Quality of recycling: Towards an

operational definition

Authors: Grant A., Cordle M., Bridgwater E. Eunomia

Research & Consulting

Editors: Canfora P., Dri M., Antonopoulos I.S.,

Gaudillat P. Joint Research Centre, European
Commission

French translation (abstract and summary): Gaudillat P.

Joint Research Centre, European Commission

2020
This publication is a report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-
based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor
other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of
its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Contact information
Name: Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership Unit, Joint Research Centre, European Commission
Address: Calle Inca Garcilaso, 3 – 41092 Sevilla - Spain
Email: [email protected]
Tel.: +34 9544 88318

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

JRC122293

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

© European Union, 2020

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

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

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

Qualité de recyclage :
les bases d’une définition opérationnelle

3
Prepared by
Eunomia Research & Consulting
Andy Grant
Mark Cordle
Eric Bridgwater

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

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

4
Abstract
As the quantity of recycling increases, a high quality of recycling is necessary to
ensure that secondary raw materials produced are suitable for use in product
applications with more demanding requirements, enabling a more circular economy.
Defining the concept of “quality of recycling” is the starting point for any assessment
of what is meant by ‘high quality’. This study develops an operational definition of
“quality of recycling”, defined as the extent to which, through the recycling chain, the
distinct characteristics of the material used within products are preserved or recovered
to maximise their potential to be used as secondary raw materials in the circular
economy. To enable assessments of quality, the study proposes a set of quality
categories for common packaging materials (glass, papers, PET, and HDPE/PP), based
on key characteristics of secondary raw materials and sorted packaging outputs that
differentiate their suitability for use in manufacturing different types of products.

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

Résumé

Alors que le recyclage augmente en termes de quantité, une qualité élevée de

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

La définition de qualité du recyclage, et le système d’évaluation de la qualité

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

5
Executive Summary
Report context

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

The project aimed to:

 Develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plants in the
EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants.
 Understand which factors impact the quality and quantity of recycling outputs, with
particular consideration to:
o material input composition and quality (including collection systems,
deposit return scheme arrangements);
o loss rates and cross-contamination at each process stage and impacting
factors;
o equipment, process and technology;
o management of plants;
o product and industry standards; and,
o commercial and regulatory considerations (market impacts and PRO
arrangements).

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

This report develops an operational definition of “quality of recycling” and a framework

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

A definition of “quality of recycling”

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

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

6
These characteristics vary by material but may include for example food-contact
suitability, structural characteristics (i.e. uniformity and viscosity), clarity and colour
form, and odour.

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

Why define quality?

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

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

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

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

An operational definition

It is important that the definition is ‘operational’, meaning that it can be practically

applied in assessing the quality of material at stages throughout the recycling chain.

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

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

7
In order to link the two approaches, a quality assessment framework would require a
systematic mapping of product uses by material against output quality specifications.

Quality of sorted outputs and economic framework

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

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

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

An operational interpretation of the quality of recycling in terms of the output from a

sorting plant could therefore be:

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

Quality framework

Under the overarching definition of quality, a framework is outlined within which to

assess the quality of recycling at different levels as outlined in Table E- 1:

Table E- 1: Levels in the quality assessment framework

Level Assessment Data on which to base

assessment
Use of secondary raw Circularity of outcomes Product uses of secondary
materials in products raw materials
Secondary raw Suitability of plant outputs Output grades and
material* for applications requiring specifications related to
different qualities of product applications
secondary raw materials
Suitability for circular
outcomes
Sorted packaging Possibility for quality Grades and purity levels of
outcomes sorted material
* Since paper mills use sorted paper outputs directly in production processes, this
level of assessment can be conducted on the sorted packaging outputs from paper
sorting plants

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

8
Quality Categories within the Framework

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

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

Category Quality/Value Rationale
Dimensions
A Maintains colour, limits Suitable for input into colour-specific
specific contaminants container glass manufacture, fully circular
and other physio-
chemical glass types
B Limits on specific May be suitable for input into darker colour
contaminants and other container glass, or other re-melt markets, or
physio-chemical glass use as abrasive
types
C Limits on specific Suitable for bespoke non-re-melt
contaminants applications (i.e. water filtration)
D Limits on overall Suitable for some non-re-melt applications,
contaminants such as use in ceramics or as fluxing agent in
brick production
E Wide tolerance for Only suitable for aggregate uses, unlikely to
contaminants displace virgin material

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

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

Quality Quality/Value Specifications Rationale
Category Dimensions (EN643)
A Maintain fibre De-inking grade Suitable for recycling to the
characteristics, (1.11) same grade of product
homogeneity of
OCC1 grade (1.04 – Suitable for corrugated
grade
1.05) cardboard manufacture
B Mixed fibre Mixed papers (1.02) Suitable for manufacture of
characteristics, other grades of product
some variation in (components of corrugated
grade cardboard, tissue
manufacture)
C Mixed fibre Other fractions not May yet be suitable for
characteristics, graded to EN643 products with less structural
lower grade fibre requirements
fibres

1
Old corrugated containers/cardboard

9
The quality categories proposed for PET plastic (based upon the characteristics
required of the secondary raw material) are outlined in Table E- 4. For plastics, each
quality category is further interpreted into the characteristics firstly of secondary raw
materials, and secondly of sorted packaging at any point prior to reprocessing.

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

Quality Quality/Value Rationale
Category Dimensions
A Maintain/preserve Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in
intrinsic viscosity the production of the same food-contact items
(IV), product type,
transparency,
colour; and food
contact suitability
B Maintain/preserve Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in
IV, product type, colour-specific non-food-contact uses requiring high
transparency, and purity flake
colour
C Maintain/preserve Mixed colour bottle flake can be used for non-
IV, product type colour-sensitive applications that nonetheless
require high enough IV (e.g. fibres and strapping).
Separated trays can be separately reprocessed with
lower losses compared to processing mixed with
bottles
D Other Mixed, un-colour-separated bottle and tray flake
that may need further sorting

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

For each material, a supplementary framework is presented which classifies end

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

Using the framework

The quality definition and framework developed by this study are intended for
operational use, as an approach to practically measuring the quality of recycling
alongside the quantity of recycling. It has potential applications by different actors for
a range of strategic and/or operational contexts. These uses include:
 Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs;
 Tracking change in qualities produced; and
 Assessing the quality benefit from changes to recycling outputs.

Assessments can be made at different levels for different purposes:

10
 By plant operators or waste management companies to use as a performance
metric (alongside recycling rate), thus tracking the impact of changes on the
quality of outputs, and defining the quality impact of their sorting and reprocessing
operations.
 By municipalities or producer responsibility organisations (PROs) contracting
sorting plants to assess the quality of outputs produced for determination of
further sorting needs; specify output grades within different quality categories to
be produced; and/or differentiate payment by quality category (aligned with any
strategy for increasing output qualities at a whole system level).
 By PROs by way of administering Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes,
or regional/national governments to quantify the overall quality of packaging
recycling output, track changes in quality resulting from interventions, support or
development of local or national markets, and use as a basis for targeting specific
quality improvements.

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

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

In addition, PROs and regional/national authorities could also take a longer-term

perspective on strategies for increasing quality of recycling by shifting the economic
picture more fundamentally. This may be by targeting research and development to
reduce costs; influencing demand for recycled content; developing EPR mechanisms
that ensure cost recovery for operators for achieving the desired levels of quality; or
supporting the development of higher quality reprocessing routes for specific portions
of materials.

11
Synthèse

Contexte du rapport

Ce rapport a été produit pour le projet du Centre Commun de Recherche (CCR)

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

Le projet avait pour but de :

 Développer une définition de la « qualité du recyclage » pour les usines
d’emballages ménagers dans l’UE qui traitent des déchets mixtes ou de plastique,
papier et verre.
 Comprendre quels facteurs ont un impact sur la qualité et la quantité des matières
recyclées, en prenant particulièrement en compte :
o La composition et la qualité des matériaux entrants (y compris les systèmes
de collecte et les dispositifs de consigne) ;
o Les taux de perte et de contamination croisée à chaque étape du processus
et les facteurs ayant un impact ;
o Les équipements, processus et technologies ;
o La gestion des installations ;
o Les normes relatives au produit ou au secteur, et
o Les considérations commerciales et réglementaires (impacts sur le marché
et dispositions des éco-organismes).

En définitive, les conclusions du projet permettront de définir en connaissance de

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

Ce rapport élabore une définition opérationnelle de la « qualité de recyclage » et un

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

Une définition de la « qualité de recyclage »

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

12
 « La mesure selon laquelle, par le biais de la chaîne de recyclage, les
caractéristiques spécifiques du matériau (le polymère, le verre ou la fibre de
papier) sont préservées ou récupérées, afin de maximiser leur potentiel de
réutilisation dans l’économie circulaire. »

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

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

Pourquoi définir la qualité ?

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

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

Alors que le recyclage maintient les ressources en circulation dans l’économie

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

Enfin, la définition permet d’évaluer la qualité du recyclage indépendamment des

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

Une définition opérationnelle

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

À l’extrémité supérieure de l’éventail de qualité réalisable, les matières premières

secondaires auront des caractéristiques comparables au matériau vierge. En pratique,
les qualités auxquelles le retraitement tente de parvenir dépendent des spécifications

13
stipulées par les utilisateurs de matières premières secondaires et la qualité est jugée
par la suffisance d'un matériau pour un processus de fabrication particulier.

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

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

Qualité des productions triées et cadre économique

L'objectif global d’une mise en œuvre de normes pour la mesure de la qualité du

recyclage est d’assurer que les matériaux triés sont adaptés à la phase suivante du
processus de tri et de recyclage qui se termine par la production d'une matière
première secondaire d'une certaine qualité.

En pratique, l’adéquation d'un intrant pour la production de matières premières

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

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

Par conséquent, une interprétation opérationnelle de la qualité du recyclage en termes

de production d'une usine de tri pourrait être :

« L’adéquation d’une matière triée à être utilisée par l’étape suivante du

processus de recyclage pour cette matière, selon les spécifications pour les
matériaux entrants déterminées par l’équilibre économique des installations
recevant ces matériaux. »

Système de qualité

Sous la définition globale de la qualité, un système est décrit et permet d’évaluer la

qualité du recyclage aux différents niveaux, comme décrit dans le Table E- 1 :

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

14
Niveau Évaluation Données sur lesquelles
baser l’évaluation
Utilisation des matières Circularité (tenant en Utilisations des matières
premières secondaires compte la finalité des premières secondaires dans
dans les produits matériaux) des produits
Matières premières Adéquation des matériaux Catégories et spécifications
secondaires* triés ou recyclés à des des extrants par rapport
applications nécessitant aux applications dans les
différentes qualités de produits
matières premières
secondaires
Adéquation à une
production circulaire
Emballage trié Possibilité d’un tri de Catégories et niveaux de
qualité pureté des matériaux triés
* Étant donné que les papeteries utilisent des déchets de papier triés directement
dans les processus de production, ce niveau d’évaluation peut être mené sur les
matériaux triés issues des usines de tri de papier

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

Catégories de qualité au sein du système

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

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

verre)

Catégorie Qualité/Valeur Bien-fondé

Dimensions
A Maintien de la couleur, Adapté comme intrant dans la fabrication de
limites de contaminants verre d’emballage de couleur spécifique,
spécifiques et autres entièrement circulaire
types de verre physico-
chimique
B Limites sur des Peut être adapté en tant qu’intrant dans des
contaminants verres d’emballage de couleur plus foncée ou
spécifiques et autres autres marchés de refonte ou utilisé en tant
types de verre physico- qu'abrasif
chimique
C Limites sur des Adapté à des applications de non-refonte sur
contaminants mesure (c.-à-d. filtrage d’eau)
spécifiques
D Limites sur des Adapté à des applications de non-refonte,
contaminants comme l'utilisation dans les céramiques ou
spécifiques en tant qu'agent de fluxage dans la
production de briques
E Large tolérance pour les Uniquement adapté pour les utilisations en
contaminants agrégats, peu de chance de remplacer le

15
 matériau vierge

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

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

Catégori Qualité/Valeur Spécifications Bien-fondé

e de Dimensions (EN643)
qualité
A Maintien des Catégorie pour Adapté au recyclage selon la
caractéristiques désencrage (1.11) même catégorie de produit
des fibres,
Catégorie carton Adapté à la fabrication de
homogénéité de
ondulé2 (1.04 – 1.05) carton ondulé
la catégorie
B Caractéristiques Papiers et cartons Convient à la fabrication
de fibres mêlés (1.02) d'autres catégories de produits
mélangées, (composants du carton ondulé,
variation de la fabrication de tissus)
qualité
C Variation élevée Autres fractions non Pourrait convenir à des
dans les fibres catégorisées produits nécessitant moins de
fibres structurelles

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

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

Catégorie Qualité/Valeur Bien-fondé

de qualité Dimensions
A Maintenir/Préserver Préserver la séparation des couleurs et l’aptitude
la viscosité à une utilisation dans la production d’articles
intrinsèque (VI), le similaires pour contact alimentaire
type de produit, la
transparence, la
couleur et l’aptitude
au contact
alimentaire
B Maintenir/Préserver Préserver la séparation des couleurs et l’aptitude
la VI, le type de à une utilisation dans les usages sans contact
produit, la alimentaire, de couleur spécifique, nécessitant des
transparence et la paillettes de grande pureté

2
Caisses carton ondulé usagées

16
 couleur

C Maintenir/Préserver Les paillettes de bouteille de couleurs mélangées

la VI, le type de peuvent être utilisées pour les applications non
produit sensibles à la couleur, qui nécessitent néanmoins
assez de VI (p. ex. fibres et cerclage).
Les barquettes séparées peuvent être retraitées
séparément avec moins de pertes que lors du
traitement de barquettes mélangées avec des
bouteilles
D Autre Bouteilles non triées par couleur et paillettes de
barquette mélangées qui peuvent avoir besoin
d’être davantage triées

Au-delà de cet ensemble initial de catégories de qualité, un exercice de cartographie

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

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

Utilisation du système

La définition de la qualité et le système élaborés par cette étude sont destinés à

l’utilisation opérationnelle, comme approche pour mesurer en pratique la qualité du
recyclage, parallèlement à la quantité de recyclage. Différents acteurs peuvent
potentiellement les appliquer dans un éventail de contextes stratégiques et/ou
opérationnels. Ceux-ci incluent:
 L’évaluation de la qualité actuelle des productions de matières recyclées ;
 Le suivi de l’évolution de la qualité ; et
 L’évaluation des bénéfices résultant de l’amélioration de la qualité des produits
recyclés.

Les évaluations peuvent être faites à différents niveaux pour différents objectifs :
 Par les exploitants d'usine ou les sociétés de gestion des déchets pour les utiliser
en tant que mesure de la performance (parallèlement aux taux de recyclage), en
suivant ainsi l'impact des changements sur la qualité de la production et en
cernant l’impact sur la qualité de leurs opérations de tri et de retraitement.
 Par les municipalités ou les éco-organismes qui passent un accord avec les usines
de tri pour évaluer la qualité des matières traitées, afin de déterminer les besoins
en tri supplémentaires ; de spécifier différentes catégories de qualité parmi les
matières traitées et/ou de différentier le paiement selon les catégories de qualité

17
 (en s’alignant aux stratégies pour augmenter les qualités de retraitement le long
de toute la chaîne).
 Par les éco-organismes dans leur gestion des programmes de Responsabilité
Élargie des Producteurs (REP) ou par les gouvernements régionaux/nationaux pour
évaluer la qualité globale des emballages recyclés, pour suivre les changements
dans la qualité à la suite d’interventions, pour soutenir ou développer les marchés
locaux ou nationaux et pour les utiliser comme base permettant de cibler des
améliorations spécifiques de la qualité.

L'utilisation de la définition et du système dans les mesures d’orientation et

d’intervention nécessitera au départ l'identification des améliorations souhaitées dans
les catégories de qualité pour chaque matériau.

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

En outre, les éco-organismes et les autorités régionales/nationales pourraient aussi

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

18
Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................19

Glossary ..........................................................................................................20
1. Introduction ............................................................................................22
2. The quality of recycling ............................................................................23
2.1. Quality/value of recycling and the circular economy ..................................27
2.1.1. Approaches to assessing quality of recycling of secondary raw materials
29
2.1.2. Quality of recycling of outputs from sorting plants ..............................31
2.2. A framework for assessing quality of recycling .........................................34
3. Classification of quality/value of recycling ...................................................36
3.1. Glass ..................................................................................................36
3.1.1. Framework based on material specifications ......................................37
3.1.2. Framework based on circularity of product outcomes ..........................38
3.1.3. Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................39
3.2. Paper ..................................................................................................40
3.2.1. Framework based on material specifications ......................................40
3.2.2. Framework based on circularity of product uses .................................41
3.2.3. Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................41
3.2.4. Further research needed .................................................................41
3.3. Plastics ...............................................................................................42
3.3.1. Framework based on material specifications ......................................44
3.3.2. Notes on quality measurement points ...............................................52
3.3.3. Framework based upon circularity of product uses ..............................52
3.3.4. Illustrative example of increase in quality ..........................................54
3.3.5. Further research needed .................................................................55
4. Quality of recycling: existing standards ......................................................55
4.1. Quality of recycling: glass .....................................................................55
4.1.1. Industry standards for sorting plant outputs ......................................55
4.1.2. Industry current practice: glass recycling standards ...........................56
4.2. Quality of recycling: paper .....................................................................57
4.2.1. Industry standards for sorting plant outputs: EN643 ...........................57
4.2.2. Industry current practice: paper recycling standards ..........................58
4.2.3. Quality standards used in the study paper sorting plants .....................59
4.2.4. Relevance of sorting plant output standards to quality of recycling .......60
4.3. Quality of Recycling: plastics .................................................................61
4.3.1. Industry reference standards for recycling plant outputs .....................61
4.3.2. Industry current practice: recycling plant outputs ...............................61
4.3.3. Industry reference standards for sorting plant outputs ........................61
4.3.4. Industry current practice: sorting plant outputs .................................64
5. Using the quality framework .....................................................................68
Appendices ......................................................................................................72
A1.1 EN643 Grades ......................................................................................72
A2.1 Other Industry Standards ......................................................................75

19
Glossary
Definitions
Contaminants Non-target material or chemicals that alter the physical or chemical
properties of the secondary raw material.
DRS Deposit Return Scheme: Collection system in which consumers pay
a deposit on products, and get refunded when the product packaging
is returned to a collection point.
Impurities Contaminants or non-target material.
Losses Losses of target material during sorting or reprocessing
Non-target Other material present alongside a target material in an input waste
material stream to a sorting or recycling plant.
PRO Producer Responsibility Organisation, Organisation that coordinates
the collection and end-of-life management of waste, generally from
a specific sector, to fulfil producers’ obligations according to
regulations on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
Recycling chain Set of sorting and reprocessing processes up to the point of
production of a secondary raw material.
Reject/Reject Material rejected from sorting processes and not included in process
fraction outputs destined for recycling.
Secondary raw Material that has been sorted and prepared so that it is suitable for
material (SRM) use directly in new product manufacture, without further sorting or
preparation, (such as a clean, dry polymer flakes, pellets, or
compound)
Sorted fraction A grade of material that has been sorted post collection but has not
been sufficiently prepared to be a Secondary Raw Material.
Target material The material or mix of materials that is targeted by the subsequent
sorting or reprocessing operation, i.e. PET bottles in a bale of PET
bottles.
Associations and Organisations Referenced
ARA Altstoff Recycling Austria, Austrian PRO for packaging
APR American Plastics Recyclers
CEN The European Committee for Normalisation
COREPLA Italian PRO for plastic packaging
DSD Duales System Deutschland AG, German PRO for packaging,
managed by Der Grüne Punkt.
Ecoembes Spanish PRO for packaging

FERVER European Federation of Glass Recyclers

PRE Plastic Recyclers Europe
Materials
CPET Crystalline PET
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
LLDPE Linear Low Density Polyethylene
OCC Old corrugated cardboard
PA Polyamides (nylon)
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PET-G PET with added glycol
PLA Polylactide, a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester derived from crops
PO - Polyolefins Collective term for PE and PP thermoplastics

20
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PUR Polyurethane
PVC Poly-vinyl chloride
Other Terms
IV Intrinsic viscosity, a measure of viscosity used for PET
MFI Melt-flow index, a measure of viscosity used for polyolefins

21
1. Introduction

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

The project carried out study visits to 25 recycling plants across 11 EU countries and
involved the following number and type of plants:
 11 plants sorting collected streams of light packaging fractions (various mixtures
of dry recycling including plastics only inputs) and sorting out at least one grade of
plastic. Some of these plants also conducted some reprocessing operations;
 2 plants conducting a second sort of specific plastic fractions output from sorting
plants (mixed PET and mixed HDPE/PP);
 8 plants primarily reprocessing sorted plastic fractions into secondary raw
materials, whilst also conducting some sorting operations;
 2 paper sorting plants; and
 2 glass sorting plants.

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

This study contributes to an operational definition of the quality of recycling that is

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

Key research aims

The key research aims the project has investigated can be summarised as follows:
 To develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plants in
the EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants.
 To provide clear qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the relevant
processes at a representative set of plants.
 To understand which factors impact quality and quantity of recycling outputs,
including particular consideration of: material input composition and quality
(including collection system, deposit return scheme arrangements); loss rates
and cross-contamination at each process stage and impacting factors;
equipment, process and technology; management of plants; product and

22
 industry standards; commercial and regulatory considerations (market impacts
and PRO arrangements).
 To develop an understanding of which operationally and commercially
practicable measures could be implemented in order to increase recycling
quantity and quality, for the various sorting plants, processes, technologies and
commercial/regulatory contexts included in the study.

The sections in this report cover:

 In the section ‘The quality of recycling’ (Section 2):
o An introduction to the quality of recycling concept, covering approaches to
assessing the quality of recycling of a) secondary raw materials and b)
sorting plant outputs earlier in the recycling chain.
o An introduction to the proposed framework approach for categorising
quality and value in recycling.
 In the section ‘Classification of quality and value in recycling’ (Section 3), for each
main packaging material type:
o The key dimensions that comprise quality and/or value specific to that
material.
o Classifications of quality and value based on a) grouping of output
specifications by quality and value and b) groupings of product uses by
circularity.
o Commentary on data availability and additional research needs.
 In the section ‘Quality of recycling: existing standards’ (Section 4):
o A concise overview of existing industry standards applicable to different
secondary raw material types.
o A commentary on current practice (the extent to which these standards are
applied and used in practice) based on study plant interviews.
 In the section ‘Using the quality framework’ (Section 5):
o A summary of the key potential applications of the framework in assessing
quality by different organisations (e.g. plant operators, producer
responsibility organisations (PROs), or national governments)

2. The quality of recycling

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

The idea of ‘quality’ for secondary raw materials is captured by two interlinked
concepts:
 ‘Virgin-like’ secondary raw materials – how closely comparable the secondary raw
materials from a recycling chain is to the virgin material originally used in the
product being recycled. Subsequently, how substitutable the secondary raw
materials is for virgin material with little or no detrimental impact on the final
product.

23
 ‘High value’ secondary raw materials – the extent to which secondary raw
materials produced is of comparable value to virgin polymer, in terms of value to
the user, and associated monetary value.

An operational framework for ‘quality of recycling’ also needs to be grounded in

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

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

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

The economic features discussed above are illustrated in Figure 1.

24
Figure 1: Economic framework for sorting plants and reprocessors

Economic viability is a key consideration for operators of sorting plants and

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

25
Figure 2-2: Illustrative Economic Viability of Producing Higher Quality Sorted
Output

In order to make the additional sorting and/or processing steps economically viable,
there needs to be sufficient change in the economic balance. The demand and value
received from higher quality material needs to be sufficient to meet increased sorting
and/or processing costs and to cover other potential changes in costs, as follows:
 Changes in disposal costs resulting from higher removal of impurities to enable a
higher quality output, leading to higher tonnages going to disposal (conversely,
increasing the capture of the targeted material reduces the amounts disposed).
 Changing revenues from other sorted fractions, due to how the increased quality
affects the composition or level of impurities in other target sorted fractions. For
example, separating transparent PET from a mixed colour PET fraction will make
the mixed PET fraction darker, which has a lower sales value than lighter coloured
mixed PET (with a higher transparent PET content).

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

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

Figure 3: Economics of increasing quality

26
2.1. Quality/value of recycling and the circular economy

A circular economy is one which minimises raw material inputs to production by

preserving the value in material in use within the economy. Representations of a
circular economy typically depict concentric cycles of material use where inner cycles
represent better outcomes by preserving more of the value of the material in
successive uses, and outer cycles involve more processing.

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

The definition should attempt to move beyond a binary classification such as ‘does the
material displace virgin polymer demand or does it instead displace demand for an
alternative material’, to capture these additional dimensions:
 the extent to which properties of the material are preserved that it is unfeasible or
costly to recover once lost (e.g. transparency, colourform); and
 the onward recyclability (and length of useful lifetime) of the product made from
recycled material.
Considering that virgin material has the highest degree of value, it is likely to be most
cost effective at a whole system level to concentrate virgin material input into the
system for products with quality specifications most specific to virgin material (i.e. at

27
the top of the quality hierarchy). Secondary raw materials – for which some
degradation in quality may have occurred through manufacturing, use, collection and
sorting – are more cost-effectively utilised for applications that do not have as
demanding requirements, whilst still displacing virgin material use. It is broadly
recommended to collect and sort material in a way that preserves value so as to allow
the material to be used as high up in the cascade as is practicable.
Moving to higher recycling rates also requires the development of new routes for
integrating recycled content into applications, as the demand for recycled content in
lower quality applications is by nature limited to a certain proportion of total virgin
use. Figure 4 illustrates that, with a higher recycling rate, a greater proportion of
secondary raw materials would need to feed into more product applications with
higher quality requirements.

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

Lower recycling rate Higher recycling rate

Highest quality Highest quality

Medium quality req. Medium quality req.

Low quality req. Low quality req.

Demand for material of Use of recycled

different quality/value material in products

Increasing recycling rates of packaging material therefore requires greater emphasis

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

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

‘the extent to which, through the recycling chain, the distinct

characteristics of the material (the polymer, or the glass, or

28
 the paper fibre) are preserved or recovered so as to maximise
their potential to be used as raw materials in the circular
economy.’

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

2.1.1. Approaches to assessing quality of recycling of secondary raw

materials

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

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

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

Evidently the highest quality of secondary material is one that is 100% constituted of
the target material; is free from impurities of any kind (both non-target material and
remaining traces of products, inks and other features of the product packaging that
physically or chemically contaminate the material); and has comparable material
characteristics to the virgin raw material. This is reflected in measurements of quality
which typically assess:
 substances that alter the physical or chemical properties of the secondary raw
material when manufactured into products;
 substances harmful to health (human or environmental); and
 other non-target materials (which therefore don’t typically contribute mass to the
secondary raw material).

Any criteria applied to measure quality of recycling is in practice targeted to ensure

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

An assessment of quality could therefore be based on suitability for use in a given

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

29
secondary raw materials are currently assessed in practice. Furthermore, the
specification of quality by buyers is important in determining the quality aimed at by
sorters and reprocessors, since quality will generally be targeted to meet, rather than
exceed, the requirements of the buyer. This approach was used in recommending
End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass: the proposal for the End-of-Waste criteria was based
on a review of existing input specifications.3 It was developed as a single binary set of
criteria, applicable only to glass cullet for ‘re-melting’ – glass cullet sent for recycling
in a process that involved re-melting in a glass furnace. For other materials, it may be
more appropriate to define a clearer hierarchy of qualities. It should be noted that it
may not always be possible to define a linear hierarchy as different uses of secondary
raw materials may have varying tolerances for different impurities or characteristics
(for instance, for recycled plastics, clarity, odour and mechanical characteristics vary
in importance according to the application).

As noted above, operationalising a concept of quality for secondary raw materials

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

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

Distinctions between quality requirements can be enhanced by legislation, typically to

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

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

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

30
 1. The standards or specifications that the secondary raw material achieves
indicating its suitability for use in a given application or group of applications
with similar quality requirements.
2. The circularity of product uses and the extent to which a material achieves a
given degree of circularity:
 When assessed on the basis of standards or specifications that the
secondary raw material achieves, these standards or specifications
would be linked to the capability of the material to achieve a given
degree of circularity.

For the first approach, the quality assessment would require a classification and
banding/grading of specifications according to different quality bands.
For the second approach, the quality assessment would require a
classification/banding of products according to circularity, and an identification of
associated standards/specifications.
In order to link the two approaches, the quality assessment would require a mapping
of a secondary raw material’s product uses against its associated quality specifications
in a more systematic way than has previously carried out.

2.1.2. Quality of recycling of outputs from sorting plants

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

As with secondary raw materials, the highest quality sorted output at any stage is
100% target material free from any impurity, though the target material tends to be
defined as a subset of packaging items rather than as a specific material. Quality
measurements for sorted outputs tend to identify the levels of problematic materials,
including:
 Substances or products that would impact the physical or chemical properties of
the secondary raw material produced;
 Substances harmful to health (human or environmental); and
 Other non-target materials (how much of the material is specifically target
material, and what other materials are in the mix).

The measurement or distinguishing of quality of recycling through quality standards or

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

The judgement of whether material is of ‘sufficient quality’ is based largely on what

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

31
Table 2-1: Examples of related reprocessor input material and output
secondary raw material quality specifications

Input to reprocessor, Output from reprocessor,

sorted fraction quality secondary raw material quality
standards applied
rPET produced for >98% PET bottles
bottle-to-bottle Minimal tray content High IV
Clear, Transparent Clear, Transparent
Sourced from DRS (>95% Suitable for Food Contact
food contact, low levels of Decontamination
PVC) PVC limit

White rHDPE produced White opaque HDPE White opaque

for packaging bottles De-odorised
applications Limit on general impurities

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

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

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

32
The sorted output produced is suitable for the next stage of the recycling
process for that output, within input specifications determined by the
economic balance of receiving plants.

As it is possible to distinguish between the different qualities of recycling suitable for

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

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

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

Figure 5: Diagram of quality of recycling

33
Considering that specification requirements are related to prevailing economic
conditions, an important implication is that quality standards for sorted packaging
outputs are not possible to define absolutely, but in the longer term would vary
depending on changes in markets and demand for secondary raw materials of
different qualities, technological developments, and levels of subsidies, amongst other
variables. In the long-term, as conditions improve over time (for instance, new market
demand or higher subsidies) the economic balance shifts, and may cause subsequent
shifts in the quality standards necessary at earlier points in the recycling chain for the
economic balance to work at later stages.

The study also seeks to address the usefulness of establishing standards for outputs
from sorting plants, particularly in the context of sorted plastics. Variation in
reprocessors’ input requirements will reflect variations in plant design, input material
composition, regional material mixes, and contract finances, rather than solely being
based on output quality. From the definition above it seems reasonable to suggest
that the usefulness of any standardised set of quality standards for outputs from
sorting plants will depend on:
 How harmonised and uniform the stages in the recycling processes are;
 How harmonised and uniform the economic balance is between plants; and
 The extent to which different sorting outputs (i.e. mixes of packaging materials or
levels of impurities) practically determine the end fates of material sent for
recycling.

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

In time, more harmonised sorted output quality standards might be expected to

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

2.2. A framework for assessing quality of recycling

This section sets out a framework that identifies the options for conducting
assessments of the quality/value of recycling at different points in the chain, and sets
out the necessary research and analysis tasks for developing this framework further.
It looks at three levels of assessing quality:
 The level of use of secondary raw materials in products (how circular are the
applications?);
 The level of the output secondary raw material specification:
o The technical quality of the secondary raw material outputs; and

34
 o The suitability of secondary raw material outputs for ‘more circular’
products; and
 The level of sorted packaging outputs (the qualities of the bales of sorted
packaging).

For each stage, it sets out:

 What the objective of the assessment is;
 The type of data that needs to be gathered in order to conduct such assessment;
and
 The framework against which the results could be assessed.

Table 2-2: Framework for Quality Assessments

Stage Sorted Secondary Raw Material Use in
Packaging Recycled
Product
Assess: Possibility Quality of Suitability for Circularity of
for quality outputs circular outcomes
outcomes The suitability outcomes The quality and
Technical of secondary The circularity circularity of
feasibility of raw material of recycling recycling
subsequent outputs for
recycling applications
routes requiring
Value of varying
output ‘qualities’ or
compared to specifications.
disposal cost
Type of Data to Quality Output Output Product use of
Gather: Standards Specifications Specifications recovered raw
Levels of key related to sets related to sets material by
prohibited of product of product main product
impurities applications applications group
Target with similar with similar
material quality quality
content requirements requirements
Assessment Tiered quality Tiered Tiered Tiered product
Framework: categories for groupings of groupings of categories
sorted product product corresponding
packaging specifications specifications to a circular
bales (see differentiating corresponding recycling
relevant tables quality (see to a circular hierarchy (see
in section 3) relevant tables recycling relevant tables
in section 3) hierarchy (see in section 3)
relevant tables
in section 3)

35
3. Classification of quality/value of recycling

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

 Physico-chemical composition;
 Colour;
 Content of impurities; and
 Homogeneity (variation within the given specification).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36
 3.1.1. Framework based on material specifications
Table 3-1 shows the features of quality and value that tend to be set by specifications
for different end markets.
Table 3-1: End markets for recycled glass and corresponding specifications
Secondary Raw Material Use End Corresponding Specifications
Market
Re-melt for container glass Physico-chemical, Colour, Limits on
contaminants
Re-melt for insulation Physico-chemical, Limits on contaminants
Decorative applications Physico-chemical, Colour, Limits on
(tiles/flooring/synthetic marble) contaminants
Use as an abrasive Physico-chemical, Limits on contaminants
Use as water filtration media No organics, limits on other contaminants
Additive (fluxing agent) in brick Limits on total contaminants
and ceramics production
Aggregate None

Aside from slightly different tolerances for individual contaminants, there are relatively
few grounds for establishing quality between remelt applications in terms of purities
and decontaminants. The only key distinguishing feature is the extent of colour
preservation or separation. This suggests that, going by output specifications alone,
three broad quality categories can be identified as in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Categories of specifications by quality/value (glass cullet)
Quality Quality/Value Rationale
Category Dimensions
A Maintain colour, limits Suitable for input into colour-specific
on specific container glass manufacture, fully circular
contaminants and other
physico-chemical glass
types
B Limits on specific May be suitable for input into darker colour
contaminants and other container glass, or other re-melt markets, or
physico-chemical glass use as abrasive
types
C Limits on specific Suitable for bespoke non-remelt applications
contaminants (i.e. water filtration).
D Limits on overall Suitable for some non re-melt applications,
contaminants like use in ceramics or as fluxing agent in
brick production
E Wide tolerance for Only suitable for aggregate uses, unlikely to
contaminants displace virgin material

37
 3.1.2. Framework based on circularity of product outcomes
The specification-based framework above is based on identifying characteristics of the
materials preserved in recycling, without regard to the actual end uses of the material
in new products. A framework that also takes into account the circularity of end uses
(product outcomes) should additionally capture:
 The extent to which the resulting product displaces use of virgin polymer; and
 The onward recyclability of the product.
Product outcomes could therefore be mapped against these three dimensions as in
Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Classifying end markets for glass

Secondary Raw Material Displaces virgin Onward Recyclability
Material Use End specification glass production
(1 = capable of many
Market quality/value (Y/N)
recycling loops)
category as
above (2 = limited additional
recycling)
(A/B/C/D/E see
Table 3-2) (3 = unrecyclable)
Container Glass A Y 1
(Same colour)
Container Glass B Y 1
(Darker colour)
Insulation Foam B Y 2
Use as abrasive B Y 3
Use as water filtration C N – replaces sand 3 (though re-use often
media viable)
Use in ceramic D N – replaces 3
sanitary ware/as feldspar
fluxing agent in brick
manufacture
Use as aggregate E N 3

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

Table 3-4: Potential circular economy hierarchy

Secondary Raw Material Use End Market End markets example
Colour-separated cullet, Maintain colour grade Container glass of same
displacing virgin, into colour
equivalently recyclable
Darker colour grade Container glass darker
product
colour

38
Colour-separated cullet, Maintain colour grade Glass crafts
displacing virgin, into
Tiles/flooring5
product of limited
recyclability Mixed/darker colour grade Insulation foam

Colour-separated cullet, Use as abrasive

displacing virgin, into non-
recyclable product

Cullet, displacing Limits of specific Use as water filtration

alternative material contaminants media
No limits on specific Use as fluxing agent
contaminants
Cullet, not displacing Use as aggregate
virgin material, into
New product lines created
limited or unrecyclable
due to supply of recycled
product
glass

3.1.3. Illustrative example of increase in quality

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

Table 3-5: Resulting change in output qualities in the glass quality framework
Quality Description Before, % of input After, % of input
Category material output in material output in
grade: grade:
A Glass output to same 40% 60% (additional
colour cullet grade amber sorted
fraction)
B Glass output to lower 50% 37%
colour cullet grade
C n/a - -
D n/a - -
n/a Requires further 10% 3%
(residue processing: may in varying

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

39
 Quality Description Before, % of input After, % of input
Category material output in material output in
grade: grade:
fraction) proportions be stored, sold
to third party or landfilled

Changes in the economic model include:

 Increased capital and processing costs from additional colour sort and new line for
processing the reject/fines; and
 Higher revenues from both higher quantities of saleable cullet output overall, and
higher prices for the additional amber output.

3.2. Paper
Benchmark standards for the quality of recycling of paper and board in relation to
sorting plant outputs (and inputs to paper mills) are generally well defined and agreed
upon within the European paper industry. This is due largely to the development and
adoption of the EN643 standard by the paper processing industry throughout Europe.
However, study findings indicate that within the main EN643 grades, tolerances for
undesired material are in practice deviated from depending on the requirements of
individual paper mills.

3.2.1. Framework based on material specifications

Recording data on quantities of bales sold into mills broadly corresponding to different
EN643 grades (and on sorted quantities that do not meet any EN643 grade standard),
should provide a sufficient and practical level of detail on which to base an assessment
of quality of recycling. As some EN643 grades are subject to further sorting (e.g.
within sorting stages at paper mills), the measurement should ideally be taken at the
point at which no further sorting is done and the sorted grade is input into the final
recycling process.
An initial proposed categorisation of specifications by quality is set out in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6: Categories of specifications by quality/value (papers)
Quality Quality/Value Specifications Rationale
Category Dimensions (EN643)
A Maintain fibre De-inking grade Suitable for recycling to the same
characteristics, (1.11) grade of product
homogeneity of
OCC6 grade (1.04 Suitable for corrugated cardboard
grade
– 1.05) manufacture
B Mixed fibre Mixed papers Suitable for manufacture of other
characteristics, (1.02) grades of product (components of
some variation in corrugated cardboard, tissue
grade manufacture)
C Mixed fibre Not meeting a May yet be suitable for products
characteristics, specified EN643 with less structural fibre
lower grade grade requirements
fibres

6
Old corrugated cardboard

40
It might be possible to distinguish further by quality within the mixed papers grade B,
based on further characterising the nature of the paper mix and levels of unsuitable
paper material and non-paper material, and thus the suitability of the output for
production of recyclable paper and board grades compared to low fibre strength
single-use applications such as tissues and some forms of protective packaging. The
quality category ‘C’ covers any sorted paper outputs that are not graded to any EN643
standard grade. One study plant produced an output fraction not meeting any EN643
standard grade, for offtakers including producers of tissue.

3.2.2. Framework based on circularity of product uses

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

3.2.3. Illustrative example of increase in quality

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

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

framework
Quality Description Before, % of target After, % of target
Category material input output material input output
in grade: in grade:
A De-inking and OCC grades 85% 87% (additional de-
inking grade
recovered)
B Mixed papers grade 15% 13%
C n/a - -
n/a 0% 0%
(reject)

Changes in the economic model include:

 Increased capital and operating costs from adding a recovery step on the mixed
papers line to sort additional target material into de-inking grades
 Higher revenues from the higher value de-inking grade (though a potential drop in
value of the mixed papers output as de-inking materials is removed, depending on
the market for that material)
 There is no change in disposal costs since all materials are output in a sold grade

3.2.4. Further research needed

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

41
3.3. Plastics
There are a number of reasons why an assessment of recycling quality for plastics is
more complex than for paper or glass.

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

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

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

There is a greater complexity in the input materials, predominantly packaging,

themselves than for glass or paper, with the range of materials continuously
increasing, and increasingly including multilayer and complex materials.

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

For PET, the key differentiators of quality indicated by the literature and from study
visits to reprocessors are:
 IV;
 Transparency;
 Suitability for food-contact material;
 Colour (and presence of non-target colour); and
 Presence of metals, paper, polyolefins, PA and PVC.

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

42
dl/g for carbonated soft drinks). Trays can made with PET of a lower IV (0.70 dl/g)
and textiles lower still (0.4-0.7 dl/g).7

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

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

For HDPE and PP, the key differentiators of quality indicated from the literature and
from reprocessors visited are:
 Melt-flow index (a measure of the viscosity of the polymer melt at a given
temperature, force, and time period);
 Colour;
 Odour; and
 Structural characteristics (including consistency, and varying according to specific
end-uses).

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

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

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

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

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

43
 of the secondary raw materials (as with virgin material) to meet customer
requirements. These additives can modify the flow rate, improve impact strength and
stiffness of the products made from the secondary raw material, increase UV and heat
resistance and vary the colour of the secondary raw materials. In the HDPE/PP
reprocessing plants visited in the study, different colour grades of HDPE/PP
compounds were produced from clear to dark. The impact of some additives used on
onward recyclability (the recyclability of the recycled product) is unclear and requires
further research.

3.3.1. Framework based on material specifications

Some packaging uses of recycled PET, along with what the study has identified as the
main quality specifications applicable, can be broadly categorised as in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: Packaging end markets for recycled PET and corresponding
specifications
Secondary Raw Material Corresponding Specifications
Use End Market
Transparent Bottle (Food High IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Food-grade
grade) decontamination, Limits on
PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins
Transparent Bottle (Non- High IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on
food-grade) PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins
Opaque Bottle (Food High IV, Food-grade decontamination, limits on
grade) – n.b. no current metals, paper, polyolefins
commercial production
using secondary raw
materials
Opaque Bottle (Non-Food IV, Limits on metals, paper, polyolefins
grade)
Transparent Sheet/Trays Tray IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on
(Food grade) PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins, food-grade
decontamination
Transparent Sheet/Trays Tray IV, Transparency, Colour separation, Limits on
(Non-food grade) PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins
Opaque sheet/trays Tray IV, Limits on PVC/PA/metals/paper/polyolefins

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

44
Table 3-9: Categories of specifications by quality/value (PET)
Quality Quality/Value Rationale Sorted Packaging Quality Flake Quality Specifications
Category Dimensions Specifications
A Sorted by Preserves colour Product: Sorted transparent Product: Transparent single-
separation and suitable clear/light blue beverage bottles, or colour (e.g. clear, light blue, or
IV
for use in the production sorted trays green) bottle or tray flake
product form, of the same food-contact
Source: If DRS collection is in place, Source: guaranteed >95% food
items
transparency, then from DRS systems; otherwise, contact origin
separate collection
colour; and Limits on impurities: Limits on
Limits on impurities: Limits on non- PVC, PA, metals, paper,
food contact
target material including other colours polyolefins
and opacity, trays, in addition to PVC,
metals, paper, polyolefins
B Sorted by Preserves colour Grade: Sorted transparent bottles or Product: Single-colour (e.g.
separation and suitable trays or opaque bottles, of a specific clear, light blue, or green) bottle
IV,
for use in colour-specific colour grade (clear/light- or tray flake
product form, non-food-contact uses blue/green/white/other);
Source: Any
requiring high purity flake
transparency, Source: Separate collection or sorted
Limits on impurities: Limits on
from mixed waste
colour PVC, PA, metals, paper,
Limits on impurities: Limits on non- polyolefins
target material including other non-
target colours, trays, in addition to
PVC, metals, paper, polyolefins
C Sorted by Mixed colour bottle flake Grade: Sorted bottles or trays, mixed Product: Single-colour (e.g.
can be used for non- colour clear, light blue, or green) bottle
IV,
colour-sensitive or tray flake
Source: Separate collection or sorted
product form applications that
from mixed waste Source: Any
nonetheless require high
enough IV (e.g. fibres Limits on impurities: Limits on non- Limits on impurities: Limits on
and strapping). target material including other non- PVC, PA, metals, paper,

45
Quality Quality/Value Rationale Sorted Packaging Quality Flake Quality Specifications
Category Dimensions Specifications
Separated trays can be target colours, trays, in addition to polyolefins
separately reprocessed PVC, metals, paper, polyolefins
with lower losses
compared to processing
mixed with bottles
D Other Mixed, un-colour- Grade: PET, mixed bottles and trays Product: Single-colour (e.g.
separated bottle and tray clear, light blue, or green) bottle
Source: Separate collection or sorted
flake that may need flake
from mixed waste
further sorting
Source: Any
Limits on impurities: Limits on non-
target material PVC, metals, paper, Limits on impurities: Limits on
polyolefins PVC, PA, metals, paper,
polyolefins

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

46
The main uses of recycled HDPE can be broadly distinguished as in Table 3-10, and
those of PP as in Table 3-11. Odour can be at least partly reduced through the
temperature and type of washing process. To enhance the structural properties of the
secondary raw materials and make the output suitable for use in place of virgin
material for a broader range of products (e.g. back into bottles or paint containers)
reprocessors use finer mesh filtration to reduce impurities and improve consistency,
and add additives to improve impact strength and adjust the melt-flow rate. However,
odour issues often remain, thus reducing the quality of the secondary raw materials
for end users, and colour uses can be limited, though a variety of light to dark
coloured products are offered. Using additives may affect the onward recyclability of
products made from the resulting secondary raw materials: the extent of the impact of
additives on onward recyclability is unknown.
Table 3-10: End market for recycled HDPE and corresponding specifications
Secondary Raw Material Use Corresponding Specification Requirements
End Market
HDPE Bottle (food grade)* Polymer, Colour (natural, white or other specific
colour), Food-grade decontamination
HDPE Bottles (non-food- Polymer, Colour (natural, white or other specific
grade) colour), Odour reduction
Other HDPE Packaging or Polymer, Colour (or shade/lightness), Structural
Odour-sensitive products characteristics, Odour reduction
Pipes and other injection- Polymer, Structural characteristics
moulded products, polymer-
specific
Injection-moulded Products, Defined structural characteristics with lower
HDPE/PP blend structural consistency
*Currently limited to some circular recycling of natural HDPE milk bottles

Table 3-11: End market for recycled PP and corresponding specifications

Secondary Raw Material Use Corresponding Specifications
End Market
PP Non-food packaging* Polymer, Lightness, Structural Characteristics, Odour
Injection-moulded Products Polymer, Lightness, (i.e. light vs dark), Structural
(i.e. Vehicle parts, Bottle Characteristics
crates)
Injection-moulded Products, Lightness
HDPE/PP blend (garden
furniture, crates)
*There are no current food-grade uses for recycled PP: if these were to develop, they
would require food-grade decontamination, suitable structural characteristics and
specific transparency or colours.

A similar approach as used for PET could be taken to setting a hierarchy of

quality/value categories onto which individual product specifications could be matched.

47
As with PET, this could be based on the different aspects of quality that are required
for the secondary raw material to be suitable for the application.
Table 3-12 presents an initial hierarchy of secondary raw material specification
groupings according to the different quality dimensions identified (and where,
applicable, the corresponding specifications for sorted packaging outputs). However,
because of the variation in polyolefin polymers used in different products, a more
detailed mapping exercise of the specifications required by key product groups would
be necessary to further refine this specification-based quality assessment.

48
Table 3-12: Categories of specifications by quality/value
Quality Quality/Value Rationale Sorted packaging quality Secondary raw material quality
Category Dimensions specifications specifications
A Specified polymer, This material can be e.g. Product: Specified polymer and
melt-flow index and recycled into food- product type source
Product: Sorted polymer-
other structural contact packaging (N.B
specific, single colour, product- Melt-flow Index
characteristics, colour, not believed to be
specific stream
odour limit, product produced currently in Homogenous structural
type origin (e.g. milk the EU27) Source: Separate recycling characteristics
bottles) and food collections
Low odour
contact
Limits on impurities
decontamination >95% food contact
B Specified polymer, This material can be Product: Sorted polymer- Product: Specified polymer,
melt-flow index and recycled into same specific, single colour, product- colour and product type source
other structural colour-specific, odour- specific stream
Melt-flow Index
characteristics, colour, sensitive product type
Source: Separate collection or
odour limit, product (e.g. bottle packaging Homogenous structural
sorted from mixed waste
type origin (e.g. for HDPE) characteristics
bleach bottles) Limits on impurities
Low odour
C Specified polymer, This material has Product: Sorted polymer- Product: Specified polymer,
melt-flow index and potentially wide specific, single colour, product- lightness
other structural application due to light specific stream
Melt-flow Index
characteristics, colour, odour-free and
Source: Separate collection or
lightness, odour limit, enhanced structural Homogenous structural
sorted from mixed waste
may be modified by characteristics (that characteristics
additives otherwise might not Limits on impurities
Low odour
exist due to product
variation).
D Specified polymer, This material has Product: Sorted polymer- Product: Specified polymer,
melt-flow index and potentially wide specific, light colour, product- lightness
other structural application due to its specific stream
Melt-flow Index
characteristics, light colour, and
Source: Separate collection or
enhanced structural Homogenous structural

49
Quality Quality/Value Rationale Sorted packaging quality Secondary raw material quality
Category Dimensions specifications specifications
lightness characteristics (that sorted from mixed waste characteristics
otherwise might not
Limits on impurities
exist due to product
variation). But this
category is more limited
due to odour.
E Specified polymer, This material is a darker Product: Sorted polymer- Product: Specified polymer
melt-flow index and output than in category specific, mixed colour, product-
Melt-flow Index
other structural D, which additionally specific stream
characteristics restricts uses to dark Homogenous structural
Source: Separate collection or
products. characteristics
sorted from mixed waste
Limits on impurities
F Polymer blend, melt- This material is a Product: Sorted polymer- Product: PO compound
flow index and other polymer blend and so specific, single colour, product-
Melt-flow Index
structural has wider structural specific stream
characteristics variation and more Homogenous structural
Source: Separate collection or
limited product characteristics
sorted from mixed waste
applications (i.e. to
injection moulded Limits on impurities
applications). It can still
be extruded to have
colour differentiation
and more consistent
structural
characteristics (impact
strength etc.)
G Polymer blend, This output is only Product: Sorted polymer- Product: PO compound
variable melt-flow suitable for low-quality specific, single colour, product-
index and structure applications with low specific stream
structural demands
Source: Separate collection or

50
Quality Quality/Value Rationale Sorted packaging quality Secondary raw material quality
Category Dimensions specifications specifications
sorted from mixed waste
Limits on impurities

51
 3.3.2. Notes on quality measurement points
The measurement point of quality for any secondary raw material is ideally at the
point immediately before conversion into a new product. For plastics, this is typically
the point at which a certifiable plastic secondary raw material (flake, extrusion or
regranulate) output from a reprocessor is sold to an end market (plastic converter) for
use in production. Since flake produced from food-contact PET can be either used
directly or cleaned to be suitable for reuse in food-contact PET, the measurement
point for an assessment of quality of recycling at the level of the whole recycling chain
should again ideally be at the point of input to a converter when there are no further
cleaning steps, rather than at the point of output from reprocessors.

3.3.3. Framework based upon circularity of product uses

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

 The extent to which properties of the material are preserved that are unfeasible or
costly to recover once lost (transparency, colour form);
 The extent to which the resulting product displaces use of virgin polymer; and
 The onward recyclability of the product.
This framework can be applied in two ways:
 To the whole mix of output secondary raw materials used in different end markets
for a polymer. This would not reveal the extent to which value was being
preserved (without information on what the input products were), so would need
comparing to the composition of products in waste.
 To the subset of output secondary raw materials produced from a specific product
type (e.g. transparent PET bottles). This would show for that specific product type
the extent of circularity achieved in a recycling chain.
From this mapping, a firmer hierarchy could be created by forming a single scale -
from preserving value within closed-loop cycles at the top, to low value output to
unrecyclable products that don’t displace virgin material at the bottom.

Table 3-13: Classifying end markets for plastics secondary raw materials by
circularity
Secondary Raw Material Use Material Displaces Onward Recyclability
End Market specification virgin
(1 = capable of
quality category production
many recycling
as above (Y/N)
loops)
(A/B/C/D)
(2 = limited
additional recycling)
(3 = unrecyclable)
PET Bottle clear transparent A Y 1
food-grade
PET Bottle clear transparent B Y 1
PET Bottle colour food- B Y 1
grade

52
Secondary Raw Material Use Material Displaces Onward Recyclability
End Market specification virgin
(1 = capable of
quality category production
many recycling
as above (Y/N)
loops)
(A/B/C/D)
(2 = limited
additional recycling)
(3 = unrecyclable)
PET Bottle opaque food- C Y 1
grade
PET Tray clear food-grade B Y 1
PET Tray clear C Y 1
PET Multi-material Tray C Y 3
PET Bottle opaque C Y 2/3
PET Tray opaque D Y 2/3
PET Film C Y 2/3
PET Multi-material film D Y 3
Strapping C Y 2
Polyester Fibre D Y 2/3
Other injection moulded D Y/N 2/3
products

The distinct dimensions could be combined to create a single hierarchy as follows in

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

Table 3-14: Classifying end markets for plastics secondary raw materials by
circularity, example for PET
Secondary Raw Material End markets example
Use
Into recyclable product displacing virgin material
A Food-grade e.g. Bottle to beverage bottle production
Tray flake to food tray production
B Colour-separation, e.g. Bottle flake to other non-food-contact bottle
product-separation production
Tray flake to other non-food-contact tray production
C Product separation
D No product separation e.g. Bottle to production with lower IV (trays)
Into product of lower recyclability displacing virgin material

53
Secondary Raw Material End markets example
Use
B Colour-separation, Bottles to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film
product-separation
Trays to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film

C Product separation Bottle flake to fibres production

D No product separation Mixed flake to fibres production
Into unrecyclable product displacing virgin material
A Colour-separation, Bottles to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film
product-separation
Trays to colour-specific (i.e. transparent) film
Clear trays or bottles to multi-material multi-layer trays

B Product separation Bottle flake to fibres production

C No product separation Mixed flake to textile production
Into product not displacing virgin polymer
Not displacing virgin Into plastic board and lumber materials
material, into limited or
unrecyclable product

3.3.4. Illustrative example of increase in quality

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

Table 3-15: Resulting change in output qualities in the HDPE quality

framework
Quality Description Before, % of HDPE After, % of HDPE
Category output in grade: output in grade:
(see Table
3-12)
B Separated colour, to be - 10%
de-odourised for
packaging applications.
E Separated polymer, 100% 90%
mixed colour, odour, to
go to dark coloured, less
odour-sensitive
injection-moulded
applications

Changes in the economic model include:

54
 Increased capital and operating costs from adding an additional sorting step and
quality control step to separate out a white opaque sorted fraction;
 Higher revenues per tonne available for the separated out white opaque fraction
from growing demand in the packaging sector. No change in revenue per tonne for
remaining darker colour HDPE output.
 No change in disposal costs.

3.3.5. Further research needed

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

4. Quality of recycling: existing standards

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

4.1. Quality of recycling: glass

Technical specifications and standards are widely used in the glass industry, typically
referring to one or more of the following properties:
 Physico-chemical composition;
 Content of impurities;
 Physical size and shape; and
 Homogeneity, i.e. the variation within the given specification.

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

“There are a number of technical specifications developed by

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

4.1.1. Industry standards for sorting plant outputs

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

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

55
 FERVER specifications;
 CEN guidelines; and
 BSI specification.

These are reviewed in detail in the technical proposals for the End-of-Waste (EoW)
Criteria for Glass Cullet.
The EoW criteria proposed specifies the following limits on non-glass components
(based on a review of these industry standards and specific to re-melt applications):

 Ferrous metals: 50 ppm;

 Non-ferrous metals: 60 ppm;
 Non-metal non-glass inorganics:
o 100 ppm for cullet size > 1mm
o 1500 ppm for cullet size ≤ 1 mm
 Organics: 2000 ppm

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

4.1.2. Industry current practice: glass recycling standards

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

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

End Market Specifications Guideline limits on contaminants
applied
Study Plant 1
Cullet glass for container GEB -ceramics, stones, other inert non-
manufacture guidelines, glass (CSP): <20ppm
T120 resp. TR -non-ferrous metals <3ppm, -Fe-
310. metals <2 ppm
-glass ceramics <5 ppm (for particles
above 10mm) and <10 ppm (for
particles smaller 10mm)
-loose organic substances <300ppm
Colour limits – see below
Reject fractions to grinding None specified None specified
for insulation material

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

56
Study Plant 2
Flint cullet for remelt to None specified Less than 35g per tonne
high end clear bottles
Coloured flint cullet for None specified Less than 35g per tonne
green bottle manufacture

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

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

Colour- Study Plant 1 - Study Plant 1 - Output Study Plant 2
sorted cullet Input
Flint 3% off-colour amber: ≤ 0.3% Not specified
green: ≤ 0.2%
other colour: ≤ 0.2%
Amber 8% off-colour minimum 80% amber green Not specified
≤ 10 %
Green 5% off-colour minimum 75% green amber Not specified
≤ 10%

4.2.Quality of recycling: paper

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

4.2.1. Industry standards for sorting plant outputs: EN643

EN643 is this European list of standard grades of paper and board for recycling, last
updated in 2013. EN643 defines the grades of paper for recycling and quality
requirements (including setting limits on tolerance levels of non-paper components.
The EN643 standards secure ‘comparable’ requirements for paper for recycling across
Europe, and the standardised grades defined within it assist trade. 10
The fact that the industry was involved in developing the standards has meant that
the technical and economic factors that relate to defining recycling quality, and the
composition of outputs, have been incorporated into the guidance. The development
of EN643 by industry clearly took into account good industry practice, along with
economic and technical pragmatism.
There are a wide range of paper and board grades described within EN643 (see Table
0-1 in the Appendices), providing much more variety than simply seeking to
distinguish low and high-grade paper, cardboard, newspaper and magazines, etc. The
types of paper / board, can – very broadly – be characterised as:

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

 Newspapers and magazines (paper or paperboard mainly manufactured from
mechanical pulping processes and with printed material);
 High grades (mostly manufactured from bleached mechanical pulping); and
 Corrugated and kraft (unbleached paper/board).

10
CEPI (2013) Why use the new EN643? Available from
http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/recycling/2013/EN64
3_page.pdf

57
In addition to describing the type of paper/board included in the grade, the EN643
standard looks to ensure quality through:
 The exclusion of specific ‘prohibited materials’ which affect quality of output or
processing, e.g. glues and Carbon Copy Papers (CCP) for some grades;
 Placing limits on ‘unwanted materials’ (either non-paper, or papers of other
grades, or e.g. magazine inserts) affecting equipment operation, plant economics,
and in some cases quality of output;
 Proving deinking requirements for some grades; and
 Proving shredding minimum sizes, where appropriate.

EN643 also distinguishes grades based on whether the paper/board is collected

separately, or as part of mixed collections, and specifically excludes paper/board from
refuse collections (i.e. extracted from mixed residual fractions), reflecting different
expectations about the quality of material from each source.
These factors are accounted for and well defined in EN643, in a form which the paper
and board recycling industry is able to agree and work to. Thus, the defining of
recycling quality for paper and card has, to a great extent, already been carried out by
the industry, and is embodied in the specifications included in EN643.

4.2.2. Industry current practice: paper recycling standards

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

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

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

58
 4.2.3. Quality standards used in the study paper sorting plants
Both paper sorting plants visited received source separated mixed paper and board
from municipal sources. The composition of paper/board delivered to one plant was
noted as highly variable, with noticeable consistent differences between deliveries
from different geographical areas. The inputs are mixed in the reception hall in order
to produce a more homogenous mix of material to be input to the process. The plant
operator described the input material as broadly conforming to EN643 grade 1.01. The
outputs of the plants are described as EN643 grades 1.02, 1.04 and 1.11, with one
plant also producing an ungraded output of smaller sized mixed papers. The quality
standards applied by the plant operators to output grades are summarised in the
Table 4-3. Both paper sorting plant operators noted that the paper mill requirements
were often in practise more flexible than that prescribed in EN643.

Four light packaging fraction sorters in the study also output sorted papers:
 Two of these were in France (where the collection stream includes all papers), and
both of these plants output a 1.05 grade (corrugated cardboard) with >95%
corrugated cardboard content, rather than grade 1.04 (with 70% corrugated board).
 One was in Germany, where the output grade ‘Paper from lightweight packaging’
was comprised of the packaging card included in the light packaging fraction
collected.
 From one plant in Hungary (where the collection from some more rural areas
included papers), the paper mix output was sent to a co-located paper sorter for
sorting, rather than sold as a sorted output grade.

Table 4-3: Quality standards in use in study plants (sorted paper

outputs/inputs)
Type of Target Description Limits on Impurities
Quality Material
Specification
Inputs
Described Source Variable, mainly a combination Small-sized pieces of paper; though
of: would prefer to not have these, as
as broadly separated
* Sack collections usually with they increase the amount of lower
conforming used paper higher content of graphic paper. quality “Fibre-mix” outputs.
to EN 643 and board * Bin collections with higher
grade 1.01 from cardboard content.
households
Outputs
EN 643 Mixed Mixture of various qualities of Unsuitable fibres and non-fibre
paper and board, containing a materials: 1.5%
grade 1.02 paper
maximum of 40% of Moisture: 12%
newspapers and magazines
EN 643 Corrugated Used paper and board Non-fibre materials: 1.5%
packaging, containing minimum Moisture: 12%
grade 1.04 paper &
of 70 % of corrugated board,
board the rest being other packaging
papers, other paper and board
products
EN 643 Corrugated Used boxes and sheets of Non-fibre materials: 1.5
corrugated board of various Total unwanted materials, including
grade board
qualities, containing minimum non-fibre and unsuitable fibres:
1.05.01 95% corrugated board 2.5%
(output by Moisture: 12%
French LPF
sorter)
EN 643 Graphic Sorted graphic paper from Non-fibre materials: 0.5%
households, newspapers and Print products not suitable for
grade 1.11 paper for
magazines consisting of a deinking: 1.5%

59
Type of Target Description Limits on Impurities
Quality Material
Specification
deinking minimum of 80 % newspapers Total unwanted materials, including
and magazines, but at least 30 non-fibre and unsuitable fibres: 3%
% newspapers and 40 % Moisture: 12%
magazines (higher percentages
of one or the other paper There can be customer specific
product are subject of supply agreements (for example, allowing
agreements) board content at 3.5% rather than
1.5%).
EN 643 Smaller Mixture of sorted used paper Non-fibre materials 3%
<150 mm in dimension with low Total unwanted materials, including
ungraded sized mixed
content of corrugated and board non-fibre and unsuitable fibres: 3%
“Fibre-mix” paper materials Moisture: 12%
DSD/DKR Paper from >90% paper, board, cardboard Liquid packaging boards: 4%
from lightweight packaging Plastic items: 3%
Fraction 550 lightweight
Metal items: 0.5%
(output by packaging At the study sorting plant, this Other residues: 3.5%
German LPF grade was often mixed into
sorter) other outputs from a co-located
paper sorting plant.

4.2.4. Relevance of sorting plant output standards to quality of

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

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

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

60
are less likely to be recycled into similar grades, and some grades of mixed papers of
lower fibre quality, fibre quality degraded though collection, storage and transport,
and/or higher levels of non-paper material and other impurities, are more likely to end
up as low-fibre-strength, single use material. A higher quality recycling chain is likely
to maximise captures into deinking and corrugated cardboard grades, whilst fully
utilising remaining mixed papers grades. If a plant is able to reduce the proportion of
outputs going to non-circular paper recycling, and concurrently able to increase the
proportion that adheres (either exactly, or pragmatically) to an EN643 grade which
can readily be recycled again thereafter, that would indicate a tangible and easily
understandable transition from lower to higher quality recycling.

4.3. Quality of Recycling: plastics

There is wider variation in specifications and grades of polymers than for paper and
greater variation in the recycling chain and number of steps and sorting operations.
There are however clear general quality characteristics identifiable, and a small
amount of detail is available on the key differences in, for example, structural
characteristics.

4.3.1. Industry reference standards for recycling plant outputs

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

 EN15342 for polystyrene secondary raw materials

 EN15344 for polyethylene secondary raw materials
 EN15345 for polypropylene secondary raw materials
 EN15346 for poly(vinyl chloride) secondary raw materials
 EN15348 for poly(ethylene terephalate) secondary raw materials

These standards do not distinguish different qualities of secondary raw materials. In

practice, reprocessors create outputs to the specific quality requirements of end users.

4.3.2. Industry current practice: recycling plant outputs

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

4.3.3. Industry reference standards for sorting plant outputs

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

61
Table 4-4: Summary of quality guidelines for sorted plastic packaging, PRE
Prohibited Impurities Limited Impurities Grade variation

All: Minerals, Rubber,

Wood, Sacks,
Hazardous Waste,
Medical Waste, Glass,
Oxo or degradable
material, Food,
Silicones
PET Bottle PET-G (PET with Max 5% of PET from Clear: Max 5%
grades added glycol for non-food consumer light blue PET, no
flexibility) applications opaques
CPET (crystalline PET Metals Clear Blue: Max
suitable for ovens) 20% of blue PET,
Paper/Cardboard
no opaques
PVC
Light Blue: >20%
Transparent Colours light blue PET, no
opaques
Opaque Colours
Coloured >80%
Monolayer trays
transparent mixed
Other plastics colours, max 5%
opaque colours
HPDE Bottles, Foams Max 5% of HDPE from n/a
Mixed Colour non-food consumer
Polyurethane (PUR)
applications
Metals
Paper/Cardboard
PP
Other Plastics
PP Films Expanded Metals Variations in
Polystyrene (EPS) & minimum content
Paper/Cardboard
PUR for:
PVC, LDPE, HDPE,
PP
LLDPE
Other Plastics
Other Impurities
PE Films EPS & PUR Metals Variations in
minimum content
Paper/Cardboard
for:
PVC
LDPE
PP
LLDPE
Other Plastics
HDPE
Other Impurities

62
In North America, the trade association APR (The Association of Plastic Recyclers) has
produced standards intended for use as benchmarks for suppliers. These go further
than PRE’s standards in outlining specifications for PET thermoforms and PP small
rigids.
These standards reflect a set of generic issues relevant to plastics processing:
 Environmental issues – no medical or hazardous waste;
 The problems that dirt, mud and rocks cause to machinery;
 Other problematic material (film in processes designed to shred rigid plastics); and
 The impurity that can be caused by oils and grease, or corrosive and reactive
products.

They also distinguish the following specific problematic materials affecting the quality
of output:
 Chemically incompatible low temperature melting materials:
o PS; and
o PLA plastic.
 Chemically incompatible high temperature melting materials – blocking
filters/channels, causing holes, such as silicones (which has the same density as
PET); and
 Chemically compatible low temperature materials, such as PET-G, PET Glycol,
created by the copolymerisation of PET and ethylene glycol;
 Chemically compatible but opaque materials:
o CPET, Crystalline PET, partially crystallised and therefore opaque,
standardly used for microwaveable and oven ready food packaging. Affects
colour and brittleness of output.
 Materials affecting output colour or quality:
o PVC, causing discoloration even in small quantities from
dehydrochlorination, and the resulting corrosive gasses also degrade the
target polymer; and
o Other coloured PET (depending on the output grade).
 Material affecting quality in other ways:
o Presence of oxo or bio-degradable additives (more of an issue in film due to
more film with these properties).

They also contain some material specific prohibitions related to impurities degrading
the quality of the output:
 PVC in HDPE bottles and PVDC layers in PE film;
 Plastics with PLA or foaming agents (HDPE); and
 Film with oxo or bio-degradable additives.

Lastly, they contain non-target materials that the system isn’t set up to cope with:
 Bulky HPDE rigids, which require a different recycling process; and
 Metallised labels or films, multi-material pouches, and silicone coated film.

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

63
There are also standards and quality specifications set by national producer
responsibility organisations (PROs). For example, Germany’s Der Grüne Punkt (‘The
Green Dot’) recycling system requires that transparent PET bottles are sorted to 98%
purity.

4.3.4. Industry current practice: sorting plant outputs

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

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

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

Table 4-5: Quality standards in use in study plants (sorted packaging

outputs/inputs)
Plant code Standard Material Target Prohibited Allowable
and type of Applied Targeted Impurities Impurities
Quality where provided
Specification
PET
P4 Input Clear PET >98% PVC Metals
Specification bottles, DRS Coloured
bottles <1%
Paper <1%
PO bottles
<0.25%
Dirt <2%
Moisture <5%
P4 Input PET bottles, >98% PVC <0.1% Coloured
Specification yellow bag Large metal bottles <1%
or inert Opaques, other
material PET packaging
PET-G and other
<0.5% polymers <2%
Foamed Metals <0.5%
plastics incl. Dirt <2%
EPS <0.5% Other material
<2%

P5 Input DSD/DKR PET mixed >98% Metallic or <2% total;

Specification 328-2 70/30 >70% mineral <0.5% other
(from D7) PET impurities metal;
bottles with a unit <2% other

64
Plant code Standard Material Target Prohibited Allowable
and type of Applied Targeted Impurities Impurities
Quality where provided
Specification
weight of > plastic;
100 g are <2% other
not residues
permitted!
PVC <0.1%

D1 and D2 CITEO PET (including >98%

Output trays)
Quality
D5 Output DSD/DKR PET bottles >94% EPS <0.5% Opaques, other
Quality 325 (clear, light >98% PVC <0.1% PET packaging
blue, green) and other
polymers <2%
Metals <0.5%
D6 Output Ecoembes PET Bottles >95.5% PVC < < 4% of other
Quality (mixed colour 0.25% polymers;
including <0.25%
trays) metals.
D7 Output DSD/DKR Mixed PET 70 As above As above As above
Quality 328-2 bottles/30
trays,
deviation
possible
D8 Output ARA SN PET Bottles >98%
Quality 57130/408 (clear, light
/415 blue, green)
/416
D8 Output ARA SN PET Other >95%
Quality 57130/499
D9 Output DSD/DKR PET Mixed As above As above As above
Quality 328-2 70/30
P1 Output COREPLA PET Bottles PVC <0.5% Light blue <2%
Quality CTLM clear Colour and
opaque <0.7%
Polyolefin
<1.5%
PET trays <1%
Other <2.5%
P1 Output COREPLA PET Bottles PVC <0.5% Colour and
Quality CTAM light blue opaque PET
<2.7%
PET trays <1%
Polyolefin
<1.5%
Other <2%
P1 Output COREPLA PET Bottles PVC <0.5% Opaque PET
Quality CTCM coloured <4%
PET trays <1%
Polyolefin <2%
Other <2.5%

65
Plant code Standard Material Target Prohibited Allowable
and type of Applied Targeted Impurities Impurities
Quality where provided
Specification
P1 Output COREPLA PET Bottles PVC <1% PET trays <2%
Quality opaque Polyolefin
<2.5%
Other <1.5%
P1 Output UNI 11038 PET flake
Quality -1
P2 Output PET Mixed Approx..
Quality (40% bottle, 95%
60% tray)
P5 Output PET Clear >98%
Quality
P5 Output PET Coloured >98%
Quality
P5 Output PET Opaque >98%
Quality
P5 Output PET trays N/A
Quality
P6 Output Food PET bottles >95%
Quality contact and trays
specificatio
n
HDPE/PP
Output HDPE/PP Metals <0.5%
Quality Other plastic
(comparable items <4%
to APR Other residues
HDPE spec) items <4%
P7 Input DSD/DKR HPDE >94% Metallic or Metals <0.5%
Quality 329 “give mineral Rigid PP <3%
some quite impurities by mass
good with a unit EPS <0.5%
orientation weight of > Plastic films
” 100 g and <5%
cartridges Other <3%
for sealants
P7 Input DSD/DKR PP Metallic or Metals <0.5%
Quality 324 “give mineral Rigid PE <1%
some quite impurities by mass
good with a unit EPS <0.5%
orientation weight of > Plastic films
” 100 g and <2%
cartridges Other <3%
for sealants
D2 Output CITEO HDPE/PP >95%
Quality
D5 Output ‘internatio HDPE/PP
Quality nally
recognised
specificatio
ns’

66
Plant code Standard Material Target Prohibited Allowable
and type of Applied Targeted Impurities Impurities
Quality where provided
Specification
D6 Output Ecoembes HDPE Bottles >90% <7%
Quality (mixed polyolefin;
colour) < 2% paper /
card
<0.5% metals
D7 Output DSD/DKR PP >90% Noted above Noted above
Quality 324
D7 Output DSD/DKR PE >90% Noted above Noted above
Quality 329
D8 Output ARA SN HDPE
Quality 57118/406 Containers
D8 Output ARA SN HDPE Hollow
Quality 57118/402 Items
P1 (Sorting) COREPLA HDPE Bottles PET <1%
Output PVC <1%
Quality PP <10%
Other <1.5%
P1 UNI 10667 HDPE pellet
(Reprocessi
ng) Output
Quality
Films
Output PE Metals <0.5%
Quality (PE Transparent, Other plastic
transparent LDPE mixed items <4%
colour Other residues
items <4%
D9 Output DSD/DKR Pre-sorted >92%Wi Metals <0.5%
Quality 310 plastic film thin Other plastic
specifica <4%
tions, Other residues
deviatio <4%
n
possible
P1 Output COREPLA PE Smaller films
Quality FILM <20%
Metals and
inerts <2%
Other <5.5%
Mixed
Plastics
D6 Output Ecoembes Mixed Plastics >80% HDPE, PET and
Quality Films <10%,
other plastics
(non
containers)
<10%
board / metal /
other <4%
paper /

67
Plant code Standard Material Target Prohibited Allowable
and type of Applied Targeted Impurities Impurities
Quality where provided
Specification
D7 Output DSD/DKR Plastic hollow >94% Metals <0.5%
Quality 322 bodies and Other plastic
<3%
Other residues
<3%

D7 Output DSD/DKR MPO (mixed >85% Papers <5%

Quality 323 polyolefin Other non PO
items) plastic <7.5%
PVC <0.5%
Other <3%
Undersize
fraction <2%
D8 Output ARA SN PS/PP
Quality 77118/412
D9 Output DSD/DKR Plastic hollow Within As above
Quality 322 bodies specifica
tions,
deviatio
n
possible

5. Using the quality framework

The quality definition and framework developed here is intended for operational use,
as an approach to practically measuring the quality of recycling alongside the quantity
of recycling. It has potential application by different actors for a range of strategic
and/or operational contexts. These uses include:
 Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs;
 Tracking change in qualities produced; and
 Assessing the quality benefit from changes to recycling outputs.

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

 By plant operators or waste management companies to use as a performance
metric (alongside recycling rate), to track impact of changes on quality of outputs,
and define the quality impact of their sorting and reprocessing operations.
 By municipalities or producer responsibility organisations (PROs) contracting
sorting plants to assess the quality of outputs produced, specify output grades
within different quality categories to be produced, and/or differentiate payment by
quality category, aligned with any strategy for increasing output qualities at a
whole system level.
 By regional/national governments to quantify the overall quality of packaging
recycling output, track changes in quality resulting from
interventions/support/development of local or national markets, and use as a basis
for targeting specific quality improvements.

68
The framework provides a route for categorising recycling outputs by their quality. It
puts outputs into a defined scale so that current quality performance can be assessed
and improvements can be measured. The assessment is based on simple features of
sorted outputs (prior to reprocessing operations) or secondary raw materials
produced, and it does not require extensive tracking of end uses. There is scope for
expansion to accommodate the end use of the material if this information can be
gathered.
The quality categories outlined within the framework prioritises effective separation
and preservation of the distinct useful characteristics of the material, with either:
 the broadest utility (e.g. natural, de-odourised HDPE which can be adapted for use
in most HDPE products); and/or
 distinct and specific circular utility (e.g. recycling captured for specific closed-loop
recycling cycles, such as yellow bleach HDPE back into yellow bleach HDPE bottles)

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

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

By defining these broad bands (the strongest determiners of quality of recycling

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

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

Assessing the current quality of recycling outputs

The starting point of using the framework would be to collect information on output
quantities of different materials segmented by quality categories.
 Plant operators could categorise their outputs according to the quality categories;
 Those contracting sorting plants could require reporting from sorting plants
according to the quality categories, and could (if aligned to strategic development
in qualities or to incentivise marginal quality improvements) vary payments
according to quality category;
 PROs or national governments could seek to collect data from reprocessors that
would enable them to assess the overall quantity of recycling outputs within each
quality category.

Tracking change

69
Use of the framework over time would allow a quantitative assessment of changes in
the ‘quality of recycling’. If they had little impact on quantities recycled, these changes
would otherwise be obscured by a simple recycling rate metric.
Tracking change over time would allow:
 A plant operator to:
o show the benefit to quality from changing processes to improve capture
into higher quality category outputs; or
o track achievement against quality targets (see below).
 A PRO or national government to assess the impact of changes in policy (or in
other factors such as investment, market demand, etc) on the development of
higher quality recycling.

Targeting improvements in quality

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, producer organisations and regional/national authorities could also take a

longer-term perspective on strategies for increasing quality of recycling by shifting the
economic picture more fundamentally. This could be by targeting research and
development to reduce costs; influencing demand for recycled content; or supporting
the development of higher quality reprocessing routes for specific portions of
materials.

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

70
Table 5-1: Summary of quality framework applications by organisation
Organisation Usage of the Quality Framework
Plant management Gather data on sorting plant outputs by category band.
Use as performance metric (alongside recycling rate) to
track impact of changes on quality categories.
Waste management Collate data on outputs at the point where they leave the
company management of the company (sorted and/or reprocessed
outputs).
Define the quality impact of sorting and recycling activities
from their operations
Contractor of sorting In the context of a tender process, assess as part of tender
plant process the quality categories of the grades of outputs
(Municipality/PRO) planned to be produced.
Specific output grades within different quality categories to
be produced, aligned with any strategy for increasing
output qualities at a whole system level (see below).
Where PROs buy the material, use as the starting point for
differentiating payments for differing quality outputs
(adjusted away from a simple reflection of expected onward
sale values), again aligned with any strategy for increasing
output qualities at a whole system level.
System and policy Gather data on sorting plant outputs by category band.
design (PROs / Quantify the overall quality of packaging recycling output
National produced from in-country sorting and recycling chains. This
Government) data can accompany statistics on overall recycling rates for
different packaging materials.
Track changes in quality resulting from
interventions/support/development of local or national
markets.
To use the framework as a guide for intervention, identify
what improvements in quality bands overall are desirable
for which materials (in the context of demand for higher
quality outputs from international, national and local
industries).

71
Appendices

A1.1 EN643 Grades

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

Grade Title Materials not Conditions for
allowed at any level meeting grade and
other allowable
materials
Mixed paper and board, - No restrictions on short fibre
unsorted, but unusable content
materials removed
Mixed papers and boards - Maximum 40% newspapers
(sorted) and magazines
Grey board Corrugated material -
Corrugated paper and board - Minimum 70% corrugated
packaging board, the rest being other
packaging papers and
boards
Ordinary corrugated paper - Minimum 70% corrugated
and board board, the rest being other
paper and board products
Corrugated paper and board - Minimum 80 % of
corrugated board, the rest
being other paper and board
products
Ordinary corrugated board - Maximum 10% other
Grade 1:
packaging papers and
Ordinary Grades
boards
Corrugated board - Maximum 5% other
packaging papers and
boards
Magazines - Can allow glue
Magazines without glue Glue -
Magazines with product - Can allow glue. Can contain
samples non-paper components as
attached product samples.
Telephone books - Glue and shavings allowed.
Newspapers and magazines - Minimum 30% each of
newspaper and magazines
Sorted graphic paper for - Minimum 80% newspapers
deinking and magazines: at least
30% newspapers and 40%
magazines. Print products
not suitable for deinking
limited to 1.5%.
Newspapers - Maximum 5% of newspapers
/ advertisements coloured in
the mass
Unsold newspapers not Additional inserts (not Paper products not suitable
intended for deinking originally circulated with for deinking are allowed.
publication)
Unsold newspapers Additional inserts (not -
Grade 2:
originally circulated with
Medium Grades
publication)
Lightly printed white - -
shavings
Lightly printed white Glue -
shavings without glue
Heavily printed white - -
shavings

72
 Grade Title Materials not Conditions for
allowed at any level meeting grade and
other allowable
materials
Heavily printed white Glue -
shavings without glue
Ordinary sorted office paper Carbonless copy paper Minimum 60% wood free
(CCP) / no carbon required paper. Less than 10%
(NCR) unbleached fibres. Less than
5% newspapers and
packaging
Sorted office paper CCP / NCR Minimum 80% wood free
paper. Less than 5%
unbleached fibres.
Ordinary sorted coloured CCP / NCR, manila Minimum 70% wood free
letters envelopes, file covers, paper.
newspapers, cardboard
Sorted coloured letters CCP / NCR, manila Minimum 90% wood free
envelopes, file covers, paper.
newspapers, cardboard
White woodfree bookquire Hard covers Maximum 10% coated paper
White mechanical pulp- Hard covers Maximum 10% coated paper
based bookquire
Coloured woodfree Non-flexible covers, Maximum 10% mechanical
magazines bindings, non-dispersible pulp-based papers
inks, adhesives, poster
papers, labels, label trim
Bleached woodfree PE- - -
coated board
Other PE-coated board - Can allow unbleached board
and paper
Mechanical pulp-based - Can allow recycled fibres
computer print-out
Multigrade Newsprint Maximum 10% other wood
containing papers. Maximum
2% paper with plastic layer.
Coloured log end tissue - May contain printed
material.
White log end tissue - May contain printed
material.
Mixed lightly coloured - Minimum 50% wood free
printer shavings papers
Mixed lightly coloured - Minimum 90% wood free
woodfree printer shavings papers
Woodfree binders - Maximum 2% paper with a
plastic layer. Maximum 10%
mechanical pulp-based
paper
Special woodfree binders Plastic layered and -
mechanical pulp-based
papers
Tear white shavings Glue, wet-strength paper, -
Grade 3: High paper coloured in the mass
Grades White woodfree letters Cash books, carbon paper, Maximum 5% mechanical
non-water soluble adhesives pulp-based paper
White woodfree letters Cash books, carbon paper, -
unprinted carbonless paper, non-water
soluble adhesives
White business forms - -
Printed bleached sulphate Glue, polycoated or waxed -
board materials
Lightly printed bleached Glue, polycoated or waxed -
sulphate board materials
Multi printing Wet-strength paper, paper -
coloured in the mass
Medium printed multi Wet-strength paper, paper -

73
 Grade Title Materials not Conditions for
allowed at any level meeting grade and
other allowable
materials
printing coloured in the mass
White heavily printed Grey and brown piles -
multiply board
Mixed white heavily printed - Maximum 20 % grey and
multiply board brown plies.
White lightly printed Grey piles -
multiply board
White unprinted multiply Grey piles -
board
White newsprint Magazine paper -
White mechanical pulp- - -
based coated and uncoated
paper
White mechanical pulp- - -
based paper containing
coated paper
White coated woodfree Glue -
paper
White woodfree papers Glue -
White shavings Newsprint and magazine Minimum 60% wood free
paper, glue paper. Maximum 10%
coated paper.
White woodfree shavings Glue Maximum 5% coated paper
White woodfree uncoated Glue, coated paper -
shavings

White envelope cuttings Coated paper Can allow glue

Unprinted bleached sulphate Glue, polycoated or waxed -

board materials
Unprinted tissue coloured in Packaging materials -
the mass
White unprinted tissue Packaging materials -
New shavings of corrugated - -
board
Unused corrugated kraft - Kraft liners only
Used corrugated kraft 1 - Kraft liners only
Used corrugated kraft 2 - Kraft liners or testliners
Grade 4: Kraft having at least 1 liner made
grades of kraft
Used kraft sacks - -
Unused kraft sacks - -
Used kraft - -
New kraft - -
New carrier kraft - -
Mixed papers - -
Mixed packaging Newspapers and magazines -
Used liquid board packaging - Minimum 50% fibres (by
weight)
Unused liquid packaging - Minimum 50% fibres (by
board weight)
Wrapper kraft Bitumen or wax coatings -
Grade 5: Wet labels - Maximum 1% glass content.
Special Grades Maximum 50% moisture,
without other unusable
materials.
Dry labels - -
Labels with base layer - -
Paper release liner for self- Labels, cores and other -
adhesive labels contaminants
Unprinted white wet- - -

74
 Grade Title Materials not Conditions for
allowed at any level meeting grade and
other allowable
materials
strength woodfree papers
Unprinted white and - -
coloured wet-strength
papers
Printed white wet-strength - -
woodfree papers
Printed white and coloured - -
wet-strength wood-free
papers
Cores Metal ends -
Carbonless copy paper - -
(NCR)
Printed white envelope - -
Mixed envelopes - -
Blister pack - Plastic layers and inserts
allowed
Used kraft sacks - Papers with a plastic layer
allowed
Used kraft sacks with plastic - -
layer papers
Unused kraft sacks - Papers with a plastic layer
allowed
Unused kraft sacks with - -
plastic layer papers and poly
liners
Used paper cups and other - Minimum 75% fibres (by
used tableware weight)
Unused cups and other - Minimum 75% fibres (by
tableware weight)

A2.1 Other Industry Standards

In North America, the trade association, The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR),
have produced a set of guideline standards for sorted packaging that are intended for
use as benchmarks for suppliers and provide an indication of the quality standards
that are likely to meet the requirements of their reprocessors. A summary of the ‘hard’
and ‘soft’ limits for different sorted packaging outputs are below.
Table 0-2: Summary of Quality Standards for Plastic Packaging
Contaminants not Conditions for Grade variation
allowed at any allowable
level contaminants and
type of contaminants
All: Plastic bags or plastic film,
wood, glass, oils and
grease, rocks, stones,
mud, dirt, medical and
hazardous waste

PET Bottles PVC, Total weight of contaminants % PET fraction (by

should not exceed the weight)
chemically incompatible required % of PET per grade:
low temperature melting
materials, including PS HDPE rigid containers, LDPE Grade A: 94% or
and PLA plastic, as rigid or rigid plastic containers, PP above
foam, rigid plastic containers,
aluminium, metal containers Grade B: 83 – 93%
chemically compatible low or cans, paper or cardboard,
temperature materials, Grade C: 73 – 82%
liquid residues, primarily

75
 such as PETG, water (2% max weight) Grade F: 72% or below
items containing
degradable additives

PET items containing Total weight of contaminants N/A

Thermoforms degradable additives must not exceed 5% and total
weight of individual
contaminants by material
must not exceed 2%:
aluminium, metal containers
and cans, loose paper or
cardboard, polystyrene, PLA,
PVC, PETG, liquid residues
(primarily water)

PP Small Rigid electronics scrap, Total weight of contaminants Considered Bulky PP if

Plastics should not exceed 8% and greater than 5 gallons
items with circuit boards total weight of individual
or battery packs, contaminants by material
products with degradable must not exceed 2%:
additives, metal, paper/cardboard, liquid
containers which held or other residues, HDPE, any
flammable, corrosive or other plastic containers or
reactive products, or packaging including PET, PVC,
pesticides or herbicides. PS, Other

PE Clear Film Metallised labels or films, Total weight of contaminants Grade B: 80% clear,
should not exceed 5% up to 20% colour,
multi-material pouches, clean and natural LDPE
Pigmented polyethylene films, and / or LDPE films
silicone coated film, non-polyethylene other
film with oxo or bio- plastics, labels, loose paper, Grade C: 50% clear,
degradable additives, strapping, twine or tape, food 50% colour, dry, LDPE
waste, liquid residue (2% or LLDPE films
PVDC layers, max. weight)
acrylic coatings,
rubber bands

HDPE Bulky Items with circuit boards Total weight of the following N/A
Rigid Plastics or battery packs materials must not exceed
10%:
Products with degradable
additives Polypropylene
Containers which held Total weight of the following
flammable, corrosive or materials must not exceed
reactive products, or 4%:
pesticides or herbicides.
Plastic resins – PET, PVC,
LDPE, PS, Other
Total weight of the following
materials must not exceed
2%:
Metal, liquid / other residues,
paper/ cardboard

HDPE Coloured Bulky rigids, Total weight of contaminants % HDPE fraction (by
Bottles should not exceed the weight):
any plastics with PLA or required %s of HDPE per
foaming agents, grade Grade A: 95% or
above
PVC, Total weight of individual
contaminants by material Grade B: 85 – 94%
HDPE motor oil or other
automotive fluids must not exceed 2% Grade C: 80 – 84%
Other non-HDPE rigid plastic Grade F: 79% or below
containers or packaging,
including PET, LDPE, PP, PS

76
and Other, liquid residues,
aluminium, paper or
cardboard

77
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the
address of the centre nearest you at:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this
service:
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
- by electronic mail via:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa
website at:https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop
at:https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (seehttps://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en).
 KJ-03-20-775-EN-N

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

79