<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Chemical and physico-chemical recycling of plastic waste

Association Record, E. Harscoet, S. Chouvenc, A.-C. Faugeras, F. Ammenti

► To cite this version:

Association Record, E. Harscoet, S. Chouvenc, A.-C. Faugeras, F. Ammenti. Chemical and physico-chemical recycling of plastic waste. n°21-0919/1A, RECORD. 2022, pp.177. hal-05070949

HAL Id: hal-05070949

https://hal.science/hal-05070949v1

Submitted on 26 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Chemical and physico-chemical recycling
of plastic waste

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
# CHEMICAL AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTIC WASTE

## FINAL REPORT

### June 2022

E. HARSCOET, S. CHOUVENC, A.-C. FAUGERAS, F. AMMENTI – DELOITTE

Deloitte.
Created on the initiative of the Ministry in charge of the Environment, the RECORD association has
been since 1989, the catalyst for cooperation between industrialists, institutions, and researchers.

A recognized player in applied research in the field of waste, polluted soils and resource efficiency,
RECORD's main objective is to finance and carry out studies and research from a circular economy
perspective.

The members of this network (industrial and institutional groups) collectively define study and research
programs adapted to their needs. These programs are then entrusted to public or private laboratories.

Warning:

The reports have been prepared on the basis of scientific and technical data and a regulatory and
normative framework in force at the time of publication of the documents.

These documents include proposals or recommendations that are the sole responsibility of their authors.

Unless otherwise stated, they are not intended to represent the views of RECORD members.

✓ For any resumption of information contained in this document, the user will have the obligation to cite the report under the reference:

RECORD, Chemical and physico-chemical recycling of plastic waste, 2022, 177 p,
n°21-0919/1A

✓ This work received the support of ADEME (Environment and Energy Management Agency)
www.ademe.fr
## SUMMARY

The project aims at understanding the different existing technologies for the chemical and physico-chemical recycling of plastic waste. These promising technologies could allow to process hard-to-recycle plastic waste and produce new food-grade plastics. However, little information is currently available to compare these processes with each other and to assess their performance in economic or environmental terms. The uncertainties associated with these new technologies are also high given their early stage of development (often at pilot/demonstration stage). The purpose of this study is therefore to draw up a state of play of the various chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies via a literature review and to clarify the pending points, notably by means of expert consultations.

## KEY WORDS

Chemical recycling, Physico-chemical recycling, Pyrolysis, Gasification, Dissolution, Solvolysis, Hydrocracking, Vapocraking, Plastic waste, Expert's consultation.

## RESUME

Le projet a pour but d'appréhender les différentes technologies existantes de recyclage chimique et physico-chimique des déchets plastiques. Ces technologies prometteuses pourraient permettre de traiter des déchets difficilement recyclables et produire des plastiques aptes au contact alimentaire. Cependant, peu d'informations sont disponibles à l'heure actuelle pour comparer ces procédés ainsi que pour en évaluer les performances en termes économiques ou environnementaux. Les incertitudes liées à ces nouvelles technologies sont également fortes étant donné leur stade de développement actuel (souvent à l'échelle d'une unité pilote ou démonstration). Ainsi cette étude a vocation à dresser un état des lieux des différentes technologies de recyclage chimique et physico-chimique via une revue de littérature et à éclaircir les questions en suspens à l'aide, notamment, de consultations d'experts.

## MOTS CLES

Recyclage chimique, Recyclage physico-chimique, Pyrolyse, Gazéification, Dissolution, Solvolyse, Hydrocraquage, Vapocraquage, Déchets plastiques, Avis d'experts.
# I. Contents

<table><tr><td>I. Contents</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>I. Executive summary</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>II. Presentation of the study</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>1) Background context of the study</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2) Objectives of the study</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>3) Scope of the study</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>4) Methodology</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>5) Panel of experts</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>III. Introduction</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>1) Studied processes</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>2) Challenges by polymer type</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3) Bibliography</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>4) Data availability and reliability</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>IV. Sorting and pretreatment steps</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>1) Separation of plastic waste in sorting centers</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>2) Pre-treatment of plastic waste before entering the recycling process</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>a. Feedstock pre-sorting before entering the chemical and physico-chemical recycling process</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>b. Focus on other pre-treatment steps</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>V. Chemical treatment - solvolysis</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>1) Glycolysis</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>2) Methanolysis</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>3) Aminolysis</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>4) Hydrolysis</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>43</td></tr></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>5) Hydrolysis catalyzed with enzymes</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>VI. Dissolution</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology scaling-up</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>b. Economic performance</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>c. Environmental performance</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>VII. Thermal treatment</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>1) Non catalytic pyrolysis</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>2) Catalytic pyrolysis</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>3) Hydrothermal cracking</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>4) Hydrocracking (or catalytic depolymerization through hydrocracking – in the presence of hydrogen)</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>5) Gasification</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>c. Economic performance</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>d. Environmental performance</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>VIII. Downstream steps</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>1) Introduction on downstream steps</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>2) Example of downstream step: vapocracking (Steam cracking)</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>a. Technology</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>b. Technology scaling-up</td><td>89</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>c.</td><td>Economic performance</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Environmental performance</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>IX.</td><td>Key learnings</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>X.</td><td>Focus on regulations and certifications</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>1)</td><td>Introduction to the mass balance approach</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>2)</td><td>Regulation in the United States</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>Main regulatory and fiscal situations applicable to recycling plants</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Opportunity to use recycled resins for food-contact applications after approval by competent authorities</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>Acceptability of the implementation of a mass balance approach</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Departure from the status of waste</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>e.</td><td>Qualification of a recycled state</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>3)</td><td>Regulation in the European Union</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>Main regulatory and fiscal situations applicable to recycling plants</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Opportunity to use recycled resins for food-contact applications after approval by competent authorities</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>Acceptability of the implementation of a mass balance approach</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Departure from the status of waste</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>e.</td><td>Qualification of a recycled state</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>f.</td><td>European green taxonomy</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>4)</td><td>Regulation in Japan</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>Main regulatory and fiscal situations applicable to recycling plants</td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Opportunity to use recycled resins for food-contact applications after approval by competent authorities</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>Acceptability of the implementation of a mass balance approach</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Departure from the status of waste</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>e.</td><td>Qualification of a recycled state</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>5)</td><td>Regulations in Europe, the USA and Japan - Key learnings</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>6)</td><td>Global Standards and Certifications</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>ISCC PLUS</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>RSB</td><td>122</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>UL LCC</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>Recycled Claim Standard (RCS) and Global Recycled Standard (GRS)</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>XI.</td><td>Synthesis of experts' opinion</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>1)</td><td>Experts' point of view</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>a.</td><td>What are the main opportunities and constraints to chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies and to their scaling up?</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>What is the current and future regulatory context in the USA, EU, and Japan?</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>c.</td><td>What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different environmental assessments and their comparisons?</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>d.</td><td>What are the main costs of the different recycling technologies?</td><td>147</td></tr><tr><td>e.</td><td>What are the perspectives of development of the different chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies?</td><td>150</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>2) Limitations of the exercise</td><td>155</td></tr><tr><td>XII. Authors' point of view</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>1) "Chemical and physico-chemical" recycling technologies are key to help reaching plastics circularity</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>2) Dynamism around the development of "chemical and physico-chemical" recycling technologies is massive. However, only a few plants are at industrial scale</td><td>157</td></tr><tr><td>3) "Chemical and physico-chemical" recycling technologies are very diverse, and each must be considered individually</td><td>158</td></tr><tr><td>4) Based on available information, chemical and physico-chemical recycling appears as a solution that could bring environmental benefits. However, the environmental performance of chemically recycled products still needs to be fully demonstrated.</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>5) In the current context, regulations should not hinder the development of chemical and physico-chemical recycling. Clarification of the current and future regulatory context is expected to ease investment decision making processes</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>6) Feedstock appears as the critical aspect of chemical and physico-chemical recycling development</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>7) More broadly, the building of the whole value chain is necessary from feedstock supply to the production of the end product</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>XIII. Conclusion</td><td>162</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I. Theoretical economic reference models</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I.1. Introduction</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I.2. PET hydrolysis</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I.3. PS dissolution</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix I.4. Pyrolysis of polyolefins</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix II. Glossary of abbreviations and units &amp; English-French lexicon</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix III. Bibliography</td><td>173</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix IV. List of studied technology developers</td><td>176</td></tr></table>
# I. Executive summary

**Chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies are promising for specific applications, where mechanical recycling is unable to meet the market's needs.**

The interest in chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies has risen this last decade, due to the encouraging results that they promised to deliver. Indeed, the recycling landscape is divided between mechanical recycling, which offers limited possibilities when it comes to the purity requirements of the output polymer, and chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies, which can help achieve a better output quality.

Moreover, mechanical recycling technologies have very stringent feedstock specifications, which, in some cases, chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies might overcome. The latter thus present with an undeniable interest regarding the treatment of hard-to-recycle plastics or highly contaminated waste streams.

**Chemical and physico-chemical technologies are rapidly developing.**

Numerous technology developers have been announcing investment in future chemical and physico-chemical recycling facilities and a large number of stakeholders of the value chain (including brands) have already partnered up with some of them. Most of these planned plants are expected to open in the next five years. The chemical and physico-chemical recycling market will thus be more and more active in the coming years.

The European, Japanese, and American landscape are seeing most of the development on their region as they seem to be favorable to these technologies. Indeed, the European market is demanding more recycled materials, to face consumer pressure and regulatory targets. The American market encompass less stringent regulations, especially for thermal treatment processes, than other regions, which makes it a territory of choice for chemical recyclers. The Japanese market seems also favorable to the implantation of chemical recyclers, as it provides an access to clean and well-sorted waste streams.

**However, this development is hindered by economic, legislative, and environmental uncertainties.**

Chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies usually produce a recycled material, that is more expensive than its virgin alternative, with sometimes a lesser quality. It is thus to be expected that, without a price premium, chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies will not be economically competitive with their virgin counterparts. The amount of the price premium to pay will be dependent on the quality required for the final product, which will decide the type of feedstock to be used and the different pre-treatment and post-treatment steps to implement.

In addition, environmental assessments conducted are often unclear on the benefits that chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies could provide. They are usually more beneficial than incineration but more detrimental than mechanical recycling (although the quality of the output- *the functional unit* – is different). However, due to questionable methodologies and hypothesis, the environmental impact of such processes can hardly be clearly understood by consumers.

Finally, regulatory uncertainties about these technologies are threatening this development due to the risks of new unfavorable legislations. Among the three geographies studied (Japan, Europe, and USA), not one clearly states its position on chemical and physico-chemical recycling and if these technologies could qualify as “recycling”. There is thus an urgent need of alignment from policy makers on this topic.

**The value chain of chemical and physico-chemical recycling needs to be structured and strengthened to ensure these technologies' future.**

Despite the fast development of chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies, the collection system is staying as is and the feedstock availability of the upcoming plants is not ensured. Indeed, few feedstocks are actually complying with the developers' requirements, which can be highly problematic at a commercial scale. There is thus a need for all the value chain players to come together and structure
the entire value chain, from feedstock supply (with sufficient volumes and quality) to the manufacturing of end-products.
## II. Presentation of the study

### 1) Background context of the study

Over the past decades, worldwide markets experienced a steep increase in the use of plastic materials. In 1950, plastics' production amounted to about 1.5 million metric tons a year (Mt/y). Since then, these materials started being widely used in numerous applications and sectors (e.g., automotive, construction, consumer goods, etc.) on account of their convenience and unique properties (lightness, malleability, resistance, durability, etc.). By 2020, production had grown to 367 Mt/y<fnref n="1" />, most of which PP, PE, PET, and PS used within the packaging, building & construction, and automotive sectors. Projections show that by 2025, plastics' production will amount to approximately 445 Mt/y<fnref n="2" />.

Despite the multiple benefits associated with the use of plastics, stakeholders in the industry have increasingly become aware of the issues associated with the use of these materials, including their end-of-life. There is now staggering evidence of how the mismanagement of plastics' lifecycles and associated waste streams negatively impacts the environment, society, and the economy. As an example, the maturity and efficiency of collection, sorting and recycling schemes significantly differ from one country to another, which can lead to variable recycling rates. Another critical point to be considered is that most plastics are non-biodegradable. Whenever dumped into the environment, these materials take decades to degrade and never fully disappear (generating micro-plastics instead).

Over the past years, the increasing understanding of the downsides associated with the use of plastics has been driving key stakeholders to put pressure on this industry. Numerous medias and NGOs have been reporting on plastic pollution and its impacts on the environment (especially on the ocean), leading to a negative consumers' perception. By improving the circularity of the plastics' industry, recycling technologies can address part of the problems associated with this sector. On a global level and especially in EU countries, different regulations have been enacted to set mandatory targets for plastics' recycling rates and increase of recycled content in products. Cross-sector initiatives such as the Circular Plastics Alliance have been launched worldwide to align different market players and support plastic's recycling goals. At the same time, brand-owners across different industries (including H&M, Unilever, Adidas, Danone, etc.) and other stakeholders of the value chain (e.g., petrochemical industries, polymer manufacturers, etc.) have been committing to ambitious objectives such as improving the recyclability of their products or increasing recycled content within their products' portfolio.

Today, the great majority of recycling activities are carried out using mechanical recycling solutions. These technologies have successfully been deployed on a commercial scale within a multitude of countries and are well adapted to resins such as PET, PE, and PVC. Yet, for the time being, recycling rates remain low due to the existence of numerous barriers (e.g., technological brake, consumer behavior, illegal markets, etc.). Common issues notably include the fact that customers are often unaware of how to properly sort plastic waste, the fact that complex product design (e.g., multilateral packaging) can make sorting and recycling challenging, as well as the fact that some plastics can be dumped into the environment during their lifecycle (notably after the use phase of the product). According to the OECD, on a global level, only 9% of the waste plastics produced in 2019 was recycled<fnref n="3" />. Within the European Union<fnref n="4" />, 29.5 Mt of plastics were collected in 2020 compared to a yearly demand of 49.1 Mt. Out of the collected plastics, approximately 23.4% were landfilled and 42% incinerated for energy recovery purposes. Only 34.6% of collected plastic waste was sent to recycling (34.4% being mechanically recycled)<fnref n="5" />.

<footnote n="1">¹ https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² https://www.statista.com/statistics/664906/plastics-production-volume-forecast-worldwide/#:~:text=It%20is%20projected%20that%20the%20global%20production%20of,of%20more%20than%2030%20percent%20compared%20with%202025.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/de747aef-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/de747aef-en</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ 27 members + Norway, Switzerland, and the UK</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AF-Plastics-the-facts-2021_250122.pdf</footnote>
Low mechanical recycling rates and limited recyclates' quality have been driving interest in the development of innovative recycling technologies. It is in this context that chemical and physico-chemical solutions have been gaining increasing popularity as they could allow to process hard-to-recycle plastic waste and produce high quality recycled plastics. While these technologies have been researched and tested for a longtime, the market situation was never favorable enough for them to be widely deployed at an industrial scale. Today's plastics crisis is providing the objectives, means, and financial stability to leverage the development of these recycling solutions. Yet, despite the growth that has been experienced by the chemical and physico-chemical recycling sector over the past couple of years, there is still an ongoing questioning on the actual recycling capabilities of these technologies, their maturity level, environmental impact, economic viability, and regulatory constraints.

The purpose of the study is to provide an objective depiction of existing chemical and physico-chemical recycling solutions (plastic-to-plastic applications) based on available information as of the date of this executive summary. The report presents detailed information on the opportunities and limits of these technologies, their economic and environmental performances, their perspectives of development as well as the current regulatory context (in the USA, EU, and Japan). This work was built upon RECORD's previous publication on the subject "Chemical recycling of plastic waste: context and perspectives. State of the art and expert's opinion" (2015).

## 2) Objectives of the study

As previously mentioned, the projects aims at understanding the different existing technologies for the chemical and physico-chemical recycling of plastic waste. These promising technologies could notably allow to process hard-to-recycle plastic waste and produce new food-grade plastics.

However, little information is currently available to compare these processes with each other and to assess their performance in economic or environmental terms. The uncertainties associated with these new technologies are also high given their early stage of development (often at pilot/demonstration stage). The purpose of this study is therefore to draw up an objective state of play of the various chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies via:

* a literature review: this step will allow to have a global overview of the development of such processes, their main advantages, and barriers to overcome to reach commercial scale.

* an expert consultation: this second step will allow to clarify some pending points, notably environmental and economic performance of these processes which is often not disclosed in detail by the technology providers. Technical, regulatory, environmental, and economic aspects of the processes will be discussed with an international panel of experts.

This work was built upon RECORD's previous publication on the subject "Chemical recycling of plastic waste: context and perspectives. State of the art and expert's opinion" (2015)<fnref n="6" />.

Please note that the intent of the authors is to provide an overview of these technologies as objective as possible based on available information as of the date of this report. The authors have strived to develop a comprehensive understanding of these technologies and disclose in a transparent manner the limits of the different sources of information (in terms of quantity and quality) through the present document. However, the plastic recycling sector is a fast-moving field, which entails refining the messages presented based on current and future work progress around recycling technologies. In this context, this report, and associated documents (e.g., extended abstract) should be considered as indicative.

The authors are not responsible for recommending which solution is best to adopt or contributing to decision-making with regard to the definition of a specific strategy. The sector/industry players shall meet and make their own decision.

<footnote n="6">⁶ Original title: Recyclage chimique des déchets plastiques : situation et perspectives. Etat de l'art et avis d'experts.</footnote>
### 3) Scope of the study

**Technological scope:** The study focuses on chemical and physico-chemical recycling which refers to several processes. The studied technologies are the following:

* Dissolution

* Chemical treatment

* Thermal treatment

The steps related to the purification and extraction of the monomers (for depolymerization technologies) are also considered.

The scope of the present study is "plastic to plastic". Thus, the processes focused on "waste to fuel" are not taken into account.

**Geographical scope:** The development of the recycling processes worldwide will be studied. However, the study will present the regulatory context in the US, Europe, and Japan due to strong activity of the chemical and physico-chemical recycling sector in these geographical areas.

### 4) Methodology

The study will be conducted via 3 tasks:

* Task 1: literature review on chemical and physico-chemical processes and development of a list of points to be further discussed with experts

* Task 2: selection of the panel of experts, organization, and facilitation of several working sessions (technology and scaling up, current and future regulatory context, environmental performance of recycling processes, economic performance of recycling processes and perspectives for the development of the studied recycling technologies by 2030).

* Task 3: consolidation of the key learnings from Tasks 1&2 in the present report.

### 5) Panel of experts

<table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>Surname</td><td>Organization</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ABRAHAM</td><td>Fabrice</td><td>Renault</td></tr><tr><td>CHANOINE</td><td>Augustin</td><td>Deloitte</td></tr><tr><td>COOKSON</td><td>Craig</td><td>The American Chemistry Council (ACC)</td></tr><tr><td>DEVER</td><td>Cédric</td><td>L'Oréal</td></tr><tr><td>DE KORT</td><td>Patrick</td><td>Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)</td></tr><tr><td>DI GREGORIO</td><td>Fabrizio</td><td>Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)</td></tr><tr><td>DRAPEAU</td><td>Pierrick</td><td>Deloitte</td></tr><tr><td>DUBOIS</td><td>Jean-Luc</td><td>ARKEMA</td></tr><tr><td>DURAND</td><td>Christophe</td><td>Michelin</td></tr><tr><td>IMHOF</td><td>Pieter</td><td>TNO</td></tr><tr><td>KJELL</td><td>Theresa</td><td>ChemSec</td></tr><tr><td>KLEIMARK</td><td>Jonatan</td><td>ChemSec</td></tr><tr><td>MUHURI</td><td>Prapti</td><td>The American Chemistry Council (ACC)</td></tr><tr><td>NOUGIER</td><td>Sandrine</td><td>Ministère de la Transition écologique</td></tr><tr><td>PARENTY</td><td>Arnaud</td><td>Lille University</td></tr><tr><td>POOL</td><td>Henk</td><td>Cefic</td></tr><tr><td>SEEBOTH</td><td>Nicolas</td><td>Michelin</td></tr><tr><td>TAVEAU</td><td>Mathilde</td><td>Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)</td></tr><tr><td>TERAS</td><td>Outi</td><td>Neste</td></tr><tr><td>VAHK</td><td>Janek</td><td>Zero Waste Europe</td></tr><tr><td>WAIBEL</td><td>Chaim</td><td>Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)</td></tr></tbody></table>
### III. Introduction

#### 1) Studied processes

Due to the variety of existing processes, it has been decided to classify and describe them by technology category. The considered technologies categories are the following:

* Chemical treatment (solvolysis):

* Glycolysis

* Methanolysis

* Aminolysis

* Hydrolysis

* Enzymatic depolymerization: due to the growing interest of the market and development of these technologies (notably the Carbios process), it has been decided to make a focus on this process, which is classified within the "hydrolysis" category.

* Dissolution

* Thermal treatment

* Non catalytic pyrolysis

* Catalytic pyrolysis

* Hydrocracking

* Hydrothermal cracking

* Gasification

* Downstream steps: example of vapocracking (steam cracking)

**Notes**

* A selection of the main technologies under development is presented in this report. Please note the list of studied technologies is not exhaustive. As an example, ammonolysis is not included.

* The processes will be presented by category in this report. However, it should be kept in mind that each technology developer has its own characteristic features (e.g., specific process, conditions, catalyst, etc.). This is why, a focus on some start-up companies will be presented when relevant.

* Due to the low development of aminolysis technologies on the market, this category is only briefly presented in this report.

* Please note the Technology Readiness Levels mentioned in this document are only indicative.

* In general, the technology developers' objective is the treatment of plastic waste that is currently not mechanically recycled and sent to landfill or incineration. In most cases, the considered chemical and physico-chemical recycling processes and mechanical recycling could be considered as complementary as they usually do not target the same feedstocks and do not allow to produce the same quality of output. However, as the processes are under development, technology developers test different feedstocks to assess the flexibility of their technology, including some waste streams that are usually treated via mechanical recycling (e.g., colored PET bottles). This point is specified in the report when necessary.

A classification of the chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies of plastic waste is presented below. Please note there is currently no consensus regarding the classification of chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies. As an example, the last report of Closed Loop Partners consider that molecular recycling excludes pyrolysis<fnref n="7" />.

<footnote n="7">⁷ Assessing Molecular Recycling Technologies in the United States and Canada - Closed Loop Partners</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Studied recycling technologies (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Chemical treatment technologies (RECORD, 2022)<fnref n="8" /></figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Contrary to other technology developers, CuRe technology is not depolymerizing completely the polymer but is using a partial depolymerization, going back to smaller polymer chains. The output is afterwards purified and directly repolymerized to obtain recycled PET.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Dissolution technologies (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Note:

* Downstream steps are required after the recycling process to turn hydrocarbon mix, monomers, or syngas back into plastics. As an example, pyrolysis oils could undergo a refining step and then be reinjected into a steam cracking process.

* Only a selection of technologies is presented in this diagram.

<caption>Figure 4: Thermal treatment technologies categories (RECORD, 2022)</caption>

## 2) Challenges by polymer type

The present report is structured around main chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies. However, it has to be taken into account the challenges at collection, sorting and recycling steps can significantly vary from one polymer to another, especially between commodity polymers and specialty polymers (please see some examples in the Table 1 below). Commodity polymers are plastics produced in high volumes for applications where highly specific material properties are not needed (such as PET, PP, PE...). On the contrary, specialty polymers are advanced materials designed to answer a specific
need in terms of mechanical, thermal, and chemical properties (such as PMMA, PPA, PPS, HPP...). In reading the report, it is thus key to keep this point in mind.

<table><caption>Table 1: Examples of challenges faced by specialty and commodity polymers (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Waste collection</th><th>Sorting/ pre-treatment</th><th>Recycling process</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Specialty polymers</th><td><ul><li>Accessing a feedstock in sufficient quantity might be challenging due to the geographical dissemination of this resource.</li><li>In order to increase the feedstock volumes, there could be long-distance transport to reach the recycling plant.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Pretreatments steps should be more thorough as the expected properties of such materials are higher than for other plastics. Indeed, these polymers are required to meet desirable mechanical, thermal, and chemical properties when subjected to harsh environments.</li><li>Chemical and physico-chemical recycling processes should be more efficient while treating lower volumes. It may therefore be necessary to put an intermediate plant which will additionally sort sorting refusals containing specialty plastics.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Significant gains in terms of GHG emission reduction can be achieved compared to their virgin counterpart, as their virgin materials manufacturing processes are more energy intensive.</li><li>Buyers of specialty polymers use these materials because their properties are superior to those of other plastics. In some cases, such high purity is not achievable through recycling processes or requires high energy consumption.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><th>Commodity polymers</th><td><ul><li>Accessing enough feedstock is challenging due to different factors such as purity levels (the resin can be assembled with other compounds) or concentration in the polymer of interest (that is to say the available quantity of polymer in the waste collected).</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Pretreatments steps will mainly consist in sorting and purification of the feedstock to obtain the required concentration in the polymers of interest.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>It can be challenging to show positive environmental results as energy consumption and CO2 emissions remain lower than for specialty polymers during manufacturing of virgin fossil-based resins. The overall difference from the same recycling process between the recycled material and the virgin one can thus be lower for commodity polymers.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3) Bibliography

As previously mentioned, a literature review on chemical and physico-chemical processes has been conducted during Phase 1 of the project. Numerous public documents have been analyzed such as press releases on the website of the technology developers, scientific publications, reports (from CE Delft, BASF, Zero Waste for example), position papers, regulatory documents, etc. Some information shared by the RECORD members was also included in this report.

Please note that the latest news of the technology developers (e.g., announcement of future plants, new partnerships, etc.) have been included in the report early 2022.

Based on this literature review, the following points could be highlighted:

* The general principle of chemical and physico-chemical recycling is significantly described by the literature as well as the basics of the main technologies (e.g., solvolysis, dissolution, pyrolysis). However, most reports underline a lack of data on the environmental and economic performances of these technologies but also on the pretreatment of feedstock required before entering the processes.

* With regards to documents focused on the environmental impact of the chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies, two approaches are in general considered. Either chemical and physico-chemical recycling processes are compared with other end-of-life processes (e.g., incineration, landfilling) or they are compared with traditional production processes. These
approaches “cradle-to-grave” and “cradle-to-gate” are both relevant and depend on the considered scope of the study. It can be noted that solvolysis is assessed against incineration in some cases, while the production of polymers from pyrolysis oil is assessed against the traditional production of fossil-based polymers.

* The technology developers' websites are notably used for commercial communication purpose. It has to be reminded that many brands and petrochemical industries enter into a collaboration with technology developers to accelerate the scaling-up of their process. Thus, there is a strong competition between the start-ups. This is why, optimistic claims are made by the latter regarding the flexibility of the technology, the type of feedstock used, the deadline and capacities of future plants, the purity of the produced material, etc. However, they do not necessarily detail some specific points such as the calculation of yield, the methodology used behind the life-cycle analysis (LCA) figures presented on the website, the economic data, etc. Thus, this data should be considered carefully. In general, the information related to environmental and economic performances of the recycling processes are confidential and can only be discussed under non-disclosure agreement. This is also the case for the specific features of each process (e.g., type of catalyst used).

* No public and robust study on the economic performance of the main chemical and physico-chemical recycling processes (solvolysis, dissolution, pyrolysis) has been identified so far.

* The studied geographical areas do not address chemical and physico-chemical recycling in the same way when it comes to regulation. A lack of clarity can be highlighted on chemical and physico-chemical recycling and on the implementation of a mass balance approach in regulatory documents.

This is why, working sessions with experts will be conducted to better understand these topics and try to remove some of the limitations mentioned above.

#### 4) Data availability and reliability

As previously mentioned, the information consolidated in this report is based on a public literature review (notably scientific articles, website of technology providers, reports of trade associations, etc.), information shared by the RECORD members and expert consultation.

The figure below presents the level of data currently available depending on the technology studied. It can be highlighted that plastic waste recycling through thermal treatment (notably pyrolysis) and alcoholysis is extensively studied in the literature.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Public data available per technology (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

It has to be noted that there is a lack of public data available on:

* the economic performance of the studied processes. The presented information on this point is currently limited and cannot be verified.

* the environmental performance of the considered processes (notably LCA or LCA-like studies). The table below displays the information on the environmental performance of the processes currently available. As an example, glycolysis is extensively studied. Environmental
performance data is available on this technology. In addition, information is available on the comparison of the environmental performance of glycolysis with virgin resin production, incineration, and mechanical recycling.

Note: Numerous studies compare the environmental performances of chemical and physico-chemical recycling with mechanical recycling. It has to be highlighted that these processes could be considered as complementary. As they usually do not target the same feedstock and do not allow to produce the same quality of output, comparing chemical and physico-chemical recycling to mechanical recycling may not always be relevant.

However, comparison may still be considered as useful if, for example, it is meant to justify the interest in continuing to develop these two technologies in a complementary manner. Please note this point has been discussed with experts and is further detailed in the section dedicated to the synthesis of experts' opinion.

<table><caption>Table 2 : Availability of LCA data and sources (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Considered recycling process</th><th rowspan="2">Availability of LCA data on the considered recycling process and sources</th><th colspan="4">Availability of LCA data on the comparison of the considered recycling process and virgin resin production or other end-of-life processes and sources</th></tr><tr><th>Virgin resin production</th><th>Incineration</th><th>Landfill</th><th>Mechanical recycling</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Glycolysis</td><td>Private institution, academics, technology developers</td><td>Private institution, academics</td><td>Private institution, Academics</td><td>Technology developer</td><td>Private institution, Academics</td></tr><tr><td>Methanolysis</td><td>Academics, technology developers</td><td>Academics</td><td></td><td></td><td>Academics</td></tr><tr><td>Aminolysis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hydrolysis</td><td>Technology developers</td><td>Technology developer, PlasticsEurope</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Enzymatic depolymerization</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dissolution</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non catalytic pyrolysis</td><td>Technology developer</td><td>Technology developer</td><td>Technology developer</td><td></td><td>Technology developer</td></tr><tr><td>Catalytic pyrolysis</td><td>Technology developer</td><td>Technology developer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vapocracking (steam cracking)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hydrocracking</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hydrothermal cracking</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gasification</td><td>Private institutions</td><td></td><td>Private institutions</td><td></td><td>Private institutions</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data available

Data not public – only the difference with an alternative (e.g., virgin polymer production, incineration) is disclosed

Data unavailable
In terms of data reliability, the following points can be highlighted:

* Process:

* Yields are highly dependent on the feedstock and thus can actually be lower than theoretical or announced yield depending on the facility.

* Numerous technology providers claim that no presorting/pretreatment of the feedstock is necessary before entering the process. Although this information cannot be confirmed, it is likely that such a step may be needed in practice.

* Environmental performance: the methodology and scope of the LCA results are often not communicated by the technology developers. Although this information is presented in the report on an indicative basis, the information cannot be verified and has to be considered carefully. Moreover, some LCA results were published before the publication of the delegated act on taxonomy which sets a methodological framework for chemical and physico-chemical recycling LCA. Some studies thus might not respect this framework.

* Economic performance: Qualitative information is often disclosed by the technology developers. The latter are confident their recycled material will be cost-competitive with the traditional petro-based material (with an "acceptable" premium in some cases). Again, this information cannot be verified.

In general, the technology developers are ambitious when communicating on process yield, future capacities, environmental and economic performance of the technology, etc. Please note that the information from the technology developers presented in this report are indicative and has to be considered carefully as it cannot be confirmed.
#### IV. Sorting and pretreatment steps

Note: for the purpose of this study, the term pretreatment refers to all intermediary processes (advanced sorting and separation, size reduction, stream preparation) that plastic waste may undergo before entering the recycling process. It has to be noted that limited information on the pretreatment of feedstock is publicly available.

Appropriate sorting of waste is necessary to supply both mechanical and chemical and physico-chemical recyclers with the input streams that are most suitable to their recycling operations. Collected plastic waste features contaminants, additives, multi-layered or mixed materials, which represent an obstacle to the recycling process. Continuous improvement of sorting technologies is necessary to tackle feedstock-related challenges that are encountered in recycling process<fnref n="9" />. Even after sorting, pretreatment of feedstock may still be needed before entering the recycling process to ensure the input requirements of the technology developers are met.

##### 1) Separation of plastic waste in sorting centers

Waste sorting and separation is one of the most conventional steps of the recycling supply chain. After the collection phase, waste streams usually contain a variety of plastics products (rigid/flexible, different types of polymer, plastic mixed with another material, etc.), non-plastic materials (wood, paper, metals), as well as additives (e.g., brominated flame retardants, plasticizers, dyes) that could potentially contaminate recycling streams (1). Separating waste consists of removing non-plastic materials and dividing different types of plastics in diverse bales in a sorting center based on the rigidity/flexibility of the product, type of polymer, etc.

Sorting processes can be manual, automatic, or combined. A combination of automated separation is used in sorting centers to extract smaller unwanted components and divide plastics by polymer type (2). Numerous current separation processes also begin or end with a phase of manual separation (or control) carried out by operators removing unwanted materials<fnref n="10" />. Sorting centers are usually responsible for the primary sorting and separation of waste. Following this phase, sorted waste bales are handed over to mechanical recyclers.

As of today, the feedstock used by several chemical and physico-chemical recycling technologies generally consists of waste that is rejected by sorting centers (i.e., refuse stream) and that would alternatively be incinerated or landfilled. The composition of the sorted streams largely depends on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme within a country (if any) and the ongoing or future projects.

In 2019, the packaging PRO CITEO and the stakeholders of the packaging industry created a plastic packaging waste “development stream” in France. Under this new scheme, plastic packaging waste that used to be excluded from dedicated plastic collection is now disposed of within the separated plastics’ bin. This waste includes colored PET (notably bottles), opaque PET (e.g., milk bottles), PET trays (e.g., for pastry, fruits and vegetables, meats), PS pots and trays (e.g., yoghurt pots)<fnref n="11" />. Once plastic packaging waste has been collected, it is sent to sorting centers. During a first sorting phase, material sorting centers divide plastics and create bales composed of colored and opaque PET, PET trays, PS pots and trays. These bales are then sent to plastics sorting centers which further separate plastics and redirect

<footnote n="9">⁹ https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/focus-areas/circular-economy/zero-plastics-landfill/waste-collection-pre-treatment-and-sorting</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Please note that organizational diagrams of sorting centers (number and nature of the sorted streams) can be different from one country to another (and even from one sorting center to another at the national level).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ It should be noted that colored PET bottles were already recycled before the new scheme, which creates a specific stream for this waste. Moreover, part of opaque PET bottles and mono-PET trays have been missed in PET bales during sorting and sent to mechanical recycling for several years.</footnote>
them to the appropriate recycling channels. The channels include both recyclers using well-developed and under development technologies (such as chemical recyclers). The "development stream" was created to simplify waste sorting for end-consumers, to ensure high quality sorted plastic stream, and to support R&D for new solutions for hard to recycle waste<fnref n="12" />.

This is an example of how the future evolution of waste composition and the nature of streams sorted by sorting centers should thus be taken into account to identify the feedstocks that could be used by chemical recyclers<fnref n="13" />. In addition, the design of products put on the market by brands is also changing with a shift towards monomaterial packaging. The evolution of the regulations will also have an impact on waste composition.

## 2) Pre-treatment of plastic waste before entering the recycling process

### a. Feedstock pre-sorting before entering the chemical and physico-chemical recycling process

The sorting and separation phase in a sorting center is crucial to efficiently separate streams of valuable plastic waste, prevent the contamination of recycling streams, and subsequently to ensure high quality recyclates. The majority of technology developers do not officially disclose whether their recycling process requires prior sorting of the feedstock. Although able to process waste that is not suitable to be mechanically recycled, pretreatment of feedstock may be still required to remove unwanted components (e.g., plastics such as PVC) and other materials which can contaminate recycling streams, damage machinery, or deactivate catalysts (3). Hence, chemical and physico-chemical recyclers are likely to pre-treat plastic waste through a series of sorting, grinding, washing steps, etc...

A limited number of developers (Polyloop, PolyStyreneLoop, CreaCycle, etc.) explicitly mention that their process requires prior separation of feedstock, without however providing additional information concerning the type of sorting technologies they use, whether they sort waste within their facilities or if advanced sorting is carried out by an external business partner.

APK AG (dissolution of mixed plastics waste) is among the few developers that discloses information concerning its sorting process. This developer relies on the use of air-screening to sort its waste. Air-screening is a type of automatic dry sorting technology which is capable of dividing light material fractions (film particles, fibers, corks, etc.) from heavy ones (hard plastics and heavy impurities). Following this first separation phase, the collected heavy fraction is processed through densitometric separation (no further explanation available). That way, waste is further divided by plastic type.

In 2020, the technology developer Agilyx (non-catalytic thermal treatment of PS) created the joint venture Cyclyx International, which is focused on the development of a proprietary sorting process in partnership with ExxonMobil. Cyclyx (name of the venture and of the technology), aims at innovating the field of feedstock management to increase both mechanical and chemical and physico-chemical recycling rates. The technology can be used to process plastic waste into customized valuable feedstocks that meet recyclers' specifications. According to Cyclyx's claims, the technology will be able to increase recycling rates from 10% to 90% by sorting up to 300 kt/y by 2025, and 3000 kt/y by 2030¹⁴. In 2021, other companies joined Cyclyx as founding members, these include LyondellBasell, Chevron Phillips Chemical, INEOS Styrolution, AmSty, North American Plastics, Braskem, Sonoco Recycling, Casella Waste Systems, MilliporeSigma, Reynolds Consumer Products, and Corning. At the end of the same year, Exxon Mobil announced and began engineering works for the construction of the first large-scale Cyclyx plant on the Gulf Coast, in the USA. The facility, which will be completed by the end of

<footnote n="12">¹² https://www.citeo.com/interview-dun-expert/le-flux-developpement-accelerateur-de-rd-pour-le-recyclage-des-emballages</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Please note that all of these factors may evolve over time and that they significantly differ from one country to another. The composition of waste that is available to chemical and physico-chemical recyclers may therefore be subject to future evolutions as well.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2020/12/11/10585303/agilyx-exxonmobil-form-cyclyx-plastic-recycling-jv</footnote>
2022, will support ongoing advanced chemical and physico-chemical recycling projects that Exxon Mobil is carrying out around the same geographic location.

Additional information was also found on ITERO, JEPLAN, Pyrowave, and Carboliq. It is known that a sorting step is required to ensure that polymer types in the feedstock are suitable for ITERO's technology (non-catalytic thermal treatment of mixed plastic waste). JEPLAN (glycolysis of PET) necessitates to sort waste by material and mixing ration, extract polyester from clothes, while also removing components such as buttons, blended materials, and zippers. Pyrowave uses a "mixture" (composition not specified) that is able to remove labels, films, as well as other contaminants and impurities. Carboliq (catalytic thermal treatment of mixed plastics waste) requires a step of feedstock separation and homogenization to ensure that the size of materials does not exceed a pre-determined size (40 mm for 2D waste, 5 mm for 3D), that humidity does not exceed 18%, and that waste streams are free of metals, stones, glass, ceramics, and porcelain. No details were found on the type of sorting technologies used by these developers, nor on whether they carry out these processes within their facilities, neither if a third-party is in charge of these steps. As for Plastics Energy, it is known that the developer receives waste from municipal recovery facilities and recycling factories. After receiving the waste, the developer uses pre-treatment technologies (names not indicated) to remove unwanted materials (metals, heavier plastics, etc.) and to separate only the plastics that they process (PE, PS, PP).

As a final remark, it is relevant to point out that several recyclers do not provide information on sorting steps that might be required prior to recycling (such as PureCycle Technologies – PP). Quantafuel (catalytic thermal treatment - PE, PP, PS) claims that its process does not require costly separation and cleaning due to the technology's ability to treat impurities, mixed, and colored plastics. It is however known that in July 2021 the company purchased a site in Esbjerg, Netherlands, where it plans to build one of the largest waste sorting centers in Europe (project's timeline unknown)<fnref n="15" />. It is also known that the Quantafuel invested in a plastic pre-treatment line in Aalborg to sort feedstock for one of its plants. No further details were found on these subjects. Other developers operating via dissolution (such as Polystyvert) claim that the phase of separation of feedstock and removal of contaminants (labels, films, impurities) is already included within their recycling process (additional information publicly unavailable).

## b. Focus on other pre-treatment steps

The phase of size reduction consists in either cutting or shredding waste. This step can take place both before or after the sorting and separation phase. Of the reviewed technology developers, information was found on Polyloop, Pyrowave, APK AG and Enerkem reducing the size of their waste. It is known that Polyloop crushes its waste, while Pyrowave, APK AG, and Enerkem shred it. Pyrowave shreds waste so that its size does not exceed 5 cm. As for ITERO and Carboliq, it is known that these developers require their input to respect specific size measurements, it is however unknown whether this implies that the developers reduce the size of its feedstock within their own facilities.

In addition to sorting and shredding, other types of pre-treatment steps could include washing, drying, cleaning, and delamination.

Even after sorting and separation, plastic waste may contain a variety of substances (e.g., contaminants, odors, inks, additives, etc.) that could make recycling processes more challenging by affecting the yield and quality of the output. Literature available on this topic is extensive when it comes to mechanical recycling, yet very limited in reference to chemical and physico-chemical recycling. Hence, although chemical and physico-chemical recycling is thought-out to tolerate a higher degree of impurities compared to mechanical recycling, it remains uncertain whether pre-treatment operations targeted at the removal of such substances are required by technology developers. Of the reviewed technologies, only CuRe (solvolysis of PET), and APG AK respectively mentioned a phase of washing and cleaning of feedstock, without however providing any further details on these processes. Polyloop claims that pre-cleaning processes may be required based on the type of feedstock (no additional information available).

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/quantafuel-asa/pressreleases/quantafuel-purchases-a-site-for-its-esbjerg-plant-3115703</footnote>
The subject of stream preparation for chemical and physico-chemical recycling is further complexified
by the fact that this process is often presented as a solution for plastics that are too contaminated to
undergo mechanical recycling. Developers such as CuRe, Polystyvert, Pryme and CreaCycle, state that
the removal of contaminants as inks, odors, and other substances (such as flame retardants or chlorine)
are included within the recycling process. This topic raises questions on the maximum levels and nature
of contamination that can be handled by each technology developer and on the subsequent need for
complementary stream preparation. In general, technology developers conduct some tests with different
types of feedstocks to assess the flexibility of their process, determine feedstocks requirements
(including the maximum level of contamination) and the necessary purification steps to be conducted to
reach the required output quality.

Similarly, the ECHA believes there is a lack of evidence for what it concerns the fate of legacy
substances contained in chemically recycled plastics. Missing proof on whether chemical and physico-
chemical recycling technologies can target the presence of substances of concern increases the
importance and the need for developing screening and sorting technologies<fnref n="16" />.

Evidence on the subject is limited and too narrow to reach general conclusions on the topic of stream
preparation techniques required by chemical and physico-chemical recyclers.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/1459379/chem_recycling_final_report_en.pdf/887c4182-8327-e197-0bc4-17a5d608de6e?t=1636701265520</footnote>
# V. Chemical treatment – solvolysis

## 1) Glycolysis

### a. Technology

**Input**

This recycling technology is generally used on polymers from polycondensation (such as polyesters or polyamides)<fnref n="17" /> as their bonds can be degraded by alcohols reagents (4). Polyesters (such as PET, PBT, PTMP) are the most easily recyclable through glycolysis due to their ester group that can be easily cut by glycols (5).

* **PET feedstock:** The most advanced technologies currently are focusing on PET. The feedstocks targeted are usually PET streams that cannot be mechanically recycled, such as opaque PET<fnref n="18" /> (Ioniqa Technologies, IBM), polyester fibers (JEPLAN, Poseidon, Ioniqa Technologies, Eastman, PerPETual), films (PerPETual), trays (SOPREMA), multilayered PET (Garbo), and other complex packaging (SOPREMA). For post-consumer streams, presorting is necessary to ensure the quality of the output product. This is confirmed by some developers, such as CuRe who assert that sorting, washing and preparation of the feedstock is needed before it can enter the process<fnref n="19" />. JEPLAN is adding the precision that, when the feedstock is composed of textile and clothes, polyester extraction is necessary (which consists in removing buttons, blended materials, zipper...)<fnref n="20" />. However, IBM Technology claims that no additional sorting is necessary²¹. This information cannot be confirmed. In practice, such a step may be needed as PET can contain impurities (such as colors, glues, and other contaminants).

* **Polyamide feedstock:** Some technologies are being developed to treat polyamides through glycolysis (4). These technologies are still at an early stage of development and very few companies are mature on an industrial level (4). Indeed, based on the list of technology developers studied, only JEPLAN is at a commercial scale. Polyamide waste streams are smaller and more dispersed than PET streams, which makes feedstock access more challenging. The main issue of mechanical recycling for polyamides is that waste feedstock comes in a blend of polyamide 6 (PA6) and polyamide 6 (PA6.6), which have different properties. It is however important that recycled materials have well-defined and repetitive properties, even after multiple processes. For now, there is no evidence that chemical recycling can treat a mixture of these two compounds. Presorting is thus necessary to ensure that glycolysis treats separately PA6 and PA6.6. Competition with mechanical recycling is consequently high (6).

* **Polyurethane feedstock:** Technologies such as RAMPF Eco, H&S anlagentechnik or Emery Oleochemicals target polyurethane foam scrap, post consumption waste from mattresses or industrial waste. The waste stream contains very diverse materials (flexible, rigid, semi-rigid, elastomers) and is thus challenging to treat without presorting. This implies supplementary costs.

These technologies require significant preprocessing to ensure the advanced sorting of the feedstock. This can be achieved either by locating next to a partner that supplies the feedstock or initiating strategic partnerships such as Biffa's agreement with Poseidon Plastics, Dupont Teijin Films, Alpek, GRN and

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Polycondensation is a polymerization reaction during which two monomers are forming a bond and losing smaller molecules in the process such as water or methanol.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ In France, clear colored PET can be mechanically recycled. Historically opaque opaque PET bottles have been mixed with colored PET and mechanically recycled. There are now ongoing developments on the mechanical recycling of opaque PET as a specific stream. Outside of France, the mechanical recycling of opaque PET is developing but is still at a very early stage.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ https://curepolyester.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ https://www.jeplan.co.jp/en/products/</footnote>
O'Neill, in which Biffa will separate out the difficult to recycle PET plastics, such as colored PET and trays, and supply this as feedstock for Poseidon Plastics' plant<fnref n="22" />.

## Process

These technologies use an alcohol as a solvent to degrade the bounds and thus go back to smaller molecules (monomers, dimers, or oligomers). This alcohol is usually ethylene glycol (or, in rare cases, a diol).

These processes require heat. The quantity of heat is highly dependent on the process and the feedstock chosen. Challenging feedstocks, such as multilayered PET, are usually more heat-intensive (4). Usually, glycolysis processes occur at more than 200°C (4).

In the case of PET, IBM technology (also known as Volcat) confirms this temperature as they have made publicly available the information that the process temperature is higher than 200°C<fnref n="23" />.

The required heat is also very dependent on the process chosen and the presence of catalysts for instance. For instance, PerPETual states that, to minimize undesirable side effects of the traditional much higher temperature depolymerization process, they used a materially lower temperature process.

They estimated 75% energy savings when comparing their technology to conventional virgin PET manufacturing<fnref n="24" />. However, this temperature range is not publicly known.

In general, complete conversion of the polymer is achieved for times often exceeding 5 hours. Metal-based catalysts are often required to significantly increase the reaction rate (4).

SOPREMA's recycling process (Sopraloop) consists of a unique combination of mechanical and chemical recycling. First, plastics are shred and cleaned. Then, the obtained flakes are processed through glycolysis<fnref n="25" />. Then, the product is repolymerized and converted into polyols.

The temperature range is quite similar for polyamides as a study found the temperature of 275°C to be efficient on PA6.6 (7). Another study refers to glycolysis of PA6.6 at 190°C and atmospheric pressure (8). As for PA6, a study found that the reaction lasted 3 hours at 250°C (9).

JEPLAN discloses a depolymerization yield of 98% for its process (10) and Ioniqa Technologies claims a depolymerization yield of 93% (14). Yields are not disclosed by the majority of the other technology developers, but IFPEN/Axens is stating that the yield obtained ensures the technical and economic viability of the process<fnref n="26" />. However, it is likely that these yields do not include the purification yield.

As Emery Oleochemicals underlines, the yield is also dependent on the application. The purest a material needs to be, the lowest the yield will be due to additional purification steps. Indeed, foam production can have high yield loss in case the grade needed for the material is high<fnref n="27" />.

## Output and downstream steps

When recycling PET, the output obtained by a total glycolysis gives out BHET (Bis(2-Hydroxyethyl) terephthalate) as chemical intermediate.

Contrary to other technology developers, CuRe technology is not depolymerizing completely the polymer but is using a partial depolymerization, going back to smaller polymer chains. The output is afterwards purified and directly repolymerized to obtain recycled PET. There is thus no need of a downstream partner to repolymerize the product<fnref n="28" />.

<footnote n="22">²² https://packagingeurope.com/biffa-backs-project-to-recycle-previously-non-recyclable-plastic/</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ibm-chemists-have-found-faster-way-recycle-plastics-even-stuff-coated-residue</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ https://www.perpetual-global.com/about/#story</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ https://www.citeo.com/le-mag/sopraloop-une-usine-la-pointe-du-recyclage-des-emballages-en-pet/</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ https://www.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/innovation-et-industrie/nos-expertises/climat-et-environnement/recyclage-des-plastiques/nos-solutions</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ https://www.emeryoleo.com/sites/default/files/2019-11/Emery-INFIGREEN-Recycled-Content-Polyols-Overview.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ https://curepolyester.com/</footnote>
As for the French company SOPREMA, the monomers obtained from complex PET waste are then repolymerized as polyols which are used in the production of polyurethane insulating foams for the construction sector<fnref n="29" />.

Regarding polyurethane, its glycolysis produces mixes of polyols.

The products of the glycolysis of polyamides are oligomers or small-molecular-weight chemical compounds with different physico-chemical properties and functionality. The aim of polyamide depolymerization is to obtain caprolactam and hexamethylenediamine, which can be utilized in the synthesis of new polyamide 6 or PA6.6 respectively (8).

A study was conducted on PA6.6 recycling through glycolysis, which gave out hexamethylenediamine, esters and another primary amine (7). Hexamethylenediamine can afterwards be used to reproduce PA6.6 via step growth reactions<fnref n="30" />. However, adipic acid is lost during the reaction and must be added to complete the repolymerization.

In most cases (including clear PET flake streams), purification steps are needed to remove residual colorants and contaminants. These steps are often done by the technology developer (such as CuRe, Garbo or Poseidon Plastics, PerPETual). The purity of the product obtained can be very close to the virgin resin. For instance, Poseidon Plastics' technology has been verified by independent corporate partners that have successfully validated the quality of the recycled product through the manufacturing of polyester with recycled content between 25 – 100%<fnref n="31" />. However, there is no further information on the type of finished product this polyester is intended for. Indeed, the quality requirements are different if the end product is supposed to be food grade or not for example.

The DuPont Teijin Film process upcycles mechanically recycled material. This means that the depolymerization process occurs exclusively on mechanically clear and clean PET flakes. The recycled material thus does not seem to need further purification steps, due to the high quality of feedstock<fnref n="32" />.

DuPont Teijin Films is repolymerizing BHET into a polyester polymer, which is itself converted into BOPET (biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate) films. Their products MYLAR® and MELINEX®, produced from post-consumer recycled contents, are afterwards commercialized.
PerPETual is also using the output ester to produce polyester yarns for textiles.

## b. Technology scaling-up

### Average Technology Readiness Level

Most of the technology developer studied are between laboratory stage and demonstration stage. Their TRL thus ranges from 3 to 7.

However, technologies such as JEPLAN and PerPETual are currently very advanced (TRL= 8-9) as they are already owning their first industrial capacities<fnref n="33" />.

### Current and future capacities

The technology developers studied are operating plants from a few hundred tons per year to 20kt/year for the most advanced developers.

<footnote n="29">²⁹ https://www.soprema.com/en/article/news/sopraloop-a-process-that-turns-plastic-waste-into-insulation</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Type of reaction mechanism in which monomers are reacting together to form dimers, trimers and gradually longer chain until the polymer attains its final length.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ http://poseidonplastics.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190408/NEWS/190403357/dupont-teijin-films-launches-pet-chemical-recycling-process#:~:text=DuPont%20Teijin%20Films%20has%20launched,for%20use%20in%20various%20 applications.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ https://www.jeplan.co.jp/en/products/</footnote>
Today JEPLAN owns two operational factories: a PET Refine Technology plant with capacity of 22 kton/year (bottle to textile - not specified if input or output) and Kitakyushu Hibikinada Plant demonstration facility with a capacity of 2 ktons/year (input/output not specified) aiming at recycling textile to textile. Both plants use JEPLAN's proprietary technology. In 2018, JEPLAN announced the beginning of a research project for the construction of a textile recycling plant in the Lyon area, while news on the advancement of the plant's construction is unavailable, it is known that the French and Japanese governments agreed to support JEPLAN's business development plans in the area <fnref n="34" /> <fnref n="35" />. In 2019 the developer also disclosed its intention to build recycling facilities across China, Indonesia, and USA. JEPLAN is partnered with the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, Nippon Steel Sumitomo Metals Co. Ltd. (technology partner), Sojitz (acquired a 25% stake in the PET Refine Technology), collection sport partners (e.g. Aeon, SelfService, Aeon Mall, Seven&Iholdings, ah, GrandTree Musashikosugi, Seibu Sogo, Food systems, Tower records, Loft, Starbucks, Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd.) and financing partners (Jafco Co. Ltd., Shijo Ltd., Taiyo Kogyo Co. Ltd, NTT DoCoMo Inc., Kamakura Investment Trust Management Co, Ltd).

Since 2014, IFPEN/Axens has been developing a proprietary glycolysis technology (called Rewind PET) for the recycling of PET colored and opaque bottles. In 2022, IFPEN/Axens signed a collaboration agreement with JEPLAN to develop and commercialize the Rewind PET technology. The two developers are using their respective technical expertise to conduct testing at JEPLAN's demonstration (2 kt/y) plant. The commercialization of the technology is expected by the end of 2022³⁶.

Among more advanced technologies, Ioniqa Technologies operates a 10kt/y plant in the Netherlands (the first batches of PET plastic waste were processed in Summer 2019 - no news on the topic have been released since then). Ioniqa Technologies is a spin-off of the Eindhoven University of Technology. Its partners include Unilever and Indorama Ventures with whom Ioniqa Technologies established the common goal to develop a technology recycling PET for food-grade applications<fnref n="37" />. The developer also received a loan extension from Coca-Cola to speed-up the development of the technology<fnref n="38" />. The developer's long-term plans include an expansion through the deployment of licenses for its PET recycling technology, as well as the development of new solutions for the recycling of PA and PEF. In May 2021, Ioniqa Technologies received a 10 million euros funding (source unknown) which will be used for scaling-up its facilities.

As regards to Poseidon Plastics, they are currently producing 1,000 tons per year of consumable product grade BHET per year. The developer is collaborating with Alpek Polyester UK, Biffa Waste Services, GRN Sportswear, O'Neill Irish International Sports Company and University of York to develop Poseidon's enhanced PET recycling technology. Poseidon Plastics is building its first 10,000 ton/year facility (no deadline for the completion of the construction of this plant is disclosed). They are currently in advanced discussions with a leading German engineering and construction contractor in the PET industry (name not disclosed)<fnref n="39" />. DuPont Teijin Films is a partner in the development of recycling solutions for flexible PET films. Specifically, Dupont Teijin is supporting the developer during the testing and processing phases as well as in relation to existing regulatory aspects and certifications. In February 2021, Poseidon Plastics entered a reverse takeover process with Curzon Energy (a global energy company). The transaction was supposed to be finalized by mid-2021, no additional information has been found on this topic.

CuRe Technology has built its first pilot plant in Emmen, the Netherlands. The pilot plant has a capacity of 20kg/hr. in a continuous process, which is intended to be scaled up to 25 ktons/year. They are as well

<footnote n="34">³⁴ http://www.jeplan.co.jp/uploads/JEPLAN-INC.Research-Project-for-Commercialization-of-Clothing-Recycling-in-Lyon-France.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ https://www.jeplan.co.jp/en/2019/07/22/8286/</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ https://www.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/article/recyclage-du-pet-axens-ifpen-et-jeplan-vont-demontrer-et-commercialiser-procede-innovant</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ https://ioniqa.com/unilever-ioniqa-and-indorama-launching-breakthrough-food-packaging-technology/</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ https://ioniqa.com/the-coca-cola-company-announces-loan-agreement-with-ioniqa/</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ http://poseidonplastics.com/about/</footnote>
constructing a repolymerization line (of a 25 kt/year capacity, which is expected to start at Q1 2021 – no updates as of January 2022)<fnref n="40" />. In September 2020, the Dutch Government decided to grant CuRe Technology a subsidy under the DEI+ program<fnref n="41" /> (amount unknown). In June 2020 the developer had also received a funding from Coca-Cola Europacific Partners (CCEP) Ventures for the scaling-up of their process from pilot to commercial scale<fnref n="42" />. In exchange for the investment, CCEP will receive the majority of the output from the CuRe Technology-licensed plant (no further news published).

Following the expansion of its plant in 2019, PerPETual now owns a commercial plant operational in Nashik, India that processes about 30 kt/year<fnref n="43" />. A further expansion of the plant is scheduled for 2022. PerPETual's goal for 2021 was to recycle over 500 kt/year<fnref n="44" />. According to available news, this goal has not yet been achieved. Brands such as Adidas, Zara, H&M, Decathlon are already integrating the PerPETual recycled yarns within their products.

Garbo has successfully completed its lab-scale stage (capacity 10kg/day, it is not specified whether it refers to input or output capacity). As of 2019, they began a pre-industrial phase through the deployment of a demonstration plant with a capacity of 3 t/day (equal to approximately 1000 tons a year, it is not specified whether it refers to input or output capacity). Garbo's partners include the University of Modena and University of Bologna (partners in the development of Garbo's ChemPET recycling technology), IKEA (partnership not specified), Indorama (partnership not specified), and the European Union (through the H2020 program).

CuRe Technology, PerPETual, Garbo, and Gr3n (please refer to the paragraph on hydrolysis) have been enlisted within the Full Circle Textiles Project – Polyester. The project, launched by Fashion for Good, aims at gathering partners and financial supporters for chemical recycling technologies which could support recycling within the fashion industry. The consortium running the project is composed of different actors along the supply chain including brands, innovators, supply chain partners and catalytic funders. This project (announced in December 2021) will last 18 months during which developers will produce r-PS. The partners of the project will then evaluate the output produced and assess the scaling-up potential of the technology<fnref n="45" />.

H&S Anlagentechnik's technology recycles flexible and rigid PU foams. The feedstock however needs to be consequently purified in order to ensure that they are free of contaminants that could impede the recycling process<fnref n="46" />. The flexible PUR foam reactors can be supplied with batch capacity from 1t to 5t and the rigid foam reactors can be supplied with batch capacity from 1t to 5t or bigger if required. The developer signed a contract with RetourMatras (Dutch recycling company) to build an industrial scale plant in Flevoland, Netherlands, for the recycling of polyurethane mattresses<fnref n="47" />. Dow is additionally deploying their technology within the project Renuva, which aims at developing solutions for the recycling of PU foams contained in mattresses<fnref n="48" />. The project is at its pilot phase, the first reactor was inaugurated in September 2021 and has a capacity of approximately 200 000 mattresses per year<fnref n="49" />.

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ https://curetechnology.com/news/our-pilot-plant-is-expanding/</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ The DEI+ program is run by the Dutch Government. The goal of the scheme is to fund pilots and demonstration projects that aim at reducing CO₂ emissions to meet the Dutch government's 2030 climate targets.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² https://curetechnology.com/news/coca-cola-european-partners-ccep-ventures-funding-for-cure-technology/#:~:text=The%20funding%20from%20CCEP%2C%20through%20its%20innovation%20inv estment,the%20output%20from%20a%20CuRe%20Technology-licensed%2C%20new-build%20plant.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Calculation from technology provider data of 3,000,000 clear bottles/day, with the assumption of a 30g bottle.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Calculation from technology provider data of 50,000,000 bottles a day</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ https://curetechnology.com/news/cure-technology-participates-in-the-fashion-for-good-project/</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ https://www.hs-anlagentechnik.de/en/recycling-reactors-for-pu-residues.html</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ https://www.gupta-verlag.com/news/technology/25066/hs-new-reactor-plant-for-the-recycling-of-end-of-life-pu-mattresses-in-the-netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ https://fr.dow.com/fr-fr/renuva-programme.html</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ https://fr.dow.com/fr-fr/renuva-programme.html</footnote>
Other developers are choosing used mattresses as their feedstock of choice. Indeed, the chemical company Orrion Chemicals Orgaform of Semoy inaugurated in 2021 its new unit, intended to treat 200.000 old mattresses in France. This is the result of a two- and half-year process in collaboration with Dow Chemicals<fnref n="50" />.

Dupont Teijin Films announced they developed the LuxCR™ depolymerization process in April 2019 which allows to recycle clear post-consumer PET waste into advanced BOPET (biaxially-oriented PET) films. Commercial launches of a range of packaging formats (including for high temperature food-contact applications) were expected in Q2 2019, but there has not been any news confirming it has effectively taken place<fnref n="51" />. The developer collaborates with Poseidon Plastics as a technology partner to adapt Poseidon's technology to the recycling of flexible PET films.

It is also known that Eastman owns an operational glycolysis plant in Kingsport, Tennessee (status and capacity unknown) and that they claimed their goal in 2020 was to process up to 50 million pounds of scrap plastic (equivalent to approx. 23kt, no further details provided).

With the support from ADEME and Citeo, SOPREMA has opened a recycling facility in Strasbourg, France in 2018. SOPREMA claimed that from 2019 they would have been able to recycle an input of 5kt/y of PET, no additional information has however been published since that year. The company additionally envisioned that their capacity would have reached a total 10kt/y by 2024⁵² (no news since 2019). Complex PET waste is treated by SOPREMA to produce recycled polyols. The latter will be used to produce insulating panels made of polyurethane foam for building applications.
In 2019, SOPREMA indicated that up to 50% of virgin polyols could be substituted by recycled polyols. The developer aims to increase such rate in the long term<fnref n="53" />.

A technology that seems so far to be less developed is that of IBM Research's (which is moving from lab phase to pilot phase).

Among the glycolysis technology developers studied, planned capacities ranges from 10 to 50 ktons per year and are mostly planned for the coming years.

Some developers don't intent to operate their plants and aim at selling licenses. For instance, Ioniqa Technologies aims at spreading their technology by licensing it out worldwide for the production of monomers on an estimated 50+kt scale (news date unavailable). In 2021, they declared that their first 10kt/y plant will be ready by early 2022 (no updates as of January 2022)<fnref n="54" />.

### c. Economic performance

This recycling process requires high costs, especially in waste pretreatment, that is to say presorting and purification steps. Moreover, compared to mechanical recycling, capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenses are high as well due to the fact that solvents need to be reprocessed and the equipment needs to be made of noble materials that resist corrosion.
Moreover, monomers obtained from the process are currently not sold at a very high price which makes it difficult to ensure the economic viability of the process (5).

However, BHET (and higher oligomers) obtained from glycolysis process can be used as building block for the synthesis of other polymers, with higher economic value, such as unsaturated polyesters, polyurethane foams, polyisocyanurate foams, co-polyesters, polyurethane coatings, alkyd resins, low-temperature thermosetting resins or PET for food packaging (4).

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ https://www.larep.fr/semoy-45400/actualites/recyclage-chimique-de-matelas-usages-dans-le-loiret-une-premiere-mondiale_14015742/</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ https://europe.dupontteijinfilms.com/news/2019/dupont-teijin-films-makes-a-significant-step-forward-in-chemical-recycling-with-the-luxcr-depolymerisation-process/</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² https://www.soprema.fr/fr/article/news/soprema-lance-sa-premiere-unite-de-recyclage-d-emballages-pet</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ https://www.citeo.com/le-mag/sopraloop-une-usine-la-pointe-du-recyclage-des-emballages-en-pet/</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ https://siliconcanals.com/crowdfunding/ioniqa-raises-10m/</footnote>
d. Environmental performance

LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint

Glycolysis avoids the use of methanol, sometimes under supercritical conditions, used in methanolysis, and limits the environmental impact of recycling, since strong acids or bases, necessary for PET hydrolysis, are not used (12).

Glycolysis process uses however non-biodegradable and toxic metal catalysts, such as Zn salts, which are considered to be the most efficient in PET Glycolysis (12).

Poseidon Plastics, a joint venture between Green Lizard Technologies Ltd, Panima Capital and Abundia Industries LLC., conducted an LCA of their technology and deduced that it saved 1705 kgCO₂ per ton of PET which was recycled instead of being sent to landfill<fnref n="55" />.

Eastman asserts also that making their proprietary product Tritan Renew (recycled bisphenol A-free copolyester), which is composed of up to 50% recycled resin (using the ISCC mass balance), is 20-30% less greenhouse gas intensive than using fossil fuel-based feedstocks<fnref n="56" />. However, the results of both assessments have not been published nor detailed publicly and thus are unverifiable.

Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes

Ioniqa Technologies' process has been assessed by CE Delft (the study was funded by the Dutch government) (13). Summaries of the different calculations and methodologies applied are available but do not comprise the full detail of the calculations. Three methodologies were applied:

- A linear comparison from a waste perspective, which analyses the processing of one ton of PET waste by Ioniqa Technologies and compares it with mechanical recycling and processing by incineration in an average Dutch facility.

- A multicycle equation, which models the processing of one ton of PET waste by Ioniqa Technologies over two successive recycling loops and does the same for mechanical recycling.

- A product comparison, which analyses the production of one ton of PET from the Ioniqa Technologies process and compares it with the production of 1 ton of conventionally produced PET from fossil raw materials.

The results were as follows, given for 1 ton of PET waste for linear comparison and multi-cycle analysis and for the production of 1 ton of PET for product comparison (13):

<table><caption>Table 3: Summary of the environmental impacts of several end-of-life technologies assessed in the study from CE Delft (13)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Combustion</th><th>Ioniqa<br>Tech.<br>(10<br>kton<br>facility)</th><th>Ioniqa<br>Technologies<br>(50<br>kton facility)</th><th>Mechanical<br>recycling<br>(20%<br>recycling<br>failure<br>rate<sup>57</sup>)</th><th>Mechanical<br>recycling<br>(10%<br>recycling<br>failure rate)</th><th>Mechanical<br>recycling<br>(0%<br>recycling<br>failure rate)</th><th>Conventional<br>PET<br>production</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Linear<br>comparison</th><td>1.485<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-1.132<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-1.479 tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-1.371<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-1.766<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-2.161<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Multi-cycle<br>analysis</th><td></td><td>-1.619<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-2.191 tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>-0.878 tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Product<br>comparison</th><td></td><td>1.344<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>0.997 tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>0.917<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td>0.621<br>tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td><td></td><td>3.963 tCO<sub>2</sub>e</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ http://poseidonplastics.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Eastman-build-250-million-plastics/99/web/2021/02 and https://www.eastman.com/Brands/Eastman_Tritan/Pages/tritan-renew.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ The recycling failure rate designates waste that has not been treated in mechanical recycling. A 20% recycling failure rate thus means a 80% final yield.</footnote>
Note: The comparison between end-of-life processes takes into account avoided emissions and are thus negative, whereas when considering the production of a new product, end of life emissions are not accounted for and emissions are thus positive. The avoided emissions taken into account are avoided CO2 emissions from the production of heat and electricity and the avoided production of PET. Furthermore, no failure rate is considered for Ioniqa's technology, whereas it is likely that, in reality, some of the feedstock is not converted.

- In the linear comparison, mechanical recycling emits less greenhouses gases than Ioniqa's 10kt plant, regardless of the amount of failure. The emissions of the 50 kton plant are however similar to mechanical recycling if the failure in mechanical recycling is about 15%. If the failure rate is lower, mechanical recycling has less environmental impacts. The results show that Ioniqa's technology is a good option for streams that cannot now be mechanically processed, or which are rejected. If these streams were otherwise incinerated, the environmental benefit would be considerable.

- The results for the multi-cycle analysis show that mechanical recycling has the disadvantage that the output has a lower quality than the output of Ioniqa's technology. Ioniqa's material is used again for food-grade PET bottles and the material from mechanical recycling mainly for fleece sweaters (or other plastic products)<fnref n="58" />. However, it has to be noted that food-grade PET can be produced via mechanical recycling (taking into account that in a perfect closed-loop system, food-grade PET could not be produced more than 3 or 4 times using the same material). Moreover, this assessment assumes that the output is burned after one cycle and not recycled a second time, which is conservative for mechanical recycling technologies. For Ioniqa, it is assumed that the output is high quality (virgin quality) and is used again in PET bottles. A 35% (respectively 5%) ratio is assumed to be incinerated for small bottles (respectively large bottles) because it does not end up with a recycler (lost during the sorting process).

- The latest comparison shows that the production of conventional PET from petroleum is about 2.5 tCO2e/t of PET. If end-of-life combustion emissions are added, this amounts to just under 4 tCO2e/t of PET. If Ioniqa is considered to be a PET producer, the result depends on the allocation of the combustion avoided by applying the Ioniqa process. Adding this advantage, the production of Ioniqa-PET provides 1 to 1.3 tCO2e/t of PET from Ioniqa-BHET, depending on the scale of the plant.

Due to lower energy inputs, PET from mechanical recycling has still less impacts than PET from Ioniqa's technology. The difference depends on the amount of PET that falls out and is burned. The advantage of obtaining a better quality of output is not taken into account.

A study published in 2010 evaluated the impacts of PET bottle-to-fiber recycling of four different technologies: mechanical recycling (using Wellman International Ltd.'s technology), semi-mechanical recycling<fnref n="59" /> (using long John Group's process), back-to-oligomer recycling (using Far eastern New Century CO., Ltd.'s glycolysis process) and back-to-monomer recycling (using Patagonia's LCA results on the methanolysis process). As these companies have different locations, it is important to note that the results on mechanical recycling, on methanolysis and on virgin PET fibers are applicable to Western Europe, whereas the results for glycolysis and semi-mechanical recycling are computed with data from Taiwan. This could influence the results. As these companies have different locations, it is important to note that the results on mechanical recycling are dependent on the recycling schemes in place in such regions.

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ This assumption is conservative as rPET from mechanical recycling of clear bottles is more and more used to produce new bottles.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Semi-mechanical recycling designates the Long John Group's process that produces recycled PET fibre through the flake-pellet-fibre route. As Long John Group adds a small amount of ethylene glycol to meet the final quality requirements, the process is called "semi-mechanical".</footnote>
The methodology used was the LCA ISO 14040 on a cradle-to-factory gate for second life approach. Two different methodologies were used to quantify the impacts: the “cut-off” methodology<fnref n="60" /> and the “waste valuation” methodology<fnref n="61" /> (11).

The “cut-off” approach results were as follows (15):

- Mechanical recycling emits 0.96 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Semi-mechanical recycling emits 1.88 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Chemical recycling through glycolysis emits 2.59 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Manufacturing virgin PET fibre emits 4.06 tCO₂/t of virgin PET fiber<fnref n="62" />

The “waste valuation” results were comparable to the “cut-off” approach (11):

- Mechanical recycling emits 2.03 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Semi-mechanical recycling emits 2.95 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Chemical recycling through glycolysis emits 3.66 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fiber

- Manufacturing virgin PET fibre emits 4.06 tCO₂/t of virgin PET fiber

Indeed, the glycolysis process emits between one and three times the amount of CO₂ than mechanical recycling but is still better than manufacturing virgin fiber. It should however be kept in mind that the properties of recycled material are different in the case of mechanical recycling, which does not give out virgin-like PET contrary to glycolysis. The two types of recycling are thus complementary depending on the use of the recycled material.

## Energy costs

The same study goes through the energy use of the different recycling methodologies.

The “cut-off” approach results were as follows (11):

- Mechanical recycling uses 13 GJ of non-renewable energy

- Semi-mechanical recycling uses 23 GJ of non-renewable energy

- Chemical recycling through glycolysis uses 39 GJ of non-renewable energy

- Manufacturing virgin PET fibre uses 95 GJ of non-renewable energy

Thus, the glycolysis process uses three times more energy than mechanical recycling (partly due to the temperatures range needed to complete the process) but is still almost 2.5 times better than manufacturing virgin fibers.

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ The “cut-off” methodology refers to the omission of not relevant life cycle stages, activity types (e.g. investment goods, storage, ...), specific processes and products (e.g. re-granulating of internally recycled polymer production waste before re-melting) and elementary flows from the system model. Cut-offs are quantified in relation to the percentage of environmental impacts that is approximated to be excluded via the cut-off (e.g. "95 %" relates to cutting off about 5 % of the total environmental impact (or of a selected impact category)). Source: general guide for Life-cycle Assessment – Detailed guidance. In our case, the used bottles from the first life are considered to be waste and not bear any environmental burden from the first life.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ The “waste valuation” methodology refers, in our case, to the allocation of the impacts of the first life of the bottles on an economic basis. It was assumed that 32% of the environmental burden of virgin PET bottle grade resin is shifted to the recycled PET fibre.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² The difference with Ioniqa's earlier result of 2.5 tCO2e/t resides in the fact that the virgin fibre here takes into account the embedded energy of the virgin PET fibre (which accounts for about 40% of its the energy consumption).</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">GLYCOLYSIS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technology</td><td><p><strong>Input</strong><ul><li>Suited to polymers from polycondensation, mostly used for PET, PA, and PU.</li><li>Treats mono-material streams with a relatively low level of contamination.</li><li>Pre-sorting or pre-treatment are often necessary (e.g., sorting, washing, grinding, etc.).</li></ul><strong>Process</strong><ul><li>The feedstock is dissolved in Ethylene Glycol.</li><li>The temperature required varies between 200°C and 300°C depending on the feedstock.</li><li>The reaction lasts from 3 to 5 hours.</li><li>Depolymerization yields announced are comprised between 93% and 98%*.</li></ul><strong>Output and Downstream steps</strong><ul><li>The output of total PET glycolysis is BHET. This compound could be used to produce new PET.</li><li>The output of PA6.6 glycolysis consists of hexamethylenediamine. This compound can afterwards be used to produce PA6.6 again. However, adipic acid is lost during the reaction and must be added to complete the repolymerization.</li><li>The output of PA6 glycolysis consists of caprolactam. This compound can afterwards be used to produce PA6 again.</li><li>The output of PUR is diol mixes. This mix could be used to produce new PU.</li><li>In almost every case, purification steps are needed to remove colorants and contaminants.</li><li>The purity obtained is close to the virgin resin one.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Technology scaling-up</td><td><p><strong>Average Technology Readiness Level</strong><ul><li>Estimated TRL = 3-7 (depending on the technology developer)</li><li>Most technology developers are still in the development phase of their technology except for JEPLAN, which is at industrial scale.</li></ul><strong>Current and future capacities</strong><ul><li>Technology advancements and plans for expansion significantly vary from a developer to another.</li><li>PerPETual and JEPLAN are the most advanced technology developers in terms of scaling-up of their technology and/or capacity of their facilities (mainly using clear PET as feedstock).</li><li>Planned capacities ranges from 10 to 160 ktons per year and are mostly planned for the coming years<sup>63</sup>.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic performance</td><td><ul><li>High pre-treatment costs due to sorting and decontamination steps</li><li>Reprocessing of the solvent is an additional cost compared to mechanical recycling</li><li>Equipment needs to be made of noble materials that are resisting corrosion</li><li>BHET (and higher oligomers) obtained from PET glycolysis process can be used as building blocks for the synthesis of polymers, with higher economic value (unsaturated polyesters, PU foams...).</li><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td rowspan="5">Environmental performance</td><td>LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint<ul><li>Glycolysis avoids the use of methanol, sometimes under supercritical conditions, used in methanolysis, and limits the environmental impact of recycling, since strong acids or bases necessary for PET hydrolysis are not used</li></ul>Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes<ul><li>Lower environmental impact than combustion but higher impact than mechanical recycling (if the failure rate is inferior to 10%)</li></ul>Energy costs<ul><li>The glycolysis process uses three times more energy than mechanical recycling (partly due to the temperatures range needed to complete the process) but is still almost 2.5 times better than manufacturing virgin fibers.</li><li>Lack of public data available on the environmental performance of the process</li></ul></td></tr></table>

## STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

JEPLAN

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

PERPETUAL
making a wave at a price

IBM Research

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

EASTMAN

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

RAMPF
discover the future

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

GARBO
POSEIDON PLASTICS

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

SOPREMA GROUP

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Table 4 : Glycolysis recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</figcaption></figure>

*Yields can vary depending on the feedstock type and operating conditions. These yields are likely to be overestimated as they have been calculated by technology developers on a lab scale.

## 2) Methanolysis

### a. Technology

#### Input

This recycling technology is generally used on polymers from polycondensation (such as polyesters or polyamides) as their bonds can be degraded by alcohols reagents (4). Polyesters (such as PET, PBTP, PTMP) are the most easily recyclable through methanolysis due to their ester group that can be easily cut by glycols or methanol (5). The most advanced technologies currently are focusing on PET polymer. The feedstock used are usually PET streams that cannot be mechanically recycled, such as opaque PET and polyester fibre (Loop Industries)⁶⁴⁵.

To our knowledge, there is no technology developer studied focusing on polyamide or polyurethane recycling through methanolysis.

There is a lack of transparency on feedstock pretreatment from most of the technology developers (notably on the different types of pretreatment needed, their extent and the organization in charge of it). In theory, the technology has been proven successful only on mono-material waste streams and thus the majority of the waste feedstock would need to undergo some kind of presorting and pretreatment.

#### Process

These technologies are using methanol as a solvent to degrade the bonds and thus go back to smaller molecules (monomers, dimers, or oligomers).

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ In France, clear colored PET can be mechanically recycled. Historically opaque PET bottles have been mixed with colored PET and mechanically recycled. There are now ongoing developments on the mechanical recycling of opaque PET as a specific stream. Outside of France, the mechanical recycling of opaque PET is developing but is still at a very early stage.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ https://www.loopindustries.com/en/technology/materials</footnote>
These processes require heat. The quantity of heat is highly dependent on the process and the feedstock chosen. Challenging feedstocks, such as multilayered PET, are usually more heat-intensive (6). The publicly known temperature required by current technologies starts at below 90°C (Loop Industries). This temperature might not be representative of the technology category as the required heat is very dependent on the process chosen and the presence of catalysts for instance. Methanolysis usually occurs at a pressure of 25 bars and a temperature of 180°C, for a residence time of about five hours, in the presence of catalysts (12).

In some cases, methanolysis can be performed under supercritical conditions<sup>66</sup> (Mitsubishi process), to allow for a reduced residence time (about 10 minutes in the absence of catalyst). The pressure necessary for this process is about 150 bars with a 300°C temperature.

## Output and downstream steps

When recycling PET, the output obtained is MEG (MonoEthylene Glycol) and DMT (DiMethylTerephtalate).

In all cases, purification steps are needed to remove colorants, contaminants, additives, and impurities. Indeed, during the methanolysis process, other alcohols and polymer derivatives are forming and need to be removed. These steps are often done by the technology developer (such as Loop Industries). The purity of the product obtained is very close to the virgin resin according to Loop Industries<sup>67</sup>. The latter has commissioned an external organism (Kemitek) to test the purity of its output. It was found that the DMT purity was ranging from 99.7% to 100.1% (w/w) and MEG purity was ranging from 98.2% to 98.9% (w/w). Their results have been registered on the European Chemicals Agency under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, which shows that the purity of Loop's products is similar in quality to the products manufactured in Europe<sup>68</sup>.

Repolymerization is afterwards needed and often done by a downstream actor. For instance, Loop industries has partnered up with INVISTA, who executes the PET repolymerization process, from Loop's recycled DMT and MEG.

## b. Technology scaling-up

### Average Technology Readiness Level

The technology developers studied are at demonstration stage. Their TRL thus ranges from 6 to 8. Technologies such as Loop Industries are currently advanced as they are planning their first industrial capacities.

### Current and future capacities

The technology developers studied are operating plants of a few hundred tons per year.

Indeed, Loop Industries owns and operates a mini-Pilot (25 L reactor) and pilot scales (6000 L reactor) in Montreal amounting up to a total of 1t/day output. Planned capacities ranges from 40 to 100 ktons per year and are mostly planned for the coming years. Loop Industries is currently building a 40kt/y plant in South Carolina (which was expected to be operational at the end of 2020 and probably delayed due to the Covid-19 crisis as there has not been any update) together with its venture partner Indorama Ventures. Following their first communication in September 2020, Loop Industries and Suez announced the site of their future plant was selected in January 2022. The facility will be located in France and will produce 70kt/y of virgin-like recycled PET, the plant will be operational in 2025. Loop and Suez will invest 250 million euros.

They have also established partnerships (supply agreements) with Danone, L'Oréal, L'Occitane, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, NPC, and Drinkworks over the last years. The developer plans to further deploy its

<footnote n="66"><sup>66</sup> A fluid is in supercritical conditions when it is heated above its critical temperature and compressed above its critical pressure. Critical temperature and pressure are the points where a fluid changes its physical state. Above its critical temperature and critical pressure, a fluid cannot change state between gaseous form and liquid form. It is thus called supercritical.</footnote>

<footnote n="67"><sup>67</sup> https://www.loopindustries.com/en/technology/materials</footnote>

<footnote n="68"><sup>68</sup> https://www.loopindustries.com/en/article/technology-verification</footnote>
technology through retrofit and licensing to manufacturers. In 2021, SK Geo Centric purchased 10% of Loop Industries' shares at the price of $56 million and created a joint venture with the developer. The joint venture aims at deploying Loop Industries PET recycling technology across Asia. A new 83kt/y plant is planned to be built in South Korea (no deadline specified). Long-term plans additionally include the building of 4 plants across Asia to achieve a capacity of 300kt/y.

As for Eastman, they are executing an engineering feasibility study on the design and construction of a commercial scale methanolysis facility. In January 2021, they announced their plan to build a $250 million polyethylene terephthalate (PET) depolymerization plant at its Kingsport, Tennessee. The facility should be built by the end of 2022 and be able to process 100,000 metric tons (t) per year of post-consumer PET waste<fnref n="69" />. The developer has also established a partnership with California-based Circular Polymers to secure feedstock by sourcing recovered PET carpet fibers. In January 2022, the developer announced the intention to invest $1 billion to build a chemical recycling facility in France. The deadline set for the completion of the project is 2025, while capacity upon competition is expected to reach 160 kt/y. Brand-owners such as LVMH Beauty, The Estée Lauder Companies, Clarins, Procter & Gamble, L'Oréal, and Danone, have already signed letters of intent for multiyear supply agreements for Eastman's new plant<fnref n="70" />.

### c. Economic performance

There is no information at this stage. We could assume that, as Eastman is vertically integrated, it makes it easier to assume internally the financial cost.

### d. Environmental performance

#### LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint

Methanol used in the methanolysis process can have a consequent environmental impact. There are very few publicly available LCA on such processes, but Loop industry asserts that an Infinite Loop™ plant with a 63,000-ton production capacity can claim carbon dioxide savings of 135,500 metric tons, or the equivalent of a medium-sized car driving over 540,000,000 km per year. Loop's technology also shows a 60% reduction of global warming potential when compared to virgin PET produced from fossil fuels<fnref n="71" />. However, the methodology that led to such results has not been disclosed by the company and thus such results should be handled carefully. This LCA was conducted by an independent third party.

However, Loop's technology uses an organic solvent that is usually in the gaseous state. The methanol used in the methanolysis process has an environmental impact associated to it. There is additionally an issue of solvent recovery that could be worrisome in terms of economical or environmental impacts. The company does not elaborate on this treatment (16).

#### Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes

A study published in 2010 evaluated the impacts of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling of four different technologies: mechanical recycling (using Wellman International Ltd.'s technology), semi-mechanical recycling (using long John Group's process), back-to-oligomer recycling (using Far eastern New Century CO., Ltd.'s Glycolysis process) and back-to-monomer recycling (using Patagonia's LCA results on the methanolysis process). As these companies have different locations, it is important to note that the results on mechanical recycling, on methanolysis and on virgin PET fibers are applicable to Western Europe, whereas the results for glycolysis and semi-mechanical recycling are computed with data from Taiwan. Thus, the following results should be considered carefully.

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ https://www.eastman.com/Company/News_Center/2021/Pages/Eastman-and-Governor-Lee-Announce-Plastic-to-Plastic-Recycling-Facility.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ https://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/fiber-world/2022/01/eastman-to-invest-up-to-1-billion-to-accelerate-circular-economy-through-building-worlds-largest-molecular-plastics-recycling-facility-in-france/</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ https://www.loopindustries.com/en/article/invista</footnote>
The methodology used was the LCA ISO 14040 on a cradle-to-factory gate for second life approach. Two different methodologies were used to quantify the impacts: the “cut-off” methodology and the “waste valuation” methodology (11).

The “cut-off” approach results were as follows (11):

- Mechanical recycling emits 0.96 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fibre

- Semi-mechanical recycling emits 1.88 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fibre

- Chemical recycling through methanolysis emits 3.08 tCO₂/t of recycled PET fibre (high case: 3.44 tCO₂e/t; low case: 2.71 tCO₂e/t)

- Manufacturing virgin PET fibre emits 4.06 tCO₂/t of virgin PET fibre

Indeed, the methanolysis process emits more than three times the amount of CO₂ than mechanical recycling but is still better than manufacturing virgin fiber. It should however be kept in mind that the properties of the recycled material are different in the case of mechanical recycling, which cannot give out virgin-like PET contrary to methanolysis. The two types of recycling are thus complementary depending on the use of the recycled material. Again, the following results should be considered carefully as they are related to different geographical areas.

As for Eastman, the company claims that producing resins containing recycled materials can reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 20-30% compared to fossil fuel-based feedstocks (further details on how these number were calculated remain unavailable)<fnref n="72" />.

## Energy costs

The same study goes through the energy use of the different recycling methodologies.

The “cut-off” approach results were as follows (11):

- Mechanical recycling uses 13 GJ of non-renewable energy

- Semi-mechanical recycling uses 23 GJ of non-renewable energy

- Chemical recycling through methanolysis uses 51 GJ of non-renewable energy (high case: 40 GJ; low case: 62 GJ)

- Manufacturing virgin PET fibre uses 95 GJ of non-renewable energy

Thus, the methanolysis process uses almost four times more energy than mechanical recycling (partly due to the temperatures range needed to complete the process) but is still almost two times better than manufacturing virgin fibers.

Moreover, a significant amount of energy is required, for the process in itself as well as for the distillation of ethylene glycol in the case of methanolysis (as for hydrolysis). In this case, the reactor temperature needs to be as high as 350°C during 3 to 5 hours and the EG needs to be distilled at about 340°C (12).

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">METHANOLYSIS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Technology</td><td>Input<ul><li>Suited to polymers from polycondensation, mostly used for PET.</li><li>Treats mono-material streams with a relatively low level of contamination (Loop technical requirement is more than 80% of PET content<sup>73</sup>).</li><li>In general, pre-sorting or pre-treatment are necessary (e.g., sorting, washing, grinding, etc.).</li></ul>Process<ul><li>The feedstock is dissolved in methanol.</li><li>The temperature required varies between 100°C and 200°C depending on the feedstock and the pressure is set around 25 bars.</li><li>The reaction lasts about 5 hours with a catalyst.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="72">⁷² https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Eastman-build-250-million-plastics/99/web/2021/02</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ https://refashion.fr/eco-design/sites/default/files/fichiers/Chemical%20recycling%20Making%20fiber-to-fiber%20Recycling%20a%20Reality%20for%20Polyester%20Textiles.pdf</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 5: Methanolysis recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</caption><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>In some cases, methanolysis can be performed under supercritical conditions. The residence time is about 10 minutes in the absence of catalyst and the pressure necessary for this process is about 150 bars with a 300°C temperature.</li></ul>Output and Downstream steps<ul><li>The output of PET methanolysis consists of MEG (MonoEthylene Glycol) and DMT (DiMethylTerephthalate). These monomers can afterwards be repolymerized into PET.</li><li>In almost every case, purification steps are needed to remove colorants and contaminants.</li><li>The purity obtained is close to the virgin resin one.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Technology scaling-up</td><td>Average Technology Readiness Level<ul><li>Estimated TRL = 6-8.</li><li>Most technology developers are still in the development phase of their technology.</li><li>Loop Industries are currently planning their first industrial capacities.</li><li>Eastman planned to build an industrial plant in France (160 kt/y).</li></ul>Current and future capacities<ul><li>The technology developers studied are operating plants of a few hundred tons per year.</li><li>Planned capacities ranges from 40 to 160 ktons per year and are mostly planned for the coming years.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic performance</td><td><ul><li>Potential high pre-treatment costs due to sorting and decontamination steps</li><li>Reprocessing solvent is an additional cost compared to mechanical recycling</li><li>Equipment needs to be made of noble materials that are resisting corrosion (as methanol is used)</li><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental performance</td><td>LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint<ul><li>Methanol used in the methanolysis process can have a consequent environmental impact.</li><li>Issue of solvent recovery that could be worrisome in terms of economical or environmental impacts.</li><li>The methanolysis process emits more than three times the amount of CO2 than mechanical recycling but is better than manufacturing virgin fiber.</li></ul>Energy costs<ul><li>The methanolysis process uses almost four times more energy than mechanical recycling (partly due to the temperatures range needed to complete the process) but two times less than the manufacturing of virgin PET in order to convert PET bottles to fibers.</li><li>Lack of public data available on the environmental performance of the process</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">loop INDUSTRIES EASTMAN</td></tr></table>

### 3) Aminolysis

Note: Due to the low development of aminolysis technologies on the market, this category is only briefly presented in this report and will not be as detailed as other processes.
a. Technology

Input

The great majority of scientific studies conducted on aminolysis used PET (mostly bottles, fibers, powder) as feedstock. Additional, although limited, studies were also conducted on the application of this technology in the recycling of PU insulators (e.g., foams) (12).

Process

Chemical depolymerization via aminolysis consists of degrading plastics' bonds using a host primary amine solution in aqueous or, less frequently, in gaseous form as solvent (7, 16). Amines are organic bases derived from ammonia through the replacement of one or more hydrogen atoms with organic groups such as alkyl or aryl. This method has gained interest due to amine groups having higher reactivity than hydroxyl groups in the glycol and alcohol environments used in glycolysis or alcoholysis (18). The amines which are most frequently used are methylamine, ethylamine, and butylamine (19).

There is limited available scientific research backing up chemical depolymerization via aminolysis. Although it is generally agreed that this process does not require high pressure, there is a significant lack of detail defining under which conditions the technology can be effectively applied. One of the most popular findings emerging from available literature is that aminolysis generally takes place at temperatures varying between 20°C and 100°C (20). The reported time frame required for this reaction varies from a few hours up to 85 days depending on feedstock used, selected amines, temperature, and preferred catalyst (if any) (15, 17). As an example, PET degradation to a range of oligomers was achieved in only 17 hours using ethylenediamine and operating at 100°C (20). Multiple studies also showed that using a catalyst (such as dibutyl tin oxide, sodium acetate, ...) may significantly reduce the reaction's time frame (18). Other techniques such as using ultrasonication, UV radiation, microwave irradiation, and solar energy have also been explored as potential energy sources to make this technology faster, more efficient, cost effective and eco-friendly (21).

Output and downstream steps

When amines are used to depolymerize PET, the output generally consists of corresponding bis(2-hydroxy ethylene)terephthalamide (BHETA) monomers, PTA and EG diamines (8, 16). Available literature reports on aminolysis' output materials being suitable for becoming added-value products to produce polyurethanes or other polyesters, to synthetize plasticizer for PVC, unsaturated polyester resin, polyurethane resin, polyester amide resin, surfactants, etc. (18, 19). Studies also proved that triethylamine is the amine which was able to provide the highest products yield of PTA and EG in the degradation of PET (19). As for the treatment of PU foams via aminolysis, the output generated may consist of degraded products (e.g., substituted polyol, polyamines compounds) (22).

b. Technology scaling-up

Average Technology Readiness Level

This technology has an estimated TRL of 2. Publicly available evidence concerning how this process can be effectively used for chemical recycling purposes is still scattered and limited to a narrow range of feedstocks. Moreover, there is yet no evidence of aminolysis being deployed on an industrial nor on a commercial level (15, 16).

Current and future capacities

This technique of chemical depolymerization is still considerably less developed than recycling via alternative solvents (glycolysis, hydrolysis, ...). Toxicity and high cost of amines have been presented as two possible reasons why this process has not yet been further investigated (16).

c. Economic performance

The lack of consistent scientific research and the absence of industrial scale applications leads aminolysis to having a significant economic disadvantage compared to other chemical depolymerization processes (17). Moreover, the high cost of amines was reported to be a deterrent for further scientific research (16).
d. Environmental performance

No information found on this subject

<table><caption>Table 6: Aminolysis recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">AMINOLYSIS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technology</td><td><p>Input</p><ul><li>Most studies have been conducted using PET or PU foam as feedstock.</li></ul><p>Process</p><ul><li>Aminolysis uses an amine solution to degrade plastic's bonds.</li><li>Methylamine, ethylamine, and butylamine are the amines which are used most frequently.</li><li>The lack of available research does not allow to clearly determine operating conditions (pressure, temperature, reaction time, etc.).</li><li>It is generally agreed that the process does not require high pressure, and that temperatures may vary from 20°C to 100°C.</li></ul><p>Output and Downstream steps</p><ul><li>When PET is used as an input the outputs obtained are BHETA monomers, PTA and EG diamines. These output materials are suitable for becoming added-value products.</li><li>The treatment of PU foams may lead to degraded products.</li><li>Triethylamine provided the highest products yield of PTA and EG in the degradation of PET.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Technology scaling-up</td><td><p>Average Technology Readiness Level</p><ul><li>Estimated TRL = 2.</li><li>Limited availability of scientific research supporting aminolysis. Available sources are limited to a narrow range of feedstocks.</li><li>No evidence of technology developers deploying this technology.</li></ul><p>Current and future capacities</p><ul><li>No forecasting of future capacities due to the absence of technology developers deploying this process</li><li>Costs and possible toxicity of amines perceived as part of the reason why this technology is less developed than others.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic performance</td><td><ul><li>High cost of amines.</li><li>Economic disadvantage as a consequence of limited research and absence of industrial applications.</li><li><em>Lack of public data available</em></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental performance</td><td><ul><li>Lack of public data available on the environmental performance of the process</li></ul></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">No technology developer identified</td></tr></tfoot></table>

4) Hydrolysis

This subcategory includes non-catalytic and catalytic hydrolysis (via the use of enzymes or microwaves). Enzymatic depolymerization, which is a subcategory of hydrolysis will be studied into detail on the "enzymatic depolymerization" part.

a. Technology

Input

Such as glycolysis, hydrolysis is used on various resins from polycondensation but is mostly developed for PET. It is mainly used for PET that is difficult to recycle (such as contaminated PET, trays, textile...).
The technology developers reviewed for the purpose of this paper can recycle both post-consumer and post-industrial waste.

As for PA6, Aquafil's technology treats pre- and post-consumer PA6 to produce caprolactam. The latter is then reprocessed to produce nylon yarns for textile and carpet applications. The main sources of feedstock include PA6 fishnets which are collected worldwide, PA6 carpets, and other oligomers or plastic waste generated by the polymer industry. Their feedstock needs to be decontaminated before entering the process<sup>74</sup>.

Though, Depoly asserts that its technology does not need any specific sorting as the process can selectively treat PET plastic in the presence of other plastics like polypropylene or polyvinyl chloride. There is generally a lack of transparency on the subject of pretreatment from most of the technology developers. In theory, the technology has been proven successful on mono-material waste streams and thus the pretreatment step seems to be necessary.

Gr3n's Demeto technology can process PET feedstocks (bottles, trays, textiles, etc.) composed of either 100% polyester or with up to 30% of other materials (PU, cotton, polyether-polyurea, etc.).

## Process

Hydrolysis uses the same principle as alcoholysis: a solvent is used to degrade the bonds of the polymer and break it down into smaller molecules (monomers, dimers, or oligomers). The main difference is the solvent used, which in this case is water. The process can be catalyzed with microwaves in the case of Gr3n for example (it is also known that Gr3n uses alkaline media and that the process of PET treatment takes less than 10 minutes to complete).

No figures about energy use or operating conditions have been made public by the technology developers studied. Yet, these electrolytic processes usually are very energy consuming. In the absence of catalysts, the only chemical used is water.

As for the duration of the reaction, it is also very variable depending on the process chosen and its catalyst. Obtaining a total depolymerization requires the application of high temperatures (115 to 420°C) and high pressures (10 to 480 bar), during long times (up to 7h), because of the weak reactivity of water (weak nucleophile) (12). There are three types of hydrolysis depending on the conditions applied during the reaction:

- **Alkaline hydrolysis:** Hydrolysis is performed in alkaline conditions, which are created by adding sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) in the process (about 4-20% by weight of hydroxide in water). The conditions required for such a process are a temperature range from 210°C to 250°C under pressure from 14 to 20 bar. The reaction can occur with or without catalysts and takes 3 to 5 hours in a batch reactor (12). No yield has been found at this stage.

- **Acid hydrolysis:** Hydrolysis is performed in acid conditions, which are generally created by using concentrated sulfuric acid ($H_2SO_4$). In some cases, other mineral acids, such as nitric or phosphoric acid, can be used as well. The reaction between the polymer and concentrated sulfuric acid takes place at considerably lower temperatures (in a range from 80 to 95°C) than alkaline and neutral hydrolysis (12). The yield of acid hydrolysis has not been found at this stage. However, concentrated sulfuric acid is highly corrosive (> 80 wt.%) which necessitates specific processing equipment (12).

- **Neutral hydrolysis:** Hydrolysis is performed in neutral conditions. The conditions required for such a process are a temperature range of 200°C to 300°C under pressure of 10 to 40 bar. The reaction can occur with or without catalysts and takes about one hour without catalyst for the batch conversion to be completed at 275°C<sup>75</sup>. Hydrolysis proceeds more rapidly when PET is introduced into the reactor in the molten state than when it is solid. The ratio of PET to water is typically in the range from 1/2 to 1/12. The yield of TPA obtained is about 95% (12). For neutral hydrolysis, the post-reaction mixture has a pH of 3.5 to 4.0 due to the fact that the reaction products, TPA and its monoglycol ester, are acidifying the reaction media.

<footnote n="74">74 https://www.econyl.com/assets/uploads/RS19_Aquafil_ENG_web.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="75">75 It has to be noted that there are divergent views on the duration of the reaction without a catalyst.</footnote>
Neutral hydrolysis was found to be able to operate as a continuous process in a twin-screw extruder (12).

- **Subcritical and supercritical hydrolysis:** In these processes, water reaches the sub- or supercritical state, and becomes apolar. The reaction can be assimilated to hydrocracking when it occurs in an oxygen-depleted environment. The conditions needed for this process is a temperature range of 150°C to 400°C and the pressure ranges from 220 to 240 bar. The reaction time is about 30 minutes for a batch process (5). The yield obtained for this process is about 98% (12).

## Output and downstream steps

Depending on the feedstock, the hydrolysis process produces:

- MEG and PTA when applied to PET. These two building blocks need to be repolymerized to produce recycled PET. Contrary to other solvolysis methods and alkaline hydrolysis, this process is the unique solvolysis method that leads directly to the production of terephthalic acid (TPA) and ethylene glycol (EG). This route is then the fastest and PET can be directly reconstituted from these species, without additional steps (12). As for alkaline hydrolysis, it produces $Na_2TA$ that has to be converted into PTA. Indeed, production of PET through the esterification of DMT takes two steps whereas the transesterification of PTA is done in one reactive step.

- Caprolactam when applied to PA6 (9).

Purification steps are afterwards necessary to remove contaminants and colorants and ensure the quality of the product. Most technologies give out monomers that will need to be repolymerized with the help of an external partner. In theory, the output produced could be food grade material. The quantity of by-products and waste in neutral hydrolysis is considerably lower than for alkaline and acid hydrolysis. In acid hydrolysis, substantial amounts of inorganic salts and aqueous waste are generated as by-products (12).

Aquafil's LDR (Lactam Direct Recycling) process achieves a PA6 conversion rate of approximately 90%<fnref n="76" />. The main output produced by Aquafil's depolymerization process is caprolactam. This material is then polymerized and turned into textile yarns by the developer. The yarn produced (called Econyl yarn) can be used for multiple applications to produce textiles and carpets.

As for Gr3n's Demeto process, the reaction mixture obtained within the reaction chamber is precipitated, filtered, washed, and dried. TA is the main output product obtained, as well as the EG that is recovered and distilled to be reused in the process.

## b. Technology scaling-up

### Average Technology Readiness Level

Most of the technology developers studied are at their laboratory or pilot stage (such as Depoly, RITTEC with the RevoIPET® technology and BP), they are therefore considered to still have a TRL of 3 to 4. However, Gr3n's technology is more advanced and has an estimated TRL of 6. Considering PA recycling, Aquafil's technology is at a commercial scale.

### Current and future capacities

There is few information about capacities due to the low stage of development for most of the technology developers.

While mainly based in Italy, Aquafil operates a total of 16 facilities (divided across 3 continents and 8 countries – number which includes waste storage and separation, as well as nylon regeneration sites). The two Aquafil recycling plants have respectively a capacity of 40,000 (it is not specified whether this capacity refers to input or output capacity) and 16,000 tons/year (capacity referred to used carpet input, based in Phoenix, Arizona, USA). Aquafil is partnered with Tarkett (which supplies them with post-consumer carpets) and has engaged in supply agreements with a series of companies in the textile industry (Adidas, Volcom, Stella McCartney, Interface, Milliken, Mannington).

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ https://www.aquafileng.com/en/polymer-plants/polyamide/continuous/</footnote>
Gr3n has a lab scale plant in Chieti, Italy (capacity unknown). In 2017, the developer had received a 9.9€ million funding from the EU Horizon 2020 which they intended to use to finalize their first pilot plant<sup>77</sup>. As of January 2022, no news was found on the construction of their facility (expected capacity: 30 kt/y). In the long-term, Gr3n plans to start selling recycling equipment, provide maintenance services, and license its recycling process. Partners include PET producers, municipalities, and equipment producers.

Gr3n additionally created an Industrial Advisory Board composed of brand owners such Adidas, Nestlé, H&M, Unilever, and IKEA, etc... The Board participated in the Demeto project by providing comments and feedback on business development activities<sup>78</sup>. The DEMETO technology was developed with the support of the Danish Technical University and Processi Innovativi srl. As of February 2019, the company needed to raise over 3-4€ million. It is known that this investment was at least partially needed to develop a new full-scale recycling plant. In September 2021, Gr3n announced they received a €6.3 million financing from Chevron Technology Ventures, Standex International and other investors<sup>79</sup>.

Depoly has started to build its pilot plant in November 2019. The plant started operating in February 2021, when a pre-testing phase began (capacity unknown)<sup>80</sup>.

BP plans to construct a $25 million pilot plant in the US (in Illinois) to prove the technology, before progressing to full-scale commercialization. The plant was planned for late 2020 and probably delayed due to the Covid-19 crisis as there has not been any update. The capacity of this plant is unknown at this stage.

RITTEC has developed a depolymerization process for PET called RevolPET<sup>81</sup>. In 2020, Leistritz and RITTEC signed a letter of intent for the construction of a RevolPET pilot plant (input capacity 10kt/y) which was expected to be built by the end of 2021, no updates were however found on this subject<sup>82</sup>. RITTEC's project partners for RevolPET include the Institutes for Chemical and Thermal Process Engineering, and Machine Tools and Manufacturing at Braunschweig Technical University, the Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology, Reclay Systems GmbH, SCHILLER Apparatebau GmbH, and VTU Engineering Deutschland GmbH (type of partnership not disclosed)<sup>83</sup>.

### c. Economic performance

These processes come with a relatively high cost, partly due to the significant cost required to purify the TPA (12).

There is no additional information at this stage.

### d. Environmental performance

**LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint**

There are very few publicly available LCA on such processes, but Gr3n has conducted an LCA that gave a reduction of CO<sub>2</sub> and consumed energy of -60% and -68% respectively compared to the production of virgin PET<sup>84</sup>. As this LCA has not been made public, the methodology and hypothesis chosen are undisclosed and thus not confirmable.

<footnote n="77">77 https://textileexchange.org/featured/gr3n-recycling-2017/</footnote>

<footnote n="78">78 https://universal-sea.org/inspirations/gr3n-the-new-technology-to-tackle-the-plastic-waste-issue</footnote>

<footnote n="79">79 https://gr3n-recycling.com/media.html</footnote>

<footnote n="80">80 https://network.changemakers.com/challenge/creating-shared-value-prize/refinement/depoly</footnote>

<footnote n="81">81 https://bmbf-plastik.de/sites/default/files/2021-06/FactSheet_revolPET_EN_06_0.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 https://www.chemicalrecycling.eu/news/revolpet-strategic-partnership-rittec-umwelttechnik-with-leistritz-construction-of-a-pilot-plant-for-chemical-pet-recycling/</footnote>

<footnote n="83">83 https://www.rittec.eu/solutions/revolpet-r.html</footnote>

<footnote n="84">84 http://gr3n-recycling.com/#tab-id-7</footnote>
In the declaration of the environmental performance of its products<fnref n="85" />, Aquafil asserts that producing raw PA6 from recycled PA waste emits 1.7 tCO₂e/t of product. According to PlasticsEurope, producing virgin PA6 in Europe emits 6.7 tCO₂e/t of product<fnref n="86" />. As this LCA has not been made public, the hypothesis and the methodology chosen are undisclosed and thus not confirmable.

The technology developer Depoly estimates that, when fully operational, for each recycled tons of PET they will save up to 7.7 tons of CO₂, which would be equivalent to 30,000 tons of CO₂ saved each year (further details unavailable)<fnref n="87" />.

### Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes

A study conducted in 2020 on publicly available information found that, depending on the catalyst used and the different proportion of solvents, hydrolysis of PET waste could save emissions compared to incineration. Complex PET streams such as multi-layered PET, trays or films could benefit from this technology (23).

RITTEC claims that its RevolPET process saves up to 60% CO₂ compared to virgin production of PET from crude oil, details behind the calculation are however not disclosed<fnref n="88" />.

### Energy costs

A significant amount of energy is required, for the process in itself as well as for the distillation of ethylene glycol in the case of hydrolysis (as for methanolysis). In this case, the reactor temperature needs to be as high as 350°C during 3 to 5 hours and the EG needs to be distilled at about 340°C (12).

Aquafil has made public the energy consumption of its process in Slovenia. The renewable energy use (mainly hydropower) amounts to 31 MJ. Out of the total energy consumption 9 MJ is used for upstream steps<fnref n="89" />, 22 MJ for the core process, and less than 0,02MJ for the downstream<fnref n="90" /> steps). The non-renewable energy use amounts to 976 MJ (of which 865 MJ for upstream, 105 MJ for the core process and less than 6MJ for the downstream steps)<fnref n="91" />.

A study found that more than 55% of the emissions allocated to hydrolysis are due to energy consumption (23). It was also stated that addition of excess water during purification of monomers affects the GHG emissions adversely due to higher energy consumption during the recovery of ethylene glycol. Indeed, the study thus recommends using selective filtration without excess water to limit the environmental impact of the process.

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">HYDROLYSIS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Technology</td><td>Input<ul><li>Suited to polymers from polycondensation, mostly used for PET, PA, and PU.</li><li>Treats mono-material streams with a relatively low level of contamination from post-industrial or post-consumer waste.</li><li>Pre-sorting or pre-treatment are often necessary (e.g., sorting, washing, grinding, etc.).</li></ul>Process</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ Aquafil (2013) ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION for ECONYL POLYMER, December 2013</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ PlasticsEurope (2014) Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers: Polyamide 6 (PA6), February 2014</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ https://network.changemakers.com/challenge/creating-shared-value-prize/refinement/depoly</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ https://bmbf-plastik.de/sites/default/files/2021-06/FactSheet_revolPET_EN_06_0.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ Upstream steps include: extraction of non-renewable resources, additives and auxiliaries production, transportation, secondary raw materials that are entering into pretreatment plant (PA6 fishnets, PA6 carpet, oligomers), Polymer production, ECONYL® plant operation (depolymerisation step & purification step of caprolactam, polymer production.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Downstream steps include: transportation to average distribution platform or retailer.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ https://www.aquafil.com/assets/uploads/EPD-FOR-ECONYL-YARN.pdf</footnote>
<table><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>The feedstock is placed in water in alkaline, acid, neutral or subcritical/supercritical conditions.</li><li>Alkaline hydrolysis requires temperatures from 210°C to 250°C under pressure from 14 to 20 bar. The reaction can occur with or without catalysts and takes 3 to 5 hours in a batch reactor.</li><li>Acid hydrolysis requires temperatures from 80°C to 95°C.</li><li>Neutral hydrolysis requires temperatures from 200°C to 300°C under pressure of 10 to 40 bar. The yield of TPA obtained is about 95%*.</li><li>Subcritical/supercritical hydrolysis requires temperatures from 150°C to 400°C under pressure of 220 to 240 bar. The reaction time is about 30 minutes for a batch process. The depolymerization yield obtained for this process is about 98%*.</li></ul><p>Output and Downstream steps</p><ul><li>The output of PET Hydrolysis consists in MEG and PTA. These two building blocks needs to be repolymerized to produce recycled PET.</li><li>The output of PA6 Hydrolysis consists in caprolactam that needs to be repolymerized to produce recycled PA6.</li><li>In almost every case, purification steps are needed to remove colorants and contaminants.</li><li>The purity obtained is close to the virgin resin one.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Technology scaling-up</td><td><p>Average Technology Readiness Level</p><ul><li>Estimated TRL = 3-4.</li><li>Most technology developers are still in the development phase of their technology.</li><li>Gr3n's technology is more advanced and has an estimated TRL of 6.</li><li>Aquafil's technology is at a commercial scale.</li></ul><p>Current and future capacities</p><ul><li>Aquafil is operating two plants of 40,000 and 16,000 tons/year.</li><li>Gr3n has completed the construction of a pilot plant (capacity unknown) which will be used as a testing center for the construction of future industrial plants (30kt/y).</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic performance</td><td><ul><li>These processes come with a relatively high cost, partly due to the significant cost required to purify the PTA</li><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental performance</td><td><p>LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint</p><ul><li>Gr3n has conducted an LCA that gave a reduction of CO2 and consumed energy of -60% and -68% respectively compared to the production of virgin PET. These figures are only indicative.</li><li>Aquafil asserts that producing raw PA6 from recycled PA waste emits 1.7 tCO2e/t of product. According to PlasticsEurope, producing virgin PA6 in Europe emits 6.7 tCO2e/t of product. These figures are only indicative.</li></ul><p>Energy costs</p><ul><li>More than 55% of the emissions allocated to hydrolysis are due to energy consumption</li><li>Lack of public data available on the environmental performance of the process</li></ul></td></tr></table>

STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

AQUAFIL
synthetic fibres and polymers

DePoly

RITTEC
UMWELTTECHNIK

gr&n
REDUCE REUSE RECYCLE

<caption>Table 7: Hydrolysis recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</caption>

*Yields can vary depending on the feedstock type and operating conditions. These yields are likely to be overestimated as they have been calculated by technology developers on a lab scale
## 5) Hydrolysis catalyzed with enzymes

This part focuses on enzymatic depolymerization, which is a subcategory of hydrolysis.

### a. Technology

**Input**

Applications of enzymatic depolymerization currently focus on PET resin. Petrobras, a Brazilian company, is focusing exclusively on PET bottles as a feedstock and is thus competing with mechanical recycling. As such, a presorting step is necessary to ensure that the feedstock is not contaminated and contains only PET bottles.

As for Carbios, a French startup, they are using any kind of plastic products containing PET as feedstock. This process can apply to plastics or textiles<fnref n="92" />. Indeed, they claim that even "contaminated PET plastic waste can also be processed by this technology, as the enzyme only targets PET". It seems that contaminants (such as colorants, carbon black, TiO₂, cyclohexanedimethanol - CHDM, other polymers: PA, PE, PVC) are not inhibiting the enzyme. According to the company, the technology "does not require sophisticated sorting as the enzyme has been specifically designed to target PET, therefore allowing to recycle complex plastic waste usually not recyclable through mechanical recycling".

**Process**

Carbios states that its technology (C-Zyme) is efficient at low temperature and atmospheric pressure<fnref n="93" />.
Carbios announced a 97% depolymerization yield in a 16-hour process processing PET bottles<fnref n="94" />.

Petrobras' process seems to confirm this statement as they are announcing that their process occurs at moderate pressure and temperature as well<fnref n="95" />.

**Output and downstream steps**

The process uses an enzyme to biologically break down PET into the monomers MEG and TPA. These monomers afterwards need to be purified and repolymerized to produce recycled PET. Carbios is stating that this recycled PET is virgin-like and suitable for food grade applications. Moreover, its depolymerization process was validated by its partner Michelin<fnref n="96" />.

### b. Technology scaling-up

**Average Technology Readiness Level**

Carbios' technology is at pilot scale, using a 1000 liters reactor<fnref n="97" /> and has completed the construction of a demonstration plant in 2021. Their current TRL is thus about 7.

As for Petrobras, there is few information available about their facilities. They were in optimization phase in 2018 and their TRL is probably at 3-4.

**Current and future capacities**

Carbios started the construction of the demonstration plant developed in partnership with Technip FMC. The plant (capacity unknown), based in Clermont-Ferrand (France), was inaugurated in November 2021. This facility will be used to collect technical, economic, and environmental data on the technology.

Carbios is additionally planning an industrial rollout by 2025 by constructing a facility with a reference unit capacity of 40kt/y. Since 2019, the technology developer has achieved a total capital increase of

<footnote n="92">⁹² Textile PET has been validated in November 2020: https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/carbios-to-produce-pet-bottles-from-textile-waste.</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ https://www.carbios.com/carbios-obtient-de-nouveaux-brevets-en-europe-et-au-japon-apres-une-delivrance-aux-etats-unis/</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ https://www.carbios.com/carbios-produit-les-premieres-bouteilles-en-pet-a-partir-de-dechets-de-plastiques-100-biorecycles-grace-a-sa-technologie-enzymatique/</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/geral/noticia/2018-11/petrobras-designs-technology-disintegrate-pet-bottles</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ https://www.carbios.com/carbios-et-michelin-pneu-100-durable</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ https://carbios.fr/</footnote>
155€ million. At the end of 2021, they received a 3,3€ million support from the EU Life program<fnref n="98" />. It is known that the company is part of a Consortium with L'Oréal, Nestlé Waters, Suntory Food & Beverage Europe, and PepsiCo. The purpose of the Consortium is to increase the recycling of PET products using Carbios' enzymatic technology<fnref n="99" />. It has also established partnerships with Novozymes (production of the proprietary enzyme for PET degradation), Technip energies (engineering and construction support), INRA (R&D partnership), CNRS (R&D partnership), and INSA Toulouse (R&D partnership). A five-year partnership was additionally signed at the end of 2017 with L'Oréal for the production of colored or opaque recycled PET bottles. Finally, in 2021 Carbios signed an agreement with Michelin to include PET bottles and textile waste as recycled content into the production of PET yarns used in tires<fnref n="100" />.

Petrobras was expected to enter pilot phase in 2021, no further updates have been found on the subject.

### c. Economic performance

*No information found on this subject*

### d. Environmental performance

Carbios and Petrobras have not made public any environmental data on their respective processes.

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ https://www.carbios.com/fr/carbios-commission-europeenne-life/</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ https://www.carbios.com/en/nestle-waters-pepsico-and-suntory-beverage-food-europe-join-consortium-founded-by-carbios-and-loreal-to-support-the-worlds-first-enzymatic-technology-for-the-recycling-of-plastic/</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ https://www.carbios.com/en/carbios-and-michelin-developing-100-sustainable-tires/</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 8: Hydrolysis catalyzed with enzymes recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">HYDROLYSIS CATALYZED WITH ENZYMES</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technology</td><td><strong>Input</strong><ul><li>Focus on PET.</li><li>Competition with mechanical recycling if the feedstock is composed of bottles (such as Petrobras).</li><li>Treats mono-material streams with a relatively low level of contamination from post-industrial or post-consumer waste.</li><li>No sophisticated sorting necessary claimed as the enzyme targets PET feedstock.</li></ul><strong>Process</strong><ul><li>The feedstock is put in solution in the presence of an enzyme. The enzymatic process biologically breaks the chain into monomers that after purification could be recycled to make PET polymer again.</li><li>Atmospheric pressure and low temperature claimed.</li><li>97% depolymerization yield* announced in a 16-hour process.</li></ul><strong>Output and Downstream steps</strong><ul><li>The output of PET hydrolysis consists in MEG and PTA. These two building blocks need to be repolymerized to produce recycled PET.</li><li>The purity claimed is close to the virgin resin one.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Technology scaling-up</td><td><strong>Average Technology Readiness Level</strong><ul><li>Estimated TRL = 5.</li><li>The technology developers are still in the development phase of their technology.</li></ul><strong>Current and future capacities</strong><ul><li>Carbios concluded the construction of the demonstration plant (capacity unknown). Industrial roll-out (40kt/y) is planned for 2025.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Economic performance</td><td><ul><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental performance</td><td><strong>LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint</strong><ul><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul><strong>Energy costs</strong><ul><li>Lack of public data available</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">CARBIOS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">BR PETROBRAS</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Yields can vary depending on the feedstock type and operating conditions. These yields are likely to be overestimated as they have been calculated by technology developers on a lab scale</footnote>
# VI. Dissolution

Note: the terms dissolution and selective dissolution are used interchangeably.

## a. Technology

### Input

One of the primary advantages of selective dissolution is its ability to treat an extensive range of plastic resins. Although not suited for the recycling of thermosets as their chemical structure does not allow them to dissolve, this type of technology has proven adaptable to practically all types of thermoplastics (PS, PET, PVC, PA, PP, PMMA, ABS, etc.). The input used by technology developers may consist of contaminated mono-material streams or mixed plastic flows, including multi-layered packaging (the economics may limit the acceptance of mixed plastics, in order to avoid the management cost of non-reactive plastics contaminated with the solvent used for the dissolution) (24). Both post-consumer and post-industrial wastes are likewise admissible as feedstock. As of today, the great majority of technology developers operate using a feedstock composed of contaminated mono-material streams. Examples include PureCycle Technologies<fnref n="101" /> using recovered PP waste, Polystyvert<fnref n="102" /> focusing on post-consumer PS (including expanded PS, extruded PS, high-impact PS, and products containing flame retardants - HBCD), and PolyStyreneLoop<fnref n="103" /> processing post-industrial waste such as PS foams containing HBCD.

Given that most of the feedstocks used in these processes are usually not mechanically recyclable, dissolution can be considered as a complementary solution to mechanical recycling. This statement is reinforced by the existence of developers such as Polyloop<fnref n="104" /> and APK AG<fnref n="105" />. By importing Vinyloop's technology, Polyloop will be able to recycle postproduction soft PVC. Indeed, it is challenging to treat soft PVC through mechanical recycling (notably in terms of quality), mainly because of inherited substances in post-consumer waste, which are now restricted under Reach regulation. In 2021, the developer Polyloop additionally disclosed that they have begun a process of adaptation of their dissolution technology to also recycle polycarbonates. On the other hand, APK AG has been successfully processing PE/PA multi-layer films. The start-up is planning to extend its operations to the processing of other types of pre- and post-consumer waste that are normally not mechanically recyclable such as PET/PE and PE/Alu films, post-consumer, and post-industrial plastics from WEEE, and other types of mixed plastic waste fractions (e.g., LDPE, HDPE, and PP, no additional information is available on the treatment of these types of plastics). Out of the technology developers that have been analyzed, APK AG is the only one with the ability to process mixed waste in the form of multi-layered packaging. CreaCycle can recycle plastic resins that are found in waste mixed with another material (e.g., in multilayer packaging). The process requires a pre-sorting step to divide waste by polymer type based on the plastic that is being targeted (such as (E)PS, PVC, ABS, PC/ABS, HIPS, and PP issued from plastic packaging, electronic plastic waste, and plastic insulation foam)<fnref n="106" />.

Pre-sorting of waste is a common practice among recyclers operating via selective dissolution. Other than being sorted by polymer type (e.g., in the CreaCycle process<fnref n="107" />), plastics are often prepared for further processing also through washing and grinding (5). Polystyvert has implemented a coarse filtration system that allows large contaminants (e.g., cardboard, paper, other plastics, metals) to be easily removed to obtain the desired quality of feedstock<fnref n="108" />. APK AG pre-treats waste by mechanically separating plastics from textiles, sand, metal particles, and other unwanted materials. Plastics are then air screened and divided between light (film particles, fibers, corks) and heavy fractions (hard plastics and heavy impurities). Different plastics within the heavy fraction are then separated by density (12).

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ https://purecycletech.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² http://www.polystyvert.com/en/</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ https://polystyreneloop.eu/</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ https://polyloop.fr/</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ https://www.apk-ag.de/en/</footnote>

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ https://www.creacycle.de/en/the-process.html</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ https://www.creacycle.de/en/the-process.html</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ http://www.polystyvert.com/en/technology/</footnote>
Polyloop shreds its waste and, depending on the feedstock used, pre-sorts it and/or cleans it as well<fnref n="109" />. PolyStyreneLoop also pre-treats its waste by removing impurities found within PS foams<fnref n="110" />. Other developers such as PureCycle Technologies do not specify whether they carry out pre-sorting or pre-treatment of plastic waste.

## Process

Once the nature of the input (contaminated mono-stream vs. mixed plastics) has been established, either an essential oil or another solvent capable of targeting the selected resin/additive is selected. The majority of technology developers do not disclose which type of solvent is used within their recycling process. It is however known that Polystyvert's technology is based on the use of a non-toxic cymene essential oil and that PureCycle Technologies<fnref n="111" /> (technology developed and licensed by Procter & Gamble) also uses a non-toxic solvent (12). As for CreaCycle and PolyStyreneLoop, their technology relies on a specific CreaSolv Formulation which is customized for the type of resin treated. Although no details are provided about this formulation, CreaCycle claims to always prioritize the use of solvents which are considered safe, are biodegradable, are not harming marine species and do not fall in the category of volatile organic compounds/solvents<fnref n="112" />.

In general, dissolution processes work through the pre-treatment of waste (washing, crushing, separating unwanted materials, please refer to "input" for further details), dissolution of plastics in a solvent, filtration, precipitation, and distillation of the solvent (please refer to "output" for further details) (5). The input and the solvent used are the two factors that determine what happens within the dissolution phase. When the input consists of a contaminated mono-material stream, two options are possible. In one case, the solvent only dissolves the targeted resin leaving additives in their solid state. This is the case for Polystyvert and CreaCycle. Polystyvert's process is very quick and can be conducted at low temperatures. During the process, the oil will only dissolve PS. Depending on their density, remaining materials will either float or sink (12). The other available option is for the solvent to only dissolve specific additives and impurities, leaving the resin in its solid state (24). It is through these processes that selective dissolution enables plastic recyclers to remove certain contaminating substances that are restricted by existing regulations and, in some cases, to recycle valuable non-plastic substances (24).

On the other hand, when the input consists of a plastic mix or of multi-layered plastics, the choice of the solvent allows to determine which of the available resins will be dissolved, maintaining the other polymers in their solid form. This step is sometimes referred to as "chemical filtration" due to its ability to separate plastics that are soluble in the solvent from those that are not. After the targeted resin has been dissolved, a filtration system allows to recover the remaining solid waste and, in some cases, to eliminate certain insoluble additives that may be contaminating the selected resin. Once cleaned from certain impurities and from solid residuals, a non-solvent/anti-solvent is added to the selected polymer in its liquid form. This step allows to precipitate the selected polymer, which is then recovered through an additional filtration system that allows to further remove impurities (24). It is known that CreaCycle uses a specific CreaSolv precipitation agent to precipitate polymers<fnref n="113" />.

APK AG, is one of few technology developers processing mixed waste via selective dissolution (16). Their solvent-based process, known as Newcycling, was developed based on CreaCycle's CreaSolv technology. Following the pre-treatment of PA/PE multi-layer films (see previous paragraph for further details), PE is dissolved in a solvent bath. The dissolved PE is divided from solid PA using a standard solid-liquid separation system. From this moment on, the two polymers are processed separately. The PA is introduced into a Coperion ZSK twin screw extruder, where it is melted and processed into to then be pelletized into PA recyclate. The solid PE is also introduced into a ZSK twin screw extruder together

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ https://polyloop.fr/strap-recycling/process/?lang=en</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ https://polystyreneloop.eu/technology/</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/purecycle-technologies</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² https://www.creacycle.de/en/knowhow/creacycle-gmbh-eng.html</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ https://www.creacycle.de/en/the-process.html</footnote>
with a solvent. Then, intensive devolatilization of the liquid takes place, the solvent is removed, and the remaining PE melt is pelletized<fnref n="114" />.

The most favorable option for technology developers would be to create a process that is simultaneously able to remove all harmful substances and impurities, and to separate mixed plastics. This however poses numerous challenges. To provide an example, Vinylloop/Texiloop did not succeed in this attempt because phthalates were getting dissolved with the PVC and they could not be removed during the rest of the process (24). After being shut down, Vinylloop reopened under the name Polyloop on a smaller scale. The Polyloop process, also known as STRAP (solvent-targeted recovery and precipitation), is initiated by adding shredded waste into a "metal basket" of up to 300 kg which is then inserted into the Polyloop recycling unit. Here the dissolving process begins. A mixture of solvents is added into the reactor and solubilizes PVC and the constituents of its formulation. The metal basket is equipped with openings (size of the openings selected according to the type of waste), which serve as a primary filter by retaining the charges of the composites during the draining phase. The mixture of solvent and PVC solution is then purified further using a series of other filters. The insoluble materials that are recovered are then returned to the basket, while PVC is precipitated. Precipitation consists of heating up the solution of solvent and PVC using steam within a reactor. The solvent is gradually replaced by water in which the PVC is not soluble. Agitation allows small grains of r-PVC to form compounds in the boiling water. These compounds are then dried<fnref n="115" />.

The European project NONTOX, which will come to an end in May 2022, is currently exploring ways to recover waste plastics from WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment), ELV (End-of-Life Vehicles) and C&DW (Construction & Demolition Waste) sectors. The focus of this study is to treat resins containing additives and other undesired impurities<fnref n="116" />. The CreaSolv process is of the technologies which are being explored for this purpose. The project is being conducted with the participation of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, the Italian WEEE PRO (Producer Responsibility Organization) ECODOM, Fraunhofer IVV, UNIVAN, Treee, the IMDEA Energy Institute, and several other partners invested in the recycling of WEEE<fnref n="117" /> (24).

It is relevant to mention that a critical advantage of dissolution technologies is that they allow to recover targeted polymers with low alteration of their chemical structure. While solvolysis involves the breaking down or the modification of polymer chains, selective dissolution procedures are used to either dissolve one resin, multiple resins, or certain additives and impurities (24). It is relevant to specify that, when used to recover resins, this process does not require to bring the polymer back to its monomer stage (5).

Detailed information concerning temperature, volume of solvent used, energy source, and total time of the reaction are usually not disclosed by the technology developers. In general, the dissolution phase (following pre-sorting/pre-treatment, before letting the melted polymers cool down) have an estimated duration of 30 minutes and are conducted at a temperature that is lower than the solvent's boiling point (12). It is known that the volume of solvents used by CreaCycle is less than 1%<fnref n="118" /> in relation to the processed plastic<fnref n="119" />. However, this percentage does not apply to other technology developers which, as previously mentioned, do not disclose the amount of solvent required by their processes.

From an environmental point of view and for safety purposes, the solvents used are selected for their low flammability and low toxicity (5). However, this does not exclude that certain solvents may be toxic or explosive (24).

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ https://www.coperion.com/en/news-media/newsroom/2020/apk-relies-on-coperion-zsk-extruder-technology-for-newcycling</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ https://polyloop.fr/strap-recycling/process/?lang=en</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ http://nontox-project.eu/?page_id=18</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ http://nontox-project.eu/?page_id=20</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ It is not specified whether this quantity refers to the volume of fresh solvent required in addition of recycled solvent, or if it consists of the actual amount of solvent in contact with plastic.</footnote>

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ https://www.crecycle.de/en/the-process.html</footnote>
A fundamental step for this technology to perform efficiently is to recover and regenerate the solvents used (24). This outcome is achieved through distillation of the solvent that has been used during the recycling loop. Another necessary step that is necessary to carry out at the end of the recycling process is to dispose of all unrecovered/unrecoverable substances that cannot be reused and that are therefore classified as waste (16).

## Output and downstream steps

Once the polymers have been precipitated or impurities have been removed from the selected resins, the output of this process generally consists of high-quality recyclates and, in some cases, of valuable recovered substances (such as certain additives or contaminants) (16). Since selective dissolution does not usually modify the targeted polymers' chemical structure (or involves low alteration of the structure), the type of recyclate obtained depends on the input materials used. Developers processing PS waste produce r-PS (Polystyvert, PolyStyreneLoop), those recycling PP obtain r-PP (PureCycle Technologies), those treating PA deliver r-PA (APK AG), etc... New additives may be added to the plastic output or further processing may be applied to obtain a newly recycled product. As an example, Polystyvert's unique recycling process allows for the purified polystyrene to be re-introduced into a polymerization reactor to regenerate expanded polystyrene (EPS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) (12). Solvents' recovery is also a key component of dissolution processes.

In terms of quality of the output, dissolution is likely to deliver recycled materials with higher quality and purity than mechanical recycling (5). Mono-streams feedstocks are usually preferred over mixed waste to achieve high quality and yields (24). As previously mentioned, one of the advantages of dissolution is its ability to remove certain contaminants and additives from plastics. Doubts however remain on the applicability of these recycled resins in the food industry (24). PureCycle Technologies has claimed for its output (Ultra-Pure Recycled Polypropylene - UPRP) to be suitable for food-grade applications. In this context, the developer announced the submission of a request for its output to receive a non-objection letter from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2021¹²⁰. As of January 2022, it is unknown whether the request has been approved and if PureCycle additionally sent its application to receive the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) approval. Although producing high purity and virgin like polymers, developers such as PolyStyreneLoop (virgin-like r-PS free of impurities), and CreaCycle technologies (efficiently removing odorous, substances, contaminants) have not yet been declared suitable for the production of plastics used in the food industry. Polystyvert claims for its output (high-purity r-PS free of inks, flame retardants, and pigments) to be suitable for food-grade applications. However, no information was found on whether their recyclates have obtained an official regulatory approval for this purpose<fnref n="121" />.

## a Technology scaling-up

### Average Technology Readiness Level

This technology is not yet fully mature. Most technology developers are still at the stage of technology development and have not yet launched operations on a commercial scale. Thus, the TRL is estimated to be around 5.

### Current and future capacities

Technology advancements and plans for future expansion of commercial facilities significantly vary from one developer to another.

Polystyvert has a current input capacity of 600 tons of PS per year<fnref n="122" />. Back in 2018, the company had announced its objective of building eight recycling plants in Europe (no deadline specified), each of them

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/PURECYCLE-TECHNOLOGIES-I-120780777/news/PURECYCLE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC-Other-Events-Financial-Statements-and-Exhibits-form-8-K-36594638/</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ https://www.canplastics.com/canplastics/polystyvert-gets-new-round-of-financing-to-develop-full-scale-polystyrene-recycling-plant/1003456580/</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/08/2018-08-20-EN-Press-Release-plant-inauguration-FINAL.pdf</footnote>
with a capacity of 20-30kt of PS per year. In 2019, Polystyvert planned to start commercial deployment through licensing across the Europe and North America, to then proceed expanding on a global scale (no further updates have been published since). The company has established strategic partnerships with multiple organizations, including: Total (industrial partnership), Cycle Capital (investor), Anges Québec (investor), BDC Capital (investor), Quadriam (investor), Energy Foundry (investor), and COEXPAN (partnership aimed at validating the use of rPS for Form Fill Seal (FFS) used in yoghurt packaging applications). INEOS Styrolution and Polystyvert have also initiated a joint development agreement which aims at advancing a circular economy for PS (news from February 2021). At the end of 2021, the developer received a grant of $3.5 million by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)<fnref n="123" />.

PolyStyreneLoop's opened its first demonstration plant in June 2021¹²⁴. The plant is located in Terneuzen (Netherlands) and has an input capacity of 3,300 tons/year and an output capacity of approximately 3,000 tons/year. Construction works for the demonstration plant had begun in November 2019¹²⁵. The PolyStyreneLoop Cooperative is a non-profit organization under Dutch law. The Cooperative formed by 3 core partners, 53 members (among which Suez and Soprema), 12 supporters (among which Shell, Total, and BASF), and 9 allies. Key actors include Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV and CreaCycle (technology partners for the building of the pilot plant), National Groen Fonds (investor), VERAS (Dutch demolition company, partnership created to enhance the recycling of EPS from construction), and Kingspan Unidek and Renewi (studying the separation and sorting of waste containing EPS). PolyStyreneLoop also signed agreements with Knauf, GCC and Afipeb to collect demolition waste produced in France<fnref n="126" />. The developer has secured its funding through the EU LIFE Programme (subsidy of € 2.7 million over 4 years, date unknown), and RABO Bank (loan of € 4.5 million). In October 2021, they received approval to transport PS-foam from demolition waste containing HBCD<fnref n="127" />. In March 2022, PolystyreneLoop announced they stopped the project due to numerous constraints (including delays because of the COVID-19 pandemic, surge in energy prices).

PureCycle Technologies currently holds a lab-scale unit at the facilities of its testing partner Phasex, which is located in Andover (Boston area). The construction of the company's first commercial plant in Ohio, USA has already commenced. Once fully operational, the plant is expected to reach the capacity of over 105 million pounds (approximately 48ktons) per year. Production is expected to start in late 2022 with full capacity to be reached in 2023. The developer is currently undergoing the pre-engineering phase for the design of five additional commercial lines in the USA. Once completed, these facilities should be capable of producing over 165 million pounds (approx. 75 ktons) of UPRP each<fnref n="128" />. In 2021 PureCycle Technologies reached an agreement with The Augusta Economic Development Authority by which one of their plants will be located in the Augusta Corporate Park, USA<fnref n="129" />. The company additionally announced a partnership with SK Global Chemical to build a 55kt/y recycling plant in South Korea<fnref n="130" />. A partnership was also signed with Mitsui & Co. to build a recycling plant in Japan, details on the facility have not yet been disclosed<fnref n="131" />. Other strategic partners can be mentioned such as Phasex (testing partners), TOTAL (supply agreement), L'Oréal (supply agreement), Nestlé (R&D partner), Gulfspan (construction partner), and Milliken & Company (providing additives for the production of r-

<footnote n="123">¹²³ https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2021/11/government-of-canada-supports-leading-edge-company-specializing-in-polystyrene-recycling-that-helps-protect-the-environment.html</footnote>

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210602005924/en/Innovative-PolyStyreneLoop-Plant-Will-Recycle-Polystyrene-Foam-Demolition-Waste-and-Recover-Valuable-Resources</footnote>

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ https://polystyreneloop.eu/</footnote>

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ https://mailchi.mp/515fa6306404/ps-loop-update-october-13407485</footnote>

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ https://mailchi.mp/515fa6306404/ps-loop-update-october-13407485</footnote>

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ https://ir.purecycletech.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/8/roth-ch-acquisition-i-to-combine-with-purecycle</footnote>

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ https://purecycle.com/2021/07/purecycle-to-build-new-recycling-facility-in-augusta-georgia/</footnote>

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/purecycle-partners-with-sk-global-chemical-to-open-ultra-pure-recycling-plant-in-south-korea-301354405.html?tc=eml_cleartime</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ https://purecycle.com/2021/09/purecycle-announces-partnership-with-mitsui-to-develop-ultra-pure-recycled-polypropylene-plant-in-japan/</footnote>
PP). The company has the (ambitious) goal of building 50 more recycling plants across the world within the next 15 years.

Launched in 2019, Polyloop (which treats PVC inputs) is still within its lab scale phase to improve its efficiency (current capacity unknown). However, the developer already plans the upscaling of its technology. In 2020, their process began testing in a laboratory pilot unit owned by Kem One (Balan, France). By 2022, the developer plans to install its first operational unit in the facilities of its partner Serge Ferrari (no news as of January 2022)<fnref n="132" />. Polyloop claims that its equipment is able to process 300kg batches in 3 hours, with a maximum of 6 batches per day. Additional business partners include MTB recycling (installing and maintenance partner), CETHIL, CGI (Commissariat Général à l'Investissement, investor), BPI (investor), and the ADEME (Polyloop was selected as part of the "Circular Economy and Waste Recovery" call for projects launched in February 2019). The developer is part of the ReSol project together with Chomarat and the University of Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL). ReSol aims at recycling PVC-coated textile composites. In November 2021, the project received 540 000€ of public funding within the program R&D Booster 2021¹³³.

APK AG successfully produced the first pre-commercial quantities of recycled PE, PA, and aluminum in 2016. In 2018, the developer expanded its commercial plant in Merseburg (Germany), reaching a capacity of 8,000 t/year (it is not specified whether it refers to input or output capacity). It is known that the plant will focus on the recycling of PE/PA multilayer films. In 2019, the company had received around 19€ million as investments for the expansion of their operations. A great share of the investment (almost 4€ million) came from the state of Saxony-Anhalt <fnref n="134" />. In 2019, the developer communicated its intention to build another commercial plant with a capacity of 25,000 t/year in 2021. It is known that, by 2025, the company aims to build further plants across Europe and Asia. No further updates are available as of January 2022 (12). APK AG is owned by MIG Fonds and AT Newtech. The company has also established a strategic partnership with MOL Group (for technology development and plant construction) and is a member of a series of global networks including the Circular Plastics Alliance, Plastic Recyclers Europe, CEFLEX, and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Although there is no information concerning the existence of CreaCycle's property plants, this developer has been successfully deploying its patented technology via business partners. In 2018, the first pilot plant in which the CreaSolv process is used was opened in partnership with Unilever in Indonesia. The plant can recycle up to 3 tons of packaging waste daily and it is the only facility in the world where this technology is being used to recycle sachets (60% of PE composition). In 2019, Unilever announced that the CreaSolv process had been successfully proven to be effective for the recycling of sachets through industrial scale trials<fnref n="135" />. However, due to technical, financial, and logistical challenges, the plant has been closed<fnref n="136" />. CreaCycle is also collaborating with PolyStyreneLoop, the MultiCycle Project<fnref n="137" /> (Horizon 2020 project focus on plastic recovery in the packaging and automotive sectors, overall budget of 9.7€ million, almost 80% of which is funded by the EU), the European project NONTOX (Horizon 2020 project), and Circular Packaging<fnref n="138" />. Circular Packaging is a project supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) to provide alternative end-of-life solutions for multi-layer laminates from household waste (3.12€ million investment). The project was supposed to begin with the construction of a pilot plant (to be located at Lober GmbH & Co. Abfallentsorgungs KG's premises) to improve the recycling of multi-layer laminated waste. This first phase was going to be followed by an up-scaling of the technology to an industrial demonstration plant and testing at this facility. The project began in 2018 and was supposed to reach completion in 2021. As of January 2022, no updates have been found concerning the progress attained

<footnote n="132">¹³² https://polyloop.fr/polyloop-heberge-par-kem-one/</footnote>

<footnote n="133">¹³³ https://polyloop.fr/projet-resol-enfin-du-pvc-recycle-pour-les-enducteurs/</footnote>

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ https://www.apk-ag.de/unternehmen-profitieren-von-einer-nachhaltigen-wirtschaftsfoerderung-des-landes-sachsen-anhalts-pressetermin-bei-apk-ag/</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ https://www.crecycle.de/en/projects/packaging/unilever-sachet-recycling-2015.html</footnote>

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ https://www.no-burn.org/investigation-reveals-unilevers-expensive-plastic-sachet-chemical-recycling-failure/</footnote>

<footnote n="137">¹³⁷ https://www.crecycle.de/en/creasolv-plants/multicycle-2018-en.html</footnote>

<footnote n="138">¹³⁸ https://www.crecycle.de/en/creasolv-plants/circular-packaging-2018.html</footnote>
so far. While the state of advancement of these facilities and their capacities are still unknown, it is acknowledged that the smallest plants built by CreaCycle have a capacity between 2-4,000 tons annually<fnref n="139" />.

## b Economic performance

Although a wide range of solvents are available on the market and, therefore, easily accessible, recovery and reuse of solvents is a necessary procedure for dissolution to be economically profitable. It is estimated that for the technology to be viable, the solvent used must have a good extractive activity and at least 70% of it must be recycled at the end of the process. High level of impurities within the input used may additionally threaten the economic viability of this technology due to potential need for cascade selective dissolutions when treating mixed plastics (24).

In terms of economic competitiveness of the recyclates, the price of r-PP recycled by PureCycle Technologies is claimed to be comparable to that of virgin polypropylene<fnref n="140" />. As of Polyloop, the developer claims that its output needs to have a minimum sales price of 1000€/tons for the process to be economically profitable<fnref n="141" />.

Dissolution processes have recently been drawing attention of several actors in the EEE sector in Europe who wish to find effective ways to treat brominated plastics (24). The ability of this technology to treat plastic mixes which contain harmful additives may therefore be interpreted as a driver of increasing investments in the development of dissolution processes.

## c Environmental performance

**LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint**

There is a lack of information on this topic.

**Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes**

Selective dissolution has a lower environmental impact than chemical recycling technologies which require for the polymer to be brought back to its monomer stage and then be repolymerized (24). No further information is currently available on this topic. No information was found on the environmental impact of the different solvents used by technology developers.

**Energy costs**

The energy consumption of selective dissolution technologies is generally lower than in traditional solvolysis, which requires heating, purification and repolymerization (5). Yet, while necessary to achieve economic profitability, the recovery of solvents by distillation may require a significant consumption of energy (24).

It is claimed that PureCycle Technologies' requires 60-85% less energy compared to the production of virgin polypropylene¹⁴²¹⁴³. No further information was provided concerning the means (context, methodology, etc.) by which these numbers were estimated.

<footnote n="139">¹³⁹ https://www.creacycle.de/en/the-process.html</footnote>

<footnote n="140">¹⁴⁰ https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/purecycle-technologies</footnote>

<footnote n="141">¹⁴¹ https://www.lesechos.fr/pme-regions/innovateurs/polyloop-recycle-le-pvc-au-pied-des-usines-de-plastique-1292980</footnote>

<footnote n="142">¹⁴² Please note that this range is based on a forecasted utility demand for a commercial-scale purification plant which has been designed but not yet built.</footnote>

<footnote n="143">¹⁴³ https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/purecycle-technologies</footnote>
DISSOLUTION

Input

* Practically suited to all types of thermoplastics. Most projects on PS, PVC, and polyolefins.

* Treats either mono-material contaminated streams (majority of technology developers) or mixed plastics. Some of the additives contained in the contaminated feedstock, like phthalates in PVC, may be dissolved with the polymer. This means that additional pre-treatment steps would be required.
Pre-sorting or pre-treatment are often necessary (e.g., sorting, washing, grinding, etc.).

Process

* Dissolution has the advantage of almost not altering the chemical structure of the recovered polymer.

* The nature of the process and the solvent used vary depending on the type of input. Usually, the type of solvent is not disclosed by the technology developers (confidential information).

* Option A: the solvent added dissolves the targeted plastics. Melted polymers are then recovered and filtered to remove the remaining impurities.

* Option B: the solvent added dissolves the unwanted additives/contaminants/plastics. The targeted polymer remains in its solid state, other substances may either be recovered or disposed of.

* A non-solvent/anti-solvent is needed at the end of the process to bring either liquid polymers or other substances back to their solid form.

* The process has an estimated duration of 30 minutes and is conducted at a temperature that is lower than the solvent's boiling point.

Output and Downstream steps

* The output consists of high quality recyclates and, in some cases, of valuable recovered substances (e.g., certain additives).

* New additives may be added to the plastic output.

* No food grade approval at the moment

Technology

Average Technology Readiness Level

* Estimated TRL = 5.

* Most technology developers are still in the development phase of their technology.

Current and future capacities

* Technology advancements and plans for expansion significantly vary from a developer to another.

* CreaCycle (up to 4,000 t/y per facility) and APK AG (8,000 t/y) are the most advanced technology developers in terms of scaling-up of their technology and/or capacity of their facilities. Other developers are still in the lab or demonstration phase.

* Several technology developers (PureCycle Technologies, PolyStyreneLoop, Polyloop) claimed that they would have started operating their demonstration plant or commercial facilities in 2021/22. No further details have so far been found concerning the advancement of these operations.

Technology scaling-up

Economic performance

* The recovery/recycling of solvents is necessary to achieve economic profitability.

* The ability of dissolution to treat plastics containing additives may drive investments in this type of technologies.

* Lack of public data available
<table><caption>Table 9 : Dissolution recapitulative table (RECORD, 2022)</caption><tr><td rowspan="7">Environmental performance</td><td>LCA data (or similar studies), notably carbon footprint<ul><li>Most solvents have low flammability and low toxicity.</li><li>Some solvents may be toxic or explosive.</li></ul>Comparative analysis between end-of-life processes<ul><li>Lower environmental impact than technologies bringing plastics back to the monomers to then repolymerize them.</li></ul>Energy costs<ul><li>High energy consumption requirements for solvents' distillation.</li><li>Lack of public data available on the environmental performance of the process</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">STUDIED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPERS</td></tr><tr><td>Polystyvert</td><td>APK</td><td>PURECYCLE</td><td>POLYLOOP<br/>COMPOSTABLE RECYCLING TECHNOLOGY<br/>PolyStyreneLoop</td><td>CreaCycle GmbH<br/>Innovative Plastic Recycling Technologies<br/>VinyLoop</td></tr></table>

<footnote>*PolystyreneLoop stopped their project in March 2022.</footnote>
# VII. Thermal treatment

## 1) Non catalytic pyrolysis

### a. Technology

#### Input

Pyrolysis is a process conducted in the absence of oxygen which can handle relatively mixed waste streams. However, it is more suited for polymers from polyaddition (polyolefins, PS and PMMA). Some resins such as PVC, PET or PU should previously be removed from the feedstock. Indeed, PVC can release hydrochloric acid, which is highly corrosive and causes harmful toxic fumes. As for PET, it increases the solid residue rate and consequently reduces the final yield. PET also contains oxygen, which is released in the reactor and interferes with the reaction media (24).

Moreover, some non-plastic additives such as fiberglass should be avoided as well as they generally cause operational problems in pyrolysis units (24).

Among the technology developers studied, most feedstocks were mixed plastic-rich waste (Agilyx, Plastic Energy, Recycling Technologies UK), post-consumer (Agilyx, Enval, OMV, Indaver) and post-industrial waste (Enval, OMV) feedstocks containing polyolefins (HDPE, LDPE, PP, PE), polystyrene, ABS, PB, PMP, PDMS and other polymers. PVC and PET can be processed by some technologies as well (Arcus Greencycling).

MMATwo is a four-years project launched in 2018 with the aim of recycling PMMA through non-catalytic thermal depolymerization. The feedstock used consists of post-industrial scraps and end-of-life waste (WEEE and ELV). The chemicals company ARKEMA is amongst the core members of this project.

The developers are concentrating their efforts on hard to recycle plastics such as soft and flexible packaging (e.g., films), multi-layered and laminated plastics (e.g., crisp packets), complex or even contaminated plastic (e.g., food trays). For instance, Enval is focusing on flexible pouches with an aluminum foil layer<fnref n="144" />.

Some developers are also focusing on feedstock such as tires shreds. Examples of such companies include Enviro in Scandinavia<fnref n="145" />.

Usually, a first sorting step is necessary to remove non-processable inputs and mechanically recyclable materials. The preprocessing steps also depend highly on quality standards needed. For instance, Agilyx is preprocessing waste in the plant to meet the quality control standards<fnref n="146" />.

On the contrary, Arcus Greencycling asserts that no sorting is necessary<fnref n="147" />.

#### Process

Pyrolysis is a thermal treatment process in the absence of oxygen. The aim of pyrolysis is to obtain a predominantly liquid faction.

Pyrolysis processes occur in an atmosphere without oxygen (the concentration of O₂ is inferior to 1%). Usually, they are carried out between 350 and 650°C (12). Most of the technology developers studied assert being in this range of temperature.

Enval uses microwaves to bring the energy needed. The plastic waste thus goes through a shredder, an airlock and then enters the reactor where it undergoes a micro-wave induced pyrolysis. Carbon black is added in the reactor to heat up the plastic, the carbon gets hot and transfers heat to the plastic. When the carbon is exposed to microwaves, it reaches temperatures of up to 1000°C in just a few minutes<fnref n="148" />.

Other technology developers use non-condensable gases combusted (Arcus Greencycling, Plastic Energy, ITERO) or steam (Splainex) to supply energy to the pyrolysis reactor.

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ http://www.enval.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ https://www.envirosystems.se</footnote>

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ https://www.agilyx.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ https://www.arcus-greencycling.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ https://www.enval.com/plant/</footnote>
Plastic Energy's process is also known as Thermal Anaerobic Conversion (TAC) and achieves a conversion rate of 85%. The remaining output (residual 25%) consists of tars and gas which are used to power the process<fnref n="149" />.

Yields obtained are highly dependent on the feedstock and thus actual yield can be lower than theoretical or announced yield depending on the facility. The technologies studied claim to reach yields from 70% to 85% (mass yield from plastic waste to oil). Additional purification steps would result in further losses (approximately 3%)<fnref n="150" />.

When going back to the monomer, the theoretical yield in styrene can go up to 85% (in the case of depolymerization of PS) and in MMA up to 90% (in the case of PMMA depolymerization) (12). The MMATwo project claims a yield between 64% and 85%.

## Output and downstream steps

Depending on the feedstock, pyrolysis processes, under certain conditions, can produce the monomer, for example for PS, PMMA and Polyamide 6. It is thus a thermal depolymerization for these polymers. In the case of other polymers as feedstocks, such as polyolefins (PE, PP), such a process could be considered as thermal cracking and will lead to three different fractions with different molecular weights.

Non catalytic thermal depolymerization gives out three main outputs:

- A liquid phase, oil, composed of hydrocarbon mix, that can be reprocessed and refined to obtain a petrochemical base of naphtha type or more generally polyolefins with C5-C10 chains. Depending on the process, C20 to C50 chains can be present in this phase. This fraction can afterwards be separated in a petroleum-type steam cracker (12).

- A gas mixture that can be thermally cracked to produce a gas free of condensable fractions (tars). After purification, this gas can be used directly in gas engines or gas turbines (12).

- A solid phase coke (or char), that can be:

* either burnt to provide the thermal input necessary for pyrolysis (pyro gasification) (12).

* or used as a secondary fuel, if it is not too loaded with pollutants (the pollutants of the waste remain in the majority) (12).

* Pollutants, such as heavy metals, remain mainly in the coke because of the low treatment temperatures (washing and ash removal operations are generally necessary) (12).

* or gasified in a separate device, after purification (12).

BASF, through its ChemCycling project, is feeding the oil fraction in their process BASF Verbund to produce r-PA resins. The input used can consist of recycled mixed plastic household waste, scrap tires, or industrial waste from polyamide production and processing<fnref n="151" />.

Enval also produces aluminum foil from its pyrolysis process, as it has a commercial value and can be separated during the pyrolysis process<fnref n="152" />.

The MMATwo project claims for its process to convert PMMA waste into high quality (>99 %) MMA monomer, also thanks to a purification phase carried out by Speichim. Different types of purification techniques are being tested to treat crude MMA and obtain a virgin like MMA. Distillation, pervaporation<fnref n="153" />, reactive distillation with catalyst are among the techniques that are being tested<fnref n="154" />.

Plastic Energy currently supplies TACOIL (pyrolysis oil) to Repsol, which converts it into virgin resins, and to Sabic, which transforms them into "circular certified polymers". Sabic and TESCO are working

<footnote n="149">¹⁴⁹ Chemical Recycling in Asia Pacific conference, 14/09/2021</footnote>

<footnote n="150">¹⁵⁰ https://plasticenergy.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ https://chemicals.basf.com/global/en/Monomers/polyamide_intermediates/sustainable_products/Ultr amid_Ccycled.html</footnote>

<footnote n="152">¹⁵² https://www.enval.com/</footnote>

<footnote n="153">¹⁵³ Pervaporation is a technique which uses a membrane within a partial vaporization process to separate mixed liquids.</footnote>

<footnote n="154">¹⁵⁴ https://www.mmatwo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MMAtwo-Virtual-Workshop_F-Boutros_P-De Groote.pdf#:~:text=Speichim%20is%20specialized%20in%20toll%20purification%20%3B%20mainly,c rude%20MMA%20to%20obtain%20a%20virgin%20MMA%20like.</footnote>