Showing posts with label packaging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label packaging. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Fairlife Followup #2

Back in July I wrote about the non-recyclability of the container used by Fairlife for their chocolate milk. The recycling code says "#7 PETE" which is problematic since PETE is #1 and "Other" is for #7. Since I didn't know how to sort it, it went into the garbage. I email went off to Fairlife to explain themselves, but their reply only muddied the water further, stating that a white pigment in the PETE made it a #7. That's not right since pigments do not affect the recycling codes for any other plastic. I speculated that there was likely a barrier layer that made the container a #7.

It looks like I was right. A person [*] with access to some lab equipment cross-sectioned the container and found this:
Fairlife Milk Container - Cross-Section

Busted! There is a barrier layer in there. The identity of it is unknown, but ATR-FTIR did show the 2 main layers to be PET.

So it's time to send another letter off to Fairlife. Hopefully I'll get a more truthful reply (and not so many words in ALL CAPS!).

[*] Note: the person who did this analysis wishes to remain anonymous. I will respect that request and am very grateful for their contribution.


Previous Years

October 27, 2010 - The Coolest Thing You Can Do With a Polymer - Set Yourself Ablaze

October 27, 2010 - How to Get Around FDA Regulations - Legally!

October 27, 2008 - So when are they going to ban Scotch Tape?

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Fairlife Followup

Last week I wrote the bottle that contains Fairlife chocolate milk and in particular about how confusing the recycling code at the bottom is. It's the number 7, but instead of saying "other" as it should, it says "PETE" (which corresponds to the number 1 code). I contacted Fairlife about this and received the following email:
"Hi John!

Thanks so much for reaching out; we REALLY appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with us.

Our bottles are primarily made from PET, which is #1 plastic. We add a very small percentage of white colorant to protect the milk from UV and visible light (UV and visible light impact the integrity of the milk and the vitamins present in it). The addition of the white colorant is what makes the plastic bottle #7. PET plastic and the white colorant are both approved by the FDA as safe for packaging food products. There is no BPA in any of our packaging.

If you have any other questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give us a shout!

All the best,

Brooke
Consumer Affairs

fairlife� ultra-filtered milk"

(Glad to see that the exclamation point key on their computer works so well!)

This just doesn't add up. Adding white colorant to PET doesn't make it a number 7, just as adding any other pigment to any other plastic doesn't change the base polymer or its recyclability.

But I question the need for a pigment at all. While Brooke is correct that the white plastic will "protect the milk from UV and visible light", a white pigment isn't needed. The bottle is already mostly covered in a brown-colored overwrap film which will block light. Besides, "normal" milk is packed in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) which is a hazy white without any white additives. The whiteness arises from the crystals in the material scattering light (which coincidentally is also why milk appears white).

(As an aside, UV absorbers have been added to polyethylene milk bottles, but understandably, consumers are put off by the yellow color. This is hardly new technology, having been around since at least 1993.)

My guess: there is a barrier layer in the package which makes the whole mess incompatible with PET, and that the white pigment story is just a red herring.



Previous Years

July 22, 2011 - The Heat Index and Jenson's Inequality

July 22, 2010 - A Bio-based Acrylic

Monday, July 13, 2015

Messing up on Recycling Codes

My wife and I had a bottle of Fairlife Chocolate Milk last week. After we finished if off, I looked at the bottom of the bottle to see if it was recyclable. It is. Or is it? You decide:
"PETE" or "Other"?
Yep. It's identified as both "PETE" and as a number 7.

The only problem is that PETE is a number 1, while a number 7 is "Other". So which is it? I can't tell just by looking at the bottle since it is colored white. If it was clear, then it would likely be PETE, but once a plastic has been pigmented white, it's a lot tougher to guess it's identity. At this point, I would have to say it is unrecyclable. I had no choice but to toss it in the trash.

My first thought is how can a major-league company like Coke (which owns Fairlife) screw up something so simple? But I have seen weird stuff in the past too, such as this one from 5 years ago where the bottle was labeled as both a 7 and a 5, but it clarified the matter by saying the 5 meant it was PP compatible.

I've always been unable to understand consumer confusion over the recycling codes, but company confusion seems to be common too.


Previous Years

July 13, 2012 - Open Access Polymer Journals and Other Links

July 13, 2011 - Just the same, only really different

July 13, 2010 - Physicists Can't Get Anything Right

July 13, 2010 - Betrayal by a Polymer Scientist


Thursday, April 30, 2015

Living Hinges

One mechanical entity that is almost exclusively limited to being constructed from polymers is a "living hinge". Trying to describe a living hinge can be difficult, so let me provide a few pictures of living hinges you might have around the house:
Living Hinge - Ketchup bottle
What American home doesn't have a ketchup bottle or two?

Fish sauce bottle

The common feature in all cases is that there is a thin strip of the polymer that provides a flexible, continuous (usually) hinge between two other more substantial parts. Trying to make such a hinge from metal would be pretty challenging (let alone ceramics or other rigid materials).

Living hinges are most commonly produced from polypropylene (PP) and polypropylene copolymers, not only because that material is plenty cheap, but also because when properly made, the hinges can last for years. I have a large polypropylene tub that originally was used for dog food some 12 years ago. It has since been repurposed for storing bird seed in an icy-cold/sultry-hot Minnesota garage. It has been flexed two or three times a week for its entire life, and other than where mice tried chewing through it last winter looking for some free seeds, it still works beautifully.

Last week when helping out with the laundry, I ran into a living hinge that I thought was a little unusual. It's a container for Tide Pods:
Living Hinge - Tide Pods
Tide Pods Container

I say it is unusual because the container is polyester. While polyester (PET) is used for living hinges, it's usually for food packaging such as this:
Living Hinge - Fresh Herb Container
Fresh Mint
or other items at the grocery store. PET is much more expensive that PP, but it is used in food packaging because its clarity shows off the food so well. But that argument doesn't hold up with the PET used for the Tide Pods as it is not clear at all. Additionally, the hinge will be flexed quite a bit - the container holds 72 pods so that is at least 72 cycles of opening and shutting. So why does P & G use PET instead of PP? I have no idea. Perhaps some other aspect of the molding (cycle time for instance) dominates and allows for the use of a more expensive resin.

The term "living" hinge has always bothered me as there is nothing alive about the hinge. It's a hinge. A thin plastic hinge. But misuse of the word "living" in polymer science and engineering is nothing new. Look at "living" polymerizations. In a living polymerization, the polymerization reaction runs until the monomer is depleted, but unlike with more common reactions, the termination reaction never kicks in to permanently halt the polymerization. If more monomer is added to a depleted living polymerization, the reaction can pick up right where it left off, even if the newly added monomer is different that what was used previously. But is the living polymerization still "alive" while it is in that paused, deplete state, or is it more like a dormant state? (Or maybe even a "zombie" state as was discussed yesterday?) I guess polymer scientists and engineers have a hard time distinguishing between "live" and "dead". But then again, I have wondered that about my colleagues themselves at times too, so perhaps the misuse is understandable.



Previous Years

April 30, 2014 - Dow Chemical Keeps Plodding Along and Silencing Critics

April 30, 2012 - Another Set of Rants about a Rejected SBIR Grant

April 30, 2010 - Natureworks

April 30, 2010 - This Changes Everything!

April 30, 2009 - Skip the ER for potential heart attacks and find a spectroscopist instead

April 30, 2009 - This isn't even peer-reviewed


Tuesday, March 10, 2015

K-Cups

I have to honestly admit that I've never really thought about K-Cups much. Don't be surprised, as after all, I don't drink coffee. (I prefer my caffeine like my salads - cold and green - i.e, Mountain Dew.) But a recent interview and article in The Atlantic with John Sylvan, the inventor of the K-Cup has me taking a closer look.

Sylvan is denouncing his invention and admits to not even owning a Keurig machine. Besides the expense compared to a normal drip coffee-maker, he is also concerned about the K-Cup containers and their lack of recyclability.
" 'No matter what they say about recycling, those things will never be recyclable,' Sylvan said. 'The plastic is a specialized plastic made of four different layers.' "
I admit again, that I never it gave it much thought, but the package is pretty complicated. The cups have to protect the ground coffee from oxygen. That's easy for the top of the cup which is a piece of foil, but the plastic cup itself requires an oxygen-barrier plastic, such as ethylene-vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC, aka Saran [*]). And that's where the problems start. Barrier plastics are great at being barriers, but seldom perform well on their own and so they are usually incorporated into multilayer films or sheets such as in this case. And hence the concerns with recyclability and why they are marked as plastic #7 (Other).

"....a specialized plastic made of four different layers". That's odd, because it isn't odd. To be clearer, that's odd because it isn't an odd number of layers. Barrier plastics are usually more expensive than the base plastic, so thin layers are typically used. This can lead to problems with holes in the thin layers, so to address that, typically 2 or more layers of the barrier plastics are used with the thought being that the odds of two holes in the barrier layer being in the same are other is remote. The construction would then be base/barrier/base/barrier/base - which is an odd number of layers - 5. It can get even more complicated when the base and barrier don't stick to each other. Then a tie-layer can be coextruded, which further increases the number of layers. But even if the barrier plastic is still only used once as in a base/barrier/base construction, you still have an odd number of layers - 3. I'm not sure how you could effectively have a 4-layer construction.

I'm not sure what plastics are used as the base in the cup and in the filter (the patent is expectedly plenty vague.

I would encourage you to read the entire article as the bottom-most section gives an interesting perspective on how the Keurig machines and K-Cups might not be as bad as we might think. They can unexpectedly reduce waste in other ways that we accept without question. The author describes the issues very well, so it's pointless for me to try and repeat them. But you will see that the reaction to K-Cups is very much like the reaction to disposable water bottles. By focussing on just the delivery device right before, during and after the consumer uses it, you miss out on the bigger picture. An optimized solution is never found by optimizing just one part of the problem or by optimizing each part separately, but instead by looking for a global optimum. That such global optimums may appear to be non-optimized in a local area can be confusing at times.



[*] Saran was the tradename that Dow first used when introducing this material as a household plastic foodwrap. The product line has since been sold to S.C. Johnson who kept the tradename, but changed the plastic to a chlorine-free alternative.


Previous Years

March 10, 2010 - The Great Pacific Garbage Patch