Advanced Chemical Recycling Technologies for Mixed Plasti...

# Advanced Chemical Recycling Technologies for Mixed Plastic Waste: Technical Feasibility and Commercial Viability Analysis

**Industry Report | Q2 2025**

—

## Executive Summary

The global plastic waste crisis has reached a critical inflection point. With annual plastic production exceeding 430 million metric tons and mechanical recycling rates stagnating below 15% for post-consumer waste, the industry faces an urgent need for complementary technologies capable of processing the 80% of plastic waste currently destined for landfill or incineration. Advanced chemical recycling—encompassing pyrolysis, solvolysis, gasification, and catalytic depolymerization—presents a technically viable pathway for converting mixed, contaminated, and multi-layer plastic waste into virgin-quality feedstocks.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of four primary chemical recycling technologies, evaluating their technical maturity, commercial scalability, economic viability, and environmental performance. Based on data from 47 operational facilities worldwide, 23 pilot projects, and interviews with 15 technology licensors, we present a granular assessment of technology readiness levels (TRL), capital expenditure requirements, operating costs, and carbon footprint profiles.

**Key Findings:**

– Pyrolysis of polyolefins (PE, PP) has reached commercial maturity (TRL 9) with 14 facilities operating at >20,000 tonnes/year capacity as of Q1 2025, achieving naphtha yields of 65-78% with 99.9%) and lower carbon intensity (0.8-1.2 kg CO2e/kg rPET) compared to virgin production, but remains constrained by feedstock specificity and capital intensity ($4,500-6,500 per tonne annual capacity).
– Catalytic cracking technologies show promise for mixed polyolefin waste with higher tolerance for contamination (up to 5% non-plastic content) while achieving 70-85% liquid yields at 350-450°C, but require further scale-up validation beyond current 5,000-10,000 tonnes/year demonstration units.
– The economic viability gap between chemical recycling and virgin feedstock production has narrowed to $150-350/tonne for naphtha-grade outputs, with regulatory drivers (PPWR, CBAM) and voluntary commitments creating sufficient offtake premium to close this gap by 2027-2028.

**Strategic Recommendation:** Procurement managers and sustainability directors should prioritize offtake agreements with pyrolysis operators processing post-commercial polyolefin waste (LDPE film, PP rigid) as the near-term viable pathway, while investing in R&D partnerships for solvolysis and catalytic cracking technologies targeting post-consumer mixed waste streams by 2028-2030.

—

## 1. Introduction: The Plastic Waste Challenge and the Role of Chemical Recycling

### 1.1 The Recycling Gap

Global plastic production reached 430.2 million metric tonnes in 2024, with packaging accounting for 36% of total demand. Despite decades of mechanical recycling infrastructure development, only 14.8% of post-consumer plastic waste was collected for recycling globally in 2023, with 8.2% actually processed into recycled resin and 6.6% lost to contamination, downcycling, or export (Plastics Europe, 2024; OECD Global Plastics Outlook, 2024).

The fundamental limitation of mechanical recycling—degradation of polymer chains during reprocessing, contamination sensitivity, and inability to handle multi-material combinations—creates an addressable market of approximately 180 million tonnes annually of plastic waste that cannot be economically recycled through mechanical means.

### 1.2 Definition and Scope of Chemical Recycling

Chemical recycling refers to technologies that convert plastic waste into monomeric or oligomeric feedstocks through depolymerization, cracking, or dissolution processes, enabling production of virgin-equivalent polymers without the property degradation inherent in mechanical recycling. For the purposes of this report, we distinguish four technology categories:

1. **Pyrolysis** – Thermal decomposition in oxygen-free environment (400-800°C) producing hydrocarbon liquids, gases, and char
2. **Solvolysis** – Chemical depolymerization using solvents, catalysts, or enzymes (including hydrolysis, glycolysis, methanolysis)
3. **Catalytic Cracking** – Enhanced thermal cracking using zeolite or metal catalysts to improve yield and selectivity
4. **Gasification** – Partial oxidation producing syngas (CO + H2) for chemical synthesis

We exclude from this analysis: mechanical recycling (covered extensively elsewhere), dissolution/precipitation processes (considered physical rather than chemical recycling), and waste-to-energy incineration (energy recovery, not material recycling).

### 1.3 Regulatory Landscape Driving Adoption

Three regulatory frameworks are fundamentally reshaping the economic calculus for chemical recycling:

**EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)** – Effective 2025, mandating minimum recycled content in plastic packaging: 30% by 2030 for contact-sensitive packaging, 50% by 2040. Chemical recycling outputs qualify under mass balance allocation rules (ISCC PLUS certification required).

**Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)** – Phased implementation 2026-2034, imposing carbon costs on imported virgin polymers based on embedded emissions. With virgin HDPE at 1.8-2.4 kg CO2e/kg and chemical recycling rHDPE at 1.0-1.6 kg CO2e/kg, the carbon cost differential provides a $80-160/tonne competitive advantage for recycled content.

**Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)** – EPR fees in EU member states now averaging €180-450/tonne for non-recyclable packaging, with modulated fees favoring recyclable design. Chemical recycling operators in France, Germany, and Netherlands report EPR credit revenues of €120-250/tonne for processing mixed waste.

—

## 2. Technology Deep Dive: Four Pathways Analyzed

### 2.1 Pyrolysis: The Commercial Leader

#### 2.1.1 Process Description

Pyrolysis involves heating plastic waste to 400-800°C in an inert atmosphere, breaking long polymer chains into shorter hydrocarbon molecules through random chain scission and beta-scission reactions. The product distribution—naphtha (C5-C12), diesel/gas oil (C13-C22), waxes (C23+), gases (C1-C4), and char—depends on temperature, residence time, catalyst presence, and feedstock composition.

**Typical operating parameters for commercial polyolefin pyrolysis:**

| Parameter | Range | Optimal for Naphtha Yield |
|———–|——-|————————–|
| Temperature | 450-750°C | 550-650°C |
| Residence time | 0.5-4 hours | 1-2 hours |
| Pressure | 1-5 bar absolute | 1-2 bar |
| Feedstock particle size | 5-50 mm | 10-30 mm |
| Chlorine content (feed) | <200 ppm | <50 ppm |
| Moisture content | <5% | <1% |

#### 2.1.2 Commercial Facilities and Capacity

As of March 2025, we have identified 47 operational pyrolysis facilities globally processing plastic waste, with 14 exceeding 20,000 tonnes/year nameplate capacity. Total installed capacity is approximately 620,000 tonnes/year, with an additional 1.2 million tonnes/year under construction or in advanced development.

**Leading commercial operators:**

#### 2.1.3 Technical Performance Metrics

**Yield and quality data from 14 commercial facilities (Q4 2024 average):**

– **Liquid yield:** 72% (range 65-78%) of feedstock mass
– **Gas yield:** 12% (range 8-16%) – typically used for process heat
– **Char yield:** 14% (range 8-20%) – high carbon content, limited market
– **Chlorine content in liquid product:** 45 ppm (range 15-120 ppm) after dechlorination
– **Sulfur content:** <10 ppm for sorted polyolefin feedstocks
– **Oxygen content:** 0.5-2.5 wt% depending on feedstock contamination

**Product quality specifications for steam cracker feedstock:**

| Parameter | Pyrolysis Naphtha | Virgin Naphtha | Acceptable Range |
|———–|——————-|—————-|——————|
| Boiling range | IBP 30°C – FBP 380°C | IBP 25°C – FBP 200°C | IBP <50°C, FBP 30% |
| Olefins | 25-40% | <2% | <45% |
| Aromatics | 10-20% | 5-15% | <25% |
| Chlorine | 15-120 ppm | <1 ppm | <50 ppm (target) |
| Nitrogen | 50-500 ppm | <1 ppm | <100 ppm |

**Critical insight:** Chlorine removal remains the primary technical challenge. Facilities using dedicated dechlorination units (caustic washing, adsorption) achieve 30,000 tonnes/year capacity at current market conditions

### 2.2 Solvolysis: The High-Purity Pathway for PET

#### 2.2.1 Process Description

Solvolysis encompasses depolymerization of condensation polymers (PET, polyamides, polyurethanes) using chemical reagents to break ester or amide bonds, recovering monomers at high purity. For PET, three primary routes exist:

**Glycolysis:** PET + ethylene glycol → bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET) monomer, followed by repolymerization to rPET. Operates at 180-240°C, 1-5 bar, with zinc acetate or titanium catalysts.

**Hydrolysis:** PET + water → terephthalic acid (TPA) + ethylene glycol (EG). Operates at 200-300°C, 15-50 bar. Higher purity but more energy-intensive.

**Methanolysis:** PET + methanol → dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) + EG. Operates at 200-280°C, 30-60 bar. Produces DMT which is compatible with existing PET production processes.

#### 2.2.2 Commercial Status

Solvolysis has achieved TRL 8-9 for PET, with 9 commercial facilities operating globally as of Q1 2025:

**Critical distinction:** Enzymatic hydrolysis (Carbios) represents a novel biological-chemical hybrid, using engineered PETase enzymes at 65-70°C to achieve >90% depolymerization in 10-16 hours. First commercial facility expected online Q3 2026.

#### 2.2.3 Technical Performance Metrics

**Yields and purity (commercial data):**

| Process | Monomer Yield | Monomer Purity | Repolymerization Quality |
|———|—————|—————-|————————|
| Glycolysis | 85-95% | 98.5-99.5% | IV 0.72-0.80 dL/g |
| Hydrolysis | 90-97% | 99.5-99.9% | IV 0.75-0.82 dL/g |
| Methanolysis | 92-98% | 99.8-99.95% | IV 0.78-0.84 dL/g |
| Enzymatic hydrolysis | 90-95% | 99.5-99.8% | IV 0.74-0.80 dL/g |

**Feedstock tolerance:**

| Contaminant | Glycolysis | Hydrolysis | Methanolysis | Enzymatic |
|————-|————|————|————–|———–|
| PVC (chlorine) | <1% | <0.5% | <0.5% | <2% |
| Polyolefins | <5% | <3% | <3% | <10% |
| Paper labels | <2% | <1% | <1% | <5% |
| Adhesives | <1% | <0.5% | <0.5% | <3% |
| Color (dye) | Removed | Removed | Removed | Partial |

**Intrinsic viscosity (IV) comparison for rPET:**

#### 2.2.4 Economic Analysis

**Capital expenditure:** $4,500-6,500 per tonne of annual capacity (median $5,200/tonne)

**Operating expenditure (per tonne of PET feedstock):**

| Cost Category | Glycolysis | Hydrolysis | Methanolysis |
|—————|————|————|————–|
| Feedstock (sorted PET bales) | $180-250 | $180-250 | $180-250 |
| Chemicals/solvents | $80-150 | $120-200 | $100-180 |
| Energy | $40-70 | $60-100 | $50-90 |
| Catalysts | $15-30 | $10-25 | $8-20 |
| Labor and maintenance | $30-50 | $35-55 | $30-50 |
| Total OPEX | $345-550 | $405-630 | $368-590 |

**Revenue per tonne of PET feedstock:**

| Product | Yield (kg/t feed) | Price ($/kg) | Revenue ($/t feed) |
|———|——————-|————–|——————-|
| rPET (bottle-grade) | 950-980 | $1.20-1.60 | $1,140-1,568 |
| EG byproduct | 30-50 | $0.80-1.10 | $24-55 |
| EPR credit | – | $120-250 | $120-250 |
| Total revenue | | | $1,284-1,873 |

**Gross margin:** $734-1,405/tonne PET feedstock (assuming glycolysis with typical OPEX of $447/tonne)

**Payback period:** 5-9 years depending on scale and process route

### 2.3 Catalytic Cracking: Enhanced Performance for Mixed Waste

#### 2.3.1 Process Overview

Catalytic cracking employs heterogeneous catalysts (zeolites, fluid catalytic cracking catalysts, metal-doped mesoporous materials) to lower activation energy of polymer chain scission, enabling operation at lower temperatures (350-450°C) with improved selectivity toward valuable liquid fractions. The technology is particularly relevant for mixed polyolefin waste with higher contamination levels.

**Key catalyst systems in commercial development:**

#### 2.3.2 Commercial Status

Catalytic cracking for plastic waste is at TRL 7-8, with several demonstration and first-of-kind commercial units:

#### 2.3.3 Technical Metrics

**Comparative performance vs. thermal pyrolysis (mixed polyolefin feed, 400°C):**

| Metric | Thermal Pyrolysis | Catalytic Cracking | Improvement |
|——–|——————-|——————-|————-|
| Liquid yield | 68% | 78% | +10 pp |
| Gas yield | 18% | 12% | -6 pp |
| Char yield | 14% | 10% | -4 pp |
| Naphtha selectivity | 35% of liquid | 55% of liquid | +20 pp |
| Olefin content in naphtha | 30% | 45% | +15 pp |
| Chlorine tolerance | <200 ppm | 20kt/yr) | Total Installed Capacity (kt/yr) | Scale-up Risk |
|————|—–|———————————-|———————————-|—————|
| Pyrolysis (polyolefins) | 9 | 14 | 620 | Low |
| Solvolysis (PET) | 8-9 | 9 | 350 | Low-Moderate |
| Catalytic cracking | 7-8 | 2 | 45 | Moderate |
| Gasification (plastics) | 6-7 | 1 | 100 (RDF) | High |

### 3.2 Feedstock Flexibility Matrix

### 3.3 Product Quality and End-Use Compatibility

| Product | Pyrolysis Naphtha | Solvolysis Monomers | Catalytic Naphtha | Syngas-derived |
|———|——————-|———————|——————-|—————-|
| Virgin polymer equivalence | 85-95% | 99-100% | 90-97% | 95-99% |
| Food contact approval | ISCC PLUS (mass balance) | Yes (direct) | ISCC PLUS | ISCC PLUS |
| Medical grade potential | Limited | Yes | Limited | Yes |
| Automotive specification | Yes (with upgrading) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Carbon footprint (kg CO2e/kg output) | 1.0-1.6 | 0.8-1.2 | 0.9-1.4 | 1.2-2.0 |

—

## 4. Commercial Viability Analysis

### 4.1 Economic Comparison at 50,000 t/yr Scale

| Metric | Pyrolysis | Solvolysis (Glycolysis) | Catalytic Cracking | Gasification |
|——–|———–|————————|——————-|————–|
| Capital cost ($M) | 210-290 | 260-325 | 240-320 | 350-500 |
| CAPEX per tonne ($/t/yr) | 4,200-5,800 | 5,200-6,500 | 4,800-6,400 | 7,000-10,000 |
| Operating cost ($/t feed) | 240-290 | 345-550 | 260-320 | 350-450 |
| Revenue ($/t feed) | 560-790 | 1,280-1,870 | 580-820 | 450-650 |
| EBITDA margin | 52-63% | 65-75% | 50-60% | 15-35% |
| IRR (pre-tax, real) | 12-18% | 15-22% | 10-16% | 5-12% |
| Payback period (years) | 4-7 | 5-9 | 5-8 | 8-15 |

### 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis: Key Variables

**Impact on IRR for 50,000 t/yr pyrolysis facility:**

| Variable | -20% Change | Base Case | +20% Change |
|———-|————-|———–|————-|
| Naphtha price ($580/t base) | 9.2% | 15.0% | 21.3% |
| Feedstock cost ($130/t base) | 18.5% | 15.0% | 11.8% |
| Capital cost ($4,200/t base) | 18.8% | 15.0% | 11.4% |
| Yield (72% base) | 11.5% | 15.0% | 18.2% |
| EPR credit ($180/t base) | 12.1% | 15.0% | 17.6% |

**Breakeven analysis for pyrolysis naphtha vs. virgin naphtha:**

– Current virgin naphtha price: $580-720/tonne (Q1 2025)
– Pyrolysis naphtha production cost: $480-620/tonne (including feedstock, processing, EPR credits)
– Breakeven premium required: $80-150/tonne (currently achievable with ISCC PLUS certification and brand owner commitments)
– Projected premium erosion: to $50-100/tonne by 2028 as supply increases

### 4.3 Regulatory Impact on Economics

**PPWR recycled content mandate value (per tonne of recycled content):**

| Year | Mandated Content | Value Premium ($/t) | Source |
|——|——————|———————|——–|
| 2025 | Voluntary | 150-250 | ISCC PLUS mass balance |
| 2027 | 20% (target) | 200-350 | PPWR compliance |
| 2030 | 30% (mandatory) | 300-500 | PPWR enforcement |
| 2035 | 45% (proposed) | 400-600 | PPWR revision |

**CBAM carbon cost differential (per tonne of recycled vs. virgin):**

| Polymer | Virgin Carbon (kg CO2e/kg) | Chemical rCarbon (kg CO2e/kg) | Differential (kg CO2e/kg) | CBAM Cost at €80/t CO2 |
|———|—————————|——————————|————————–|———————-|
| HDPE | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | €56/t |
| PET | 2.4 | 1.0 | 1.4 | €112/t |
| PP | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.6 | €48/t |

—

## 5. Environmental Performance and Carbon Footprint

### 5.1 Life Cycle Assessment Summary

Based on 14 published LCAs and 9 industry-commissioned studies (2022-2024), the carbon footprint of chemically recycled polymers compared to virgin production:

| Polymer | Virgin Production (kg CO2e/kg) | Mechanical Recycling (kg CO2e/kg) | Chemical Recycling (kg CO2e/kg) | Reduction vs. Virgin |
|———|——————————-|———————————–|——————————–|———————|
| rHDPE | 2.0 | 0.5-0.8 | 1.0-1.6 | 20-50% |
| rPET | 2.4 | 0.4-0.7 | 0.8-1.2 | 50-67% |
| rPP | 1.8 | 0.4-0.7 | 0.9-1.4 | 22-50% |
| rPS | 2.8 | 0.6-1.0 | 1.2-1.8 | 36-57% |

**Important caveat:** Chemical recycling carbon intensity is highly dependent on:
– Energy source (grid mix vs. renewable)
– Feedstock transportation distance
– Product yield and char management
– Allocation methodology (mass balance vs. cut-off)

### 5.2 Energy Balance

| Technology | Energy Input (MJ/kg feed) | Energy Output (MJ/kg product) | Energy Efficiency |
|————|————————-|——————————|——————-|
| Pyrolysis | 4.5-7.0 | 32-38 (as naphtha) | 55-65% |
| Solvolysis (glycolysis) | 8.0-12.0 | 25-30 (as monomer) | 40-50% |
| Catalytic cracking | 3.5-6.0 | 34-40 (as naphtha) | 60-70% |
| Gasification | 6.0-10.0 | 18-25 (as syngas) | 45-55% |

### 5.3 Water Consumption

| Technology | Water Use (L/kg product) | Wastewater Generation (L/kg) |
|————|————————-|——————————|
| Pyrolysis | 0.5-1.5 | 0.3-0.8 |
| Solvolysis (glycolysis) | 3.0-8.0 | 2.0-6.0 |
| Catalytic cracking | 0.3-1.0 | 0.2-0.6 |
| Gasification | 1.0-3.0 | 0.5-2.0 |

—

## 6. SWOT Analysis: Chemical Recycling Industry

### Strengths

– **Virgin-quality output:** Chemical recycling produces monomers or naphtha equivalent to virgin feedstocks, enabling infinite recyclability without property degradation
– **Feedstock flexibility:** Ability to process mixed, contaminated, and multi-layer plastics that mechanical recycling cannot handle
– **Mass balance certification:** ISCC PLUS and GRS certification enable attribution of recycled content to specific products, facilitating PPWR compliance
– **Carbon footprint reduction:** 20-67% reduction compared to virgin production, supporting corporate net-zero commitments
– **Complementary to mechanical recycling:** Addresses the 80% of plastic waste currently unrecycled, increasing overall recycling rates

### Weaknesses

– **Higher cost than virgin:** Current production costs $150-350/tonne above virgin naphtha, requiring premium offtake agreements
– **Capital intensity:** $4,200-10,000/tonne annual capacity vs. $1,500-3,000 for mechanical recycling
– **Energy consumption:** Higher energy input per tonne compared to mechanical recycling (4-12 MJ/kg vs. 1-3 MJ/kg)
– **Technology maturity:** Only pyrolysis has reached full commercial scale; solvolysis and catalytic cracking still scaling
– **Feedstock competition:** Competition with mechanical recyclers for high-quality sorted waste streams
– **Char management:** 8-20% of feedstock becomes char with limited market value, creating disposal costs

### Opportunities

– **Regulatory tailwinds:** PPWR, CBAM, EPR, and national plastic taxes creating $200-600/tonne value premium for recycled content
– **Brand owner commitments:** 120+ major brands (Nestlé, Unilever, P&G, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo) have committed to 25-50% recycled content by 2030
– **Technology improvements:** Next-generation catalysts, continuous processes, and AI-optimized operations expected to reduce costs by 20-35% by 2028
– **Carbon credit markets:** Voluntary carbon markets valuing avoided emissions at $50-150/t CO2e, adding $35-210/tonne revenue potential
– **Circular economy integration:** Chemical recycling enables true circularity for packaging, automotive, and textile applications
– **Regional feedstock advantages:** Countries with high plastic waste generation and low recycling rates (Southeast Asia, Middle East, Latin America) represent greenfield opportunities

### Threats

– **Mechanical recycling improvements:** Advanced sorting (NIR, AI, hyperspectral) and compatibilization technologies may reduce the addressable market for chemical recycling
– **Virgin price volatility:** Low oil prices (e.g., $50-60/bbl) can widen the cost gap to $300-500/tonne, challenging economics
– **Regulatory uncertainty:** Mass balance attribution rules under revision; potential for stricter requirements on chemical recycling qualification
– **Public perception:** Environmental NGOs (GAIA, Break Free From Plastic) actively opposing chemical recycling as “false solutions”
– **Competition from other technologies:** Dissolution, enzymatic recycling, and biobased alternatives may offer lower-carbon pathways
– **Feedstock availability:** Growing competition for sorted plastic waste could increase costs; collection infrastructure not scaling fast enough

—

## 7. Strategic Recommendations

### 7.1 For Procurement Managers

**Near-term (2025-2027):**

1. **Secure ISCC PLUS-certified pyrolysis naphtha offtake agreements** with minimum 3-5 year terms, volume commitments of 5,000-20,000 tonnes/year, and price formulas linked to virgin naphtha plus a fixed premium ($80-150/tonne). Priority operators: Plastic Energy, Quantafuel, Nexus Circular.

2. **Qualify solvolysis rPET for food-contact applications** through supplier audits, migration testing (EU 10/2011, FDA 21 CFR 177.1630), and challenge testing. Target suppliers: Eastman Chemical (methanolysis), Loop Industries (hydrolysis).

3. **Establish feedstock specifications** for chemical recycling inputs, including chlorine limits (<50 ppm target for pyrolysis), moisture (<1%), and non-plastic content (<3%). Require suppliers to provide batch-level compositional analysis.

**Medium-term (2027-2030):**

4. **Develop dual-sourcing strategies** that include both pyrolysis (polyolefins) and solvolysis (PET) to ensure supply security as PPWR mandates escalate.

5. **Invest in catalytic cracking pilot partnerships** to gain early access to next-generation technology outputs. Recommended partners: Mura Technology (HydroPRS), Plastic2Chem.

### 7.2 For Sustainability Directors

1. **Conduct full life cycle assessment (LCA) for chemical recycling integration** using ISO 14040/14044 methodology, including avoided landfill emissions, transportation impacts, and end-of-life allocation. Use primary data from suppliers rather than generic databases.

2. **Develop mass balance accounting systems** that comply with ISCC PLUS and GRS requirements, enabling attribution of recycled content to specific product lines. Implement blockchain-based traceability for audit readiness.

3. **Set science-based targets** that explicitly account for chemical recycling's role in achieving 50-70% carbon footprint reduction for plastic packaging by 2030 vs. 2020 baseline.

4. **Engage with regulatory bodies** on PPWR implementation, advocating for:
– Clear acceptance of chemical recycling under mass balance (free attribution model)
– Inclusion of chemical recycling in national EPR schemes
– Harmonized carbon footprint calculation methodology

5. **Prepare public communication strategies** that transparently address NGO concerns, emphasizing:
– Chemical recycling as complementary to (not replacing) mechanical recycling
– Carbon footprint reductions verified by third-party LCA
– Contribution to circular economy goals

### 7.3 For Product Engineers

1. **Design for chemical recyclability** by:
– Eliminating PVC labels and adhesives from polyolefin packaging
– Using polyolefin-based barrier layers instead of EVOH or PVDC
– Minimizing silicone and acrylic additives that poison catalysts
– Specifying mono-material constructions where possible

2. **Develop specifications for chemically recycled polymers** that account for:
– Slightly broader molecular weight distribution (PDI 2.5-4.0 vs. 2.0-3.0 for virgin)
– Higher residual catalyst content (5-20 ppm vs. <5 ppm for virgin)
– Potential for residual color or odor

Advanced Chemical Recycling Technologies for Mixed Plasti…

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

More posts

Topcentral New Materials Wins Sedex Supply Chain Award

Topcentral Blue Factory Project Progress Report

Topcentral New Materials Interview – Ningbo Daily Nov 11

CBAM Compliance Impact on PCR Plastic Trade

Subscribe to PCR Plastic Insights