Talk:PET bottle recycling

Questions

Some questions arise:

How are the PET products separated from the other plastics? Is it done automatically, or do humans have to sort them out? How can you quickly distinguish between PET and other plastics?
What happens if you accidentally mix other plastics with the PET waste - will this charge be finally wasted?
Thanks, --Abdull 13:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic bottle separation can either be done automatically, or by hand. Hand sorting involves "hands-on practices" which are often low paid jobs. Automatic sorting is done by Near Infrared (NIR)techniques. Capital investment is in the order of USD 140,000 per unit capable of sorting 1,500 kg/h. Manual sorting can achieve a PET fraction which is about 85 percent clean; automatic sorting will achieve 95 percent purity (one stage) or 99.9 percent purity (two stages).

The largest enemy of polymers as a contaminant in PET, is PVC. As little as 50 parts per million (ppm) of PVC will render the remaining PET fraction as one with an inferior quality. This is why automatic sorting is the preferred option, even in low-wage countries.

Questions

Question: What would be the advantages or disadvantages of using PET fabric as opposed to using PP woven fabric in the production and use of grocery shopping bags?

Fleeces

The upsurge in fleeces mad from PET waste is no doubt good in many ways. But the ones I've seen are very flammable. Rich Farmbrough 11:14 11 June 2006 (GMT). are PET plastices thermo platics or termosetting plastics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.194.115 (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Recycle-resin-logos-lr 01.png

Image:Recycle-resin-logos-lr 01.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is better to Recycle ?? Aluminium Cans or Plastics PET Bottles keeping in mind the Environment.

Which one is better to Recycle ?? Aluminium Cans or Plastics PET Bottles keeping in mind the Environment. I got lots of information about recycling, but no where it was/is mentioned on what should be used or should be the alternative keeping environment in mind especially when everyone is talking about global warming.

My Question is Whats better to recycle considering Environment; Aluminium Cans or Plastic PET bottles. Both are used for soft drinks ??

Can I get some really good information on this matter.

Dhaval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.184.254.1 (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the large amout of energy needed for the processing of aluminum (high processing temperatures) compared to that of PET, I tend to think that PET is more environmentally friendly when recycled. Evaa 13:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling in USA

Can anyone find out, how the ratings are of recycling in USA? Looks like the US is much worse then Europe on this matter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.191.103 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]