Researchers, laboratories and experts across Europe have recently completed a unique testing program of flexible packaging recyclability. Dennis Bankmann, scientific consultant to CEFLEX, tells us how they did it – and what it means for flexible packaging today.
You collected and processed over 600 samples for sortability and recyclability – what where the main objectives for such an extensive testing program?
We set out to clearly identify how various materials and packaging elements impact sortability and technical recyclability. The main objectives were: to understand and quantify the influence of different flexible packaging components on sorting efficiency; and assess how these materials affect recycling processes – including processing efficiency, yield, and recyclate quality.
Underpinning the whole approach was a need to gather robust, real-world data for clear and practical design recommendations – key information for packaging producers to make informed choices that enhance recyclability.
Ideally, the whole value chain and packaging stakeholdes in Europe and beyond should be the beneficiaries. Insights and results will be open for all to access – and CEFLEX are already using them to help inform emerging standards and make a major update to the ‘Designing for a Circular Economy’ guidelines.
“I think we are at a special place and time where we can take a major step forward – with robust data underpinning design guidance, standards, industry transformation and ultimately legislation. The scale of collaboration and insights generated from this testing program are very valuable and well-placed to support this”.
How did you go about establishing reliable data given the vast variety of material combinations in flexible plastic packaging?
Our choice of a representative and consistent control materials and robust characterisation methods was key to the methodology producing reliable, repeatable and comparable results.
Evaluating how different inks or adhesives impact the recyclability of PE or PP films requires a clear baseline (a ‘blank’ value). Typical options for a baseline include using a simple, unmodified commercial PE or PP film, or pure polymer resin.
For the CEFLEX-led testing, we aimed to improve on the state-of-the-art and developed with guidance from academic advisors – an ‘engineered base material’ (EBM) control, one for PE and one for PP; which we determined with input from research, industry and market studies. These materials are blends of the different types of PE and PP grades that are understood to be present on the EU market and therefore also in waste streams going to PE and PP recycling.
What are the benefits of using this approach?
Firstly, this approach aims to better reflect recyclability of plastic flexible packaging in actual waste streams and to avoid potentially missing effects of adhesives, inks, coatings, barriers etc. on recycling processes when tested in a single PE or PP resin rather than the more complex mix of polymers present on the market.
Secondly, comparability. The engineered base materials allow us to use one single control for PE testing and one for PP testing. If a program to test 20 materials uses a different control material between samples, one cannot truly compare the samples like for like. Comparability amongst different test materials was key to ensure balance.
Additionally, considering the substantial size of the CEFLEX programme, the approach eliminated a lot of blank value generation.
Why was it important to not only have a well-chosen control material but also a diverse set of samples to test?
Choosing a suitable control material is critical but having a diverse and clearly defined set of test samples is equally essential – especially for targeted and accurate recommendations.
For example, when testing complete packaging (e.g., a finished potato chip bag), the structure often includes multiple films, primers, metallization, inks, and adhesives. If it tests positively for recyclability, the overall design may be seen as confirmed technically recyclable – but it provides no specific insights into how and to which limits individual constituents and components affect recyclability. Without this attribution, it is challenging to give specific design guidance.
More critically, if the recycling results are less than optimal, it becomes difficult or even impossible to pinpoint which exact constituent or component (such as ink, coating, adhesive or barrier) caused the issue. Thus, generating and testing samples with clearly identified individual constituents allows for precise attribution of recyclability challenges, enabling targeted design improvements.
Aside from the sampling and control materials was there anything else that stood out about how the new testing methodology was performed?
A standout for me was how much we learned by doing multiple rounds of testing back-to-back. This allowed us to understand reproducibility, repeatability and significance of testing results in a way we might not otherwise have been able to. By looking at this big dataset at the same time, we could pick up things might have been overlooked in a single test.
Dennis Bankmann, scientific consultant