Composting marine

plastic waste

Final report
18 june 2021
Ramzy Abou-zeid
Javier Colón Diez
Yusuf Khan
Karolien Bogaert

Client Supervisors EpS

ReSEAclons M.Charlas European Project Semester
B.Spears L’Ecole National d’Ingenieurs Tarbes
1. Acknowledgements
We would first like to thank several people who have helped us
and provided invaluable feedback throughout this project.

We owe the opportunity of being able to partake in this project

semester to Fabien Duco, Ximena Lacroix and Caroline Marrant,
and therefore we’d like to thank them for undertaking and ensu-
ring the safe organization of the EPS program this year, despite the
current health situation.

The team would also like to thank their supervisors - Mathieu

Charlas and Beth Spears, for giving their support to the project,
their help in finding solutions, and aiding us with difficulties on
both the technical and management sides of the project.

Furthermore, we would like to thank Technacol for the access

granted to their facilities and resources, as well as for their experti-
se and technical advice. The execution of the experiments is cour-
tesy of Guillaume Morel and Amandine Abadie - without them, an
experiment vital to the project would not have been possible. We
would also like to thank ReSeaclons for giving us the opportunity
to work on this project and the collaboration they provided.

Finally, we would like to thank Eleanor Maxwell for the communi-

cation classes, through which we have improved our presentation
skills, Emma Gioudes for the French classes, and our home univer-
sities for allowing us to take part in such an enriching opportunity,
the European Project Semester.

2
2. Table of contents
Acknowledgements 2
Table of contents 3
List of figures and tables 4
Table of abriviations 5
Introduction 6
Introduction to the Topic 6
Project Background 7
Context of the Project 7
Our Vision 8
Logo 9
Clients & Stakeholders 9
Direct Stakeholders 9
Indirect Stakeholders 10
Project management 11
Needs Expression 11
Scope of the Project 12
Objectives 12
Funding 12
Main Deliverables 13
Milestones 14
Limits & Exclusions 14
Risks 14
Risk Analysis 14
Risk Assesment 15
Project Planning 17
WBS 17
Workload Estimation 18
Project Planning 18
Communication plan 19
Technical progress 21
Introduction 21
Polymer’s summary 21
Composting summary 22
Methods 22
Existing methods for breaking down polymers 22
Chemical Solvents 22
Supercritical fluids 23
Plastivorous micro-organisms 23
Chosen methods 23
Experiments 24
Waste polymer identification 24
Materials and methods 24
FTIR: Effects of Aging 26
Conclusion 29
Thermal analysis of polymer degradation 30
Thermogravimetric Analysis 30

3
Results of the TGA 31
Comparing Waste Plastic in Different Atmospheres 32
Compare Waste Plastic and New Plastic in Nitrogen 38
Compare Polystyrene and Polyethylene in Nitrogen 40
Conclusion 43
FTIR after TGA 44
FTIR Results: Waste Plastic Samples 45
FTIR Results: Fresh Plastic Samples 47
Conclusion 49
Plastic Depolymerization 49
TGA and FTIR Results of Plastic Treatment 51
Conclusion 53
Expanded Research on Unexplored Methods 54
Supercritical Fluids 54
Plastivorous Micro-Organisms/Enzymes 54
Discussion 55
Treatment Discussion 55
Methods Discussion 56
Viability of method 57
Next Steps/Comments for Future Teams 59
General Conclusion 60
Issues 60
Points of Improvement 60
Lessons learned 61
References 62
Appendices 64
Appendix 1: Workload Estimation Table 64
Appendix 2: Gantt-Chart 66
Appendix 3: Life Cycle Analysis 67
Appendix 4: Depolymerisation 68
Appendix 5: WBS 70

4
3. Table of abriviations
Abbreviation/acronym Expanded form
TGA Thermogravimetric Analysis
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared (Spectrometry)
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
DSC Differential Scanning Calorimeter
SC Super Critical
PP Polypropylene
(HD/LD)PE (High Density/Low Density) Polyethylene
PS Polystyrene
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
N2 Nitrogen
UV Ultraviolet
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
CI Climate Impact

5
4. Introduction
This project is being completed at L’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs
de Tarbes (ENIT) and is part of the European Project Semester Pro-
gram (EPS). During this semester, students from all different coun-
tries, cultures and disciplines are divided into teams, and asked
define and complete different projects, while also attending diffe-
rent classes at the host university – in our case these were French,
Communication Skills and Project Management at the host univer-
sity.

Every project is supervised by both a technical and a management

supervisor. They help and advise the students throughout the pro-
ject. The goal of this semester is to improve the communication
and management skills within an international team, as well as to

gain a familiarity with real life projects with companies.

4.1. Introduction to the Topic

At least 8 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans every year
(Marine plastics, 2021) and make up 80% of all marine debris from
surface waters to deep-sea sediment. Experts estimate that by
2050, plastic will outweigh fish in the ocean (World Economic Fo-
rum, 2016).

Plastic pollution is the most known and widespread problem - not

only affecting the marine environment but also ocean health, food
safety and quality, and human health. Plastic is a petroleum pro-
duct meaning its production contributes to global warming and
climate change.

The project our team has been tasked with is concerned with the
plastic waste in the oceans, and possible solutions to removing
that waste in an environmentally friendly method.

6
5. Project Background
5.1. Context of the Project
Our team is comprised of Engineering students from a variety of backgrounds and fields. We
have identified and listed the personality and character traits that will match the traits and
skills we feel are needed to carry out this project.

Javier Colon Diez

Industrial Engineering Student from Universidad Carlos III Madrid
in Spain
+ Organised
+ Perfectionist
+ Experienced
- Procrastination

Karolien Bogaert
Product Development Student from University of Antwerp in
Belgium
+ Thick skin
+ Innovative
+ Artistic
- Bundle of nerves

Yusuf Khan
Biomedical Engineering Student from Lodz University of Techno-
logy in Poland
+ Good-communicator
+ Practical
+ Creative
- Ruthless

Ramzy Abou-Zeid
Mechanical Engineering Student from Glasgow Caledonian Uni-
versity in Scotland
+ Level-headed
+ Calculating
+ Eloquent
- Overly-cautious

7
The team is working as a part of the European Project Semester (EPS) at l’Ecole Nationale d’In-
génieurs de Tarbes (ENIT).

This project is concerned with the “Plastic Soup” in the oceans. Our seas are filled with plas-
tic waste, which affects not only wildlife, but also the people who make a living from them.
Fishermen, for example, do not only catch fish but also large amounts of plastic in their nets.
Unfortunately, by international law, if you collect waste from the sea, you are then responsible
for disposing of said waste, meaning the fishermen need to pay to get rid of it.

This plastic waste needs to be treated in some way, that either returns it to the product cycle
or destroys it in an environmentally friendly way. The problem we face in trying to destroy it is
the fact that plastics are by nature very robust and varied in their properties. Moreover, recy-
cling rates of plastics are very low and, as stated earlier, are known to pollute the food chain.

The aim of this project is to find a practical and curative solution to this problem.

This is where the non-profit organization ReSeaclons, based by the Mediterranean Sea, comes
in. ReSeaclons’ mission is to collect marine plastic waste with the help of local fishermen. The
waste, once gathered and sorted, is later distributed to different organizations (like Technacol)
for recycling/disposal.

An example of a project that ReSeaclons has been involved with in the past is the SEAcup, a
product produced by Triveo intending to upcycle marine plastic waste. Technacol - a company
that specializes in polymers and adhesive bonding technologies and that we are working with
on this project, owns some of these cups as they have been contracted by ReSeaclons for tes-
ting and analysing the chemical and mechanical properties of the SEAcup.

5.2. Our Vision

Our vision is to find an alternative to re-
cycling for the treatment of plastic waste
and to remove oil-based plastics from the
plastic market.

The general idea is to find a technology

that allows us to break down plastics into
their most essential particles so that they
may be introduced into the environment
and thus processed by the micro-organisms
in the soil.

8
5.3. Logo
The team for this project is called 21JunkStreet and is represented by the logo in Fig1. The logo
was designed to represent the goal of this project: taking plastic waste from the ocean and
trying to give it back to nature.

The name was chosen to grab the attention of a wider audience with a catchy name.
‘21JunkStreet’ is also a reference to a street culture film “21 Jump Street”. This film is about
two young guys cleaning the streets from criminals which transits to our situation: four stu-
dents trying to clean up the oceans from plastic.

Fig 1. The team’s logo “21JunkStreet”

5.4. Clients & Stakeholders

5.4.1. Direct Stakeholders
The previously-named organisation ReSeaclons are the end client of this project. They are the
ones responsible for starting this project, their goal being to initiate and support projects to
find solutions to deal with marine plastic waste. For the research aspect, ReSeaclons reached
out to Technacol to work together. From here, Technacol worked together with ENIT to get this
EPS project started.

The team of engineering students are supported by a management supervisor, Beth Spears
and a technical supervisor, Mathieu Charlas from Technacol.

Shown on the next page is a collaborative model of these direct stakeholders.

9
 Beth Spears Mathieu Charlas Mathieu Charlas Marie-Laure Xavier Mu-
Management Technical Supervior Technical Supervior Barois rard
Supervisor / Client Manager / Client Manager Co-founder Co-founder

Karolien Ramzy Javier Yusuf

Bogaert Abou-Zeid Colon Diez Khan
Engineer Engineer Engineer Engineer

Fig 2. Collaborative model

5.4.2. Indirect Stakeholders

Since this project can have a social impact, there are other stakeholders that are involved in
this project but not in a direct way. They also must be taken into account.

First of all we have the ENIT staff: the European Project Semester would not be possible without
the coordinator and staff members of the international department of ENIT.
• Fabien Duco
• Ximena Lacroix
• Caroline Marrant

Over 50 fishermen who collect the waste from Le Grau-du-Roi fishing in southern France are
working with ReSeaclons, which offers a collaborative approach to developing a circular eco-
nomy around the collection and recycling of marine plastic waste. They are suppliers of the
marine plastic waste so that ReSeaclons can provide us the waste.

Finally, early in the project we completed an application for funding from the French Gover-
nment. However, we will not benefit from this, future groups who continue our research will
have this avenue of funding.

10
6. Project management
6.1. Needs Expression
The earth is crying out to end this plastic madness. There is a global need to bring an end to the
linear plastic economy and transfer to a circular economy, but also to fix the damage that has
already been done. For example, to get rid of the plastic waste that’s working its way through
nature. Plastic remains in the environment for a long time, threatening wildlife and spreading
toxins. Plastics are made from chemicals that come from the production of planet-warming
fuels (gas, oil and even coal). Burning plastic in incinerators to dispose of it is still done these
days, which comes at the all too high cost of releasing waste gases and pollutants that greatly
contribute to global warming (Plastic pollution How to reduce plastic in the ocean | Friends
of the Earth, 2021). Plastic pollution has come to a point where it does not only affect the en-
vironment but also our health. Micro plastics are entering our food and therefore our bodies.
According to a WWF study, humans consume five grams of plastic every week, or the weight
of credit card (Kestemont, 2021). It is clear that some actions need to be taken.

Fig 3. Plastic waste washed up ashore

11
6.2. Scope of the Project
6.2.1. Objectives
The eventual goal for this project was to find a way to break down marine plastics into substan-
ces that are biodegradable, easily compostable and environmentally friendly, in order to re-
move waste plastics from the oceans to try and reduce plastic pollution. Due to the extremely
diverse nature of plastic properties, we focused on polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and
polystyrene (PS) which are the most commonly found in the debris.

The main objective of the EPS project was to research methods that have potential to depo-
lymerize plastics. After the methods were identified, we attempted to create a compostable
substance through depolymerisation, so it can be introduced into the ecosystem in a safe way.
For the depolymerization, various tests needed to be completed in order to determine the
characteristics of the materials. Further, it was necessary to keep the impact on the environ-
ment in mind throughout the process. We had to evaluate if the method found is environment
friendly or if it would have an even more adverse effect than methods used today, which we
have done through the use of a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).

Because this is a very complex problem, we have been setting down the foundations for future
groups to carry out subsequent research and development. This project, being more research
than design-oriented, had an open-ended brief and our progress was largely based on the
outcomes of our experiments.

For the course of the project, we had no monetary budget. We were given access to the Tech-
nacol laboratory, which made a great many resources available to us. Any materials or sub-
stances we required, within reason, were procured by the lab on our behalf. As well as this,
Mathieu Charlas - our technical supervisor - said that he may have been able to get us the use
of equipment in different labs, although this ended up not being necessary. Also, early on in
the project Mathieu completed an application for funding from the French Government. Ho-
wever, we will not benefit from this, future groups who continue our research will hopefully
have this avenue of funding available to them.

6.2.1.1. Funding
The funding application that was completed by our supervisor is called Avenir Littoral 21. It
is a joint venture between the Occitanie Region and the French State, who are making up to
300.000€ of funding available to projects focused upon protecting the seas, specifically the
Mediterranean. For the application, our project will be absorbed into a larger one by the name
of Remora, which also includes the Blueprint plastic waste filament project, as we are both
working for the same client. The funding would allow for much greater exploration into both
these topics, but would be pursued by future researchers. As such we did not consider it as a
part of our scope.

12
6.2.2. Main Deliverables
For this project, 6 main deliverables were defined: management documents, EPS documents,
the funding process, research, comparative and compost experiments.

• (D1) Management documents

For the management section, a requirements document, which will contain the definition of
the project in detail. The scope, client and stakeholders, risks, etc. will be defined here. After
this document’s approval by the supervisors, a kick-off presentation will be given. Lastly for
this deliverable, every time a meeting is planned, an agenda and minutes document will be
made.

• (D2) EPS documents

This contains the intermediate and final reports and presentations that need to be delivered
to Fabien Duco and the jury.

• (D3) Funding process

There is a possibility of the project being funded. The team needs to apply for this funding,
with the help of our technical supervisor Mathieu Charlas, since the application is in French.

• (D4) Research
This includes the studies we have used, and all the information we have used to get familiar
with the subject. Research will be done about degradation of plastic in the ocean, the new
properties of said degraded plastic, different methods to depolymerize plastics, the composta-
bility of plastics, and lastly about Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This all will be delivered in the
form of studies and summaries.

• (D5) Comparing experiments

In this part we will analyse the differences between new plastics and the marine plastic. We
will also study what is left behind when the plastic is burned. These experiments will result in
study documents where conclusions are made.

• (D6) Depolymerization experiment

This is the last part where the actual breakdown of the polymers will take place. Afterwards we
will analyse what remains. In the end, a study document will be made where conclusions will
be drawn followed by space for discussion.

13
6.2.3. Milestones
Tab 1. Milestones

Number Milestone Date

1 Delivery of kick-off presentation 01/04/2021
2 Delivery of intermediate report 09/04/2021
3 Delivery of funding application 19/04/2021
4 Delivery of intermediate presentation 29/04/2021
5 Completion of the depolymerization experiment 15/06/2021
6 Delivery of final report 18/06/2021
7 Delivery of final presentation 24/06/2021

6.2.4. Limits & Exclusions

The team has only the time for testing one depolymerization method. If it turns out that this
method is not the most viable option. we will consider another method and analyse the en-
vironmental impact of this solution. In this project only PE, PS and PP will be used, no other
materials.

6.3. Risks
6.3.1. Risk Analysis
Here we discuss the risks that were identified for this project. In order for a more structured
list of risks and to provide further clarification, the risks are divided into 3 categories: human,
machine and external risks.

• Risks placed in the ‘human’ category

- Risks regarding to Covid-19
• A team member gets sick of Covid-19
• A supervisor gets sick of Covid-19
• A family member of one of the team members gets sick of Covid-19 so the
team member will have to return back to his/her home country
- There is friction between team members
- The language barrier makes it difficult to interact in an efficient way with each
other
- The team members do not have the necessary knowledge concerning the subject,
equipment, software, etc.
- Team member(s) getting injured by experiments (injury)
• Risks placed in the category ‘machine’
- The lab and facilities will not be available due to Covid-19
- The machines, tests will not be available due to overbooking (schedule)
- Experiments cannot be performed due unavailability of material, machine or pe

14
 sonnel
• Risks placed in the category ‘external’
- ReSEAclons cannot deliver any other material due to issues with Covid-19 or other
reasons
- The client wants to change somethings about the contract
- Budget will not be available for project related things

6.3.2. Risk Assesment

The risk assessment was completed by utilising a risk assessment matrix. The risk matrix is a
tool that is used to define the level of risk by considering the probability or likelihood against
the impact it would have if it occurred. A high-risk event is something that has a high proba-
bility of occurring and will have a significant impact. A low-risk event is something that is not
likely to occur and will have little impact if it does happen.

As shown in the example below, the probability and severity are rated on a scale from 1 to 3. 1
being rare or negligible and 3 being certain or catastrophic. The higher the risk rating, the wor-
se the risk will be for the project if it comes to pass. The risks assessment matrix colour codes
the risk levels, making the severity levels clearer and aiding decision making.

Tab 2. Risk Assasment Matrix

Impact

1 2 3

1 1 (low) 2 (low) 3 (medium)

Probability

2 2 (low) 4 (medium) 6 (high)

3 3 (medium) 6 (high) 9 (high)

The team has qualified the main/major risk: the availability of the labs and facilities due to
Covid-19. This risk is therefore graded with probability of 2 and an impact of 3. For each risk,
preventive and corrective actions/measures are set up and these were summarized in the
table below.

15
Tab 3. Risks with their Scores and Preventive/Corrective Actions

Risk Proba- Impact Risk Preventiva and corrective actions

bility Factor
Experiments cannot be 3 3 9 P: Ask/look at schedule in time
performed due to unavaila- and inform technical supervisor
bility of material, machine or C: Find an available slot as soon
personnel as possible to eliminate or mini-
mize the delay as much as possi-
ble
C: Try and find papers that have
already done this experiment
The lab and facilities will not 3 3 9 C: Try and find the data/results of
be available due to Covid-19 the experiments online
Team member(s) can get hurt 2 3 6 P: Let the experiment be done by
by experiments (injury) a professional in the lab
ReSeaclons cannot deliver 2 2 4 P: Ensure we have a surplus of
any more material due to waste plastic at the start
issues with Covid-19 or other C: Acquire marine plastic waste
reasons from somewhere else or get it
ourselves
Budget will not be available 2 2 4 P: Adjust planning and project
for project related costs plans to the budget
C: Discuss budget with techni-
cal supervisor Mathieu Charlas
(Technacol)
There is friction between 3 1 3 P: Work on teambuilding
team members C: Figure out where the friction is
coming from, discuss the pro-
blem and find a solution
The language barrier makes 3 1 3 C: Explain everything clearly
it difficult to interact in an using translation tools to under-
efficient way with each other stand each other better
about the project
The team members do not 3 1 3 P: Search and learn how to use
have the knowledge about the software or ask technical
the concerning subject, ma- supervisor
chine, software, etc.
A team member gets sick of 2 1 2 P: Follow the government measu-
Covid-19 res as closely as possible to pre-
vent getting Covid-19
C: Online meetings and reconsi-
der the workload and responsibi-
lities for tasks

16
 A supervisor gets sick of 2 1 2 P: Follow the government measu-
Covid-19 res as closely as possible to pre-
vent getting Covid-19
C: Organise online meetings
A family member of one of 1 2 2 C: Online meetings and reconsi-
the team members gets sick der the workload and responsibi-
of Covid-19 resulting in team lities for tasks
member returning to his/her
home country
The client wants to change 1 2 1 C: Organize a meeting to discuss
somethings about the con- the reason of changing and what
tract needs to be changed in the con-
tract

6.4. Project Planning

6.4.1. WBS
The WBS is a management tool, used to convert a set of deliverables into a list of executable
tasks that all contribute to the completion of said deliverables. It is used to help organize the
team’s work into manageable sections. It is in everyone’s best interest to make this part as
clear as possible. The code is D for Deliverables and T for Tasks. With each task one responsible
will be assigned.

Shown below is a general view of the WBS. Please find the detailed WBS in appendix 5.

Composting marine
plastic waste

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
Depolymeri-
Management EPS Funding Comparing
Research zation
documents documents process experiments
experiment
Fig 4. General view of WBS

17
6.4.2. Workload Estimation
A workload estimation was made based off of the WBS, with the corresponding code and res-
ponsible persons. The total estimated hours are 758, this corresponds to 189,5 hours per team
member. The actual workload estimation can be found in appendix 2.

Shown below is a graph representing the distribution of the estimated workload in percentage.

Graph 1. Workload distribution

6.4.3. Project Planning

For the correct development of the project, we structured it into four blocks, each made up of
a different type of work.

The first phase, Set-Up, would lay the foundations for the development of the project. On
this basis, several meetings were scheduled with the supervisors to correctly understand the
objective of the project and any methodology to be followed. The scope of the project was
defined and a requirements document with these foundations was drafted.

The second phase, Discovery, was a research phase where we studied and searched for litera-
ture on the treatment of plastic waste as well as different decomposition techniques. The aim
was to find a technique or technology that could be developed within Technacol’s facilities for
the decomposition of plastics, so it will have to take into account the technical shortcomings
that the team may find in Technacol’s laboratory.

18
Once the Discovery phase was completed, the team had an overview of the different techni-
ques available for the treatment of plastic waste and the technologies used. We then moved
onto the Execution phase, where the experiments and laboratory work were developed and
executed. In this phase the experiments to be performed were defined, the responsible labo-
ratory personnel were contacted to assign slots where the engineering team can work, and the
planned work was developed. In this phase, the results obtained at Technacol’s facilities were
interpreted and discussed.

The last phase, Delivery, will be a phase of documenting the results obtained, as well as writing
the final report, where all the work done to date by the team will be laid out in great detail. In
addition, a presentation will be prepared to present the project to an external audience.

To view the Gantt-chart of our project planning, please see appendix 2.

6.5. Communication plan

For this project, a communication plan was created. A communications plan is a tool used to
provide stakeholders with information. The plan formally defines who should be given specific
information, when that information should be delivered and what communication channels
will be used to deliver that information.

Despite the situation (Covid-19), most of the communication between the EPS group and su-
pervisors was face-to-face, but mails and online meetings were used as well. The platform used
for this was Microsoft Teams. A more detailed plan for communication is presented below.

Tab 4. Communications Plan setup for Project

Reasons for Communications Method Audience Frequency Comments

Communication activity
Regular status Steering group Physical Team mem- Every Standard
overview and meeting meeting at bers workday agenda
agreement on TECHNACOL morning,
upcoming tasks 15-20 mins
General com- Steering group WhatsApp Team mem- Almost Discuss
munication. discussion bers daily doubts, infor-
mal discussi-
on.
Plan of action Steering group Trello Team mem- Last 15 Planning and
and follow up. activity. bers mins of agreement of
working tasks, mo-
hours. nitoring of
tasks.

19
Meeting to Supervisor Online or Team Once a Projection
review project meeting physical members week with direction dis-
status meeting. & project technical cussion and
supervisor supervisor, approvals for
once in tasks monito-
2 weeks ring methods
with ma-
nagement
supervisor
Make sure Meeting minu- Email Team 24-72 Content
agreed tasks are tes members hours after based on
completed and & project supervisor supervisor
followed up supervisor meeting. meeting.
Update on Progress report. Email All partners When Sharing
project quality identified important recent suc-
performance and poten- tasks are cess and
tial mem- completed increasing
bers awareness of
issues.
Small discussi- Casual commu- Email or Team mem- Whene- Quick ques-
ons nication physical bers with ver du- tions and
meeting at project ring work doubts regar-
supervisors supervisors hours. ding work.
office

Prior to meetings with the supervisors, an

agenda was sent to both them and the EPS
team members to inform them in advance of
the topics that needed to be discussed. When
a meeting was finished, a minutes-document
was drafted which contained a detailed over-
view about the topics discussed in the meet-
ing. This document was then sent to all the
participants of the meeting, no longer than 48
hours after the meeting.

Shown here is an example of such an agenda

document.

All the communication happening in this pro-

ject, between the EPS group and with the su-
pervisors was all in English.

Fig 5. Example Agende Document

20
7. Technical progress
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. Polymer’s summary
• An introduction to polymers
A polymer is a large macromolecule of high molecular weight which is composed of many
repeating units called monomers. These monomers are bonded to one another, like links in a
chain. However, branching and cross-linking between chains can happen. Monomers can even
bond together in a two- or three-dimensional polymer network.

Polymers are very plentiful on the surface of the earth, both natural and synthetic. We come
across polymers every minute of the day. Artificially produced polymers include plastics,
elastomers, some fibres, and many more. When you brush your teeth in the morning, the
toothbrush you have is most likely made of plastic, which is a polymer.

Plastics are the more common name for polymers. Examples of some polymers include poly-
ethylene, PVS, nylon, and many more. They can be moulded into shape while soft, and then
set once cooled.

• Degradation of marine plastics

When waste plastic is left in the sea, some common traits can be observed. The larger pieces of
plastic (hereafter known as parallelepipeds) would float with one face generally continuously
exposed to the sun. The physical degradation this leads to, combined with the stresses from
the force of the water will result in fragmentation.

Fig 6. Marine Plastic Degradation

This fragmentation tends to take place along existing flaws in the plastic. The smaller paralle-
lepipeds formed from this fragmentation tend to form once their width and height are roughly
equal to the thickness of the original parallelepiped. These smaller, cubic parallelepipeds tend
to continually spin near the surface of the water, making the possibility of each face getting
exposed to the sun more likely. Hence when we mention “Marine Degradation” it comprises
of all the possible breakdown the plastics underwent in the form of UV degradation, physical
degradation by animals, chemical degradation under sea water.

21
7.1.2. Composting summary
Compost is an organic material procured by utilising bacteria and fungi to break down complex
organic compounds into simpler organic substances, creating a mulch rich in microbes, nitro-
gen and other ingredients that help promote plant growth, which obviously makes it a very
important part of global agricultural sector.

The main ingredients for compost are nitrogen (Ni), oxygen (O), carbon (C) and water (H2O).
The nitrogen promotes bacterial growth, the carbon-rich material – as it decomposes – pro-
vides for the microbes. The oxygen decomposes the carbon, and the water regulates sustains
the process.

7.2. Methods
7.2.1. Existing methods for breaking down polymers
In this day and age, recycling of plastics is a very popular idea. In reality only around 10% of all
the plastic that is produced is recycled, due to difficulties in sorting waste and contamination
of plastics. As well as this, recycling plastics is not a permanent solution. As plastics are used,
they age and degrade. New ‘virgin’ plastic will degrade over time, after each subsequent use.
Eventually the properties of the plastic will have been reduced to such a degree that is useless.

At this stage, the plastics must be disposed of. At the moment there are only two widely adop-
ted methods – landfill and incinerators. Both of these methods are very harmful to the en-
vironment, and are largely unproductive (although some incinerators use the heat generated
as a by-product for power generation).

When plastics are put to landfill, there is a detrimental effect on the environment. Plastics are
washed away in the rain to rivers, and then ultimately to the sea, where they enter the food
chain. From here, they are eventually consumed by humans, as well as a great many more
animals.

7.2.2. Chemical Solvents

The use of chemicals as a way to break down substances is a well-documented method that
has been used throughout most of history. As such, there is plenty of literature on the subject
of decomposing substances using solvents of various kinds. Every material has some substance
or process that, when applied properly, cause the degradation of said material. As the plastics
we are dealing with do not have particularly complex chemical structures, it is likely that the
steps necessary to break them down will be quite basic, and therefore not too expensive.

22
7.2.3. Supercritical fluids
Supercritical (SC) fluids are fluids which exist
as both liquids and gases at the same time.
At a specific temperature and pressure, the
boundary between these two states of mat-
ter weakens, and eventually ceases existing
altogether. In this state, the SC fluid develops
some very interesting and useful properties.
Traditionally, liquids and gases have been
used as solvents to dissolve various materials,
polymers included. These processes are usu-
ally slow however, and quite energy intensive. Fig 7. Phasediagram of Water
The use of SC fluids greatly decreases the time
it takes for this process to take place, as well as increasing the effectiveness of the process.
There is already some literature on using SC fluids to depolymerise PET, so the likelihood of this
method working is quite high.

7.2.4. Plastivorous micro-organisms

Micro-organisms exist in nearly every part of the world, and as such have all adapted to live in
their respective ecosystems. Recently, bacteria have been discovered that has adapted to feed
off of plastics, as well as there being studies into enzymes that can break them down. With the
right combination of environment and bacteria, it is entirely possible that a strain of bacteria
will be found that will be capable of quickly depolymerising large amounts of plastic. As it is a
chemical/material-based lab that we are working in however, our capacity to work with ‘live’
resources is limited.

7.2.5. Chosen methods

The method we settled upon was the use of chemical solvents in an effort to depolymerise
the plastic samples. From a practical point of view, this was the best one for us to pursue for
a number of reasons. Testing with SC fluids would require the use of a supercritical reactor,
a piece of equipment that we do not have at our disposal, and would be very expensive to
purchase/hire. In a similar vein, testing plastivorous micro-organisms is not a viable option for
us, due to the CRTCI building not having the necessary equipment to use/store live organisms.
As Technacol is a company specialising in material engineering, they have access to the neces-
sary chemicals and equipment that we can use for our testing.

Solvents are the name given to the major component of a given solution. Therefore, almost
any liquid can and is a solvent in some regard. We will be using Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) dis-
solved in ethylene glycol as our solvent, with the waste plastic being the solute.

In an ideal scenario, we would focus our efforts upon SC fluids. However, as the facilities that
we have at our disposal are not equipped with the necessary resources to explore this avenue
to a satisfactory degree, we have had to defer to chemical solvents for this project. We feel
that SC fluids have the most potential for being able to break down plastics with a minimal
carbon footprint, and as such feel it merits further research.

23
7.3. Experiments
7.3.1. Waste polymer identification
7.3.1.1. Materials and methods
Depending on the molecules, polymers can be simple or more complex. It is important that in
this project the most prevalent plastics found in the ocean are represented. Plastics that end
up in the oceans are mostly of the single use variety. Low-cost materials used for this purpose
are mainly polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene. PE, PP and PS are very similar, with
them all containing only carbon and hydrogen atoms.

For this project, five samples were selected. They were cleaned with water, and a scraper was
used to get rid of excess dirt that was adhered to the plastics that could hinder our testing of
the surfaces of these materials.

These samples are described as follows:

Tab 5. Plastic Samples Classification

Sample Material Product Pictures

number
1 Polyethylene te- Drinking cup
rephthalate

2 Polypropylene Drinking bottle

24
3 Polystyrene Drinking cup

4 Polystyrene Yoghurt pot

25
 5 High density polyet- Waste disposal bag
hylene

The instrument used in this project is a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR) which
produces an infrared spectrum. An infrared spectrum can be visualized in a graph of infrared
absorbance on the y-axis versus the frequency or wavelength on the x-axis. The units of fre-
quency used in the infrared spectrum are reciprocal centimetres (or sometimes called wave
numbers).

Infrared spectroscopy was selected as the analytical technique to determine the polymers. As
mentioned in the polymer summary section, plastics degrade after being in the ocean for a
long time. With the FTIR we will be able to see what has changed on a molecular level.

This is possible through the analysis of the infrared light emitted by the FTIR interacting with
the molecules on the surface of the sample. This can be analysed in three ways by measuring
the absorption, emission and reflection of the infrared light.

7.3.1.2. FTIR: Effects of Aging

The aim of the FTIR analyses of selected samples is to understand the ageing of plastics in the
ocean.

The waste samples taken from the ocean have been exposed to salt water and sunlight over a
long period of time. Being in an aqueous environment, it is possible that certain chemical com-
pounds have migrated from the plastic into the ocean and therefore the chemical composition
of the sample is not the same as the plastic when it was manufactured.

It is therefore necessary, first of all, to understand the composition of the waste obtained from
the ocean, because it can affect the possible processes to which these plastics are subjected.

The following is a comparison, for each type of polymer in this study, between a sample that
has not been in the ocean, which we will call a fresh sample, and a sample collected from the
ocean.

26
The first phase of results obtained, normalised and compared. The results of those are presen-
ted below.

Graph 2. FTIR Comparison of Sample 1 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

Graph 3. FTIR Comparison of Sample 2 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

We can observe the water molecules that are present on the surface of the waste sample, as
their emissions appear between 3500-3000 cm-1. The degraded polypropylene sample also
shows a massive change in structure in its chemical bonds in the sub-2000 cm-1 range. We
will see a further example of these changes in later experiments we conduct on the samples.

27
 Graph 4. FTIR Comparison of Sample 3 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

Graph 5. FTIR Comparison of Sample 4 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

Samples 3 and 4 were both polystyrene, and, relatively to the rest of our samples, showed very
little deviation from their original structure when compared to their fresh samples. It could
be owed to the additives and coating added during their production, enabling them to resist
marine degradation relatively well compared to the rest.

Although we can see waste sample 3 across 3500-3000 cm-1 depicting water molecule presen-
ce, this could be due to the fact that it was a PS drinking cup with the sole purpose of holding
liquids.

28
 Graph 6. FTIR Comparison of Sample 5 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

The observation of the first two peaks is important in this case. We see the alkanes from 2925-
2850 cm-1 appearing at a lower intensity in the waste sample. What we also see is the lower
intensity of the aliphatic bonds at 2890-2880 cm-1 among the waste samples. This indicates
that the changes marine degradation has on polyethylene plastic are far larger than the minu-
te affects it has on polystyrene.

7.3.1.3. Conclusion
After analysing and comparing the spectra of the waste plastic samples with those of the fresh
plastic samples, a common trait can be seen in all the waste plastic samples is the presence
of water. This is observed in the spectra of the waste plastic samples as a rounded crest in the
3300 cm-1 region. Although it is more significant in sample 2, it can be affirmed that water
particles are embedded between the polymer molecules when they are in an aqueous media
such as the sea for a long time.

Apart from this though, no significant changes in the chemical composition of the molecules
are found, except in sample 2.

To better understand these changes present in sample 2, it should be noted that it is a soft
drink bottle. This type of packaging was initially made of polypropylene, but in recent years
polyethylene terephthalate has been used. This, together with the state of deterioration, indi-
cates that the sample has been adrift in the ocean for many years.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that the sample that is the oldest
and is in the worst condition, is the one with the highest presence of water and the greatest
changes in its composition.
Later on, we will study what other characteristics this sample has and what other conclusions
can be drawn about it.

29
7.3.2. Thermal analysis of polymer degradation
For investigating the thermal degradation of waste polymers as a function of increasing tem-
perature, a technique is needed where the heating of the samples can be controlled and the
exact temperatures throughout the process can be recorded. Therefore, a thermogravimetric
analysis is the best technique for this test.

Thermogravimetric analysis or thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) is a method in which the

mass of a plastic sample in a furnace is measured over time as the temperature increases at a
specified rate. This gives us information about physical as well as chemical phenomena.

The principal of TGA is simple. A sample is put in a small crucible which is made of a material
that is inert and stable at high temperatures. Platinum and aluminium oxide are both materials
that are often used. This crucible is placed on a very sensitive scale. The scale is fixed in place,
so to heat the sample the oven is raised up to cover both the scale and the sample, instead of
the sample being lowered into the oven. When the temperature increases, the scale records
the changing mass of the sample to a very high degree of precision. More modern TGA instru-
ments have a computer which regulates the temperature, with the mass being measured elec-
tronically at regular time intervals. Because the temperatures in the oven of the TGA can go up
to 1000 °C, the space around the small dish has a weak flow of an inert gas to prevent the sam-
ple burning too quickly. Most of the time, these gases are helium or nitrogen. Depending on
the gas, the temperature of the oven can be regulated to varying degrees of precision. Helium
has a better ability to transfer the heat from the oven to the sample than nitrogen, however
due to the creation of an artificial compost-like environment not being available, we wanted to
check the influence nitrogen would have in the breakdown of these plastics. Therefore, in our
situation, nitrogen gas is preferred.

The thermogravimetric data collected from a thermal reaction is compiled into a plot of mass
or percentage of the initial mass on the y-axis against temperature or time on the x-axis. This
plot is called the TGA-curve.

7.3.2.1. Thermogravimetric Analysis

Generally, TGA is divided into three different kinds of analysis. The first one is isothermal or
static thermal analysis. In this type of TGA, the mass is measured as a function of the time at
a constant temperature. The second one is dynamic thermal analysis. In this type of analysis,
the mass is measured in an environment in which the temperature changes in a linear fashion.
The last one is quasistatic thermal analysis. In this analysis, the sample is heated until a certain
mass is reached, under a series of increasing temperatures. We opted for the dynamic thermal
analysis, in order to study the effect of temperature changes under N2, so we can see the ef-
fect on the mass of the plastic samples (Corneliu and Jebelean, 2009) (ISO 13802:2015, 2021).

Because TGA is a simple technique, it is often combined with other instruments. One such that
allows us to analyse the gas flow that has been around the sample as well as its emissions is
by using an FT-IR. This allows us to determine how the sample has degraded during the TGA
process. The experiments were done initially under air as the reactive gas, to allow us to find
the respective temperatures at which the plastic samples are reaching their degradation point
(which is the point at which the properties that make a material difficult to break down start

30
to degrade). They were also conducted under air to find the respective temperatures at which
they achieve equilibrium.

• Experimental Parameters of TGA

Tab 6. The Different Experimental Parameters of TGA

Under Air for Ma- Under Nitrogen for Under Nitrogen for
rine Waste Plastic Marine Waste Plastic Fresh Waste Plastic
Atmosphere Air Nitrogen Nitrogen
Atmosphere Flow Rate 50ml/min 50ml/min 50ml/min
Sample Holder Ceramic Pan Ceramic Pan Ceramic Pan
Sample Weight 1-10 mg 70-200mg 70-200mg
Temperature Programme 25°C to 600°C 25°C to 600°C 25°C to 600°C
Heating Rate 10°C/min 10°C/min 10°C/min

7.3.2.2. Results of the TGA

Thermogravimetric analysis was undertaken for the 3 fresh polymers and 5 waste polymers
without the presence of nitrogen. Sample preparation was kept to a with us only being requi-
red to cut them into small pieces of around 4-5mm for it to fit in the crucible

At such high heat, the chemistry is chaotic. Plastic molecules break down randomly, generating
a complex mixture of compounds that can be burned as fuel, but are too unstable to be used
to make new materials. The temperatures at which the polymers start to thermally decompo-
se were recorded and compared.

31
7.3.2.3.3. Comparing Waste Plastic in Different Atmospheres
Shown below are all of our TGA results showing the degradation of waste plastic in both air
and nitrogen, with individual comparisons following:

Graph 7. TGA Comparison of all Waste Plastic Samples in Air

These graphs represent how the presence of impurities in the waste samples, present through
sun exposure and marine degradation, can have an effect on the onset temperature of degra-
dation, the number of decomposition stages, the gradient of the TGA curve and the amount
of residue left after heating.

The samples were tested according to the parameters shown in Table 3.0. We can observe
that when the plastics were degrading under air, they were following a trend of increasing
their mass before proceeding as expected (mass loss). We surmised that this was due to the
oxidation of the polymers under the influence of air and increasing temperature. This led us
to find the temperature degradation points that we can use to adjust the parameters of our
experiments using nitrogen.

Following this, the samples were tested according to the parameters shown in Table 3.2. The
waste plastics were tested under nitrogen according to the temperature observations taken
from the test conducted under air.

32
 Graph 8. TGA Comparison of all Fresh and Waste Plastics under N2

At first, it was observed that the shape of the graphs changed depending on the atmosphere
in which the experiment was carried out. For a better understanding of what was happening,
the behaviour of the polymers for each atmosphere was compared for each waste sample.

Graph 9. TGA Comparison of Sample 1 in AIR vs. Nitrogen

33
 Graph 10. TGA Comparison of Sample 2 in Air vs. Nitrogen

Graph 11. TGA Comparison of Sample 3 in Air vs. Nitrogen

Samples 1 and 3 degrade easier in air than under nitrogen, despite them actually undergoing
an initial increase in mass when being combusted in air. The point at which the temperatu-
re degraded was also achieved more quickly. Proper combustion would explain the speed at
which they burn so fast in air. Sample 2, with polypropylene being a more complex polymer
with a more complex structure, disintegrated in multiple steps. This style of disintegration is

34
followed by the respective waste plastic, but at a slightly lesser intensity when compared to
the fresh plastic sample.

Graph 12. TGA Comparison of Sample 4 in Air vs. Nitrogen

We can observe sample 4 degrading in nitrogen at a rate similar to that of sample 3, as they
are the same material. However, we can see how Sample 4 in air increases in mass initially,
and later see its mass dropping drastically. This was not the case for sample 3, that dropped
more gradually compared to sample 4. We can infer that, with sample 4 being a yogurt cup and
putting the recent observations on styrene migration into context, it is when small amounts of
PS disintegrate and get infused with the product it is used to contain. The level of styrene mi-
gration from polystyrene cups was monitored in different food systems including: water, milk
(0.5, 1.55 and 3.6% fat) (Tawfik MS, Huyghebaert A. Polystyrene cups and containers: styrene
migration. 1998).

35
 Graph 13. TGA Comparison of Sample 5 in Air vs. Nitrogen

The next phase of our comparisons needed the data from the TGA on the fresh plastic samples
of PE, PS and PP respectively. This was to enable us to compare the differences between the
fresh and waste samples, and how they were affected by the onset degradation temperature,
the number of decomposition steps, the gradient of the TGA curve and the amount of residue
left after heating.

It can be clearly seen which plastics decompose via a single step or with multiple weight-loss
steps. The variation in the amount of residue left after degradation is also apparent.

The graphs above enabled us to recognize the difference in how the plastics reach their tem-
perature degradation point, and allow us to determine a temperature at which all the samples
would break down efficiently. We performed a superposition of the respective temperature
values that were achieved during the TGAs of the appropriate individual waste samples to
achieve the proposed temperature at which we would like to test our blend plastic samples.

Shown on the next page is a compilation of the 5% temperature degradation points for the
plastic samples to allow us to determine the optimal temperature for the plastic blend. The 5%
value is the one we chose, as it is when the plastic starts to degrade, meaning it becomes sui-
table for analysis, while there still remains an amount that will be suitable enough for analysis.

36
 Tab 7. 5% Degradation Temperature of Plastic Samples

Plastic Samples 5% Temp Degradation

Sample 1 N2 (PET) 422.63°C
Sample 2 N2 (PP) 267.17°C
Sample 3 N2 (PS) 393.86°C
Sample 4 N2 (PS) 393.67°C
Sample 5 N2 (PE) 441.50°C
Fresh PP 409.80°C
Fresh PS 396.48°C
Fresh PE 454.54°C

As we observed on Table # 5% degradation temperature :

• For the polystyrene samples, no significant difference was found between the onset degra-
dation temperatures of Samples 3,4 and Fresh PS.
• The lower weight of waste sample 2 polypropylene (W =120.22 mg) had a lower onset
temperature than the fresh PP sample 2 (W =185.80 mg), with the 142ºC reduction sugge-
sting that the variation in sample weight has an effect on the onset temperature of degra-
dation. However, this was not the case for the rest of the samples.
• Comparing the onset temperatures of degradation for pure polymers with their corres-
ponding waste polymer, the difference in most - excluding the PP onset temperature - was
within 10ºC, with some showing a reduction in temperature and others an increase.
• This suggests that this small difference may be due to slight differences in purity of the
polymer or polymer chain length. Waste polyethylene and polypropylene (S2) have a lower
onset temperature, suggesting that the presence of additive impurities in the waste sam-
ples may decompose first and help the degradation mechanism of the polymer.
• Waste polystyrene also showed a decrease in onset temperature of degradation, which
could possibly be due to the sample being of a lower molecular weight than its pure coun-
terpart.

37
7.3.2.4.4. Compare Waste Plastic and New Plastic in Nitrogen
The graphs below show the thermal degradation of the samples under an oxygen-free atmosp-
here. The original and the waste plastic sample are compared in each graph to see if the aging
in the ocean affects the thermal degradation of the sample.

Graph 14. TGA Comparison of Waste PP (Sample 1) vs. Fresh PP under Nitrogen

Graph 15. TGA Comparison of Waste PP (Sample 2) vs. Fresh PP under Nitrogen

38
Graph 16. TGA Comparison of Waste PS (Sample 3) vs. Fresh PS under Nitrogen

Graph 17. TGA Comparison of Waste PS (Sample 4) vs. Fresh PS under Nitrogen

39
 Graph 18. TGA Comparison of Waste PE (Sample 5) vs. Fresh PE under Nitrogen

7.3.2.5.5. Compare Polystyrene and Polyethylene in Nitrogen

As the composition and structure of the polymers is a determining factor in the resistance to
thermal degradation, we considered it interesting to compare the TGA results for the polysty-
rene and polyethylene samples, both for the waste and fresh plastic samples.

Polyethylene is the most commercially used plastic in the world. It is used to make grocery
bags, shampoo bottles, children’s toys, and even bullet proof vests. For such a versatile ma-
terial, it has a very simple structure, the simplest of all commercial polymers. A molecule of
polyethylene is nothing more than a long chain of carbon atoms, with two hydrogen atoms
attached to each carbon atom.

Fig 8. Molecular Structure of Polyethylene

Sometimes some of the carbons, instead of having hydrogens attached to them, will have long
chains of polyethylene attached to them. This is called branched, or low-density polyethylene
(LDPE). When there is no branching, it is called linear polyethylene, or high-density polyethy-
lene (HDPE). Linear polyethylene is much stronger than branched polyethylene, but branched
polyethylene is cheaper and easier to make.

40
 Fig 9. Structure of HDPE and LDPE
Polystyrene is an inexpensive and hard plastic, and probably only polyethylene is more com-
mon in everyday life. Styrene is a low-cost monomer, and its polymerization is easy, making PS
one of the cheapest plastics on the market.

Polystyrene is manufactured through the polymerization of styrene, C8H8 (formula shown be-
low). The styrene molecule contains an aromatic ring, C6H5, a very common feature in organic
chemistry, and a vinyl group, -CH=CH2, containing a C=C double bond.

All monomers containing a vinyl group, including styrene, can polymerize. The C=C double
bond opens up, leaving a single bond, and the two electrons of the second bond are used to
form new bonds between molecules, thus forming the polymer chain.

Fig 10. Molecular Structure of Polystyrene

As discussed above, the polystyrene and polyethylene molecules are quite similar. That is why
we wanted to make a comparison of their behavior in the TGA for both the fresh and the waste
samples.

41
 Graph 19. TGA Comparison of Waste PS (Sample 4) vs. Waste (Sample 5) under Nitrogen

Graph 20. TGA Comparison of Fresh PS vs. Fresh PE under Nitrogen

It can be seen in the graph that polyethylene is more resistant to temperature. This is due to
the aromatic ring that the polystyrene molecule contains.

Polystyrene has aromatic functions which provide it thermal stability. Nevertheless, the pre-
sence of these aromatic functions disorganise the structure of the molecules, creating a lot of

42
free volumes within the polymer. These free volumes give more room for oxygen to enter the
polymer and react with it. That could explain why polystyrene is more sensitive to thermal
oxidation than the very organized and very condensed polyethylene.

7.3.2.6. Conclusion
As a final conclusion to the comparisons of the TGA results, it can be said that the behavior
of the samples collected from the ocean and the fresh samples are mostly the same at high
temperatures, with both maintaining the same degradation temperature of 5% weight loss.

If you look at all the graphs, you can see that there is a big difference in the behavior of the po-
lypropylene sample (Sample 2) collected from the ocean compared to the fresh polypropylene
sample.

In the TGA graph of the waste polypropylene, the first significant step in mass loss is observed
around 270 ºC, and then another step which is shared with the fresh polypropylene sample
around 400 ºC.

Graph 21. TGA Comparison of Waste PP (Sample 2) vs. Fresh PP under Nitrogen

The multiple step breakdown observed suggests that the polypropylene sample collected from
the ocean has been severely damaged and undergone significant changes to its molecular
structure.

To better understand this event, FTIR analysis of the damaged sample collected from the ocean
and the fresh plastic sample will be compared.

43
 Graph 22. FTIR Comparison of Sample 2 vs. Fresh PP before TGA

Among the observations that can be seen in the spectrum of the ocean sample, we find a
rounded zone around 3300 cm-1 that indicates the presence of water in the sample. In this
case, the most interesting thing to note is that new peaks have appeared in the spectrum in
the area to the right, which confirms that chemical and structural changes have occurred in
the polypropylene molecules.

These changes in the FTIR, when considered with the results of the TGA and the comparison of
the samples, affirm that the plastics left long enough in the ocean, in this case polypropylene,
suffer damage that makes it difficult, or even impossible to conventionally recycle the waste
collected from the ocean.

7.3.3. FTIR after TGA

Referring to the graphs of thermal degradation of the samples in the TGA, the mass loss achie-
ved is almost 100%. On the one hand, this demonstrates that it is possible to degrade both sets
of plastics - those collected from the ocean and those in good condition - to near disappearan-
ce at high temperatures.

On the other hand, because the degradation is not total, it means that at the end of the ex-
periment there is still some residual material that has not been able to decompose. These
residues were extracted from the crucible in which the sample was introduced for the TGA and
analysed in the FTIR.

The results of comparing the spectra of the TGA residue to the spectra of the pre-TGA samples
are shown below.

The aim is to find out which components are more resistant to temperature, and therefore to
degradation. This process was carried out with both the waste and the fresh plastic samples.

44
7.3.3.1. FTIR Results: Waste Plastic Samples

Graph 23. FTIR Comparison of Sample 1 vs. Sample 1 Ashes after TGA

The graph indicates that the Sample 1 PP completely disintegrates after the TGA procedure.
However, as the graph peaks below the baseline, there is little information we can reliably
gather from it.

Graph 24. FTIR Comparison of Sample 2 vs. Sample 2 Ashes after TGA

Like in other samples, we can see the breakdown of the C-H bonds. There seems to be a bond
that was created during the process, at the 1600cm-1 mark. This is likely to be a N-H (Nitrogen-
-Hydrogen) primary amine bond formed during the combustion process, when a bond formed
between nitrogen and hydrogen as the sample broke down. It’s interesting to note that the

45
bonds formed during the sample’s time in the ocean have almost all been completely broken
down by the TGA, indicating that they can be destroyed.

Graph 25. FTIR Comparison of Sample 3 vs. Sample 3 Ashes after TGA

Shown above are the results of sample 3 (PS). We can see that there was a near total break-
down in the chemical bonds of the plastic, letting us know that the TGA was successful in
thermally degrading the PS.

Graph 26. FTIR Comparison of Sample 4 vs. Sample 4 Ashes after TGA

Again, the graph shows the near complete breakdown of the PS, as in Sample 3.

46
 Graph 27. FTIR Comparison of Sample 5 vs. Sample 5 Ashes after TGA

Here we have sample 5 (HDPE). We can see that the main C-H (Carbon-Hydrogen) bonds at
the ~3000cm-1 have been completely destroyed. This is understandable, as these bonds are
known to be weak. The C-C (Carbon-Carbon) bonds in the sub-1500cm-1 region have remain-
ed more stable, although they have degraded slightly. This is indicative of the formation of
charcoal. However, there are also bonds at the far right of the graph, implying that new bonds
are forming from the degraded plastic remains.

7.3.3.2. FTIR Results: Fresh Plastic Samples

Graph 28. FTIR Comparison of Fresh PP vs. Fresh PP Ashes after TGA

47
Due to the noise present in this graph, with peaks passing below their baseline, these results
are too inaccurate to be used for analysis confidently.

Graph 29. FTIR Comparison of Fresh PS vs. Fresh PS Ashes after TGA

Again, due to excessive noise, this graph is not fit for analysis.

Graph 30. FTIR Comparison of Fresh PE vs. Fresh PE Ashes after TGA

In this case, a clearer spectrum and the appearance of new peaks in the residue is observed.
This means that the molecule, and therefore the chemical composition in the compound, is
changing, giving rise to new chemical bonds that can be seen on the right-hand side of the
graph.

48
7.3.3.3. Conclusion
As mentioned above, the aim of this is to try to find out which samples are more resistant to
temperature and therefore to degradation. This process was carried out with both waste plas-
tic and fresh plastic samples.

Although it is true that after TGA the decomposition was not complete and some residue
remained, these were of the order of 1 milligram, and in some cases even lower. To analyse
them in the FTIR, it was necessary to scrape the walls of the container in which the sample was
placed to obtain a kind of powdery residue.

In addition to the difficulty of extracting the sample, there was also the issue of securely pla-
cing the sample in the FTIR and obtaining a good contact with the diamond in order to make
an accurate and valid analysis.

As a general aspect, it can be observed that the spectrum of the residues shows peaks below
the baseline. This indicates that the signal is very poor and that there is not enough present for
an accurate reading, meaning the signal is not valid for analysis.

At first, we tried to stop the TGA experiment before the total degradation of the sample in or-
der for us to have more material to analyse, but unfortunately this did not consist of residue,
but of waste and undegraded material, so these analyses are not valid either.

The most significant spectra are the polyethylene samples, both waste and fresh plastic. In
these cases, new peaks appear in the right-hand region, indicating a rearrangement of the
elements and the appearance of new bonds.

7.3.4. Plastic Depolymerization

“The development of a class of next-gen polymers, called PDKs, for poly(diketoenamine)s, was
reported in Nature Chemistry in 2019. “PDKs have the ability to break their bonds under relati-
vely mild conditions — certainly with much lower energy intensity than any of the plastics that
are currently used today” says study coauthor Brett Helms, a chemist at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory in California. Simply dunking the plastic in an acid solution with a pH of
1 or 2 is enough to break the bonds between its monomer building blocks. “Materials don’t
usually encounter a pH that’s that low, so it’s not like if you put PDKs in vinegar, the polymer
is going to start breaking down” Helms says. But it could make for easy recycling. This helped
us direct and come across a plan that would let us depolymerise the waste samples via alkali
treatments.”

Most of the procedures available were setup for individual and separate depolymerisation of
our respective plastic samples. We had to come up with a solution that was suitable for a blend
of polymers.

We modified existing experimental methods that we found during the course of our research,
and used this to treat the plastic blend. Our method involved treating the plastics in alkali so-
lution of sodium hydroxide and ethylene glycol. The full depolymerisation experiment can be
found in Appendix 4.

49
The aim of this experiment is to derive plastic monomers from marine waste plastics PE, PP
and PS through the use of sodium hydroxide as a solvent. We would like to test these mo-
nomers as they are obtained from the Marine Waste Plastic, compare them to the original
monomers and study the changes in the recyclability and ability of this plastic to be recycled
after aquatic and UV stress.

In experiments we found online detailing methods to depolymerise PET, two monomers were
the result of the experiment—modified ethylene glycol and purified terephthalic acid.
The aim is to use the same reagents to obtain possible monomers of other polymers such as
PE, PP and PS.

• Polypropylene (PP)

Fig 11. Polymerization process of propylene to polypropylene

• Polyethylene (PE)

Fig 12. Polymerization process of ethylene to polyethylene

• Polystyrene (PS)

Fig 13. Polymerization process of styrene to polystyrene

We aim at obtaining the monomers of the following three polymers by either carrying out the
reactions individually for each - PS, PP, PE - or by combining them in the same reaction.

(C3H6) n + C2H6O2 + 2NaOH C3H6 + Alkali Soln

(C8H8) n + C2H6O2 + 2NaOH C8H8 + Alkali soln
(C2H4) n + C2H6O2 + 2NaOH C2H4 + Alkali soln

50
The final process also involved the neutralisation of the remaining solvent via sulphuric acid.
However, we were working under the supervision of Guillaume Morel, who suggested to store
the solvent in a chemical disposal bottle made of a non-reactive material and to then send it
to a company called PSI that deals with the treatment of TECHNACOL’s chemical waste. PSI
generally incinerates these solvents.

7.3.4.1. TGA and FTIR Results of Plastic Treatment

After depolymerization of the plastic blend, we thought it would be interesting to also analyse
the remains. A TGA was set up in combination with an FTIR. The product obtained by the de-
polymerization was tested in the TGA and the released gases were analysed in the FTIR.

Comparing the depolymerized plastic blend to the original samples, it was assumed that the
blend would degrade at a lower temperature, since the polymers had been broken down into
monomers.

The TGA was set up with the following parameters:

Tab 8. Parameters for Depolymerised Blend
Under Air for Marine Waste Plastic
Atmosphere N2
Atmosphere Flow Rate 100ml/min
Sample Holder Ceramic Pan
Sample Weight 30mg
Temperature Programme 400C

The programme was set up in a manner to observe the FTIR at a constant high temperature.
Initially, the samples went from 25-400C in 2 minutes, which was followed by 3 hrs of constant
observation at 400C. It was important for us to observe the changes in structure and surface
via the FTIR while the TGA was being conducted, hence the reason to keep a constant tempe-
rature of 400C. Shown below is the TGA-curve of the depolymerized blend:

Graph 31. TGA Analysis of Depolymerised Blend

51
Presented below are 2 graphs obtained by the FTIR with the TGA. In graph in the upper half:
the intensity is set out according to the time in minutes. In the lower half, the FTIR results are
shown. In the first part, the FTIR is shown at minute 63, where the intensity is at his highest. In
the second part, the FTIR is shown at minute 180.

Fig 14. FTIR Results of the Depolymerised Blend at Minute 63

Fig 15. FTIR Results of the Depolymerised Blend at Minute 180

Looking at the whole graph, the intensity is very low. The highest peak is only around 0,016.
If we compare the FTIR of minute 63 and 180, there is no significant difference. The only peak
that fluctuates is the peak at 2350 cm-1. This is the released carbon dioxide when burning the
sample.

52
7.3.4.2. Conclusion
The depolymerisation experiment resulted in various observations depending on the plastics
samples that were put in. Collective and individual analysis of the blend after the depolymeri-
sation was done. Furthermore, the physical properties of the materials seemed different than
they were before the treatment.

The samples after depolymerization showed changes in colour, fluctuations in rigidity (some
being more and some being less ductile than before), changes in shape and differences in sur-
face texture as well, that we assumed were shown via the FTIR. The individual observations of
the samples are in the same order of their respective numbers presented below:

Fig 16. Sample 1, Before & After Fig 17. Sample 2, Before & After Fig 18. Sample 3, Before & After
Depolymerisation Depolymerisation Depolymerisation

Fig 19. Sample 4, Before & After Fig 20. Sample 5, Before & After
Depolymerisation Depolymerisation

Sample 1 appeared to be an almost completely different material and had a soft, wax-like tex-
ture and feel. It was also more elastic than its pre-polymerised counterpart. Sample 2 showed
discolouration, was less flexible and seemed brittle. It had turned completely opaque and had
actually thickened, as if it had swollen. Samples 3 and 4 were shown to lose colour and became
a more rigid, with no signs of elasticity. Sample 4 was more brittle and started to show delami-
nate into distinct layers. Sample 5 almost lost that stubborn quality of sticking to surfaces and
was a little brittle. It had lost a large degree of its ductility.

Moving to the collective analysis for the TGA and FTIR after the depolymerization: since the
intensity of the whole test is that low, it can be assumed that this is only noise and so this test
is irrelevant for making concrete conclusions. The fact that the intensity is so low could be a
result of the parameters of the TGA. The temperature at which it was done, 400°C, may have

53
been at a point at which the blend had already degraded. It could be possible that the depoly-
merized blend had already disintegrated. In the next steps for future groups, we recommend
that they execute this experiment again, but do so at a lower temperature. We recommend
250°C.

The difference in these temperatures leads us to observe how the temperature of 400°C was
too low a degradation temperature for our waste samples. But after depolymerisation the
temperature of 400°C was too high and we can say that our treatment has enabled our sam-
ples to degrade easier at lower temperatures, which is an indicator that the chemical bonds
are also far weaker, pointing to a more likely candidate for a compostable material.

7.3.5. Expanded Research on Unexplored Methods

7.3.5.1. Supercritical Fluids
Using SC fluids to depolymerise plastics is a process that is in fact very similar to simply dissol-
ving them in a solvent such as acetone (Kwak H., 2006). The difference is the speed and effici-
ency with which the process is carried out. Supercritical fluids, by virtue of their low viscosity
and high diffusivity, can break down substances at a far faster rate than using traditional liquid
solvents. As well as this, due to the highly sensitive nature of SC fluids, the reaction can be
fine-tuned until the optimal reaction can be found for the reaction. (Barron A., 2021)

For what we intend to do – dissolving plastics – the most suitable solvent for us is acetone. The
critical point for acetone is a temperature of 508.1K at a pressure of 4.69MPa (Toolbox, 2018).
These conditions are quite achievable in a lab environment, with the correct equipment. A
supercritical fluid reactor is a simple chamber for which the pressure and temperature can
be controlled externally. While they are available for purchase, designs do exist for personal
manufacture, like the one available on aerogel.org. These can be constructed quite cheaply,
around $2000 for a larger set-up.

In terms of the environmental impact, SC fluids are quite environmentally friendly. Acetone is
already widely used, and is known to no serious health concerns. As well as this, while it does
have some effects on marine life, it is not a very harmful substance, and does not bioaccumu-
late within plants or animals (Government, -). If it is stored and used with enough care, it is
likely that the majority of environmental risks would be mitigated. Due to the nature of SC de-
polymerization, the solvent can be reclaimed and used indefinitely for multiple reactions. This
would greatly help to keep costs down and would make for a more environmentally friendly
operation.

7.3.5.2. Plastivorous Micro-Organisms/Enzymes

All living things in the world survive by absorbing chemicals of a certain type, breaking them
down into both energy and waste, and then excreting said waste. This process of ‘breaking
down’ chemicals is made possible by enzymes – proteins that act as catalysts for chemical
reactions. The chemicals that are absorbed are usually some sort of living or decaying matter,
although there can be deviations from this pattern.

54
Recently, some strains of bacteria and enzymes have been found that are capable of breaking
down plastics (B. Zhu, 2021).

We came across a very promising bacteria for the microbial degradation of polystyrene. Ex-
traordinarily, they were reported to be able to eat and rapidly degrade up to 50% of ingested
Styrofoam (trade name of PS foam) in a 24 hour period. This was supported by the change
in chemical composition, reduction in molecular weight, and the isotopic trace after passing
through the intestinal tract.

Fig 21. Promising Bacteria for Plastic Degradation

As plastics become more and more pervasive in every aspect of our world, life is being forced
to adapt. Bacteria, some of the simplest, and therefore most mutable, life on Earth has been
the first to exhibit traits that allow it to treat plastics as a food source. With the proper culti-
vation, it is very possible that these bacteria could be used to process waste plastics, breaking
them down into other substances. However, at the moment the focus of research seems to
be increasing the efficiency and speed at which the bacteria work, with less information being
available on the waste product, and whether or not it is usable as compost or anything else.
It stands to reason though, that as energy is extracted by breaking chemical bonds, the waste
product would be weaker chemically, and would therefore be more likely to be compostable.

From the point of view of scaling this up to an industrial level, there is potential for this avenue
to yield good results. Bacteria, as long as they are kept in optimal conditions, will self-replicate,
and should work indefinitely. There may be some issues though – as they are dealing with a
wide range of plastics with an even wider range of filters and additives, the actual efficiency of
the bacteria in real-world applications may be far less than what was found in a lab environ-
ment. As well as this, bacteria do have a lifespan – and when they die, they breakdown. This,
combined with whatever waste products may be produced, could result in the production of
large amounts of greenhouse gases. However, as was said earlier in this section, further rese-
arch is needed to determine the validity of these concerns.

7.4. Discussion
7.4.1. Treatment Discussion
The polyethylene from the dissolution tends to show more rigidity and hardness when compa-
red to its polymerized counterpart. Polyesters can allow for hydrolytic degradability, allowing
for applications such as disposable bags for compostable waste. To achieve sufficient melting
and crystallization points, however, repeating aromatic units are required, with the commer-
cial products being mixed with aromatic–aliphatic polyesters. As a principle, fatty acids are an

55
attractive substrate to consider for this purpose, as they contain longer aliphatic segments
- (CH2)n - as a structural feature. This could mean that the polyethylene underwent a “saponi-
fication” instead of a dissolution. Saponification is the process by which fats are converted into
alcohols and oils when exposed to a basic liquid.

Since we had planned to only do the depolymerization and the TGA with the FTIR, we thought
it would be relevant for future groups to analyse the obtained product. For further research,
it is necessary to know exactly what the obtained product is, and to compare this monomer
blend to the original polymers. As well as this, the physical and chemical properties of the mo-
nomers could be analysed. For example, they could confirm the changes we observed in elas-
ticity and rigidity. We suggest that further tests, such as DSC and Charpy, would enable further
groups to fully analyse and appreciate our results and validate our ideas. The depolymerised
samples will be placed in a sealed bag for further analysis for future groups. At the time of
writing, we are awaiting validation of our results and conclusions from our client.

7.4.2. Methods Discussion

The method we chose to pursue was not the only one we were aware of, as stated earlier in
this section. Supercritical fluids and plastivorous bacteria were also promising in our eyes, ho-
wever, due to a number of monetary and facility constraints, pursuing them was not a viable
option for us. This does not mean that they are not valid – in fact, they may even have more
promise than the solvent method we did investigate.

The main thing to consider is the effectiveness of each method. If the method cannot degrade
plastics quickly or efficiently enough, then there is no point in pursuing a given method further.
From our experiments with solvents, there is potential, although not all the plastics present
were broken down by the process. This does not discount the solvent method completely, but
it does mean that further research is needed to find a solvent that will work with equal effec-
tiveness on the most common plastics.

With supercritical fluids, there is some research pointing towards their effectiveness at depo-
lymerising plastics. The research carried out by M. Genta et al found that using supercritical
methanol at a pressure of 14.7 MPa to depolymerise PET yielded upwards of 98% depolyme-
risation after 30 minutes, as compared ~60% yield after 100 minutes when using methanol
vapour at a pressure of 0.98 MPa.

With plastivorous micro-organisms, it is somewhat difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the

depolymerisation process. At the moment, there seems to be more research into identifying
viable bacteria, and breeding new strains to be more stable through a greater range of en-
vironments. As of the moment, it has proved to be exceedingly difficult to find any research
addressing the efficiency with which these bacteria depolymerise plastics. Further research is
needed here.

In terms of ease of set up, solvents are the strongest. The resources needed are readily availa-
ble, and the only equipment needed is something to generate sufficient heat to get the cruci-
ble up to temperature.

56
Supercritical fluids are also quite good with regards to setup costs, although the need for a su-
percritical fluid reactor suitable for an industrial would most likely prove to be very expensive.
The required resources however are also very common.

Finally, there are plastivorous micro-organisms. It should be stated that we have no expertise
on this subject, but with our basic knowledge, we can assume some things. Firstly, as bacteria
is self-replicating under the right conditions, the cost of resources would be low to naught.
However, it must be considered that the ‘plant’ where the bacteria break down the plastic
would have to be carefully controlled with regards to the bacteria’s optimal conditions so as to
maintain a stable population. Depending on how sensitive the bacteria is, this may be a com-
plex climate control system which could prove to be costly, both initially and to run.

7.4.3. Viability of method

The goal of an LCA is to not only create data but to also facilitate decisions. This is why it is
always designed with a specific goal in mind - for example, to make a product more sustaina-
ble. In our case it is to ensure our waste product of marine plastic is treated in a sustainable
manner.

The product lifecycle consists of five phases:

1. Raw Material Extraction
2. Manufacturing & Processing
3. Transportation
4. Usage & Retail
5. Waste Disposal

This study focused on the management of plastic wastes, so consideration is only given to
impacts relating to post-consumer disposal of plastics, including recycling and waste proces-
sing activities up until the point at which the material is discarded into the environment or as
energy.

• Impact of Doing Nothing

Generally, all plastics cause dangerous pollution in the soil and groundwater, while incine-
ration causes harmful substances to be released into the atmosphere, rendering them both
unsuitable as long-term solutions.

The impact of us not doing any sort of treatment on these plastics and just letting them go to
landfill or be incinerated as they are today are as follows:

PP decompose slowly over 20-30 years. This raises severe environmental issues, quite apart
from toxic additives in PP such as lead and cadmium. Incineration may release dioxins and vinyl
chloride, both of which are poisonous.

PE is estimated to take approximately 450 years to fully break down (Otake Y, Kobayashi T, Asa-
be H, Murakami N, Ono K (1995) Biodegradation of low density polyethylene,.)

PS products can persist in the environment for more than a million years, since polystyrene
is not biodegradable. Though it is slow to break down chemically, Styrofoam does however

57
fragment into small pieces, choking animals that ingest it, and clogging their digestive systems.

• Impact of our solution (theoretically)

- Raw materials
The polymers we used were PS, PE, and PP, all collected and transported to the CRTCI building
for analysis. These samples were cleaned and scraped off for some dirt and were moved for
testing and treatment. Our process involved no work on the raw material, and just the plastic
waste management and energies released or consumed during those processes.

- Transport
Transport of plastic waste to the production facility was taken into account using the “Back-
ground Data for Transport” sheet from EcoInvent, as the specific transport mode was unknown
(Borken-Kleefeld and Weidema 2013). See Appendix 3 for data. We assumed our plastic waste
to be transported via a lorry truck across a maximum distance of 600km. Although this data is
with respect to the current scenario, in ideal cases the wastes will not have to be transported
such a long distance, as treatment facilities and biodegradation plants will be located much
closer to the waste collection site.

- Usage for Testing

We assumed that the Usage phase of the plastic before and after depolymerisation was com-
prised of the number of emissions. These emissions were the result of the multiple TGA’s we
performed on the plastic samples.

Under air, the TGA will generate oxygen and release CO2. This form of pure combustion also
needs to be evaluated. Under nitrogen, the N2 in the air would react with organic matter to
create potentially toxic gases.

The incineration of 1 mg of municipal waste in MSW incinerators is associated with the pro-
duction/release of around 0.7 to 1.2 mg of carbon dioxide (CO2 output).

In subsequent calculations, the proportion of climate-relevant CO2 is figured out as an average

value of 0.415 mg of CO2 per mg of waste

Total Emission CO2 = 0.415 mg CO2 /mg waste

Tab 9. CO2 emissions of all samples

Sample Initial mass Final mass Mass of sample CO2 Emissions

burned
Sample 1 87.12 mg 0.241 mg 86.879 mg 36.05 mg CO2 /mg
Sample 2 120.22 mg 19.81 mg 100.41 mg 41.67 mg CO2 /mg
Sample 3 64.95 mg 8.39 mg 56.56 mg 23.47 mg CO2 /mg
Sample 4 87.77 mg 2.073 mg 85.69 mg 35.56 mg CO2 /mg
Sample 5 19.3 mg 2.92 mg 16.38 mg 6.79 mg CO2 /mg
Fresh PP 185.80 mg 0.76 mg 185.04 mg 76.79 mg CO2 /mg
Fresh PS 252.32 mg 1.424 mg 250.9 mg 104.12 mg CO2 /mg
Fresh PE 207.59 mg 28.93 mg 178.69 mg 74.15 mg CO2 /mg
Blend Sample 251.32 mg 16.979 mg 234.34 mg 97.25 mg CO2 /mg

58
The climate-relevant CO2 emissions from waste incineration are determined by the proporti-
on of waste whose carbon compounds are assumed to be of fossil origin. Deciding whether
to allocate to fossil or biogenic carbon has a crucial influence on the calculated amounts of
climate-relevant CO2 emissions.

To further understand what our data means in terms of environmental impact, we needed
the CI Score, which is a measurement of all total hydrocarbons, or greenhouse gases emitted,
versus the amount of energy consumed. The energy consumed was not something we could
have measured as TECHNACOL’s energy usage data was not available to us for our project work
specifically.

The TGA also involved usage of N2 gas that was done at the rate of 50ml/min. All the TGA
Samples involving nitrogen totalled 620 mins, or roughly 10.5 hours. We then proceeded to
calculate the amount of N2 used overall in our project.

Amount of N2 used across the samples = 32 Litres

Amount of N2 used for depolymerised Blend testing = 18 Litres
Total amount of N2 used = 50 Litres (A Nitrogen cylinder comprises 50L of N2)

- Waste Treatment
Waste disposal in our case refers to the solvent residues of our experiments. They were done
on the basis of two experiments - TGA and alkali dissolution. The TGA samples were almost all
incinerated, and the remaining were disposed of in chemical wastes sectors. The total dispo-
sed plastic ashes after TGA was 3010 mg.

The depolymerization process involved boiling of the ethylene glycol and NaOH solution this
was a total of 100ml of solvent with 55ml of Ethylene Glycol and 400 ml of NaOH solution.
The waste was just the solvent that remained after the plastics had been removed from the
solution. The solvent was stored in a non-reactive chemical storage bottle, and was sent to
Technacol’s regular chemical waste disposal partners. Burning of the solvent was done by a
company by the name of PSI. 350ml of the alkali solvent solution in water was left.

5.4.1. Next Steps/Comments for Future Teams

At the end of this project, our team has learnt a great deal more about plastics and depolyme-
risation than we thought we would. To the teams coming after us, we say good luck. This is a
difficult problem to solve, but it is solvable. From our team to yours we advise you to pursue
supercritical fluids as your focus of research – from all we’ve seen and done, we feel it has the
most potential to provide and effective, efficient solution to this dire problem we all face. We
have included designs to a supercritical dryer that should be able to be used as a reactor, as
well as a source detailing how to properly assemble the dryer. We would have built and used
this reactor ourselves, but budgetary constraints meant that were unable to do so. We hope
that you have more good fortune than we did.

There are several experiments that can be done to analyse the plastic samples collected from
the ethylene glycol experiment. As has been done throughout the project, it is necessary to
perform different experiments on a sample in order to gain an overall picture of its behaviour
in different scenarios. This is the same as what a doctor does in the diagnosis of a disease,

59
where through blood tests, X-rays, MRI scans, etc. he finds out what is wrong with a patient.
In this case, there was no time to analyse the plastic samples in detail, so a DSC analysis of the
collected samples will be recommended as one of the future steps.

Through DSC, physical properties of the analysed plastics, such as melting point, can be de-
termined. It is hypothesised that, as depolymerisation has occurred, significant changes in
the results will be observed when dealing with a monomer as opposed to a polymer. For this
reason, it is suggested that a DSC analysis of the waste plastic samples and the same samples
after the ethylene glycol experiment should be carried out.

Regardless of what method you choose to pursue, whether it is one of the ones we’ve outlin-
ed, or a completely different one that we didn’t see, we wish you all the best in your research.

5.1. General Conclusion

5.1.1. Issues
Like most projects, some items from our risk assessment came to be during the course of our
work. The matrix proved to be a very useful tool, as we had pre-defined solutions to a large
number of problems.

A key risk is the one we feared the most: that we cannot execute our experiments due to
unavailability of material, machine or personnel.

The experiment where we depolymerize the plastics could be dangerous so no one of the
team member could execute this experiment. We needed a Technacol employee or other
personnel from the CRTCI building to perform the experiment for us. Unfortunately, the pro-
cess of finding someone who was willing to do the experiment for us took longer than expec-
ted. But, at last, Guillaume Morel executed the experiment. Because of this delay we could
not make any composting tests, and as such the deliverables needed to be changed from
what had been written in the intermediate report.

Our lack of a budget was another issue that affected how we approached the project – we
chose to pursue solvents for a number of reasons, but their lower costs was definitely an
important factor. Factoring cost is an issue almost all research projects have to contend with,
but it remains unfortunate when it begins to affect what options you are able to research.

5.1.2. Points of Improvement

If we were to do this project again with the experience we have now, there are a couple
things we would have done differently. We would have structured our plan to have the expe-
rimental aspect of our project completed far earlier in the semester, so that we could have
had more time for analysis. At the same time though, our experiments were largely reliant
on the availability of other people, so it is unclear if we would have been able to fully rectify
this.

60
5.1.3. Lessons learned
Throughout this project, our team has learnt a great deal. Although none of us have a back-
ground in chemistry, we have learnt a great deal about polymers and the chemistry involved
with them. It’s broadened our minds, and has given us a lot to consider about what we may
do in the future. As well as this, our ability to research a subject that we have no expertise on
was tested, and as such improved over the course of the project.

The task of managing this project was as well an informative experience. While we’ve all
completed group projects before, we have never been part of a longer or more complex
example before. It’s meant that we’ve had to learn to plan ahead much more than we are
used to, to ensure everybody involved in the project knows what we are doing, when we are
doing it and why.

The aspect of working with individuals from other countries and cultures has been an inva-
luable experience, something that is sure to be extremely useful in the future. As the world
gets smaller and smaller thanks to the onward march of connective technologies, internati-
onal projects will start to get more and more common. Learning about other cultures, and
seeing and accepting how they see the world is something that will always prove to be a
benefit to individuals and to humanity as a whole. A more open and accepting mindset leads
to less dogmatism, bigotry and prejudice – all things that stand in the way of progress of all
kinds.

The EPS program is known as an opportunity that teaches students a great deal, not only
about the projects that they complete, but also about themselves. Having to take the initi-
ative, being trusted to steer the direction of an entire project is a great responsibility. Being
given it allows us students to know that we are capable of doing so, that we don’t have to
wait to be told what to do. Learning that mistakes aren’t things that bring about the end of a
group, they’re opportunities for growth and strengthening bonds.

These past 4 months have been a time well worth the effort. Despite the current climate of
COVID, we’ve made connections with the students that are here with us, connections that
are sure to last.

61
6. References
IUCN. 2021. Marine plastics. [online] Available at:
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastics [Accessed 25 May 2021].

Friends of the Earth. 2021. Plastic pollution How to reduce plastic in the ocean | Friends
of the Earth. [online] Available at: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/plastics [Accessed 26 May
2021].

Kestemont, E., 2021. We eten elke week een balpen aan plastic. [online] Site-KnackWeek-
end-NL. Available at: https://weekend.knack.be/lifestyle/culinair/we-eten-elke-week-een-
-balpen-aan-plastic/article-news-1475589.html?cookie_check=1622018313#:~:text=Een%20
nieuwe%20studie%20van%20WWF,vinden%20voor%20de%20wereldwijde%20plasticvervui-
ling [Accessed 26 May 2021].

Gornall, T., 2011. Catalytic Degradation of Waste Polymers. [online] Available at: https://core.
ac.uk/download/pdf/1442485.pdf [Accessed 3 June 2021].

Nl.wikipedia.org. n.d. Thermogravimetrische analyse - Wikipedia. [online] Available at: htt-

ps://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetrische_analyse [Accessed 3 June 2021].
En.wikipedia.org. n.d. Infrared spectroscopy - Wikipedia. [online] Available at: https://en.wi-
kipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#:~:text=Infrared%20spectroscopy%20(IR%20spec-
troscopy%20or,%2C%20liquid%2C%20or%20gaseous%20forms [Accessed 3 June 2021].
B. Zhu, D. W. N. W., 2021. Enzyme Discovery and Engineering for Sustainable Plastic Recy-
cling. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0167-7799%2821%2900040-8 [Ac-
cessed 4 June 2021].

Barron A., R. P., 2021. 3.3: Basic Principles of Supercritical Fluid Chromatography and Super-
crtical Fluid Extraction. [Online]
Available at:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Book%3A_Physical_Me-
thods_in_Chemistry_and_Nano_Science_(Barron)/03%3A_Principles_of_Gas_Chromato-
graphy/3.03%3A_Basic_Principles_of_Supercritical_Fluid_Chromatography_and_Supercrti-
cal_Fluid_Extra [Accessed 2 June 2021].

Government, A., -. National Pollutant Inventory - Acetone. [Online]

Available at: http://npi.gov.au/resource/acetone [Accessed 1 June 2021].

Kwak H., S. H. B. S. H. G., 2006. Kinetics for Degradation and Depolymerization of Plastics in
Supercritical Fluids. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 39(9), pp. 1004-1009.

M. Genta, e. a., 2006. Supercritical methanol for polyethylene terephthalate depolymerizati-

on: Observation using simulator. ScienceDirect, Volume 27, pp. 1168-1177.

Eisaku O., Linn K., Takeshi E., Taneaki O., Yoshinobu I. (2003). Isolation and
characterization of polystyrene degrading microorganisms for zero emis-
sion treatment of expanded polystyrene. Environ. Eng. Res. 40 373–379.

62
Available at: Google Scholar
Toolbox, E., 2018. Acetone - Thermophysical Properties. [Online]
Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/acetone-2-propanone-dimethyl-ketone-
-properties-d_2036.html [Accessed 2 June 2021].

Bob, Corneliu, and Eugen Jebelean. Material Science: Building Construction. Orizonturi Uni-
versitare, 2009.
ISO. 2021. ISO 13802:2015. [online] Available at: <https://www.iso.org/standard/60017.
html> [Accessed 15 June 2021].

Otake Y, Kobayashi T, Asabe H, Murakami N, Ono K (1995) Biodegradation of low density po-
lyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, and urea formaldehyde resin buried under soil for
over 32 years. J Appl Polym Sci 56:1789–1796

A. Oku, L.-C. Hu, E. Yamada, Alkali decomposition of poly(ethylene terephthalate) with sodi-
um hydroxide in nonaqueous ethylene glycol: A study on recycling of terephthalic acid and
ethylene glycol. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 63, 595 (1997)

Borken-Kleefeld J, Weidema BP (2013) Background data for transport. In: EcoInvent. https://
www.ecoinvent.org/files/transport_default_20130722.xlsx. Accessed 15 June 2021

63
7. Appendices
7.1. Appendix 1: Workload Estimation Table

64
65
7.2. Appendix 2: Gantt-Chart

66
7.3. Appendix 3: Life Cycle Analysis
Truck Truck Truck Rail Rail Rail Marine Marine Marine
trans- trans- trans-
port port port
Share average trans- Share average trans- Share average trans-
of mass ship- port of mass ship- port of mass ship- port
ping work ping work ping work
distan- per kg distan- per kg distan- per kg
ce ce ce
% of km kg*km % of km kg*km % of km kg*km
mass mass mass
Plastic 80% 434 346 20% 1093 222 6% 5337 334
Pro-
ducts
Cereal 73% 125 92 19% 1165 218 10% 9960 988
grains

67
7.4. Appendix 4: Depolymerisation

68
69
7.5. Appendix 5: WBS
D1

Management
documents

D1.1 D1.2 D1.3

Requirements Kick-off Monitoring
document presentation documents

T1.1.1 T1.2.1 T1.3.1

Check Make agenda

Define scope
requirements document
document
& make
T1.1.2 changes as T1.3.2
needed
Define client & Make minutes
stakeholders document
T1.2.2
T1.1.3 T1.3.3
Create project
Define WBS planning Send to
(version 1) scheme supervisors
(Gantt-chart)

T1.1.4
T1.2.3
Design team’s
name & logo Make
presentation

T1.1.5
T1.2.4
Determine
risks Send to
supervisors

T1.1.6

Write
requirements
document

T1.1.7

Send to
supervisors

70
 D2

EPS
documents

D2.1 D2.2

Reports Presentations

T2.1.1 T2.2.1

Check previous Make agenda

documents & document
make changes
as needed
T2.2.2

Make minutes
T2.1.2 document
Write interme-
diate report T2.2.3

Send to
T2.1.3 supervisors

Proof-read
intermediate
report

T2.1.4

Write final
report

T2.1.5

Proof-read final
report

T2.1.6

Send to
supervisors &
Fabien Duco

71
 D3

Funding process

D3.1
Funding
application

T3.1.1

Send needed
information
to Mathieu
Charlas

D4

Research

T4.1 T4.2 T4.3 T4.4 T4.5

Do research Do research Do research Do research

Do research
about degrada- about proper- about methods about
about Life Cycle
tion of plastic in ties of marine to depolymerize compostability
Analysis
the ocean plastic waste plastics of plastics

72
 D5

Comparing
experiments

T5.1 D5.2 D5.3 D5.4 D5.5

Definition of Preparation of Infrared
experiments DSC TGA
experiments spectroscopy

T5.2.1 T5.3.1 T5.4.1 T5.5.1

Select the Run the Prepare Prepare

marine waste infrared samples samples
samples spectroscopy

T5.4.2 T5.5.2
T5.2.2 T5.3.2

Wash & cut Make study Run the DSC Run the TGA
samples report

T5.4.3 T5.5.3

Make study Make study

report report

D6

Depolymerization
experiment

T6.1 T6.2 T6.3 T6.4

Send to Ma- Run infrared Run TGA on

Write proposal
thieu Charlas spectroscopy product
on product

73