Final report Beverage carton recycling

Transcription

1 Institut für Aufbereitung und Recycling fester Abfallstoffe Prof. Dr.-Ing. Th. Pretz Wüllnerstraße Aachen Final report Beverage carton recycling Customer: Kenniscentrum Nascheiding Dr. Ulphard Thoden van Velzen - senior packaging scientist Wageningen UR Agrotechnology and Food Innovations B.V. B.U. Fresh, Food and Chains Postbox AA Wageningen The Netherlands Editor: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Th. Pretz Dipl.-Ing. O. Pikhard Aachen, May 2010

2 Content Figures... 3 Tables... 4 Management Summary Introduction Beverage carton composition and masses Description of beverage carton recycling processes Collection and separation Recycling concepts Reject treatment concepts Quality criteria which have to be fulfilled by beverage cartons Masses Comparison of qualities Laboratory scale washing process Technical scale processes Sorting Comminution and washing Results Conclusions

3 Figures Figure 1: Components of a beverage carton... 9 Figure 2: Beverage carton treatment Figure 3:Working principle NIR Sorter Figure 4: Working principle eddy current separator Figure 5: Schematic diagram Niederauer Mühle plant [FKN2010] Figure 6: Sorting drum Figure 7: Schematic diagram recycling plant Figure 8: Beverage carton recycling plants Figure 9: Tectan boards Figure 10: Amount of beverage cartons recycled in Germany Figure 11: Flow sheet sample treatment Figure 12: Rotor shear and comminution product Figure 13: Material losses during comminution Figure 14: Fiber loss versus time Figure 15: Impurity loss juice packaging Figure 16: Vla losses Figure 17: Comparison Vla carton before and after washing Figure 18: Composition by weight Figure 19: Comminution losses Figure 20: Washing machine Figure 21: Organic loss washing Figure 22: Fiber from Vla washing Figure 23: Fiber quality Bron- and Nascheiding Figure 24: Beverage cartons from Bronscheiding Figure 25: Beverage cartons from Nascheiding Figure 26: Fiber loss washing Figure 27: Organic losses based on dry weight

4 Tables Table 1: Packaging types and market shares Table 2: Sorting catalogue Table 3: Sampling masses Table 4: Fiber loss size distribution Table 5: Wet weight of Vla / Yoghurt packagings Table 6: Vla content Table 7: Residues based on wet weight Table 8: Average contamination based on dry organic mass Table 9: Sorting results Dual System sample Table 10: Sorting results Grootegast sample Table 11: Sorting results Attero sample Table 12: Sorting results Terschelling sample Table 13: Sorting results Eureco Den Helder sample

5 Management Summary Beverage Carton Recycling in the Netherlands is a challenge following the legal demands. The total amount of beverage carton in NL is only kg/c*y. Access to this waste is possible by source collection as well as by sorting MSW. In order to characterise the Dutch beverage carton quality samples from different sources have been analysed and compared with samples from the German Packaging Waste Recycling system (2.7 kg/c*y). Beverage cartons are produced both in a septic and an aseptic quality. Aseptic packaging is build with an additional aluminium layer, while septic beverage cartons contain mainly fibre and Polyethylene. The typical use in the Netherlands is shown in figure 1. Due to the packaging of vla and yoghurt products in beverage cartons the mixture is different from the composition in Germany (figure 2). Residues; 5,6% Others; 22,7% Vla Joghurt; 30,1% Milk; 20,6% Juice; 20,9% Figure 1: Product distribution in beverage cartons by wet weight (Netherlands) Residues; 8,0% Vla Joghurt; 0,0% Others; 12,4% Juice; 20,3% Milk; 59,4% Figure 2: Product distribution in beverage cartons by wet weight (Germany) 5

6 Sorting technology for beverage cartons on a BAT level is available as Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting. Due to the different qualities aseptic beverage cartons can be separated from mixed waste streams both with NIR and with eddy current separation technology due to the aluminium layer. The share of recyclable aseptic beverage cartons varies between 30 and 50%. The recycling process is divided into two separate steps, a mechanical sorting process to generate a concentrate of beverage cartons and a specialized wet separation process to separate fibres. While sorting can be organized regionally the fibre enrichment process is very specialized. Only three facilities in Germany and Spain are able to offer this important recycling service. For the assessment of beverage cartons qualities analysis using lab scaled processes were done. The main results of this research are: 1. Quality differences between the products from Bronscheiding and Nascheiding sorting processes are detectable, whereas the source collection always is responsible for a slightly higher quality. 2. The fibre yield depends on the purity. A slightly higher recovery rate can be achieved with beverage cartons from the Bronscheiding system. 3. German and Dutch beverage cartons have a similar contamination share. The main difference is that the main contamination factor in Dutch beverage cartons is caused by organic residues whereas in German beverage cartons the main contamination consists of other materials, e.g. plastic foils, other packagings, etc. The specific Dutch product mix packed in beverage cartons with a high percentage of vla and yoghurt cartons could thus cause problems in a fibre recycling process due to the unknown influence of the high organic share on the recycling process 4. Due to a strong dependency on few fibre processing plants only a limited treatment capacity in Europe exists. Thus it is very likely that there is no market for lower qualities. 5. For the design of a Dutch beverage carton recycling system a part stream recycling focussing on the aseptic fraction (which is free of Vla packagings) should be considered. 6

7 1. Introduction At this moment a change of the Dutch municipal solid waste collection and treatment system takes place due to legislational exigencies formulated by the European Union. These changes which especially affect packaging waste generated in households lead to numerous uncertainties in terms of ecological, economical and social questions. One way to overcome these uncertainties is to characterize the problems in combination with a comparison to solutions found in other countries. One special fraction of the packaging waste generated in households is beverage carton. In order to be able to estimate the recyclability of Dutch beverage cartons it was necessary to characterize their properties and to compare them to the properties of other beverage cartons which can be recycled. As a reference sample beverage cartons from a German Dual system were examined which were designated to be mechanically recycled. The main questions which had to be solved were: - How do different consumption behaviors influence the recyclability? - Which influence does a separate collection system (Bronscheiding) have on the quality of beverage cartons? - Which influence does a non separate collection system (Nascheiding) have on the quality of beverage cartons? - Are the qualities of dutch beverage cartons sufficient for a material reuse? In order to solve these questions numerous boundary conditions have to be taken into account. The main important conditions from the recycling point of view are: - Quality criteria which have to be fulfilled for recycling of beverage cartons - Existing technology for beverage carton collection and recycling - Plant capacities of beverage carton treatment plants - Quality characterization of Dutch beverage cartons The first three boundary conditions will be described shortly. The last question is more challenging because no studies on this topic are available. There is neither a normative method for measuring the amount of residues on beverage cartons nor a method for removing residues from beverage cartons without affecting the carton. Therefore numerous tests were conducted in order to find out how organic and mineral residues can be removed from beverage cartons in large amounts and with representative methods. 7

8 2. Beverage carton composition and masses Beverage cartons are multilayer packagings. The surfaces of the different layers are interconnected. In the beverage carton production process molten Polyethylene (PE) is pressed through a slit nozzle at 250 C to form a foil which is adhered to the carton. The foil is attached to the carton from both sides. If the beverage carton contains an aluminum layer no further adhesives are needed because the glue force of the polyethylene foil is sufficient to fix the aluminum foil with the carton. Once the material compound is finished it is cut into pieces of the right size and sealed together. After this step the beverage carton can be filled with a product. [FKN, 2010; SIG, 2010] Basically there exist two variations in the layout of a beverage carton. It is septic and antiseptic beverage cartons. Septic beverage cartons consist of carton and PE. These beverage cartons are used for storing food that has to be cooled, e.g. fresh milk. Antiseptic beverage cartons consist of carton, PE and aluminum. Due to the thin aluminum layer the products are protected against light and air thus inhibiting the formation of germs in the product. With this packaging type products can be stored for a longer time even without cooling. Figure 1 shows the main differences between septic and antiseptic beverage cartons. 8

9 Figure 1: Components of a beverage carton The numbers given in Figure 1 refer to a normal beverage carton with a lid and 1 l of volume. If the beverage carton has no lid the carton plastic relation will change. An average septic beverage carton without lid consists of 88 % carton and 12 % plastic. The average weight of a beverage carton of 1l is 27 g. If the beverage carton has a lid the average weight rises to 30 g. The thickness of the carton layer is about 0, 4mm, the thickness of the plastic layer is about mm and the aluminum foil used in antiseptic cartons has a thickness of mm[ace 2010], [FKN 2010], [Tetra Pak 2010]. The carton layer provides the stability which is needed to keep the beverage carton in shape. The fibers used for the production of the carton are made of Norway Spruce because the fibers of Norway Spruce are longer than those of the usual western European spruce. The average length of a Norway Spruce fiber is 5 mm compared to the western European spruce with an average fiber length of 3 mm. [FKN 2010] 9

10 At this moment beverage cartons are mainly produced by three companies: Tetra Pak GmbH, SIG Combibloc GmbH Elopak GmbH. These companies have founded the industrial union for beverage cartons (Fachverband Getränkekartons, FKN). Table 1 shows the development of the main packaging types for drinking packaging in Germany. It can be seen that the share of beverage cartons by weight is low. Packaging Reusable glass bottle 48,40% 43,60% 39,00% 35,80% Reusable plastic bottle 17,80% 17,70% 16,60% 15,40% Beverage carton 4,60% 4,00% 3,90% 3,10% Non-returnable plastic bottle 25,50% 31,60% 37,60% 42,60% Non- returnable glass bottle 0,90% 0,70% 0,70% 0,60% Beverage can 2,40% 1,90% 1,70% 2,00% Table 1: Packaging types and market shares In Mg (ton) of beverage cartons were used in Germany. In the Netherlands the amount of beverage cartons is estimated to be between Mg in the year Description of beverage carton recycling processes Beverage cartons can be recycled in an energetical or material way. Mechanical recycling implies the re-use of the raw materials e.g. fibers, plastic, and aluminum. In this report the focus is put on material recycling because one of the main aims is to investigate which influence impurities of Dutch beverage cartons might have on mechanical recycling. Furthermore, energetic recycling of beverage cartons is always performed together with other waste streams. Usually beverage cartons do only 10

11 represent a very small amount of these waste streams so that the influence of impurities on the incineration behavior of beverage cartons can be neglected. 3.1 Collection and separation The usual way to recycle beverage carton is shown in Figure 2: Bronscheiding Nascheiding MSW separation plant Recycling company Packaging waste separation plant Beverage cartons Rejects Fibre pulp Cement industry Paper industry Figure 2: Beverage carton treatment The economic and ecologic boundary conditions for waste collection depending on the collection system were already described by Bergsma [Bergsma 2010]. After the collection of the beverage cartons either as packaging waste from Bronscheiding or together with MSW from Nascheiding the beverage cartons have to be separated from the waste. The state of the art technique for separation of beverage cartons is near infrared technology. 11

12 Waste Sensor Beverage carton Pressurized air Conveyor belt Nozzle bar Figure 3:Working principle NIR Sorter NIR Sorters analyze the reflection of light in the near infrared wavelength spectrum. Due to specific absorption spectras of plastics and beverage cartons, beverage cartons can be separated from the waste stream. In order to work with a high efficiency it has to be assured that the particles which have to be sorted are singled before they pass the sensor of the near infrared camera. Furthermore, they have to remain on the same position on the conveyor belt after being scanned because otherwise it is not possible to supply sufficient precise air impulses. If these main conditions are fulfilled the separation of the beverage cartons no matter if septic or aseptic works very precise and with a high throughput. Another option to remove at least most of the aseptic beverage cartons is to use eddy current separators. The working principle is demonstrated in figure 4. 12

13 Septic beverage cartons Input Aseptic beverage cartons Vibratory feeder Magnet wheel Figure 4: Working principle eddy current separator The repulsive forces induced into the thin aluminum foil by eddy currents generated from the magnetic wheel are sufficient to separate aseptic beverage cartons. Modern recycling plants do not use this machine for the separation of beverage cartons because all septic beverage cartons will be lost this way Recycling concepts Once the beverage carton is separated from the waste stream, be it from Na- or Bronscheiding waste, it is baled and brought to a recycling plant. Recycling plants for beverage cartons are different to those for paper recycling because of the amount of impurities and compound materials. There are different concepts for the setup of a beverage carton recycling plant and there is no accurate description of the plants working at the moment. The concept of Niederauer Mühle plant, which is one of the biggest beverage carton recycling plants in Europe, is presented in Figure 5. 13

14 Beverage cartons Drum pulper Sorting Drum PE/Alu Baling press Shredder Fibre pulp Cement industry Corrugated carton Paper industry Cement Figure 5: Schematic diagram Niederauer Mühle plant [FKN2010] After shredding the particles are mixed with water up to a solid material concentration of 18% [Müller 2010]. In the drum pulper the comminuted material is washed intensively so that the fibers soak the water and dissolve from the compound. The drum pulper can treat up to 200 Mg of beverage cartons per day. After disintegration of the fibers the separation of fibers aluminum and PE takes place in a sorting drum. The surface of the sorting drum is perforated with small holes which allow the fibers to pass but retain the plastic and aluminum particles. After sorting the fiber pulp is concentrated and used for the production of cartons. The PE share of the rejects is used as fuel in a cement kiln and the aluminum share of the rejects is used as a bauxite substitute in the cement. Further possibilities for the treatment of rejects are given in chapter Reject treatment concepts. An insight of a sorting drum is given in Figure 6. 14

15 Figure 6: Sorting drum Another concept which gives a more detailed overview about the treatment steps is described in the patents: DE A11, DE A1 The beverage cartons are cut into small pieces of approximately 5 cm. Then they are washed for the first time in order to remove impurities. After this first washing step the dirty water is removed and a further comminution step reduces the particle size of the clean beverage cartons down to about 8 millimeters. These fine grounded particles are now disintegrated into their fiber, aluminum and plastic compounds. The disintegration takes place in a so called drum pulper. A very simplified schematic drawing of this process is presented in Figure 7. 15

16 Beverage cartons Pre washing Drum pulper Rejects - PE energetical - Alumnim as Bauxit substitute Rotor shear Dirty water Fibre pulp Cement industry Corrugated carton Paper industry Cement Figure 7: Schematic diagram recycling plant This concept might be of special interest for the Dutch beverage carton recycling due to the fact that the organic impurities are higher than in Germany. Contamination of German beverage cartons consist to a lot higher content of non beverage carton material, e.g. plastic foils, other packaging material, etc. At this moment there are 3 plants in Europe which do recycle beverage cartons. These are: - Niederauer Mühle, Germany - Mondi Packaging, Germany - Alier S.A., Spanien, Furthermore there are three plants which do recycle rejects from the beverage carton process, excluding cement kilns. These are: - APK AG Merseburg,Germany - EVD mbh Germany - Alcoa Aluminio, Brasil - Corenso United, Finland There is no public data available concerning the capacity of the beverage carton recycling plants. Another problem for the estimation of the capacity is that some 16

17 plants do not only treat beverage cartons but also other paper materials. In total Mg of beverage cartons were collected in Germany and treated in European plants. Corenso United APK AG Merseburg Niederauer Mühle Kreuzau Alcoa Aluminio Stora Enso + Alier S.A Barcelona EVD mbh Quelle: Quelle: Figure 8: Beverage carton recycling plants Reject treatment concepts According to the Fachverband Kartonverpackungen a share of 25% of the treated beverage cartons will be recovered as rejects. As a rough estimation about Mg of rejects per year are generated in Germany. These rejects may be used in cement kilns. Other recycling possibilities are offered by the APK plant and the EVD plant in Germany and the Alcoa plant in Brasil. APK solves the plastic with a solvent and generates new plastic and aluminum. The plant capacity for this process is estimated to Mg/year. 17

18 EVD uses complete beverage carrtons to press them to boards. The beverage cartons are comminuted to particles of less than 5mm in size. Then the material is heated up and compressed in order to melt the polyethylene. After this procedure the boards are ready for usage. The compound material generated from the rejects is called Tectan. No data concerning the capacity of this plant is given. Figure 9: Tectan boards Alcoa Aluminio recovers the rejects by exposing them to very high electrical energy currents. By doing so a plasma is formed which ionizes the plastic and aluminum. The aluminum can be casted to an ingot. Plastic components are transformed into paraffin. The capacity for the treatment of rejects is about Mg/a [Ped. 2007], [PG 2010] Corenso United uses a gas phase reactor to recover plastic and aluminum from the rejects. In the so called Ecogas plant the rejects are heated up to 400 C. By doing so the plastic evaporates into the gas phase meanwhile aluminum stay in it s solid state. The gas phase is incinerated in order to produce heat for a steam boiler which delivers steam to a turbine. About 3000 Mg of aluminum and 250 GWh of electric energy per year are produced by this plant [Getr- 2002], [Sek. 2004]. Stora Enso uses a pyrolysis process to recover plastic and aluminum. Since 2008 the rejects are transformed into paraffin and aluminum with a low temperature pyrolysis. When temperatures between C are applied to the rejects the plastic will evaporate and long hydrocarbon molecules will be cracked into smaller ones. Due to 18

19 the fact that is an endothermal process energy has to be supplied. No public information about capacity or operating results is available. 3.3 Quality criteria which have to be fulfilled by beverage cartons The first reference is the product specification list for beverage cartons published by Duales System Deutschland GmbH (DSD). This specification list gives an overview about the quality of beverage cartons which have to be fulfilled when the beverage cartons from a separation plant are brought to a beverage carton recycling plant. This specification claims that only used and empty beverage cartons which have been filled with fluid products e.g. milk, juice and sauces will be accepted. The beverage cartons may be made of carton and PE or carton, aluminum and PE. The purity of the beverage cartons have to exceed at least 90 % by mass. The amount of non beverage carton material thus has to be lower than 10 % by dry mass. Materials that should not be in the beverage cartons are: - Glass - Metal - Other paper, carton - Other plastic material - Compostable material e.g. food waste Further details concerning impurities are given in the annex. Another reference which can be applied to classify the quality of Dutch beverage cartons is delivered by the comparison made in chapter Masses In 2008 about Mg of beverage cartons were recycled in Europe. This is equal to a recycling rate of 33%. [ACE 2010] Countries with a developed beverage carton recycling system can exceed this number by far. Germany Figure 10 demonstrates the amount of beverage cartons which were sold and recycled in Germany. 19

20 Figure 10: Amount of beverage cartons recycled in Germany The recycling rate in 2007 was 66.7 % which corresponds to Mg of recycled beverage cartons. The amount of beverage cartons used in Germany is slightly decreasing over the past few years. Nevertheless the amount of recycled material shows only slight variations. Per inhabitant 2.7 kg of beverage cartons are consumed in Germany. Compared to the total amount of separately collected packaging waste (including separately collected glass, paper and light weight packaging waste) in Germany of Mg or 141 kg/c*y in 2007 this corresponds to 1.9 %.[Destatis 2010] Netherlands According to a state of the Federatie Nederlands Levensmiddelindustrie (FNLI) and the Centraal Bureau Levensmiddel (CBL) in 2009 an amount of beverage cartons between Mg were used [CBL 2009]. This correlates to kg per inhabitant and year. Thus the relative amount of beverage cartons per persons is higher than in Germany which can partially be explained by other consumption behavior. The total amount of packaging waste is estimated to Mg or 210kg/c*y in Therefore the total share of beverage cartons of packaging waste is between %. This comparison includes the fault that in Germany only the 20

21 separate collected packaging waste was taken as a reference. Considering this fact the share of beverage cartons in packaging waste is also higher than in Germany. The main difference between Germany and Netherlands is the usage of beverage cartons to store high viscous dairy products, such as custard dessert (Vla) or yoghurt. The other products packed in beverage cartons are quite comparable, e.g. milk, juice, sauces etc. 4. Comparison of qualities In order to be able to quantify the differences between German and Dutch beverage cartons investigations were made. Quality differences were documented according to the usage behavior, the collection system and the impurities. The usage behavior was estimated by separating the samples into product groups and size. Table 2 gives a short overview about all beverage cartons which were sorted. Pasteurized milk with lid 1,00 L Milkdrink with lid 0,20 L Pasteurized milk with lid 1,50 L Milkdrink with lid 1,00 L Pasteurized milk without lid 1,00 L Milkdrink without lid 0,20 L Fresh milk with lid 0,50 L Milkdrink without lid 0,33 L Fresh milk with lid 1,00 L Milkdrink without lid 750 g Fresh milk with lid 1,50 L Milkdrink without lid 0,50 L Fresh milk without lid 0,50 L Cream without lid 1,00 kg Fresh milk without lid 1,00 L Cream with lid 200 g Fresh milk without lid 1,50 L Cream without lid 200 g Vla/Joghurt with lid 1,00 L Condensed milk without lid 340 g Vla/Joghurt without lid 1,00 L Condensed milk with lid 1,00 L Juice with lid 0,50 L Condensed milk without lid 0,18 L Buttermilk with lid 1,00 L Pudding without lid 1,00 L Buttermilk without lid 0,50 L Pouches 0,20 L Buttermilk with lid 1,00 L Apple puree without lid 710 g Juice with lid 1,00 L Wine with lid 1,50 L Juice with lid 1,50 L Tomatoes without lid 500 g Juice with lid 2,00 L Rest Sauce without lid 0,25 L Sauce without lid 0,45 L Sauce without lid 1,00 L Table 2: Sorting catalogue 21

22 The influence of the collection system on the quality of beverage cartons was proven by taking samples from Bron- and Nascheidingsregions and measuring their amount of impurities. From the Netherlands 4 samples were available. The comparison was drawn to two samples from a german Dual System. Table 3 shows the masses and numbers treated. Sample Grootegast Attero Fühler Eureco "Dual System" Total Netherlands Table 3: Sampling masses Collection system Place of collection Mass Number of beverage cartons Bronscheiding Netherlands Grootegast g 961+residue material Nascheiding Netherlands Unknown g 248+residue material Nascheiding Netherlands Terschelling g 519+residue material Nascheiding Netherlands Den Helder g 234+residue material Bronscheiding Germany Unknown g 1575+residue material Bronscheiding Netherlands g 961+residue material Nascheiding Netherlands g 1001+residue material The measuring of impurities was challenging because there is no standardized washing method for beverage cartons. The chosen procedure had to fulfill certain criteria. - It had to be applicable for large amounts of beverage cartons - It should have almost no influence on the beverage carton itself - It should remove all impurities - It should be easily reproducible Furthermore, the influence of subjective human behavior should be as small as possible. The concept which fits all the criteria in the best way is presented in Figure

23 Sorting Drying Water loss Comminution Washing Comminution loss Impurity loss Fibre loss Impurity loss Drying Figure 11: Flow sheet sample treatment After sorting the beverage cartons into the different groups presented in Table 2 they were put in a drying cabinet with an average temperature of 75 C. Thus they were dried until all the water was evaporated. Depending on the beverage carton type the drying process endured between 2-6 days. Especially beverage cartons filled with Vla took a long time to dry. The next step was to comminute the beverage cartons. The main aim of the comminution is to improve the accessibility of the water to the inside of the beverage carton. The cutting edges allow the water to enter the fiber and to dissolve them. Therefore the amount of cutting edges should be as small as possible. On the other hand the material is easier to wash when particles are very fine. Therefore a rotary shear was used for the comminution as it represents the best ratio of particle size to open edges. Furthermore, the cut of a rotary shear is very sharp which inhibits frayed cutting edges and thus reduce the surface exposed to direct water contact. 23

24 Figure 12: Rotor shear and comminution product Figure 12 shows the rotary shear used for the comminution and the product gained. It is important to divide the losses occurring during comminution into beverage carton material losses and losses of impurities. Two mechanisms have to be considered: 1. It is a system immanent problem that part of the material stucks in the dead storage of the comminution machine. Once these dead storage spaces are filled no further losses of beverage carton material will occur. The influence of this mechanism can be calculated as shown in figure After drying the beverage cartons the solid organic matter which is still in the carton forms a layer which is partially removed by comminution. This is especially important for Vla beverage cartons because the amount of remaining material in the packaging is high compared to other beverage cartons. 24

25 7,00% Comminution loss [Ma.-%] 6,00% 5,00% 4,00% 3,00% 2,00% f(x) = 0,0683e-0,022x 1,00% 0,00% Beverage cartons [pieces] Figure 13: Material losses during comminution After comminution the beverage cartons were washed with water to remove the rest of the impurities. The washing process was first tested in small scale to find out if it is applicable. 4.1 Laboratory scale washing process Similar to the comminution process two possibilities for material losses do exist. 1. The first material loss can be ascribed to the loss of impurities. 2. The second material loss can be ascribed to fiber losses which occur during the washing process. To examine the influence of fiber losses in comparison to the losses of impurities after each washing step the fibers were sieved out of the residual water. Sieving was performed with sieves of 1.6mm, 0.5mm, 0.08mm and 0.02mm. The amount of fibers below 0.5 mm is negligible. As shown in Table 4 about half of the fibers were captured with a 1.6 mm sieve and a 0.5 mm sieve. The washing process was performed using a 10 l bucket filled with 4 l of water and 4 comminuted beverage cartons of 1 l for each experiment. To intensify the washing 25

26 process a stirrer was used with a 6 blade angular blade stirrer of about 5 cm diameter and 250 round per minutes. Time [min] > 1,6 mm 0,5 1,6 mm 0,08 0,5 mm 0,02 0,08 mm 5 40% 60% 0% 0% 10 50% 50% 0% 0% 15 57% 43% 0% 0% 20 49% 51% 0% 0% 25 57% 43% 0% 0% 30 62% 38% 0% 0% Table 4: Fiber loss size distribution The time dependency of fiber losses versus time is shown in Figure Fiber loss [Ma.-%] Figure 14: Fiber loss versus time Time [min] It is obvious that the fiber losses are getting less the longer the material is washed. This can be explained by the fact that a small part of the fibers which is close to the cutting edge can easily be dissolved. After these first losses an almost linear increase of fiber losses can be measured. Further fiber losses are smaller because it is getting harder to dissolve fibers which do not have a direct contact with water in motion. After sieving the fibers the comminuted beverage cartons and the fibers were dried. The fiber losses presented are calculated by dividing the dry mass of fibers by the dry mass of fibers in the beverage cartons. The dry mass of fibers in a beverage carton could be calculated because the fiber content of a standard 1 l aseptic and septic beverage cartons is known. 26

27 The second material loss, the loss of impurities, was also measured. The assumption is that most of the impurities are of organic matter originating from products residues in the beverage cartons. Further impurities which might result from cross contamination with other residues can be of organic or mineral matter. According to the assumption the organic matter can be dissolved and thus will pass the sieve. The amount of impurities can thus be measured by comparing the total loss of weight after washing with the original weight before washing. Tests were conducted with juice, milk and Vla beverage cartons to estimate the influence of the organic contamination on the wash period necessary to dissolve the organic matter. Figure 15 shows the amount of impurity losses depending on the washing time for 1l juice packagings. It can be seen, that after approximately 15 minutes no more losses occur. 2.5 Impurity loss [Ma.-%] Figure 15: Impurity loss juice packaging Time [min] Another test with Vla beverage cartons was made in order to see how long it takes to remove the Vla layer. The Vla packagings used for the investigations were not collected via Bron- or Nascheiding in order to avoid influences other than Vla impurities would cause. 27

28 6 5 Impurity loss Mass percent Fiber loss Time [min] Figure 16: Vla losses Figure 17 shows the difference of comminuted Vla packagings before and after washing. Figure 17: Comparison Vla carton before and after washing 4.2 Technical scale processes Sorting As a first step the beverage cartons were separated into their main elements. Figure 18 shows a simplified summary of the sorting. All elements with a lower share than 5 % by wet weight are aggregated in the fraction others. Nevertheless this simplified 28

29 diagram shows the main differences between German and Dutch beverage cartons. In Germany the highest share of beverage cartons by weight are milk packagings whereas in the Netherlands Vla packagings represent the highest share by weight. Another very important fraction are the juice beverage cartons. The composition by weight is quite comparable between the Netherlands and Germany. The amount of rest material shows significant differences between the Dutch Bron- and Nascheidingsystem. Material collected via Bronscheiding had an amount of rest material of 0.33 % by weight. The samples from the Nascheiding system had an amount of rest material of about 5.0 % by weight. Comparing the share of rest material it has to be considered that it is based on the original (wet) weight. As the content of water in Dutch beverage cartons is higher than in German beverage cartons the amount of rest material in German beverage cartons appears to be higher, too. Comparing the share of non organic impurities it can be stated that Bronscheiding leads to a better product quality. Regarding the potential for a further treatment the fraction others is of low importance. Most of the beverage cartons which belong to this fraction are milk products, such as buttermilk or condensed milk. The amount of cream, tomato sauce or rice pudding which might have a higher organic share is in average lower than 1 % by weight. The complete data sets of the sorting results are given in the annex. Composition by weight 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Grootegast Attero Terschelling Eureco Den Helder Dual System 0% Figure 18: Composition by weight 29

30 Concerning the recyclability Vla and yoghurt is of special importance because of the unknown influence of the amount of food waste which is still in the beverage carton on the recycling process. After sorting the beverage cartons into fractions of size, content and opening (lid or no lid) they were weighed in order to estimate the average weight of a dirty beverage carton. Table 5 shows the average weight for a Vla/yoghurt beverage carton of 1 l volume and without a lid. These packagings do have a netto weight of 26 g. Thus the relation between packaging weight and food waste of these beverage cartons is about 2,3:1. After drying the beverage cartons the weight of Vla and yoghurt packagings was between g per packaging. Thus the remaining dry matter of Vla and yoghurt can be reduced to 3-7 g of dry mass by drying. The drying process of Vla takes about 4 7 days in a 75 C oven. Vla/Yoghurt 1 l without lid, septic Brutto weight carton [g] Netto weight carton [g] Grootegast 52,38 29,66 Attero 53,52 33,68 Terschelling 61,45 29,75 Eureco Den Helder 72,59 n.m. Average 59,98 *n.m. =not measured Table 5: Wet weight of Vla / Yoghurt packagings The slightly higher brutto weights of the Vla packagings from the Nascheiding samples (Attero, Fühler Terschelling and Eureco DenHelder) might be a result of cross contamination from other household waste Comminution and washing Another way to estimate the organic content is the preparation as described in chapter 4. The main losses can be described in the following way: Beverage carton dry - Comminution losses organic - Cominution losses material - Washing losses organic - Washing losses fibers = Beverage carton after preparation 30

31 Relative organic loss = (Comminution losses organic + Washing losses organic) (Beverage carton after preparation + Washing loss fiber + Comminution loss material) After the sorting and drying process the beverage cartons were comminuted as described in chapter 4. By drying the Vla packagings on the inside of the beverage cartons brittle layers of solid organic matter is formed. During the comminution process this layer is partly spalled of. Organic losses which occurred during comminution are shown for the most important beverage carton fractions in Figure 19. The loss of beverage carton during comminution is very small (<1%) due to the large amount of beverage cartons (see also Figure 13). 10% Dual System Bronscheiding Netherlands Nascheiding Netherlands 9% 8% Organic loss comminution[%] 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Figure 19: Comminution losses The most important beverage carton fractions were then washed in a technical scale washing machine. This machine is depicted in Figure

32 Figure 20: Washing machine The beverage cartons were washed for 15 minutes. After washing the beverage carton pieces were removed from the water. The water could pass through the outflow in the bottom of the reactor. The washing water was sieved with a 1.6 mm and a 0.5 mm sieve in order to remove the fibers of the water. During the trials with the vla beverage cartons another 6 mm sieve was used to remove the rather large organic layers which had the form of small plates. The results concerning fiber loss and washing efficiency were comparable to the results which were measured in the laboratory scale trials. After the washing process the fibers and the beverage cartons were dried. The organic loss of the beverage cartons can be calculated according to the following formula: Organic loss washing = Weight of beverage carton before washing fiber loss 32

33 Dual System Bronscheiding Netherlands Nascheiding Netherlands 20% 18% 16% 14% Organic loss washing [%] 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Figure 21: Organic loss washing This formula can be applied without problems for beverage cartons with low contamination and low viscous content, e.g. juice and milk cartons. For Vla beverage cartons this formula is only partially applicable because the dried Vla layers do not dissolve completely when washed for 15 minutes. To optimize the detection of organics another 6.3 mm sieve was used to clean the washing water. In the left picture of Figure 22 the fibers on a 1.6 mm sieve without a former sieving at 6 mm is shown. On the right side of figure 22 the amount of organic material which could be hold back is shown. 33

34 Figure 22: Fiber from Vla washing One further difference which could be observed is that the fibers from beverage cartons from Nascheiding waste are dirtier than those from Bronscheiding waste. This is shown in Figure 23. Figure 23: Fiber quality Bron- and Nascheiding This result can be expected because beverage cartons from Nascheiding are visibly dirtier than those from Bronscheiding. This is also shown in the Figure 24 and Figure

35 Figure 24: Beverage cartons from Bronscheiding Figure 25: Beverage cartons from Nascheiding A further problem of beverage cartons from Nascheiding might be that they are partially disrupted, which might lead to a worse fiber quality because fluids in the waste material can be soaked. 35

36 During the investigations the larger open surface of fibers to water and the high residual fraction which was collected in the sieve of Nascheiding material influenced the results. The amount of fibers which were dissolved from Nascheiding material is significantly higher than for Bronscheiding material. 10% Dual System Bronscheiding Netherlands Nascheiding Netherlands 9% 8% 7% Fiber loss [%] 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Figure 26: Fiber loss washing As a result of the washing process the share of impurities can be calculated (see Figure 27) 36

37 Dual System Bronscheiding Netherlands Nascheiding Netherlands 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Figure 27: Organic losses based on dry weight Different conclusions can be drawn from these results: - It is obvious that Vla and yoghurt beverage cartons are a lot dirtier than other beverage cartons. - A cross contamination of Vla or yoghurt with other beverage cartons cannot be observed because the organic contaminations of other beverage cartons e.g. from the Dual System are similar. - The influence of cross contamination from other waste on beverage cartons collected in the Nascheiding system can be detected. The contamination is significantly higher. 5. Results The product specification list of the DSD system states that the maximum amount of contamination shall not exceed 10 % by mass of the wet weight. Furthermore, the organic rest which remains in the beverage carton after usage is not considered as contamination according to the DSD specification. Thus the high amount of remaining Vla and Joghurt in the beverage cartons would not be considered as contamination according to the DSD specification. The amount of Vla in relation to 37

38 the dry weight of the beverage carton varies. The measured amounts are presented in Table 6. Vla content [%] Vla/Joghurt 1L without lid "Grootegast" 158% Vla/Joghurt 1L with lid "Grootegast" 67% Vla/Joghurt 1L with lid "Terschelling" 204% Vla/Joghurt 1L without lid "Terschelling" 145% Vla/Joghurt 1L without lid "Attero" 110% Vla/Joghurt 1L with lid "Attero" 122% Table 6: Vla content Comparing the results with the specifications of the DSD System it can be stated that the non food residual fraction in all samples were below 10%. It has to be considered that the amount of water in Dutch beverage cartons is significantly higher due to the high amount of Vla and Joghurt than in German beverage cartons. Residue share Residue share Residue share Residue share Residue share Grootegast Attero Terschelling Eureco DSD Residues [Ma.-%] 0,33% 5,07% 6,14% 2,20% 7,97% Table 7: Residues based on wet weight It is obvious that the Bronscheiding beverage cartons from Grootegast are of outstanding quality even though the Vla and yoghurt packagings do have a high impact on the organic contamination. The beverage cartons collected in the Nascheiding systems do also fulfill the requirements. To estimate how Dutch Vla and joghurt beverage cartons influence the fiber recovery process their organic contamination has to be measured. A simplified calculation based on mean contaminations of dry organic matter in relation to the netto weight of a beverage carton is given in Table 8. Based on these values the average organic share which is going to enter the recycling process can be estimated. Vla Joghurt 14% Juice 3% Milk 5% Others 5% Table 8: Average contamination based on dry organic mass 6. Conclusions For future investigations it would be of interest to find out if the quality from Bronscheiding material is constant. Furthermore it would be interesting to find out if 38

39 the quality from Nascheiding material can be improved. It is very likely that Dutch beverage cartons have a similar or even better quality as German beverage cartons if the Vla packaging problem could be solved. To solve the problem with the Vla contamination two possibilities exist. The first one is to remove the Vla packagings from the other beverage cartons. This might work by using their relative high weight, e.g. by wind sifting. Another possibility would be to separate the septic from the aseptic beverage cartons with an eddy current separator using the fact that almost all vla cartons are septic (without Aluminum foil). The other possibility is to reduce the overall organic matter in the beverage cartons by shredding and washing them the way it was performed in this research. Both treatment possibilities will generate costs that cannot be specified at this moment. The costs will depend on many factors e.g. plant capacity, technique applied, building costs, personal costs, loss of fibers etc. Compared to the washing process an eddy current separation or a wind sifting process are relatively cheap and easy to implement. A comminution and washing process has to be realized in direct neighborhood to the treatment plant, preferably in line with the pulper process. If Vla and yoghurt beverage cartons cannot be removed or cleaned before the washing process than it would be interesting to find out how the organic impurities do influence existing treatment plants. Due to the relative low number of beverage carton recycling companies in Europe it is likely that only beverage cartons of a high quality will be accepted. Especially the unknown influence of organic impurities in Vla and yoghurt packagings on the fiber recycling process might be a reason for the rejection of theses packagings. Residues from German packagings will mainly be collected in the reject fraction which is designated to incineration. The influence of these impurities on the fiber pulp quality is probably much lower. 39

40 ANNEX [ACE 2010] The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment; Access [CBL 2009] Federatie Nederlandse Levensmiddelindustrie (FNLI); Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelen : Drankenkartons; Informatiedocument over de milieuaspecten (in CO2 uitstoot), kosten, hygieneaspecten en afzetmogelijkheden van de thermische verwerking, bronscheiden en nascheiden van drankenkartons in Nederland; 2009 [Destatis 2010] Deutsches Bundesamt für Statistik, Pressemitteilung Nr DE/Presse/pm/2008/11/PD ,templateId=renderPrin t.psml; Access [UBA 2009] [Bergsma 2010] Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung mbh; Verbrauch von Getränken in Einweg- und Mehrweg-Verpackungen; Berichtsjahr 2007; Umweltbundesamt; Texte 17/2009; Wiesbaden; 2009 Inzameling van Drankenkartons; Milieu- en kostenanalyse van recyclingopties; Rapport; Delft; 2010 [Getr. 2002] Ökologischer Musterknabe - Getränkekartons können zu 100 Prozent verwertet werden; Getränkeindustrie; Edition 05/2002; 2002 [Müller 2010] [Ped. 2007] [PG 2010] W. Müller: Neue Auflösetrommel - kontinuierlich, kompakt, flexibel, effektiv, innovativ; etrommel.pdf ; Access Recycling of Aseptic Carton Packages in Brazil: a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chain; online publication, ; Access Alcoa Aluminio Carton Packaging Recycling Plant Piracicaba, Brazil; Access [Sek. 2004] Energie aus Getränkekartons; Sekundärrohstoffe; Edition 06/2004;

41 Beverage carton DSD Volume Property Table 9: Sorting results Dual System sample Table 10: Sorting results Grootegast sample Number [pcs.] Share [pcs.-%] Gross weight [g] Share gross weight [Ma.-% wet] Ø Gross weight [g/pcs.] Pasteurized milk with lid 1,0 l Aseptisch ,69% ,78% 33,18 Fresh melk with lid 1,0 l Septisch ,22% ,58% 32,22 Juice with lid 1,0 l Aseptisch ,23% ,74% 35,45 Condensed melk without lid 340,0 l Aseptisch 82 5,27% ,21% 14,33 Juice with lid 1,5 l Aseptisch 73 4,69% ,54% 47,63 Cream without lid 200 g Aseptisch 55 3,53% 542 1,02% 9,85 Tomato sauce 500,0 l Aseptisch 34 2,18% 678 1,28% 19,94 Pouches 0,2 l Aseptisch 16 1,03% 150 0,28% 9,38 Milkdrink without lid 0,5 l Septisch 14 0,90% 260 0,49% 18,57 Juice with lid 2,0 l Aseptisch 14 0,90% 876 1,65% 62,57 Juice with lid 0,5 l Aseptisch 13 0,83% 288 0,54% 22,15 Milkdrink with lid 1,0 l Septisch 9 0,58% 360 0,68% 40,00 Fresh melk with lid 1,5 l Septisch 6 0,39% 301 0,57% 50,17 Cream without lid 1000 g Aseptisch 6 0,39% 253 0,48% 42,17 Sauce without lid 0,3 l Aseptisch 6 0,39% 109 0,21% 18,17 Vla with lid 1,0 l Septisch 6 0,39% 191 0,36% 31,83 Wine with lid 1,5 l Aseptisch 4 0,26% 186 0,35% 46,50 Sauce without lid 370 g Aseptisch 3 0,19% 49 0,09% 16,33 Juice with lid 0,8 l Aseptisch 2 0,13% 61 0,11% 30,50 Water with lid 1,0 l Aseptisch 2 0,13% 68 0,13% 34,00 Milkdrink with lid 0,2 l Septisch 1 0,06% 17 0,03% 17,00 Milkdrink without lid 0,2 l Septisch 1 0,06% 10 0,02% 10,00 Milkdrink without lid 0,3 l Septisch 1 0,06% 13 0,02% 13,00 Milkdrink without lid 750,0 l Septisch 1 0,06% 27 0,05% 27,00 Cream with lid 200 g Aseptisch 1 0,06% 16 0,03% 16,00 Sauce without lid 0,5 l Aseptisch 1 0,06% 18 0,03% 18,00 Sauce without lid 1,0 l Aseptisch 1 0,06% 26 0,05% 26,00 Others 35 2,25% 911 1,71% 26,03 Rest ,97% Total ,00% ,00% Beverage carton Grootegast Volume Number Share Gross weight Share gross weight Ø Gross weight Property [l] [pcs.] [pcs.-%] [g] [Ma.-% wet] [g/pcs.] Pasteurized milk with lid 1,00 Aseptisch ,83% ,47% 37,51 Juice with lid 1,50 Aseptisch ,09% ,68% 53,10 Vla/Joghurt with lid 1,00 Septisch ,15% ,13% 48,89 Vla/Joghurt without lid 1,00 Septisch ,63% ,65% 52,38 Juice with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 50 5,20% ,62% 38,08 Pouches 0,20 Aseptisch 50 5,20% 561 1,36% 11,22 Milkdrink with lid 1,00 Septisch 39 4,06% ,45% 47,03 Condensed milk with lid 0,47 Aseptisch 36 3,75% 862 2,09% 23,94 Buttermilk with lid 1,00 Septisch 30 3,12% ,64% 50,03 Pasteurized milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 30 3,12% 934 2,27% 31,13 Pasteurized milk with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 27 2,81% ,21% 64,33 Fresh milk with lid 1,00 Septisch 26 2,71% 954 2,31% 36,69 Condensed milk without lid 0,47 Aseptisch 25 2,60% 536 1,30% 21,44 Vla/Joghurt without lid 0,50 Septisch 10 1,04% 387 0,94% 38,70 Fresh milk without lid 1,00 Septisch 9 0,94% 305 0,74% 33,89 Juice with lid 2,00 Aseptisch 9 0,94% 527 1,28% 58,56 Buttermilk without lid 1,00 Septisch 6 0,62% 198 0,48% 33,00 Fresh milk without lid 1,50 Septisch 5 0,52% 210 0,51% 42,00 Rice pudding 1,00 Septisch 5 0,52% 259 0,63% 51,80 Goat milk without lid 0,75 Septisch 3 0,31% 94 0,23% 31,33 Condensed milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 2 0,21% 58 0,14% 29,00 Juice without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 2 0,21% 82 0,20% 41,00 Vla/Joghurt with lid 0,50 Septisch 2 0,21% 55 0,13% 27,50 Milkdrink with lid 0,50 Septisch 1 0,10% 25 0,06% 25,00 Wine with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 1 0,10% 56 0,14% 56,00 Rest 137 0,33% Total ,00% ,00% 41

42 Beverage carton Attero Volume [l] Property Number Share Gross Share gross weight Ø Gross weight [pcs.] [pcs.-%] weight [g] [Ma.-% wet] [g/pcs.] Vla/Joghurt without lid 1,00 Septisch 31 12,50% ,82% 53,52 Juice with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 21 8,47% ,01% 57,67 Vla/Joghurt with lid 1,00 Septisch 19 7,66% ,70% 62,21 Pasteurized milk with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 21 8,47% 878 9,43% 41,81 Pouches 0,20 Aseptisch 72 29,03% 873 9,38% 12,13 Juice with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 16 6,45% 716 7,69% 44,75 Milkdrink with lid 1,00 Septisch 13 5,24% 579 6,22% 44,54 Condensed milk with lid 0,47 Aseptisch 9 3,63% 203 2,18% 22,56 Condensed milk without lid 0,47 Aseptisch 9 3,63% 202 2,17% 22,44 Fresh milk with lid 1,00 Septisch 5 2,02% 180 1,93% 36,00 Buttermilk with lid 1,00 Septisch 4 1,61% 176 1,89% 44,00 Fresh milk with lid 1,50 Septisch 3 1,21% 158 1,70% 52,67 Fresh milk without lid 1,00 Septisch 4 1,61% 153 1,64% 38,25 Buttermilk without lid 1,00 Septisch 3 1,21% 145 1,56% 48,33 Fresh milk without lid 1,50 Septisch 3 1,21% 133 1,43% 44,33 Vla/Joghurt without lid 0,50 Septisch 4 1,61% 107 1,15% 26,75 Rice pudding without lid 1,00 Septisch 2 0,81% 94 1,01% 47,00 Condensed milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 2 0,81% 82 0,88% 41,00 Pasteurized milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 2 0,81% 65 0,70% 32,50 Tomato sauce without lid 500 g Aseptisch 2 0,81% 50 0,54% 25,00 Fresh milk without lid 0,50 Septisch 2 0,81% 42 0,45% 21,00 Buttermilk without lid 0,50 Septisch 1 0,40% 22 0,24% 22,00 Rest 472 5,07% Total ,00% Table 11: Sorting results Attero sample Beverage carton Terschelling Volume [l] Property Number Share Gross Share gross weight Ø Gross weight [pcs.] [pcs.-%] weight [g] [Ma.-% wet] [g/pcs.] Vla/Joghurt without lid 1,00 Septisch 84 16,18% ,14% 61,45 Vla/Joghurt with lid 1,00 Septisch 34 6,55% ,17% 88,59 Juice with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 52 10,02% ,77% 55,83 Fresh milk with lid 1,00 Septisch 51 9,83% ,52% 55,63 Buttermilk with lid 1,00 Septisch 63 12,14% ,15% 43,46 Juice with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 27 5,20% ,73% 77,22 Pasteurized milk with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 60 11,56% ,53% 33,85 Milk drink with lid 1,00 Septisch 33 6,36% ,26% 42,94 Fresh milk without lid 1,50 Septisch 15 2,89% 650 2,41% 43,33 Milk drink with lid 0,50 Septisch 10 1,93% 381 1,41% 38,10 Pouches 0,20 Aseptisch 35 6,74% 375 1,39% 10,71 Pasteurized milk with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 7 1,35% 341 1,26% 48,71 Condensed milk with lid 0,47 Aseptisch 9 1,73% 244 0,90% 27,11 Fresh milk with lid 1,50 Septisch 4 0,77% 177 0,66% 44,25 Fresh milk without lid 1,00 Septisch 6 1,16% 164 0,61% 27,33 Condensed milk with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 4 0,77% 147 0,55% 36,75 Pasteurized milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 4 0,77% 125 0,46% 31,25 Buttermilk without lid 1,00 Septisch 3 0,58% 113 0,42% 37,67 Buttermilk without lid 0,50 Septisch 4 0,77% 67 0,25% 16,75 Fresh milk with lid 0,50 Septisch 3 0,58% 63 0,23% 21,00 Wine with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 1 0,19% 51 0,19% 51,00 Rice pudding without lid 1,00 Septisch 1 0,19% 46 0,17% 46,00 Wine without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 1 0,19% 38 0,14% 38,00 Fresh milk without lid 0,50 Septisch 2 0,39% 34 0,13% 17,00 Condensed milk without lid 0,47 Aseptisch 2 0,39% 33 0,12% 16,50 Milk drink without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 1 0,19% 32 0,12% 32,00 Condensed milk without lid 0,18 Aseptisch 2 0,39% 24 0,09% 12,00 Tomato sauce 390 g Aseptisch 1 0,19% 19 0,07% 19,00 Rest ,14% Total Table 12: Sorting results Terschelling sample 42

43 Beverage carton Number Share Gross Share gross weight Ø Gross weight Volume [l] Property Eureco Den Helder [pcs.] [pcs.-%] weight [g] [Ma.-% wet] [g/pcs.] Juice with lid 1,50 Aseptisch 43,00 18,38% ,85% 68,05 Vla/Joghurt without lid 1,00 Septisch 29,00 12,39% ,60% 72,59 Fresh milk with lid 1,00 Septisch 35,00 14,96% ,98% 54,91 Vla/Joghurt with lid 1,00 Septisch 18,00 7,69% 939 8,30% 52,17 Fresh milk with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 13,00 5,56% 496 4,38% 38,15 Milkdrink with lid 1,00 Septisch 10,00 4,27% 407 3,60% 40,70 Buttermilk with lid 1,00 Septisch 8,00 3,42% 360 3,18% 45,00 Juice with lid 1,00 Aseptisch 8,00 3,42% 328 2,90% 41,00 Fresh milk with lid 1,50 Septisch 5,00 2,14% 266 2,35% 53,20 Pouches 0,20 Aseptisch 25,00 10,68% 264 2,33% 10,56 Condensed Milk with lid 0,47 Aseptisch 7,00 2,99% 213 1,88% 30,43 Condensed Milk without lid 0,47 Aseptisch 10,00 4,27% 187 1,65% 18,70 Vla/Joghurt without lid 0,50 Septisch 4,00 1,71% 176 1,55% 44,00 Vla/Joghurt with lid 0,50 Septisch 5,00 2,14% 120 1,06% 24,00 Pasteuized milk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 4,00 1,71% 115 1,02% 28,75 Tomato sauce 500 g Aseptisch 3,00 1,28% 75 0,66% 25,00 Fresh milk with lid 0,50 Septisch 2,00 0,85% 43 0,38% 21,50 Milkdrink with lid 0,50 Septisch 1,00 0,43% 31 0,27% 31,00 Wine without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 1,00 0,43% 31 0,27% 31,00 Fresh milk without lid 1,00 Septisch 1,00 0,43% 28 0,25% 28,00 Condensed melk without lid 1,00 Aseptisch 1,00 0,43% 28 0,25% 28,00 Cream 200 g Aseptisch 1,00 0,43% 11 0,10% 11,00 Rest 249 2,20% Total 23400% 100% % Table 13: Sorting results Eureco Den Helder sample 43

44 44