The APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability is the most comprehensive resource outlining the plastics
`recycling industry’s recommendations in the marketplace today. The content is regularly updated to ensure
`APR’s Recyclability Categories represent today’s North American plastics recycling infrastructure. Although it is
`designed as an online resource, with links to all relevant information, a PDF of the complete document can be
`downloaded as well.
`
`The APR Design® Guide specifically addresses plastic packaging, but the principles can be applied to all
`potentially recycled plastic items.
`
`APR encourages package designers to utilize The APR Critical Guidance and Responsible Innovation programs, as
`well as the APR Design® Guide to create the most recyclable packaging. Assistance is available through APR or
`one of the APR member, independent laboratories found in the member directory.
`
`The intended audience for the APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability is the package design engineer for
`use in designing packaging that complies with the capabilities of the recycling infrastructure. Before accessing
`the APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability the user should thoroughly understand the fundamentals of its
`concept as described in the scope, definition of recyclability and recyclability categories outlined below.
`
`SCOPE
`
`This guide covers plastic items entering the postconsumer collection and recycling systems most widely used in
`industry today. Collection methods include single stream and dual stream MRF’s, deposit container systems,
`mixed waste facilities, and grocery store rigid plastic and film collection systems. The impact of package design
`on automated sortation process steps employed in a single stream MRF, as well as high volume recycling
`processes is of primary consideration.
`
`Items recovered in recovery systems where they are source-selected and sent to a recycler specializing in this
`particular item are specifically excluded from this guide.
`
`APR’s DEFINITION OF RECYCLABLE
`
`An item is “recyclable per APR definition” when the following three conditions are met:
`At least 60% of consumers or communities have access to a collection system that accepts the item.
`•
`The item is most likely sorted correctly into a market-ready bale of a particular plastic meeting industry
`•
`standard specifications, through commonly used material recovery systems, including single-stream and
`
`INTRODUCTION
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved.
`
`1 of 74
` www.PlasticsRecycling.org
`
`EPL LIMITED EX1018
`U.S. Patent No. 10,889,093
`
`

`

`dual stream MRFs, PRF’s, systems that handle deposit system containers, grocery store rigid plastic and
`film collection systems.
`The item can be further processed through a typical recycling process cost effectively into a
`postconsumer plastic feedstock suitable for use in identifiable new products.
`
`•
`
`APR’s RECYCLABILITY CATEGORIES
`
`The APR Design® Guide is itemized by design features commonly used with packaging applications. The recycling
`impact of each design feature is discussed within the Guide. The APR’s guidance on the design feature is
`developed considering this impact and broken down into four categories which should be thoroughly
`understood:
`
`•
`
`APR DESIGN GUIDE® PREFERRED: Features readily accepted by MRFs and recyclers since the majority of
`the industry has the capability to identify, sort, and process a package exhibiting this feature with
`minimal, or no, negative effect on the productivity of the operation or final product quality. Packages
`with these features are likely to pass through the recycling process into the most appropriate material
`stream with the potential of producing high quality material.
`• DETRIMENTAL TO RECYCLING: Features that present known technical challenges for the MRF or
`recycler’s yield, productivity, or final product quality but are grudgingly tolerated and accepted by the
`majority of MRFs and recyclers.
`RENDERS PACKAGE NON-RECYCLABLE PER APR DEFINITION: Features with a significant adverse
`technical impact on the MRF or recycler’s yield, productivity or final product quality. The majority of
`MRFs or recyclers cannot remove these features to the degree required to generate a marketable end
`product.
`REQUIRES TESTING: In order to determine compatibility with recycling, testing per an APR testing
`protocol is required.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`This document has been prepared by the Association of Plastic Recyclers as a service to the plastic
`industry to promote the most efficient use of the nation’s plastic recycling infrastructure and to
`enhance the quality and quantity of recycled postconsumer plastic. The information in this document is
`offered without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including WARRANTIES OF
`MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, which are expressly disclaimed. APR and
`its members accept no responsibility for any harm or damages arising from the use of or reliance upon
`this information by any party. Participation in the Recognition Program is purely voluntary and does not
`guarantee compliance with any U.S. law or regulation or that a package or plastic article incorporating
`the innovation is recyclable or will be recycled.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved.
`
`2 of 74
` www.PlasticsRecycling.org
`
`

`

`
`
`APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability
`for
`PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate, Resin Identification Code #1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Due to its clarity and natural CO2 barrier properties, PET is one of the most widely used packaging resins. It is
`easily blown into a bottle or formed into a sheet, thereby becoming the resin of choice for many applications.
`PET does not normally have the desired properties for closures, handles, attachments or labels so other
`polymers are commonly used for these items and affixed to the PET package. PET properties can be enhanced
`with colorants, UV blockers, oxygen barriers/scavengers and other additives. Each modification and addition to
`the base, clear PET in a package must be considered for its effect on the recycling stream. Items should either
`be economically removed from the PET in the typical recycling process or be compatible with RPET in future
`uses. The density of PET is 1.38 and so it sinks in water. Closures, labels and attachments should be made from
`materials with a density less than 1.0 that will float in water and therefore be readily separated from the PET.
`
`The APR’s Recognition Program encourages consumer product, plastic package and bottle component
`manufacturers to work with the APR protocols to determine whether new modifications to a regularly recycled
`plastic package will negatively impact the recycling process prior to introducing the modification.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`3 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`4 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BASE POLYMER
`
`PET and PET variants resins which have a crystalline melting point between 225 and 255C are preferred.
`Materials of a lower melt point or non-crystalline materials often become sticky in the reclaimers’ pre-extrusion
`dryer when the dryer is operated at PET temperatures and prevent the material from flowing through the
`process. Materials of a higher melt point remain solid in the reclaimers’ extruder and cause blockages in melt
`screens. Both conditions greatly hinder the ability of the reclaimer to operate.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`5 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Blends of PET and other resins require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category. Other
`resins may be blended into the PET to enhance certain properties during the package’s intended first use. The
`materials’ effect on the RPET in future uses must be evaluated since it will not be removed in the recycling
`system.
`
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Resins and Molded Articles
`
`
`BARRIER LAYERS, COATINGS & ADDITIVES
`
`Non-PET layers and coatings require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`The use of non-PET layers and coatings can be detrimental to recycling of PET if not implemented according to
`APR test protocols. Layers and coatings must either separate and be removed from the PET in the recycling
`process or have no adverse effects on the RPET in future uses. When used, their content should be minimized
`to the greatest extent possible to maximize PET yield, limit potential contamination, and reduce separation
`costs. Some layers and coatings have been found compatible with PET or are easily separated in conventional
`recycling systems.
`
`Screening Test: PET Heat History and Discoloration Evaluation
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Resins and Molded Articles
`
`Degradable additives (photo, oxo, or bio) require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability
`category. Recycled PET is intended to be used in new products. The new products are engineered to meet
`particular quality and durability standards given properties of typical recycled PET. Additives designed to
`degrade the polymer diminish the life of the material in the primary use. If not removed in the recycling
`process, these additives shorten the useful life of the product made from the RPET as well, possibly
`compromising quality and durability.
`Degradable additives should not be used without testing to demonstrate that their inclusion will not materially
`impair the full-service life and properties of any product made from the RPET that includes the additive. These
`additives must either separate and be removed from the PET in the recycling process or have no adverse effects
`on the RPET in future uses. When used, their content should be minimized to the greatest extent possible to
`maximize PET yield, limit potential contamination, and reduce separation costs.
`
`
`
`Screening Test: PET Degradable Additives Test
`
`
`Additives require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`The APR recognizes that other types of additives may be required for the performance of a particular package
`but are not addressed in this document. Additives such as de-nesting, anti-static, anti-blocking, anti-fogging,
`anti-slip, UV barrier, stabilizer and heat receptor agents and lubricants should be tested to determine their
`compatibility with recycling. Of particular concern are additives which cause the RPET to discolor or haze after
`remelting or solid stating since RPET with poor haze or discoloration is greatly devalued and has limited markets.
`This is particularly troublesome since it is difficult to identify material with this effect until extremely late in the
`recycling process where a great deal of added cost has been imparted into the material.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`6 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Screening Test: PET Heat History and Discoloration Evaluation
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Resins and Molded Articles
`
`Optical brighteners are detrimental to recycling.
`Like many other additives, optical brighteners are not removed in the recycling process and can create an
`unacceptable fluorescence for next uses of RPET containing the brighteners. It is difficult to identify material
`with this negative effect until extremely late in the recycling process where a great deal of added cost has been
`imparted into a material of low value due to the additive.
`
`COLOR
`
`Clear unpigmented PET is preferred
`Clear material has the highest value as a recycled stream since it has the widest variety of end-use applications.
`It is the most cost effective to process through the recycling system.
`
`Transparent light blue packaging is preferred
`Light blue material is most often included with the clear material stream to act as a bluing agent and offset some
`yellowing. This not only adds volume to the high value clear stream, it improves its quality when used in limited
`amounts. Normally it can also be added to the green stream with little negative effect.
`
`Transparent green packaging is preferred
`Green material has significant volume in the marketplace. At the MRF, it is baled along with the clear PET and
`may comprise up to 30% of the PET bale. The green material is separated from the clear by the original
`reclaimer, who may process it into a value added product, or send it to a reclaimer dedicated to green material.
`Its value is second only to clear material. However, green is not without its issues. Because a consistent, clear
`color is critical to future products using clear RPET, the recycling process includes a great deal of machinery and
`manpower dedicated to separating colored material. This adds significant cost to the operation. Even so, small
`but significant amounts of colored material, including transparent green, pass into the clear stream, thereby
`affecting the quality of clear RPET. Markets such as clothing, carpet, soft drink bottles and thermoformed sheet
`depend on very precise colors, using clear material as a basis.
`
`Colors with an L value less than 40 or an NIR reflectance less than or equal to 10 percent require testing to
`determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`NIR (near-infrared) sorting technology used in MRFs and reclaimers is not capable of identifying many dark
`polymers because the colorant absorbs light. Some dark shades may be detected by NIR but these must be
`tested to determine their sortability. Manual sorting generally cannot distinguish one dark polymer from
`another either. Other separation techniques such as float-sink cannot be employed since many black polymers
`sink with PET. Therefore, black and dark packaging is considered a contaminant for nearly all PET reclaimers.
`
`Benchmark Test: Evaluation of the Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting Potential of a Whole Plastic Article
`
`All other colors and additives creating visual effects in PET are detrimental to recycling
`These colored bottles are categorized as detrimental because of their impact on bale yield loss and productivity
`when reclaiming clear PET containers.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`7 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Most communities with curbside collection allow for collection of colored PET bottles and these are often
`included in bales of clear PET bottles. PET reclaimers can use color auto-sorters to remove the colored bottles
`from the clear stream. However, reclaimers regularly report that there is low market demand and low value for
`mixed color PET containers.
`
`Reclaimers report that transparent colors can be used in applications such as bulk fiber and black sheet and are
`more likely to find a market application than opaque colors. Today, most reclaimers report that opaque bottles
`do not often find an economically viable market and so can become a waste stream.
`
`
`DIMENSIONS
`
`Size and shape are critical parameters in MRF sorting, and this must be considered in designing packages for
`recycling. The MRF process separates items by size and shape first, then by material. Screens direct paper, and
`similar two-dimensional lightweight items, into one stream; containers and similar three-dimensional heavier
`items into another steam; while broken glass and smaller but heavy items are allowed to drop by gravity to yet
`another stream, which may or may not be further sorted. Large, bulky items are typically manually sorted on
`the front of the MRF process.
`
`Items more two-dimensional than three-dimensional render the package non-recyclable per APR definition.
`Aside from not being captured in the plastic stream, they cause contamination in the paper stream. Items
`should have a minimum depth of two inches in order to create a three-dimensional shape for proper sorting.
`This issue is unrelated to the polymer type. The APR encourages and anticipates developments in MRF design
`and technology to improve capture and recovery of thin plastics; however, at the current time this technology
`either does not exist or is uninstalled in the majority of MRFs.
`
`Items smaller than 2 inches in 2 dimensions require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability
`category. The industry standard screen size loses materials less than three inches to a non-plastics stream, causing
`contamination in that stream, or directly to waste. These small packages are lost to the plastic recycling stream.
`It is possible that some small containers travel with larger ones when either the screens wrap with film or they
`are operated above their design capacity. Film wrapping reduces the effective size of the screen and over-running
`provides a cushion of large items on which the smaller items travel. The design guidelines use clean screens
`operating at their design capacity for the determination of the recyclability category. The APR anticipates and
`encourages technology development to improve the process of small package recovery but currently these items
`are not recovered.
`
`
`
`Benchmark Test: Evaluation of Sze Sorting Potential for Articles with at least 2 Dimensions Less than 2
`inches
`
`
`Items greater than two gallons in volume are detrimental to recycling.
`Recycling machinery, particularly automatic sorting equipment, is not large enough to accept items larger than
`two gallons. Because larger containers jam the systems, most MRFs employ manual sortation before the
`automatic line to remove the large items. These items are recovered in a stream of bulky rigid containers that
`are sold and processed as polyethylene since the vast majority of bulky rigid items are comprised of this
`8 of 74
`PET PACKAGING
`
`
`
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`polymer. Other polymers either negatively affect or are lost by the polyethylene processing.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLOSURES & DISPENSERS
`
`Polypropylene and polyethylene closures and components that float in water are preferred.
`Since these polymers float in water, they are most easily separated from PET flake in conventional separation
`systems. Additionally, the PET recycling process captures floatable polyethylene and polypropylene to create an
`ancillary stream of marketable material. Care must be taken when modifying the polyethylene or polypropylene,
`with mineral fillers for example, to ensure the modifier does not increase the overall density to the point it sinks.
`
`Silicone, polystyrene, thermoset plastics, nylon and acetal are examples of plastics that are expected to sink in
`the float-sink tank with PET and be detrimental to PET recycling. Sinking plastics are difficult to remove from
`PET, thereby causing contamination in the final product. Reclaimers may remove packages known to employ
`these sinking plastics manually to reduce contamination levels if they are commonly found in the recycle stream.
`
`Benchmark Test: Benchmark Evaluation for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`
`
`
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`PE, EVA and TPE liners in plastic closures are preferred.
`PE, EVA and TPE float in water and will be separated in the recycling process with the floatable polyethylene and
`polypropylene closures. Since PET reclaimers can recover PE, EVA and TPE in the float stream, they are preferred
`liner materials.
`
`Dispensers, closures or lidding with metal components require testing to determine the appropriate
`recyclability category
`Metal contamination is highly undesirable in recycled PET so the use of metal components with PET packaging is
`discouraged; metals create wear in process machinery, increase operation costs and yield loss, and are a primary
`source of defects in products made with recycled PET.
`
`MRFs and PET reclaimers use magnets, eddy current separators and metal detectors to keep packages with
`metal components out of the process stream. Any metal components that trigger these devices will cause the
`entire plastic product to be removed from the stream and render the package non-recyclable.
`
`When metal components are not detected and removed by process equipment, the package generally passes
`into the granulator and the metal components are considered detrimental to PET recycling. In cases where a
`package with a metal component passes through metal detection, some PET reclaimers remove these manually
`from the stream to reduce the impact of metals contamination; packages removed manually become waste.
`Aluminum components are particularly difficult to remove effectively due to the limitations of eddy current
`separators and flake sorters in detecting smaller non-ferrous components or granulated pieces.
`
`Benchmark Test: Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal; Metalized or
`Metallic Printed Components.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`9 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`The use of PVC closures, closure liners, renders the package non-recyclable per APR.
`(See “Attachments” tab for information about tamper-evident and safety seals.)
`PVC sinks and is extremely hard for the recycler to remove, particularly in small pieces. The recycled PET stream
`is very intolerable to even minute amounts of PVC.
`
`LABELS, INKS AND ADHESIVES
`
`Label selection should be considered carefully to find the solution most compatible with the recycling process
`that also provides the necessary performance characteristics. There are many label designs available and each
`of these designs performs differently in the various recycling processes. As a minimum, labels should use
`adhesives that release from the bottle and be designed so NIR sorting machinery can identify the bottle polymer
`with the label attached. Label systems, adhesives and inks designed to perform in specific portions of the
`recycling process are all beneficial. Removing adhesives is a significant component to the cost of recycling so the
`packages using the lowest quantity of appropriate adhesive are the most compatible. An overview of labels and
`their compatibility with specific portions of the recycling process can be found at:
`http://plasticsrecycling.org/images/pdf/design-guide/APR_Design_Guidance_Label_Summary_Table.pdf
`
`Polypropylene or polyethylene labels with a specific gravity less than 1.0 are preferred.
`These materials float in water so they are separated from the PET in the float-sink tank with the closures. Since
`they are the same general polymer as most of the closures they do not contaminate or devalue this stream.
`Care should be taken to ensure that any modifiers to the label material do not increase its density above 1.0.
`
`Laminated labels require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`Labels that break into small, very thin pieces of material are more difficult to manage in the recycling process
`because they behave erratically in a float-sink tank. Therefore, labels that stay intact are preferred. Carry-over
`of delaminated labels into the RPET can result in contamination.
`
`
`Definitive Test: New Delamination Test *Coming Soon
`
`
`Full bottle sleeve labels require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`Full bottle sleeve labels cover a large amount of the bottle surface with a polymer that is not the same as the
`bottle body. Because of this, a sleeve label designed without considering recycling may cause a false reading on
`an automatic sorter and direct a PET bottle to another material stream where it is lost to the process.
`Furthermore, some sleeve label materials cannot be removed in the recycling process and contaminate the RPET
`produced. Sleeve labels that have been found compliant with the APR test protocols should be selected.
`
`
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`Pressure sensitive labels require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`Pressure sensitive labels generally require complete adhesive coverage which is greater than other typical label
`methods. This raises the importance of the compatibility of the type of adhesive with the recycling process.
`Adhesives resistant to washing in the recycling process allow labels to remain on the PET and become
`contaminants in the final product. Adhesives that have been found compliant with the APR test protocols should
`be selected.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`10 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Screening Test: Benchmark Test for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocols for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`
`
`Polystyrene labels require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category. While PS labels are
`tolerated by some PET reclaimers, PS has been identified as causing serious processing and end-use problems by
`others and should only be used if it can be easily and completely removed from the PET in conventional
`separation systems. PS inherently sinks in water due to its density so it travels with the PET in the recyclers’
`float-sink systems. However, expanded PS may float and in this case, it may be less of a problem to the recycler.
`
`
`Screening Test: PET Packaging Component Sink or Float Evaluation
`
`
`Label structures that sink in water because of the choice of substrate, ink, decoration, coatings, and top layer
`require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`The reclaimers rely on float-sink systems to separate non-PET materials. Label components that sink with the
`PET end up in the RPET stream as contaminants.
`
`
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`Paper labels are detrimental to recycling (for pressure sensitive paper labels reference the pressure sensitive
`label category. The PET reclamation process involves a hot caustic wash that removes glue and other label
`components to the levels required to render the RPET usable. Paper, when subjected to these conditions,
`becomes pulp which is very difficult to filter from the liquid, thereby adding significant load to the filtering and
`water treatment systems. Individual paper fibers making up pulp are very small and difficult to remove so some
`travel with the PET. Paper fibers remaining in the RPET carbonize when the material is heated and remelted,
`causing unacceptable quality degradation. Non-pulping paper labels that resist the caustic wash process sink in
`the float-sink tank, thereby causing RPET contamination.
`
`Metal foil, metalized and metallic printed labels require testing to determine the appropriate APR
`recyclability category. Sorting equipment in the recycling process is designed to detect and eliminate metal
`from PET. Even very thin metallized labels may be identified as metal by the sorting equipment and cause the
`entire bottle to be rejected as waste, thereby creating yield loss. If not detected, they pass through the process
`with the PET and cause contamination issues in the RPET.
`
`
`Benchmark Test: Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal, Metalized or Metallic
`Printed Components
`
`
`
`PVC and PLA labels render the package unrecyclable per APR.
`Both materials are extremely difficult to remove in the recycling process due to their similarity in density to PET.
`Both cause severe quality degradation in the final recycled PET stream even in very small amounts.
`
`Adhesives require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`Adhesives that wash off cleanly from PET and remain adhered to the label are preferred. Label adhesive that is
`not removed from PET, or which re-deposits on the PET during the wash step is a source of contamination and
`discoloration when PET is recycled.
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`11 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`The recycling process is designed to remove reasonably expected contamination from the surface of the PET to a
`degree necessary to render the RPET economically reusable in further applications. In practice, some adhesives
`are resistant to this process so are detrimental to recycling. In extreme cases, an adhesive and label cannot be
`separated from the PET and may render a package not recyclable.
`
`
`Screening Tests: Benchmark Test for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`Label inks require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability category.
`Some label inks bleed color in the reclamation process, discoloring the PET in contact with them and significantly
`diminishing its value for recycling. The APR and NAPCOR have developed a testing protocol to assist label
`manufacturers in evaluating whether a label ink will bleed in conventional PET reclaiming systems. Label inks
`must be chosen that do not bleed color when tested under this protocol.
`
`
`Screening Tests: Benchmark Test for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`*See the definitive test for the appropriate label type
`
`
`Direct printing other than date coding requires testing to determine its compatibility with the recycling
`system. Historically, inks used in direct printing tend to bleed or otherwise discolor the PET during the recycling
`process or introduce incompatible contaminants. In either case, the value of the RPET is diminished. Some inks
`used in direct printing do not cause these problems. The specific ink must be tested to determine its effect.
`
`
`Screening Tests: Benchmark Test for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`ATTACHMENTS
`
`Clear PET attachments are preferred.
`Attachments made of the base polymer are recovered and recycled with the base polymer without causing
`contamination or yield loss, thereby generating the highest value.
`
`Tamper evident sleeves and safety seals require testing to determine the appropriate APR recyclability
`category. If tamper resistance is required in specific product applications, it should be an integral design feature
`of the bottle. The use of tamper-resistant or tamper-evident sleeves or seals is discouraged as they can act as
`contaminants if they do not completely detach from the bottle or are not easily removed in conventional
`separation systems. If sleeves or safety seals are used, they should be designed to completely detach from the
`
`
`bottle, leaving no remains on the bottle. The material used should float and separate from the PET in the float-
`sink system.
`
`Screening Test: PET Packaging Component Sink or Float Evaluation
`Definitive Test: Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures
`
`
`
`PET PACKAGING
`©2018 Association of Plastic Recyclers. All Rights Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`12 of 74
`
`
`www.PlasticsRecycling.org
` Updated 11-19-18
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Non-PET attachments such as handles require