AN APPROACH TO POLYETHYLENE TEREPHETHALATE BOTTLES WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mohamed Salama Al-Wakkad

Chem. Eng. Researcher, Chem. Eng. Dept, Faculty of Eng., Cairo University Email: Eng_msw@live.com Cell: 0562980698 Under Supervision of:

Shakinaz Taha El-Sheltawy

The Professor at Chem. Eng. Dept, Faculty of Eng., Cairo University

ABSTRACT
Recycling and reuse is the future due to the decrease of raw material presence in nature, and due to the increase in the amounts of wastes specially Polyethylene Terephthalate "PET" found as waste bottles used in mineral water, soft drinks and oil packaging. In Egypt, amount of PET waste from mineral water bottles in 2005 reached 7.5 *10 6 ton PET, but in 2006 this amount clearly increased to approximately 20 *10 6 ton PET. The purpose was studying the effect of PET as a substitute of sand in manufacturing of cement based applications. Various proportions have been made and the best results were at using an average particle size of 3.6 mm with 15% wt. substitution of sand. More and over, Super plasticizer have been used with a percent of 2% wt. of cement to increase the compressive strength of samples.

Introduction
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is a plastic resin and a form of polyester. PET is a polymer that is formed by polymerizing ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid. PET is commonly used for packaging of soft drinks, water, juice, peanut butter, salad dressings and oil, cosmetics and household cleaners [1], [2]. The PET bottle was patented in 1973 by chemist Nathaniel Wyeth [3], and since then the demand of PET for bottling keeps increasing reaching an amount of billions of bottles produced annually. PET is a hard, stiff, strong, dimensionally stable material that absorbs minimum amounts of water. It has good gas barrier properties and good chemical resistance except for alkalis (which hydrolyses it) [4]. The first PET bottle recycled in 1977 [4] and since then programs for PET recycling were developed and many institutions concerning PET recycling were established (e.g. PETCORE and NAPCOR). These activities were slow at the beginning because of the recycled PET low cost and the large number of bottles required for making up significant quantity by weight.

Aim of work
The purpose of this report is to study the effect of adding PET (as a plastic waste) as a partial replacement of sand in mortar applications, in order to minimize the pollution and to reduce the weight of the product with proper mechanical properties.

Consumption and collection of PET worldwide [5]:

The following figure shows the worldwide relation between the amounts of consumed PET & the collected waste:

Fig (1) Consumption and Collection of PET Worldwide

>2.5 million tons in 2005 27% Collection rate in 2005 > 4.0 million tons in 2010 > 32% collection rate in 2010

Estimation of PET waste amount in Egypt [6]:

Based on the data of the general center for counting in Egypt at table (1): Table (1) consumption of mineral water in Egypt Year 2005 2006 Volume, 1000 m3 237361 634916 Cost, 1000 EGP 302297 944653

Calculations: Wt. of bottle (0.6 lit.) = 20 gm Wt. of bottle (1.5 lit.) = 44 gm Assuming that 50% from water consumed is related to the bottle of the volume 0.6 lit, and the balance for the 1.5 lit. For year 2006: Water consumed = 634.916 *10 6 m 3 = 634.916 *109 lit For 0.6 lit bottle: Water consumed = 317.458 *109 lit Bottles = 317.458 *109 /0.6 = 529 *10 9 bottle Wt. of waste = 529 *109 * 22 gm = 11.638 *10 6 ton For 1.5 lit bottle: Water consumed = 317.458 *109 lit

Bottles = 317.458 *109 /1.5 = 211.64 *10 9 bottle Wt. of waste = 211.64 *109 * 44 gm = 9.31216 *10 6 ton

Total amount of waste for year 2006 =

9.31216 *10 6 + 11.638 *10 6 = 20.59 *10 6 ton

Similarly for year 2005: Total amount of waste will be = 7.5 *10 6 ton

Preparation of PET Waste for Recycling:

Step one: Removal of Papers and plastic caps: This step is done by washing in a basin filled with tap water without any additives, the main advantage in that step is that the PET wastes are submerged as its density is higher than that of water, while the papers and plastic caps are from the type which have lower density than water thus it floats on the surface which makes the separation process easier, thus the caps and papers are removed and the washing water should be changed.

Fig. (2) Removal of Papers and Plastic Caps

Fig.(3) Removal of Papers and Plastic Caps

Step two: washing using detergents: This step is done by using also a basin filled with tap water, and detergents are being added to water, as potassium hydroxide (commercial) and liquid soap with concentration (25 Kg/ton waste). Step three: The Rinsing: The contaminated water with dirt's and detergents is being drained and clean water is being added to the PET wastes, till it becomes completely cleaned.

Fig. (4) The Rinsing

Step four: Drying: In open air and using sun, then after that crushed PET is being stored.

Fig. (5) The drying

Plastic wastes (papers & caps) Plastic Waste (PET) PET Settling PET sludge Detergents Addition

Raw PET Drying

Further addition of water for better cleaning

Rinsing

Waste water

Fig. (6) Block Diagram of Waste Washing

Experimental Work
1. Material Used: 1.1 Cement: The binding material used in the preparation of our samples is ordinary Portland cement type (CIM I 42.5 N). This type gives a compressive strength value of 42.5 N after 28 days testing. 1.2 Sand: It is the filler material used, having the following screen analysis, as shown in table (2): Table (2) Screen Analysis of the Used Sand: Screen opening Av. Particle (mm) Size, mm 4.76 >4.76 2.4 3.6 1.2 1.8 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.45 Pan <0.3 Total 1.3 Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (RPET): As a partial substitute of sand, waste PET is used in order to minimize the environmental hazards due to its disposal and to decrease the weight of the mortar, the used RPET have the following size distribution, as shown on table (3) Table (3) Size Distribution of RPET: Screen opening (mm) 4.75 2.4 1.2 0.6 0.3 Pan Total Av. Particle Size, mm >4.76 3.6 1.8 0.9 0.45 <0.3 0 0.064 0.788 0.023 0.096 0.029 1 0 0.090 0.064 0.185 0.363 0.298 1.000

1.4 High Range Water Reducer(Super Plasticizer): Addicrete BVF is a famous type has used, to increase the compressive strength of the mortar. This type complies with ASTM C 494 type F. having density of 1.2 kg/lit at 25C. 2. Equipment Used: 2.1 Screen: An electric vibrating screen has been used to separate the various particle size of RPET to use them in the samples. Several screens having an opening size of (4.76 , 2.4 , 1.2 , 0.6 and 0.3 mm) The typical screen used is illustrated in the following fig (7):

Fig (7) Typical Vibrating Screen

2.2 Plastics Shredder: The amounts brought from the PET cleaning process had particle sizes higher than the recommended ones (higher than 4.76 mm), this fact ensures the necessity of reducing the particle size of these amounts of PET , see fig(8) Size reduction was achieved by the shredding of the material using a non-registered shredder (a shredder without a trademark manufactured by special order) to produce particle sizes of 4 mm or lower & that was achieved by installing a screen at the bottom of the shredder. The crusher is: a. Voltages = 330 Volt b. Power = 15 hp c. Capacity = 5 Kg/hr

Fig (8) Typical Shredder Used 2.3 Mixer: Hand mixing has been used in the samples preparation of the samples however; mechanical mixing is required for large scale production. Double cone baffled mixer used is shown in fig (9)

Fig (9) Double Cone Baffled Mixer

3. Experimental Technique 3.1 Sample Preparation: Cubic Molds: have side dimensions of 5 cm. The main composition of our paste will be as follows: Table (4) Mortar Composition Component Cement % wt. 22.5 Sand 67.5 Water 10

= 76.5 , = 229.5 , = 34 The prepared samples were air dried for 24 hrs then put in water tanks. The samples will test (after 7 days) to measure the compressive strength. Starting from May, the relatively high ambient temperature caused serious problems for the prepared samples. The molds had to be first covered with aluminum foils followed by a wet fiber cover to prevent water evaporation & to keep the samples at a maximum temperature of 25C The later is illustrated in the next figs.

Fig (10) Sample Preparation Procedure

3.2 Effect of Mixing Proportion Various mixing proportion have been studied, three particle size of RPET were used ( 0.6 , 1.2 , and 2.4 mm) this is with changing the wt. %age substitution of sand ( blank , 10% , 15 % and 20 %)

3.3 Effect of Super Plasticizer Those admixture are used however; to increase the compressive strength of mortar 2%wt of cement have been used to study its effect on the prepared samples.

4. Testing Technique (Compressive Strength) It is a measurement for amount force (kg) per (cm2) at which sample is withstand compression (for blank mortar samples it should gives 180 kgf/cm2) Typical compressive strength measurement device is (TINIUS OLSEN "TO") shown in fig (11)

Fig (11) "TINIUS OLSEN" Machine

Experimental Results
1. Compressive Strength: Various samples have been prepared with different proportions and the compressive strength has determined. The following table exhibits all tested sample. The following tables (5) & (6) exhibits the average values of tested samples Table (5) Average Data for Tested Samples Sample 0.6/10% 0.6/15% 0.6/20% 1.2/10% 1.2/15% 1.2/20% 2.4/10% 2.4/15% 2.4/20% PET 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 compressive strength,kgf/cm2 107.7 101.9 95.4 137.4 135.8 121.7 151.4 139.1 118.6

Fig (12) (13) (14), exhibit the compressive strength plotted vs. %PET added at different particle size distributions. Table (6) Average Compressive Strength for Tested Samples Sample blank 0.6/10% 1.2/10% 2.4/10% blank 0.6/15% 1.2/15% 2.4/15% blank 0.6/20% 1.2/20% 2.4/20% Size ,mm 0 0.6 1.2 2.4 0 0.6 1.2 2.4 0 0.6 1.2 2.4 compressive strength,kgf/cm2 reduction 175.8 0 107.7 0.38737201 137.4 0.21843003 151.4 0.13879408 175.8 0 101.9 0.42036405 135.8 0.22753129 139.1 0.20875995 175.8 0 95.4 0.45733788 121.7 0.30773606 118.6 0.32536974

particle size= 0.6 m m

compressive strength,kgf/cm2

190 170 150 130 110 90 70 50 0.05

0.1

0.15 %PET

0.2

0.25

Fig (12) Effect of %PET (0.6) on Compressive Strength

particle size =1.2m m

copressive strength,kgf/cm2

190 170 150 130 110 90 70 50 0.05

0.1

0.15 %PET

0.2

0.25

Fig (13) Effect of %PET (1.2) on Compressive Strength

particle size =2.4m m

copressive strength,kgf/cm2

190 170 150 130 110 90 70 50 0.05

0.1

0.15 %PET

0.2

0.25

Fig (14) Effect of %PET (2.4) on Compressive Strength

Fig (15) (16) (17), exhibit the compressive strength plotted vs. p. size with different %PET added

10%PET 200

compressive strength,kgf/cm2

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 P size,m m 2 2.5 3

Fig (15) Effect of PET Particle Size (10%) on Compressive Strength

15%PET 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 P. Size,m m 2 2.5 3

Fig (16) Effect of PET Particle Size (15%) on Compressive Strength

20%PET 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 P.size,m m 2 2.5 3

Fig (17) Effect of PET Particle Size (20%) on Compressive Strength

compressive strength,kgf/cm2

compressive strength,kgf/cm2

2. Decreasing in the Samples Weight The following tables and figs exhibit the decreasing in sample's weight

Table (7): Decrease in Samples wt. for PET (0.6) % added 0 0.1 0.15 0.2

Sample Blank 0.6/10% 0.6/15% 0.6/20%

wt(s),gm 261.35 244.47 223 212

size, 0.6 mm
270 250 230

wt,gm

210 190 170 150 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 added PET

Fig (18) Effect of PET (0.6) Added on Samples wt. Table (8): Decrease in Samples wt. for PET (1.2) % added 0 0.1 0.15 0.2

Sample Blank 1.2/10% 1.2/15% 1.2/20%

wt(s),gm 261.35 246.2 234 229.3

size,1.2 mm
270 250 230

wt,gm

210 190 170 150 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 added PET

Fig (19) Effect of PET (1.2) Added on Samples wt. Table (9): Decrease in Samples wt. for PET (2.4) % added 0 0.1 0.15 0.2

Sample Blank 2.4/10% 2.4/15% 2.4/20%

wt(s),gm 261.35 249.5 232.9 216.2

size, 2.4 mm
270 250 230
wt,gm

210 190 170 150 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 added PET

Fig (20) Effect of PET (2.4) Added on Samples wt.

3. Determination of %age water absorbed and the densities: The following table illustrates the results of %age water absorbed with various mixing proportions. Table (10): %age Water Absorbed and Densities of Samples Sample Blank 0.6/10% 0.6/15% 0.6/20% 1.2/10% 1.2/15% 1.2/20% 2.4/10% 2.4/15% 2.4/20% 4. Effect of Super Plasticizer: Super plasticizer have been used with 2%wt of cement, the next table exhibits those results Table (11): Effect of Super Plasticizer on Compressive Strength Sample Blank 1.2/10% 2.4/10% %PET compressive strength,kgf/cm2 reduction 0000 190 0 0.1 161 0.15263158 0.1 174 0.08421053 %PET 0 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 %abs 3.8 5.8 8.8 10.6 5.3 6.7 8 5.9 7.1 9.7 P,gm/cc 2.3 2 1.9 1.8 2 1.97 1.9 2.1 1.96 1.75

5. Effect of Using Low Quality Cement: Low quality have a bad effect on prepared mortar, this is clear in the following table

Table (12): Effect of Low Quality Cement on Compressive Strength Sample blank 0.6/10% 0.6/15% 1.2/10% 1.2/15% 2.4/10% 2.4/15% PET added 0000 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.15 compressive reduction % strength,kgf/cm2 112 0 52 0.53571429 50 0.55357143 67 0.40178571 63 0.4375 54 0.51785714 42 0.625

Conclusions, Discussion& Recommendations:

1. Conclusions: 1. At the same particle size, as the amount of added PET increases as the compressive strength decreases 2. At the same %PET added, as the particle size increases, as the compressive strength increases. For both 1&2 it's clear that 3. At highly % added of PET and with increasing of particle size, no more increasing in compressive strength (almost equal zero). 4. Decreasing in the weight is not like theoretical calculations, this is because hand working and problems in molds size, this problems is not observed clearly in the industrial applications while mechanical equipments are used 5. Using of low quality cement, increases the %age of reduction in the compressive strength 6. Water absorption percent increases with increasing of %PET and so the density of the samples decreases 7. Using of super plasticizer with 2% wt of cement increased the compressive strength value with 8% than free ones 2. Discussion: 1. Decreasing in particle size at same % PET added will increase the surface area and then increase the weakness in the samples 2. Decreasing in samples weight because of replacing the sand with PET which have a lower density than sand, almost the half. 3. Bad preservation of used cement will decrease its efficiency as a binding material and then decreasing in its compressive strength 4. Presence of PET inside the samples increased the pores and so increased its absorption ability, and decreased its density. 3. Recommendations: 1. Best conditions occurred at using 15%age from PET of average particle size of 3.6 mm 2. Studying the effect of increasing the particle size more than 3.6 mm and with % more than 20% 3. Using the PET as substitute to the large aggregate which have an average particle size more than 5 mm 4. Good preservation of used cement and using it before 14 days from its production date 5. Increasing the temperature of firing to study its effect, it's expected to decrease the amount of absorbed water.

Acknowledgement
We were honored to present this work with the help of our Special and beloved ones and so we would like to thank them for their support and motivation during our research and studies .First of all we would like to thank our beloved Professor Shakinaz El Sheltawy, Professor Salah El Haggar and Professor Sanaa A. for their great effort and commitment to such an achievement. And we would like to show our gratitude to chemical engineering researchers Ahmed Shehab, and Kareem Magdy for their extreme effort and material guidance.

References:
1. SRI International Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, www.plastic.com,1991. 2. Grvanill A.B., The plastic Engineers Data Book, Industrial press Inc., USA, 1974 3. 2002 Annual Report on post consumer PET container Recycling Activity, National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), 2002. 4. http://www.designinsite.dk/htmsider/m0011.htm 5. Claudio Bertelli, Sales Account Manager UOP Sinco S.r.l." Polyester 2005 10th World Amsterdam" . 6. General Center For information and Counting in Egypt ,2005-2006