatory Developments
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Packaging Material Task Force, (Recycling of Plastics for
Food Contact Use) based in Belgium, has developed guidance for the provision of chemical safety
of recycled plastics for food contact use as well as procedures for quickly assessing the likelihood
of residual contamination. ILSI adopt the position that if recovered material, originally of food
contact grade, is processed so as to reduce concentrations of likely contaminants to levels below
the regulatory threshold it should be considered acceptable, as it is demonstrably equivalent to
virgin plastic in terms of food safety. This guidance however, whilst based upon an EU-funded
research projects and guidelines developed by the USFDA and other organisations, currently has
no legal status.
Nevertheless, as a technical document that describes the current state of the art, it is the basis for
due diligence purposes and is the principal procedure used to “challenge” recycling processes
within the EU.3 Comparing the USFDA and ILSI approach, the final end point in both instances i.e.
The Threshold of Regulation and the non-detectable migration limit are in fact the same value for
PET recycling (10 ppb or µg/kg)
The working definition of Food grade PET varies for different parts of the world. For Europe, it is
PET plastic of a suitable standard for food applications manufactured in compliance with
Commission Directive EU 2002/72/EEC (and future amendments).
Commission Directive EU 2002/72/EEC builds on the Commission Directive EU 82/711/EEC which

lays down rules for testing migration of the constituents of plastic materials and articles and
Council Directive 86/572/EEC establishes the list of simulants to be used in the migration tests.4
Article 2 defines the overall migration limit as “Plastic Materials and articles shall not transfer their
constituents to foodstuffs in quantities exceeding 10milligrams per square decimetre of surface
area of material or article” or 60 milligrams per kilogram of food for containers with a capacity of
0.5 to 10 litres.
The EU Commission is actively developing further guidance and controls in the area of Food
Safety- Chemical Safety of Food- Chemical Safety. The harmonisation at EU level of the legislation
on food contact materials fulfils two essential goals: the protection of the health of the consumer
and the removal of the technical barriers to trade.
In October 2004, the new Framework Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 was introduced. This establishes
rules on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repeals Directives
80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. 5 The principle underlying this regulation is that any material or
18
article intended to come into contact with food must be sufficiently inert to preclude substances
from being transferred to food in quantities large enough to endanger human health or bring
about an unacceptable change in the composition of the food or deterioration in its organoleptic
properties.6
The Framework Regulation sets up general requirements for all food contact materials whereas
Specific Directives cover single groups of materials and articles listed in the Framework Directives.
The Regulation further states that as a matter of principle, “The use of recycled materials and
articles should be favoured in the Community for environmental reasons, provided that strict
requirements are established to ensure food safety and consumer protection. Of the 17 listed
groups…, priority should be given to the harmonisation of rules on recycled plastic materials and
articles as their use is increasing and national laws and provisions are lacking or are divergent.”
Frank Koelewijn, from the industry organisation, Petcore welcomes this Framework, stating, “On
the one hand, this step could strengthen the food industry and consumers’ confidence in PET and
recycle PET. On the other hand, a clear regulation with minimum standards would protect PET
recyclers who had invested in sophisticated technology against unfair competition”.7 Clearly, the
ongoing development of EU Frameworks and Directives is a major driving force for member states
and those companies who are investing in the production of high quality food grade RPET.
3.1.3 Regulatory and Recommended Requirements

Regarding Migration
In order to comply with US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) requirements, Code of Federal
Regulations: 21 CFR parts 5, 25, 170, 171 and 174, the migrating substances must either only be
present in dietary concentration at very low levels i.e., less than 0.5 ppb, or that the level is less
than 1% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for those substances.
In the case of recycled plastics that are to be evaluated for food contact use, the recycling process
must be capable of removing a wide range of categories of materials so that should consumers
misuse PET containers i.e. place used engine oil in them, then the recycling process will still be
able to adequately reduce the concentrations to acceptable low levels to avoid food adulteration.
The specification of a lower limit for the threshold level for dietary concentration allows the
permissible level of contaminants in recycled plastics to be calculated.
The dietary concentration of a contaminant is related to the concentration of the migrating

contaminant (M) into a food simulating solvent, i, (where i represents the four simulated food
types: aqueous, acidic, alcoholic, and fatty foods), the food distribution factor (fT), and the
consumption factor (CF) in the following manner.
4
dietary concentration = CF * ∑ M * fT
i=1
For the case of PET, with a food distribution factor of 1.0, and a consumption factor (CF) of 0.05
(as per Points to Consider for the Use of Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging: Chemistry
Considerations document of USFDA), the maximum concentration of the migrating contaminant
(M) can be calculated, given the maximum dietary concentration of 0.5 ppb.
19
0.5 ppb = 0.05 * M * 1.0
i.e. M = 0.5 ppb / 0.05 = 10 ppb
This result means that if less than 10 ppb is extracted from a PET bottle into a food simulant (such
as 10 % aqueous ethanol) then the dietary concentration (M) will be less than 0.5 ppb assuming
the above consumption patterns. This would means that the contaminant would not pose concerns
to public health and safety.
In the case of physical reprocessing, it is important that the recycling process is able to
demonstrate its efficiency in decontaminating the PET. This will establish its ability to cope with
consumer misuse of the bottles and inadvertent inclusion of bottles from non-food sources.
3.1.4 Surrogate Contaminant Testing

Consumer misuse can be simulated by exposing plastic packaging (either in container form or as
flake) to selected surrogate contaminants. Following exposure of the polymer to the surrogate
contaminants, the polymer would be subjected to the recycling process. Subsequent analysis of
the polymer for those contaminants would demonstrate the efficacy of the recycling process.
The way in which a process is validated by the USFDA for its efficiency is to subject the PET
recycling process to a “Challenge Test” in which PET is spiked with a cocktail of toxic substances
that represent the various categories of chemicals that could be absorbed by PET.
Even though the number of articles likely to be contaminated will be only a small proportion of the
total number of articles being recycled, the “Challenge Test” stipulates that 100% of the articles
should be contaminated with surrogate solutions to provide a substantial safety factor. The
objective of contaminating the recycled articles is to simulate the very worst-case scenario that
kerbside collection of PET could induce. In reality the number of bottles, which might be affected
by consumer misuse would typically be very low and certainly less than the number of non-food
PET bottles.
The materials used for the simulation of consumer misuse should bracket a variety of chemical and
physical properties. Model contaminants should be “common” materials accessible to the consumer
and include.
A volatile, non-polar organic substance

A volatile, polar organic substance
A non-volatile, non-polar substance
A non-volatile, polar organic substance.
Examples of such materials are toluene, chloroform, lindane, and diazinon respectively. Toluene
and chloroform are components of cleaning solvents, while lindane and diazinon are common
insecticides. A toxic salt, such as disodium monomethylarsonate (crabgrass killer), would complete
the range of potential contaminants.
Due to the toxic nature of the above chemicals, alternative less toxic “surrogate” chemicals that
behave in a similar manner can be used in the “Challenge Test”. The concentration of surrogate
chemicals for the contamination of PET is based on the examination of typical formulations for
domestic products and a 10-fold safety factor over “user strength” is applied. Examples of
20
recommended surrogates are given in Table 1; only one surrogate per category needs to be
included in the testing.
Volatile Polar Non-Volatile Volatile Non-Volatile Non- Heavy Metal

Polar Non- Polar
Polar
Chloroform Benzophenone Toluene Tetracosane Copper(II) 2-
ethylhexanoate
Chlorobenzene Methyl Lindane
salicylate
1,1,1- Methyl stearate
Trichloroethane
Diethyl ketone Phenylcyclohexane
1-Phenyldecane
2,4,6-Trichloroanisole
Table 1 Examples of surrogates used in Challenge Tests
Chloroform and toluene are components of cleaning solvents; benzophenone is a suitable

substitute for non-volatile polar pesticides such as Diazinon; and tetracosane is a good
representative for the long-chain hydrocarbons that comprise motor oil. A heavy metal salt such
as copper(II) 2-ethylhexanoate, would represent a substitute for the toxic salts commonly used in
herbicides.
In the case of PET, it is no longer necessary to include a heavy metal salt in surrogate testing. In
the PET recycling submissions reviewed by the USFDA over the past decade, migration of the
heavy metal surrogate has never been detected in food simulants. The data indicate that the metal
salts do not sorb as readily into PET as do small organic molecules and that the salts are more
easily washed out of PET, probably because the salts simply adsorb to the PET surface
Containers or flaked virgin plastic would then be exposed to the selected contaminants, again
either “neat” or with “at use” concentrations. A mixture, or “cocktail,” of the contaminants is
usually used. In this case, the components of the cocktail should not react with each other.
Examples of minimum concentrations of surrogates that should be present in the cocktail are
shown in Table 2 below.
Contaminant Concentration
Chloroform (volatile polar) 10% v/va
Toluene (volatile non-polar) 10% v/va
Benzophenone (non-volatile polar) 1% v/va
Tetracosane or Lindane (non-volatile non- 1% w/wb
polar)
Hexane or Heptane (as overall solvent for 68% v/va
cocktail)
v/va – volume of contaminant per unit volume of entire cocktail
w/wb – mass of surrogate per unit mass of entire cocktail
Table 2. Examples of Minimum Concentrations of Contaminants in a Surrogate Cocktail
The bottles or flakes are stored sealed for two weeks at 40 ºC with periodic agitation. After the
contaminants are drained and the bottles or flakes are rinsed, the contaminated polymer is then
subjected to the proposed recycling process, and regenerated components or packaging material
formed from the reprocessed polymer should be analyzed for residual contaminants. This
21
approach represents a worst-case scenario, i.e., all material entering the recycling stream is
assumed to be contaminated.
3.1.5 Plastic Containers from Non-Food-Contact

Applications as Feedstock
Containers for non-food substances (“non-food containers”) are likely to sorb large amounts of
chemicals from their contents over very long shelf lives. When such containers are included in the
post-consumer feedstock on a regular basis (i.e., from kerbside collection programs), the level of
contamination in recycled containers is likely to be higher than if the feedstock were restricted to
food containers.
Although the probability that 100% of the post-consumer plastic feedstock might consist of non-
food containers is low, worst-case contamination assumptions must be made for non-food articles
entering the recycling stream.
A mathematical model, based on Fick’s law of diffusion, predicts the amount of a contaminant
(represented by the surrogate contaminants described above) that will sorb into a PET bottle after
one year at 25 ºC, the shelf life and use temperature of a typical non-food substance packaged in
PET. The PET sorption values for several surrogates are summarized in Table 3 below.
Surrogate Sorption Value (mg/kg)

Volatile Polar
Chloroform 4860
Chlorobenzene 1080
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1050
Diethyl ketone 4860
Volatile Non-Polar
Toluene 780
Non-Volatile Polar
Benzophenone 49
Methyl salicylate 200
Non-Volatile Non-Polar
Tetracosane 154
Lindane 750
Methyl stearate 150
Phenylcyclohexane 390
1-Phenyldecane 170
2,4,6-Trichloroanisole 1100
Table 3. Sorption of Surrogate Contaminants into PET after 365 Days at 25 ºC
These values establish the minimum concentrations of each surrogate that must be present in the
challenged PET flake at the beginning of surrogate testing in order to conclude that the resultant
exposure estimates are applicable to a recycling process that includes non-food PET in the
feedstock.
22
3.1.6 ILSI Guidelines for Recycling Plastics for Food
Contact Use
These guidelines8 share many of the same scientific principles established by the USFDA guideline
and have some differences that have developed from new scientific knowledge and also
differences in approach to the same problem.
These guidelines were initially developed for food grade plastics and use the same concept of a
“Challenge Test” conducted with surrogate substances. The specific substances and concentrations
are listed in Table 4, and while similar to those used by USFDA, they differ in the detail and
concentration. The key difference is the use only 1% of a polar, volatile penetrant instead of 10%.
Penetrant Substance Concentration

%
polar, volatile trichloroethane: 1
polar, non-volatile benzophenone: 1
non-polar volatile toluene 10
non-polar, non-volatile chlorobenezene 1
non-polar, non-volatile phenylcyclohexane 1
organometallic methyl palmitate 1
compounds (or methyl stearate)
Table 4. Surrogate Chemicals for use in Challenge Tests.
The recent report on FAIR-CT98-4318 by Franz et al (2003) recommends the same surrogates as
above but without the use of trichloroethane. This report also describes the migration modelling of
substances based molecular weight and shows that the inverse relationship between the amount
migrated after 10 days at 40 ºC and molecular weight reaches a limit beyond 350 g/mol. Beyond
this level substances are virtually immobilised in the PET matrix.
A key difference from the USFDA protocol is the way the surrogates are mixed with the PET. The
USFDA uses a solvent based cocktail whereas the ILSI approach uses a direct mixing and sorption
by mixing at 50 ºC for 7 days which was found to be functionally equivalent but simpler to
prepare.
The level of surrogates in the PET flake should be between 500 to 350 ppm for all except for
toluene which should approach 500 ppm. The contaminated flake is then directed straight into the
Super cleaning process. These levels are quoted as being equivalent to 1750 to 2500 ppm for
systems that first undergo washing and drying steps, before Super cleaning9.
The normal requirements of the challenge test are that 100% of the test articles are contaminated
with surrogates and the results from the cleaning processes must demonstrate “not detectable
migration” at the limit of detection of the analytical methodology. The limit of detection at which
reliable analytical measurement can be made is stipulated to be 10 µg/kg, including any analytical
tolerance.
3.1.7 Decontamination and Migration Analysis

The Fraunhofer Institute IVV has developed analytical tests for flake, pellet and packaging
products to detect the level of decontamination of the PET material and the migration of any
species from packaging into food products.
23
The presence of molecular species in PET is conveniently detected in the PET flake by testing 1.0 g
of the PET material by Gas Chromatography (GC). The sample is heated from 50 deg C to 320 deg
C and volatile products are detected by their characteristic retention times as they are evolved.
The following substances were typically identified in recycled post consumer PET. The first three
compounds found in all PET resins and the last absorbed by the PET from soft drink flavour
components:
Acetaldehyde (retention time Rt = 1.8 min),
2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane (Rt = 2.5 min) and
ethylene glycol (Rt = 2.9 min).
limonene (Rt = 8.1 min)
The following sample chromatograms show the presence of the species (shown by the peaks in
the plots) in samples of typical PET flakes after washing and drying and also after
decontamination. The second plot shows that the decontamination process removes all of the non-
PET species. The results show that rPET has even fewer molecular species that can diffuse out
packaging than conventional PET.
Figure 1: Representative headspace gas chromatogram of a sample of washed PET flake
Figure 2: Representative headspace gas chromatogram of a sample of recycled, decontaminated flake
3.1.8 Migration into Food Simulants

24
The key test for the decontamination process is the level of migration of any residual surrogate
chemicals into a 95% ethanol solution, which is an aggressive extractant for PET, used as a food
simulant. This simulant is more aggressive than aqueous solutions, dilute acidic solutions and fatty
fluids. If test results show migration after 10 days at 40 deg C is below the acceptable limits of 10
ppb then the results can be applied to all food stuffs in contact with the PET.
The Fraunhofer have calculated the maximum residual concentrations in ppm that would
correspond to a migration limit equal to or smaller than 10 ppb based on conservative diffusion
modeling data in olive oil at 40 deg C for 10 days. These levels are shown below in Table 5.
Surrogate EU cube 1 l, 600cm2 PET bottle 1.5l, 820 cm2

ppm Ppm
Toluene 15.0 18.3
Chlorobenzene 16.6 20.3
Chloroform 16.7 20.4
Phenyl Cyclohexane 21.0 25.6
Benzopheneone 23.4 28.5
Table 5. Maximum residual concentrations that could result in 10 ppb migration.
These results show the maximum concentration of surrogate chemicals after the decontamination
stage that would not lead to migration values in food simulants exceeding 10 ppb i.e. packaging
with levels lower than those quoted would pass the migration test and be suited for food
applications.
3.1.9 Comparison of Processes used to Manufacture

rPET
There are a significant number of processes that can be used to recycle PET back in to food grade
quality materials.
They can be classified as either:

• chemical recycling processes
• multi-layer co-injection techniques
• Superclean or Physical Recycling processes
Chemical recycling involves breaking the PET down to the base chemicals and adding them to the
polymerisation process. This process is currently being conducted Teijin in Japan, after previous
trials by DuPont and Eastman were closed down in late 1990s. High process costs have meant that
typically the final price has exceeded virgin price. The capital investment for these plants is
typically in excess of US$10m and the plants need to be located adjacent to polymerisation
operations. Despite having ready approval from USFDA, the higher cost has inhibited commercial
exploitation.
Multilayer co-injection techniques have largely been supplanted by monolayer blends due to the
technical simplicity and the lower capital cost of the machines and moulds for perform injection.
Superclean or Physical Recycling processes were investigated for their safety in the major EU
Project FAIR-CT98-4318. It was concluded that “…from the project results and from many other
findings and considerations it can be concluded that modern Superclean technologies can safely
reprocess rPET into new materials and articles for direct food applications which are
indistinguishable from virgin food grade PET”.10
25
The feedstock for the early “Superclean” processes was typically bottles collected under deposit
and refund schemes to control the purity of the incoming PET bottles. From 2000 onwards, the
majority of the approved processes have used kerbside collection sources for PET bottles and have
demonstrated that they can achieve the high levels of purity required to meet the USFDA and EU
requirements.
The FAIR study referred to above showed that only 0.03 to 0.04 % of bottles were chemically
“misused” and the maximum levels of consumer exposure to misuse chemicals such as solvents
would be less than 50 ppb per day. This data justifies the inclusion of bottles that have been used
for non-food applications and from less controlled sources such as kerbside collection.
Of all the Physical Recycling approaches that have been evaluated by the USFDA and granted
“Letters of Non Objection”, only three have approval from the Coca Cola Company.
1. Phoenix Recycling
2. URRC Process
3. Buhler Process
The approval from Coca Cola is based on the ability of the process to remove residual flavourants
such as limonene and cineole that may be within the flakes of recycled PET from previous
applications. Removal of these flavourants usually ensures the removal of other potential
contaminants.
Typically, all of the processes will need to utilise a high quality washing process for the PET flakes
to achieve Bottle-to-Bottle quality standards. This will usually involve a prewash of bottles followed
by bottle sorting and grinding to 10 to 14 mm flake and then a hot (>80 ºC) wash using caustic
soda and low foaming detergents.
At the next stage, there is a decontamination process either before or after extrusion, which
involves exposure to a number of hours at 200 º C with the application of vacuum or within an
inert atmosphere such as nitrogen.
The two most popular commercial processes used in Europe are Erema’s Vaucurema process and
Cleanaway’s URRC process. Both processes are potential candidates for providing competitively
priced rPET that could be used in UK packaging products.
The URRC process has attractive features in that it offers Coca Cola approval for decontaminated
PET in the flake state which can reduce the costs below that of processes that use extrusion. In
this trial the PET was used in extruded crystallised pellet format to simplify materials handling in
the processing plants and to reduce the risk of contamination from small specks.
The Erema process is widely used within Europe and is competitive due to relatively low capital
cost and efficient use of equipment, and although it meets EU food contact requirements, the
process does not currently have Coca Cola approval.
The rPET made by ITW Polyrecycling, CH-Weinfelden has the trade name “PolyPET KL 805”.
This is made by using a hot wash treatment of the bottles after grinding into flakes followed by
extrusion and melt filtration through an EREMA two stage vacuum treatment system; the
VAKUREMA T-VS shown below.
26
Figure 3 The Erema process for food grade pellet
The rPET made by Cleanaway Germany is manufactured using the URRC (United Resource
Recovery Corporation) process and use the trade name CleanPET.
The process takes sorted PET bottles that are separated and ground into flakes. Any remaining
contents, labels, closures, and foreign matter are separated using conventional, dry and wet-
separating techniques as well as a washing step. In the second stage of the process, the flake is
coated with caustic soda and fed to a rotary tubular kiln where residual foreign substances and
odours are effectively removed using heat treatment .The flakes and are kept at 200 ºC for up to 5
hours. In the third stage, the cleaned PET is rinsed and coloured flakes are removed by colour
sorting equipment. The final flake product can be used directly or extruded into pellet before use.
The final IV is in the range 0.76 to 0.77.
Figure 4 URRC Tubular reactor for treating flake and caustic mixture
27
3.2 Comparison of 100% rPET with Virgin
PET for Food Contact Applications
When the technical specifications of food contact rPET resins are compared to those of virgin
resins as in Table 6 shown below, two important differences are apparent.
1. The Intrinsic Viscosity (a measure of the molecular weight and indicator to physical and
processing properties) of the rPET is lower than the virgin resins. The values shown for
ITW and Cleanaway are acceptable for products blended with virgin resins.
2. The yellowness colour of the resin as measured by the CIE b value is higher for the rPET
resins. A value of less than 5 is usually acceptable for resins that are to be blended at
levels of up to 30-50%
These properties have been used to specify the key parameters of rPET resins for use in high
quality products. The specification used in this project is shown in Table 7 in the next section
below.
Attribute Units ITW Cleanaway Virgin (example)

DuPont
K04013 GKO-21 Laser+

Intrinsic Viscosity dL/gm 0.79 0.75 0.84
-solution technique +/-0.04 +/-0.02
Melting Point °C 250 250
Density - solid g/cm3 1.33 1.33 1.33 Amorp
>1.39 Cryst
Crystallinity % >30 >30 >48
Colour L 79.59 76.9
CIE a -2.84 -2,18
(L,a,b) b 3.08 4.84 2.0 Max
Y 4.32 8.47
Pellet Size mm 2.5 2.5
Major Diam max. 3.0 3.0
Residual ppm <1 <1 <1
Acetaldehyde
Guaranteed ppm <1 <1.5
Acetaldehyde
Fines <0.5mm (max) % <0.1
Metal,Black Specs >100µm 0 0 0
Foreign Matter-PVC, ppm <1 <1
Metals,Polyolefins,Pa
per
Moisture Content Max % 0.4 0.14 0.2
Bulk Density Kg/m3 700 770 840
(Target)
GC/MS (Free of <15ppb of
foreign residues) Limonene
Table 6. Comparison of the technical specification of virgin and RPET resins
28
3.3 Packaging Incorporating rPET
The decision to launch the rPET packaging range as part of a broader range of sustainable
initiatives coincided with the Marks and Spencer re-launch of the food to go offer. Marks and
Spencer nominated a range of beverages and salad lines that would utilise the rPET material.
The two key packaging suppliers that were manufacturing these items were;
• RPC located at Llantrisant, Wales –making single stage ISBM bottles, and
• Reynolds Food Packaging, Sedgefield, - making thermoformed products from extruded
sheet for a range of thermoformed salad bowls and recipe pots
RPC’s Llantrisant site specialises in the blow moulding PET bottles and is a key supplier to Marks
and Spencer. They supply a range of PET bottles, including 250ml, 300ml, 500ml and 1lt bottles
for juices, smoothies and flavoured milks. For the purpose of the trial, the new 300ml juice and
smoothie bottle featured in the food to go range was manufactured with 30% post consumer
recyclate.
Reynolds Food Packaging developed a new bowl design for the new look food to go range of
salads. The bowl incorporates 50% post consumer recyclate and is used in excess of 30 different
salads (leaf salads) and pre-prepared side salad meal solutions (couscous, rice, pasta, beans and
pulses, layered cheese salads etc) throughout the food to go and produce range.
As part of Boots commitment to sustainable product development outlined in its CSR Strategy, the
company instigated this project with WRAP and Closed Loop London to incorporate rPET into a
mainstream range of toiletry products. The product range selected was the “Ingredients” range
consisting of 12 product lines of shampoos and conditioners manufactured at the Boots site in
Nottingham.
The ‘Ingredients’ range commands a good shelf presence within the Boots stores given the
number of lines within the range. One criteria from Boots was that there should be no discernable
difference to the naked eye between the rPET bottle and the virgin bottle. The colour and contents
of the ‘Ingredients’ range is quite diverse, translucent shampoo’s to opaque conditioners, providing
a range of content colours to showcase the clarity of the rPET bottle.
29
3.3.1 Specification of Food Grade rPET
The resin used for the two applications would be processed by either injection stretch blow
moulding or by extrusion into sheet products. For these applications, the specification shown
below was developed to ensure that the resins were suited to the processing and product
specifications. The main issues were IV, colour and freedom from contamination. The resins were
specified to be melt filtered and crystallised resins to reduce risks of contamination and to simplify
the processing of the products in the manufacturing operations. A 500 g sample was supplied and
approved prior to shipment.
PROPERTY TEST METHOD TARGET VALUE
and UNITS and tolerance
Source of PET Post consumer beverage

bottles
Intrinsic Viscosity solution or melt 0.76 +/- 0.02

equivalent dl/g
Colour L value 75 +/- 10
Colour a value -2 +/- 1
Colour b value 2.5 +/- 1.5
Colour YI value 5 +/- 2
Average Pellet size Measurement of length, 3 +/- 1

diameter in mm.
Fines less than sieve analysis 0.1 +/- 0.05 %

0.5mm
Bulk Density mass/volume kg/m3 800 +/- 40
Moisture Content weight loss 0.3% +/- 0.1%
Foreign Materials- ppm <1 ppm in total

PVC, polyolefins,
metals, other
materials
Black Specs, using Black specs above None

filtration <80 microns 100 microns
Table 7. Specification of food grade rPET resin used in this project
30
4 Application of RPET into Packaging
4.1 rPET in Thermoformed PET Food Packaging

The manufacture of thermoformed PET packaging is achieved by initially extruding a sheet of PET
into a defined width and thickness. This sheet is stored as rolls of 250 to 500kgs until it is used as
the feedstock into a thermoforming machine. In this machine, the sheet is heated to convert the
normally rigid plastic in to a softer elastic state and then it is drawn into a cavity mould of the final
shape of the product. Once the product has been cooled, it becomes rigid once again. It is then
trimmed and removed from the surrounding sheet and stacked and boxed ready for transport to
the food filler.
For the manufacture of “Food to Go” salad bowls at Reynolds Food Packaging, the sheet was
made initially at Vitembal in France and the reel stock was then shipped to Reynolds in UK for
conversion into finished packaging before the filling of the packaging at Geest. The initial work was
started in November 2004.
4.1.1 Production Trial of 50% rPET Sheet at Vitembal.

In order to show that rPET materials could be reliably processed, it was decide to initially have a
trial run followed later by a production run.
The trial took place at the company Vitembal in Tarascon, France. Vitembal is one of the major
suppliers of sheet rolls to Reynolds Food Packaging in Durham. Reynolds delivers the
thermoformed products directly to dedicated fillers for Marks & Spencer.
Sheets with rPET content from ITW and Cleanaway Germany were produced on equipment as
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 an overview of the machinery installed at Vitembal
The URRC pellet was pre-dried for 3 hours at 100°C and then dosed volumetrically together with
skeletal PET sheet scrap and virgin resin. The mix ratio was set at
• 50% rPET
• 30% skeletal scrap
31
• 20% virgin PET
After mixing, the blend went into a crystallizer for 4 hours at 130°C
Before entering the extruder, the material is cooled to 100°C in a hopper dryer on top of the
extruder to avoid clumping at higher rates of usage of flakes. During the trial, no bridging or
clumping took place.
The blend was extruded on a 120 mm Welex single screw extruder to 400µm x 646 mm and
450µm x 646 mm sheet
The test was conducted under the same conditions as used for virgin PET and no differences were
noted in processing behaviour.
Figure 6 the extruder set-up at Vitembal
The machine was slowed down from 650kg/h to 480 kg/h at the beginning of the trial for initial
monitoring and reset to normal throughput after the first 30 Minutes. There were no issues in
reduced throughput.
Figure7 Sheet thickness control Figure 8 Volumetric mixing unit for virgin
trim and rPET
32
During the whole trial, there was only one change of the melt filter, which is typical of standard
production demonstrating the purity of the rPET
During the trial thermoforming, products were made to identify any difficulties in transport,
heating, cutting behaviour of the sheet. The rolls went through the Illig thermoforming machine in
the same manner as virgin PET.
The only variation of the rPET sheet compared with virgin PET is a slightly different colour change
to yellow. All specialists from Vitembal and Reynolds pointed out that this is not an obstacle to the
use of rPET.
4.1.2 Evaluation of rPET and Virgin Sheet Colour

At London Metropolitan University (LMU) a comparison was made between the colours of different
sheet samples. LMU used a Minolta spectrophotometer to compare the samples. The table 8 shows
the summary of different measurements.
The results indicate that the material has similar transparency (L), and a slight green (a) colour.
The significant difference is in the yellow colour (b) where both rPET resins create slightly yellow
colour.
Sample L* a* b* Yellowness Index
identification ASTM E313-73
93.58 -0.87 1.41 2.00
Virgin PET 93.75 -0.89 1.37 2.08
93.75 -0.84 1.35 1.95
92.44 -0.92 2.39 3.54
Cleanaway 92.43 -0.94 2.51 3.63
92.59 -0.96 2.41 3.52
92.01 -0.94 2.19 3.21
ITW 92.59 -0.93 2.29 3.53
92.17 -0.90 2.39 3.61
Table 8 Colour measurements on PET sheets with 0% and 50% rPET content
Colour Model a-L: a – b axis:

Green –Red axis against colour room
transparency a from red to green
b from yellow to blue
Figure 9 Model of L,a,b colour space
33
4.1.3 Thermoforming of Trial rPET Sheet into Salad
Bowls at Reynolds
The production of salad bowls at Reynolds Packaging on an Illig-machine RDKP 72g did not create
any difficulties. Without changes in settings, the thermoforming machine was able to produce
salad bowls out of the pre-processed sheet from Vitembal.
Both material blends from Cleanaway and from ITW had no impact to normal use of virgin PET
material. There was no difference, neither in speed nor in quality or scrap rate.
Figure 10 Illig-thermoforming machine RDKP 72g at Reynolds packaging
4.1.4 Production Run of rPET sheet at Vitembal

The production run took place at Vitembal, France under the same process conditions as used for
the first trial with URRC rPET resin.
The following sheets with 50% rPET content were produced:
• 350 micron x 370 mm wide

The processing conditions were the same as for virgin resins and the process measurements as
shown in figures 11 to 13 reflect the typical behaviour of PET resins.
34
Figure 11 Extruder settings Figure 12 Melt pump pressure, over an 8-hour run
Figure 13 Thickness control showing real-time gauge variations across the width of the
nominally 400-µm sheet
35
4.1.5 Production of Thermoformed Packaging at
Reynolds
The sheet produced at Vitembal was brought to Reynolds Packaging for conversion into products
for Marks and Spencer.
Figure 14 Roll of 400 µm sheet containing 50% rPET from Cleanaway
The sheet was run on a Kiefel thermoformer model KLsh76 and the sheet was initially set up with
sheet made from virgin resin and then followed by the 50% rPET resin blend. New prototype
tooling had been prepared for this evaluation to allow the changes in design in the “to go” range
to be evaluated along side the changes in resin composition.
Figure 15 Prototype tooling for salad bowl
Production of rPET sheet subsequent to this production run from Vitembal was sourced from
Skylight, Denmark. The sheet was made from 50% rPET flake and virgin resin and supplied to
Reynolds Food Packaging as roll-stock. The products from this sheet met all of the relevant quality
standards required by Marks and Spencer.
36
Figure 16 Production of M&S salad bowls from rPET sheet
Without changes in the settings, the Kiefel thermoforming machine went from producing salad
bowls in Virgin APET to producing bowls in R-PET out of the processed sheet from Vitembal.
There was no difference in the settings used, production speed, quality or scrap rate.
The salad bowls produced in virgin PET and 50% rPET resins were tested for visual appearance,
dimension, trim behaviour and weight. Both met all quality criteria required for use in production.
Figure 17 new Marks and Spencer salad bowls, produced from virgin and 50% rPET sheet
37
4.1.6 Migration Tests at Fraunhofer IVV
As part of the due diligence process, Marks and Spencer requested migration testing and
headspace measurement to verify the properties of the rPET finished packaging items. The first
tests were conducted on sheet form the initial small-scale trial run at Vitembal.
The Fraunhofer-Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV is known worldwide as centre
of excellence for the evaluation of packaging for food contact applications. They have developed a
range of tests to validate the safety of recycled materials for use in food packaging.
The migration test with 95% ethanol as the food simulant is a very good test to show if the
recycling process was efficient enough to remove recycling related substances and consequently
good enough to meet legal food requirements. The extracted materials are detected using Head-
Space Gas Chromatography, which can detect the presence of very small levels of residual
molecules that maybe still be in the PET products.
The Fraunhofer IVV was sent four salad bowl samples; one of each resin type i.e. Virgin, ITW and
Cleanaway as well as a lid made from rPET.
The chromatogram results (see Appendix 1) show in all cases similar headspace fingerprints of the
substances. However, the recycled material has very small additional peaks shown at longer
retention times where flavour molecules such as limonene and cineole are usually found. All of the
peaks in this range are below 1ppm in concentration.
The first migration test results (see Appendix 1) showed that the measured level of the overall
migration for the two rPET sheet materials was respectively 25 times and 100 times lower than the
maximum allowed level of 10 mg/ dm².
The second migration test (see Appendix 2) was taken from samples from the full-scale production
run using virgin resin and Cleanaway RPET at 50%. The results show again, that the overall
migration is significantly lower (16 times) than the maximum allowed level of 10 mg/ dm².
These results show that the use of sheet with 50%rPET adequately meets the standards of
performance for packaging used food contact as defined by the Fraunhofer IVV.
4.1.7 Performance of the RPET Packaging in

Contact with Food
The rPET salad bowls and lids were delivered to Geest for filling with salads and shelf life stability
tests.
The products passed the storage and organoleptic tests with the only observation that there was
some condensation on the lids. This was due to the absence of anti-misting treatment for this trial
however, this was not seen as an issue preventing the release of rPET.
Following these successful results, Marks & Spencer released the permission for the launch of the
packaging containing 50% rPET.
38
4.1.8 Tonnage of RPET Used in Thermoformed
Packaging
The actual tonnages reported by Reynolds for production of the food to go product line was a total
of 1,061 tonnes of roll-stock with 50% rPET content. This was made up made up in the following
way:
From the start of production in March 2005 to August 05: 552 tonnes
From August 05 to 21st January 2006: 320 tonnes
From 22nd January to 31st March 2006 190 tonnes
Reynolds confirmed that the expected volume of rPET used on an annualised basis would be of the
order of 1,500 tonnes per year. This would equate to 750 tonnes of food grade post consumer
RPET being incorporated into Marks and Spencer food grade packaging.
4.1.9 Conclusions: Success of rPET in

Thermoformed Packaging
The introduction of food grade rPET into thermoformed packaging has been fully implemented at
levels up to at least 50% in sheet products. This has been demonstrated by the following
successful steps;
• production of sheet
• production of packaging with no major change in process settings
• no new machinery needed to implement rPET usage
• demonstration of the freedom from all contaminants derived from rPET
• storage performance of foods equivalent to virgin PET packaging
• the ability to supply the rPET at no nett cost increase to the packaging manufacturer
There was a need to closely specify material standards and related process settings to ensure the
highest quality of package was achieved.
There were no changes measured in the properties and appearance of the packaging. The very
slight yellowing of the PET packaging was not easily visually detected in isolation and was not seen
as impediment to the success of the packaging.
39
4.2 rPET in PET Juice Bottles
4.2.1 Production of PET Bottles by the Injection
Stretch Blow Moulding Process
The manufacture of PET bottles can be achieved by either a single stage process or a two stage
process.
For large volumes of PET bottles such as carbonated beverage bottles, the most competitive
process is the two stage process where preforms are separately moulded and then reheated prior
to blow moulding into bottles.
For smaller volume applications such as specialised juices and health care products it is more
common to use the single stage process where preforms are moulded and then after a brief
temperature conditioning, blow moulded into the final bottle shape.
For the manufacture of food to go bottles at RPC at Llantrisant was carried out in March 2005 on
Aoki single stage 350LL-40 ISBM machines.
4.2.2 Initial Trial with Cleanaway rPET

In December 2004 the first evaluation trial took place to produce a 1000ml and a 250ml bottle for
M&S with a Nissei Single stage injection blow moulding machine.
RPC used crystallized rPET from Cleanaway at a rate of 30% (compared to the 50% used in the
400 micron thermoformed packaging) to ensure that the thicker sections of the bottles (mainly the
neck region) did not show noticeable discolouration. .
After processing of 750 kg of material the test has been stopped because of unsatisfactory results
in terms of colour of the bottles and level of impurities.
4.2.3 rPET Quality Checks at Cleanaway

Bottles with were sent to the Quality Assurance laboratory of Cleanaway, Rostock Germany. They
were asked to measure the colour values of virgin bottles against bottles with rPET and an analysis
of impurities.
Cleanaway received 3 bottles (1000 ml)

1 bottles is made out of 100 % virgin PET
2 bottles are made out of a blend of 30% CleanPET G0-21 and 70% virgin PET
Cleanaway measured the colour values via a photo spectrometer according the CIELAB method
Two bottles were inspected with a stereo microscope. The particles were measured in dimensions
and photographed. The identification of impurities was made by comparison of specially prepared
impurities samples against detected impurities in the bottles
The majority of the particles (21/27) examined were identified as residual label components with
single particles of film (3) and adhered materials (3).
40
In the virgin resin bottles 2 particles were found and identified as residual label component and a
metallic component.
4.2.4 Microscopic Identification of Particles in rPET

The table 9 shows the size and nature of the particles that were found in the 30%rPET bottles and
the virgin PET bottles. The analysis shows that the resin has only small particles i.e. less than 0.3
mm in 27/29 particles, 1/29 present at 0.35 mm and 1/29 present at 0.82 mm The smaller
particles are generally acceptable when a small number appear in a bottle but not acceptable
when they occur in larger numbers. None of the particles would have been unacceptable in a
commercial bottle in isolation however the frequency of the particles suggests that the resin
should be regarded as suspect and subject to further tests to ensure that contamination did not
occur from other sources such as barrel walls of the processing machinery that can lead to similar
defects.
Bottle -Nr. Impurities Size in mm

1 27 particle:
(30%CleanPET) 1. remaining label parts (Photo) 0,12 x 0,19
2. remaining label parts 0,18 x 0,18
3. remaining label parts (Photo) 0,12 x 0,15
8. film 0,82 x 0,23
9. sticked material 0,14 x 0,12
0,18 x 0,15
16. remaining label parts
0,16 x 0,11
0,12 x 0,12
0,18 x 0,13
0,12 x 0,28
24. film 0,35 x 0,23
26. film 0,29 x 0,18
2 2 Particles
(virgin) 1. remaining label parts (Photo) 0,16 x 0,16
2. metal silver grey (Photo) 0,12 x 0,19
Table 9 Analysis of particles in 30% Cleanaway bottles by Cleanaway Germany
41
4.2.4.1 Analysis of impurities in the rPET and Virgin bottles
The photos of some of the particles listed above are shown below in figure 18 for the bottle with
rPET and in figure 19 for the virgin resin bottle. The photos for the components of residual labels
look similar to the reddish brown particle seen in the virgin bottle. There is a possibility that the
particles in the rPET bottle and the virgin bottle are both degraded PET, however this suggestion
has not been proven.
The disappointing results with this batch of Cleanaway rPET resin meant that the project switched
to ITW resin for further bottle production trials to provide a rapid resolution to the problem. (Later
trials with Cleanaway resins showed good results and did not encounter such problems).
Bottle 1 particle 1 Bottle 1 particle 3 Bottle 1 particle 4
Bottle 1 particle 5 Bottle 1 particle 6 Bottle 1 particle 11

Figure 18 Impurities in the rPET bottle 1
bottle 2 particle 1 bottle 2 particle 2

Figure 19 Impurities in the virgin bottle
When the colour properties were measured by a spectrophotometer, (as shown in table 10) the
biggest difference noted was in the slightly higher yellowness index and the ‘b’ value, (which is
also a yellowness indicator) for the bottle with rPET resin. This means that the underlying resin is
within specification and suited for bottles.
Colour property Light/dark Red/green Blue/yellow Yellowness index

Parameter L a b YI
Virgin bottle 95.62 -0.05 0.63 1.22
30% rPET bottle 95.09 -0.06 1.07 2.05
Table 10 Comparison of colour properties of virgin and 30% rPET Cleanaway resin
42
The colour of the various grades of rPET were checked by extruding strips of each at 30% rPET
resin level, at London Metropolitan University. The resins checked were Virgin resin, the
Cleanaway resin from the RPC trial, a new Cleanaway batch of resin as well as the ITW resin.
The results were evaluated subjectively and showed that there was little difference between the
resins when extruded as 300 micron strips except a slightly higher yellowness for the batch of
Cleanaway resin used at RPC. The results did not identify any contaminants in that batch of resin.
4.2.4.2 Conclusions to the contamination issue

• the large bottles processed at RPC showed a high amount of particulate impurities
• the amount of particulates coming from the rPET resin is much lower than the amount
seen in the larger bottles. The colour measurements of the large bottles and the extrusion
of different rPET blends versus virgin PET showed that there should not have been a
discolouration or contamination problem
• the colour values for the resins and bottles are within specification
• the particles could be the result of processing conditions during the initial evaluation of the
resin at RPC
• in order to rapidly progress the trials at RPC, future blends were made with different input
(ITW) rPET material
4.2.5 Production Run of rPET at RPC

The first objective of this production run was to blend, process and evaluate the performance of
PET injection stretch blow moulded containers that contained at least 30% of rPET. The second
objective was to determine if there were any issues when filling the bottles with food products.
4.2.5.1 Capital Equipment Requirements to process rPET
In order to process rPET in an efficient

manner at RPC, an additional day bin ( Figure
20) was required to transfer resin from
outside storage to inside the company prior
to the blending with virgin resin at the blow
moulding machine. RPC had the balance of
the equipment required to ratio blend the
correct ratio of rPET and to dry the PET prior
to processing into bottles.
Figure 20 Internal storage bin for rPET pellet
4.2.5.2 Production of rPET Bottles
The raw virgin PET material used for these trials was Voridian Grade 9921W made by Voridian
(Eastman). The recycled PET was supplied by ITW in Switzerland and the bottles trialled were
1000 ml, 500 ml and 250 ml Square Juice bottles for Marks and Spencer.
It was necessary to blend and dry the rPET with the virgin polymer before processing and this was
conducted using Gravimetric blending and dosing equipment. The gravimetric feeding system gave
43
accuracy levels of +/-1 gram on a 1000-gram mix. The first trial incorporated a loading level of 30
% rPET.
Figure 21 The production of single stage PET bottles with 30% rPET content
PET needs drying before use and therefore the blended material was dried for 6 hours. To
eliminate process variables, a standard 500 kg quantity of polymer was used in the hopper. The
resultant bottles were manufactured without additives or blue colorants to neutralise any possible
yellowness.
The Aoki single stage 350LL-40 Injection Stretch blow-moulding machine was run with the blended
material to determine if it was stable over a typical production run period. During this time, all
bottles produced were removed from the line to enable the following tests to be conducted;
packaging tests, migration studies, taste tests and shelf life testing.
After moulding the empty containers, the PET bottles were transferred to Orchard House Foods
and Sunjuice to be introduced to their filling line and a selection of bottles were sent to the
Fraunhofer Institute for migration testing.
Figure 22 Packaged PET bottles
4.2.5.3 Results of production
The blow-moulding machine used exactly the same settings to process the blend with 30 % rPET
as for virgin resin and no problems were experienced over the running period. There were no
changes to the moulding cycle during the production run.
Compared to virgin PET bottles, those produced with 30 % rPET exhibited minor yellowing
however all the bottles produced were completely acceptable for commercial applications.
44
Figure 23 Marks and Spencer square juice bottles with 30% rPET content.
4.2.5.4 Blow Moulding Production Conclusions
• the work showed that the gravimetric feeder, dryer and injection stretch blow moulding
machines were capable of processing the rPET material at 30% loading levels for durations
of several hours, typical of a production run without problems
• in addition to the technical findings above, it is worth noting from a commercial perspective
that the cycle time remained unchanged so it is unlikely to decrease productivity and lead
to cost penalties
• the bottles showed slight yellowing and did not show flow lines or evidence of unusual
shrinkage or other moulding defects
4.2.6 Migration Tests on rPET Bottles

Bottles made from Cleanaway and ITW rPET were submitted to the Fraunhofer for migration
testing. The results (see Appendix 3) showed that measured level of the overall migration was 0.1
mg/ dm², which is 100 times lower than the maximum allowed level of 10 mg/ dm². This means
that the bottles will not present an issue with any migration of any foreign materials into the liquid.
The following report shows the details of the migration tests.
4.2.7 Filling of Bottles at Orchard House Foods Ltd

The bottles manufactured at RPC were sent to Orchard House Foods for filling trials.
When the bottles were run, the following observations were reported:
• transit through the system was successful

• clarity of the bottle was acceptable - seen as no different from our current bottle
• bottles opened and re-closed successfully, without any leaking seen
The bottle performance tests have showed that there are no differences between virgin bottles
and bottles containing 30%rPET.
45
4.2.8 Microbiological Examination
Instead of an organoleptic testing Orchard House Foods Ltd decided to measure the
microbiological influence of rPET in the juice bottles. The test report (see Appendix 4) showed that
the all bottles tested were free of contamination of yeasts and moulds.
4.2.9 Tonnage of rPET used in bottles

The amount of rPET used into Marks and Spencer food to go bottles up to January 2006 was 168
tonnes. This was for one size of bottle (200 ml) and the volumes would be expected to increase
once rPET is introduced across the other bottle sizes.
4.2.10 Conclusions: Success of rPET in Juice Bottles

The introduction of food grade rPET into ISBM bottles has been fully implemented at levels up to
at least 30% for juice bottles. This has been demonstrated by the following successful
achievements;
• production of bottles at conditions identical to those used for virgin resin

• production of packaging at the same cycle rate and process cost as for virgin resin
• demonstration of freedom from microbiological contamination
This was achieved with some minor additions to the equipment used to manufacture the bottles.
There was a need to closely specify material standards and related process settings to ensure the
highest quality of package was achieved.
There were no changes measured in the properties and appearance of the bottles other than the
yellowing of the bottles at the thicker neck region. This very slight yellowing was not easily visually
detected in isolation and was not seen as impediment to the success of the packaging.
4.3 Boots Toiletries in rPET Bottles

4.3.1 Background
Boots wished to incorporate rPET into an element of its packaging as part of its commitment to
sustainable product development outlined in its CSR policy. Boots decided to conduct the
development work at the main site in Nottingham rather than at external 3rd party suppliers since
this offered better control and flexibility to meet the milestones set.
Boots originally tendered to work alone on this project. However, as time progressed it appeared
more appropriate to form a partnership with London Remade and Closed Loop London with their
relevant previous knowledge and experience in the supply chain.
The aims of the project were to demonstrate the viability of using post-consumer recycled PET in
the toiletries market in the retail sector and to disseminate the findings and stimulate the market.
46
The project began by selecting the “Ingredients” range consisting of 12 product lines of shampoos
and conditioners manufactured at the Boots site in Nottingham.
The manufacture of Boots bottles was carried out from September 2005 to March 2006 on Aoki
single stage ISBM machines.
Figure 24 Boots “Ingredients” Range
4.3.2 Production of PET Bottles by the Injection

Stretch Blow Moulding Process
4.3.2.1 Production trial of rPET at Boots
The first objective of this production run was to blend, process and evaluate the performance of
PET injection stretch blow moulded containers that contained at least 30% of rPET. The second
objective was to determine if there were any issues when filling the bottles with products.
The resins evaluated during the trial were rPET from both ITW PolyRecycling, Switzerland,
Cleanaway, Germany and Wellman in The Netherlands. The Wellman material, Ecoclear, was a
pre-blended material with 25% rPET and it was trialled at this level.
Initial injection stretch blow moulding trials were conducted in February 2005 and the bottles
produced were subjected to a 4-month approval process with the result that bottles containing
30% (rPET) were selected for production.
4.3.2.2 Capital Equipment Requirements to Process rPET
Boots had all the necessary equipment to process PET with the exception of a gravimetric dosing
unit used for accurate mixing of rPET pellets with virgin PET. The unit was installed as a stand-
alone device and one specific machine used throughout the trials and the production period.
47
The equipment and ancillaries that were purchased to allow rPET blending is shown in the table
below.
List of equipment
UPM Weighmaster model FGB2-2/0 E
UPM Weighmaster stand & Vac bin 2XO/L’s
UPM Weighmaster MCV1 Valve FGB2-5 EXC Funnel
UPM loaders X2 CTB4 Vac 60 mm/mat 50 mm
UPM control modification
Pipe work
Installation
Table 10 Equipment and ancillaries purchased at Boots for the project
4.3.2.3 Boots Internal Approval Process
Boots’ position for this programme was to use the highest quality of rPET available that had
passed all the relevant challenge testing and been given a ‘letter of no objection’ from the
regulatory body. Within Boots, the approval process included stakeholders from the:
• blow moulding factory

• technical Service Group (TSG)
• packaging and formulation team
• quality and CSR team
• new Product Introduction & Development team
• purchasing team responsible for this beauty range
4.3.2.4 Production of rPET Bottles
The trials with rPET material were conducted with ITW PolyRecycling rPET at levels of 30 %, 50 %
and 70 % mixed with virgin resin. The Cleanaway rPET was trialled at 30% and 50% levels. The
Wellman resin was trialled at the pre-blended level of 25% RPET. The bottles were then filled and
subjected to a lengthy evaluation that included a three-month stability trial to verify that the
packaging was suitable for use.
48
Figure 25 ITW PolyRecycling rPET resin pellets
The raw virgin PET material used for these trials was Laser+® Grade TS5 made by DuPontSA,
which is the standard grade used by Boots. The container was rectangular sided and 300 ml bottle
as used in the Essentials toiletry range.
It was necessary to blend and dry the rPET with the virgin polymer before processing and this was
conducted using UPM dosing equipment. The dosing equipment gives accuracy levels of 0.1 %.
The first trial incorporated a loading level of 30 % rPET and as a result of this work it was decided
to use levels of 50% and 70 % rPET for the second series of trials.
Figure 26 UPM dosing and mixing system and input to Nissei hopper
PET needs drying before use and therefore the blended material was dried for 4 hours. To
eliminate process variables, the a consistent batch of 300 kg of polymer was used in the hopper.
The resultant bottles were produced with no blue colorants added to neutralise any possible
yellowness.
The Nissei blow-moulding machine was run for several hours with the blended material to
determine if it was stable over a typical production run period. During this time approximately 250
bottles were removed from the line to allow future packaging tests, migration studies and
filling/labelling to be conducted.
49
Figure 27 Nissei PET ISBM
After moulding the empty containers, the PET bottles were transferred to the filling line. The two
formulations chosen for the work were a camomile and lemon balm shampoo and a henna and
horse-chestnut conditioner, both in the “Ingredients” range. These formulations were selected
because these products have very different pH, detergent levels and viscosity. The standard filling
process was used for all bottle types.
4.3.2.5 Production Details
The blow moulding machine used exactly the same settings to process the blend with 30 % rPET
and no problems were experienced over a four hour period. When the 70 % level of rPET was
used, it was necessary to make minor changes. Without these changes it proved difficult to
process the material and the resultant bottles had a cloudy appearance and eventually led to
machine stoppage. The process changes required are shown in table 11. The overall injection cycle
time was unchanged.
Compared to virgin PET bottles, those produced with 30 % rPET exhibited minor yellowing and this
effect was more pronounced with the 70 % rPET bottles.
70 % rPET machine
Virgin PET machine settings
settings
Barrel Heaters (deg C) 265 285
Hot runner (deg C) 270 285
Inj velocity stage 1 20 30
Inj pressure 10 12.5
Table 11. Comparison of blow moulding machine settings for virgin and 70% rPET content
50
No problems were experienced in terms of label attachment or cap closure when the empty PET
bottles were filled with the formulations using the standard machine settings.
Initially a report was produced after 30 days of treatment under test conditions. The containers
were filled with product and subjected to standard packaging tests including; drop testing,
compatibility with cap, stress cracking, colour (yellowing), and formulation stability.
4.3.2.6 Blow Moulding Production Conclusions
The trials showed that the gravimetric feeder, drier and Nissei moulding machine were capable of
processing the rPET material at both 30 and 70 % loading levels for durations of several hours –
typical of a production run.
Only slight adjustments were required to process the 70 % rPET and this may have been
anticipated before the trials began owing to the lower intrinsic viscosity of the rPET.
In addition to the technical findings above, it is worth noting from a commercial perspective that
the cycle time remained unchanged so is unlikely to decrease productivity and lead to cost
penalties.
Initial visual inspection indicated that there was negligible colour difference between the virgin PET
and the PET containing 30 % rPET. This was surprising since there were expectations of major
differences in yellowing. As expected the bottles moulded with 70 % rPET had more yellowing
than those of 30 % rPET but again less overall yellowing than anticipated. Future consumer
acceptance trials could be used to confirm the acceptable level of yellowness.
Figure 28 Boots “Ingredients” products with 30% rPET content
The appearance (in terms of colour) of the bottles containing rPET is marginally different to the
clarity of virgin bottles but to the ‘untrained eye’ there appears to be no difference.
Under store lighting conditions and when there are front and rear labels covering most of the
product, it was considered that the consumer would be very unlikely to notice any differences.
It may be possible in the future to mould bottles with 50 % rPET as these appeared similar to
virgin bottles but the 70 % bottles were deemed too hazy. Further trials would need to take place
51
to optimise the machine settings and the resultant bottles. The bottles made from Wellman resin
gave the results closest to virgin resin probably due to the recyclate level being only 25%.
The bottle was also visually inspected for flow lines and general moulding quality. There was no
evidence of shrinkage or other moulding defects.
This study has also shown that the bottles with recycled content can be filled successfully with
formulations using the standard machine settings.
The evaluation included independent chemical evaluation and migration testing of the moulded
bottles at The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany. This ensured that there was confidence in the
moulding process in addition to confidence in the quality of the raw material rPET pellets.
4.3.2.7 Results of Further Production Trials
In March 2006 the raw material source was changed from ITW to Cleanaway and all internal
stakeholders were again involved to ensure that any potential risks were managed. Trials took
place with the Cleanaway material at 30% rPET addition rate ahead of production to ensure that
the quality was acceptable. Due to the low inherent risk however, the Cleanaway rPET material
was not subjected to the same three month packaging stability testing as the original ITW rPET.
The results at 30% rPET addition level were completely acceptable for production.
During the period Oct 05 to March 06, Boots manufactured approximately 1,300,000 toiletry
bottles containing 30 % rPET. This exceeded the original target volume of 1,000,000 and
represented a total quantity of 11 tonnes of rPET.
4.3.3 Purchasing and Supply

The Boots internal systems are tightly controlled to ensure that there is a stable supply chain and
additionally suppliers manage the volume of material delivered to Boots to prevent an out-of-stock
situation. This existing Boots purchasing process did not lend itself to a flexible approach required
for this work programme since Boots were dealing with new suppliers (with little knowledge of
Boots systems) and a new material.
Any new supplier to Boots must deliver the technical requirements at a commercially acceptable
cost. Therefore, any potential development work needed to consider these factors since there was
little benefit conducting work if the supplier was unable to meet all of the requirements.
In this emerging market there are not many suppliers of food grade rPET, especially in the UK and
therefore manufacturers were contacted directly since many of the agents/distributors did not
stock ‘off-the-shelf’ rPET. One of the main hurdles in purchasing was the low annual volume of
rPET used by Boots at this point of time.
To reduce the potential risk to the business of only having one supplier, both ITW and Cleanaway
rPET materials were involved in the work programme.
4.3.4 Production of Bottles and rPET Tonnage
52
Boots have produced at least 1,330,000 bottles made from virgin PET with 30 % rPET content
which exceeds the target of 1,000,000 bottles.
Since the individual bottle weight was approximately 27.2 g and each bottle has 30 % loading the
rPET tonnage was approximately 11 tonnes over the period Oct 05 – March 06. Using a pro-rata
basis the estimated yearly usage is 22 tonnes for these products.
The fact that the target volumes were exceeded was due in part to the professional and flexible
approach of the Boots blow-moulding department who fitted this work programme into their
already demanding production schedule.
In practical terms, the parameters used in the injection stretch blow moulding manufacture for the
bottles containing both 30 % and 50 % rPET were exactly the same as those used for virgin PET
bottles meaning that there is no additional cost in terms of the machine efficiency. This was a
significant advantage since it would minimise both down-time and potential human error.
4.3.5 Conclusions: Success of rPET in Boots Bottles
The introduction of food grade rPET into ISBM bottles has been shown to be fully feasible for
levels of at least 30%. Levels of 50% may also be readily achievable. This has been demonstrated
by the following successful achievements;
• production of bottles at conditions identical to those used for virgin resin for 30 and 50%
rPET
• production of packaging at the same cycle rate and process cost as for virgin resin
This was achieved with some minor additions to the equipment (Gravimetric mixing equipment)
used to manufacture the bottles.
There were no changes in the performance and appearance of the bottles other than the yellowing
of the bottles at the thicker neck region. This very slight yellowing was not easily visually detected
in isolation and was not seen as impediment to the success of the packaging.
For Boots the detailed cost comparison between the recycled and virgin materials was difficult to
make, even though cost of rPET was slightly less than the virgin equivalent, since for an annual
volumes of less than 25 tonnes there may not be a significant cost benefit.
This was due to the additional transport costs, resource requirements and lower economies of
scale (purchasing power). The use of pre-blended rPET would however minimise the capital cost
outlay and provide better purchasing power with larger volumes.
Since the cost of virgin PET has been escalating in recent years, the use of significant quantities of
rPET may represent a move forward in controlling the cost of resins.
53
5 Marks and Spencer Sustainable Packaging
Initiative
5.1 Background
In 2004 Marks and Spencer commissioned extensive research into their customers perceptions and
observations pertaining to the Marks and Spencer food and beverage packaging. The findings
relevant to sustainable and responsible packaging initiatives revealed the following;
• particular sensitivities around packaging used throughout the produce and food to go
categories due to the relatively short lifespan of the packaging once it leaves the store
• generally a lack of recognition of the variety of symbols indicating recycling
• different packaging materials communicate different messages i.e., glass, brown paper and
cardboard evoked a positive response, whilst rigid plastics and polystyrene prompted a
negative reaction
• the recyclability of the packaging is never the primary criteria for influencing the purchasing
decision, it generally comes after considerations relating to convenience/location, food
offer and range, quality and cost
In response to the findings, Marks and Spencer embarked on a series of sustainable packaging
initiatives, one of which was the introduction of recycled content material across a range of their
PET packaging, predominantly throughout the ‘to go’ product category and elements of the
produce category.
The objective of the programme was to alter the perception of consumers that plastic packaging,
namely PET, is an environmentally ‘unfriendly’ packaging material and that through the promotion
of the closed loop recycling model, your waste packaging is a valuable resource that can be
reprocessed into new packaging and is fully recyclable. The rPET % was determined by what was
technically and aesthetically feasible but also the % inclusion needed to be a ‘meaningful’ % to
Marks and Spencer customers and not a tokenistic attempt to appear to be offering a greener
packaging solution. Therefore 50% rPET in the thermoformed extruded sheet and 30% in the
blow moulded bottles was fixed as the desired % inclusion rates.
5.1.1 Selection of Packaging Range Incorporating rPET

The decision to launch the rPET packaging range as part of a broader range of sustainable
initiatives coincided with the re-launch of the Food to Go offer. All food and beverage items within
the Food to Go range were re-branded, bearing the new look Food to Go logo, including all in-
store fixtures and fittings and supporting marketing materials. Within the Food to Go offer, Marks
and Spencer nominated a range of beverages and salad lines that would utilise the rPET material
using two key packaging suppliers to work with Closed Loop London on the integration of rPET
material; RPC blow moulded bottles and Reynolds extruded sheet for a range of thermoformed
salad bowls and recipe pots.
54
Figure 29 food to go logo
RPC’s Llantrisant site specialises in the blow moulding PET bottles and is a key supplier to Marks
and Spencer. They supply a range of PET bottles, including 250ml, 300ml, 500ml and 1lt bottles
for juices, smoothies and flavoured milks. For the purpose of the trial, the new 300ml juice and
smoothie bottle featured in the food to go range was manufactured with 30% post consumer
recyclate.
Figure 30 food to go smoothie bottles
Reynolds Packaging developed a new bowl design for the new look food to go range of salads.
The bowl incorporates 50% post consumer recyclate and is used across in excess of 30 different
salads (leaf salads) and pre-prepared side salad meal solutions (couscous, rice, pasta, beans and
pulses, layered cheese salads etc) throughout the food to go and produce range.
Figure 31 food to go salads
55
5.2 On Pack Declarations and In- Store
Promotion
5.2.1 On Pack Message
The accumulation of market data prior to the formulation of the Marks and Spencer recycling
message identified the following;
• a recycling message is synonymous with brands that reflect quality, integrity and credibility
• the cheaper the brand, the less likely the product is to carry a recycling/recyclable message
• recycled content and recyclability messages are more apparent in some product categories,
i.e., cereals and beverages
• the use of recycling logo’s appear in a very tokenistic fashion, often
appearing for no apparent reason or purpose and the mobius loop symbol
for recycling (shown right) appears gratuitously, often attached to material
types that have no recycling stream
• recycling messages range from vague references to very prescriptive detailed messages on
material types
• fragmented and disparate messages across single brands
Whilst there are some PET packaging items on the market using a percentage of rPET, only
one other brand refers to this on their packaging. Innocent juice and smoothie bottles declare
the use of 25% recycled plastic in the manufacture of their 250ml bottles.
Marks and Spencer and Closed Loop London identified the need to generate a message and
logo that was easily identifiable, clear and concise and performed a dual role of a) informing
the consumer on the recycle content and b) prompted a call to action, indicating that the
packaging is recyclable. A key feature of the initiative is that the packaging is not only fully
recyclable but also contains a significant percentage of recyclate material, demonstrating the
closed loop process.
Figure 32 Embossed message on base of all salad bowls
56
5.2.2 On Pack Labelling
On pack declarations and embossing on the underside of the packaging were identified as the
most direct method of communicating the initiative to the consumer. On pack messages appear on
the back label for the life of the product. The strap line message for all food packaging lines reads
“packaging made from 50% recycled material, 100% recyclable” and for the beverage
range “bottle made from 30% recycled material and 100% recyclable” with the closed
loop recycling logo.
Figure 33 closed loop recycling logo
The use of the logo on the pack itself, the supporting collateral and the recycling collection bins re-
enforce the recycled content and recyclable message, raising awareness and participation rates for
the use and capture of recyclable materials.
5.2.3 Communication Tools

A range of communication tools were devised to engage and inform Marks and Spencer customers
about the recycling initiative in order to raise awareness and increase participation rates for the
collection of the closed loop compliant recyclable packaging materials (see Appendixes 5 and 6).
• in-store signage; shelf talkers and A5 tickets appeared in-store from 6th June – 1st August
2005
o stores without bins “Helping the environment…..closed loop recycling means the
packaging you have bought can be recycled and remanufactured back into new
packaging items – look for the logo”
o stores with bins “Closing the loop….not only are we using recycled material in our
packaging and making our packs 100% recyclable, but we are now also picking up
your waste and recycling again for future use. By covering every part of the process
we close the recycling loop”
• leaflet to bag stuff for the first 2 weeks after the launch in the stores with the collection
bins, explaining the closed loop process and the Marks and Spencer sustainable packaging
approach
• internal communications; internal stakeholders, CSR Watch Newsletter, Marks and Spencer
Employee Magazine, Q&A fact sheet for stores
• external communications; government, industry and trade bodies, non government groups,
environmental groups, website – home page and CSR, PR and publicity opportunities, front
of store collection units with news/consumer story
• http://www2.marksandspencer.com/foodmagazine/ProducingFoods/index.shtml link for
Marks and Spencer Recycling Initiative
57
The media launch of the new packaging ranges coincided with the launch of the British Sandwich
Week. Thursday 12th May will signalled the official launch date, followed by June 6th, whereby all
Marks and Spencer general merchandise stores and Simply Foods stores commenced stocking the
rPET range of ‘food to go’ packaging and stores were “dressed” with shelf talkers and A5 signage,
signalling the sustainability initiative adopted by Marks and Spencer. Additional food to go and
produce lines were be fed into the stores throughout the month of June.
The in-store advertising and awareness collateral was on display for 6 weeks, during which time an
extensive consumer research survey was conducted.
5.3 Recycling Collection Infrastructure

5.3.1 Front-of-Store Bins
In order to increase the level of exposure and awareness of the initiative, and highlight Marks and
Spencer’s commitment to sustainable packaging, four key store sites were been nominated to take
part in a trial collection scheme, dedicated to the collection of Marks and Spencer closed loop
compliant packaging from the ‘to go’ product range. The purpose of the collection trial was
twofold, first to highlight and raise awareness of the programme to Marks and Spencer customers
and secondly to demonstrate the closed loop recycling process; purchasing recycled content and
recyclable packaging, product usage, disposal in the dedicated recycling bins and the collection,
sorting and reprocessing of those items back into new food grade applications.
Purpose built bin units will be located outside the front of each of the following flagship and high
profile Marks and Spencer stores;
Finsbury Pavement Islington

Moorgate, London EC2A 1SA
Oxford Street Pantheon Westminster

173 Oxford Street, London WD1 2JR
Marble Arch Westminster

458 Oxford Street, London WC1 1AP
Edgware Road Westminster

258 Edgware Road, London W21 DU
The collection scheme focused on the collection of closed loop compliant packaging items,
predominately rPET and PET plastic and sandwich paperboard. The bins were located directly
outside each of the nominated stores and were purpose built, dressed with the appropriate
recycling graphics, indicating the closed loop compliant packaging items that could be deposited
for recycling.
Bin Graphics
58
Figure 34 bins and graphics at Edgware Road store
It was envisaged that the collection trial period would be for 3 months, however this period was
cut short due to the July 7th 2005 bombings. All stores were requested to remove the bins during
this period of tightened security. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain the impact of the collection
units, in terms of the awareness raising and the ability to comprehensively analyse the quantity
and quality of the material collected. Preliminary audits of the material from each of the stores
indicated the following;
• a marked difference between the waste collected from the stores with a business worker
population (Finsbury Pavement & Pantheon – bins located in Great Marlborough Street, not
Oxford Street) and the more transient customer waste generated from the Marble Arch and
Edgware Road stores – greater capture of recyclables and less contamination
• there was a significant number of food to go lunch bags returned to the bin with the
specified closed loop compliant packaging items.
• The volume of material collected from each of the bins was increasing by approximately
10% week on week from the inception of the collection scheme
STORE EDGWARE MARBLE OXFORD ST FINSBURY TOTAL

RD ARCH PANTHEON PAVEMENT
Bags –
recyclables 48 45 37 50 180
Bags –general
waste 14 17 2 0 33
Total weight 310kgs 322.4kgs 195kgs 256.5kgs 1,083.9kgs
Mixed
Recyclables - 77.42% 72.58% 94.87% 100% 84.50%
%
General
Waste - % 22.58% 27.42% 5.13% 0 15.5%
Table 12 Analysis of content of recycling bins
59
Figure 35 Finsbury Pavement Waste
5.4 Public Relations Activities

5.4.1 Publicity
Joint press releases circulated by Closed Loop London, Marks and Spencer and WRAP generated a
wide variety of media interest, predominately with trade media publications, prompting a range of
industry inquiries (see Appendix 7).
5.4.2 Marks and Spencer Internal Activity

A critical success factor was the internal marketing of the initiative within Marks and Spencer,
addressing in store retail staff members and head office employees. A range of communication
tools were used;
• Marks and Spencer Employee magazine July 2005 feature article

• a series of road shows to stores employees introducing the new look Food to Go offer and
the sustainability agenda
• Q&A fact sheet for store staff
• recycling collection bins in the staff restaurant at the Waterside head office (approx 2,000
employees)
• visual prompts at the entrance to the Waterside head office explaining the initiative
• intranet messages to head office employees about the in-house recycling collection scheme
60
5.4.3 Marks and Spencer Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Reporting
The rPET initiative was cited in the 2005 CSR report under the responsible packaging banner.
Figure 36 Marks and Spencer Corporate Responsibility Report 2005
61
5.5 Data Collection
5.5.1 Consumer Research Methodology
In order to ascertain the consumer response to the use of recycled content plastic across a range
of ‘to go’ food and beverage items, a focus group and a series of in-store customer research
surveys were conducted to solicit qualitative and quantitative data.
Overall objective:
• To understand the impact of the recycling initiative on:

o Perceptions of M&S in total and food to go range
o Shopping behaviour
o Recycling behaviour
The detailed objectives are as follows:
• Perceptions of M&S
o Understand the relative importance of each element of the initiative on creating
awareness
o Ascertain whether customers have any concerns about eating from recycled packaging
or changes in quality and how M&S can alleviate these
o Learn more about the impact of each element of the initiative on perceptions of M&S
including: shelf talkers, on pack logo, on pack messages, till-point cards, bins
• Shopping behaviour
o Gauge whether this initiative is likely to attract new buyers or improve loyalty amongst
existing buyers
• Recycling behaviour
o Understand changes in recycling behaviour amongst regular/occasional/non-recyclers
(e.g. will you now add your M&S compatible packaging to your plastics recycling
scheme, does it make you feel better about purchasing items packaged in plastic
knowing it included a recycled content and is recyclable)
5.5.2 Consumer Feedback Evaluation

Leapfrog Research and Planning consultants were commissioned to perform the market research.
Having previously worked with Marks and Spencer on the accumulation of data for the responsible
packaging strategy, they were familiar with background information that prompted Marks and
Spencer to embark on the rPET initiative. The report outlines the macro findings and can be found
in Appendix 9
5.5.3 Marks and Spencer Customer Feedback

As a result of the customer research undertaken by Leapfrog and anecdotal feedback solicited
from Marks and Spencer employees, the following conclusions were drawn concerning the
execution of the programme and the future roll-out;
62
• consistent and clear on pack messages needed across all rPET packaging lines
• recycling message on pack needs to move up the hierarchy of on pack messaging
• need to link in the use of rPET and recycling with collection schemes promoting the
initiative i.e., office recycling collection scheme, in-house collection Café Revive etc
• customers understand recycling and support the initiative
• customers trust the Marks and Spencer brand and trust them to be taking the lead in this
category
• industry and customer acceptance of the initiative is an incentive for Marks and Spencer to
roll out the programme to additional lines within the food to go and produce category
5.6 Award Recognition

Closed Loop London and Marks and Spencer received a number of industry awards recognising
and acknowledging the success of rPET project. The awards reward the manufacturing excellence,
environmental initiatives and recycling achievements associated with this project.
Worshipful Company of Horner’s – The Bottle Makers Award 2005
The Marks and Spencer 300ml juice and smoothie bottle manufactured by RPC Group plc, with
the assistance of Closed Loop London, containing 30% rPET was awarded the prestigious Bottle
Makers Award by the Worshipful Company of Horner’s on October 6th 2005.
IGD Food Industry Awards – The Tetra Pak Environmental Award 2005
The IGD (Institute of Grocery Distribution) Food Industry Awards play an important role in
highlighting and sharing best practice in the food and grocery chain. The Tetra Pak Environmental
Award recognises the positive initiatives developed by food and non-food companies with regard
to their impact on the environment
The Closed Loop London and Marks and Spencer initiative was successful in taking out this award
on October 18th 2005, in the face of competition from a variety of formidable companies; Asda
Stores Ltd, Tesco Stores Ltd and The Co-operative Group.
Lets Recycle Finalist - High Street Recycling Champion 2005
Run by letsrecycle.com, the Awards for Excellence in recycling and waste management aim to
recognise innovation, dedication and success in recycling and sustainable waste management.
The initiative was a finalist in the ‘High Street Recycling Champion’ category at the letsrecycle.com
Awards for Excellence on 19 October 2005.
63
National Recycling Awards 2005 – Best Retail Recycling Initiative 2005
The National Recycling Awards, October 25th, are designed to

recognise innovation and excellence in recycling on a national
scale over the previous 18 months. They are open to any
organisation, community group or company that is affected by
recycling plays an active part in the recycling process or is
involved in the production chain of recycled products.
Praising the holistic approach and the example being set to the
retail industry, the judges said: “The hardest thing a retailer can
do is look at the supply chain. The best way of dealing with this
issue is looking at what is coming in through the door not just
what is going out of it. This really does help close the loop.”
5.7 Marks and Spencer rPET Initiative Roll Out

Marks and Spencer’s plan to continue the roll out of the initiative and support the continued use of
post consumer recyclate was dependant upon the meeting the criteria listed below.
The trial demonstrated and met the following;
• safety of the product with regards to taint and other regulatory requirements
• positive customer feedback
• technical performance during the manufacturing process
• technical, functional and aesthetic performance during the use period with a focus on
material clarity and colour
• production efficiencies
• comparative or better pricing for raw materials versus virgin material
• continuity of supply of quality raw materials
The next phase of the roll out seeks to penetrate the use of rPET throughout the Food to Go and
produce ranges addressing the following lines;
• drinks: 250ml flavoured milk, 500ml juice and smoothie, 1lt flavoured milk and juice
• pre-prepared fruit salad trays – lidded and heat sealed
• dessert pots
• prepared vegetable trays/boxes – lidded and heat sealed
As the range of packaging containing rPET material expands across the categories and the shelf
presence of rPET packaging increases, so to will the marketing message and support, ensuring a
clear and consistent message appears across all communication mediums, including the elevation
of the on-pack message to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the closed loop recycling
message.
Marks and Spencer recently launched an extensive campaign called ‘look behind the label’,
focussing on a range of initiatives such as; sustainable farming and procurement practices, the use
of Fair Trade products, lowering the salt content, eliminating hydrogenated fats, using clothes dye
that won’t harm the environment and the use of recycled plastic in their food to go and produce
ranges.
64
The campaign was supported by a series of full page advertisements in all the daily newspapers
for 2 weeks, extensive in-store signage, shelf talker labels, table talkers throughout Café Revive
etc. Of all the initiatives promoted by Marks and Spencer, the greatest impact and customer
feedback received by Marks and Spencer, related to the rPET and recycling initiative and the use
of Fair Trade products, further supporting the decision within Marks and Spencer to continue with
and expand the roll out of the programme.
“In 2005, we won the Tetrapak Environmental and National Recycling awards in recognition of the
work we’ve done on the packaging of Food To Go and our salad packs. During a six month trial
with the recycling group, Closed Loop London, we used some 1,500 tonnes of recycled plastic in
our packaging, achieving recycled content of between 30 to 50 per cent.”
- excerpt form the Marks and Spencer ‘look behind the label’ campaign
http://www2.marksandspencer.com/thecompany/trustyour_mands/recycling.shtml
65
6 Boots Sustainable Packaging Initiative into
Toiletry Packaging
6.1 Background
Boots wished to incorporate rPET into an element of its packaging as part of its commitment to
sustainable product development outlined in its CSR policy. This desire was consistent with the
approach of WRAP to stimulate the market.
In the development stage, consumer feedback in terms of surveys and questionnaires was very
positive and indicated that there is a greater awareness of environmental issues and that there is
support for retailers using high quality recycled materials.
6.2 Product Range Selected for rPET Application

The programme began by selecting a suitable range of PET toiletry containers from those
manufactured at the Boots site in Nottingham and the Ingredients range consisting of 12 sku’s,
shampoos and conditioners. This range represented standard formulations which are less
aggressive to the PET packaging than some other formulations (e.g. Botanics)
Part of the development process included comments in the form of questionnaires from external
consumers that assist Boots’ internal evaluation suite/department and these were very positive.
Typical responses from this consumer group were that they would accept a minor difference in the
appearance or performance of the packaging if they knew it was helping the environment.
Figure 37 representative samples from The Boots ‘Ingredients’ range
66
6.2.1 On Pack Declarations and In-Store Promotion
To enhance customer awareness of the initiative, artwork changes were made to the rear of the
label to state that recycled materials had been used in the packaging. As part of a study with
Sheffield Hallam University, research was conducted to develop a message, which would engage
with the consumer needs, and be simple to understand. The various technical information on the
artwork was combined into one sector at the base of the label to make it easier for the consumer
to understand.
The artwork was crafted to allow flexibility, therefore Boots opted not to stipulate the exact
percentage of rPET used in the production of their Ingredients bottle range. This would allow
Boots to potentially increase the rPET percentage, without having to go through artwork
regeneration costs again.
Figure 38 details of the new rear label artwork showing the recycled statement
In addition to direct pack labelling, additional indirect supporting advertising material was
introduced into the stores through the use of shelf barkers. These shelf barkers not only focussed
on the specific Ingredients range but also made reference to the broader National recyclenow.com
campaign.
67
Figure 39 shelf barker used for in-store promotion
6.3 Public Relations Activities

6.3.1 Publicity
Joint press releases circulated by Closed Loop London, Boots and WRAP generated a wide variety
of media interest, predominately with trade media publications, prompting a range of industry
inquiries into the initiative (see appendix 8).
The interest from the media in this project and the various published articles have raised
awareness of the specific project itself, but also the broader commitment from the Boots company
and the partners in the environmental packaging sector.
6.3.2 Promotion
The work has been disseminated in many forms throughout the media, reaching companies who
promote the sales of environmental ‘green’ products such as junk.com and has been disseminated
to the general plastics industry via seminar presentations linked to sustainability.
Case study presentations;
• Pack Design & Innovation, PIRA, Nice, France June 2005

• Sustainable Design & Manufacture, Sustainable Design Network, Newcastle University, July
05
• Sustainable Innovation 05, Centre for Sustainable Design, Surrey University, Famham
Castle, Oct 05
• Food Tech Congress, Warsaw, Poland, Oct 05
• PIRA Packaging Conference, Barcelona Spain June 2006
Details of the initiative appear as a case study on the Boots group web site (http://www.boots-
csr.com/main.asp?nid=313&pid=627)
68
6.3.3 Consumer Feedback
Customers in retail outlets were not approached directly for feedback on the packaging, however,
the implication from the sales data reflects that the consumers are happy with the product.
Analysis of the comparative sales data for the periods of October 04 – February 05 and period
October 05 – February 06 showed that using an element of rPET had no detrimental impact on the
sales volume and in fact the sales have increased significantly. Sales units increased for all lines in
the Ingredients range by an average of 70% when compared to the same period the previous
year.
Although it is not possible to state that the use of the recycled packaging was the sole contributory
factor to this increase, it is nevertheless a very encouraging result.
Item code Units % increase
4100034 BTS COCONUT/ALMOND 80.5

4100042 BTS COCO/ALMOND CON 77.2
4099982 BTS CAMOMILE/LEMON SHAMPOO 54.6
4100077 BTS HENNA.HORS SHAMPOO 56.8
4100026 BTS CAMON/LEMON COND 55.1
4099966 BTS TEE TREE SHAMPOO 100.6
4100085 BTS HENNA/HORSE CONDIT 27.9
4099974 BTA T/TREE MINT CONDITION 52.0
4101200 BTS LAVENDER/ROSE SHAMPO 104.2
4101219 BTS LAVEN/ROSE/COND 62.0
4101146 BTS SEA MINT SHAMPOO 91.3
4101197 BTS SEA MINT CONDITIONER 62.3
Table 13. Percentage of Sales growth for the Ingredients range (from Oct-Feb)
comparing before (2005) and after (2006) the introduction of the rPET.
6.4 Boots rPET Trial Findings

The aim of the project was to demonstrate the viability of using rPET in the toiletries market in the
retail sector, to disseminate the findings and to stimulate the market. All those objectives have
been achieved throughout the course of the trial period. With the help of the trial partners, the
technical hurdles and associated commercial challenges had been overcome to deliver the product
to the shelves of all Boot’s UK retail outlets.
The 18 month project has shown that high quality rPET can be used successfully in toiletry
applications in the retail sector. There have been many learning’s and some of these are shown
below in terms of benefits and drawbacks.
Benefits to Boots from using rPET
69
• it delivers packaging that the customer wants resulting in potential growth in sales
• it demonstrates a commitment to good environmental practice and sustainability to support
the brand values (e.g. Trust Boots)
• there is the potential to transfer the technology to other market sectors
Potential drawbacks
• there is capital expenditure required for the mixing machine, pipework and / or silo storage
/ driers estimated at a minimum of 20 K upwards unless the more expensive pre-blended
material is used
• significant resource is required to undertake the trials, the product approvals and the
implementation (including new purchasing agreements)
• the supply of rPET to the UK is still being established and existing distributors/agents do
not stock it
• unlikely to see cost benefits until large volumes of rPET are used to get the economies of
scale currently enjoyed by virgin PET. There may be limited storage facilities for the raw
material so it is not always possible to order a large 20 tonne quantity as it does not lend
itself to a ‘just in time’ purchasing philosophy
6.4.1 Future Opportunities within Boots for rPET

Technology
Boots have stated that they are committed to the long term usage of rPET in selected packaging
applications. The project work programme has been very beneficial for the Boots organisation and
as a result of this a number of possible future work streams have been identified by them;
• fine-tune the rPET inclusion level in the bottles

• roll-out to other toiletry ranges
• investigate in other non-toiletry sectors (e.g. Food)
• investigate external 3rd Party suppliers
• investigate other plastic materials (e.g. HDPE)
• investigate the use of flake as oppose to pellets
• continue investigations of different rPET suppliers
• determine potential machine energy savings by using rPET instead of virgin PET
70
7 Conclusions from the rPET Retail Trial
This project sought to demonstrate the viability of using recycled PET (rPET) in retail packaging
and was successful in achieving that significant outcome.
Prior to the outset of this project, no major retailer in the UK produced PET packaging containing a
significant level of recycled material derived from post consumer recyclate (PCR).
The key conclusions form this project were:
• through the use of rPET across a range of high volume and high value packaging lines in
trusted, high profile iconic British retailers such as Marks and Spencer and Boots, we were
able to demonstrate tangible end use applications for recycled materials.
• Closed Loop London’s experience has shown that by developing strong local markets for
recyclables, participation and recovery rates for recycling increase dramatically.
• It is possible to introduce of rPET packaging while addressing technical, economic and

operational issues, as well as ensuring consumer appeal and industry acceptance.
• At least 1,240 tonnes of rPET material was consumed in the following applications;
- Marks and Spencer range of salad bowls based on the thermoforming of extruded
sheet with 50% rPET content
- Marks and Spencer non-carbonated blow moulded juice and “smoothie” bottle with
30% rPET content
- Boots blow moulded toiletry bottles with 30% rPET content
• The success of the project was the net result of the collaboration between all the key
stakeholders responsible for delivering the final product to market, providing their specific
technical, manufacturing, retailing and marketing skills, capabilities and willingness to be
part of an innovative and market leading initiative.
• The ultimate indication of the projects success is the willingness of Marks and Spencer and
Boots to continue with the rollout of the use or rPET across a range of additional lines
within their offer. The use of rPET will continue provided the manufacturers are able to
secure consistent quality raw material supply at nett costs less than virgin material.
• The overwhelming customer support solicited through direct feedback from consumers
further consolidates the continued use or rPET content in packaging applications thereby
demonstrating the viability of the closed loop recycling model to deliver environmental,
economic and social benefits.
• The long-term, the introduction of rPET into a larger cross section of the manufacturing
sector would only require minor additions of capital equipment to introduce rPET into
packaging products.
• The introduction of food grade rPET into thermoformed packaging at 50% rPET content
and ISBM bottles at 30% rPET content has been fully implemented. This has been
demonstrated by the following successful achievements;
71
- production of thermoformed bowls and bottles at conditions identical to those used
for virgin resin in the respective processes
- production of packaging at the same cycle rate and process cost as for virgin resin
- demonstration of the freedom from any contamination derived from rPET
- demonstration of freedom from microbiological contamination
- storage stability of foods identical to virgin PET resin
• This was achieved with some minor additions to the equipment used to manufacture the
bottles.
• No new equipment was need for the production of thermoformed sheet.
• There was a need to closely specify material standards for rPET and related process
settings to ensure the highest quality of package was achieved.
• There were no changes measured in the physical properties of packages containing rPET.
There was a very slight yellow to the products, which was not visually noticeable in the
case of the thermoformed packaging and more noticeable in the thicker neck region of the
bottle.
• From a “life cycle analysis” viewpoint, rPET flake consumes 12% of the energy required to
produce virgin PET. This would imply that packaging with 50% and 30% rPET content
would have a reduced life cycle energy demand during manufacture of 44% and 26.4%
respectively just prior to the stage of extrusion11.
• The detailed cost comparison between the recycled content blends and virgin materials was
difficult to make, and even though cost of rPET was cheaper than the virgin equivalent
there may not be a significant cost benefit.
• Since the cost of virgin PET has been escalating in recent years, the use of significant
quantities of rPET may represent a move forward in controlling the cost of resins.
72
8 Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1. Fraunhofer IVV first

evaluation: Measurements from the small
scale test
73
74
75
76
77
8.2 Appendix 2. Fraunhofer IVV Second
Evaluation: Measurements from the full-
scale production run.
78
79
80
8.3 Appendix 3. Fraunhofer IVV : Migration
testing of Bottles with 30% rPET from RPC.
81
82
83
8.4 Appendix 4. Microbiological Examination
of rPET Bottles from RPC
84
8.5 Appendix 5. Marks and Spencer: food to go in-store signage 1
85
8.6 Appendix 6. Marks and Spencer: food to go in-store signage 2
86
8.7 Appendix 7. Marks and Spencer: food to go
Publicity 1
Waste Management No 51201

December 14th 2005
Sustain v06 i06 2006
Packaging News, November 2nd 05
87
8.8 Appendix 7. Marks and Spencer: food to go
Publicity 2
Materials Recycling Week, June 10th 2005
Business Info Supplement No 68, August 16th 2005 Business Info Supplement No 68
Business Info Supplement No 68, August 16th 2005
88
8.9 Appendix 8. Boots Publicity 1
Nottingham Evening Post – January 19th 2006
89
ICIS Chemical Business, 6-12 Feb 2006
90
Packaging magazine, November 17th 2005, Vol 8, Issue 21.
91
Plastics & Rubber Weekly, 11th November 2005
92
8.13 Appendix 9. Leapfrog Evaluation Report of
Closed Loop Packaging Initiative
EVALUATION OF THE IN STORE CLOSED LOOP PACKAGING

INITIATIVE
Management Summary
Research Approach;
Research findings were taken from a qualitative super-group with 12 people in central London
and 230 in store 10-minute interviews with M&S Food To Go shoppers, across 2 stores in Central
London and 2 in the North.
All group respondents were weekly shoppers from the Food To Go range and interviews were
conducted with regular Food To Go customers in store.
Interviewees were predominantly females, ABC1 and aged between 25 and 44. More males were
interviewed at the Finsbury Pavement store.
45% of those questioned would be defined as ‘Carefree’ in the M&S lifestyle segmentation.
The sample includes 59 interviews at Finsbury Pavement where closed loop recycling bins had
been in place since June.
Recycling and the lunchtime shopper;
Local authority recycling initiatives are motivating people to take more responsibility for the waste
they generate at home. However, in a different context away from the home, most people do not
find the helping hand they need to encourage them to recycle.
M&S lunchtime shoppers talk about convenience, choice and food quality as their key motivations
for choice. Clearly, environmental elements of packaging are not top of mind at the point of
purchase in store.
The impact of consumer waste generation on the environment has been at the forefront of media
debate recently. Amongst our sample of M&S shoppers, 34% claim to have considered recycling
93
their lunch packing at some point in the past, with 23% of them having actually done so. It is
likely that this has been heightened by the closed loop initiative.
If customers notice what material is used when buying Food To Go(32%) it is likely that they are
also noticing whether they can recycle the packaging(26%).
The implication of these findings is that for a significant minority there is the intention to recycle
lunchtime packaging, or at least to know they have the option to.
The Potential for Closing the Loop at Marks and Spencer;
When asked about any in store changes within M&S, 16% had noticed new recycled content/
recyclable material within the M&S Food To Go section. This is encouragingly high considering
that such issues are low down in the decision making process.
In contrast with this, only 10% of those asked were aware of the full details of the closed loop
initiative. Spontaneous awareness of any promotional material is also low. Customers mainly
recalled elements of the Food To Go re-launch and special offers but not the leaflets that related
to the recycling initiatives. Prompted awareness of the “helping the environment” leaflet is
reasonably high at 31% although this is clearly not communicating the Closed Loop message
effectively.
Recognition of the closed loop recycling logo was low, however, when the Closed Loop logo is
explained to customers 78% would use the logo as a visual cue that the item can be recycled.
Generally, there is a lack of awareness and interest in ‘recycled content plastic’. Currently only
18% of people claim to notice if the packaging they buy contains recycled content materials. The
50% recycled content packing, championed by Closed Loop, is not noticed at present. However,
if customers are made aware that M&S is taking this extra step then it will make them feel that
just by shopping there they are making a difference.
The Closed Loop bins have had a very limited impact on the consumers we surveyed with only
7% having noticed them and of these only one person had identified their correct purpose.
However, once made aware of the bins and the initiative, 74% of the customers at the store with
bins in place would consider using them. Clearly seeing them in place as a reality increases good
intentions.
However, 66% of customers at other stores said they would be unlikely to use them. While the
idea of closing the loop and recycling lunch packaging is well received consumers struggle to see
how this can work practically (most people are not prepared to inconvenience themselves too
much for the cause) However, 87% of people would consider using the bins if they were at their
place of work.
The evidence in support of the potential positive impact of the initiative for M&S is overwhelming.
Even though customers were not noticing the closed loop initiative, when it is explained 96%
believe is a good idea and 85% agree that it would make them feel better about shopping at
M&S.
Eating from recycled plastic carries no negative associations. The challenge is that more generally
people do not consider the recyclable aspect of plastic. 36% did not know whether
recycled/recyclable packaging would have any influence on what they decide to buy, and 30%
find it difficult to say if they care about recyclable/ recycled content plastic packaging or not.
94
Once understood the initiative is viewed in a very positive light. Customers are impressed with
the high percentage of recycled plastic, happier about the use of recycled plastic and supportive
of a recycling initiative to deal with litter from lunchtime food.
As a consequence of this in working with Closed Loop plastics M&S are seen as both progressive
and environmentally responsibly.
The Way Forward;
This initiative provides M&S with a definite edge over their competitors.
• M&S needs to be confident and shout about it in order to realise the substantial benefits of
being an environmentally conscientious retailer
• There is a need to communicate the consumer benefits of the closed loop initiative and in
addition to familiarise customers with the visual cues used, ideally by elevating the Closed Loop
logo to the front of the pack.
• Although the recycling bins at store contributed little to understanding of the “Closed Loop”
idea and gained low usage, in principle recycling bins, if positioned in line with consumer
behaviour, can be a useful support
• Whilst in-store and on pack initiatives are important there is a still strong argument for
additional above the line advertising to maximise the impact of the initiative.
95
9 References
1
MAFF (2001) Food contact materials and articles: Explanatory note on the legislation in Great
Britain. Available from Food Contact Materials Unit, Food Chemical Safety and Toxicology
Division, Branch 4, Room 515c, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London.
2
USA FDA Guidance for Industry Preparation of Food Contact Notifications and Food
Additive Petitions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations; FINAL
GUIDANCE CFSAN/Office of Food Additive Safety April 2002. USFDA Website
http://www.fsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-recy.html).
3
WRAP Report, 2002 - Plastic Bottle Recycling in the UK, page 99. ISBN 1-84405-000-9
4
Commission Directive EU 2002/72/EEC
5
European Commission, Newsletter Food Contact Materials, November 2004,page 1.
6
Framework Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 “Materials and articles intended to come into
contact with food”, pages 1 and 3
7
Euwid Packaging Markets No. 23,October 26, 2004, page 7.
8
ILSI Europe Report Series- Exposure from Food Contact Materials,2002 ISBN 1-57881-147-3
9
Franz R, Bayer F, Welle F, Fraunhofer IVV, Guidance and Criteria for Safe Recycling of
Post Consumer PET into New Food Packaging, 2004, page 15. ISBN 92-894-6776-2
10
Franz R, Bayer F, Welle F, Fraunhofer IVV, Guidance and Criteria for Safe Recycling of
Post Consumer PET into New Food Packaging, 2004, page IV. ISBN 92-894-6776-2
11
Recoup Fact Sheet, Recycling Plastic Bottles – The Energy Equation, Recoup Website
96

rPETFINALBootsM SReduced PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

rPETFINALBootsM SReduced PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

~z

Creating markets for recycled resources

Final Report: Plastics

Closed Loop London (M&S, Boots)

Project Code; PLA0032

Closed Loop London

Wednesday, 21 June 2006

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................4

• Marks and Spencer range of salad bowls based on the thermoforming of

An assessment of manufacturing premises and equipment was undertaken in order to

1.2 Project Targets

• to demonstrate the large scale feasibility of using recycled Polyethylene

1. Develop products based on thermoforming of extruded sheet with 50% rPET

• Specify the resins

1.4 Equipment Requirements

• receive and store the rPET resin in a specific area

As part of Boots commitment to sustainable product development outlined in its CSR

1.6 Success of the Introduction of rPET

• production of thermoformed bowls and bottles at conditions identical to those

There were no changes measured in the physical properties of packages containing

The tonnage used by Boots in the toiletries range was 12 tonnes.

2.1 Background to the Project

2.2 Project Objectives

• to demonstrate the large scale feasibility of using recycled Polyethylene

Thermoformed Packaging Testing Bottle

Packaging Manufacturers Bottle manufacturers

Sheet Suppliers rPET supplier

1. Develop products based on thermoforming of extruded sheet with 50% rPET

2.5 Project Implementation Steps

• specify the resins

2.5.1 Equipment Requirements for rPET

3.1 Use of Post Consumer Plastics in Food

3.1.2 Recent EU Regulatory Developments

Commission Directive EU 2002/72/EEC builds on the Commission Directive EU 82/711/EEC which

3.1.3 Regulatory and Recommended Requirements

The dietary concentration of a contaminant is related to the concentration of the migrating

i.e. M = 0.5 ppb / 0.05 = 10 ppb

3.1.4 Surrogate Contaminant Testing

A volatile, non-polar organic substance

Volatile Polar Non-Volatile Volatile Non-Volatile Non- Heavy Metal

Chloroform and toluene are components of cleaning solvents; benzophenone is a suitable

Table 2. Examples of Minimum Concentrations of Contaminants in a Surrogate Cocktail

3.1.5 Plastic Containers from Non-Food-Contact

Surrogate Sorption Value (mg/kg)

Table 3. Sorption of Surrogate Contaminants into PET after 365 Days at 25 ºC

Penetrant Substance Concentration

Table 4. Surrogate Chemicals for use in Challenge Tests.

3.1.7 Decontamination and Migration Analysis

Figure 1: Representative headspace gas chromatogram of a sample of washed PET flake

Figure 2: Representative headspace gas chromatogram of a sample of recycled, decontaminated flake

3.1.8 Migration into Food Simulants

Surrogate EU cube 1 l, 600cm2 PET bottle 1.5l, 820 cm2

3.1.9 Comparison of Processes used to Manufacture

They can be classified as either:

Attribute Units ITW Cleanaway Virgin (example)

K04013 GKO-21 Laser+

PROPERTY TEST METHOD TARGET VALUE

and UNITS and tolerance

Source of PET Post consumer beverage

Intrinsic Viscosity solution or melt 0.76 +/- 0.02

Colour L value 75 +/- 10

Colour a value -2 +/- 1

Colour b value 2.5 +/- 1.5