Recycling End-of-Life Vehicles of the Future

ANL/ES-C0201801

Energy Systems Division
Availability of This Report

This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bridge. It is also available 

on paper to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone (865) 576-8401

fax (865) 576-5728

reports@adonis.osti.gov

Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States 

Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express 

or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply 

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of 

document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, 

Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC. 

About Argonne National Laboratory 

Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC 

under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, 

at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne 

and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov.
Recycling End-of-Life Vehicles of the Future

ANL/ES-C0201801

prepared for

Office of Technology Transfer, Argonne National Laboratory

prepared by

B.J. Jody, J.A. Pomykala, Jr., J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels

Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory

December 1, 2009

iii 

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background................................................................................................................ 1 

1.2 Objective.................................................................................................................... 1 

1.3 Approach.................................................................................................................... 1 

1.4 Scope.......................................................................................................................... 2 

2 TASK 1. BASELINE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND 

 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 3 

2.1 Review Report on the State of the Art....................................................................... 3 

2.2 Bibliography of Relevant Publications ...................................................................... 5 

2.3 Life-Cycle Analysis Studies ...................................................................................... 6 

2.4 Recyclability Calculations ......................................................................................... 8 

2.5 Website Development and Launching....................................................................... 12 

2.6 Infrastructure Analysis............................................................................................... 12 

3 TASK 2. MATERIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND 

 DEMONSTRATION .......................................................................................................... 14 

3.1 Post-Shred Materials Recovery Technology Demonstration and Development ....... 14 

3.1.1 Characterization of Shredder Residue ........................................................... 15 

3.1.2 Argonne Pilot Plant........................................................................................ 16 

3.1.2.1 Mechanical Separation Pilot Facility.............................................. 17 

3.1.2.2 Wet Density/Froth Flotation Facility.............................................. 18 

3.1.3 Recovered Fractions from Pilot Plant Operation........................................... 20 

3.1.3.1 Recovered Polyethylene/Polypropylene (PP/PE) Fraction............. 20 

3.1.3.2 Separation of Wood and Rubber from the Recovered PP/PE......... 21 

3.1.3.3 Filled ABS Fraction ........................................................................ 21 

3.1.3.4 Unfilled ABS and PS ...................................................................... 22 

3.1.3.5 PC-ABS/PC Alloy .......................................................................... 22 

3.1.3.6 PVC................................................................................................. 22 

3.1.3.7 Rubber............................................................................................. 22 

3.1.4 Development of a Large-Scale Validation Plant ........................................... 22 

3.1.5 Benchmarking and Evaluation of Other Technologies.................................. 23 

3.1.5.1 Evaluation of Color and Infra-Red (IR) Sorters ............................. 23 

3.1.5.2 Processing of Polymer Concentrate at MBA Polymers.................. 23 

3.1.5.3 Changing World Technologies (CWT)........................................... 23 

3.1.5.4 Troy Polymers Glycolysis Process (TPI)........................................ 24 

3.1.5.5 Energy Anew Recycling of Fines ................................................... 24 

3.1.5.6 Co-Combustion of Plastics Containing Material with Biomass ..... 24 

3.2 Development of Technology for Removal of PCBs and Other Toxics 

 from Shredder Residues............................................................................................. 25 

3.2.1 Bench-Scale Testing ...................................................................................... 25 
iv 

CONTENTS (CONT.) 

3.2.2 Testing of Commercially Available Equipment ............................................ 26 

3.2.3 Testing of Proprietary Processes.................................................................... 26 

3.2.4 Testing of Other Potential Routes.................................................................. 26 

3.2.5 Testing a Devolatilization Process with a Vacuum Extruder ........................ 26 

3.2.6 Development of a New Process at Argonne .................................................. 29 

3.2.7 Evaluation of the Variability of PCB Sampling and 

 Analytical Procedures .................................................................................... 30 

3.2.7.1 Evaluation of Soxhlet Method for PCBs Extraction....................... 32 

3.2.7.2 Selection of a Solvent ..................................................................... 33 

3.2.7.3 Determination of Required Extraction Time .................................. 33 

3.2.7.4 Determination of Adequate Sample Size........................................ 34 

3.2.7.5 Comparison of the U.S. EPA and the European Quantification 

 Methods........................................................................................... 34 

3.3 Integration of the Technologies ................................................................................. 35 

3.4 Improvements to Dismantling Process ...................................................................... 35 

4 TASK 3. RECOVERED MATERIAL PERFORMANCE AND 

 MARKET EVALUATION................................................................................................. 39 

4.1 Polymer Physical Properties and Materials Composition Analysis........................... 39 

4.1.1 Physical Properties and Composition of the PP/PE Recovered 

 from Shredder Residue .................................................................................. 40 

4.1.2 Physical Properties and Composition of the Recovered Filled ABS............. 42 

4.1.3 Physical Properties of the Polymers Recovered by MBA Polymers ............. 42 

4.1.4 Physical Properties of Polymers after Processing to Remove the PCBs ....... 42 

4.2 Polymer Physical Properties Database....................................................................... 42 

4.3 Recovered Rubber/Plastics Material.......................................................................... 46 

4.4 Blending and Pelletizing of Recovered PP/PE .......................................................... 46 

4.5 Molding Trials ........................................................................................................... 47 

5 TASK 4. CRADA REPORTING........................................................................................ 48 

6 CRADA TEAM PUBLICATIONS .................................................................................... 49 
v 

FIGURES 

1 Impact Categories of the Argonne Plant............................................................................. 7 

2 Infrastructure of the Automotive Recycling Industry in the United States ........................ 13 

3 Picture of Typical Shredder Residue Samples.................................................................... 15 

4 Picture of Argonne’s Mechanical Separation Facility........................................................ 17 

5 Sequence of Operation of the Basic Mechanical Separation Plant..................................... 18 

6 Product Fractions from the Mechanical Separation Plant................................................... 18 

7 A Picture of the Original Wet Density/Froth Flotation Facility ......................................... 19 

8 Sequence of Operation of the Basic Mechanical-Separation Plant .................................... 19 

9 Flotation Characteristics of Shredder Residue Polymers based on Density Gradients ...... 21 

10 Extruder with Die and Vacuum Knockout Pot Used in the Devolatilization Testing ........ 27 

11 Experimental Apparatus for Testing the Argonne Two-Stage Process .............................. 29 

12 Pelletized PP/PE Product Recovered from Shredder Residue............................................ 46 

13 Auto Parts Molded from PP/PE Recovered from Shredder Residue.................................. 47 

TABLES 

1 Comparison of the Argonne and Salyp Processes — Relative Environmental Impact ...... 8 

2 Comparison of the Argonne and CWT Processes — Relative Environmental Impact ...... 8 

3 Materials Breakdown for 2004 Toyota Prius...................................................................... 9 

4 Materials Breakdown for 2004 Ford Taurus....................................................................... 10 

5 Reference Case Recyclability: 2004 Toyota Prius.............................................................. 10 

6 2004 Toyota Prius Recyclability, Reference Case vs. Aluminum and 

 Composite Body Materials ................................................................................................. 11 
vi 

TABLES (CONT.) 

7 Streams Produced by Mechanical Separation of an Average Shredder Residue................ 16 

8 Composition of an Average Polymer Concentrate and Recovered Polymer Fractions...... 20 

9 PCBs and Impact Test Results from Vacuum Devolatilization Testing............................. 28 

10 Physical Test Results with Water and Water/Ethylene Glycol (50:50) Addition............... 28 

11 Results of Argonne’s Two-Stage PCB Removal Process................................................... 30 

12 Effect of Phthalates on Analysis of PCBs........................................................................... 31 

13 PCBs Analysis by GC-ECD and GC-MS ........................................................................... 32 

14 Protocols for PCBs Analysis............................................................................................... 33 

15 Comparison of the U.S. EPA and the European Quantification Methods.......................... 34 

16 Properties of PP/PE Recovered by Argonne from Different Shredder Residues ............... 40 

17 Commercial Grades of PP and PE, Unless Specified Otherwise........................................ 41 

18 Properties of PP/PE Recovered by Salyp from Different Shredder Residues .................... 41 

19 Properties of Recovered Filled ABS, Virgin ABS, and Blends of the Two Materials....... 43 

20 Properties of Plastics Recovered by MBA.......................................................................... 43 

21 Impact Test Results from Vacuum Devolatilization Testing.............................................. 44 

22 Comparison of the Properties of PP Dismantled of Cars as Part of the USCAR 

 U.S. Trial with PP Recovered by the Argonne Process from Shredder Residue................ 45 

23 Properties of Recovered PP/PE when Mixed with Regrind................................................ 45 
1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

 Argonne National Laboratory (the Contractor) entered into a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement (CRADA) with the following Participants: Vehicle Recycling 

Partnership, LLC (VRP, which consists of General Motors [GM], Ford, and Chrysler), and the 

American Chemistry Council – Plastics Division (ACC-PD). The purpose of this CRADA is to 

provide for the effective recycling of automotive materials. 

 The long-term goals are to (1) enable the optimum recycling of automotive materials, 

thereby obviating the need for legislative mandates or directives; (2) enable the recovery of 

automotive materials in a cost-competitive manner while meeting the performance requirements 

of the applications and markets for the materials; and (3) remove recycling barriers/reasons, real 

or perceived, to the use of advanced lightweighting materials or systems in future vehicles. The 

issues, technical requirements, and cost and institutional considerations in achieving that goal are 

complex and will require a concerted, focused, and systematic analysis, together with a 

technology development program. 

 The scope and tasks of this program are derived from “A Roadmap for Recycling End-ofLife Vehicles of the Future,” prepared in May 2001 for the DOE Office of Energy, Efficiency, 

and Renewable Energy (EERE)-Vehicle Technologies Program. 

1.2 OBJECTIVE 

 The objective of this research program is to enable the maximum recycling of automotive 

materials and obsolete vehicles through the development and commercialization of technologies 

for the separation and recovery of materials from end-of-life vehicles (ELVs). The long-term 

goals are to (1) enable the optimum recycling of automotive materials, thereby obviating the 

need for legislative mandates or directives; (2) enable the recovery of automotive materials in a 

cost-competitive manner while meeting the performance requirements of the applications and 

markets for the materials; and (3) remove recycling barriers/reasons, real or perceived, to the use 

of advanced lightweighting materials or systems in future vehicles. 

1.3 APPROACH 

 Argonne has been conducting research directed toward the development of cost-effective 

technologies to facilitate automotive materials recycling under sponsorship of the 

U.S. Department of Energy since the early 1990s. The VRP had established an Engineering 

Project Oversight Committee (EPOC), which represented a consolidation of the former three 

VRP Operating Groups, which were (1) the Shredder Residue Group, (2) the Disassembly 

Group, and (3) the Design Guidelines Group. The ACC-PD (formerly called American Plastics 

Council [APC]) is also actively engaged in various aspects of automotive and other plastics 
2 

recycling. This CRADA coordinated the various research activities of the respective 

organizations to ensure that the work complements current research and to maximize the benefits 

relative to committed funding of each organization. The CRADA partners have identified key 

technology gaps, conducted research to address these gaps, and determined the technical and 

economic feasibility of the various technologies needed to fill those gaps. 

1.4 SCOPE 

 The scope of the research encompassed the following items: (1) examination of the issues 

and factors that prevent total recycling of scrap cars; (2) identification of desirable but

undeveloped or unavailable technology that, if successfully developed and implemented, would 

enable recycling of components of scrap cars that are not recycled at present; (3) development 

and demonstration of separation technologies to recover materials and resources from 

automotive shredder residue; (4) examination of options for design modifications that could 

provide for more effective disassembly of components for recycling; and (5) examination of 

alternative materials to increase materials recycling. The effort conducted under this CRADA 

consisted of four key tasks: 

Task 1. Baseline Technology Assessment and Infrastructure Analysis 

Task 2. Material Recovery Technology Development and Demonstration 

Task 3. Recovered Material Performance and Market Evaluation 

Task 4. CRADA Reporting 

 The progress achieved on these Tasks is discussed in Sections 2–4. Section 6 lists the 

publications resulting from this work. 
3 

2 TASK 1. BASELINE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS 

 The objective of this task was to establish the baseline or state of the art for automotive 

materials recovery/recycling technology. More specifically, this task involved (1) benchmarking 

the automotive materials recycling industry and (2) compiling information on the status of 

existing and emerging recycling technology and research in an accessible format. The focus of 

the work under this task was to (1) develop the tools and document the information necessary to 

make effective decisions relative to technology needs to facilitate sustainable future vehicle 

recycling and (2) make effective decisions regarding allocation of R&D resources. The following 

main products resulted from this task: 

• Report reviewing the state of the art, 

• An annotated bibliography of relevant publications, 

• Life-cycle analysis studies, 

• Recyclability calculations, 

• A website for dissemination of information to the automotive recycling 

community, and 

• Infrastructure analysis. 

2.1 REVIEW REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE ART 

 We reviewed the state of the art of worldwide automotive materials recovery/recycling 

technologies and associated resource recovery infrastructures to identify available technologies, 

technologies under development, and technology gaps and needs and to identify differences in 

automotive recycling strategies between the United States, Europe, and Asia. Technologies that 

are included in this review include, but are not limited to, post-shred materials-recovery 

technologies, pre-shred materials-recovery technologies, materials identification technologies, 

automated dismantling technologies, technologies for the recycling of specific components of 

vehicles (such as bumpers), and thermochemical conversion technologies. Promising 

technologies that need further development and/or demonstration to fully understand the 

technical and economic feasibility of the technology were identified. Conclusions of the study 

are summarized below. 

1. The complexity of the composition of shredder residue, the entanglement of 

its numerous constituents, and the substances of concern that it contains 

hamper efforts to recover materials from it for reuse. 
4 

2. The lack of sustainable markets for materials that could be recovered from 

shredder residue (such as plastics) is an additional hurdle to overcome. 

3. Despite the difficulties stated in items 1 and 2, several technologies have 

reached an advanced stage of development. The two areas that received most 

attention are: 

• Recovery and recycling of polymers and 

• Conversion to fuels and energy. 

4. The consensus among many of the workers in this field is that organic 

material must be separated from the inorganic material in shredder residue 

through some degree of bulk mechanical separation before technologies to 

separate and recover polymers or to convert the shredder residue to fuels can 

be implemented. 

5. A pre-separated fraction of shredder residue has been used in many places as a 

landfill cover. 

6. Several separation technologies have been tested for possible application to 

automotive materials. Mechanical separation technologies have been able to 

separate the mostly inorganic fines and residual ferrous and non-ferrous 

metals from shredder residue and produce a polymer concentrate. 

7. Polymer separation technologies (such as froth flotation) have successfully 

separated and recovered the polyolefins and engineered plastics (such as 

acrilonitrile-butadiene-styrene, or ABS) from the polymer concentrate. Dry 

and wet processes can also recover a mixed-rubber fraction. 

8. Gasification, pyrolysis, and depolymerization/hydrolysis processes proved 

that diesel-grade and other fuels can be produced from shredder residue. 

9. The organic fraction of shredder residue has been showing promising results 

as a reducing agent (as well as an energy source) when used in blast furnaces. 

10. In spite of recent technical advancements, essentially all of the about 5 million 

tons of shredder residue generated every year in the United States is disposed 

of in landfills. In Europe and Japan, some of shredder residue is disposed of 

by incineration. The primary reason for incineration is that available recycling 

technologies are not economical. 

11. Recently proposed regulations (most of which are not implemented) in Europe 

have increased interest in developing recycling technologies for shredder 

residue. However, economic drivers are likely to continue to lead the way to 

successful implementation of the recycling technologies. 
5 

12. In the United States, developing reliable and economic technologies for 

removing the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is necessary for recycling the 

automotive polymers. 

13. An economical solution to recycling shredder residue is likely to be an 

integrated system of many technologies to produce quality products at the 

lowest cost. 

 The report is posted on the CRADA team website and can be accessed at 

http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_systems/CRADA_Team_Link/publications/Recycling_Report_ 

(print).pdf 

2.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS 

 An extensive literature search was conducted, and summaries and publications and 

profiles of available and emerging recycle technologies were compiled into a working document 

that was updated as new information became available. The bibliography is an expandable PDF 

that provides abstracts and references to publications relevant to the recycling of ELVs. It has 

240 entries and is organized into the following 17 sections. 

• Recycle Infrastructure 

• Legal and Regulatory Issues 

• Disassembly Technologies and Case Studies 

• Reuse of Automotive Parts and Subassemblies 

• Recycling Case Studies 

• Mechanical Separation Technology 

• Thermo-Chemical Conversion Technology 

• Advanced Materials Recycle Technology 

• Environmental Issues 

• Design for Recycle 

• Research Programs 

• Remanufacturing 

• Substances of Concern 

• Life Cycle Analysis 

• Lightweighting Metals 

• Energy Recovery Technology 

• Other Technology 

 The bibliography is posted on the US ELV CRADA Team website: 

http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_systems/CRADA_Team_Link/Index.html and can be accessed at 

http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_systems/CRADA_Team_Link/recycle_bibliography/Recycle%20

Reference%2001-31-09%20web%20version.pdf 
6 

2.3 LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS STUDIES 

 The objective is to use life-cycle analysis to assess the environmental impacts of various 

separation and alternative end-of-life recycling technologies. This information will then be used 

to create a flexible, computerized life-cycle inventory model, which is process-specific and yet 

can be modified to include additional recycling technologies and various material inputs. Lifecycle analysis involves assessing all of the upstream burdens associated with the production of 

the materials and energies used in the process, including the transport of all materials to the 

facility. 

 PE Europe GmbH, a company that is experienced in conducting life-cycle assessments 

and in model development using its own GaBi (Ganzheitliche Bilanzerung) software, was 

contracted to perform these analyses. Four analyses have been completed for (1) Salyp NV’s 

mechanical separation process, (2) Changing World Technologies’ (CWT’s) thermal conversion 

process, (3) Argonne mechanical and froth flotation process, and (4) automotive recycling 

infrastructure analysis. Data were collected for each of the analysis, including all energy, water, 

and material inputs, plus data on emissions to air and water, wastes, and products produced. The 

four sets of data were entered into the GaBi software to create a flexible model of the process. 

PE Europe developed a flexible end-of-life model, and the model was used to compare the 

different approaches to recycling shredder residue. The model allows the user to run simulations 

on shredder residue separation within different boundary conditions. The following boundary 

conditions can be modified: (1) shredder residue composition, (2) location of the facility, (3) type 

and distance of transportation, (4) market values for the separated fractions, (5) new potential 

applications for separated fractions, and (6) utilization ratio of the facility 

 In the case of the Salyp separation process, three different scenarios for handling the 

various materials recovered from shredder residue were determined. These scenarios included 

using specific material fractions as fuel for cement kilns (energy recovery), as well as using 

mixed plastics to replace such products as wood pallets and polypropylene (PP) pellets (material 

substitution). The various scenarios were assessed by using a variety of impact categories, 

including primary energy demand and CO2 emissions. In the case of primary energy demand, all 

scenarios showed a net credit in total energy use. For the three scenarios studied, substituting 

recovered polypropylene/polyethylene (PP/PE) in a new PP application yielded the greatest 

benefit. However, if the mixed plastic stream was used to replace wood (e.g., decking material, 

park benches, wood pallets, and other products), the benefits to primary energy demand were 

less than if the recovered materials were simply used for energy recovery. In terms of CO2

emissions, the PP application again resulted in the greatest benefit. Substituting PP for wood 

applications was next with a lower benefit, while the energy recovery scenario showed an 

increase in CO2 emissions. 

 In the case of the CWT process, two basic scenarios were assessed. They involved using 

the light hydrocarbon oil generated by the process for fuel oil used in power plants to generate 

electricity and substituting light hydrocarbon oil for diesel oil (both with and without an added 

hot-oil processing step). While the oil product generated is more refined than an actual crude oil, 

it would require additional steps before it could be considered a true diesel oil. Therefore, reality 

is probably located somewhere between scenarios 1 and 2. In this study, the impact on primary 
7 

energy demand resulted in a benefit in all cases. The benefits in the diesel substitution case were 

slightly greater than in the fuel oil case. All scenarios showed a reduction in CO2 emissions. 

However, in terms of CO2 emissions, the diesel substitution case had a greater benefit than the 

fuel oil substitution case. 

 Life-cycle analysis of the Argonne process considered both the mechanical separation of 

the shredder residue to produce a polymer concentrate and recover residual metals, followed by 

froth flotation to separate plastics from the polymer concentrate for recycling as plastics 

(material substitution). The report is available at the CRADA team website.1 The analysis 

concluded that both the mechanical and the froth flotation processes resulted in environmental 

benefits (Figure 1). The environmental benefits of the Argonne process were also compared with 

those of Salyp (Table 1) and CWT processes (Table 2). The environmental benefits associated 

with the Argonne process are greater than those for the Salyp process (except for the 

acidification potential) and for the CWT process (except for the impact category EP and NOx

emissions). In terms of energy use, the Argonne process was the most advantageous. 

Interestingly, the analyses concluded that the best results can be obtained by combining both the 

Argonne and CWT processes, in which the organic fractions separated by Argonne that do not 

meet the requirements for material substitution (such as mixed plastics and rubber by-products) 

are processed by CWT for fuel production. 

Impact categories ARGONNE plant

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

AP EP GWP100 POCP

Mechanical Separation Plant Plastic Separation Plant

FIGURE 1 Impact Categories of the Argonne Plant. (AP is acidification 

potential, EP is eutrophication [depletion of oxygen in water] potential, GWP is 

global warning potential, and POCP is photochemical ozone creation potential). 

(Y axis indicates impact.) 

 

1

 http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_systems/CRADA_Team_Link/publications/Final%20Report_ANL%20LCA%20 

report_09292006.pdf. 
8 

TABLE 1 Comparison of the Argonne and Salyp Processes — Relative 

Environmental Impact. (A negative value indicates a reduction in the pollution 

category [an environmental benefit], while a positive value indicates an increase in 

the pollution category.) 

Parametera

Argonne Process 

(mechanical and froth flotation) Salyp Process 

 

AP (lb SO2-equivalent) -0.0060 -0.0165 

EP (lb phosphate-equivalent) -0.00011 0.00148 

GWP100 (lb CO2-equivalent) -1.354 0.861 

POCP (lb ethene-equivalent) -0.0026 0.0126 

a

 AP is acidification potential, EP is eutrophication (depletion of oxygen in water) potential, 

GWP is global warning potential, and POCP is photochemical ozone creation potential 

TABLE 2 Comparison of the Argonne and CWT Processes — Relative 

Environmental Impact. Both processes require mechanical separation of the 

inorganic fraction. (A negative value indicates a reduction in pollution 

category [a benefit], while a positive value indicates an increase.) 

Parametera

Argonne Process 

(Froth Flotationb) CWT Process 

 

AP (lb SO2-equivalent) -0.01103 -0.00662 

EP (lb phosphate-equivalent) -0.00055 -0.00079 

GWP100 (lb CO2-equivalent) -4.167 -0.309 

POCP (lb ethene-equivalent) -0.0088 -0.0044 

a

 AP is acidification potential, EP is eutrophication (depletion of oxygen in water) 

potential, GWP is global warning potential, and POCP is photochemical ozone creation 

potential 

b

 Comparison is done here only with the froth flotation process because both Argonne’s 

froth flotation process and the CWT process require mechanical separation of the 

inorganic materials 

2.4 RECYCLABILITY CALCULATIONS 

 Recyclability studies were conducted to examine the effect of using automotive 

lightweighting material on recyclability. A Toyota Prius hybrid was selected as a reference case. 

This vehicle is a second-generation hybrid with a gas/electric powertrain. Evaluating the 

recyclability of this vehicle and its new technology was a step in identifying changes that will 

impact end-of-life recycling of vehicles of the future. In collaboration with Johnson Controls, 

Inc. (JCI), the VRP dismantled the vehicle according to VRP procedures to single material 

components and entered data for each part into a database. A material list that identified the 

breakdown of materials into separate classifications (such as ferrous and nonferrous metals, as 
9 

well as composite materials and plastics) was prepared. The materials breakdown is summarized 

in Table 3. For comparison, the materials composition of a production Ford Taurus is 

summarized in Table 4. 

 Three different recyclability calculations were made (Table 5). The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) recyclability number is the percentage by weight of the material that is 

currently being recycled, and it includes metals, fluids less fuel, and batteries. The European 

guidelines include FTC materials plus fuel at 90% of a full tank, plastics that could be recycled, 

and up to 10% by weight energy recovery. Note that Europe requires 95% recyclability for new 

vehicles. The feasibility-to-recycle number includes the FTC materials plus plastics that can be 

recycled. Changes to the current infrastructure would be required to increase recycling beyond 

the current FTC percentage. 

 To estimate the impact of lightweighting materials on the reference case recyclability 

calculations, the 2004 Toyota Prius is compared with a proposed aluminum-intensive lightweight 

vehicle and a proposed composite lightweight vehicle, both of which are also based on the 2004 

Prius. The production 2004 Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle body was steel with an aluminum hood 

and decklid. The suspension was of steel, except for an aluminum steering knuckle on the front 

suspension. This vehicle was used as the base case for this study. 

TABLE 3 Materials Breakdown for 2004 Toyota Prius 

Materials Mass (lb) Percent 

 

Ferrous metals 1,713 60.6 

Nonferrous metals 507 17.9 

Plastics 341 12.1 

Elastomers 87 3.1 

Inorganic material 77 2.7 

Other 62 2.2 

Organic materials 42 1.5 

Vehicle mass (less fluids) 2,829 100.0 
10 

TABLE 4 Materials Breakdown for 2004 Ford Taurus 

Materials Mass (lb) Percent 

 

Ferrous metals 2,223 70.4 

Plastics 340 10.8 

Nonferrous metals 312 9.9 

Elastomers 152 4.8 

Inorganic material 90 2.9 

Other 38 1.2 

Organic materials 4 0.1 

Vehicle mass (less fluids) 3,159 100.0 

TABLE 5 Reference Case Recyclability: 

2004 Toyota Prius 

Calculation Method Recyclability (%) 

 

Federal Trade Commission 80.86 

European 97.61 

Feasibility of recycling 85.58 

Ref. 2000 Ford Taurus 80.50 

 The aluminum alternative is for a 2004 Toyota Prius with an aluminum body and a 

magnesium engine cradle and a rear axle substituted for the production parts. In addition, seat 

frames, body brackets, and the instrument panel cross car beam have been changed from steel to 

aluminum. As a result, the weight has been reduced by approximately 630 lb, or 21%. Because 

the weight reduction is entirely in the currently recycled portion of the vehicle, the recyclability 

is reduced from 80.86% to 76.10%. No changes were made to the currently non-recycled portion 

of the vehicle. Aluminum replaced steel at 50% by weight of the original steel. 

 The composite alternative is for a 2004 Toyota Prius that consists of (1) a carbon fiber 

body with 40% carbon fiber and 60% thermoset polyurethane/urea resin by volume, 49.72% 

carbon, and 50.28% thermoset polyurethane/urea resin by weight and (2) a magnesium engine 

cradle and rear axle substituted for the production parts. In addition, seat frames, body brackets, 

and the instrument panel cross car beam have been changed from steel to composite. As a result, 

the weight has been reduced by approximately 711 lb, or 24%. Because the weight reduction is 

entirely in the currently recycled portion of the vehicle, the recyclability is reduced from 80.86% 

to 57.20% if none of the composite is recycled or to 74% if all of the composite material is 

recycled. No changes were made to the currently non-recycled portion of the vehicle. The 

composite material replaced steel at 40 weight percent (wt%) of the original steel. 
11 

 There are reductions in all three recyclability calculations for vehicles with 

lightweighting materials, even though the rest of the vehicle is not changed (Table 6). Where the 

aluminum and composite material is being recycled, the same amount of material would be 

disposed of in landfills in each of the three scenarios. The only difference is that the recycled 

portion of the vehicles with lightweighting materials would be lighter. Although the recyclability 

would be lower, there would be no difference in the amount of material disposed of in landfills, 

and the lighter vehicles would use less fuel during their life. As can be seen, using lightweighting 

materials in automobiles presents challenges in the European market. Note that these calculations 

do not take into account the downsizing of related components that would accompany any 

lightweight vehicle, such as powertrains, brakes, and tires. Because the downsized components 

are high in metallic content, downsizing will further reduce recyclability and make it difficult to 

meet the European requirement of 95% recyclability. 

 These results demonstrate the need for technology to recycle lightweight automotive 

materials if recycling mandates are to be met and to ensure that lightweighting materials are not 

excluded because of the inability to recycle them. Interestingly, even if the lightweighting metals 

that replace steel and iron are recycled at the same rate as steel and iron, the overall recyclability 

rate of the obsolete vehicle will decrease because the relative weight of the metals in the vehicle 

will decrease. Therefore, to maintain high vehicle-recycling rates, it is important that nonmetallic materials that are not recycled at present, such as polymers, be recycled. 

TABLE 6 2004 Toyota Prius Recyclability, Reference Case vs. 

Aluminum and Composite Body Materials 

Calculation Method 

As 

Produced 

(%) 

Aluminum 

Body 

(%) 

Composite 

Body 

(%) 

 

FTC 80.9 76.1 74.0a

European 97.6 96.0 94.5a

Recycling feasibility 88.3 85.6 83.9a

a

 If the composite material were not recycled, then the numbers would be 

FTC, 57.2%; European, 78.2%; and feasibility of recycling, 67.1%. 

Recycling of the composite material would require significant changes in 

the current recycling infrastructure. In addition, a market for the recycled 

carbon fibers would need to be developed. Current technology for 

recycling carbon fibers results in a 20% loss in fiber properties and would 

limit their reuse to short fiber applications. 
12 

2.5 WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND LAUNCHING 

 A website was launched in 2006 to provide for better communication and networking 

with stakeholders and other research teams: http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_systems/CRADA_ 

Team_Link/Index.html. The website provides an update of the CRADA progress and provides 

access to relevant information and publications, including a bibliography of mechanical, thermochemical conversion, and energy recovery technologies for recycling automotive materials. The 

website is updated periodically with more information, including access to additional 

information sources. 

 In addition, the CRADA team 

• Held media events; 

• Made numerous presentation and publications; 

• Met with representatives of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), 

the Automobile Recycling Association (ARA), and shredder operators to brief 

them on the CRADA objectives and projects and to encourage their 

participation; 

• Published a one-page CRADA summary and a CRADA brochure; both are 

available at the website; and 

• Conducted project reviews and workshops. 

2.6 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS 

 The CRADA team conducted a thorough analysis of the infrastructure of the automotive 

recycling industry. Figure 2 illustrates this infrastructure and summarizes the activities that 

govern the automotive recycling process. Automobiles are one of the most recycled products in 

the world. Today, cars that reach the end of their useful service life in the United States are 

profitably processed for materials and parts recovery by an existing well-established recycling 

infrastructure. That infrastructure includes over 15,000 automotive dismantlers and automotive 

remanufacturers and over 200 scrap processors (shredders). The dismantlers recover useable 

parts for repair and reuse. The dismantlers also recover some of the automotive fluids, including 

the refrigerants and the engine oil. The refrigerants can be purified and reused. Facilities for 

recycling engine oil also exist. The oil can be used as an energy source, or it could be refined and 

used to make new engine oil. Remanufacturers remanufacture a full range of components, 

including starters, alternators, transmissions, and engines to replace defective parts. The scrap 

processors recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals from the remaining auto “hulk.” 
13 

FIGURE 2 Infrastructure of the Automotive Recycling Industry in the 

United States 

 The analysis indicated that: 

• The recyclability of the plastics and elastomers of ELVs is limited at present 

by the lack of (1) commercially proven technologies to identify and costeffectively separate materials and components and (2) profitable post-use 

markets. 

• The presence of PCBs on the plastics severely limits their end use. 

• During the next 20 years, ELVs are expected to be more prevalent and 

complex, posing significant challenges to the existing recycling infrastructure. 

• The automobile of the future will use significantly greater amounts of 

lightweighting materials (e.g., ultra-high-strength steels, aluminum, 

magnesium, titanium, plastics, and composites) and more 

sophisticated/complex components, such as fuel cell stacks, hydrogen storage 

systems, and electronic controls. 
14 

3 TASK 2. MATERIAL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY 

DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

 The goal of this task is to establish the business case for automotive materials recycling 

of ELVs of the future. Development of technology that can lower the cost of recycling and meet 

the financial and institutional requirements of the market is critical to improving the recycling 

rate of automotive materials. Technology development and demonstration, along with an 

analysis of infrastructure requirements, is the cornerstone of this program and served as the 

program’s focal point. The activities under this task were organized into the following four 

subtasks: 

Subtask 6.1. Post-Shred Materials Recovery Technology Demonstration and Development 

Subtask 6.2. Development of Technology for Removal of PCBs and Other Toxics (Substances 

of Concern, or SOCs) from Shredder Residues 

Subtask 6.3. Integration of the Technologies 

Subtask 6.4. Dismantling Process Improvement 

 The key accomplishments are discussed below. 

• Development of technology for the separation of polymers and residual metals 

from shredder residue, 

• Development of technology for removal of PCBs and other toxics (SOCs) 

from shredder residues, and 

• Identification of the needs of the dismantling industry. 

3.1 POST-SHRED MATERIALS RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

The objective of this project was to develop technology for the cost-effective recovery of 

materials from post-shred residues. Figure 3 is picture of a typical shredder residue sample. 

Research was conducted to provide data essential to establishing a business case for sustainable 

recycling of automotive materials from post-shred residue. This includes the determination of the 

performance (e.g., yield, purity, efficiency, and cost) of these emerging technologies such that an 

optimized and integrated process for recovering these materials from shredder residues can be 

developed. The approach followed in this effort consists of: 

• Characterization of shredder residue from a number of sources to determine 

composition variability, 

• Building and operating a pilot plant for the separation of shredder residue to 

recover materials for market evaluation and to provide “control” samples for 

testing of alternative technologies, 
15 

FIGURE 3 Picture of Typical Shredder Residue Samples 

• Conduct of cost and performance analysis of alternative technologies to 

establish the business case for the technologies and to identify technology 

gaps, and 

• Conduct of bench-scale and large-scale process/technology tests to benchmark 

other technologies. 

 A wide range of materials recovery technologies are at various stages of development. 

Certain technologies specific to the recovery of materials from post-shred materials streams were 

evaluated to fully understand their commercial viability. Technologies specific to the recovery of 

materials from post-shred materials were benchmarked to determine their commercial viability. 

The performance (e.g., yield, purity, efficiency, and cost) of emerging technologies was 

determined to enable the development of an integrated process for recovering materials from 

shredder residue. Research was conducted on the Salyp, MBA, Troy Polymers, VW-SiCon, 

CWT, and Energy Anew approaches, in addition to Argonne’s separation processes. 

3.1.1 Characterization of Shredder Residue 

 Over 130 tons of residues from eight facilities were processed in Argonne’s mechanical 

plant. A detailed material balance on the shredder residue and on its major components was also 

performed. Table 7 summarizes the results after the plant was optimized. 

 Relatively large variations in fines, metals, rubber, and wood and less variation in the 

composition of the plastics fraction were observed. The weight percent of the polymer 

concentrate recovered from eight runs totaling 80,000 lb of shredder residue from a given source 

conducted over a six-month period was reasonably consistent (41%, 26%, 36%, 39%, 45%, 37%, 

43%, and 45%; average 40%). The composition of the different polymer concentrates was also 

similar. Therefore, a standard design can be developed for the shredding industry. 
16 

TABLE 7 Streams Produced by Mechanical Separation of an Average Shredder Residue 

Component 

or Parameter 

Shredder 

Residue 

Oversized 

Heavies 

Oversized 

Foam Rich Finesa

Ferrous 

Rich 

NonFerrous 

Rich Lights 

Polymer 

Concentrate 

 

Weight (lb) 40,000 2,148 756 17,640 656 1,468 1,968 10,044 

PP 1,075 0 0 0 17 33 129 897 

PP (filled) 403 0 0 0 0 0 9 393 

ABS 763 0 0 0 5 9 13 737 

PE 941 0 0 0 9 18 85 830 

HIPS 261 0 0 0 4 8 15 234 

Nylon 379 0 0 0 4 9 19 347 

PVC 512 0 0 0 0 0 0 511 

PPO 139 0 0 0 0 0 4 135 

PC-ABS 151 0 0 0 0 0 1 150 

PC 212 0 0 0 0 0 12 200 

Other Plastics 597 0 0 0 1 0 17 579 

Rubber 4,505 20 0 0 6 172 61 4,246 

PU 273 3 0 0 1 23 9 237 

Wood 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 

Metals 2,911 1,117 0 0 590 954 0 249 

Foam, fiber, 

and others 

21,320 1,008 756 17,640 19 241 1,597 59 

Moisture 5,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 40,000 2,148 756 17,640 656 1,468 1,968 10,044 

a

 Fines are material smaller than 0.25 in. in size and contain some polymers and metals. 

3.1.2 Argonne Pilot Plant 

 A pilot plant having a design capacity of 2 ton/h of shredder residue was built at Argonne 

and was operated to gather relevant data on recycling materials from shredder residue. The pilot 

plant consisted of a dry mechanical-separation facility and a wet density/froth-flotation 

separation facility. The pilot plant was used to: 

1. Recover materials from shredder residue, 

2. Conduct process improvement studies, 

3. Generate design and scale up data, 

4. Produce samples for evaluation by other technologies, 

5. Define the effectiveness of alternative separation technologies and systems, 

and 

6. Serve as a user/demonstration facility. 
17 

3.1.2.1 Mechanical Separation Pilot Facility 

 The mechanical separation facility processes raw shredder residue to yield a polymer 

concentrate, ferrous and non-ferrous concentrates, a fines fraction, and other fractions. The plant 

achieved over 90% recovery of the plastics targeted for recovery as a polymer concentrate and 

over 95% recovery of the metals in the shredder residue. The polymer concentrate included 

varying amounts of wood and rubber. Wood was about 1–4 wt%, and rubber was about 10–15% 

of the shredder residue. Figure 4 is a picture of the mechanical separation facility. The facility 

equipment includes a 36-in.-diameter two-stage trommel, a 30-hp shredder, a 3,000-lb/h 

granulator, an eddy current separator, several magnetic separators, and a feeding hopper with a 

gate valve for feeding the material after it is shredded. Figure 5 illustrates the sequence of 

operation of the basic plant. The actual sequence varies for different materials. 

 The output streams from the mechanical separation facility are summarized in Figure 6. 

The polymer concentrate is then fed to the wet density/froth-flotation separation facility to 

separate the individual plastics or groups of compatible plastics from the concentrate. 

FIGURE 4 Picture of Argonne’s Mechanical 

Separation Facility 
18 

FIGURE 5 Sequence of Operation of the Basic Mechanical Separation Plant 

FIGURE 6 Product Fractions from the Mechanical Separation Plant 

3.1.2.2 Wet Density/Froth Flotation Facility 

 The original facility contained six continuous stages for the separation of targeted 

plastics. The design capacity of the first two stages was 1,000 lb/h of mixed materials. The 

design capacity of each of the other four stages was 500 lb/h. Figure 7 is a picture of a section of 

that facility. A shakedown of the facility was conducted by using 4,000 lb of post-consumer 

electronics and appliance mixed plastics and by using a mixture of colored plastics. Over 

35,000 lb of polymer concentrate from shredder residue were then processed in this facility. The 

recovered fractions are described below. Figure 8 illustrates the basic operation of the facility. 

The actual number of stages used depends on the composition of the starting material. Table 8 

summarizes the recoverable plastics from a typical shredder residue (based on 10,000 lb of 

polymer concentrate feed). 

Shredder Residue 

Polymer concentrate, 

25–40% 

Ferrous metal 

concentrate, 2–4% 

Non-ferrous metal

concentrate, 3–6% 

Polyurethane foam pieces 

>3 in., 2–3% 

Large objects: metals, 

rocks, 1–3% 

Moisture, 5–10% 

Others: glass, small foam, 

fibers, wood, 20–25% 
19 

 

FIGURE 7 A Picture of the Original Wet Density/Froth Flotation Facility 

FIGURE 8 Sequence of Operation of the Basic MechanicalSeparation Plant 

 When conventional gravitational separation techniques were applied to the polymer 

concentrate from shredder residue, none of the fractions produced a potentially recyclable 

plastics material. As shown in Figure 9, each fraction contained a number of species. Most 

species were found in several fractions. For example, polypropylene was found in every fraction. 

This is because these polymers are not pure resins — they contain fillers, modifiers, and 

colorants, among other materials, which causes the density of these materials to overlap. 

Therefore, other techniques are required to separate them. The large number of species present in 

the polymer concentrate from shredder residue further complicates the development of a 

separation technique that is selective toward one of the species. Froth flotation techniques were 

applied after the polymer fractions were further concentrated by using conventional sink/float 

techniques. The recovered fractions are described below. 
20 

TABLE 8 Composition of an Average Polymer Concentrate and Recovered Polymer Fractions 

Parameter or 

Component 

Polymer 

Concentrate 

PP/PE 

Product 

ABS 

Product 

ABS/PC 

Producta

Rubber 

Product 

HIPS/ABSb

Concentrate 

Mixed 

Plastics 

Mixed 

Streama

 

Weight (lb) 10,044 1,736 141 108 689 856 1,203 5,311 

PP 897 827 0 0 0 0 63 7 

PP (filled) 393 0 0 0 11 43 194 146 

ABS 737 0 105 2 0 365 176 88 

PEb

 830 787 0 0 10 12 21 0 

HIPSb 234 0 2 0 0 186 25 21 

Nylon 347 0 5 0 0 5 42 296 

PVCb

 511 0 0 0 3 0 123 385 

PPOb

 135 0 13 1 0 62 21 37 

PC-ABSb

 150 0 0 6 0 0 0 143 

PC 200 0 0 85 1 0 19 94 

Other Plastics 579 0 9 2 2 12 8 547 

Rubber 4,246 90 2 9 628 104 263 3,149 

PUb

 237 21 4 2 18 0 96 96 

Wood 239 0 1 0 17 66 146 8 

Metals 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 249 

Foam, Fiber 59 10 0 0 0 1 5 42 

Total 10,044 1,736 141 108 689 856 1,203 5,311 

a

 Rubber and metals are recovered from these streams. 

b

 PP is polypropylene, HIPS is high-impact polystyrene, PVC is polyvinyl chloride, PPO is polyoxyethylene, PC is 

polycarbonate, and PU is polyurethane. 

3.1.3 Recovered Fractions from Pilot Plant Operation 

3.1.3.1 Recovered Polyethylene/Polypropylene (PP/PE) Fraction 

 The basic Argonne process recovered a polyolefins-rich fraction (~65% polyolefins, 10% 

wood, and 25% rubber, as well as small quantities of other plastics). The conditions in the 

separation tank were set such that most of the wood will float with the polyolefins so that the 

wood can be separated in a single step. Wood, rubber, and other plastics were then separated to 

recover the polyolefins (see Section 3.1.3.2). More than 5,000 lb of an unfilled PP/PE fraction 

that is over 95% PP/PE was consistently produced. It contained less than 0.2% wood and less 

than 4% rubber. However, when the material was pelletized, most of the rubber in this fraction 

was found to be compatible with the PP/PE. The recovered PP/PE has properties similar to those 

of some commercially available PP materials. The unfilled PP/PE product constituted about 5–

6% of the starting shredder residue weight. 
21 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

<1 1<SG<1.05 1.05<SG<1.1 1.1<SG<1.15 1.15<SG<1.2 SG>1.2

Wt%

Specific Gravity

PP

PE

PS

PP

PE

Rubber

Wood

PU

PU

PS

PP

Rubber

Rubber Rubber

PP

PU

 Non

Polymer

Rubber

Wood

ABS

ABS

Others

Metals

PC

ABS/PC

PU

 Non

Polymer

ABS

PMMA

Foam Others

PPO

PVC

PMMA

Others

Others

PC

PPO

ABS PMMA

Nylons

Nylons ABS/PC

 Non

Polymer

PP PP

PVC

PPO

FIGURE 9 Flotation Characteristics of Shredder Residue Polymers 

based on Density Gradients 

3.1.3.2 Separation of Wood and Rubber from the Recovered PP/PE 

 Trials using commercial air aspirators, air classifiers, gravity tables, and mineral jigs to 

remove wood and/or rubber from the polymer concentrate, as well as from the PP/PE fraction, 

did not yield satisfactory results. Trials using wet methods removed almost 100% of the wood 

and over 90% of the rubber with a nominal loss (~5%) of the polyolefins. The process also 

separated other plastics, including polystyrene (PS) and ABS, which floated with the polyolefins 

and the wood in the basic process. The process consisted of altering the density of the porous 

particles so that their overall density increases, causing them to sink. 

 A modular dry process for separating rubber from plastics was also tested at rates of up to 

200 lb/h of polymer concentrate. The process separated over 75% of the rubber and produced a 

rubber fraction containing less than 10% of non-rubber material. 

3.1.3.3 Filled ABS Fraction 

 ABS that has a specific gravity less than 1.1 was isolated by the basic froth flotation 

process as an ABS concentrate (Table 8). It contained 50% ABS, 20% rubber, 10% rigid 

urethane rubber, and 20% of other materials. Removing wood and rubber increased the ABS 

concentration to 70% and reduced the concentrations of rubber and urethane to 3% and 2%, 

respectively. When this material was blended with virgin ABS at 10% and 25% recovered 

material, the properties of the blends were slightly different from the properties of the virgin 

ABS. Laboratory tests have established process conditions to increase the ABS concentration to 
22 

over 90%. MBA polymers established that this fraction can be separated to produce recyclable 

products. 

3.1.3.4 Unfilled ABS and PS 

 A fraction of ABS and PS that has a specific gravity between 1.0 and 1.07 (43% ABS, 

22% PS, 7% PPO, and 28% other materials, including rubber and some wood) was produced by 

using the basic process. Laboratory tests separated this fraction and produced fractions with over 

90% ABS and over 85% PS/PPO. 

3.1.3.5 PC-ABS/PC Alloy 

 Laboratory tests produced a PC-ABS/PC fraction that had a combined concentration of 

over 85%. Work is ongoing to isolate a large sample of ABS/PC-PC fraction for further 

evaluation. 

3.1.3.6 PVC 

 Recovery of the above fractions leaves behind a fraction made of high-specific-gravity 

materials. Rubber constitutes over 50% of the total, and metals represents about 5%. Separating 

rubber, metals, glass, and rocks from this stream leaves a fraction containing over 50% PVC. It is 

also rich in filled nylons. 

3.1.3.7 Rubber 

 The recovered rubber fraction was upgraded by using the Argonne dry rubber separation 

process to over 90% rubber. The other 10% was mostly plastics. 

 In summary, we have recovered the unfilled polyolefins and isolated the filled ABS, 

unfilled ABS/PS, PC-ABS/PC, and PVC into more manageable fractions. A 5,000-lb/h flotation 

module was built and tested by using over 10,000 lb of mixed polymers. 

3.1.4 Development of a Large-Scale Validation Plant 

 An agreement has been reached with a shredder to build a 20-ton/h validation plant that 

will perform both mechanical separation and froth flotation on shredder residue to recover 

plastics and residual metals. 
23 

3.1.5 Benchmarking and Evaluation of Other Technologies 

 In addition to the process development research conducted at Argonne, bench-scale and 

large-scale tests were conducted to benchmark and evaluate different processes/technologies and 

evaluate equipment that could be used for recycling certain parts of shredder residue. These are 

discussed below. 

3.1.5.1 Evaluation of Color and Infra-Red (IR) Sorters 

 We conducted performance testing and cost analysis of color sorter and IR sorters. The 

following systems were tested: (1) Satake (chip monochromatic and IR), (2) Key (chip full color 

and laser), (3) MSS (full color and IR), (4) S+S Separation and Sorting (full color and IR), 

(5) NRT (chip full spectrum and IR), and (6) PROTEC (chip full spectrum). On the basis of the 

results of these tests, it appeared that, at this time, these systems cannot recover marketable 

polymer products from shredder residue, nor can they separate wood and rubber from the 

recovered polymer fractions without significant loss of the product. The primary reason these 

processes were not successful is that using the optical sorters resulted in a high loss of the 

targeted plastics. Argonne’s wet separation process for wood and rubber removal appears to be 

the most economical process for separating the wood and the rubber from the plastics. 

3.1.5.2 Processing of Polymer Concentrate at MBA Polymers 

 Salyp built a mechanical separation plant that started with Argonne’s original mechanical 

separation system and added an optical sorter and a plastics washing system. Salyp’s starting 

shredder residue contained less rubber and wood than the U.S. residue. MBA processed about 

40,000 lb of Salyp’s polymer concentrate and recovered five materials: polyolefin “A” and “B”, 

filled PP, ABS, and HIPS. The total yield was estimated to be 48.5% of the plastics-rich fraction. 

This yield is 88% of the amounts of these plastics in the feed material. The products were 

extruded, molded, and tested. The properties were reported to be “encouraging,” and it is 

expected that most of the products could be used in some durable goods applications. 

3.1.5.3 Changing World Technologies (CWT) 

 CWT processed the organic fraction of shredder residue stream after separating the 

< 1/16-in. fines (~36% by weight). About 700 lb of the remaining material were processed, along 

with 80 lb of tires and 1,700 lb of used motor oil. The products were hydrocarbon oil (84%), a 

fuel-gas (10%), and a solid carbon product (6%). Distillation of the oil-generated gasoline (12%), 

diesel (32%), heavy hydrocarbon oils (15%), and 3% as gas (mainly methane). PCBs in the input 

shredder residue represented 21.8 ppm, and in the products, PCBs were below the detection 

limit. These results indicate that the PCBs degraded during the process. The char contained 

several metals. The heavy oil from the dissolver contained about 3,200 ppm of total chlorine, but 

no chlorine was found in the light distillates, and only 14 ppm was found in the heavier distillate 

and 11 ppm in the distillate bottoms. Bromine was found in the heavy oil from the dissolver 
24 

(~135 ppm) and in the char (87 ppm). None was found in the output liquid products. The 

analysis also indicates that sulfur compounds degraded in the process. A test using about 

1,000 lb of a pre-processed organic fraction derived from about 2,000 lb of shredder residue has 

been completed. The results confirmed the ability of the CWT process to produce an 

18,000-Btu/lb diesel oil, a 12,000-Btu/lb solid carbon, and a 5,000-Btu/lb fuel gas; the largest 

fraction was methane. CWT also completed a large-scale (2,000-lb) test using actual shredder 

residue material. The results confirmed the results of the earlier small-scale tests. 

3.1.5.4 Troy Polymers Glycolysis Process (TPI) 

 The process converted foam from shredder residue to polyol initiators at yields of 88% 

and 72%, for clean and dirty foam, respectively. Activated carbon reduced the concentration of 

PCBs in the products to < 2 ppm. Over 100 gal of polyol initiator were produced from about 

1,200 lb of foam. Twenty gallons of the polyol initiator were propoxylated and tested for making 

rigid foams. They required less or no catalyst and had better flame resistance than the foams 

made with virgin polyols. Initial economic analysis indicated that the process is potentially 

economical. TPI is working with an industrial partner to demonstrate the technology in the field. 

3.1.5.5 Energy Anew Recycling of Fines 

 Energy Anew conducted tests on 300-lb samples of fines (< 1 in.). Shredder residue was 

screened by using a 7/8-in. screen, and the material that passed the screen was processed to yield 

organic- and inorganic-rich fractions. Energy Anew subsequently constructed a mobile cyclonic 

system to process shredder fines with a throughput capability of about 3 ton/h. The system 

successfully sorted approximately 2,000 lb of fine fraction samples into a non-ferrous metal 

concentrate, ferrous metal concentrate, polyolefin concentrate, styrenic plastic concentrate, and 

an organic fluff fraction for energy recovery. The process can be used in combination with 

coarse size reduction systems to produce enriched plastic products from a wide variety of raw 

materials, including automotive shredder residue and shredded appliance, electronic, and 

packaging scrap. Non-ferrous concentrates of greater than 75% metal content have been 

demonstrated with the use of additional downstream grinding and sorting. Economic analysis of 

the process shows that recovery of plastic concentrates, metals, and sand from windshield glass 

may be viable. 

3.1.5.6 Co-Combustion of Plastics Containing Material with Biomass 

 The ACC-Plastics Division co-funded a study with Plastics Europe to study the synergies 

of co-combustion of solid recovered fuel (SRF) and biomass. SRF is a fuel prepared from nonhazardous (combustible) waste. It is usually a mix of paper, wood, and plastic waste. The plastics 

share is usually around 20% by mass and 50% by energy. The study concluded that the benefits 

include fast drying and ignition of the biomass, higher furnace temperature, and improved 

combustion efficiency. The study noted that chlorine and metallic aluminum contents in the fuel 
25 

mixture should be compatible with the boiler type. The study was presented at the International 

Thermal treatment Technologies Conference (IT3) in Cincinnati on May 19, 2009. 

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY FOR REMOVAL OF PCBS AND OTHER 

TOXICS (SUBSTANCES OF CONCERN, SOCS) FROM SHREDDER RESIDUES 

 The objective of this subtask is to develop techniques and/or technology to identify, 

quantify, and/or cost-effectively remove PCBs and other substances of concern (SOCs) from 

recycled automotive materials. SOCs can impact the recyclability of automotive materials in a 

number of ways. Certainly, their presence in either recycled materials and/or the materials source 

stream impacts the overall costs of recovering recyclable materials. In some cases, their presence 

at parts-per-million levels, such as in the case of PCBs, can prevent the reuse of the recovered 

materials. The strategy that is required for controlling the SOCs may vary regionally. For 

example, requirements are different in Europe, North America, and Asia for various SOCs. 

Strategies for controlling SOCs can also depend on the technology used for recycling the 

automotive material and the end use of the materials. The focus of the work was on the 

development of technology for the removal of PCBs from polymers recovered from shredder 

residue. PCBs, at parts-per-million levels, are routinely found in shredder residue. The source of 

the PCBs is not completely understood, but historically it has been associated with liquid PCBcontaining capacitors, ballasts, and transformers that inadvertently escape the inspection and 

control process at the shredders. Unless PCBs are removed from the recovered materials, with 

the exception of metals, introducing the recovered materials into commerce will not be possible. 

The criteria for the selection of a cleaning method must include (1) impact of the cleaning 

process on the properties and marketability of the polymers, (2) nature and cost of disposal of the 

waste generated by the process, and (3) overall cost of the cleaning process. 

3.2.1 Bench-Scale Testing 

 A review was conducted of available technology options for controlling SOCs. Benchscale testing of selected processes was then carried out to determine the efficacy of those 

processes. An important component of this work turned out to be validation of analytical 

methods for PCBs. Working with Argonne, Troy Polymers, Inc., completed a bench-scale 

screening study of 11 commercially available surfactants and three organic solvents for the 

removal of PCBs and other contaminants from dirty plastics and polyurethane foam derived from 

ASR. Surfactant TRITON RW 50, which is manufactured by Dow Chemicals, was found to be 

the most efficient surfactant among the ones tried. PCB concentrations in plastics washed with 

this surfactant were reduced to below 2 ppm. The concentration of PCBs in the washed foam was 

at 2 ppm. The results for heavy metals were inconclusive. We believe that this is because the 

heavy metals are not evenly distributed in and on the plastics. A tiny sliver of a given metal or its 

oxides or salts can render the analyzed sample non-representative. 
26 

3.2.2 Testing of Commercially Available Equipment 

 Cleaning/washing tests were carried out on about 100 lb of plastic chips, and each test 

involved using aqueous solutions and surfactants in commercially available equipment. The 

objective was to identify the limitations of the various types of existing washing equipment. 

Testing was done by using an ALMCO rotary drum washer equipped with a dryer and SeKoN 

centrifuge equipment. The chips were between 0.2 and 0.5 in. in size. Under a CRADA contract, 

GraPar Corporation built, for Troy Polymers, Inc. (TPI), and tested a specially designed machine 

that has a design capacity of about 300 lb/h of plastics. In each of these tests, the washed material 

was “visually” clean. However, the results of PCB analyses were highly variable, indicating that 

in some cases, the PCBs concentration had increased after washing. The results suggest that 

existing aqueous-based equipment, as is, is not likely to reduce the concentration of PCBs to 

acceptable levels. 

3.2.3 Testing of Proprietary Processes 

 Three companies with equipment and/or proprietary washing solvents and solutions that 

could potentially be used for the non-aqueous removal of PCBs from plastics were identified by 

Troy Polymers, Inc. (TPI): Environmental Technology Unlimited (Wilmington, North Carolina); 

Cool Clean Technologies, Inc. (Burnsville, Minnesota); and itec Environmental Group, Inc. 

(Oakdale, California). Each company was supplied with a sample of plastics that had a PCB 

concentration of 11 ppm. Samples were washed at the three companies, and the washed samples 

were evaluated for PCB levels. Environmental Technology Unlimited performed six treatments 

of shredder residue plastics, and five out of the six washed samples reduced the PCBs 

concentration to below 2 ppm. Unfortunately, the company did not have equipment to conduct 

large-scale testing of the process using plastics. Cool Clean Technologies technology used CO2

only. The washing failed to remove the PCBs. itec Environmental Group (name changed to 

ECO2) reduced PCB levels in the plastics from 11 ppm to 2.8 ppm via solvent washing; no CO2

treatment, which normally follows the basic process, was used. 

3.2.4 Testing of Other Potential Routes 

 Bench-scale testing was also conducted on the following processes: catalyzed 

ozonation/UV treatment, washing using a proprietary bio-degradable solvent, and 

devolatilization in a vacuum extruder. None of these processes gave satisfactory results. 

3.2.5 Testing a Devolatilization Process with a Vacuum Extruder 

 Energy Anew, with the sponsorship of ACC PD, conducted a series of vacuum 

devolatilization tests at Midland Compounding on polyolefin samples recovered from shredder 

residue by using a 30-mm twin-screw vacuum extruder. An experimental design was developed 

to test the impact of three variables on the PCB removal process: screw speed (high, 

300 revolutions per minute [rpm], and low, 100 rpm), feed rate (high, 20 lb/h, and low, 10 lb/h), 
27 

and temperature (high, 325°C, and low, 250°C). A mid-point at 200 rpm, 15 lb/h, and 287°C 

with and without vacuum was also tested. The apparatus is shown in Figure 10. The results are 

summarized in Table 9. The results indicate that devolatilization alone was not sufficient to 

remove PCBs from the polyolefin blend. The IZOD property of the treated polymers did not 

change. 

 Energy Anew conducted additional tests at Midland Compounding, where high-pressure 

water or water/glycol/NaOH were injected to help de-chlorinate and steam strip the polymer 

after the samples were first homogenized by extrusion and post-blending. The extruder was 

sectioned into three zones: high-pressure liquid injection, atmospheric vent, and then a vacuum 

vent. The concentration of PCBs was still greater than 2 ppm; however, addition of water and 

water/glycol mixtures was shown to increase Izod impact strength by as much as 68%. Hightemperature water or water ethylene glycol in the extrusion environment appeared to attack 

inclusions in the polyolefin matrix that had resulted in stress concentrations. Elimination of the 

inclusions by hydrolysis raised impact properties. Samples with at least 3% water addition also 

showed a smaller increase in melt flow index, indicating that water may react with or degrade 

agents that cause a reduction in molecular weight. Table 10 gives the physical properties 

associated with the addition of water and ethylene glycol during extrusion. The concentration of 

PCBs was still greater than 2 ppm. 

FIGURE 10 Extruder with Die and 

Vacuum Knockout Pot Used in the 

Devolatilization Testing 
28 

TABLE 9 PCBs and Impact Test Results from 

Vacuum Devolatilization Testing 

Sample 

No. 

Temperature 

(°C) 

Screw 

RPM 

Feed 

Rate 

(lb/h) 

PCB 

1242 

(ppm) 

 

1 325 300 20 18.2 

2 325 300 10 13.6 

3 325 100 20 16.9 

4 325 100 10 16.2 

5 287 200 15 12.4 

6a

 287 200 15 12.6 

7 250 300 20 17.9 

8 250 300 10 19.7 

9 250 100 20 17.7 

10 250 100 10 15.4 

11b

 287 200 15 21.4 

12c

 - - - 22.2 

a

 no vacuum 

b

 water at feed 

c

 raw feed 

TABLE 10 Physical Test Results with Water and Water/Ethylene Glycol (50:50) Addition 

Sample 

Starting 

Material 

20 Mesh 

Screen Vacuum 

Water Injection 

Mass Fraction 

EG/H2O 50:50 

Injection Mass 

Fraction 

Melt Flow 

Rate 

(230°C/3.8 kg) 

Izod 

Impact 

(ft-lb/in.) 

 

A Blended 

Flake 

Yes No No No 7.4 10 

B Blended 

Flake 

No No No No 10.3 6.8 

C B (above) No Yes 3.60% No 10.9 6.7 

D B (above) No Yes 5.00% No 10.9 7.7 

E B (above) No Yes No No 13.6 4.7 

F B (above) No Yes No 5.00% 13.8 5.7 

G B (above) No Yes No 8.00% 11.6 7.9 
29 

3.2.6 Development of a New Process at Argonne 

 The work done on cleaning polymers recovered from shredder residue suggested that 

different washing methods and solutions appear to be able to reduce the concentration of PCBs 

to about 5–10 ppm in a reasonably short time. Further reduction in the concentration of PCBs 

required more extensive and prolonged washing in fresh solution. In addition to added cost, 

prolonged washing, particularly in organic solvents, is further complicated by the absorption of 

the solvent by the plastics, which may alter the properties and the value of the plastics. This 

behavior suggests that the PCBs on the plastics are present as result of more than one 

mechanism. Some of the PCBs are in the oils and dirt that are on the plastics, and some are 

adsorbed on the plastics; they do not desorb easily during washing. We tested this hypothesis in 

the laboratory. We conducted washing tests by using several washing solutions and solvents, 

including a non-flammable solvent to wash the plastics under conditions that minimized the 

absorption of the solvent by the plastics. This process reduced the concentrations of PCBs from 

about 30 ppm to about 5–10 ppm under a range of operating conditions. The washed plastics 

were then processed in an environment that induces desorption (high temperature with or without 

reduced pressure). The concentration of PCBs was consistently reduced from 5–10 ppm to below 

2 ppm. Tests were also conducted in which unwashed samples were exposed to the same 

environment that induces desorption. The PCBs concentration could not be reduced below 2 ppm 

under the same operating conditions. 

 A two-stage process, based on this concept, has been developed and tested first at the 

bench scale at Argonne and then in a 5-lb reactor that processed 5 lb of plastics per test. It has 

repeatedly reduced the concentration of PCBs in PP/PE samples to less than 2 ppm. For example, 

at sufficient residence times and temperature conditions that do not cause the plastics to oxidize, 

we were able to reduce the concentration of PCBs on the recovered polyolefins from about 

32 ppm to as low as 0.58 ppm. It was then decided to run larger batch tests (5 lb per test). We 

designed and built the apparatus (Figure 11) and conducted more tests. Samples of the processed 

polymers were analyzed, and the results are summarized in Table 11. 

FIGURE 11 Experimental Apparatus 

for Testing the Argonne Two-Stage 

Process 
30 

TABLE 11 Results of Argonne’s Two-Stage PCB Removal Process 

Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration

1 25 1 10 1 1.1

2 25 2 27 2 1.9

3 30 3 9 3 2.9

Average 27 Average 15 Average 2

Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration

1 9 1 0.6

2 11 2 0.5

3 6 3 <0.4

Average 25 Average 8 Average 1

Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration Sample

PCB 

concentration

1 7 1 1.0

2 8 2 <0.4

3 10 3 <0.4

Average 23 Average 8 Average 1

Recovered 

Olefin 

Feed

Trial 2

Trial 3

1 25

1 23

Trial 1

Wash

Wash

Wash

Desorb

Desorb

Desorb

3.2.7 Evaluation of the Variability of PCB Sampling and Analytical Procedures 

 Experiments were performed to explain the variability in the results and to develop a 

consistent procedure for the determination of the concentration of PCBs. The variability may be 

due to a number of factors, including sample size, size of plastic particles, procedure used for 

PCB extraction, analytical procedures, and/or interference from other compounds. A one-day 

seminar was held and attended by analytical experts from the United States and overseas to 

develop recommendations for improved sampling and analysis techniques specific to plastics 

chips. 

 To investigate the possible interference of phthalates in the analysis of PCBs, a sample of 

plastic chips derived from shredder residue was thoroughly mixed and then divided into 

four parts. The first part was analyzed by using Gas Chromatography and an Electron Capture 

Detector (GC-ECD) and by using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS). The other 

three parts were spiked with different quantities of phthalates, as shown in Table 12, and the 

spiked samples were analyzed by using the same two methods. The results show no interference 

of the phthalates in the analysis of PCBs. Interestingly, the GC/MS results were always higher 

than the GC-ECD results. 
31 

TABLE 12 Effect of Phthalates on Analysis of PCBs 

Weight-Percent 

of Phthalates 

Added 

PCB 

Concentration 

(ppm) by 

GC/ECD 

PCB 

Concentration 

(ppm) by 

GC/MS 

 

0 4.6+/-0.3 7.9+/-1.0 

0.5 4.7+/-0.3 7.4+/-0.2 

1.0 5.1+/-0.6 7.0+/-0.4 

2.5 4.8+/-0.3 7.4+/-0.3 

 To investigate the effects of plastics particle size on extraction efficiency of PCBs, a 

series of laboratory experiments were conducted at TPI on 300-g samples of plastics with two 

different particle sizes (one made of chips about 0.2 in. in size and the other was granulated to 

about 0.04–0.08 in. in size). Typically in PCBs analyses, extractions are done on a few grams of 

material, even though the dirt, oil, and the PCBs are not evenly distributed on the shredder 

residue plastics. Samples of the plastics before and after washing were analyzed directly by three 

different laboratories by using standard procedures for analyzing PCBs. Extracts from nine 

sonications of 300-g samples were also analyzed for PCBs by three laboratories. The results 

showed that: 

1. The results from the three laboratories are fairly consistent for each set of samples. 

2. Direct analysis of the samples from the three laboratories showed that the 

concentration of PCBs in the granulated plastics was about 5 ppm, and for the ungranulated, it was 10 ppm. Obviously, the granulated samples have larger surface area 

per unit mass than the other samples. Therefore, more efficient extraction of PCBs 

from the plastics would be expected in the case of the granulated chips. Because this 

was not the case, the results indicate that the particle size does not affect the 

extraction of PCBs. After extraction, the samples all had less than 2 ppm of PCBs, 

except for one sample that showed 2.8 ppm. 

3. Calculation of the concentration of PCBs in the original samples on the basis of the 

determined PCBs in the hexane extracts (prepared via 9 sonications of 300-g samples) 

showed that the concentrations of PCBs in the granulated samples were comparable 

with those of the un-granulated samples. These results further indicate that the PCBs 

are predominantly on the surface; otherwise, the granulated samples would have 

shown higher concentrations. 
32 

 Two of the laboratories identified Aroclor 1242 as the only PCB present. The third found 

Aroclors 1232 and 1254 as the only two present. TPI also conducted an analysis of various 

plastics samples by using GC-ECD and GC-MS methods. The results are compared in Table 13. 

Results from the two methods are in reasonable agreement, even though the GC-MS method 

showed higher values. 

3.2.7.1 Evaluation of Soxhlet Method for PCBs Extraction 

 Successful commercialization of technology for recovering polymers from shredder 

residue depends on a reliable and inexpensive technique to analyze samples for PCBs in the 

field. The U.S. EPA and European protocols for PCBs analysis were reviewed and experiments 

were conducted to understand the requirements for on-site analysis. A Soxhlet-based method 

appears to be appropriate for testing because of its simplicity and because it is among the 

methods specified in both the U.S. EPA protocols and in the European protocols (Table 14). 

Limited experiments to define the operating conditions for the Soxhlet method were conducted. 

The results are discussed below. 

TABLE 13 PCBs Analysis by GC-ECD and GC-MS (extraction using 

hexane at 2,000 PSIA and 100°C) 

Sample Type 

PCB Concentration, 

Using GC-ECD (ppm) 

PCB Concentration, 

Using GC-MS (ppm) 

Ungranulated chips 7.55 9.67 

Ungranulated chips 3.70 5.07 

Ungranulated chips 1.50 3.3 

Ungranulated chips 1.35 2.66 

Granulated chips 7.56 9.37 

Granulated chips 0.93 1.82 

Granulated chips 0.82 2.11 

Hexane solution 9.93 9.50 

Hexane solution 8.3 11.13 

Hexane solution 1.41 1.72 

Hexane solution 0.78 0.92 

Hexane solution 0.53 0.65 
33 

TABLE 14 Protocols for PCBs Analysis 

Parameter 

European 

Protocols U.S. EPA’s Protocols Recommended Protocols 

 

Particle size (mm) 0.5 Not specified 1 

Sample size for 

extraction (g) 

3 30 30 

Extraction equipment Soxhlet Sonication 

Soxhlet 

Pressurized fluid 

Soxhlet 

Extraction time Not specified Not specified >/= 4 h 

Siphoning cycles at 

8–10-min intervals 

Solvent Toluene Hexane 

50/50 Hexane/acetone 

50/50 Methylene 

chloride/acetone 

Hexane 

Analytical method MS GC/ECD 

MS 

MS 

Quantification 

method 

6 congeners 

multiplied by 5 

Aroclors Aroclors 

3.2.7.2 Selection of a Solvent 

 Two solvents were tested: hexane and toluene. Three 120-g samples were extracted with 

hexane for 8 h, and another three 120-g samples were extracted with hexane for 24 h. Similarly, 

three 120-g samples were extracted with toluene for 8 h, and another three 120-g samples were 

extracted with toluene for 24 h. All extractions were carried out while maintaining the siphoning 

time at 8–10-min intervals. This procedure resulted in 24 samples of extracts and 12 samples of 

extracted plastics that were analyzed. The results indicated that hexane is a better solvent than 

toluene. 

3.2.7.3 Determination of Required Extraction Time 

 Three additional 120-g samples were extracted with hexane for 4 h each. This procedure 

resulted in six samples of extracts and three samples of extracted plastics that were analyzed. The 

results indicated that a Soxhlet extraction time of 4 h is adequate because it reduced the 

concentration of PCBs in the extracted plastics to below the detectable limits in two of the three 
34 

samples and reduced it in the third to 1 ppm, even though these samples apparently had more 

PCBs initially, as evidenced by the higher level of PCBs in the solvent. 

3.2.7.4 Determination of Adequate Sample Size 

 In addition to the six 120-g samples extracted for 24 h discussed above, six 60-g samples 

and six 30-g samples were processed and sampled in the same manner as before (24-h extraction 

time and same siphoning intervals) by using hexane. The results indicate that a sample size of 

30 g appears to be adequate. 

3.2.7.5 Comparison of the U.S. EPA and the European Quantification Methods 

 Four of the extracts from the 120-g samples that were extracted with hexane for 24 hours 

and two of the 120-g samples that were extracted with hexane for 8 hours were also quantified 

by using the European method. The results were essentially identical within analytical errors 

(Table 15). These results lead to the following conclusions: 

1. A conventional Soxhlet extractor using hexane is effective for the extraction of PCBs 

from plastics. 

2. A total extraction time of 4 h with siphoning intervals of 8–10 min is adequate for 

complete extraction of the PCBs. 

3. The EPA and the European quantification methodologies yield close results. 

TABLE 15 Comparison of the U.S. EPA 

and the European Quantification 

Methods 

 PCBs (ppm) 

Extract 

Time (h) 

EPA 

Method 

European 

Method 

 

24 10.8 9.8 

24 9.8 10.9 

24 8.0 10.7 

24 11.2 11.5 

8 11.7 12.3 

8 10.8 10.8 
35 

3.3 INTEGRATION OF THE TECHNOLOGIES 

 A general-process conceptual design for a 20-ton/ h plant was developed. The process 

steps for the conceptual design include (1) a device to separate large metals and rocks; (2) a 

screen to separate large pieces of fabrics, foam, and tire rubber; (3) a shredder; (4) a screen or a 

trommel to separate “fines”; (5) a magnet and eddy current to separate metals; (6) a granulator; 

and (7) an air classifier to remove “lights” from the granulated material. Tests, using shredder 

residue, were conducted to evaluate the performance and cost of various equipment used in the 

design. We conducted economic analysis of the process and a sensitivity study of the cost of 

producing the polymer concentrate to yield per ton of shredder residue, value of the by-products 

(ferrous, non-ferrous, etc.), cost of utilities, number of operating shifts, and cost of capital, 

among other parameters. The cost can be as low as $0.02/lb of polymer concentrate for a plant 

operating three shifts per day and when the polymer concentrate is about 45% of the shredder 

residue to over $0.075/lb for a plant operating one shift per day and when the polymer 

concentrate is only 15% of the shredder residue. The value of the recovered metals has a 

significant impact on the overall cost. The value of the metals depends on their concentration in 

shredder residue and on the composition of the metal fraction produced. 

 A general-process conceptual design for the flotation part of the plant was also developed 

for the separation of the polymer concentrate generated from 20 ton/h shredder residue. The 

process steps for the general-flotation conceptual design include (1) a feeding system to feed the 

tanks, (2) flotation tanks, (3) conveyors, (4) dewatering units, (5) a wood and rubber separation 

subsystem, and (5) dryers. Tests were conducted to evaluate the performance and cost of various 

equipment used in the design. 

3.4 IMPROVEMENTS TO DISMANTLING PROCESS 

 The objective of this project was to identify and evaluate improvements to present 

automobile-dismantling practices that could result in an overall increase in the recycling of 

vehicles by overcoming some of the obstacles facing dismantlers related to parts containing 

lightweighting materials, such as polymers and composites. 

 ELVs are typically processed first by automotive dismantlers. In North America, there 

are more than 15,000 auto dismantling facilities. The vast majority of the ELVs that are recycled 

start their final journey at one of the dismantling facilities in the United States. Some, because of 

their age or condition, go directly to the shredders. At the dismantling facility, useable parts 

(such as radios, batteries, bumpers, windshields, whole car seats, door panels, transmissions, and 

engines) are manually removed for direct resale and reuse. Such parts as starters and alternators 

may be removed, refurbished, or remanufactured and sold. At the dismantling yard, useable parts 

are recovered from the vehicle for resale and/or remanufacturing. The dismantling operation 

provides low-cost replacements parts to repair shops, parts brokers, and individual customers. 

Direct reuse of a part, such as a door panel or trunk lid, conserves the materials and energy that 

would otherwise be required to produce the replacement part from virgin materials, as well as the 

manufacturing energy required to stamp the part and assemble the component. 
36 

 Remanufacturing is an important component of the existing recycle infrastructure. Many 

automotive components are remanufactured to supply lower-cost replacement parts to maintain 

the domestic fleet. For example, most of the replacement starters and alternators are 

remanufactured. Other automotive parts that are typically remanufactured include engines, 

transmissions, brake systems, and water pumps. Dismantlers also collect several other items for 

recycling by others, as described below. 

• Car batteries are collected for recycling of their lead, sulfuric acid, and 

polypropylene content. 

• Catalytic converters are recycled for their precious metal catalysts. 

• Dismantlers experimented with dismantling bumpers for recycling. Among 

the problems encountered in recycling the bumpers are the paint on the 

bumpers and the many different materials sometimes used in making an 

individual bumper. Repair shops and some dismantlers collect polypropylene 

and TPO bumpers for recycling. 

• Dismantlers tried to manually recover some plastics and seat foam from 

vehicles for resale. These efforts were quickly terminated because the 

operations were not economical. The cost was high, and the plastics markets 

were not readily available. The storage of scrap plastics and foam also 

required a large amount of space that interfered with more conventional 

dismantling operations. In addition, the amounts that would be collected by an 

average dismantler would be small and, therefore, difficult to market. 

• Dismantlers also extract refrigerants and fuel from the vehicle. These 

generally end up being reused in some applications after purification and 

upgrading. Other automotive fluids, such as engine and transmission oils, are 

removed when required for environmental reasons. 

 Dismantling is generally done manually, and therefore, except for items that can be 

resold as is, dismantling is not economical. Dismantling for the recovery of such materials as 

polyurethane foam, plastics, and rubber is not cost-effective, primarily because (1) dismantling is 

labor-intensive and (2) only a small amount of material can be recovered at each of the more 

than 15,000 dismantling yards in the United States, and, therefore, the storage and transportation 

costs for most such materials are generally prohibitive. However, future automotive parts and 

systems that contain expensive materials of construction, such as batteries used in hybrid 

vehicles, will contain enough value to justify their dismantling. Further, keeping such items on 

the hulk is not advisable because shredding of such items may introduce new substances of 

concern in the shredder residue. This will complicate the recycling of materials, such as 

polymers and even metals, from the shredder residue. Therefore, they are likely to be dismantled 

before shredding. Potential improvements that can assist the dismantling industry increase the 

recycling of vehicles include (1) training the dismantler’s employees in identifying and 

recognizing parts and materials of value in ELVs, (2) identifying and recognizing potential 

hazards, and (3) increasing industry awareness of environmental regulations and guidelines. 
37 

 Other potential improvements include: 

• Automation of the dismantling process to improve efficiency and/or reduce 

cost; 

• Special requirements for dismantling lightweight parts and components; 

• Proper tools to dismantle parts, such as bumpers, windshields and window 

glass, and instrument panels; 

• Rapid identification techniques to facilitate the recovery of single material 

components; 

• Technology that can be implemented on-site to upgrade dismantled materials, 

such as cleaning of parts and materials and separation of impurities; 

• Participation of repair shops, dealerships, and remanufacturing shops in 

recycling damaged lightweight dismantled parts; and 

• Design modifications that will facilitate dismantling. 

 Repair and remanufacturing shops can also play a positive role in repairing and recycling 

damaged, dismantled lightweight parts (e.g., cracked composite panels, dented aluminum parts). 

Design modification of vehicles, including reducing the number of materials of construction, to 

facilitate dismantling has been the subject of discussion for many years. However, little progress 

has been made, except perhaps in the development of approaches driven by economics, such as 

replacing some of the more expensive polymers with polypropylene. 

 Designing vehicles for more efficient recovery of parts and materials from ELVs can 

have a major impact on dismantling. Such a strategy can include the following: 

1. Reduce the number of incompatible materials used (primarily polymers). For 

example, many gas tanks are made of multiple incompatible layers. 

2. Make parts more accessible and easier to dismantle either by design or by developing 

the appropriate tools (or both). For example, to install a water pump on some models 

of vehicles, the whole engine needs to be dropped. The operator needs to get under 

the vehicle to reach many of the parts. 

3. Eliminate or minimize the use of hazardous materials. 

4. Eliminate or minimize the use of metal fasteners and attachments on polymer parts. 
38 

Examples of how dismantling can be made easier by design include the following: 

• Instrument panels contain about 25 lb of plastics available for potential 

recycling (Mark 2001)2. If the instrument panel can be built by using a single 

plastic material (such as polypropylene), then polypropylene will be less 

expensive to separate and recover. If instrument panels can be made so that 

they are easy and economical to remove, the dismantler will consider 

removing them and recycling the plastics. The precious metals can be recycled 

by precious metal recyclers. The economics of the process will still depend on 

other costs, including those for storage and transport. 

• If all bumpers used by a car company are made of one material, such as TPO, 

the dismantler will be able to separate those panels by just knowing the car 

maker. 

 The USCAR/VRP conducted an extensive dismantling study over several years. The 

objective was to evaluate the feasibility and viability of collecting and recycling automotive 

polymers from ELVs. The project identified North American ELV recycling practices; explored 

scenarios for plastic material handling and local transportation; and evaluated sorting, 

processing, and compounding of the recovered plastics. Recovered ABS and PP plastic materials 

were formulated to Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) specifications and molded by 

using production tooling to establish the viability and economics of the pursuit of these materials 

as a commercial enterprise. The study also examined the way in which reuse contributes to 

recyclability. The results of this study found that the sale of used parts played a significant role in 

vehicle recycling and will continue to play an essential role. The study found that while the 

recovered materials and parts are acceptable (the PP is useful, and the ABS is potentially useful 

with some additives), the economic incentives and altered logistics needed to support this 

endeavor will not be borne by existing market economics in North America. 

 

2

 Mark, E.E., 2001, “Optimization of Instrument Panels to Assist Recycling Quota Dismantling/Mechanical 

Recycling vs. ASR Treatment/Chemical Recycling,” SAE paper 2001-01-3741. 
39 

4 TASK 3. RECOVERED MATERIAL PERFORMANCE AND 

MARKET EVALUATION 

 The objective of this task was to evaluate the market opportunity for recycled lightweight 

automotive materials. The effort involved (1) determination of the properties of recovered 

automotive materials and (2) molding trials by using recovered materials to confirm the technical 

and economic feasibility of using those materials in value-added applications. Limitations to the 

reuse of many of the materials as recovered and the need for post-processing technology to 

upgrade the recovered materials to meet the requirements of the market were identified. The 

analysis focused on the feasibility of reuse of the recovered polymers in automotive applications. 

The properties of recovered polymers were determined, and molding trials of actual parts from 

recovered polymers to determine their viability for commercialization were conducted. The 

project focused on establishing the properties of polymeric materials that were recovered from 

shredder residue. Regardless of the effectiveness of the recovery technology, the recovered 

materials are, on average, 10–15 years old and derived from different sources (automobiles, 

home appliances, and others). The performance properties of the recovered polymers were 

compared vis-à-vis new or virgin materials and blends of virgin and regrind materials. Physical 

property testing was conducted by Midland Compounding, Inc. 

 Blending and pelletizing of the PP/PE recovered from shredder residue by Argonne was 

tested by Palmer Plastics, Inc. Molding trials using the recovered PP/PE were also done by MGV 

Enterprises. 

4.1 POLYMER PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND MATERIALS COMPOSITION 

ANALYSIS 

 Typically, about 10-lb samples of recovered materials are used to define physical 

properties and to characterize the composition of a material. To quantify the physical properties 

of a recovered material, a sample is extruded on a single-screw extruder, melt screened through a 

40-mesh screen, molded into American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test bars and 

plaques, and tested. The molded parts and a random selection of regrind chips from each sample 

are evaluated for material identification by using infrared spectroscopy. Common physical 

properties that are measured for each sample include the following: 

• Melt flow rate, 

• Izod impact, 

• Flexural modulus, 

• Tensile strength at yield, 

• Tensile strength at rupture, 

• Elongation at rupture, 

• Deflection temperature, 

• Gardner impact, and 

• Specific gravity. 
40 

4.1.1 Physical Properties and Composition of the PP/PE Recovered from Shredder Residue 

 The physical properties of PP/PE recovered from different shredder residues by Argonne 

and by others were determined for several samples. The results for the Argonne materials are 

given in Table 16. Properties of commercially available PP and PE virgin resins and for PP from 

dismantled automobiles are presented in Table 17 for comparison. The Izod impact of the 

recovered material is about three times that of the virgin resins, while the tensile strength of the 

recovered material is lower than the tensile strength of the virgin resins by about 30%. This 

phenomenon may be attributed, at least in part, to the presence of thermoplastic olefins (TPO) 

and rubber in the recovered material, which act as impact modifiers. Recovered samples 8, 9, and 

10 listed in Table 16 contained about 2% rubber, while samples 1 through 7 contained about 4% 

rubber. The results for the more than 20 PP/PE samples recovered by Salyp from different 

European and U.S. shredder residues are given in Table 18. The properties of the Salyprecovered PP/PE are equivalent to the properties of the Argonne-recovered PP/PE. 

TABLE 16 Properties of PP/PE Recovered by Argonne from Different Shredder Residues 

Property 

Sample 

1 

Sample 

2 

Sample 

3 

Sample 

4 

Sample 

5 

Sample 

6 

Sample 

7 

Sample 

8 

Sample 

9 

Sample 

10 Average

 

MFR (g/10min, 

230C, 2.16 kg) 

10.5 14.9 7.7 10.1 11.4 7.2 8.7 7.2 8.7 7.2 9.4 

Izod impact 

(ft-lb/in., 73F) 

12.3 10.5 11.9 10.8 9 10.7 13.2 1.7 2.8 3.3 8.6 

Flex mod. 

(1% secant, 

1,000 psi) 

83 73 89 84 82 101 112 126 127 113 99.0 

Tensile strength at 

yield (1,000 psi) 

2.6 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.8 

Tensile strength at 

rupture 

(1,000 psi) 

0.8 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.4 2.5 2.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.1 

Elongation at 

yield (%) 

23.0 20.8 21.1 22.8 20. 6 20. 6 17.1 **   24.3 

Elongation at 

rupture (%) 

132 78 233 154 82 251 229 12 14 13 119.8 

DTUL (°F) 

(at 66 psi) 

131 131 134 134 138 147 155 **  171 160 145 

Gardner impact 

(73F, in.- lb) 

104 88 136 96 56 144 184 20 32 40 90.0 

SG (g/cc) 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 

** Not tested
41 

TABLE 17 Commercial Grades of PP and PE (Boedeker) (http://www.boedeker.com/mtable.htm), 

Unless Specified Otherwise 

Property 

PP HomoPolymer PP CoPolymer PP-FR 

Standard 

PP Copolymer LDPE HDPE 

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230C) 0.5–136a

 

Izod impact (ft-lb/in.) 1.9 7.5 0.65 0.7 No Break 3 

Flex Mod (1,000 psi) 180 160 145 120 200 125 

Tensile strength (1,000 psi) 4.8 4.8 4.3 5.2 2.0 4.6 

Elongation (%) 12 23 28 600 600 900 

DTUL (F) (at 66 psi) 210 173 106 210 110 -- 

SG (g/cc) 0.905 0.897 0.988 0.90 0.92 0.95 

Gardner impact (73F, in.- lb) 0.9–22* 

a

 Data from http://www.ed-cam.com/materials/propylene_molded.asp. Ranges are for with and without 

additives. 

TABLE 18 Properties of PP/PE Recovered by Salyp from 

Different Shredder Residues 

Property Salyp Data 

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230C) 2.3–4.6 

Izod impact (ft-lb/in.; 73F) 4.7–13.3 

Flex mod. (1%, secant, 1,000 psi) 81.7–116.5 

Tensile strength at yield (1,000 psi) 2.4–2.9 

Tensile strength at rupture (1,000 psi) 2.2–2.8 

Elongation at rupture (%) 19–57 

DTUL (F at 66 psi) 150–169 

Gardner impact (73F, in.-lb) 190–240 

Specific Gravity (g/cc) 0.93 
42 

4.1.2 Physical Properties and Composition of the Recovered Filled ABS 

 Filled ABS recovered by the Argonne froth flotation process followed by removal of the 

rubber by the Argonne dry mechanical process contained 70% filled ABS (specific gravity 

greater than 1.07 and less than 1.1), 1.5% PS, 8% PPO, 3% rubber, 3% PP, 7% nylon, and 7.5% 

other materials. The physical properties of this recovered filled ABS were determined (Table 19) 

and were compared with properties of a commercially available virgin ABS. Table 19 also shows 

the properties of two blends of the recovered ABS with virgin ABS (25% recovered/75% virgin 

and 10% recovered/90% virgin). Interestingly, except for elongation at rupture and Gardner 

Impact, the properties of the blends were very close to the properties of the virgin material. 

4.1.3 Physical Properties of the Polymers Recovered by MBA Polymers 

 The physical properties of the MBA recovered fractions (see Section 6.1.5.2) were 

determined by MBA Polymers. The results are given in Table 20. 

4.1.4 Physical Properties of Polymers after Processing to Remove the PCBs 

 Samples of the polyolefins used in the devolatilization testing at Midland Compounding 

to remove the PCBs (see Section 3.2.5) were sent for IZOD analysis. The results are summarized 

in Table 21. The value for the different samples is 10.8 +/-1.8 with a standard deviation of 0.3. 

The value for the material before processing was 10.2. Therefore, this processing did not 

negatively impact the IZOD value of the samples. 

4.2 POLYMER PHYSICAL PROPERTIES DATABASE 

 A physical properties database has been compiled so that the physical properties of the 

recovered polymers can be compared with general-purpose virgin polymers. General-purpose 

physical properties have been compiled for the following plastics: 

• ABS; 

• Nylon (6 cast, 6/6 extruded, 30% glass filled); 

• PPO [polyphenylene oxide] (unfilled, 30% glass filled); 

• Polycarbonate polyethylene, low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density 

polyethylene (HDPE), and ultra-high-molecular-weight (UHMW) 

polyethylene; 

• Polypropylene; 

• Polystyrene (general purpose, high impact); and 

• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC). 
43 

TABLE 19 Properties of Recovered Filled ABS, Virgin ABS, and Blends of the Two Materials 

Property 

Recovered 

Filled ABS 

Virgin ABS 

(342 EZ) 

90% Virgin/ 

10% Recovered 

75% Virgin/ 

25% Recovered 

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230°C, 3.8 kg) 3.9 6.5 7.6 6.4 

Izod Impact (ft-lb/in.; 73°F) 0.9 3.8 3.0 2.6 

Flex Mod (1% secant; 1,000 psi) 324 296 299 302 

Tensile strength at yield (psi) 4982 5546 5392 5312 

Tensile strength at rupture (psi) 4956 4459 4544 4930 

Elongation at rupture (%) 2 56 9 6 

DTUL (F, at 264 psi) 162 165 166 164 

Gardner Impact, (73°F; in.-lb) 0 >320 32 8 

SG (g/cc) 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.06 

TABLE 20 Properties of Plastics Recovered by MBA 

Sample ABS HIPS PP Filled 

PP 

Unfilled 

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230°C, 3.8 kg) N/A N/A N/A 5.5 

MFR (g/10 min; 200°C, 5 kg) N/A N/A 2.5 N/A 

MFR (g/10 min; 230°C, 2.16 kg) 4.6 7.9 N/A N/A 

Izod Impact (ft-lb/in.; 73°F) 10.3 1.6 1.8 3.4 

Flex Mod (1% secant; 1,000 psi) 130 293 315 361 

Tensile strength at yield (psi) 3029 3779 4319 6291 

Tensile strength at rupture (psi) 1773 2365 4011 5623 

Elongation at rupture (%) 50 32 19 6 

DTUL (F, at 264 psi) N/A N/A 162 170 

DTUL (F, at 66 psi) 150 232 N/A N/A 

Gardner Impact (73°F; in-lb) 216 64 16 16 

SG (g/cc) 0.94 1.07 1.05 1.06 
44 

TABLE 21 Impact Test Results from Vacuum Devolatilization Testing 

Sample 

Number 

Temperature 

(°C) 

Screw 

RPM 

Feed 

(lb/h) Notes IZOD (ft-lb/in) 

 

1 325 300 20 9.94 

2 325 300 10 8.97 

3 325 100 20 12.6 

4 325 100 10 11.11 

5 287 200 15 10.65 

6 287 200 15 No vacuum 11.55 

7 287 200 15 Water added at feed 11.81 

8 250 300 20 10.23 

9 250 300 10 11.66 

10 250 100 20 10.06 

11 250 100 10 9.85 

12 

Polymer flakes before 

treatment 10.16 

 The Vehicle Recycling Partnership had previously compiled physical properties data on 

selected polymers that were recovered during the U.S. field trials. These materials were 

recovered by disassembly. The data from these polymers are included in the database so that the 

physical properties of materials recovered by disassembly can be compared with those of 

materials that are recovered from post-shred operations.3 Table 22 gives the properties of PP 

dismantled from automobiles as part of the USCAR U.S. field trial. The recovered PP was 

reported to have a specific gravity of 0.915 and was made of 99.2% PP, 0.4% PE, and 0.4% 

ABS. The differences in the properties of the dismantled PP and the PP/PE recovered from 

shredder residue are also compared in Table 23. 

 The differences are not significant and do not affect the usefulness of the material. For 

example, the specific gravity of the material recovered at Argonne is about 0.94 compared to 

0.915 for the dismantled material. The MFR reflects the largest difference: 17 for one of the two 

samples of the dismantled flakes versus about 9.4 for the material recovered from shredder 

residue. The USCAR study also found that the properties of the dismantled PP responded as 

expected when additives were added to the PP. For example, the Izod increased from less than 

2 ft-lb/in. to about 11 when 10% of an impact modifier was added and to about 14 when 20% 

was added4

. 

 

3

 “USCAR U.S. Field Trial for Automotive Polymers Recycling,” by W.W. Gallmeyer, C.M. Duranceau, 

R.L. Williams, and G.R. Winslow, SAE Paper Number 2003-01-0645, 2003 

4

 “USCAR U.S. Field Trial for Automotive Polymers Recycling: Interim Findings,” by W.W. Orr, SAE Paper 

Number 2000-01-0735, 2000. 
45 

TABLE 22 Comparison of the Properties of PP Dismantled of Cars as Part of the USCAR 

U.S. Triala

 with PP Recovered by the Argonne Process from Shredder Residue 

Property 

Recovered, 

Extruded 

Recovered Flakes, 

Sample #1 

Average Properties of 

Recovered PP/PEb

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230C 0 19.9 17 9.4 

Izod impact (ft-lb/in.); 73F 0 1.8 1.8 8.6 

Flex. Mod. (1%, secant; 1,000 psi) 136.9 131.9 99 

Tensile Strength at Yield (1,000 psi) 3.130 3.136 2.8 

Elongation at Yield (%) 19 18 24.3 

Tensile Strength at Rupture (1000 psi) 2.388 2.384 2.1 

Elongation at Rupture (%) 59 60 119.8 

DTUL (F, at 66 psi) 129.7 136.5 145 

a

 SAE Paper Number 2003-01-0645, “USCAR U.S. Field Trial for Automotive Polymers Recycling,” by 

W.W. Gallmeyer, C.M. Duranceau, R.L. Williams, and G.R. Winslow 

b

 From Table 16 

TABLE 23 Properties of Recovered PP/PE when Mixed with Regrind 

Property 

Argonne, As Recovered

Sample 9 

(see Table 16) 

Regrind 

As Is 

Pelletized 

Blend 

 

MFR (g/10 min; 230C) 8.7 3.1 9.2 

Izod impact (ft-lb/in.; 73F) 2.8 13.6 10.4 

Flex. mod. (1%, secant; 1,000 psi) 127 157 136 

Tensile strength at yield (1,000 psi) 3.3 3.7 3.4 

Tensile strength at rupture (1,000 psi) 3.1 2.9 2.3 

Elongation at rupture (%) 14 125 57 

DTUL (F, at 66 psi) 171 197 176 

Gardner impact (73F; in.-lb) 32 >320 132 

SG (g/cc) 0.94 0.91 0.92 
46 

4.3 RECOVERED RUBBER/PLASTICS MATERIAL 

 A mixed-rubber fraction with about 20% by weight mixed plastics was recovered. A 

sample of the recovered material was sent for testing by the “TireCycle” process used for 

recycling rubber. Preliminary tests done on the recovered material indicated that it may be 

suitable for making construction products, such as roofing shingles. The presence of the plastics 

in the mixed-rubber material appeared to improve its overall properties, especially its stiffness. 

4.4 BLENDING AND PELLETIZING OF RECOVERED PP/PE 

 Two hundred fifty pounds of PP/PE recovered by Argonne were blended with 750 lb of 

supplemental PP copolymer regrind for 15 min. The blended material was then run through an 

extruder and pelletized. The general appearance of the final pellet was excellent (Figure 12). 

Properties of the properties of the regrind and of the resulting pellets are shown in Table 23. 

Standard pelletizing conditions were used. Barrel heats were set from 365F at the rear barrel 

zone and increased progressively to 390F at the front, with six heat zones in between. Screen 

changer and breaker plate heats were set at 405F, and die heats were set at 395F. Melt 

temperature was recorded as 460F, and drive load and screw speed were set at 60% and 67.5% 

of the maximum values, respectively. Material output was recorded as 1,400 lb/h. Extra-fine 

screen packs were used (20/20/20/60/100/20 mesh screens) to remove impurities because this 

was the first time this material has been tried. 

FIGURE 12 Pelletized PP/PE Product Recovered from 

Shredder Residue 

 Screen changes are typically performed at pressure differences between 500 psi and 

1,000 psi. In this test, changes were done when it exceeded 500 psi to safeguard against 

puncturing a screen pack and losing material. Because extra-fine screen packs were used in the 

test, screen changes were required approximately every five minutes. The results indicated that 

the recovered PP/PE can be blended with other olefinic regrind and pelletized by using standard 

processes and equipment. 
47 

4.5 MOLDING TRIALS 

 Three types of auto parts were molded by MGV Enterprises by using Argonne-recovered 

PP/PE from shredder residue: knee bolsters, battery trays, and steering column covers 

(Figure 13). A standard molding machine was used in these trials. No changes to the standard 

conditions were required to run the recovered material. The limited testing done on the recovered 

PP/PE fraction shows that quality products, including auto parts, may be produced from the 

recovered materials. Additives and/or modifiers may be added to meet the specifications of some 

products. 

FIGURE 13 Auto Parts Molded from PP/PE Recovered from Shredder 

Residue 
48 

5 TASK 4. CRADA REPORTING 

 The Contractor, with input from the Participants, prepared and submitted to DOE annual 

progress reports. This document is the CRADA final report. 
49 

6 CRADA TEAM PUBLICATIONS 

2009 

Impact of Recycling Automotive Lightweighting Materials on Sustainability, B.J. Jody, 

J.A. Pomykala Jr., J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels, 2009 SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 

April 20–23, 2009. 

2008 

Developing a Technical Roadmap for Automotive Lightweight Metals Recycling, J.A.S. Green, 

Light Metal Age, December 2008. 

2007 

Automotive Recycling in the United States: Energy Conservation and Environmental Benefits, 

B.J. Jody, J.A. Pomykala Jr., J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels, The Journal of Metals, 

Vol. 59, No. 11, pp. 41–45, Nov. 2007. 

Technologies for Recycling Shredder Residue, B.J. Jody and E.J. Daniels, SAE Paper No. 2007-

01-0526, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 2007. 

Mass Balance and Composition Analysis of Shredder Residue, J.A. Pomykala Jr., B.J. Jody, 

J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels, SAE Paper No. 2007-01-0527, 2007 SAE World Congress, 

Detroit, MI, April 2007. 

Mass Balance and Composition Analysis of Shredder Residue, J.A. Pomykala Jr., B.J. Jody, 

J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels, SAE Paper No. 2007-01-0527, 2007 SAE Transactions 

Journal of Materials & Manufacturing, August 2008. 

Metal Recovery from Shredder Residue Fines, T. Allen, SAE Paper No. 2007-01-0528, 2007 

SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, April 2007. 

Thermoplastic Separation and Recovery from Various Mixed Scrap by the Argonne Developed 

Froth Flotation Technology, J.A. Pomykala Jr., B.J. Jody, and E.J. Daniels, Proc. of the 

13th Annual Global Plastics Environmental Conference (GPEC), Orlando, FL, March 6–7, 2007. 

A Mechanical Separation Process to Recover Metals and Polymers from Shredder Residue, 

J.A. Pomykala Jr., B.J. Jody, E.J. Daniels, J. Yang, and J.S. Spangenberger, TMS 2007 Annual 

Meeting & Exhibition, Orlando, FL, Feb. 25–March 1, 2007. 
50 

2006 

Recovery and Recycling of Polymers from Shredder Residue, B.J. Jody, J.A. Pomykala Jr., 

J.S. Spangenberger, and E.J. Daniels, The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 

Vol. 23, No. 4, Nov. 2006, pp. 228–236. 

Scale Up Study on Converting and Recycling Shredder Residue into a Fuel Oil, G.R. Winslow, 

G.R. Appel, B.S. Adams, T.N. Simon, N.L. Duranceau, C.M. Wheeler, and S. Candace, SAE 

Paper No. 2006-01-1580, SAE 2006 World Congress, Detroit, MI, 2006. 

Recycling of Polyurethane Foams Recovered From Shredder Residue Via Glycolysis Process 

Into Polyurethanes, V. Sendijarevic, I. Sendijarevic, K. Mayne, G.R. Winslow, C.M. Duranceau, 

N.L. Simon, and C.S. Wheeler, SAE Paper No. 2006-01-1579. 

A Life Cycle Look at Making Oil from End-of-Life Vehicles, C.S. Wheeler, N.L. Simon, 

M. Binder, G.R. Winslow, and C.M. Duranceau, SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0374, SAE 2006 

World Congress, Detroit, Michigan, 2006. 

The R&D of the FreedomCAR Materials Program, J.A. Carpenter Jr., E.J. Daniels, P.S. Sklad, 

C.D. Warren, and M.T. Smith, Proc. of the International Auto Body Congress, Novi, MI, 

September 19, 2006. 

Market Driven Technology Development for Sustainable End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling: A 

Perspective from the United States, E.J. Daniels, B.J. Jody, J.A. Pomykala Jr., and 

J.S. Spangenberger, presented at the 6th International Automobile Recycling Congress, 

Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 15–17, 2006. 

2005 

Chemical Recycling of Mixed Polyurethane Foam Recovered from Shredder Residue into 

Polyurethane Polyols, V. Sendijarevic, I. Sendijarevic, G.R. Winslow, C.M. Duranceau, 

N.I. Simon, and C.S. Wheeler, SAE Paper No. 2005-01-0850. 

Industry and Government Collaboration to Facilitate Sustainable End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling, 

E.J. Daniels, 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 

BRTD-4: Sustainability Applications in Product Design and Manufacture, Orlando, FL, 

November 5–11, 2005. 

Modular Life Cycle Model — Basis for Analyzing the Environmental Performance of Different 

Vehicle End-of-Life Options, M. Binder, N.L. Simon, C.M. Duranceau, C.S. Wheeler, and 

G.R. Winslow, Proc. of the 5th International Automobile Recycling Congress, Amsterdam, 

March 9–11, 2005. 
51 

Modular Life Cycle Model of Vehicle End-of-Life Phase — Basis for Analysis of Environmental 

Performance, C.S. Wheeler, N.L Simon, C.M. Duranceau, G.R. Winslow, and M. Binder, SAE 

Paper No. 2005-01-0847. 

United States National Life Cycle Inventory Database Project, A Status Report, J.L. Sullivan, 

C.S. Wheeler, and N.L. Simon, SAE Paper No. 2005-01-0852. 

Recycling Shredder Residue Containing Plastics and Foam Using a Thermal Conversion 

Process, G.R. Winslow, B.S. Appel, T. Adams, N.I. Simon, C.M. Duranceau, C.S. Wheeler, and 

V. Sendijarevic, SAE Paper No. 2005-01- 0848. 

Overview of Washing Systems for Commercial Cleaning of Plastics Separated from Automotive 

Shredder Residue, I. Sendijarevic, V. Sendijarevic, G.R. Winslow, C.M. Duranceau, N.L. Simon, 

S.F. Niemiec, and C.S. Wheeler, SAE Paper No. 2005-01-0851. 

2004 

Advanced Separation of Plastics from Shredder Residue, G.R. Winslow, N.L. Simon, 

C.M. Duranceau, R. Williams, C.S. Wheeler, M. Fisher, A. Kistenmacher, and I. VanHerpe, 

SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0469 

Recycling Automotive Shredder Residue and Plastics Using the CWT Thermal Process, 

G.R. Winslow and T. Adams, Proc. of the 10th Annual Global Plastics Environmental 

Conference (GPEC), Detroit, MI, February 18, 2004. 

Screening Study to Evaluate Shredder Residue Materials, G.R. Winslow, C.S. Wheeler, 

R.L. Williams, C.M. Duranceau, N.L. Simon, and D.R. Schomer, SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0468. 

Market Driven Automotive Recycling in North America, C. Duranceau, presented at the Institute 

of Scrap Recycling Industries Shredder Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 30, 2004. 

Sustainable End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling: R&D Collaboration between Industry and the 

U.S. DOE, E.J. Daniels, J.A. Carpenter Jr., C. Duranceau, M. Fisher, C. Wheeler, and 

G. Winslow, JOM, The Mineral, Metals & Materials Society, Vol. 56, No. 8, pp. 28–32, 

Aug. 2004. 

Market Driven Automotive Recycling in North America, C. Duranceau, (USCAR), J. Carpenter, 

(U.S. DOE), and M. Fisher, American Plastics Council, keynote at the 2004 International Car 

Recycling Workshop, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2004. 

Screening Study to Evaluate Shredder Residue Materials, V. Sendijarevec, N. Simon, 

C. Duranceau, G. Winslow, R. Williams, C. Wheeler, S. Niemiec, and D. Schomer, SAE Paper 

No. 2004-01-0468. 
52 

2003 

Automotive Materials Recycling: A Status Report of U.S. DOE and Industry Collaboration, 

E.J. Daniels, Ecomaterials and Ecoprocesses, Proc. of the International Symposium on 

Ecomaterials and Ecoprocesses, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 24–27, 2003, pp. 389–402. 

Effects of Transportation on the Ecosystem, J.A. Carpenter Jr., Ecomaterials and Ecoprocesses, 

Proc. of the International Symposium on Ecomaterials and Ecoprocesses, Vancouver, BC, 

Canada, August 24–27, 2003, pp. 13–22. 

Automotive Technology: Looking Forward, R. Sullivan, D. Hamilton, and J.A. Carpenter Jr., 

Ecomaterials and Ecoprocesses, Proc. of the International Symposium on Ecomaterials and 

Ecoprocesses, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 24–27, 2003, pp. 49–67. 

Processes for Recycling the Non-Metallic Portion of Obsolete Automobiles, B.J. Jody, 

E.J. Daniels, and J.A. Pomykala Jr., U.S. Environment-2003 On-Line Conference, July 14–25, 

2003. 

Cost Effective Recovery of Thermoplastics From Mixed Scrap, B.J. Jody, J.A. Pomykala Jr., and 

E.J. Daniels, Materials Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 18–24, March 2003. 

Separation and Recovery of Thermoplastics From Mixed-Scrap Plastics, J.A. Pomykala Jr., 

B.J. Jody, E.J. Daniels, and J. Greminger, Proc. of the 9th Annual Global Plastics Environmental 

Conference (GPEC), Detroit, MI, pp. 7–16, February 26–27, 2003. 

Argonne National Laboraory is a U.S. Department of Energy 

laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC

Energy Systems Division

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 362

Argonne, IL 60439-4815

www.anl.gov