Quality of recycling : towards an operational definition.
Date: 2020-11-17
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: circular economy, packaging, production improvement, raw material, recycling technology, report, waste recycling

Quality of recycling: Towards an 
operational definition 

Authors: Grant A., Cordle M., Bridgwater E. Eunomia 
Research & Consulting 

Editors: Canfora P., Dri M., Antonopoulos I.S., 
Gaudillat P. Joint Research Centre, European 
Commission 

French translation (abstract and summary): Gaudillat P. 
Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

2020 

This publication is a report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-
based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this 
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor 
other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not 
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of 
its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership Unit, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 
Address: Calle Inca Garcilaso, 3 – 41092 Sevilla - Spain 
Email: JRC-EMAS-SRD@ec.europa.eu  
Tel.: +34 9544 88318 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC122293 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-25426-3 

doi:10.2760/225236 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

© European Union, 2020  

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of 
Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, 
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union 2020, except cover page, recycling ink drop 2019, Source: Adobe Stock. 

How to cite this report: Grant, A., Cordle, M. and Bridgwater, E., Quality of Recycling - Towards an operational definition, Canfora, P., Dri, M., 
Antonopoulos, I. and Gaudillat, P. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-25426-3, 
doi:10.2760/225236, JRC122293. 

Quality of Recycling 

Towards an operational definition 

Qualité de recyclage : 

les bases d’une définition opérationnelle 

3 

Prepared by
Eunomia Research & Consulting 
Andy Grant 
Mark Cordle 
Eric Bridgwater 

Editors 
European Commission – Joint Research Centre 
Paolo Canfora 
Marco Dri 
Ioannis Antonopoulos 
Pierre Gaudillat (translation into French) 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor 
any  person  acting  on  the  Commission’s  behalf  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

4 

Abstract

As  the  quantity  of  recycling  increases,  a  high  quality  of  recycling  is  necessary  to 
ensure  that  secondary  raw  materials  produced  are  suitable  for  use  in  product 
applications  with  more  demanding  requirements,  enabling  a  more  circular  economy. 
Defining the concept of “quality of recycling” is the starting point for any assessment 
of  what  is  meant  by  ‘high  quality’.  This  study  develops  an  operational  definition  of 
“quality of recycling”, defined as the extent to which, through the recycling chain, the 
distinct characteristics of the material used within products are preserved or recovered 
to  maximise  their  potential  to  be  used  as  secondary  raw  materials  in  the  circular 
economy.  To  enable  assessments  of  quality,  the  study  proposes  a  set  of  quality 
categories for common packaging materials (glass, papers, PET, and HDPE/PP), based 
on  key  characteristics  of  secondary  raw  materials  and  sorted  packaging  outputs  that 
differentiate their suitability for use in manufacturing different types of products.  

The  definition  of  quality  of  recycling  and  the  accompanying  framework  for  quality 
assessments  can  be  used  by  a  range  of  organisations  to  understand  the  current 
quality  of  recycling  outputs  and  track  progress  towards  improving  the  quality  of 
recycling at the level of an individual plant or a whole recycling chain. 

Résumé 

Alors  que  le  recyclage  augmente  en  termes  de  quantité,  une  qualité  élevée  de 
recyclage  est  nécessaire  pour  assurer  que  les  matières  premières  secondaires 
produites soient aptes à être utilisées dans des applications présentant des exigences 
plus  strictes,  afin  de  rendre  possible  une  économie  plus  circulaire.  Définir  le  concept 
de  «  qualité  de  recyclage  »  est  le  point  de  départ  de  toute  évaluation  de  ce  que 
signifie  «  haute  qualité  ».  Cette  étude  élabore  une  définition  opérationnelle  de  la  « 
qualité du recyclage », définie comme la mesure selon laquelle, à travers la chaîne de 
recyclage,  les  caractéristiques  spécifiques  du  matériau  utilisé  dans  les  produits  sont 
préservées  ou  récupérées,  afin  de  maximiser  son  potentiel  d'utilisation  en  tant  que 
matière première secondaire dans l’économie circulaire. Afin de permettre d’évaluer la 
qualité,  l’étude  propose  un  ensemble  de  catégories  de  qualité  pour  les  matériaux 
la  base  des 
d’emballage  courants  (verre,  papiers,  PET  et  PEHD/PP),  sur 
caractéristiques  clés  des  matières  premières  secondaires  et  des  productions 
d’emballage  triés  qui  se  distinguent  par  leur  adéquation  à  être  utilisés  dans  la 
fabrication de différents types de produits.  

La  définition  de  qualité  du  recyclage,  et  le  système  d’évaluation  de  la  qualité 
correspondant,  peuvent  être  utilisés  par  toute  une  gamme  d'organisations,  afin  de 
comprendre la qualité actuelle des matières  recyclées et de suivre la progression vers 
l’amélioration  de  la  qualité  du  recyclage  au  niveau  d'une  installation  individuelle  ou 
d'une chaîne de recyclage entière. 

5 

Executive Summary 

Report context 

This report has been produced for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) project  Plant level 
data  collection  analysis  on  sorting  and  recycling  of  household  packaging  waste.  The 
purpose  of  the  project  is  to  support  the  work  of  DG  JRC  in  developing  knowledge 
around the quality, quantity and fate of household packaging recycling, by identifying 
and examining the influence of internal and external drivers and parameters to sorting 
and recycling plants that receive and process these materials.  

The project aimed to: 

 Develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plants in the

EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants.

 Understand which factors impact the quality and quantity of recycling outputs, with

particular consideration to:

o material  input  composition  and  quality  (including  collection  systems,

deposit return scheme arrangements);

o

o

loss  rates  and  cross-contamination  at  each  process  stage  and  impacting
factors;

equipment, process and technology;

o management of plants;

o product and industry standards; and,

o

commercial  and  regulatory  considerations  (market  impacts  and  PRO
arrangements).

The  project’s  findings  will  ultimately  inform  the  formulation  of  operationally  and 
commercially viable measures to increase both the quantity and quality of household 
packaging recycling. The implementation of these measures may be across the various 
sorting  plants,  processes,  technologies  and  commercial/  regulatory  contexts  included 
in the study. 

This report develops an operational definition of “quality of recycling” and a framework 
through which to assess this. As part of this framework, the report proposes an initial 
set  of  quality  categories  for  some  common  packaging  materials  (glass,  paper,  PET, 
and HDPE/PP). These are based on key characteristics of the secondary raw materials 
and sorted packaging outputs which differentiate the suitability of the recycled output 
for  use  in  the  manufacturing  of  different  products.  Sorting  and  reprocessing  plant 
outputs,  whether  secondary  raw  materials  or  sorted  packaging  outputs,  can  be 
grouped into these proposed quality categories. 

A definition of “quality of recycling” 

The proposed definition for the ‘quality of recycling’ is: 

‘The extent to which, through the recycling chain, the distinct characteristics 
of the material (the polymer, or the glass, or the paper fibre) are preserved 
or recovered so as to maximise their potential to be re-used in the circular 
economy.’ 

6 

These  characteristics  vary  by  material  but  may  include  for  example  food-contact 
suitability,  structural  characteristics  (i.e.  uniformity  and  viscosity),  clarity  and  colour 
form, and odour. 

This definition is based on the practical utility of the material in the circular economy, 
and  on  easily  identifiable  characteristics  of  materials  within  the  recycling  chain.  As 
such, it can be used as the basis for an operational approach to assessing the quality 
of recycling.  

Why define quality? 

A  lack  of  clarity  on  what  ‘quality’  means  is  likely  to  hamper  attempts  to  form  policy 
relating to quality; interpretations could be as disparate as relating to chemical purity, 
or to environmental benefit. 

Higher  quality  secondary  raw  materials  are  necessary  for  expanding  the  use  of 
recycled  content  in  broader  product  applications,  enabling  a  more  circular  economy. 
Producers  using  secondary  raw  materials  frequently  raise  concerns  about  the  quality 
of  sourced  material.  Particularly  for  plastics,  the  inability  to  source  material  of 
sufficient quality is a key limitation on the amount of secondary raw material that can 
be utilised.  

Whereas  recycling  keeps  resources  in  circulation  within  the  material  economy;  high 
quality  recycling  preserves  the  characteristics  of  materials  which  make  them  most 
useful  (avoiding  the  loss  of  material  characteristics  relevant  to  its  re-use  in  key 
product  sectors).  A  definition  framed  in  this  way  would  give  grounding  to  a  renewed 
policy  focus  on  assessing  and  improving  the  quality  of  recycling  output  by  a  whole 
recycling  chain.  It  would  therefore  also  help  to  ensure  that  measures  taken  with  the 
aim of improving quality actually result in a greater level of resource circularity. 

Finally, the definition allows for the quality of recycling to be assessed independently 
of related concepts such as material value and environmental benefit (although higher 
quality  recycling  will  often  have  a  higher  sale  value  and  an  improved  environmental 
benefit, this is not always the case).  

An operational definition 

It  is  important  that  the  definition  is  ‘operational’,  meaning  that  it  can  be  practically 
applied in assessing the quality of material at stages throughout the recycling chain.  

At  the  upper  end  of  the  achievable  quality  spectrum,  secondary  raw  materials  will 
have  comparable  characteristics  to  virgin  material.  In  practice,  the  qualities 
reprocessors aim for depend on the specifications stipulated by users of secondary raw 
materials,  and  quality  is  judged  by  the  sufficiency  of  a  material  for  a  particular 
remanufacturing processes. 

The proposed definition equates higher quality recycling with practical increased utility 
of a material in the circular economy. Given this context, assessments of quality ought 
to  be  based  on  the  standards  and  specifications  for  secondary  raw  materials  which 
detail  their  suitability  for  use  in  given  applications.  This  approach  requires  minimal 
additional  analysis  since  existing  gradings  and  classifications  are  currently  measured 
in  practice.  Complementary  assessments  can  also  be  conducted  on  the  actual 
circularity of product uses, and the extent to which a material achieves a given degree 
of circularity. 

7 

In order to link the two approaches, a quality assessment framework would require a 
systematic mapping of product uses by material against output quality specifications.  

Quality of sorted outputs and economic framework 

The overall aim of implementing standards for the measurement of recycling quality is 
to ensure that sorted material is suitable for input to the next stage in the sorting or 
recycling  process  that  ends  with  production  of  a  secondary  raw  material  of  a  certain 
quality.  

In  practice,  the  suitability  of  an  input  for  the  production  of  quality  secondary  raw 
materials  is  dependent  on  the  plant’s  economic  balance,  as  well  as  the  material’s 
characteristics.  Measures  proposed  to  increase  quality  may  impact  processing  costs, 
revenues for outputs and costs for disposal that occur for a plant. This is turn affects 
the relative feasibility of measures.  

Plants will require a robust business case for the implementation of measures. Where 
it  is  likely  that  costs  to  a  plant  will  increase,  the  demand  and  value  of  high-quality 
materials needs to be sufficiently high to cover these.  

An operational interpretation of the quality of recycling in terms of the output from a 
sorting plant could therefore be: 

‘The suitability of a sorted output for the next stage of the recycling process 
for that output, within input specifications determined by the economic 
balance of receiving plants.’ 

Quality framework 

Under  the  overarching  definition  of  quality,  a  framework  is  outlined  within  which  to 
assess the quality of recycling at different levels as outlined in Table E- 1: 

Table E- 1: Levels in the quality assessment framework 

Level 

Assessment 

Use  of  secondary  raw 
materials in products 
Secondary 
material* 

raw 

Sorted packaging 

Circularity of outcomes 

qualities 

Suitability  of  plant  outputs 
for  applications  requiring 
different 
of 
secondary raw materials 
Suitability 
outcomes 
Possibility 
outcomes 

circular 

quality 

for 

for 

Data  on  which  to  base 
assessment 
Product  uses  of  secondary 
raw materials 
Output grades and 
specifications related to 
product applications 

Grades  and  purity  levels  of 
sorted material 

* Since paper mills use sorted paper outputs directly in production processes, this
level of assessment can be conducted on the sorted packaging outputs from paper
sorting plants

The  broad  quality  categories  applicable  to  recycling  outputs  (the  second  level  of  the 
framework above) of different core packaging materials are summarised below. 

8 

Quality Categories within the Framework 

For glass, the quality categories proposed (based upon the characteristics required of 
the secondary raw material) are outlined in Table E- 2. 

Table E- 2: Categories of specifications by quality/value (glass cullet) 
Category  Quality/Value 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Dimensions 

Maintains colour, limits 
specific contaminants 
and other physio-
chemical glass types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants and other 
physio-chemical glass 
types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants 

Limits on overall 
contaminants  

Suitable for input into colour-specific 
container glass manufacture, fully circular 

May be suitable for input into darker colour 
container glass, or other re-melt markets, or 
use as abrasive 

Suitable for bespoke non-re-melt 
applications (i.e. water filtration) 

Suitable for some non-re-melt applications, 
such as use in ceramics or as fluxing agent in 
brick production 

Wide tolerance for 
contaminants 

Only suitable for aggregate uses, unlikely to 
displace virgin material 

For papers, the EN643 standard is well developed as an existing classification of paper 
sorting  plant  outputs  for  use  in  paper  mills.  The  range  of  grades  extracted  from 
household  paper  collections  are  relatively  limited,  and  the  categories  proposed  are 
outlined in Table E- 3. 

Table E- 3: Categories of specifications by quality/value (Papers) 
Quality 
Category 

Specifications 
(EN643) 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

Maintain fibre 
characteristics, 
homogeneity of 
grade 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
some variation in 
grade 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
lower grade 
fibres 

De-inking grade 
(1.11) 

Suitable for recycling to the 
same grade of product 

OCC1 grade (1.04 – 
1.05) 

Suitable for corrugated 
cardboard manufacture 

Mixed papers (1.02) 

Other fractions not 
graded to EN643 

Suitable for manufacture of 
other grades of product 
(components of corrugated 
cardboard, tissue 
manufacture) 

May yet be suitable for 
products with less structural 
fibre requirements 

1 Old corrugated containers/cardboard

9 

The  quality  categories  proposed  for  PET  plastic  (based  upon  the  characteristics 
required of the secondary raw material) are outlined in  Table E- 4. For plastics, each 
quality category is further interpreted into the characteristics firstly of secondary raw 
materials, and secondly of sorted packaging at any point prior to reprocessing. 

Table E- 4: Categories of specifications by quality/value (PET) 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

Maintain/preserve 
intrinsic viscosity 
(IV), product type, 
transparency, 
colour; and food 
contact suitability 

Maintain/preserve 
IV, product type, 
transparency, and 
colour 

Maintain/preserve 
IV, product type 

D 

Other 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
the production of the same food-contact items 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
colour-specific non-food-contact uses requiring high 
purity flake 

Mixed colour bottle flake can be used for non-
colour-sensitive applications that nonetheless 
require high enough IV (e.g. fibres and strapping). 

Separated trays can be separately reprocessed with 
lower losses compared to processing mixed with 
bottles 

Mixed, un-colour-separated bottle and tray flake 
that may need further sorting 

Beyond  this  initial  set  of  quality  categories,  a  more  detailed  mapping  exercise  of  the 
specifications  required  by  key  product  uses  for  HDPE,  PP  and  LDPE  secondary  raw 
materials  would  be  necessary  to  further  refine  the  quality  categories.  This  is  due  to 
the variation in grades of polyolefin polymers used in different products. 

For  each  material,  a  supplementary  framework  is  presented  which  classifies  end 
markets  against  three  criteria:  the  quality  of  the  secondary  raw  material  output  (as 
above);  the  extent  to  which  the  end  use  displaces  virgin  material;  and  the  onward 
recyclability of the product. These are combined into initial suggestions for a singular 
circular  economy  hierarchy  of  end  uses  for  each  material  type,  though  more  work  is 
required to develop these. 

Using the framework 

The  quality  definition  and  framework  developed  by  this  study  are  intended  for 
operational  use,  as  an  approach  to  practically  measuring  the  quality  of  recycling 
alongside the quantity of recycling. It has potential applications by different actors for 
a range of strategic and/or operational contexts. These uses include: 

 Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs;



Tracking change in qualities produced; and

 Assessing the quality benefit from changes to recycling outputs.

Assessments can be made at different levels for different purposes: 

10 

 By  plant  operators  or  waste  management  companies  to  use  as  a  performance
metric  (alongside  recycling  rate),  thus  tracking  the  impact  of  changes  on  the
quality of outputs, and defining the quality impact of their sorting and reprocessing
operations.

 By  municipalities  or  producer  responsibility  organisations  (PROs)  contracting
sorting  plants  to  assess  the  quality  of  outputs  produced  for  determination  of
further  sorting  needs;  specify  output  grades  within  different  quality  categories  to
be  produced;  and/or  differentiate  payment  by  quality  category  (aligned  with  any
strategy for increasing output qualities at a whole system level).

 By PROs by way of administering Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes,
or  regional/national  governments  to  quantify  the  overall  quality  of  packaging
recycling  output,  track  changes  in  quality  resulting  from  interventions,  support  or
development of local or national markets, and use as a basis for targeting specific
quality improvements.

The  use  of  the  definition  and  framework  in  guiding  measures  and  interventions  for 
improving quality will initially require the identification of improvements desired in the 
quality bands for each material. 

Whilst  the  selection  of  output  grades  and  qualities  by  sorters  and  reprocessors  is 
generally governed by what is economically achievable in the context of market prices 
and the consistency of demand for different output materials, there is scope for PROs 
to  have  an  impact  in  helping  to  ensure  that  quality  improvements  are  made  where  
these are currently economically marginal.  

In  addition,  PROs  and  regional/national  authorities  could  also  take  a  longer-term 
perspective  on  strategies  for  increasing  quality  of  recycling  by  shifting  the  economic 
picture  more  fundamentally.  This  may  be  by  targeting  research  and  development  to 
reduce  costs;  influencing  demand  for  recycled  content;  developing  EPR  mechanisms 
that ensure cost  recovery for  operators  for achieving the desired levels of quality; or 
supporting the development of higher quality reprocessing routes for specific portions 
of materials. 

11 

Synthèse 

Contexte du rapport 

Ce  rapport  a  été  produit  pour  le  projet  du  Centre  Commun  de  Recherche  (CCR) 
Analyse  des  données  recueillies  auprès  des  centres  de  traitement  sur  le  tri  et  le 
recyclage  des  déchets  d’emballage  ménagers.  L'objectif  du  projet  est  de  soutenir  le 
travail du CCR pour développer les connaissances relatives à la qualité, la quantité et 
la  destination  des  emballages  ménagers  recyclés,  en  identifiant  et  en  examinant 
l'influence des facteurs et des paramètres internes et externes sur les usines de tri et 
de recyclage, qui reçoivent et traitent ces matériaux.  

Le projet avait pour but de : 

 Développer  une  définition  de  la  « qualité  du  recyclage »  pour  les  usines
d’emballages ménagers dans l’UE qui traitent des déchets mixtes ou de plastique,
papier et verre.

 Comprendre quels facteurs ont un impact sur la qualité et la quantité des matières

recyclées, en prenant particulièrement en compte :

o

o

o

o

o

o

La composition et la qualité des matériaux entrants (y compris les systèmes
de collecte et les dispositifs de consigne) ;

Les taux de perte et de contamination croisée à chaque étape du processus
et les facteurs ayant un impact ;

Les équipements, processus et technologies ;

La gestion des installations ;

Les normes relatives au produit ou au secteur, et

Les  considérations  commerciales  et  réglementaires  (impacts  sur  le  marché
et dispositions des éco-organismes).

En  définitive,  les  conclusions  du  projet  permettront  de  définir  en  connaissance  de 
cause  la  formulation  de  mesures  viables  sur  le  plan  opérationnel  et  commercial,  afin 
d'augmenter  la  quantité  et  la  qualité  du  recyclage  des  emballages  ménagers.  Ces 
mesures  pourront  être  mises  en  œuvre  parmi  les  diverses  usines  de  tri,  processus, 
technologies et contextes commerciaux/réglementaires inclus dans l’étude. 

Ce  rapport  élabore  une  définition  opérationnelle  de  la  « qualité  de  recyclage »  et  un 
système selon lequel évaluer celle-ci. Dans ce cadre, le rapport propose un ensemble 
initial  de  catégories  de  qualité  pour  certains  matériaux  d’emballage  courants  (verre, 
papier,  PET  et  PEHD/PP).  Celles-ci  sont  basées  sur  les  caractéristiques  clés  des 
matières  premières  secondaires  et  des  emballages  triés  qui  se  distinguent  selon  leur 
adéquation  à  être  utilisés  dans  la  fabrication  de  différents  types  de  produits.  Les 
produits  de  sortie  des  usines  de  tri  et  de  retraitement,  qu’il  s'agisse  de  matières 
premières  secondaires  ou  de  déchets  d’emballages  triés,  peuvent  être  groupés  dans 
ces catégories de qualité proposées. 

Une définition de la « qualité de recyclage » 

La définition proposée pour la « qualité du recyclage » est : 

12 

« La mesure selon laquelle, par le biais de la chaîne de recyclage, les 
caractéristiques spécifiques du matériau (le polymère, le verre ou la fibre de 
papier) sont préservées ou récupérées, afin de maximiser leur potentiel de 
réutilisation dans l’économie circulaire. » 

Ces  caractéristiques  varient  entre  les  matériaux,  mais  incluent  par  exemple, 
les  caractéristiques  structurelles  (c.-à-d. 
l’adaptation  au  contact  alimentaire, 
l'uniformité et la viscosité), la clarté et la couleur, et l'odeur. 

Cette définition est basée sur l’utilité pratique des matériaux dans l’économie circulaire 
et  sur  des  caractéristiques  facilement  identifiables  de  matériaux  dans  la  chaîne  de 
recyclage. À ce titre, elle peut être utilisée comme base d'une approche opérationnelle 
pour évaluer la qualité du recyclage.  

Pourquoi définir la qualité ? 

Un  manque  de  clarté  sur  ce  que  signifie  la  « qualité »  serait  une  entrave  à  toute 
tentative de formuler une politique relative à la qualité ; les interprétations pourraient 
être aussi diverses que la pureté chimique ou les avantages environnementaux. 

Des  matières  premières  secondaires  de  plus  haute  qualité  sont  nécessaires  pour 
développer  l’utilisation  du  contenu  recyclé  dans  des  applications  plus  diverses, 
permettant  une  économie  plus  circulaire.  Les  producteurs  qui  utilisent  fréquemment 
des  matières  premières  secondaires  ont  fait  part  de  leurs  préoccupations  quant  à  la 
qualité  des  matériaux  d'origine.  En  particulier  pour  ce  qui  concerne  les  plastiques, 
l'incapacité  à  obtenir  des  matériaux  de  qualité  suffisante  est  une  limitation  clé  sur  la 
quantité de matière première secondaire qui peut être utilisée.  

Alors  que  le  recyclage  maintient  les  ressources  en  circulation  dans  l’économie 
matérielle,  un  recyclage  de  haute  qualité  préserve  les  caractéristiques  des  matériaux 
qui  les  rendent  le  plus  utile  (en  évitant  la  perte  des  caractéristiques  des  matériaux 
pertinentes  à  leur  réutilisation  dans  les  secteurs  clés).  Une  définition  structurée  de 
cette manière donnerait un fondement à une orientation stratégique renouvelée pour 
évaluer et améliorer la  qualité de la production recyclée par une  chaîne de recyclage 
tout  entière.  Par  conséquent,  il  serait  également  utile  de  s’assurer  que  les  mesures 
prises dans le but d'améliorer la qualité aient pour conséquence un niveau plus élevé 
de circularité des ressources. 

Enfin,  la  définition  permet  d’évaluer  la  qualité  du  recyclage  indépendamment  des 
concepts  liés  à  celui-ci,  tels  que  la  valeur  des  matériaux  et  les  avantages 
environnementaux  (bien  qu'un  recyclage  de  plus  haute  qualité  aura  souvent  des 
débouchés  ayant  une  valeur  commerciale  plus  élevée  et  des  avantages 
environnementaux supérieurs, ceci n’est pas toujours le cas).  

Une définition opérationnelle 

Il  est  important  que  la  définition  soit  « opérationnelle »,  ce  qui  signifie  qu’elle  puisse 
être appliquée en pratique pour évaluer la qualité des matériaux aux diverses étapes 
de la chaîne de recyclage.  

À  l’extrémité  supérieure  de  l’éventail  de  qualité  réalisable,  les  matières  premières 
secondaires auront des caractéristiques comparables au matériau vierge. En pratique, 
les qualités auxquelles le retraitement tente de parvenir dépendent des spécifications 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
stipulées par les utilisateurs de matières premières secondaires et la qualité est jugée 
par la suffisance d'un matériau pour un processus de fabrication particulier. 

La  définition  proposée  équivaut  à  un  recyclage  de  plus  haute  qualité  avec  une  utilité 
pratique  augmentée  d'un  matériau  dans  l’économie  circulaire.  Dans  ce  contexte,  les 
évaluations de qualité devraient être basées sur les normes et les spécifications pour 
les  matières  premières  secondaires,  qui  détaillent  leur  aptitude  à  être  utilisées  dans 
des  applications  données.  Cette  approche  nécessite  une  analyse  supplémentaire 
minimale  étant  donné  que  les  catégories  et  les  classifications  existantes  sont 
actuellement  mesurées  en  pratique.  Des  évaluations  complémentaires  peuvent 
également  être  menées  sur  la  circularité  réelle  des  utilisations  du  produit  et  dans 
quelle mesure le matériau atteint un niveau donné de circularité. 

Afin  de  lier  les  deux  approches,  un  cadre  d’évaluation  de  la  qualité  nécessiterait  une 
cartographie  systématique  des  utilisations  des  matériaux  par  produit,  par  rapport  au 
cahier des charges sur la qualité des matières recyclées.  

Qualité des productions triées et cadre économique   

L'objectif  global  d’une  mise  en  œuvre  de  normes  pour  la  mesure  de  la  qualité  du 
recyclage  est  d’assurer  que  les  matériaux  triés  sont  adaptés  à  la  phase  suivante  du 
processus  de  tri  et  de  recyclage  qui  se  termine  par  la  production  d'une  matière 
première secondaire d'une certaine qualité.  

En  pratique,  l’adéquation  d'un  intrant  pour  la  production  de  matières  premières 
secondaires  de  qualité  dépend  de  l’équilibre  économique  de  l'usine,  ainsi  que  des 
caractéristiques  du  matériau.  Les  mesures  proposées  pour  augmenter  la  qualité 
peuvent  avoir  un  impact  sur  les  coûts  de  traitement,  les  revenus  générés  par  la 
production,  et  les  coûts  d’élimination  survenant  dans  une  usine.  Ceci  affecte 
également la faisabilité relative des mesures.  

Les usines auront besoin d’une  analyse de rentabilité robuste pour la mise en  œuvre 
des  mesures.  Lorsqu'il  est  probable  que  les  coûts  d’une  usine  vont  être  amenés  à 
augmenter, la demande et la valeur des matériaux de haute qualité doivent être assez 
élevées pour couvrir ces coûts.  

Par conséquent, une interprétation opérationnelle de la qualité du recyclage en termes 
de production d'une usine de tri pourrait être : 

« L’adéquation d’une matière triée à être utilisée par l’étape suivante du 
processus de recyclage pour cette matière, selon les spécifications pour les 
matériaux entrants déterminées par l’équilibre économique des installations 
recevant ces matériaux. » 

Système de qualité 

Sous  la  définition  globale  de  la  qualité,  un  système  est  décrit  et  permet  d’évaluer  la 
qualité du recyclage aux différents niveaux, comme décrit dans le Table E- 1 : 

Tableau E- 5 : Niveaux dans le cadre d’évaluation de la qualité 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Niveau 

Évaluation 

Utilisation  des  matières 
premières  secondaires 
dans les produits 
Matières 
secondaires* 

premières 

Emballage trié 

  (tenant  en 
finalité  des 

Circularité 
compte 
la 
matériaux) 
Adéquation  des  matériaux 
triés  ou  recyclés  à  des 
nécessitant 
applications 
de 
différentes 
matières 
premières 
secondaires 
Adéquation 
production circulaire 
Possibilité  d’un 
qualité 

qualités 

tri  de 

une 

à 

lesquelles 

Données  sur 
baser l’évaluation 
Utilisations  des  matières 
premières  secondaires  dans 
des produits 
Catégories et spécifications 
des extrants par rapport 
aux applications dans les 
produits 

Catégories  et  niveaux  de 
pureté des matériaux triés 

* Étant donné que les papeteries utilisent des  déchets de papier triés directement 
dans  les  processus  de  production,  ce  niveau  d’évaluation  peut  être  mené  sur  les 
matériaux triés issues des usines de tri de papier 

Les diverses catégories de qualité applicables au recyclage (le second niveau du cadre 
ci-dessus) de différents matériaux d’emballage sont résumés ci-dessous. 

Catégories de qualité au sein du système 

Pour le verre, les catégories de qualité (basées sur les caractéristiques requises d'une 
matière première secondaire) sont décrites dans le Table E- 2. 

Tableau  E-  6  :  Catégories  de  spécifications  par  qualité/valeur  (calcin  de 
verre) 

Catégorie  Qualité/Valeur 

Bien-fondé 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Dimensions 

Maintien de la couleur, 
limites de contaminants 
spécifiques et autres 
types de verre physico-
chimique 

Limites sur des 
contaminants 
spécifiques et autres 
types de verre physico-
chimique 

Limites sur des 
contaminants 
spécifiques 

Limites sur des 
contaminants 
spécifiques  

Adapté comme intrant dans la fabrication de 
verre d’emballage de couleur spécifique, 
entièrement circulaire 

Peut être adapté en tant qu’intrant dans des 
verres d’emballage de couleur plus foncée ou 
autres marchés de refonte ou utilisé en tant 
qu'abrasif 

Adapté à des applications de non-refonte sur 
mesure (c.-à-d. filtrage d’eau) 

Adapté à des applications de non-refonte, 
comme l'utilisation dans les céramiques ou 
en tant qu'agent de fluxage dans la 
production de briques 

Large tolérance pour les 
contaminants 

Uniquement adapté pour les utilisations en 
agrégats, peu de chance de remplacer le 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
matériau vierge 

Pour  les  papiers,  la  norme  EN643  est  bien  développée  en  tant  que  classification 
existante des productions d’usine de tri du papier utilisé dans les papeteries. L’éventail 
de catégories extraites des collectes de papier ménager est relativement limité et les 
catégories proposées sont décrites dans le Table E- 3. 

Tableau E- 7 : Catégories de spécifications par qualité/valeur (papiers) 

Catégori
e 
qualité 

de 

Qualité/Valeur 
Dimensions 

Spécifications 
(EN643) 

Bien-fondé 

A 

B 

C 

Maintien des 
caractéristiques 
des fibres, 
homogénéité de 
la catégorie 

Caractéristiques 
de fibres 
mélangées, 
variation de la 
qualité 

Catégorie pour 
désencrage (1.11) 

Adapté au recyclage selon la 
même catégorie de produit 

Catégorie carton 
ondulé2 (1.04 – 1.05) 

Adapté à la fabrication de 
carton ondulé 

Papiers et cartons 
mêlés (1.02) 

Convient à la fabrication 
d'autres catégories de produits 
(composants du carton ondulé, 
fabrication de tissus) 

Variation élevée 
dans les fibres 

Autres fractions non 
catégorisées 

Pourrait convenir à des 
produits nécessitant moins de 
fibres structurelles 

Les  catégories  de  qualité  proposées  pour  le  plastique  PET  (basées  sur  les 
caractéristiques  requises  d'une  matière  première  secondaire)  sont  décrites  dans  le 
Table E- 4. Pour les plastiques, chaque catégorie de qualité est davantage interprétée 
dans  les  caractéristiques,  premièrement  des  matières  premières  secondaires  et, 
deuxièmement des emballages triés à n'importe quel moment avant le retraitement. 

Tableau E- 8 : Catégories de spécifications par qualité/valeur (PET) 

Catégorie 
de qualité 

Qualité/Valeur 
Dimensions 

Bien-fondé 

A 

B 

Préserver la séparation des couleurs et l’aptitude 
à une utilisation dans la production d’articles 
similaires pour contact alimentaire 

Maintenir/Préserver 
la viscosité 
intrinsèque (VI), le 
type de produit, la 
transparence, la 
couleur et l’aptitude 
au contact 
alimentaire 

Maintenir/Préserver 
la VI, le type de 
produit, la 
transparence et la 

Préserver la séparation des couleurs et l’aptitude 
à une utilisation dans les usages sans contact 
alimentaire, de couleur spécifique, nécessitant des 
paillettes de grande pureté 

2 Caisses carton ondulé usagées  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
couleur 

C 

Maintenir/Préserver 
la VI, le type de 
produit 

Les paillettes de bouteille de couleurs mélangées 
peuvent être utilisées pour les applications non 
sensibles à la couleur, qui nécessitent néanmoins 
assez de VI (p. ex. fibres et cerclage). 

D 

Autre 

Les barquettes séparées peuvent être retraitées 
séparément avec moins de pertes que lors du 
traitement de barquettes mélangées avec des 
bouteilles 

Bouteilles non triées par couleur et paillettes de 
barquette mélangées qui peuvent avoir besoin 
d’être davantage triées 

Au-delà  de  cet  ensemble  initial  de  catégories  de  qualité,  un  exercice  de  cartographie 
plus  détaillé  des  spécifications  requises  par  les  applications  clés  pour  les  matières 
premières  secondaires  en  HDPE,  PP  et  LDPE  serait  nécessaire  pour  affiner  davantage 
les  catégories  de  qualité.  Ceci  est  dû  à  la  variation  des  catégories  de  polymères 
polyoléfines utilisés dans différents produits. 

Pour  chaque  matériau,  un  cadre  supplémentaire  est  présenté  pour  classifier  les 
marchés  finaux  par  rapport  à  trois  critères  :  la  qualité  de  la  production  de  matière 
première  secondaire  (comme  ci-dessus)  ;  la  mesure  dans  laquelle  l'utilisation  finale 
remplace des matériaux vierges ; et la recyclabilité ultérieure du produit. Ceux-ci sont 
combinés  en  suggestions  initiales  pour  une  hiérarchie  unique  des  utilisations  finales 
selon des critères d’économie circulaire, pour chaque type de matériau ;  des travaux 
plus poussés restent nécessaires pour développer ceux-ci. 

Utilisation du système 

La  définition  de  la  qualité  et  le  système  élaborés  par  cette  étude  sont  destinés  à 
l’utilisation  opérationnelle,  comme  approche  pour  mesurer  en  pratique  la  qualité  du 
recyclage,  parallèlement  à  la  quantité  de  recyclage.  Différents  acteurs  peuvent 
potentiellement  les  appliquer  dans  un  éventail  de  contextes  stratégiques  et/ou 
opérationnels. Ceux-ci incluent: 

  L’évaluation de la qualité actuelle des productions de matières recyclées ; 

  Le suivi  de l’évolution de la qualité ; et 

  L’évaluation  des  bénéfices  résultant  de  l’amélioration  de  la  qualité  des  produits 

recyclés. 

Les évaluations peuvent être faites à différents niveaux pour différents objectifs : 

  Par les exploitants d'usine ou les  sociétés de gestion des déchets pour les utiliser 
en  tant  que  mesure  de  la  performance  (parallèlement  aux  taux  de  recyclage),  en 
suivant  ainsi  l'impact  des  changements  sur  la  qualité  de  la  production  et  en 
cernant l’impact sur la qualité de leurs opérations de tri et de retraitement. 

  Par les municipalités ou les éco-organismes qui passent un accord avec les usines 
de tri pour évaluer la qualité des matières traitées, afin de déterminer les besoins 
en  tri  supplémentaires  ;  de  spécifier  différentes  catégories  de  qualité  parmi  les 
matières  traitées  et/ou  de  différentier  le  paiement  selon  les  catégories  de  qualité 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(en  s’alignant  aux  stratégies  pour  augmenter  les  qualités  de  retraitement  le  long 
de toute la chaîne). 

  Par  les  éco-organismes  dans  leur  gestion  des  programmes  de  Responsabilité 
Élargie des Producteurs (REP) ou par les gouvernements régionaux/nationaux pour 
évaluer  la  qualité  globale  des  emballages  recyclés,  pour  suivre  les  changements 
dans la qualité à la suite d’interventions, pour soutenir ou développer les marchés 
locaux  ou  nationaux  et  pour  les  utiliser  comme  base  permettant  de  cibler  des 
améliorations spécifiques de la qualité. 

L'utilisation  de  la  définition  et  du  système  dans  les  mesures  d’orientation  et 
d’intervention nécessitera au départ l'identification des améliorations souhaitées dans 
les catégories de qualité pour chaque matériau. 

Alors que la sélection des catégories et des qualités de production par les trieurs et les 
retraiteurs est généralement soumise à ce qui est commercialement réalisable dans le 
contexte  des  prix  du  marché  et  de  l'homogénéité  de  la  demande  pour  différents 
matériaux produits, les éco-organismes peuvent avoir un impact en aidant à s’assurer 
que  les  améliorations  de  qualité  soient  faites  là  où  celles-ci  sont  actuellement 
marginales sur le plan économique.  

En  outre,  les  éco-organismes  et  les  autorités  régionales/nationales  pourraient  aussi 
adopter  une  perspective  à  plus  long  terme  relative  aux  stratégies  pour  augmenter  la 
qualité  du  recyclage  en  modifiant  plus  fondamentalement  la  situation  économique. 
Ceci pourrait être fait en ciblant la recherche  et le développement afin de réduire les 
coûts  ;  en  influençant  la  demande  de  contenu  recyclé  ;  en  développant  des 
mécanismes  de  REP  qui  assurent  la  récupération  des  coûts  pour  les  exploitants  qui 
atteignent  les  niveaux  souhaités  de  qualité  ou  en  soutenant  le  développement  de 
voies  de  retraitement  de  plus  haute  qualité  pour  des  fractions  spécifiques  de 
matériaux. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .............................................................................................19 
Glossary ..........................................................................................................20 
Introduction ............................................................................................22 
1. 
The quality of recycling ............................................................................23 
2. 
2.1.  Quality/value of recycling and the circular economy ..................................27 
2.1.1.  Approaches  to  assessing  quality  of  recycling  of  secondary  raw  materials

29 

3. 

3.1.1. 
3.1.2. 
3.1.3. 

3.2.1. 
3.2.2. 
3.2.3. 
3.2.4. 

2.1.2.  Quality of recycling of outputs from sorting plants ..............................31 
2.2.  A framework for assessing quality of recycling .........................................34 
Classification of quality/value of recycling ...................................................36 
3.1.  Glass ..................................................................................................36 
Framework based on material specifications ......................................37 
Framework based on circularity of product outcomes ..........................38 
Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................39 
3.2.  Paper ..................................................................................................40 
Framework based on material specifications ......................................40 
Framework based on circularity of product uses .................................41 
Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................41 
Further research needed .................................................................41 
3.3.  Plastics ...............................................................................................42 
3.3.1. 
Framework based on material specifications ......................................44 
3.3.2.  Notes on quality measurement points ...............................................52 
Framework based upon circularity of product uses ..............................52 
3.3.3. 
Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................54 
3.3.4. 
Further research needed .................................................................55 
3.3.5. 
Quality of recycling: existing standards ......................................................55 
4.1.  Quality of recycling: glass .....................................................................55 
Industry standards for sorting plant outputs ......................................55 
Industry current practice: glass recycling standards ...........................56 
4.2.  Quality of recycling: paper .....................................................................57 
Industry standards for sorting plant outputs: EN643 ...........................57 
4.2.1. 
Industry current practice: paper recycling standards ..........................58 
4.2.2. 
4.2.3.  Quality standards used in the study paper sorting plants .....................59 
4.2.4.  Relevance of sorting plant output standards to quality of recycling .......60 
4.3.  Quality of Recycling: plastics .................................................................61 
Industry reference standards for recycling plant outputs .....................61 
Industry current practice: recycling plant outputs ...............................61 
Industry reference standards for sorting plant outputs ........................61 
Industry current practice: sorting plant outputs .................................64 
Using the quality framework .....................................................................68 
5. 
Appendices ......................................................................................................72 
A1.1  EN643 Grades ......................................................................................72 
A2.1  Other Industry Standards ......................................................................75 

4.3.1. 
4.3.2. 
4.3.3. 
4.3.4. 

4.1.1. 
4.1.2. 

4. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 
Definitions 
Contaminants 

DRS 

Impurities 
Losses 
Non-target 
material 
PRO 

Non-target material or chemicals that alter the physical or chemical 
properties of the secondary raw material. 
Deposit  Return  Scheme:  Collection  system  in  which  consumers  pay 
a deposit on products, and get refunded when the product packaging 
is returned to a collection point. 
Contaminants or non-target material. 
Losses of target material during sorting or reprocessing 
Other material present alongside a target material in an input waste 
stream to a sorting or recycling plant. 
Producer  Responsibility  Organisation,  Organisation  that  coordinates 
the  collection  and  end-of-life  management  of  waste,  generally  from 
a  specific  sector,  to  fulfil  producers’  obligations  according  to 
regulations on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). 

Recycling chain  Set  of  sorting  and  reprocessing  processes  up  to  the  point  of 

Reject/Reject 
fraction 
Secondary  raw 
material (SRM) 

production of a secondary raw material. 
Material rejected from sorting processes and not included in process 
outputs destined for recycling. 
Material that has been sorted and prepared so that it is suitable for 
use  directly  in  new  product  manufacture,  without  further  sorting  or 
preparation,  (such  as  a  clean,  dry  polymer  flakes,  pellets,  or 
compound) 

Sorted fraction  A grade of material that has been sorted post collection but has not 

been sufficiently prepared to be a Secondary Raw Material. 

Target material  The material or mix of materials that is targeted by the subsequent 
sorting  or  reprocessing  operation,  i.e.  PET  bottles  in  a  bale  of  PET 
bottles. 

Associations and Organisations Referenced 
ARA 
APR 
CEN 
COREPLA 
DSD 

Altstoff Recycling Austria, Austrian PRO for packaging 
American Plastics Recyclers 
The European Committee for Normalisation 
Italian PRO for plastic packaging 
Duales  System  Deutschland  AG,  German  PRO  for  packaging, 
managed by Der Grüne Punkt. 
Spanish PRO for packaging 

Ecoembes 

European Federation of Glass Recyclers 
Plastic Recyclers Europe 

FERVER 
PRE 
Materials 
CPET 
EPS 
HDPE 
LDPE 
LLDPE 
OCC 
PA 
PE 
PET 
PET-G 
PLA 
PO - Polyolefins  Collective term for PE and PP thermoplastics 

Crystalline PET 
Expanded Polystyrene 
High Density Polyethylene 
Low Density Polyethylene 
Linear Low Density Polyethylene 
Old corrugated cardboard 
Polyamides (nylon) 
Polyethylene 
Polyethylene Terephthalate 
PET with added glycol 
Polylactide, a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester derived from crops 

20 

 
 
PP 
PS 
PUR 
PVC 
Other Terms 
IV 
MFI 

Polypropylene 
Polystyrene 
Polyurethane 
Poly-vinyl chloride 

Intrinsic viscosity, a measure of viscosity used for PET 
Melt-flow index, a measure of viscosity used for polyolefins 

21 

 
 
1. Introduction 

This report has been produced for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) project  Plant level 
data  collection  analysis  on  sorting  and  recycling  of  household  packaging  waste.  The 
aim  of  the  project  is  to  support  the  work  of  DG  JRC  and  the  Circular  Economy  and 
Industrial  Leadership  Unit  in  developing  knowledge  of  the  drivers  and  parameters, 
internal and external to sorting and recycling plants that influence the quality, quantity 
and fate of household packaging recycling.  

The project carried out study visits to 25 recycling plants across 11 EU countries and 
involved the following number and type of plants: 

  11  plants  sorting  collected  streams  of  light  packaging  fractions  (various  mixtures 
of dry recycling including plastics only inputs) and sorting out at least one grade of 
plastic. Some of these plants also conducted some reprocessing operations;  

  2  plants  conducting  a  second  sort  of  specific  plastic  fractions  output  from  sorting 

plants (mixed PET and mixed HDPE/PP); 

  8  plants  primarily  reprocessing  sorted  plastic  fractions  into  secondary  raw 

materials, whilst also conducting some sorting operations; 

  2 paper sorting plants; and  

  2 glass sorting plants. 

Alongside achieving higher recycling rates, it is important to ensure that the recycling 
is  of  high  quality.  Producers  using  secondary  raw  materials  frequently  raise  concerns 
about  the  quality  of  sourced  material.  Particularly  for  plastics,  the  inability  to  source 
material  of  sufficient  quality  is  a  key  limitation  on  the  amount  of  secondary  raw 
material  that  can  be  utilised.  This  report  provides  an  operational  definition  of  the 
quality  of  recycling,  to  underpin  the  investigation  of  the  project’s  key  research  aims 
(set  out  below).  It  is  accompanied  by  another  report  ‘Analysis  of  Drivers  Impacting 
Recycling  Quality’,  which  provides  analysis  of  the  collected  data  in  relation  to 
investigating the project’s key research aims.  

This  study  contributes  to  an  operational  definition  of  the  quality  of  recycling  that  is 
sufficiently grounded in practice within the industry. It also proposes a framework that 
can  be  used  in  differentiating  and  assessing  the  quality  of  both  secondary  raw 
materials  and  sorting  plant  outputs,  at  the  level  of  an  individual  plant  or  the  whole 
recycling chain.  

Key research aims 

The key research aims the project has investigated can be summarised as follows: 

  To develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plants in 

the EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants.  

  To  provide  clear  qualitative  and  quantitative  descriptions  of  the  relevant 

processes at a representative set of plants. 

  To  understand  which  factors  impact  quality  and  quantity  of  recycling  outputs, 
including  particular  consideration  of:  material  input  composition  and  quality 
(including  collection  system,  deposit  return  scheme  arrangements);  loss  rates 
and  cross-contamination  at  each  process  stage  and  impacting  factors; 
equipment,  process  and  technology;  management  of  plants;  product  and 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
industry  standards;  commercial  and  regulatory  considerations  (market  impacts 
and PRO arrangements). 

  To  develop  an  understanding  of  which  operationally  and  commercially 
practicable  measures  could  be  implemented  in  order  to  increase  recycling 
quantity and quality, for the various sorting plants, processes, technologies and 
commercial/regulatory contexts included in the study. 

The sections in this report cover: 

 

In the section ‘The quality of recycling’ (Section 2): 

o  An introduction to the  quality of  recycling concept,  covering approaches to 
assessing  the  quality  of  recycling  of  a)  secondary  raw  materials  and  b) 
sorting plant outputs earlier in the recycling chain. 

o  An  introduction  to  the  proposed  framework  approach  for  categorising 

quality and value in recycling. 

 

In the section ‘Classification of quality and value in recycling’ (Section 3), for each 
main packaging material type: 

o  The  key  dimensions  that  comprise  quality  and/or  value  specific  to  that 

material. 

o  Classifications  of  quality  and  value  based  on  a)  grouping  of  output 
specifications  by  quality  and  value  and  b)  groupings  of  product  uses  by 
circularity. 

o  Commentary on data availability and additional research needs. 

 

In the section ‘Quality of recycling: existing standards’ (Section 4): 

o  A  concise  overview  of  existing  industry  standards  applicable  to  different 

secondary raw material types. 

o  A commentary on current practice (the extent to which these standards are 

applied and used in practice) based on study plant interviews. 

 

In the section ‘Using the quality framework’ (Section 5): 

o  A summary of the key potential applications of the framework in assessing 
quality  by  different  organisations  (e.g.  plant  operators,  producer 
responsibility organisations (PROs), or national governments) 

2. The quality of recycling 

Any  attempt  to  make  progress  in  answering  the  study  question  must  start  with 
clarifying  what  is  meant  by  ‘quality  of  recycling’,  from  both  a  conceptual  and  a 
practical perspective. 

The  idea  of  ‘quality’  for  secondary  raw  materials  is  captured  by  two  interlinked 
concepts: 

 

‘Virgin-like’ secondary raw materials – how closely comparable the  secondary raw 
materials  from  a  recycling  chain  is  to  the  virgin  material  originally  used  in  the 
product  being  recycled.  Subsequently,  how  substitutable  the  secondary  raw 
materials  is  for  virgin  material  with  little  or  no  detrimental  impact  on  the  final 
product.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

‘High  value’  secondary  raw  materials  –  the  extent  to  which  secondary  raw 
materials produced is of comparable  value to virgin polymer, in terms of value to 
the user, and associated monetary value. 

An  operational  framework  for  ‘quality  of  recycling’  also  needs  to  be  grounded  in 
economic  realities;  taking  account  of  the  economic  context  within  which  collectors, 
sorters  and  reprocessors  operate.  The  quality  of  recycling  achieved  by  sorting  plants 
and reprocessors are strongly influenced by  these contexts, which vary depending on 
the  role  of  the  plants  in  the  recycling  chain.  The  achievement  of  a  higher  quality  of 
recycling must be made economically practicable if it is to be realised.  

Plant  operators  either  buy  input  material  or  are  paid  to  process  it.  Operational  costs 
are  incurred  in  sorting  and/or  reprocessing  the  material,  including  paying  off  capital 
investments.  Plant  operators  may  sell  outputs 
to  offtakers  under  various 
arrangements (under contract to a PRO, on the open market, etc), or the ownership of 
the  material  may  reside  with  another  actor  in  the  recycling  chain  (i.e.  PRO, 
municipality).  Disposal  costs  will  also  arise  for  the  reject  fraction,  which  often  fall  to 
the plant operator.  

Plant costs are further impacted by the amounts of impurities (non-target material and 
contamination) in the input received. Operators may have to increase processing costs 
to  maintain  quality  standards.  Also,  higher  amounts  of  impurities  lead  to  greater 
amounts  of  reject  material  (with  associated  disposal  costs)  and  lower  quantities  of 
saleable output. 

The economic features discussed above are illustrated in Figure 1. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Economic framework for sorting plants and reprocessors 

Economic  viability  is  a  key  consideration  for  operators  of  sorting  plants  and 
reprocessors  if  they  are  to  achieve  higher  quality  recycling  outputs.  The  costs  of 
improving the purity of the sorted material fraction - and of increasing the amount of 
suitable material captured into these fractions  - tend to  follow a cost  curve  on which 
the  removal  of  all  or  some  of  the  remaining  impurities  begin  incurring  considerable 
costs  beyond  a  certain  point.  Likewise,  the  costs  associated  with  capturing  a  target 
material for a particular output also increase as you move towards recovering the last 
fraction  of  material  (through  the  need  to  introduce  additional  sorting  steps  on  reject 
streams). 

25 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2-2: Illustrative Economic Viability of Producing Higher Quality Sorted 
Output 

In  order  to  make  the  additional  sorting  and/or  processing  steps  economically  viable, 
there  needs  to  be  sufficient  change  in  the  economic  balance.  The  demand  and  value 
received from higher quality material needs to be sufficient to meet increased sorting 
and/or processing costs and to cover other potential changes in costs, as follows: 

  Changes  in  disposal  costs  resulting  from  higher  removal  of  impurities  to  enable  a 
higher  quality  output,  leading  to  higher  tonnages  going  to  disposal  (conversely, 
increasing the capture of the targeted material reduces the amounts disposed).  

  Changing  revenues  from  other  sorted  fractions,  due  to  how  the  increased  quality 
affects  the  composition  or  level  of  impurities  in  other  target  sorted  fractions.  For 
example,  separating  transparent  PET  from  a  mixed  colour  PET  fraction  will  make 
the mixed PET fraction darker, which has a lower sales value than lighter coloured 
mixed PET (with a higher transparent PET content). 

Such  increased  material  value  would  also  need  to  be  sufficiently  reliable  for  a  plant 
operator  to  consider  that  there  is  a  business  case  for  producing  a  higher  quality 
output.  If  quality  is  required  to  increase,  by  changes  in  legislation  or  by  PROs,  then 
plants would only be able to continue operating if increased costs are balanced out by 
additional revenues (or a change in payments).  

The economics of increasing the quality of outputs at sorting plants and reprocessors 
are illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 3: Economics of increasing quality 

26 

 
 
 
 
  
 
2.1.  Quality/value of recycling and the circular economy 

A  circular  economy  is  one  which  minimises  raw  material  inputs  to  production  by 
preserving  the  value  in  material  in  use  within  the  economy.  Representations  of  a 
circular economy typically depict concentric cycles of material use  where inner cycles 
represent  better  outcomes  by  preserving  more  of  the  value  of  the  material  in 
successive uses, and outer cycles involve more processing. 

An  operational  definition  for  the  quality  of  recycling  should  therefore  be  one  that 
supports the circular economy by helping to identify the features of ‘quality’ or ‘value’ 
that can and should be protected during sorting and recycling processes. This aims to 
maximise the material kept in the inner circular loops. It should be acknowledged that  
some degree of leakage to outer cycles via other forms of recovery, or to disposal, is 
always likely.  

The definition should attempt to move beyond a binary classification such as ‘does the 
material  displace  virgin  polymer  demand  or  does  it  instead  displace  demand  for  an 
alternative material’,  to capture these additional dimensions: 

 

 

the extent to which properties of the material are preserved that it is unfeasible or 
costly to recover once lost (e.g. transparency, colourform); and 

the  onward  recyclability  (and  length  of  useful  lifetime)  of  the  product  made  from 
recycled material. 

Considering that virgin material has the highest degree of value, it is likely to be most 
cost  effective  at  a  whole  system  level  to  concentrate  virgin  material  input  into  the 
system for products with quality specifications most specific to virgin material (i.e. at 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  top  of  the  quality  hierarchy).    Secondary  raw  materials  –  for  which  some 
degradation in quality may have occurred through manufacturing, use, collection and 
sorting  –  are  more  cost-effectively  utilised  for  applications  that  do  not  have  as 
demanding  requirements,  whilst  still  displacing  virgin  material  use.  It  is  broadly 
recommended to collect and sort material in a way that preserves value so as to allow 
the material to be used as high up in the cascade as is practicable.  

Moving  to  higher  recycling  rates  also  requires  the  development  of  new  routes  for 
integrating  recycled  content  into  applications,  as  the  demand  for  recycled  content  in 
lower  quality  applications  is  by  nature  limited  to  a  certain  proportion  of  total  virgin 
use.  Figure  4  illustrates  that,  with  a  higher  recycling  rate,  a  greater  proportion  of 
secondary  raw  materials  would  need  to  feed  into  more  product  applications  with 
higher quality requirements.  

Figure 4: Use of recycled content in products at different recycling rates 

Increasing  recycling  rates  of  packaging  material  therefore  requires  greater  emphasis 
on preserving the quality of the material embedded in products throughout sorting and 
recycling  processes,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  recycling  of  material  into  products  in 
tighter  circular  economy  loops.  Understanding  the  variation  in  quality  of  recycling  is 
therefore  the  first  step  in  developing  a  systematic  approach  to  analysing  how  to 
sustain  or  improve  quality.  Sustaining  and  improving  qualities  should  allow  for  an 
increase in uptake of recycled content and the meeting of circular economy objectives. 

A suggested definition of ‘quality of recycling’ is therefore: 

‘the extent to which, through the recycling chain, the distinct 
characteristics of the material (the polymer, or the glass, or 

28 

Highest qualityMedium quality req.Low quality req.Highest qualityMedium quality req.Low quality req.Lower recycling rateHigher recycling rateUse of recycled material in productsDemand for material of different quality/value 
 
 
 
 
the paper fibre) are preserved or recovered so as to maximise 
their potential to be used as raw materials in the circular 
economy.’ 

These  characteristics  vary  by  material  but  may  include  factors  like  food-contact 
suitability,  structural  characteristics  (i.e.  uniformity  and  viscosity),  clarity  and  colour 
form, and odour. 

2.1.1.  Approaches  to  assessing  quality  of  recycling  of  secondary  raw 

materials 

At  the  point  of  the  production  of  a  secondary  raw  material,  the  following  concept  is 
widely acknowledged: 

A  high  quality  secondary  raw  material  is  one  that  can  be  used  in  subsequent 
manufacturing processes in place of high quality virgin material.  

For a secondary  raw material to be used in place  of  virgin material, it would need to 
meet regulatory standards, such as limitations on substances harmful to health or the 
environment. 

Evidently the highest quality of secondary material is one that is 100% constituted of 
the target material; is free from impurities of any kind (both non-target material and 
remaining  traces  of  products,  inks  and  other  features  of  the  product  packaging  that 
physically  or  chemically  contaminate  the  material);  and  has  comparable  material 
characteristics to the virgin raw material. This is reflected in measurements of quality 
which typically assess: 

 

substances  that  alter  the  physical  or  chemical  properties  of  the  secondary  raw 
material when manufactured into products; 

 

substances harmful to health (human or environmental); and 

  other non-target materials (which therefore don’t typically contribute mass to the 

secondary raw material). 

Any  criteria  applied  to  measure  quality  of  recycling  is  in  practice  targeted  to  ensure 
the  quality  is  sufficient  for  particular  manufacturing  processes.  Where  it  is  intended 
that  the  secondary  raw  material  is  used  in  place  of  virgin  material,  quality  criteria 
should ensure that the secondary raw material can be effectively substituted to create 
a product of comparable quality. For instance, where manufacturing processes can use 
material  with  certain  impurities  within  tolerances,  the  judgement  of  the  quality  of 
recycling  will  relate  to  these  tolerances.  If  a  secondary  raw  material  falls  outside  of 
these  tolerances  then  it  is  not  of  sufficiently  high  quality  for  that  process,  though  it 
may still be utilisable in other processes. A second key driver for quality specifications, 
with  particular  relevance  to  outputs  from  sorting  plants,  is  to  ensure  that  the  price 
paid for the material by weight reflects the value of the target material purchased. As 
a simple example, limits on moisture content ensure the buyer is not paying  material 
prices per tonne for the extra weight of water.  

An  assessment  of  quality  could  therefore  be  based  on  suitability  for  use  in  a  given 
application  or  group  of  applications  with  similar  quality  requirements,  based  on  the 
input  specification  requirements  of  different  users  of  secondary  raw  materials. 
Different  users  of  secondary  raw  materials  will  have  different  specification 
requirements  for  input  material,  involving  quality  criteria.  The  specifications  of  users 
of secondary raw materials also tend to be clear measurable standards against which 

29 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
secondary  raw  materials  are  currently  assessed  in  practice.  Furthermore,  the 
specification of quality by buyers  is important in determining the quality aimed at by 
sorters and reprocessors, since quality will generally be targeted to meet, rather than 
exceed,  the  requirements  of  the  buyer.  This  approach  was  used  in  recommending 
End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass: the proposal for the End-of-Waste criteria was based 
on a review of existing input specifications.3 It was developed as a single binary set of 
criteria, applicable only to glass cullet for ‘re-melting’ – glass cullet sent for recycling 
in a process that involved re-melting in a glass furnace. For other materials, it may be 
more appropriate to define a  clearer hierarchy of qualities.  It  should be noted that it 
may not always be possible to define a linear hierarchy as different uses of secondary 
raw  materials  may  have  varying  tolerances  for  different  impurities  or  characteristics 
(for  instance,  for  recycled  plastics,  clarity,  odour  and  mechanical  characteristics  vary 
in importance according to the application).  

As  noted  above,  operationalising  a  concept  of  quality  for  secondary  raw  materials 
should  more  broadly  support  a  shift  towards  a  more  circular  resource  economy. 
Quality should therefore distinguish between output uses where the material is kept in 
tighter  loops  involving  more  value  preservation,  from  those  where  value  is  lost.  A 
further  distinction  is  the  number  of  successive  uses  of  a  material,  prior  to  being  lost 
from  use  and  new  virgin  material  input  being  required.  As  such,  a  second  scale  for 
measuring  quality  of  recycling  could  be  based  upon  descriptions  of  product  uses  of 
secondary raw materials, corresponding to ‘tighter’ or ‘looser’ circularity. 

In  some  cases,  product  uses  of  secondary  raw  materials  with  ‘tighter’  and  ‘looser’ 
circularity  have  differing  quality  requirements.  For  instance,  PET  bottle-to-bottle 
manufacturing requires higher intrinsic viscosity (IV) recycled PET than for production 
of  film,  and  higher  clarity  (lower  levels  of  colour  pigment)  than  for  strapping 
applications. In some applications, secondary raw materials (e.g. plastic flake/pellet or 
glass cullet) of a higher quality correspond to  more  circular uses.  In  other instances, 
however, some non-recyclable products may have a need for secondary raw materials 
meeting  demanding  specifications  (i.e.  in  technical  applications).  Conversely,  some 
low-grade circular applications, such as some injection-moulded plastic products, may 
have relatively low quality requirements for secondary raw materials. 

Distinctions between quality requirements can be enhanced by legislation, typically to 
protect  the  health  and  safety  of  product  users.  A  key  example  is  food  contact 
regulations  under  which  plastic  recycling  processes  intended  for  food-contact  uses 
must be risk-assessed by the EFSA and authorised by the Commission, unless there is 
a  plastic  functional  barrier  between  the  recycled  material  and  the  food.4  Since  the 
EFSA  have  not  (as  of  2019)  established  criteria  for  assessing  the  safety  of  recycling 
processes  for  polymers  other  than  for  PET,  these  regulations  effectively  limit  the  use 
of recycled HDPE, PP and LDPE in food packaging. 

In summary, there are two different ways quality of recycling can be understood when 
material has been prepared as a secondary raw material: 

3 JRC, IPTS (2011) End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass Cullet: Technical Proposals  
4  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  282/2008  controls  the  use  of  recycled  plastic  for 
food  contact  applications.  Article  4  sets  out  the  conditions  for  the  authorisation  of 
recycling  processes.  The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  publishes  scientific 
opinion  papers  evaluating  the  safety  of  specific  recycling  processes,  and  has  also 
published  a  paper  on  the  criteria  they  use  for  the  safety  evaluation  of  a  mechanical 
recycling 
from 
produce 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2184. 

available 

process 

rPET, 

to 

30 

 
 
 
  
 
                                           
1.  The  standards  or  specifications  that  the  secondary  raw  material  achieves 
indicating  its  suitability  for  use  in  a  given  application  or  group  of  applications 
with similar quality requirements. 

2.  The  circularity  of  product  uses  and  the  extent  to  which  a  material  achieves  a 

given degree of circularity: 

  When  assessed  on  the  basis  of  standards  or  specifications  that  the 
secondary  raw  material  achieves,  these  standards  or  specifications 
would  be  linked  to  the  capability  of  the  material  to  achieve  a  given 
degree of circularity. 

For  the  first  approach,  the  quality  assessment  would  require  a  classification  and 
banding/grading of specifications according to different quality bands. 

the 

second 

For 
a 
classification/banding  of  products  according  to  circularity,  and  an  identification  of 
associated standards/specifications. 

assessment  would 

the  quality 

approach, 

require 

In order to link the two approaches, the quality assessment would require a mapping 
of a secondary raw material’s product uses against its associated quality specifications 
in a more systematic way than has previously carried out.  

2.1.2.  Quality of recycling of outputs from sorting plants 

Prior to the production of a secondary raw material, the concept of quality of recycling 
can  be  applied  to  the  output  from  sorting  plants,  and  is  defined  similarly  to  that  of 
secondary raw material itself. 

As  with  secondary  raw  materials,  the  highest  quality  sorted  output  at  any  stage  is 
100% target material free  from any impurity, though the target material tends to be 
defined  as  a  subset  of  packaging  items  rather  than  as  a  specific  material.  Quality 
measurements for sorted outputs tend to identify the levels of problematic materials, 
including: 

  Substances  or  products  that  would  impact  the  physical  or  chemical  properties  of 

the secondary raw material produced; 

  Substances harmful to health (human or environmental); and 

  Other  non-target  materials  (how  much  of  the  material  is  specifically  target 

material, and what other materials are in the mix). 

The measurement or distinguishing of quality of recycling through quality standards or 
specifications is in practice targeted to ensure the sorted material is suitable for input 
to  the  next  stage  in  the  sorting  or  recycling  process  that  ends  with  production  of  a 
secondary raw material of a certain quality.  

The  judgement  of  whether  material  is  of  ‘sufficient  quality’  is  based  largely  on  what 
composition  of 
input  material  subsequent  recycling  plants  are  designed  to 
accommodate.  This is considered  in terms  of technical design and quality needs, and 
also  critically  from  an  economic  perspective.  The  price  of  secondary  raw  materials  is 
typically  bounded  by  the  price  of  the  respective  virgin  materials,  except  in  some 
specific circumstances where the secondary raw material is valued higher that virgin. 
For  the  economic  balance  of  the  plant  to  be  viable,  revenues  from  outputs  need  to 
cover  cost  of  input  bales,  processing  costs,  disposals  costs  of  rejects,  and  provide  a 
profit margin for the operator. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  2-1:  Examples  of  related  reprocessor  input  material  and  output 
secondary raw material quality specifications 

rPET 
bottle-to-bottle 

produced 

for 

Input to reprocessor, 
sorted fraction quality 
standards applied 
>98% PET bottles 
Minimal tray content 
Clear, Transparent 
Sourced from DRS (>95% 
food contact, low levels of 
PVC) 

Output from reprocessor, 
secondary raw material quality 

High IV 
Clear, Transparent 
Suitable for Food Contact 
Decontamination 
PVC limit 

White  rHDPE  produced 
packaging 
for 
applications 

White opaque HDPE 
bottles 
Limit on general impurities 

White opaque  
De-odorised 

Later steps in the recycling chain can involve further sorting operations to separate by 
colour/polymer  or  to  tackle  contaminants  harder  to  remove  earlier  in  the  recycling 
chain. Float-sink separation of flake polymers,  which cannot be done  effectively prior 
to flaking operations, is one such example. Sorting plants and reprocessors are often 
technically able to introduce additional sorting or processing steps to adapt for ‘lower 
quality’ inputs. Whether implementing these additional steps is viable or not depends 
on  the  economic  balance  of  the  plant,  with  respect  to  the  balance  of  cost  of  inputs, 
processing costs, revenues for outputs and costs for disposal. Reprocessing plants are 
set-up to reprocess a specific mix of output grades from input material with a certain 
composition,  and  both  the  technological  set  up  and  contract  finances  relate  to  an 
assumed input composition (with some tolerance for  variation). If input material falls 
outside these tolerances it is deemed of insufficient quality for that specific plant, yet 
may  be  sufficient  quality  for  another  plant  with  a  different  process  set  up  and/or 
economic balance.  Therefore,  material in an input of insufficient quality for one plant 
process  may  yet  be  sorted  and/or  reprocessed  into  high  quality  output  in  a  different 
plant. In some cases, some remainder output fractions do not contain sufficient value 
to  be  further  sorted  or  reprocessed,  and  are  likely  to  be  either  used  in  lower-value 
applications or are at risk of being (in the case of plastics and papers) sent for energy 
recovery. Input specifications therefore relate to: 

  Limiting  products  that  are  likely  to  contain  substances  problematic  for  quality  of 
secondary raw materials, and that are hard or expensive to sort out subsequently 
(e.g. opaque PET or PVA in PET recycling, or biodegradable film for PE recycling). 

  Ensuring  sufficient  target  material  in  inputs  (i.e.  specific  material  with  any  colour 

or product use specification) to fit the economic balance of the plant. 

In  the  paper  sector  for  example,  the  EN643  standards  reflect  these  aims  –  sorted 
paper  outputs  are  marked  out  as  sufficient  to  go  into  the  next  stage  in  recycling 
processes. The standards also provide reprocessors with clearer expectations of what 
input material their plants need to be set up to reprocess (in both process design and 
economic  balance).  In  practice,  paper  reprocessors  accept  deviations  from  EN643 
quality  standards  for  input  material  where  they  are  able  to  secure  an  adequate 
balance of input material qualities overall. 

An operational interpretation of the quality of recycling for any particular output from 
a sorting plant could be: 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  sorted  output  produced  is  suitable  for  the  next  stage  of  the  recycling 
process  for  that  output,  within  input  specifications  determined  by  the 
economic balance of receiving plants. 

As it is possible to distinguish between the different qualities of recycling suitable for 
different  final  uses,  it  may  be  possible  to  differentiate  between  different  qualities  of 
output  from  sorting  plants  suitable  for  input  to  different  kinds  of  plants.  High  quality 
sorted  outputs  will  be  suitable  for  applications  in  the  recycling  chain  which  end  in 
higher quality recycling.  

In line with the overall definition of quality of recycling in section 2.1, a ‘higher quality’ 
set of outputs from a sorting plant would be one that preserves, maintains or recovers 
the  relevant  characteristics  of  the  material  in  sorting.  So,  in  addition  to  meeting 
offtaker  specifications  for  outputs  that  are  produced,  more  degrees  of  sorting  by 
relevant  characteristics  (colour,  product  form,  etc)  would  equate  to  a  higher  quality 
set of outputs. As already noted, plants later in the recycling chain may also conduct 
further  sorting  (perhaps  more  economically  than  plants  earlier  in  the  chain),  so  this 
assessment  of  quality  would  not  necessarily  be  linked  to  overall  secondary  raw 
material qualities output from the chain. 

There  are  technical  components  to  specifications  for  sorted  outputs  that  reflect  the 
contaminants  that  cause  technical  difficulties  and  cannot  be  subsequently  sorted  out 
effectively  and/or  degrade  the  physical  or  chemical  properties  of  the  material.  There 
are also economic components, reflecting levels of impurities that are possible to clean 
or  remove  but  which  are  outside  the  parameters  required  by  the  economic  mass 
balance, including not enough target or valuable materials in the mix. 

Figure 5: Diagram of quality of recycling 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Considering  that  specification  requirements  are  related  to  prevailing  economic 
conditions,  an  important  implication  is  that  quality  standards  for  sorted  packaging 
outputs  are  not  possible  to  define  absolutely,  but  in  the  longer  term  would  vary 
depending  on  changes  in  markets  and  demand  for  secondary  raw  materials  of 
different qualities, technological developments, and levels of subsidies, amongst other 
variables. In the long-term, as conditions improve over time (for instance, new market 
demand or higher subsidies) the economic balance shifts, and may cause subsequent 
shifts in the quality standards necessary at earlier points in the recycling chain for the 
economic balance to work at later stages.  

The  study  also  seeks  to  address  the  usefulness  of  establishing  standards  for  outputs 
from  sorting  plants,  particularly  in  the  context  of  sorted  plastics.  Variation  in 
reprocessors’  input  requirements  will  reflect  variations  in  plant design,  input  material 
composition,  regional  material  mixes,  and  contract  finances,  rather  than  solely  being 
based  on  output  quality.  From  the  definition  above  it  seems  reasonable  to  suggest 
that  the  usefulness  of  any  standardised  set  of  quality  standards  for  outputs  from 
sorting plants will depend on: 

  How harmonised and uniform the stages in the recycling processes are; 

  How harmonised and uniform the economic balance is between plants; and 

  The extent to which different sorting outputs (i.e. mixes of packaging materials or 
levels  of  impurities)  practically  determine  the  end  fates  of  material  sent  for 
recycling. 

The  more  the  stages  in  the  recycling  process  are  uniform  and  harmonised,  the  more 
similar  reprocessors’  input  specifications  (sorting  plant  output  quality  requirements) 
should  be,  though  they  are  likely  to  also  reflect  different  economic  conditions.  A 
forward-looking  quality  standard  might  be  based  upon  input  specifications  used  in 
those  systems  that  are  currently  maximising  the  capture  of  recycling  into  more 
circular  outputs,  whilst  acknowledging  that  the  economic  balance  would  have  to  be 
replicated elsewhere in order for these standards to be applicable.  

In  time,  more  harmonised  sorted  output  quality  standards  might  be  expected  to 
provide  clearer  expectations  across  the  system,  and  standardise  what  earlier  sorting 
plants  are  designed  to  achieve  in  terms  of  output  quality.  Unless  the  economic 
balances  of  plants  are  aligned  more  precisely  to  these  standardised  qualities  (which 
would only happen over the longer term), decisions on what input material to accept 
and  what  to  output  would  still  be  based  on  specific  and  varied  circumstances  in 
practice. 

2.2.  A framework for assessing quality of recycling 

This  section  sets  out  a  framework  that  identifies  the  options  for  conducting 
assessments of the quality/value of recycling at different points in the chain, and sets 
out the necessary  research and analysis tasks  for developing this framework further. 
It looks at three levels of assessing quality: 

  The  level  of  use  of  secondary  raw  materials  in  products  (how  circular  are  the 

applications?); 

  The level of the output secondary raw material specification: 

o  The technical quality of the secondary raw material outputs; and 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o  The  suitability  of  secondary  raw  material  outputs  for  ‘more  circular’ 

products; and 

  The  level  of  sorted  packaging  outputs  (the  qualities  of  the  bales  of  sorted 

packaging). 

For each stage, it sets out: 

  What the objective of the assessment is; 

  The type of data that needs to be gathered in order to conduct such assessment; 

and 

  The framework against which the results could be assessed. 

Table 2-2: Framework for Quality Assessments 
Stage 

Secondary Raw Material 

Sorted 
Packaging 

Use in 
Recycled 
Product 
Circularity of 
outcomes 
The quality and 
circularity of 
recycling 

Suitability for 
circular 
outcomes 
The circularity 
of recycling  

Assess: 

Type  of  Data to 
Gather: 

Assessment 
Framework: 

Possibility 
for quality 
outcomes 
Technical 
feasibility of 
subsequent 
recycling 
routes 
Value of 
output 
compared to 
disposal cost 
Quality 
Standards 
Levels of key 
prohibited 
impurities 
Target 
material 
content 
Tiered quality 
categories for 
sorted 
packaging 
bales (see 
relevant tables 
in section 3) 

Quality of 
outputs 
The suitability 
of secondary 
raw material 
outputs for 
applications 
requiring 
varying 
‘qualities’ or 
specifications. 

Output 
Specifications 
related to sets 
of product 
applications 
with similar 
quality 
requirements 
Tiered 
groupings of 
product 
specifications 
differentiating 
quality (see 
relevant tables 
in section 3) 

35 

Output 
Specifications 
related to sets 
of product 
applications 
with similar 
quality 
requirements 
Tiered 
groupings of 
product 
specifications 
corresponding 
to a circular 
recycling 
hierarchy (see 
relevant tables 
in section 3) 

Product use of 
recovered raw 
material by 
main product 
group 

Tiered product 
categories 
corresponding 
to a circular 
recycling 
hierarchy (see 
relevant tables 
in section 3) 

 
 
 
 
 
3. Classification of quality/value of recycling 

3.1.  Glass 
The  different  properties  of  glass  cullet  relevant  to  quality,  value  and  end  destination 
include: 

  Physico-chemical composition; 

  Colour; 

  Content of impurities; and 

  Homogeneity (variation within the given specification). 

Container  glass  is  all  soda-lime  glass.  Container  glass  is  among  the  most  versatile 
glass  types  (along  with  flat  glass  cullet)  as  it  can  be  used  to  manufacture  a  large 
proportion  of  all  glass  products.  Glass  of  other  physico-chemical  compositions  (lead 
crystal  tableware,  wired  glass,  glass  ceramics,  lamp  glass,  borosilicate  glass)  have 
higher melting points and cannot be used in container glass manufacture.  

The  colour  of  glass  cannot  be  recovered:  making  clear  glass  products  requires  clear 
cullet with low levels of coloured glass, amber glass products can be made from cullet 
with  some  green  and  clear  glass,  whilst  green  glass  products  can  be  made  cullet 
containing  much  higher  quantities  of  other  colours.  Colour  separated  glass  cullet  (to 
clear  or  to  amber  cullet)  tends  to  have  higher  value.  Mixed  colour  cullet  can  also  be 
used for non-colour-specific products such as insulation wool. 

Different contaminants cause different problems for quality, if still present beyond low 
limits  when  the  cullet  goes  to  re-melt  (for  a  summary  of  these  limits  see  4.1.1). 
Ferrous  metals  and  organics  cause  unwanted  coloration  in  final  glass  products.  Non-
ferrous  metals  are  found  to  attack  and  cause  defects  in  the  walls  and  bottom  of  the 
glass  furnaces,  leading  to  shortened  furnace  life.  Non-metal,  non-glass  inorganic 
materials  (ceramics,  porcelain,  stones  and  pyro-ceramics)  cause  fatal  defects  in  the 
final  manufactured  glass  products  because  they  have  a  higher  melting  point  than 
glass,  which  may  even  lead  to  health  hazards  for  consumers  if  the  product  breaks 
when used. They are also particularly difficult to sort out. 

Glass cullet particle size matters at a certain stage of the sorting process, since colour 
sorting  becomes  un-economic  at  smaller  particle  sizes.  In  addition,  different 
manufacturing processes (i.e. container glass vs insulation wool) have tended to have 
different  input  cullet  particle  size  requirements,  though  these  requirements  may 
change over time as processes evolve. 

Broadly,  quality  requirements  are  similar  across  re-melt  applications,  though  mineral 
wool  manufacturers  sometimes  can  accept  higher  impurities  (e.g.  of  non-glass,  non-
metal inorganics) than other glass manufacturing sectors. 

The  WRAP  PAS  102  standard  identifies  quality  requirements  of  different  non-re-melt 
applications (see section 4.1.1). 

Both plants visited in this study produced cullet from container glass primarily for re-
melt in new container glass manufacture.   

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.1.  Framework based on material specifications 

Table 3-1 shows the features of quality and value that tend to be set by specifications 
for different end markets. 

Table 3-1: End markets for recycled glass and corresponding specifications 
Secondary Raw Material Use End 
Market 

Corresponding Specifications 

Re-melt for container glass 

Physico-chemical, Colour, Limits on 
contaminants 

Re-melt for insulation 

Physico-chemical, Limits on contaminants 

Decorative applications 
(tiles/flooring/synthetic marble) 

Physico-chemical, Colour, Limits on 
contaminants 

Use as an abrasive 

Physico-chemical, Limits on contaminants 

Use as water filtration media 

No organics, limits on other contaminants 

Additive (fluxing agent) in brick 
and ceramics production 

Limits on total contaminants 

Aggregate  

None 

Aside from slightly different tolerances for individual contaminants, there are relatively 
few  grounds  for  establishing  quality  between  remelt  applications  in  terms  of  purities 
and  decontaminants.  The  only  key  distinguishing  feature  is  the  extent  of  colour 
preservation  or  separation.  This  suggests  that,  going  by  output  specifications  alone, 
three broad quality categories can be identified as in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2: Categories of specifications by quality/value (glass cullet) 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Maintain colour, limits 
on specific 
contaminants and other 
physico-chemical glass 
types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants and other 
physico-chemical glass 
types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants 

Limits on overall 
contaminants  

Suitable for input into colour-specific 
container glass manufacture, fully circular 

May be suitable for input into darker colour 
container glass, or other re-melt markets, or 
use as abrasive 

Suitable for bespoke non-remelt applications 
(i.e. water filtration). 

Suitable for some non re-melt applications, 
like use in ceramics or as fluxing agent in 
brick production 

Wide tolerance for 
contaminants 

Only suitable for aggregate uses, unlikely to 
displace virgin material 

37 

 
 
 
3.1.2.  Framework based on circularity of product outcomes 

The specification-based framework above is based on identifying characteristics of the 
materials preserved in recycling, without regard to the actual end uses of the material 
in new products. A framework that also takes into account the circularity of end uses 
(product outcomes) should additionally capture: 

  The extent to which the resulting product displaces use of virgin polymer; and 

  The onward recyclability of the product. 

Product  outcomes  could  therefore  be  mapped  against  these  three  dimensions  as  in 
Table 3-3.  

 Table 3-3: Classifying end markets for glass 
Secondary Raw 
Material Use End 
Market 

Displaces virgin 
glass production 
(Y/N) 

Material 
specification 
quality/value 
category as 
above 

Onward Recyclability  

(1 = capable of many 
recycling loops) 

(2 = limited additional 
recycling) 

(3 = unrecyclable) 

(A/B/C/D/E see 
Table 3-2) 

Container Glass 
(Same colour) 

Container Glass 
(Darker colour) 

Insulation Foam 

Use as abrasive 

Use as water filtration 
media 

Use in ceramic 
sanitary ware/as 
fluxing agent in brick 
manufacture 

A 

B 

B 

B 

C 

D 

Use as aggregate 

E 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

1 

1 

2 

3 

N – replaces sand 

3 (though re-use often 
viable) 

N – replaces 
feldspar 

3 

3 

From this mapping, a firmer hierarchy could be created by combining the columns to 
form a single scale – from preserving value within closed-loop cycles at the top, to low 
value  output  to  unrecyclable  products  that  don’t  displace  virgin  material  at  the 
bottom. An initial example of such a hierarchy is set out in Table 3-4. Though the top 
of  this  hierarchy  is  clearly  more  circular  than  the  bottom,  the  ordering  of  the  middle 
levels is somewhat subjective and the ‘better outcome’ for the material is likely to be 
best  assessed 
in  the  context  of  specific  options  and  counterfactuals  with 
accompanying LCA studies. 

Table 3-4: Potential circular economy hierarchy 
Secondary Raw Material Use End Market 

Colour-separated cullet, 
displacing virgin, into 
equivalently recyclable 
product 

Maintain colour grade 

Darker colour grade 

End markets example 

Container glass of same 
colour 

Container glass darker 
colour 

38 

 
 
 
 
Colour-separated cullet, 
displacing virgin, into 
product of limited 
recyclability 

Maintain colour grade 

Glass crafts 

Tiles/flooring5 

Mixed/darker colour grade 

Insulation foam 

Colour-separated cullet, 
displacing virgin, into non-
recyclable product 

Cullet, displacing 
alternative material 

Limits of specific 
contaminants 

No limits on specific 
contaminants 

Cullet, not displacing 
virgin material, into 
limited or unrecyclable 
product 

Use as abrasive 

Use as water filtration 
media  

Use as fluxing agent 

Use as aggregate 

New product lines created 
due to supply of recycled 
glass 

3.1.3.  Illustrative example of increase in quality 

The  glass  sorting  process  involves  sorting  to  remove  unwanted  material  from  cullet 
streams  for  re-melt,  creating  a  fraction  containing  high  levels  of  impurities  (metals, 
ceramics  etc)  but  also  a  high  level  of  glass  material  blown  out  by  sorting  equipment 
along  with  the impurities.  In  this  example,  the  glass  sorter  implements  an  additional 
washing,  crushing  and  drying  step  to  reintegrate  target  material  from  that  fraction 
back  into  container  glass  outputs.  Additionally,  the  sorting  process  is  adjusted  to 
increase capture into other specific colour grades from the green fraction.  

Table 3-5: Resulting change in output qualities in the glass quality framework 
input 
Quality 
in 
Category 

Description 

Before,  %  of  input 
material  output 
in 
grade: 

After,  %  of 
material  output 
grade: 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Glass  output 
to 
colour cullet grade 

same 

40% 

to 
Glass  output 
colour cullet grade 

lower 

50% 

n/a 

n/a 

- 

- 

n/a 
(residue 

Requires 
further 
processing: may in varying 

10% 

(additional 
sorted 

60% 
amber 
fraction) 

37% 

- 

- 

3% 

5  Craft  glass  and  tiling  glass  applications  for  recycled  glass  are  listed  by  for  example 
Camacho  Recycling,  though  use  of  container  glass  for  these  applications  may  be 
limited: see http://www.camachorecycling.es/aplicaciones.php 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Quality 
Category 

Description 

Before,  %  of  input 
material  output 
in 
grade: 

After,  %  of 
material  output 
grade: 

input 
in 

fraction)  proportions be  stored,  sold 

to third party or landfilled 

Changes in the economic model include: 

 

Increased capital and processing costs from additional colour sort and new line for 
processing the reject/fines; and 

  Higher revenues  from  both higher quantities of  saleable cullet output overall, and 

higher prices for the additional amber output. 

3.2.  Paper 
Benchmark  standards  for  the  quality  of  recycling  of  paper  and  board  in  relation  to 
sorting plant outputs (and inputs to paper mills) are generally well defined and agreed 
upon within the European paper industry.  This is due largely to the development and 
adoption of the EN643 standard by the paper processing industry throughout Europe. 

However,  study  findings  indicate  that  within  the  main  EN643  grades,  tolerances  for 
undesired  material  are  in  practice  deviated  from  depending  on  the  requirements  of 
individual paper mills.  

3.2.1.  Framework based on material specifications 

Recording data on quantities of bales sold into mills broadly corresponding to different 
EN643 grades (and on sorted quantities that do not meet any EN643 grade standard), 
should provide a sufficient and practical level of detail on which to base an assessment 
of  quality  of  recycling.  As  some  EN643  grades  are  subject  to  further  sorting  (e.g. 
within sorting stages at paper mills), the measurement should ideally be taken at the 
point  at  which  no  further  sorting  is  done  and  the  sorted  grade  is  input  into  the  final 
recycling process. 

An initial proposed categorisation of specifications by quality is set out in Table 3-6.  

Table 3-6: Categories of specifications by quality/value (papers) 
Specifications 
(EN643) 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Quality 
Category 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

Maintain fibre 
characteristics, 
homogeneity of 
grade 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
some variation in 
grade 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
lower grade 
fibres 

De-inking grade 
(1.11) 

Suitable for recycling to the same 
grade of product 

OCC6 grade (1.04 
– 1.05) 

Suitable for corrugated cardboard 
manufacture 

Mixed papers 
(1.02) 

Suitable for manufacture of other 
grades of product (components of 
corrugated cardboard, tissue 
manufacture) 

Not meeting a 
specified EN643 
grade 

May yet be suitable for products 
with less structural fibre 
requirements 

6 Old corrugated cardboard  

40 

 
 
                                           
It might be possible to distinguish further by quality within the mixed papers grade B, 
based  on  further  characterising  the  nature  of  the  paper  mix  and  levels  of  unsuitable 
paper  material  and  non-paper  material,  and  thus  the  suitability  of  the  output  for 
production  of  recyclable  paper  and  board  grades  compared  to  low  fibre  strength 
single-use  applications  such  as  tissues  and  some  forms  of  protective  packaging.  The 
quality category ‘C’ covers any sorted paper outputs that are not graded to any EN643 
standard grade. One study plant produced an output fraction not meeting any EN643 
standard grade, for offtakers including producers of tissue. 

3.2.2.  Framework based on circularity of product uses 

For the ‘outcome’ based framework, data would  similarly need to be gathered  on the 
use  of  recycled  household  paper  and  cardboard  at  the  point  of  entry  to  the  final 
recycling process, but would be categorised by the product or product group made by 
that recycling process in the mill. 

3.2.3.  Illustrative example of increase in quality 

In this example, a paper sorter chooses to add an additional step to increase capture 
of material into de-inking grades. 

Table  3-7:  Resulting  change  in  output  qualities  in  the  paper  quality 
framework 
Quality 
Category 

Description 

Before,  %  of  target 
material  input  output 
in grade: 

After,  %  of  target 
material  input  output 
in grade: 

A 

B 

C 

n/a 
(reject) 

De-inking and OCC grades 

85% 

87%  (additional  de-
inking 
grade 
recovered) 

Mixed papers grade 

n/a 

15% 

- 

0% 

13% 

- 

0% 

Changes in the economic model include: 

 

Increased  capital  and  operating  costs  from  adding  a  recovery  step  on  the  mixed 
papers line to sort additional target material into de-inking grades 

  Higher revenues from the higher value de-inking grade (though a potential drop in 
value of the mixed papers output as de-inking materials is removed, depending on 
the market for that material) 

  There is no change in disposal costs since all materials are output in a sold grade 

3.2.4.  Further research needed 

EN643 grades primarily classify sorting plant outputs. In  order to map EN643 grades 
to products, a clearer mapping is needed between some EN643 grades produced from 
household  recycling  streams  and  inputs  to  particular  paper  product  manufacturing 
processes,  in  particular  for  different  mixed  papers  outputs.  The  correspondence 
between  EN643  grade  and  end  use  is  clearer  for  higher  grade  EN643  products  (de-
inking and OCC grades). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  Plastics 
There are a number  of  reasons  why an assessment of  recycling quality for plastics is 
more complex than for paper or glass. 

There  is  wide  variation  in  the  different  characteristics  of  plastics  required  for  specific 
applications (e.g. transparency, flexibility, barrier properties, impact strength, colour). 
Therefore, there is also variation in  quality requirements for secondary raw materials 
going  into  different  recycled  plastic  products.  The  quality  requirements  specific  to 
secondary  raw  materials  for  some  product  groups  are  still  being  understood,  as 
demand for secondary raw materials develops in different sectors. For some products, 
converter’s equipment can be adapted to use secondary raw materials, though without 
these  adaptions  the  secondary  raw  material  could  not  be  used  as  a  substitute  for 
virgin polymer. 

There  is  a  greater  variation  in  the  recycling  chain:  a  wide  variety  of  end  of  use 
packaging  items  of  different  polymers  and  resins  tend  to  be  collected  together,  and 
there  is  a  complex  and  wide  variety  of  different  sorting  steps  employed  to  separate 
out these materials to reprocessable grades and to reprocess material into  secondary 
raw materials. The different steps can be concentrated in one plant or spread out over 
a  number  of  plants  and  locations.  Some  plants  are  more  vertically  integrated  and 
cover  initial  sorting  to  extrusion,  while  others  output  different  mixes  of  intermediate 
sorted packaging or flake. There is additional variation based on whether  plastics are 
collected separately or collected mixed with other materials such as papers and glass. 

The  quality  of  an  output  may  not  determine  its  end  use,  since  the  material  may  be 
subsequently mixed with higher quality material (where the mix is  acceptable for the 
desired  quality  of  the  output)  and  would  ultimately  go  to  a  higher  quality  end  use. 
Plants  producing  flake  or  extrusion  can  have  multiple  different  input  specifications 
targeted at material from different sources, aiming to achieve an overall balance that 
works  for  the  range  of  outputs  produced.  This  approach  can  be  true  for  other 
materials: for instance, household paper grades can be mixed with cleaner commercial 
streams to feed into higher quality recycling output. 

There  is  a  greater  complexity  in  the  input  materials,  predominantly  packaging, 
themselves  than  for  glass  or  paper,  with  the  range  of  materials  continuously 
increasing, and increasingly including multilayer and complex materials. 

The  quality  considerations  for  recycled  plastic  output  differ  according  to  the  polymer 
and  product  group,  with  key  differences  between  polymer  types  (PET,  PE,  PP)  and 
product types (food-contact material, other packaging and film). 

For  PET,  the  key  differentiators  of  quality  indicated  by  the  literature  and  from  study 
visits to reprocessors are: 

 

IV; 

  Transparency; 

  Suitability for food-contact material; 

  Colour (and presence of non-target colour); and 

  Presence of metals, paper, polyolefins, PA and PVC. 

IV,  measured  in  deciliters  per  gram  (dl/g),  is  an  important  aspect  of  quality  for  PET. 
Bottle manufacture requires PET with high IV (0.75 dl/g for flat water and up to 0.84 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dl/g  for  carbonated  soft  drinks).  Trays  can  made  with  PET  of  a  lower  IV  (0.70  dl/g) 
and textiles lower still (0.4-0.7 dl/g).7 

Most PET packaging production requires transparent PET (whether clear or tinted), and 
opacifying  pigments  cannot  be  removed  in  mechanical  recycling.  Similarly,  colour 
pigments  cannot  be  removed,  so  clear  PET  bottle  production  requires  clear  PET  flake 
sourced  from  clear  PET  products.  PA  and  PVC  cause  haze  and  discoloration  in  flake. 
Paper  fibres  can  pass  all  stages  of  sorting  and  washing  and  cause  higher  losses  in 
extrusion  and  filtration.  For  production  of  food-contact  bottles,  the  input  must  be 
>95% food-contact PET, and an additional decontamination step is required. 

Clear  and  light  blue  transparent  PET  flake  from  a  beverage  bottle  stream  (either 
sourced from a deposit return scheme – DRS – or sorted from separate collection), for 
instance,  has  high  transparency  due  to  opaque  PET  not  generally  being  used  for 
beverage bottles, and low presence  of contaminants that cause haze  such as PA and 
PVC.  It  is  suitable  (if  the  right  decontamination  process  is  applied)  for  food-contact 
applications and bottle-to-bottle recycling. Secondary raw materials with higher levels 
of  contaminants  and  made  from  mixed  colour  or  opaque  PET  is  used  for  other 
applications such as strapping. 

For  HDPE  and  PP,  the  key  differentiators  of  quality  indicated  from  the  literature  and 
from reprocessors visited are: 

  Melt-flow  index  (a  measure  of  the  viscosity  of  the  polymer  melt  at  a  given 

temperature, force, and time period); 

  Colour; 

  Odour; and 

  Structural  characteristics  (including  consistency,  and  varying  according  to  specific 

end-uses). 

The melt-flow index varies depending on the type of polymer used within the product 
(whether  a  homopolymer  or  copolymer,  and  whether  in  compounds  with  additives). 
Secondary raw material output produced from a mix of different products with varying 
levels  of  copolymers  and  additives  can  vary  in  melt  flow  index.  Blow-moulding,  for 
instance, requires low and consistent melt-flow index. 

Natural  coloured  HDPE  bottles  where  present  in  sufficient  volumes  are  typically 
reprocessed  separately  and  have  a  higher  market  value.  White  HDPE  is  also  in 
demand for packaging applications. Particular colours of other HDPE containers can in 
some  cases  be  sorted  out:  one  operator  commented  that  in  Spain  their  plant  can 
separately  process  yellow  HDPE  bleach  bottles  for  separate  pellet  production  and 
recycling  back  into  the  same  containers.  Otherwise,  outputs  vary  from  light  to  dark 
(light secondary raw materials will more effectively take up added colour and so have 
greater potential for use in coloured applications).  

Odour  is  a  limiting  factor  for  some  product  uses  (e.g.  packaging  applications)  which 
are sensitive to odour. Others uses such as pipes and plant pots don’t face the same 
restrictions. 

HDPE  and  PP  secondary  raw  materials  have  the  additional  complexity,  in  comparison 
to PET secondary raw materials, that additives are often added to adjusted properties 

7  Delta  Engineering,  PET,  available  from  https://delta-engineering.be/pet?lang=hu; 
Equipolymers, available from https://www.equipolymers.com/pet-market. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
of  the  secondary  raw  materials  (as  with  virgin  material)  to  meet  customer 
requirements. These additives can modify the flow rate, improve impact strength and 
stiffness of the products made from the secondary raw material, increase UV and heat 
resistance  and  vary  the  colour  of  the  secondary  raw  materials.  In  the  HDPE/PP 
reprocessing  plants  visited  in  the  study,  different  colour  grades  of  HDPE/PP 
compounds were produced from clear to dark. The impact  of some additives used  on 
onward recyclability (the recyclability of the recycled product) is unclear and requires 
further research. 

3.3.1.  Framework based on material specifications 

Some packaging uses of recycled PET, along with what the study has identified as the 
main quality specifications applicable, can be broadly categorised as in Table 3-8. 

Table  3-8:  Packaging  end  markets  for  recycled  PET  and  corresponding 
specifications 

Secondary Raw Material 
Use End Market 

Transparent Bottle (Food 
grade) 

Corresponding Specifications 

High IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Food-grade 
decontamination, Limits on 
PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins 

Transparent Bottle (Non-
food-grade) 

High IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on 
PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins 

Opaque Bottle (Food 
grade) – n.b. no current 
commercial production 
using secondary raw 
materials 

Opaque Bottle (Non-Food 
grade) 

Transparent Sheet/Trays 
(Food grade) 

High IV, Food-grade decontamination, limits on 
metals, paper, polyolefins 

IV, Limits on metals, paper, polyolefins 

Tray IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on 
PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins, food-grade 
decontamination 

Transparent Sheet/Trays 
(Non-food grade) 

Tray IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on 
PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins 

Opaque sheet/trays 

Tray IV, Limits on PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins 

Table 3-9 groups specifications according to a quality hierarchy based on the different 
quality  dimensions  identified.  Further  investigation  of  the  quality  requirements  for 
film,  fibre  and  strapping  applications  would  be  needed  to  extend  and  confirm  the 
categories applied here. 

44 

 
 
 
Table 3-9: Categories of specifications by quality/value (PET) 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Sorted 
Specifications 

Rationale 

Packaging 

Quality 

Flake Quality Specifications 

A 

Sorted by  

IV  

product form,  

transparency,  

colour; and  

food contact 

Preserves colour 
separation and suitable 
for use in the production 
of the same food-contact 
items 

B 

Sorted by  

IV,  

product form,  

transparency,  

colour 

Preserves colour 
separation and suitable 
for use in colour-specific 
non-food-contact uses 
requiring high purity flake 

C 

Sorted by  

IV, 

product form 

Mixed colour bottle flake 
can be used for non-
colour-sensitive 
applications that 
nonetheless require high 
enough IV (e.g. fibres 
and strapping). 

Product: Sorted transparent 
clear/light blue beverage bottles, or 
sorted trays 

Product: Transparent single-
colour (e.g. clear, light blue, or 
green) bottle or tray flake 

Source: If DRS collection is in place, 
then from DRS systems; otherwise, 
separate collection 

Limits on impurities: Limits on non-
target material including other colours 
and opacity, trays, in addition to PVC, 
metals, paper, polyolefins 

Grade: Sorted transparent bottles or 
trays or opaque bottles, of a specific 
colour grade (clear/light-
blue/green/white/other); 

Source: Separate collection or sorted 
from mixed waste 

Limits on impurities: Limits on non-
target material including other non-
target colours, trays, in addition to 
PVC, metals, paper, polyolefins 

Grade: Sorted bottles or trays, mixed 
colour 

Source: Separate collection or sorted 
from mixed waste 

Source: guaranteed >95% food 
contact origin 

Limits on impurities: Limits on 
PVC, PA, metals, paper, 
polyolefins 

Product: Single-colour (e.g. 
clear, light blue, or green) bottle 
or tray flake 

Source: Any 

Limits on impurities: Limits on 
PVC, PA, metals, paper, 
polyolefins 

Product: Single-colour (e.g. 
clear, light blue, or green) bottle 
or tray flake 

Source: Any 

Limits on impurities: Limits on non-
target material including other non-

Limits on impurities: Limits on 
PVC, PA, metals, paper, 

45 

 
 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

Sorted 
Specifications 

Packaging 

Quality 

Flake Quality Specifications 

D 

Other 

Separated trays can be 
separately reprocessed 
with lower losses 
compared to processing 
mixed with bottles 

Mixed, un-colour-
separated bottle and tray 
flake that may need 
further sorting 

target colours, trays, in addition to 
PVC, metals, paper, polyolefins 

polyolefins 

Grade: PET, mixed bottles and trays 

Source: Separate collection or sorted 
from mixed waste 

Product: Single-colour (e.g. 
clear, light blue, or green) bottle 
flake 

Limits on impurities: Limits on non-
target material PVC, metals, paper, 
polyolefins 

Source: Any 

Limits on impurities: Limits on 
PVC, PA, metals, paper, 
polyolefins 

The classification of quality could be improved through a more comprehensive review of specifications set by users of recycled flake, 
particularly by understanding the quality requirements of different sheeting, fibre and strapping applications in more detail. 

46 

 
 
 
The  main  uses  of  recycled  HDPE  can  be  broadly  distinguished  as  in  Table  3-10,  and 
those  of  PP  as  in  Table  3-11.  Odour  can  be  at  least  partly  reduced  through  the 
temperature and type of washing process. To enhance the structural properties of the 
secondary  raw  materials  and  make  the  output  suitable  for  use  in  place  of  virgin 
material  for  a  broader  range  of  products  (e.g.  back  into  bottles  or  paint  containers) 
reprocessors  use  finer  mesh  filtration  to  reduce  impurities  and  improve  consistency, 
and add additives to improve impact strength and adjust the melt-flow rate. However, 
odour  issues  often  remain,  thus  reducing  the  quality  of  the  secondary  raw  materials 
for  end  users,  and  colour  uses  can  be  limited,  though  a  variety  of  light  to  dark 
coloured  products  are  offered.  Using  additives  may  affect  the  onward  recyclability  of 
products made from the resulting secondary raw materials: the extent of the impact of 
additives on onward recyclability is unknown.  

Table 3-10: End market for recycled HDPE and corresponding specifications 
Secondary  Raw  Material  Use 
End Market 

Corresponding Specification Requirements 

HDPE Bottle (food grade)* 

Polymer,  Colour  (natural,  white  or  other  specific 
colour), Food-grade decontamination 

HDPE  Bottles 
grade) 

(non-food-

Polymer,  Colour  (natural,  white  or  other  specific 
colour), Odour reduction 

Other  HDPE  Packaging  or 
Odour-sensitive products 

Polymer,  Colour  (or  shade/lightness),  Structural 
characteristics, Odour reduction 

Pipes  and  other  injection-
moulded  products,  polymer-
specific 

Polymer, Structural characteristics 

Injection-moulded  Products, 
HDPE/PP blend 

Defined 
structural consistency 

structural 

characteristics  with 

lower 

*Currently limited to some circular recycling of natural HDPE milk bottles   

Table 3-11: End market for recycled PP and corresponding specifications 
Secondary  Raw  Material  Use 
End Market 

Corresponding Specifications 

PP Non-food packaging* 

Polymer, Lightness, Structural Characteristics, Odour 

Injection-moulded  Products 
(i.e.  Vehicle  parts,  Bottle 
crates)  

Injection-moulded  Products, 
HDPE/PP 
(garden 
blend 
furniture, crates) 

Polymer,  Lightness,  (i.e.  light  vs  dark),  Structural 
Characteristics 

Lightness 

*There are no current food-grade uses for recycled PP: if these were to develop, they 
would  require  food-grade  decontamination,  suitable  structural  characteristics  and 
specific transparency or colours. 

A  similar  approach  as  used  for  PET  could  be  taken  to  setting  a  hierarchy  of 
quality/value categories onto which individual product specifications could be matched. 

47 

 
 
 
 
As with PET, this could be based on  the different aspects  of quality  that are  required 
for the secondary raw material to be suitable for the application.  

Table  3-12  presents  an  initial  hierarchy  of  secondary  raw  material  specification 
groupings  according  to  the  different  quality  dimensions  identified  (and  where, 
applicable,  the  corresponding  specifications  for  sorted  packaging  outputs).  However, 
because  of  the  variation  in  polyolefin  polymers  used  in  different  products,  a  more 
detailed mapping exercise of the specifications required by key product groups would 
be necessary to further refine this specification-based quality assessment. 

48 

 
Table 3-12: Categories of specifications by quality/value 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

Sorted 
specifications 

packaging 

quality 

Secondary  raw  material  quality 
specifications 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Specified polymer, 
melt-flow index and 
other structural 
characteristics, colour, 
odour limit, product 
type origin (e.g. milk 
bottles) and food 
contact 
decontamination 

Specified polymer, 
melt-flow index and 
other structural 
characteristics, colour, 
odour limit, product 
type origin (e.g. 
bleach bottles) 

Specified polymer, 
melt-flow index and 
other structural 
characteristics, 
lightness, odour limit, 
may be modified by 
additives 

Specified polymer, 
melt-flow index and 
other structural 
characteristics, 

This material can be 
recycled into food-
contact packaging (N.B 
not believed to be 
produced currently in 
the EU27) 

This material can be 
recycled into same 
colour-specific, odour-
sensitive product type 
(e.g. bottle packaging 
for HDPE) 

This material has 
potentially wide 
application due to light 
colour, odour-free and 
enhanced structural 
characteristics (that 
otherwise might not 
exist due to product 
variation). 

This material has 
potentially wide 
application due to its 
light colour, and 
enhanced structural 

e.g. 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, single colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate recycling 
collections 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, single colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 
sorted from mixed waste 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, single colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 
sorted from mixed waste 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Specified polymer and 
product type source 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 
characteristics 

Low odour 

>95% food contact 

Product: Specified polymer, 
colour and product type source 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 
characteristics 

Low odour 

Product: Specified polymer, 
lightness 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 
characteristics 

Low odour 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, light colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 

Product: Specified polymer, 
lightness 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 

49 

 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

Sorted 
specifications 

packaging 

quality 

Secondary  raw  material  quality 
specifications 

lightness 

E 

F 

Specified polymer, 
melt-flow index and 
other structural 
characteristics 

Polymer blend, melt-
flow index and other 
structural 
characteristics 

G 

Polymer blend, 
variable melt-flow 
index and structure 

characteristics (that 
otherwise might not 
exist due to product 
variation). But this 
category is more limited 
due to odour. 

This material is a darker 
output than in category 
D, which additionally 
restricts uses to dark 
products. 

This material is a 
polymer blend and so 
has wider structural 
variation and more 
limited product 
applications (i.e. to 
injection moulded 
applications). It can still 
be extruded to have 
colour differentiation 
and more consistent 
structural 
characteristics (impact 
strength etc.) 

This output is only 
suitable for low-quality 
applications with low 
structural demands 

sorted from mixed waste 

characteristics 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, mixed colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 
sorted from mixed waste 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Specified polymer 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 
characteristics 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, single colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 
sorted from mixed waste 

Product: PO compound 

Melt-flow Index 

Homogenous structural 
characteristics 

Limits on impurities 

Product: Sorted polymer-
specific, single colour, product-
specific stream 

Source: Separate collection or 

Product: PO compound 

50 

 
Quality 
Category 

Quality/Value 
Dimensions 

Rationale 

Sorted 
specifications 

packaging 

quality 

Secondary  raw  material  quality 
specifications 

sorted from mixed waste 

Limits on impurities 

51 

 
 
 
3.3.2.  Notes on quality measurement points 

The  measurement  point  of  quality  for  any  secondary  raw  material  is  ideally  at  the 
point immediately before  conversion into a new product.  For plastics, this is typically 
the  point  at  which  a  certifiable  plastic  secondary  raw  material  (flake,  extrusion  or 
regranulate) output from a reprocessor is sold to an end market (plastic converter) for 
use  in  production.  Since  flake  produced  from  food-contact  PET  can  be  either  used 
directly  or  cleaned  to  be  suitable  for  reuse  in  food-contact  PET,  the  measurement 
point for an assessment of quality of recycling at the level of the whole recycling chain 
should again ideally be at the point of input to a converter when there are no further 
cleaning steps, rather than at the point of output from reprocessors.  

3.3.3.  Framework based upon circularity of product uses 

For a circularity assessment of quality, a classification would need to be developed for 
uses of recycled plastic based upon value preservation within a circular economy. This 
ought to capture the dimensions of at least: 







The extent to which properties of the material are preserved that are unfeasible or
costly to recover once lost (transparency, colour form);

The extent to which the resulting product displaces use of virgin polymer; and

The onward recyclability of the product.

This framework can be applied in two ways: 





To the whole mix of output secondary raw materials used in different end markets
for  a  polymer.  This  would  not  reveal  the  extent  to  which  value  was  being
preserved  (without  information  on  what  the  input  products  were),  so  would  need
comparing to the composition of products in waste.

To the subset of output secondary raw materials produced from a specific product
type (e.g. transparent PET bottles). This would show for that specific product type
the extent of circularity achieved in a recycling chain.

From  this  mapping,  a  firmer  hierarchy  could  be  created  by  forming  a  single  scale  - 
from  preserving  value  within  closed-loop  cycles  at  the  top,  to  low  value  output  to 
unrecyclable products that don’t displace virgin material at the bottom. 

Table  3-13:  Classifying  end  markets  for  plastics  secondary  raw  materials  by 
circularity 
Secondary Raw Material Use 
End Market 

Onward Recyclability 

Material 
specification 
quality category 
as above 

Displaces 
virgin 
production 
(Y/N) 

(1 = capable of 
many recycling 
loops) 

(A/B/C/D) 

(2 = limited 
additional recycling) 

(3 = unrecyclable) 

PET Bottle clear transparent 
food-grade 

A 

PET Bottle clear transparent  B 

PET Bottle colour food-
grade 

B 

Y 

Y 

Y 

1 

1 

1 

52 

Secondary Raw Material Use 
End Market 

Material 
specification 
quality category 
as above 

Displaces 
virgin 
production 
(Y/N) 

(A/B/C/D) 

Onward Recyclability  

(1 = capable of 
many recycling 
loops) 

(2 = limited 
additional recycling) 

(3 = unrecyclable) 

PET Bottle opaque food-
grade 

PET Tray clear food-grade 

PET Tray clear 

PET Multi-material Tray 

PET Bottle opaque 

PET Tray opaque 

PET Film 

PET Multi-material film 

Strapping 

Polyester Fibre 

Other injection moulded 
products 

C 

B 

C 

C 

C 

D 

C 

D 

C 

D 

D 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y/N 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2/3 

2/3 

2/3 

3 

2 

2/3 

2/3 

The  distinct  dimensions  could  be  combined  to  create  a  single  hierarchy  as  follows  in 
Table  3-14.  Beyond  the  top  level,  the  ordering  of  the  middle  levels  is  somewhat 
subjective and the ‘better outcome’ for the material is likely to be best assessed in the 
context  of  specific  options  and  counterfactuals  with  an  accompanying  LCA  study.  In 
particular,  it  must  be  decided  which  dimension  takes  higher  priority  –  comparing  for 
instance the clear bottle PET incorporated in coloured PET secondary raw material, to 
clear bottle PET used in transparent tray manufacturing.  

Table  3-14:  Classifying  end  markets  for  plastics  secondary  raw  materials  by 
circularity, example for PET 
Secondary Raw Material 
Use 

End markets example 

Into recyclable product displacing virgin material 

A Food-grade 

e.g. Bottle to beverage bottle production 

Tray flake to food tray production 

B Colour-separation, 
product-separation 

e.g. Bottle flake to other non-food-contact bottle 
production 

Tray flake to other non-food-contact tray production  

C Product separation 

D No product separation 

e.g. Bottle to production with lower IV (trays) 

Into product of lower recyclability displacing virgin material 

53 

 
 
 
 
Secondary Raw Material 
Use 

B Colour-separation, 
product-separation 

End markets example 

Bottles to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film 

Trays to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film 

C Product separation 

Bottle flake to fibres production 

D No product separation  Mixed flake to fibres production 

Into unrecyclable product displacing virgin material 

A Colour-separation, 
product-separation 

Bottles to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film 

Trays to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film 

Clear trays or bottles to multi-material multi-layer trays 

B Product separation 

Bottle flake to fibres production 

C No product separation  Mixed flake to textile production 

Into product not displacing virgin polymer 

Not displacing virgin 
material, into limited or 
unrecyclable product 

Into plastic board and lumber materials 

3.3.4.  Illustrative example of increase in quality 

In  this  example,  a  sorter  separates  out  natural  and  white  HDPE  from  mixed  colour 
HDPE  to  produce  a  grade  which  can  be  de-odourised  for  use  in  packaging 
manufacturing 

Table  3-15:  Resulting  change  in  output  qualities  in  the  HDPE  quality 
framework 
Quality 
Category 
(see  Table 
3-12) 

Before,  %  of  HDPE 
output in grade: 

After,  %  of  HDPE 
output in grade: 

Description 

B 

E 

Separated  colour,  to  be 
de-odourised 
for 
packaging applications. 

- 

10% 

100% 

90% 

Separated 
polymer, 
mixed  colour,  odour,  to 
go to dark coloured, less 
odour-sensitive 
injection-moulded 
applications 

Changes in the economic model include: 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Increased  capital  and  operating  costs  from  adding  an  additional  sorting  step  and 
quality control step to separate out a white opaque sorted fraction; 

  Higher  revenues  per  tonne  available  for  the  separated  out  white  opaque  fraction 
from growing demand in the packaging sector. No change in revenue per tonne for 
remaining darker colour HDPE output. 

  No change in disposal costs. 

3.3.5.  Further research needed 

There  is  a  lack  of  collated  information  available  on  specific  quality  requirements  of 
major  groups  of  HDPE  and  PP  products  (requiring  different  grades  of  HDPE  and  PP) 
across  packaging  and  other  applications.  There  is  also  a  lack  of  information  on  the 
impact  of  different  additives,  which  enhance  certain  structural  characteristics  of  the 
secondary raw materials to suit specific applications, on the onward recyclability of the 
polymer.  

4. Quality of recycling: existing standards 

The  discussions  below  about  glass,  papers  and  plastics  packaging  streams  pull 
together  the  study  findings  on  quality  standards  and  specifications  used  for  the 
outputs  of  study  plants  and  what  is  known  about  the  subsequent  destinations  of  the 
material, together with existing quality specifications for recycled material. 

4.1.  Quality of recycling: glass 
Technical specifications and standards are  widely used in the glass industry, typically 
referring to one or more of the following properties: 

  Physico-chemical composition; 

  Content of impurities; 

  Physical size and shape; and 

  Homogeneity, i.e. the variation within the given specification. 

The  technical  proposals  for  End-of-Waste  (EoW)  Criteria  for  glass  summarises  the 
situation as follows: 

“There are a number of technical specifications developed by 
industrial or recyclers organizations (FERVER, BSI/WRAP), or 
independent consultant groups, and which are applied in certain 
member states and in individual market transactions on a case-by-
case basis. Additionally, member states in some cases have 
developed technical standards for glass cullet. Feedback from the 
TWG pointed out that these standards may vary significantly from 
country to country. These national standards are usually strictly 
linked to the quality of the collected cullet, to the technical structures 
of local glass industries and to the national commercial situation.” 8 

4.1.1.  Industry standards for sorting plant outputs 

Various specifications have been produced by industry groups across Europe including: 

8 JRC, IPTS (2011) End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass Cullet: Technical Proposals 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                           
  FERVER specifications; 

  CEN guidelines; and 

  BSI specification. 

These  are  reviewed  in  detail  in  the  technical  proposals  for  the  End-of-Waste  (EoW) 
Criteria for Glass Cullet. 

The  EoW  criteria  proposed  specifies  the  following  limits  on  non-glass  components 
(based on a review of these industry standards and specific to re-melt applications): 

  Ferrous metals: 50 ppm; 

  Non-ferrous metals: 60 ppm; 

  Non-metal non-glass inorganics: 

o  100 ppm for cullet size > 1mm 

o  1500 ppm for cullet size ≤ 1 mm 

  Organics: 2000 ppm 

The  higher  limit  on  non-metal  non-glass  inorganic  impurities  for  smaller  cullet  size 
relates to the finding in the EoW study that several glass manufacturing processes are 
able  to  accept  cullet  containing  concentrations  higher  that  100ppm  of  inorganic 
contaminants,  as  long  as  the  cullet  is  finely  crushed  to  less  than  1  mm  and  metal 
contaminants are removed prior to crushing below 1 mm.9 

4.1.2.  Industry current practice: glass recycling standards 

classification 

„Glasscherben 

trade/industrial 

One of the two glass plants included in the study produces outputs categorised under 
the 
der 
Behälterglasindustrie“  (GEB)  or  „ofenfertige  Glasscherben“,  generally  compliant  with 
the guideline limits on contaminants set out in the GEB guidelines,   though they note 
that tolerances in practice vary between the different offtakers. They also commented 
that  the  glass  producing  industry  is  striving  to  enforce  tightened  purity  limits,  for 
example  with  a  maximum  of  10  ppm  ceramics,  stones  and  other  inert  non-glass 
(‘CSP’)  under  discussion.  The  other  plant  output  cullet  based  on  specification  set 
directly by their owner (a glass manufacturer) to which the outputs were supplied.  

Einsatz 

zum 

in 

Table 4-1: Glass Quality Standards in Use in Study Plants 
End Market 

Guideline limits on contaminants 

Specifications 
applied 

Study Plant 1 
Cullet  glass  for  container 
manufacture 

GEB 
guidelines, 
T120  resp.  TR 
310. 

-ceramics,  stones,  other  inert  non-
glass (CSP): <20ppm 
-non-ferrous  metals  <3ppm, 
metals <2 ppm 
-glass  ceramics  <5  ppm    (for  particles 
above  10mm)  and  <10  ppm  (for 
particles smaller 10mm) 
-loose organic substances <300ppm 
Colour limits – see below 

-Fe-

Reject  fractions to grinding 
for insulation material 

None specified  None specified 

9 JRC, IPTS (2011) End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass Cullet: Technical Proposals, p75 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study Plant 2 
Flint  cullet  for  remelt  to 
high end clear bottles 
Coloured 
flint  cullet 
green bottle manufacture 

for 

None specified 

Less than 35g per tonne 

None specified 

Less than 35g per tonne 

The quality specifications related to colour variation tolerances in different cullet colour 
fractions are identified below in Table 4-2. 

Table 4-2: Glass Colour Specifications in Use in Study Plants 
Colour-
sorted cullet 
Flint 

Study  Plant  1  - 
Input 
3% off-colour 

Study Plant 1 - Output 

Study Plant 2 

Not specified 

Amber 

8% off-colour 

Green 

5% off-colour 

amber: ≤ 0.3% 
green: ≤ 0.2% 
other colour: ≤ 0.2% 
minimum 80% amber green 
≤ 10 % 
minimum 75% green amber 
≤ 10% 

Not specified 

Not specified 

4.2. Quality of recycling: paper 
Benchmark  standards  for  the  quality  of  recycling  of  paper  and  board  in  relation  to 
sorting plant outputs (and inputs to paper mills) are generally well defined and agreed 
upon within the European paper industry. This is due largely to the development and 
adoption of the EN643 standard by the paper processing industry throughout Europe. 

4.2.1.  Industry standards for sorting plant outputs: EN643 

EN643  is  this  European  list  of  standard  grades  of  paper  and  board  for  recycling,  last 
updated  in  2013.  EN643  defines  the  grades  of  paper  for  recycling  and  quality 
requirements  (including  setting  limits  on  tolerance  levels  of  non-paper  components. 
The EN643 standards secure ‘comparable’ requirements for paper for recycling across 
Europe, and the standardised grades defined within it assist trade.10 

The  fact  that  the  industry  was  involved  in  developing  the  standards  has  meant  that 
the  technical  and  economic  factors  that  relate  to  defining  recycling  quality,  and  the 
composition  of  outputs,  have  been  incorporated  into  the  guidance.  The  development 
of  EN643  by  industry  clearly  took  into  account  good  industry  practice,  along  with 
economic and technical pragmatism. 

There are a wide range of paper and board grades described within EN643  (see Table 
0-1  in  the  Appendices),  providing  much  more  variety  than  simply  seeking  to 
distinguish low and high-grade paper, cardboard, newspaper and magazines, etc. The 
types of paper / board, can – very broadly – be characterised as: 

  Mixed papers (waste and scrap paper and cardboard); 

  Newspapers  and  magazines  (paper  or  paperboard  mainly  manufactured  from 

mechanical pulping processes and with printed material); 

  High grades (mostly manufactured from bleached mechanical pulping); and 

  Corrugated and kraft (unbleached paper/board). 

CEPI 

10 
the 
http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/recycling/2013/EN64
3_page.pdf 

(2013)  Why 

Available 

EN643? 

new 

use 

from 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
In  addition  to  describing  the  type  of  paper/board  included  in  the  grade,  the  EN643 
standard looks to ensure quality through: 

  The  exclusion  of  specific  ‘prohibited  materials’  which  affect  quality  of  output  or 

processing, e.g. glues and Carbon Copy Papers (CCP) for some grades; 

  Placing  limits  on  ‘unwanted  materials’  (either  non-paper,  or  papers  of  other 
grades, or e.g. magazine inserts) affecting equipment operation, plant economics, 
and in some cases quality of output; 

  Proving deinking requirements for some grades; and 

  Proving shredding minimum sizes, where appropriate. 

EN643  also  distinguishes  grades  based  on  whether  the  paper/board  is  collected 
separately, or as part of mixed collections, and specifically excludes paper/board from 
refuse  collections  (i.e.  extracted  from  mixed  residual  fractions),  reflecting  different 
expectations about the quality of material from each source. 

These factors are accounted for and well defined in EN643, in a form which the paper 
and  board  recycling  industry  is  able  to  agree  and  work  to.  Thus,  the  defining  of 
recycling quality for paper and card has, to a great extent, already been carried out by 
the industry, and is embodied in the specifications included in EN643. 

4.2.2.  Industry current practice: paper recycling standards 

The paper and board recycling industry in Europe widely adopts the grades as defined 
by  EN643,  these  are  effectively  a  common  language  where  different  parties  have  a 
good  shared  understanding  of  the  characteristics  of  the  grade.  For  example,  “1.02” 
will  be  almost  universally  understood  as  a  mixed  paper  and  board  grade,  with 
unwanted materials removed to below a specified percentage. 

Another  example  of  a  common  EN643  grade  is  1.11,  “Sorted  graphic  paper  for 
deinking”.    In  addition  to  limits  on  non-paper  components  in  common  with  other 
sorted EN643 grades, it also has a limit on the proportion of non-deinkable paper and 
board (1.5%). The definition of grade 1.11 prior to the 2013 revision explicitly stated 
that  the  maximum  allowable  proportion  of  non-deinkable  paper  and  board  should  be 
negotiated between buyer and seller, moving over time to not exceed 1.5% by weight 
of  the  material.  Therefore,  a  degree  of  pragmatism  is  woven  into  the  EN643 
standards, reflecting their close alignment with industry practice. 

In  practice  plants  may  continue  to  work  within  the  tolerances  of  their  production 
processes,  and  deviate  from  strict  application of  EN643  standards.  Operators  of  both 
plants  visited  reported  that  tolerances  for  unwanted  material  varied  according  to 
different paper mills, with some mills having tolerance for higher levels  of non-paper 
and/or non-deinkable paper and board than included in the EN643 specification for the 
grade in question. There can be customer specific agreements (for example, allowing 
board  content  at  3.5%  rather  than  1.5%  in  deinking  grade  1.11).  One  mill  indicated 
that mixed paper grades typically contain significantly more than the 1.5% non-paper 
content  in  the  specification  (typically  between  6-8%).  If  this  is  reflective  of  more 
general practice, EN643 is a well-used definition of different grades, but the tolerances 
set  within  EN643  grades  are  common  reference  points  which  are  adapted  to  in 
practice  to  the  context  of  specific  paper  mills  requirements  and  arrangements  with 
sorting plant suppliers. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.3.  Quality standards used in the study paper sorting plants  

Both  paper  sorting  plants  visited  received  source  separated  mixed  paper  and  board 
from  municipal  sources.  The  composition  of  paper/board  delivered  to  one  plant  was 
noted  as  highly  variable,  with  noticeable  consistent  differences  between  deliveries 
from different geographical areas.  The inputs are mixed in the reception hall in order 
to produce a more homogenous mix of material to be input to the process.  The plant 
operator described the input material as broadly conforming to EN643 grade 1.01. The 
outputs  of  the  plants  are  described  as  EN643  grades  1.02,  1.04  and  1.11,  with  one 
plant  also  producing  an  ungraded  output  of  smaller  sized  mixed  papers.  The  quality 
standards  applied  by  the  plant  operators  to  output  grades  are  summarised  in  the 
Table 4-3. Both paper sorting plant operators noted that the paper mill requirements 
were often in practise more flexible than that prescribed in EN643. 

Four light packaging fraction sorters in the study also output sorted papers: 
  Two of these were in France (where the collection stream includes all papers), and 
both  of  these  plants  output  a  1.05  grade  (corrugated  cardboard)  with  >95% 
corrugated cardboard content, rather than grade 1.04 (with 70% corrugated board).  
  One  was  in  Germany,  where  the  output  grade  ‘Paper  from  lightweight  packaging’ 
was  comprised  of  the  packaging  card  included  in  the  light  packaging  fraction 
collected. 

  From  one  plant  in  Hungary  (where  the  collection  from  some  more  rural  areas 
included  papers),  the  paper  mix  output  was  sent  to  a  co-located  paper  sorter  for 
sorting, rather than sold as a sorted output grade.  

in  use 

in  study  plants  (sorted  paper 

Description 

of 

Target 
Material 

Table  4-3:  Quality  standards 
outputs/inputs) 
Type 
Quality 
Specification 
Inputs 
Described 
as  broadly 
conforming 
to  EN  643 
grade 1.01 

Source 
separated 
used paper 
and board 
from 
households 

Variable,  mainly  a  combination 
of: 
*  Sack  collections  usually  with 
higher content of graphic paper.  
*  Bin  collections  with  higher 
cardboard content.  

Outputs 
EN 643 
grade 1.02 

Mixed 
paper 

EN 643 
grade 1.04 

Corrugated 
& 
paper 
board 

Corrugated 
board 

EN 643 
grade 
1.05.01 
(output by 
French LPF 
sorter) 
EN 643 
grade 1.11 

and 

40% 

paper 

Mixture  of  various  qualities  of 
paper  and  board,  containing  a 
maximum 
of 
of 
newspapers and magazines 
Used 
board 
packaging,  containing  minimum 
of  70  %  of  corrugated  board, 
the  rest  being  other  packaging 
papers,  other  paper  and  board 
products 
Used  boxes  and  sheets  of 
corrugated  board  of  various 
qualities,  containing  minimum 
95% corrugated board 

Limits on Impurities 

Small-sized pieces of paper; though 
would  prefer  to  not  have  these,  as 
they  increase  the  amount  of  lower 
quality “Fibre-mix” outputs. 

fibres  and  non-fibre 

Unsuitable 
materials: 1.5% 
Moisture: 12% 

Non-fibre materials: 1.5% 
Moisture: 12% 

Non-fibre materials: 1.5 
Total unwanted materials, including 
non-fibre  and  unsuitable 
fibres: 
2.5% 
Moisture: 12% 

Graphic 
paper for 

Sorted  graphic  paper 
from 
households,  newspapers  and 
consisting  of  a 
magazines 

Non-fibre materials: 0.5% 
Print  products  not  suitable 
deinking: 1.5% 

for 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of 

Type 
Quality 
Specification 

Target 
Material 

deinking 

EN 643 
ungraded 
“Fibre-mix” 

DSD/DKR 
Fraction 550 
(output by 
German LPF 
sorter) 

Smaller 
sized mixed 
paper 

Paper from 
lightweight 
packaging 

Description 

Limits on Impurities 

minimum  of  80  %  newspapers 
and  magazines,  but  at  least  30 
%  newspapers  and  40  % 
magazines  (higher  percentages 
of  one  or  the  other  paper 
product  are  subject  of  supply 
agreements) 

Mixture  of  sorted  used  paper 
<150 mm in dimension with low 
content of corrugated and board 
materials 
>90%  paper,  board,  cardboard 
from lightweight packaging 

At  the  study  sorting  plant,  this 
grade  was  often  mixed  into 
other  outputs  from  a  co-located 
paper sorting plant. 

Total unwanted materials, including 
non-fibre and unsuitable fibres: 3% 
Moisture: 12% 

There  can  be  customer  specific 
agreements  (for  example,  allowing 
board  content  at  3.5%  rather  than 
1.5%). 
Non-fibre materials 3% 
Total unwanted materials, including 
non-fibre and unsuitable fibres: 3% 
Moisture: 12% 
Liquid packaging boards: 4% 
Plastic items: 3% 
Metal items: 0.5% 
Other residues: 3.5% 

4.2.4.  Relevance  of  sorting  plant  output  standards  to  quality  of 

recycling 

In  most  respects  EN643  provides  an  excellent  baseline  understanding  of  different 
grades and types of product that can be produced from paper recycling. This is a key 
contributor  to  defining  quality  of  recycling,  in  that  it  allows  us  to  define  grades  of 
papers  that  can  achieve  a  circular  fate  in  the  economy;  for  example,  newsprint  that 
can be deinked and pulped in order to manufacture newsprint again.  

The  quality  of  the  fibres  in  paper  material  decrease  through  repeated  recycling,  and 
the  quality  is  also  affected  by  the  presence  of  unwanted  other  paper  fibre  types, 
pigments,  and  contamination  by  other  materials  such  as  food  waste,  oils,  and 
laminates.  Sorted  EN643  grades  for  deinking  paper  and  corrugated  board  preserve 
specific and distinct paper fibre types and qualities relevant for, respectively, recycled 
printing  paper  (including  notably  newsprint)  and  the  structural  components  of  board 
packaging.  The  mixed  papers  EN643  grade  can  have  a  wide  range  of  different  paper 
materials  and  fibre  types  depending  on  the  specific  mix  of  other  paper  and  board 
products, but as a rule (if not subject to further sorting) can be used for applications 
requiring  less  fibre  integrity  and  strength  such  as  less  structural  components  of 
corrugated board. A portion of sorted paper and board (primarily from a subset of the 
‘mixed  papers’  grades)  is  used  for  applications  which  do  not  require  lower  fibre 
strength,  such  as  tissue  paper  and  some  forms  of  moulded  protective  packaging, 
which form a useful last stage in the paper recycling cascade. One of the study plant’s 
output products is described as “fibre-mix”,  consisting of a mixture of different types 
of  used  paper  of  <150  mm  in  dimension  with  low  content  of  corrugated  and  board 
materials. This material is not assigned an EN643 grade, and is likely to go to a low-
quality recycling fate, such as production of tissue paper.  The  other grades produced 
by the plant (in particular  EN643 1.04 and 1.11, but also 1.02) are all more likely to 
be  pulped  in  paper  mills  to  produce  new  paper  and  board  products  that  can  be 
recycled again. 

In  summary,  the  EN643  grades  can  form  the  basis  of  an  operational  assessment  of 
high quality recycling for paper and board: outputs are higher quality recycling if they 
conform  to,  or  are  closely  guided  by,  the  EN643  grades  which  are  likely  to  be 
remanufactured  into  paper/board  products  that  can  again  be  recycled  into  similar 
grades (de-inking and corrugated cardboard grades). By contrast, mixed paper grades 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are less likely to be recycled into similar grades, and some grades of mixed papers of 
lower  fibre  quality,  fibre  quality  degraded  though  collection,  storage  and  transport, 
and/or higher levels of non-paper material and other impurities, are more likely to end 
up as low-fibre-strength, single use material. A higher quality recycling chain is likely 
to  maximise  captures  into  deinking  and  corrugated  cardboard  grades,  whilst  fully 
utilising remaining mixed papers grades. If a plant is able to reduce the proportion of 
outputs  going  to  non-circular  paper  recycling,  and  concurrently  able  to  increase  the 
proportion  that  adheres  (either  exactly,  or  pragmatically)  to  an  EN643  grade  which 
can  readily  be  recycled  again  thereafter,  that  would  indicate  a  tangible  and  easily 
understandable transition from lower to higher quality recycling. 

4.3.  Quality of Recycling: plastics 
There  is  wider  variation  in  specifications  and  grades  of  polymers  than  for  paper  and 
greater variation in the recycling chain and number of steps and sorting operations. 

There  are  however  clear  general  quality  characteristics  identifiable,  and  a  small 
amount  of  detail  is  available  on  the  key  differences  in,  for  example,  structural 
characteristics. 

4.3.1.  Industry reference standards for recycling plant outputs 

Standards for  secondary  raw materials referenced within  EUCertPlast  certification  are 
EN  standards  for  the  characterisation  of  plastic  secondary  raw  materials,  the  quality 
aspect of which is covered in the ‘required characteristics’ in table 1 of the relevant EN 
Standard. These standards are:  

  EN15342 for polystyrene secondary raw materials  

  EN15344 for polyethylene secondary raw materials  

  EN15345 for polypropylene secondary raw materials  

  EN15346 for poly(vinyl chloride) secondary raw materials  

  EN15348 for poly(ethylene terephalate) secondary raw materials 

These  standards  do  not  distinguish  different  qualities  of  secondary  raw  materials.  In 
practice, reprocessors create outputs to the specific quality requirements of end users. 

4.3.2.  Industry current practice: recycling plant outputs 

In  practice,  reprocessors  also  create  outputs  to  the  specific  quality  required  by  end 
users  (including  particularly  where  they  utilise  the  output  themselves  in  product 
manufacture). 

4.3.3.  Industry reference standards for sorting plant outputs 

Plastics  Recyclers  Europe  (PRE)  has  produced  bale  quality  guidelines  aiming  to  ‘drive 
market transformation towards circularity’, which outline key prohibited impurities and 
impurities  allowed  up  to  certain  levels  (to  be  set  by  the  buyer  according  to  their 
requirements). 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-4: Summary of quality guidelines for sorted plastic packaging, PRE 
Grade variation 

Prohibited Impurities 

Limited Impurities 

All: 

Rubber, 
Minerals, 
Wood, 
Sacks, 
Hazardous  Waste, 
Medical Waste, Glass, 
Oxo  or  degradable 
material, 
Food, 
Silicones 

PET 
grades 

Bottle 

PET-G 
added 
flexibility) 

(PET  with 
for 
glycol 

Max  5%  of  PET  from 
non-food 
consumer 
applications 

Clear:  Max  5% 
light  blue  PET,  no 
opaques 

CPET  (crystalline  PET 
suitable for ovens) 

Metals 

Paper/Cardboard 

PVC 

Transparent Colours 

Opaque Colours 

Monolayer trays 

Other plastics 

Clear  Blue:  Max 
20%  of  blue  PET, 
no opaques 

Light  Blue:  >20% 
light  blue  PET,  no 
opaques 

Coloured  >80% 
transparent  mixed 
colours,  max  5% 
opaque colours 

HPDE  Bottles, 
Mixed Colour 

Foams  

Polyurethane (PUR) 

Max  5%  of  HDPE  from 
consumer 
non-food 
applications 

n/a 

PP Films 

Expanded 
Polystyrene  (EPS)  & 
PUR 

Metals 

Paper/Cardboard 

PP 

Other Plastics 

Metals 

Paper/Cardboard 

in 
Variations 
minimum  content 
for: 

PVC, 
LLDPE 

LDPE, 

HDPE, 

PP 

Other Plastics 

Other Impurities 

PE Films 

EPS & PUR 

Metals 

Paper/Cardboard 

PVC 

PP 

Other Plastics 

Other Impurities 

62 

in 
Variations 
minimum  content 
for: 

LDPE 

LLDPE 

HDPE 

 
 
 
 
 
In North America, the trade association APR (The Association of Plastic Recyclers) has 
produced  standards  intended  for  use  as  benchmarks  for  suppliers.  These  go  further 
than  PRE’s  standards  in  outlining  specifications  for  PET  thermoforms  and  PP  small 
rigids.  

These standards reflect a set of generic issues relevant to plastics processing: 

  Environmental issues – no medical or hazardous waste; 

  The problems that dirt, mud and rocks cause to machinery; 

  Other problematic material (film in processes designed to shred rigid plastics); and 

  The  impurity  that  can  be  caused  by  oils  and  grease,  or  corrosive  and  reactive 

products. 

They also distinguish the following specific problematic materials affecting the quality 
of output: 

  Chemically incompatible low temperature melting materials: 

o  PS; and 

o  PLA plastic. 

  Chemically 

incompatible  high 

temperature  melting  materials  –  blocking 
filters/channels,  causing  holes,  such  as  silicones  (which  has  the  same  density  as 
PET); and 

  Chemically  compatible  low  temperature  materials,  such  as  PET-G,  PET  Glycol, 

created by the copolymerisation of PET and ethylene glycol; 

  Chemically compatible but opaque materials: 

o  CPET,  Crystalline  PET,  partially  crystallised  and  therefore  opaque, 
standardly used for microwaveable and oven ready food packaging. Affects 
colour and brittleness of output. 

  Materials affecting output colour or quality: 

o  PVC, 

causing 

from 
even 
dehydrochlorination,  and  the  resulting  corrosive  gasses  also  degrade  the 
target polymer; and 

discoloration 

quantities 

small 

in 

o  Other coloured PET (depending on the output grade). 

  Material affecting quality in other ways: 

o  Presence of oxo or bio-degradable additives (more of an issue in film due to 

more film with these properties). 

They  also  contain  some  material  specific  prohibitions  related  to  impurities  degrading 
the quality of the output: 

  PVC in HDPE bottles and PVDC layers in PE film; 

  Plastics with PLA or foaming agents (HDPE); and 

  Film with oxo or bio-degradable additives. 

Lastly, they contain non-target materials that the system isn’t set up to cope with: 

  Bulky HPDE rigids, which require a different recycling process; and 

  Metallised labels or films, multi-material pouches, and silicone coated film. 

A  range  of  other  potentially  recyclable  materials  are  listed  (e.g  metals)  which  are 
allowable within tolerances determined by the economic balance of the plant. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
There  are  also  standards  and  quality  specifications  set  by  national  producer 
responsibility  organisations  (PROs).  For  example,  Germany’s  Der  Grüne  Punkt  (‘The 
Green Dot’) recycling system requires that transparent PET bottles are sorted to 98% 
purity. 

4.3.4.  Industry current practice: sorting plant outputs 

In practice, the quality of outputs can diverge from the industry standards as detailed 
above  with  regard  to  tolerance  levels  for  material  on  the  ‘prohibited  impurities’  list. 
Offtakers  for  HDPE  and  PP  outputs  are  reported  by  some  sorting  plants  to  tolerate 
higher  levels  of  impurities  than  those  set  in  PRO-proscribed  standards.  The  quality 
aimed  at  by  sorters  of  LDPE  films  has  increased  due  to  lower  demand  and  more 
competition for offtakers. 

For  sorters  operating  outside  of  arrangements  with  PROs  (for  instance  in  Hungary), 
purity levels are individually agreed with the offtakers and can thus vary within certain 
limits. However, since they compete for the same offtakers as sorting plants sorting to 
PRO  set  standards,  their  outputs  tend  to  be  comparable  to  international  standards 
(American Plastics Recycling, ARA, and/or DSK/DSD specifications).  

Table 4-5 below shows quality standards applied to sorted fractions of plastics output 
from  study  plants  (either  output  from  sorting plants  or  input into  subsequent  sorters 
or reprocessors) 

Standard 
Applied 

Table  4-5:  Quality  standards  in  use  in  study  plants  (sorted  packaging 
outputs/inputs) 
code 
Plant 
and  type  of 
Quality 
Specification 
PET 
P4 
Input 
Specification 

Allowable 
Impurities 
where provided 

Clear 
bottles, DRS 

Prohibited 
Impurities 

Material 
Targeted 

Target 

>98% 

PVC 

PET 

bottles 

Metals 
Coloured 
bottles <1% 
Paper <1% 
PO 
<0.25% 
Dirt <2% 
Moisture <5% 
Coloured 
bottles <1% 
Opaques,  other 
PET  packaging 
other 
and 
polymers <2% 
Metals <0.5% 
Dirt <2% 
Other  material 
<2% 

<2% total; 
<0.5% 
metal; 
<2% 

other 

other 

Input 
P4 
Specification 

bottles, 

PET 
yellow bag 

>98% 

PVC <0.1% 
Large  metal 
or 
inert 
material 
PET-G 
<0.5% 
Foamed 
plastics  incl. 
EPS <0.5% 

P5 
Input 
Specification 

DSD/DKR 
328-2  
(from D7) 

PET 
70/30 

mixed 

>98% 
>70% 
PET 
bottles 

or 

Metallic 
mineral 
impurities 
with  a  unit 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plant 
code 
and  type  of 
Quality 
Specification 

D1  and  D2 
Output 
Quality 
D5  Output 
Quality  

Standard 
Applied 

Material 
Targeted 

Target 

Prohibited 
Impurities 

weight  of  > 
100  g  are 
not 
permitted! 
PVC <0.1% 

CITEO 

PET  (including 
trays) 

>98% 

DSD/DKR 
325 

PET 
(clear, 
blue, green) 

bottles 
light 

>94% 
>98% 

EPS <0.5% 
PVC <0.1% 

D6  Output 
Quality 

Ecoembes 

D7  Output 
Quality  

DSD/DKR 
328-2 

D8  Output 
Quality  

D8  Output 
Quality 
D9  Output 
Quality 
P1  Output 
Quality 

ARA 
SN 
57130/408 
/415 
/416 
ARA 
SN 
57130/499 
DSD/DKR 
328-2 
COREPLA 
CTLM 

Bottles 
PET 
(mixed  colour 
including 
trays) 
Mixed  PET  70 
bottles/30 
trays, 
deviation 
possible 
PET 
(clear, 
blue, green) 

Bottles 
light 

>95.5%  PVC 

< 

0.25% 

As above  As above 

>98% 

PET Other 

>95% 

PET 
70/30 
PET 
clear 

Mixed 

As above  As above 

As above 

Bottles 

PVC <0.5%  

P1  Output 
Quality 

COREPLA 
CTAM 

PET 
light blue 

Bottles 

PVC <0.5% 

P1  Output 
Quality 

COREPLA 
CTCM 

PET 
coloured 

Bottles 

PVC <0.5% 

65 

Allowable 
Impurities 
where provided 

plastic; 
<2% 
residues 

other 

Opaques,  other 
PET  packaging 
and 
other 
polymers <2% 
Metals <0.5% 
<  4%  of  other 
polymers; 
<0.25% 
metals. 
As above 

and 
PET 

Light blue <2% 
Colour 
and 
opaque <0.7% 
Polyolefin 
<1.5% 
PET trays <1% 
Other <2.5% 
Colour 
opaque 
<2.7% 
PET trays <1% 
Polyolefin 
<1.5% 
Other <2% 
Opaque 
<4% 
PET trays <1% 
Polyolefin <2% 
Other <2.5% 

PET 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Standard 
Applied 

Material 
Targeted 

Target 

Prohibited 
Impurities 

COREPLA 

PET 
opaque 

Bottles 

PVC <1% 

Allowable 
Impurities 
where provided 

PET trays <2% 
Polyolefin 
<2.5% 
Other <1.5% 

UNI  11038 
- 1 

PET flake 

Plant 
code 
and  type  of 
Quality 
Specification 
P1  Output 
Quality 

P1  Output 
Quality 
P2  Output 
Quality 

P5  Output 
Quality 
P5  Output 
Quality 
P5  Output 
Quality 
P5  Output 
Quality 
P6  Output 
Quality 

HDPE/PP 
Output 
Quality 
(comparable 
to 
APR 
HDPE spec) 
P7 
Quality 

Input 

Mixed 
PET 
(40%  bottle, 
60% tray) 
PET Clear 

Approx.. 
95% 

>98% 

PET Coloured  >98% 

PET Opaque 

>98% 

PET trays 

N/A 

PET 
and trays 

bottles 

>95% 

HDPE/PP  

HPDE 

>94% 

Food 
contact 
specificatio
n 

DSD/DKR 
329  “give 
some quite 
good 
orientation
” 

P7 
Quality 

Input 

PP 

DSD/DKR 
324  “give 
some quite 
good 
orientation
” 

D2  Output 
Quality 
D5  Output 
Quality 

CITEO 

HDPE/PP 

>95% 

HDPE/PP 

‘internatio
nally 
recognised 
specificatio
ns’ 

66 

plastic 

Metals <0.5% 
Other 
items <4% 
Other  residues 
items <4% 
Metals <0.5% 
Rigid  PP  <3% 
by mass 
EPS <0.5% 
Plastic 
<5% 
Other <3% 

films 

Metals <0.5% 
Rigid  PE  <1% 
by mass 
EPS <0.5% 
Plastic 
<2% 
Other <3% 

films 

or 

Metallic 
mineral 
impurities 
with  a  unit 
weight  of  > 
100  g  and 
cartridges 
for sealants 
Metallic 
mineral 
impurities 
with  a  unit 
weight  of  > 
100  g  and 
cartridges 
for sealants 

or 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Standard 
Applied 

Material 
Targeted 

Target 

Prohibited 
Impurities 

Ecoembes  HDPE  Bottles 

>90% 

(mixed 
colour) 

Allowable 
Impurities 
where provided 

<7% 
polyolefin; 
<  2%  paper  / 
card 
<0.5% metals  

>90% 

Noted above  Noted above 

>90% 

Noted above  Noted above 

PET <1% 
PVC <1% 
PP <10% 
Other <1.5% 

Plant 
code 
and  type  of 
Quality 
Specification 
D6  Output 
Quality 

D7  Output 
Quality 
D7  Output 
Quality 
D8  Output 
Quality 
D8  Output 
Quality 
P1  (Sorting) 
Output 
Quality 

P1 
(Reprocessi
ng)  Output 
Quality 
Films 
Output 
Quality  (PE 
transparent 

PP 

PE 

DSD/DKR 
324 
DSD/DKR 
329 
ARA 
SN 
57118/406 
ARA 
SN 
57118/402 
COREPLA   HDPE Bottles 

HDPE 
Containers 
HDPE  Hollow 
Items 

UNI 10667  HDPE pellet 

PE 
Transparent, 
LDPE  mixed 
colour 

D9  Output 
Quality 

DSD/DKR 
310 

Pre-sorted 
plastic film 

>92%Wi
thin 
specifica
tions, 
deviatio
n 
possible 

P1  Output 
Quality 

COREPLA 
FILM 

PE 

Mixed 
Plastics 
D6  Output 
Quality 

Ecoembes  Mixed Plastics  >80% 

67 

plastic 

Metals <0.5% 
Other 
items <4% 
Other  residues 
items <4% 
Metals <0.5% 
Other 
<4% 
Other  residues 
<4% 

plastic 

films 

and 

Smaller 
<20% 
Metals 
inerts <2% 
Other <5.5% 

HDPE,  PET  and 
Films <10%,  
other  plastics 
(non 
containers) 
<10% 
board / metal / 
other 
<4% 
paper /  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plant 
code 
and  type  of 
Quality 
Specification 
D7  Output 
Quality 

Standard 
Applied 

Material 
Targeted 

Target 

Prohibited 
Impurities 

DSD/DKR 
322 

Plastic  hollow 
bodies and  

>94% 

D7  Output 
Quality 

DSD/DKR 
323 

(mixed 

MPO 
polyolefin 
items) 

>85% 

D8  Output 
Quality 
D9  Output 
Quality 

ARA 
SN 
77118/412 
DSD/DKR 
322  

PS/PP 

Plastic  hollow 
bodies 

Within 
specifica
tions, 
deviatio
n 
possible 

5. Using the quality framework 

Allowable 
Impurities 
where provided 

plastic 

Metals <0.5% 
Other 
<3% 
Other  residues 
<3% 

Papers <5% 
Other  non  PO 
plastic <7.5% 
PVC <0.5% 
Other <3% 
Undersize 
fraction <2% 

As above 

The  quality  definition  and  framework  developed  here  is  intended  for  operational  use, 
as an approach to practically measuring the quality of recycling alongside the quantity 
of  recycling.  It  has  potential  application  by  different  actors  for  a  range  of  strategic 
and/or operational contexts. These uses include: 

  Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs; 

  Tracking change in qualities produced; and 

  Assessing the quality benefit from changes to recycling outputs. 

This assessment could be made at different levels for different purposes: 

  By  plant  operators  or  waste  management  companies  to  use  as  a  performance 
metric (alongside recycling rate), to track impact of changes on quality of outputs, 
and define the quality impact of their sorting and reprocessing operations. 

  By  municipalities  or  producer  responsibility  organisations  (PROs)  contracting 
sorting  plants  to  assess  the  quality  of  outputs  produced,  specify  output  grades 
within different quality categories to be produced, and/or differentiate payment by 
quality  category,  aligned  with  any  strategy  for  increasing  output  qualities  at  a 
whole system level. 

  By  regional/national  governments  to  quantify  the  overall  quality  of  packaging 
recycling 
from 
changes 
interventions/support/development of local or national markets, and use as a basis 
for targeting specific quality improvements. 

resulting 

output, 

quality 

track 

in 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The framework provides  a route for  categorising recycling outputs by their quality. It 
puts outputs into a defined scale so that current quality performance can be assessed 
and  improvements  can  be  measured.  The  assessment  is  based  on  simple  features  of 
sorted  outputs  (prior  to  reprocessing  operations)  or  secondary  raw  materials 
produced,  and  it  does  not  require  extensive  tracking  of  end  uses.  There  is  scope  for 
expansion  to  accommodate  the  end  use  of  the  material  if  this  information  can  be 
gathered. 
The  quality  categories  outlined  within  the  framework  prioritises  effective  separation 
and preservation of the distinct useful characteristics of the material, with either:  

 

the broadest utility (e.g. natural, de-odourised HDPE which can be adapted for use 
in most HDPE products); and/or 

  distinct and specific circular utility (e.g. recycling captured for specific closed-loop 
recycling cycles, such as yellow bleach HDPE back into yellow bleach HDPE bottles) 

As  such  it  is  ‘doing  the  best  that  can  be  done’  from  a  resource  perspective  with  the 
material  that  is  collected  for  recycling,  and  preventing  the  loss  of  use  value  of  the 
material. 

The  further  the  material  remains  in  mixed  outputs  with  neither  specific  nor  broad 
utility, the closer to the bottom of the hierarchy it sits, and the less useful it is to the 
system, though it may still be used productively to displace virgin polymer use. 

By  defining  these  broad  bands  (the  strongest  determiners  of  quality  of  recycling 
outcomes),  the  quality  bands  do  not  capture  effectively  differences  in  quality  within 
the bands (i.e. distinguishing between different levels of PVC in mixed PET outputs, or 
distinguishing between quite odorous and very odorous polyolefin outputs). 

There  are  some  areas  of  the  classification  that  require  further  definition  to  remove 
remaining  subjectivity.  For  instance,  distinguishing  between  HDPE,  PP,  and  PE  film 
secondary  raw materials that are  ‘suitable for  odour-sensitive applications’  and those 
that are not, and mapping in more detail the quality requirements of different users of 
secondary  raw  materials  both  for  packaging  and  non-packaging  applications.  For  the 
assessment of the quality of plastics recycling, the categories should be seen as a first 
outline.  A  more  systematic  and  comprehensive  study  of  the  quality  requirements  of 
specific  product  groups,  beyond  the  scope  of  this  study,  would  enable  the  categories 
to be further refined. 

Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs 

The  starting  point  of  using  the  framework  would  be  to  collect  information  on  output 
quantities of different materials segmented by quality categories. 

  Plant operators could categorise their outputs according to the quality categories; 

  Those  contracting  sorting  plants  could  require  reporting  from  sorting  plants 
according to the quality categories, and could (if aligned to strategic development 
in  qualities  or  to  incentivise  marginal  quality  improvements)  vary  payments 
according to quality category; 

  PROs  or  national  governments  could  seek  to  collect  data  from  reprocessors  that 
would enable them to assess the overall quantity of recycling outputs within each 
quality category. 

Tracking change 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use of the framework over time would allow a quantitative assessment of changes in 
the ‘quality of recycling’. If they had little impact on quantities recycled, these changes 
would otherwise be obscured by a simple recycling rate metric.  
Tracking change over time would allow: 

  A plant operator to:  

o  show  the  benefit  to  quality  from  changing  processes  to  improve  capture 

into higher quality category outputs; or  

o 

track achievement against quality targets (see below). 

  A  PRO  or  national  government  to  assess  the  impact  of  changes  in  policy  (or  in 
other  factors  such  as  investment,  market  demand,  etc)  on  the  development  of 
higher quality recycling. 

Targeting improvements in quality 

The analysis of the quality of material output by the whole recycling chain would be a 
useful starting point for a discussion about how and where qualities can and should be 
increased. 

Using the framework as a guide for intervention (for municipalities or PROs contracting 
plant  operators,  or  for  company/regional/national  level  strategies  for  increasing 
quality)  means  first  identifying  what  improvements  in  quality  bands  overall  are 
desirable for which materials. 

The  choice  of  output  grades  and  qualities  by  sorters  and  reprocessors  is  primarily 
determined  by  market  prices  available  and  consistency  of  demand  for  outputs  of 
certain  qualities.  This  results  in  the  arrangement  of  outputs  that  receives  the  most 
revenue or subsidy in relation to the costs of sorting and processing.  

In any economic context, improvements in quality that haven’t already been made are 
likely to come at additional cost, and (depending on local markets) may not result in 
significant  environmental  benefit  where  lower  quality  outputs  can  also  be  used  to 
displace virgin material. A full recycling chain view is crucial as improving the quality 
categories  of  outputs  from  sorting  plants,  particularly  small-scale  sorting  operations, 
may  be  unnecessary  or  counter-productive  if  sorting  into  higher  quality  recycling 
categories  occurs  later  (and  more  cost-effectively)  in  larger  subsequent  sorting 
operations. 

Plant management, municipalities and PROs  can have an impact in helping to ensure 
the realisation of improvements in recycling quantities and qualities that are currently 
economically marginal.11 

In addition, producer organisations and regional/national authorities could also take a 
longer-term perspective on strategies for increasing quality of recycling by shifting the 
economic  picture  more  fundamentally.  This  could  be  by  targeting  research  and 
development to reduce costs; influencing demand for recycled content; or supporting 
the  development  of  higher  quality  reprocessing  routes  for  specific  portions  of 
materials. 

11 Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd (2020) Analysis of Drivers Impacting Recycling 
Quality, report for European Commission Joint Research Centre, March 2020. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Waste  management 
company 

Contractor  of  sorting 
plant 
(Municipality/PRO) 

Table 5-1: Summary of quality framework applications by organisation 
Usage of the Quality Framework 
Organisation 
Gather data on sorting plant outputs by category band. 
Plant management 
Use  as  performance  metric  (alongside  recycling  rate)  to 
track impact of changes on quality categories. 
Collate  data  on  outputs  at  the  point  where  they  leave  the 
management  of  the  company  (sorted  and/or  reprocessed 
outputs). 
Define  the  quality impact  of  sorting  and  recycling  activities 
from their operations 
In the context of a tender process, assess as part of tender 
process  the  quality  categories  of  the  grades  of  outputs 
planned to be produced. 
Specific output grades within different quality categories to 
be  produced,  aligned  with  any  strategy  for  increasing 
output qualities at a whole system level (see below). 
Where PROs buy the material, use as the starting point for 
differentiating  payments 
for  differing  quality  outputs 
(adjusted away from a simple reflection of expected onward 
sale values), again aligned with any strategy for increasing 
output qualities at a whole system level. 
Gather data on sorting plant outputs by category band. 
Quantify  the  overall  quality  of  packaging  recycling  output 
produced from in-country sorting and recycling chains. This 
data can accompany statistics on overall recycling rates for 
different packaging materials. 
changes 
Track 
interventions/support/development  of 
markets. 
To  use  the  framework  as  a  guide  for  intervention,  identify 
what  improvements  in  quality  bands  overall  are  desirable 
for  which  materials  (in  the  context  of  demand  for  higher 
quality  outputs  from  international,  national  and  local 
industries). 

System  and  policy 
/ 
design 
National 
Government) 

from 
resulting 
local  or  national 

quality 

(PROs 

in 

71 

 
 
 
Appendices 

A1.1 

EN643 Grades 

Table 0-1: Summary of EN643 Standard for paper and packaging 

Grade Title 

Materials not 
allowed at any level 

Mixed  paper  and  board, 
unsorted, 
unusable 
but 
materials removed 
Mixed  papers  and  boards 
(sorted) 
Grey board 
Corrugated  paper  and board 
packaging 

- 

- 

Corrugated material 
- 

Ordinary  corrugated  paper 
and board 

- 

Corrugated paper and board 

- 

Grade 
1: 
Ordinary Grades 

Ordinary corrugated board 

Corrugated board 

- 

- 

Magazines  
Magazines without glue 
Magazines  with 
samples 

product 

- 
Glue 
- 

Telephone books 
Newspapers and magazines 

- 
- 

Sorted  graphic  paper 
deinking 

for 

- 

Newspapers 

- 

Unsold 
newspapers 
intended for deinking  

not 

Unsold newspapers 

Grade 
Medium Grades 

2: 

inserts 

(not 
circulated  with 

inserts 

(not 
circulated  with 

Additional 
originally 
publication) 
Additional 
originally 
publication) 
- 

printed 

Lightly 
shavings 
Lightly 
shavings without glue 
Heavily 
shavings 

printed 

printed 

white 

white 

Glue 

white 

- 

72 

Conditions for 
meeting grade and 
other allowable 
materials 
No restrictions on short fibre 
content 

papers 

80  % 

other 
and 

10% 
papers 

5% 
papers 

Maximum  40%  newspapers 
and magazines 
- 
Minimum  70%  corrugated 
board,  the  rest  being  other 
and 
packaging 
boards 
Minimum  70%  corrugated 
board,  the  rest  being  other 
paper and board products 
of 
Minimum 
corrugated  board,  the  rest 
being other paper and board 
products 
Maximum 
packaging 
boards 
Maximum 
packaging 
boards 
Can allow glue 
- 
Can  allow  glue.  Can  contain 
non-paper  components  as 
attached product samples. 
Glue and shavings allowed. 
Minimum  30%  each  of 
newspaper and magazines 
Minimum  80%  newspapers 
and  magazines:  at 
least 
30%  newspapers  and  40% 
magazines.  Print  products 
not  suitable 
for  deinking 
limited to 1.5%. 
Maximum 5% of newspapers 
/ advertisements coloured in 
the mass 
Paper  products  not  suitable 
for deinking are allowed. 

other 
and 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
Grade Title 

Materials not 
allowed at any level 

Conditions for 
meeting grade and 
other allowable 
materials 

printed 

Heavily 
shavings without glue 
Ordinary sorted office paper 

white 

Glue 

- 

Carbonless 
paper 
(CCP)  /  no  carbon  required 
(NCR) 

copy 

Less 

Minimum  60%  wood  free 
than  10% 
paper. 
unbleached fibres. Less than 
5% 
and 
newspapers 
packaging 
Minimum  80%  wood  free 
5% 
paper. 
unbleached fibres. 
Minimum  70%  wood  free 
paper.  

than 

Less 

Minimum  90%  wood  free 
paper. 

Maximum 10% coated paper 
Maximum 10% coated paper 

Maximum  10%  mechanical 
pulp-based papers 

- 

Can  allow  unbleached  board 
and paper 
Can allow recycled fibres 

printed 

contain 

contain 

Maximum  10%  other  wood 
containing papers. Maximum 
2% paper with plastic layer. 
May 
printed 
material. 
May 
material. 
Minimum  50%  wood  free 
papers 
Minimum  90%  wood  free 
papers 
Maximum  2%  paper  with  a 
plastic layer. Maximum 10% 
mechanical 
pulp-based 
paper 
- 

- 

Maximum  5%  mechanical 
pulp-based paper 
- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

Sorted office paper 

CCP /  NCR 

Ordinary  sorted  coloured 
letters 

Sorted coloured letters 

White woodfree bookquire 
White  mechanical 
based bookquire 
Coloured 
magazines 

woodfree 

pulp-

Bleached  woodfree 
coated board 
Other PE-coated board 

PE-

Mechanical 
computer print-out 
Multigrade 

pulp-based 

Coloured log end tissue 

White log end tissue 

coloured 

Mixed 
lightly 
printer shavings 
lightly 
Mixed 
woodfree printer shavings 
Woodfree binders 

coloured 

Special woodfree binders 

Tear white shavings 

Grade  3:  High 
Grades 

White woodfree letters 

White  woodfree 
unprinted 

letters 

White business forms 
Printed  bleached  sulphate 
board 
Lightly 
sulphate board 
Multi printing 

bleached 

printed 

NCR,  manila 
covers, 

/ 

file 

CCP 
envelopes, 
newspapers, cardboard 
CCP 
envelopes, 
newspapers, cardboard 
Hard covers 
Hard covers 

/ 

NCR,  manila 
covers, 

file 

covers, 
non-dispersible 
poster 

Non-flexible 
bindings, 
inks, 
papers, labels, label trim 
- 

adhesives, 

- 

- 

Newsprint 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

layered 

and 
pulp-based 

Plastic 
mechanical 
papers 
Glue,  wet-strength  paper, 
paper coloured in the mass 
Cash  books,  carbon  paper, 
non-water soluble adhesives 
Cash  books,  carbon  paper, 
carbonless paper, non-water 
soluble adhesives 
- 
Glue,  polycoated  or  waxed 
materials 
Glue,  polycoated  or  waxed 
materials 
Wet-strength  paper,  paper 
coloured in the mass 

Medium 

printed  multi  Wet-strength  paper,  paper 

- 

73 

 
 
Grade Title 

Materials not 
allowed at any level 

Conditions for 
meeting grade and 
other allowable 
materials 

lightly 

printed 

printed 

heavily 

printing 
White 
multiply board 
Mixed  white  heavily  printed 
multiply board 
White 
multiply board 
White  unprinted  multiply 
board 
White newsprint 
White  mechanical 
pulp-
based  coated  and  uncoated 
paper 
White  mechanical 
based 
coated paper 
White 
paper 
White woodfree papers 
White shavings 

pulp-
containing 

coated  woodfree 

paper 

coloured in the mass 
Grey and brown piles 

- 

- 

Grey piles 

Grey piles 

Magazine paper 
- 

- 

Glue 

Glue 
Newsprint  and  magazine 
paper, glue 

White woodfree shavings 
White  woodfree  uncoated 
shavings 

Glue 
Glue, coated paper  

Maximum  20  %  grey  and 
brown plies. 
- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
Minimum  60%  wood  free 
paper. 
10% 
Maximum 
coated paper. 
Maximum 5% coated paper 
- 

White envelope cuttings 

Coated paper 

Can allow glue 

Unprinted bleached  sulphate 
board 
Unprinted  tissue  coloured  in 
the mass 
White unprinted tissue 
New  shavings  of  corrugated 
board 
Unused corrugated kraft 
Used corrugated kraft 1 
Used corrugated kraft 2 

- 
- 
- 

Glue,  polycoated  or  waxed 
materials 
Packaging materials 

Packaging materials 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

Grade  4:  Kraft 
grades 

Grade 
Special Grades 

5: 

Used kraft sacks 
Unused kraft sacks 
Used kraft 
New kraft 
New carrier kraft  
Mixed papers 
Mixed packaging 
Used liquid board packaging 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Newspapers and magazines 
- 

liquid  packaging 

Unused 
board 
Wrapper kraft 
Wet labels 

- 

Bitumen or wax coatings 
- 

Dry labels 
Labels with base layer 
Paper  release  liner  for  self-
adhesive labels 
Unprinted 

white 

wet-

- 
- 
Labels,  cores  and  other 
contaminants 
- 

74 

liners  or 

Kraft liners only 
Kraft liners only 
testliners 
Kraft 
having at least 1 liner made 
of kraft 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Minimum  50%  fibres  (by 
weight) 
Minimum  50%  fibres  (by 
weight) 
- 
Maximum 1% glass content. 
Maximum  50%  moisture, 
without 
unusable 
other 
materials. 
- 
- 
- 

- 

 
 
Grade Title 

Materials not 
allowed at any level 

Conditions for 
meeting grade and 
other allowable 
materials 

white 

and 
wet-strength 

strength woodfree papers 
Unprinted 
coloured 
papers 
Printed  white  wet-strength 
woodfree papers 
Printed  white  and  coloured 
wet-strength 
wood-free 
papers 
Cores 
Carbonless 
(NCR) 
Printed white envelope 
Mixed envelopes 
Blister pack 

paper 

copy 

Used kraft sacks 

Used kraft sacks with plastic 
layer papers 
Unused kraft sacks 

Unused  kraft  sacks  with 
plastic layer papers and poly 
liners 
Used  paper  cups  and  other 
used tableware 
Unused  cups  and  other 
tableware 

- 

- 

- 

Metal ends 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

layers  and 

- 
- 
Plastic 
allowed 
Papers  with  a  plastic  layer 
allowed 
- 

inserts 

Papers  with  a  plastic  layer 
allowed 
- 

Minimum  75%  fibres  (by 
weight) 
Minimum  75%  fibres  (by 
weight) 

A2.1 

Other Industry Standards 

In  North  America,  the  trade  association,  The  Association  of  Plastic  Recyclers  (APR), 
have produced a set of guideline standards for sorted packaging that are intended for 
use  as  benchmarks  for  suppliers  and  provide  an  indication  of  the  quality  standards 
that are likely to meet the requirements of their reprocessors. A summary of the ‘hard’ 
and ‘soft’ limits for different sorted packaging outputs are below. 

Table 0-2: Summary of Quality Standards for Plastic Packaging 

Contaminants  not 
any 
allowed 
level 

at 

for 

Conditions 
allowable 
contaminants 
and 
type of contaminants 

Grade variation 

All: 

Plastic bags or plastic film, 
wood,  glass,  oils  and 
grease, 
stones, 
rocks, 
mud,  dirt,  medical  and 
hazardous waste 

PET Bottles 

PVC,  

chemically 
incompatible 
low  temperature  melting 
materials, 
including  PS 
and PLA plastic, as rigid or 
foam,  

chemically  compatible  low 
materials, 
temperature 

%  PET 
weight) 

fraction  (by 

Grade  A:  94%  or 
above 

Grade B: 83 – 93% 

Grade C: 73 – 82% 

Total  weight  of  contaminants 
should 
the 
required % of PET per grade: 

exceed 

not 

HDPE  rigid  containers,  LDPE 
rigid  plastic  containers,  PP 
containers, 
rigid 
aluminium,  metal  containers 
or  cans,  paper  or  cardboard, 
primarily 
liquid 

residues, 

plastic 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
such as PETG,  

water (2% max weight) 

Grade F: 72% or below 

items 
degradable additives 

containing 

PET 
Thermoforms 

items 
degradable additives 

containing 

PP  Small  Rigid 
Plastics 

electronics scrap,  

items  with  circuit  boards 
or battery packs,  

products  with  degradable 
additives,  

containers  which 
held 
flammable,  corrosive  or 
reactive 
or 
pesticides or herbicides.  

products, 

PE Clear Film 

Metallised labels or films,  

multi-material pouches,  

silicone coated film,  

film  with  oxo  or  bio-
degradable additives,  

PVDC layers,  

acrylic coatings,  

rubber bands 

HDPE 
Rigid Plastics 

Bulky 

Items  with  circuit  boards 
or battery packs  

Products  with  degradable 
additives 

Containers  which 
held 
flammable,  corrosive  or 
reactive 
or 
pesticides or herbicides. 

products, 

HDPE  Coloured 
Bottles 

Bulky rigids,  

any  plastics  with  PLA  or 
foaming agents,  

PVC,  

HDPE  motor  oil  or  other 
automotive fluids 

Total  weight  of  contaminants 
must not exceed 5% and total 
individual 
weight 
contaminants 
by  material 
must not exceed 2%: 

of 

aluminium,  metal  containers 
and  cans, 
loose  paper  or 
cardboard,  polystyrene,  PLA, 
liquid  residues 
PVC,  PETG, 
(primarily water) 

Total  weight  of  contaminants 
should  not  exceed  8%  and 
individual 
 total  weight  of 
by  material 
contaminants 
must not exceed 2%: 

metal, paper/cardboard, liquid 
or  other  residues,  HDPE,  any 
other  plastic  containers  or 
packaging including PET, PVC, 
PS, Other  

Total  weight  of  contaminants 
should not exceed 5% 

Pigmented  polyethylene  films, 
non-polyethylene 
other 
plastics,  labels,  loose  paper, 
strapping,  twine  or  tape,  food 
residue  (2% 
waste, 
max. weight) 

liquid 

N/A 

Considered  Bulky  PP  if 
greater than 5 gallons 

Grade  B:  80%  clear, 
to  20%  colour, 
up 
clean and natural LDPE 
and / or LDPE films 

Grade  C:  50%  clear, 
50%  colour,  dry,  LDPE 
or LLDPE films 

Total  weight  of  the  following 
materials  must  not  exceed 
10%: 

N/A 

Polypropylene 

Total  weight  of  the  following 
materials  must  not  exceed 
4%: 

Plastic  resins  –  PET,  PVC, 
LDPE, PS, Other 

Total  weight  of  the  following 
materials  must  not  exceed 
2%: 

Metal,  liquid  /  other  residues, 
paper/ cardboard 

%  HDPE  fraction  (by 
weight): 

Grade  A:  95%  or 
above 

Grade B: 85 – 94% 

Grade C: 80 – 84% 

Grade F: 79% or below 

Total  weight  of  contaminants 
should 
the 
required  %s  of  HDPE  per 
grade 

exceed 

not 

Total  weight  of 
contaminants 
must not exceed 2% 

individual 
by  material 

Other  non-HDPE  rigid  plastic 
containers 
packaging, 
or 
including  PET,  LDPE,  PP,  PS 

76 

 
and  Other, 
aluminium, 
cardboard 

liquid  residues, 
or 

paper 

77 

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 
In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 
On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
- by electronic mail via:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa
website at:https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop
at:https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (seehttps://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en).

K
J
-
0
3
-
2
0
-
7
7
5
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/225236 
ISBN 978-92-76-25426-3 

79