Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

Characterization of effluents through a typical plastic

recycling process: An evaluation of cleaning
performance and environmental pollution
A.S.F. Santos a,b , B.A.N. Teixeira a,b ,
J.A.M. Agnelli a,b , S. Manrich a,b,∗
a Department of Materials Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, CP 676,
13565-905 São Carlos, SP, Brazil
b Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, CP 676,

13565-905 São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Received 12 April 2003; accepted 19 January 2005

Available online 2 June 2005

Abstract

The public and government more and more concern about water resource conservation and solid
waste recycling due to the increasing awareness of socioeconomic problems created by the inap-
propriate use of these natural resources. Recycling activities must, therefore, go hand in hand with
an evaluation of the effluents generated and discharged during such operations, in order to avoid a
mere exchange of pollutants. In this study, an evaluation of optimum conditions for some cleaning
parameters by using characterization results of effluents was accomplished. Although, a complete
evaluation of process parameters has not been possible, good correlations between cleaner perfor-
mance and effluent parameter measurements were achieved. The environmental pollution promoted
through cleaning of plastics during the recycling process of polyolefins and polyethylene terephtha-
late (PET) was investigated. A comparative evaluation with government requirements showed that
these effluents should be treated at their source before discharge to the domestic sewage. A typical
physical–chemical treatment should be enough to comply with the requirements.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plastic recycling; Washing; Wastewater; Pollutant load; PET; Polyolefins

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 16 260 8503; fax: +55 16 261 5404.
E-mail address: sati@power.ufscar.br (S. Manrich).

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.01.011
160 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

1. Introduction

The amount of plastic waste in municipal solid waste (MSW) has grown steadily in
recent years, reaching 5–10% in mass and higher percentage in volume. Variations may
occur with seasons and areas where MSW is collected.
Minimization of these wastes at the source has been considered as part of the
solution for the proper disposal of MSW and has been encouraged by governments,
communities and even by economic sectors. In addition to reducing the impact of
pollution, this would represent savings of natural resources and even a source of work and
income.
Over the last few years, legislation in several places has made producers and distributors
of plastic packaging responsible for these products and for their final disposal (Broek et al.,
1996). Germany, for instance, has a so-called DualSystem, whose financing is, to a great
extent, the responsibility of the packaging manufacturers.
Recycling of plastics, specifically, which has grown by an average of 15% per year in
Brazil, consists almost entirely of mechanical recycling (Agnelli et al., 1996). Fig. 1 shows
the various steps that make up a typical recycling plant. This production line can be reduced
or incremented according to the material/product to be recycled, the final product desired
and the available conditions.
When a recycling process involves cleaning of the plastic waste (step 3), which is
usually the case of post-consumer plastics, evaluations of the characteristics of the effluent
discharged in the process, the requirements for its treatment and its impact on the environ-
ment are crucial considerations for environmental preservation. In other words, the search
for a solution to the problem of plastic waste must be accompanied by an evaluation of other
impacts.
As plastic flakes cleanness, in terms of color and surface residue, is improved, the
typical and non-typical dirties are being removed and transferred to the effluent. Therefore,
characterizations of some effluent properties, based on only one batch in order to avoid

Fig. 1. Complete recycling scheme (identification, separation and classification of different types of plastics (1);
grinding (2); washing with or without addition of cleaning agents (3); drying (4); silos (5); agglutination (films
and products with fine thickness) (6); extrusion (7); granulation (8)).
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 161

large fluctuations on nature and content of impurities, can be used to estimate some
parameters of the plastics cleaning processes. In this study, some successful relationships
between effluent characteristics and the optimum residence time for the pre-washing and
washing steps have been pointed out.
Additionally, the effluent generated during the cleaning process of the most representative
plastic wastes found in MSW, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyolefins
(high density polyethylene, HDPE, and polypropylene, PP) was characterized. Depending
on the characteristics of these effluents, various waste constituents should be removed before
discharge.

2. Experimental

2.1. Materials

The plastic waste samples (PET, HDPE and PP) were taken from a MSW separating and
composting plant (Araraquara, SP, Brazil). The PET consisted predominantly of carbonated
soft drink bottles, plus a few water and vegetable oil bottles. The HDPE and PP are mainly
packaging materials from cleaning, personal hygiene, utensils, food and automotive mineral
oil products.
The polyolefins were mixed in a proportion 9:1 (HDPE:PP) according to a recent study on
MSW composition (Mancini et al., 2000). Owing to the heterogeneity of the contamination
of these wastes, one lot (ca. 40 kg) for each of these materials (PET and polyolefins) was
ground in a knife mill, and then mixed and homogenized in an appropriate bag. Afterwards,
three samples of about 3 kg each were taken from these lots and cleaned independently in
order to achieve three typical samples of wastewater generated during the cleaning processes
of these plastics, as schematized in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. PET and polyolefins (HDPE:PP) cleaning processes.

162 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

Caustic soda (NaOH, A.R.I. Chemicals do Brasil Ltd.) and a surfactant (Erkantol NR-BD
moistener – Bayer S/A) were used in the washing step.

2.2. Equipment

The systems employed in the washing process included a commercial tank with a lateral
rotor and static water feed mode (syst1), and a rotating drum with peripheral holes and
dynamic water feed mode (syst2), as depicted in Fig. 2 (Manrich et al., 1999). This last one
was developed specifically to wash plastics. Both systems were operated with a preset and
fixed rotation speed.

2.3. Evaluation of optimum residence time for the cleaning process by effluent
characterization

The optimum residence time of the pre-washing and rinsing steps were determined.
Despite the use of elevated temperature during the rinsing step improves the removal of
cleaning agents from plastics, room temperature was adopted in both steps.
The optimum residence time and other parameters for the washing step were not evaluated
because the characteristics of effluent dramatically change when cleaning chemicals are
added, misleading the correlation with cleaning efficiency. The plastic dirties transferred
to the effluent act as deviations around the mean values during characterization results of
the effluent. The low amount of residual contaminant in plastic waste after the pre-washing
step surely contributes to this behavior. Despite picture inspection is out of the scope of this
article, the evaluation of parameters of the washing step could be performed successfully
using pictures taken according to issue 8.2 of ASTM D 5577-94.
In order to estimate the residence time of pre-washing step, the instantaneous effluent
of syst2 was characterized by total solids and COD, whereas for the rinsing step, it was
estimated for PET by alkalinity analysis (for PET) and pH measurements (for polyolefins).
The alkalinity was determined using potentiometric titration until a pre-determined pH
using a Femto 420p Potenciometer. The caustic soda concentration in the instantaneous
rinsing water [NaOH] was approximated by the alkalinity values obtained according to the
following expression:

[NaOH] = [CaCO3 ](inst.) − [CaCO3 ](f) (1)

where [CaCO3 ]inst. is the instantaneous concentration of CaCO3 in mg L−1 and [CaCO3 ](f)
is the concentration of CaCO3 after its stabilization in mg L−1 .
The pH measurements were performed by direct contact of pH test papers with the
water flowing throughout the outlet of syst2 until no more variation in paper color could
be observed. This method was employed for polyolefins because they are not susceptible
to attack by alkalinity. The description of the methods of total solids and COD has been
reported in Table 1.
The effluent from the pre-washing step was instantaneously collected in the outlet of
the equipment at definite time intervals of 2, 4, 6, 10, 20 and 30 min. The water flow rate
employed was 16 L min−1 . This evaluation was performed only with polyolefins residues
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 163

Table 1
Parameters, methods and equipment used to characterize the wastewater
Parameters Methods/equipment
Turbidity Nephelometric, Micronal B250 Turbidimeter
Totals, suspended and Gravimetric, Fanem 315 and Fornitec 1848 Ovens
filterable solids
Sedimented solids Volumetric, Imhoff Cone
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Colorimetric, Hach 45600 Digestor, Hach DR2000 Spectrometer
pH Electrometric, Femto 420p Potenciometer
Metals (Cd, Fe, Mn and Pb) Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, Intralab/Varian AA-1275 Spectrometer
Oil and grease n-Hexane extraction, Soxhlet
Total coliforms and E. coli Enzyme substrate, Colilert Method

and extrapolated to PET residues. According to the literature, the difference in cleaning
efficiency of different plastics was restricted basically to the parameters of the washing step
(Syrinek and Tex, 1994; Devlieghere and Huyghebaert, 1997).
The effluent samples of the rinsing step were instantaneously collected in the outlet of the
equipment at 1-min interval during 20 min. The water flow rate was adjusted in the same
way as in the pre-washing step. The PET or polyolefins samples used were preliminary
exposed to caustic soda solutions as pointed out in Fig. 2.

2.4. Wastewater characterization during cleaning in the recycling process

Since polyolefins and PET have different characteristics, the conditions used during the
washing process also differed from each other. Specifically for PET, a step that encloses the
separation of labels and caps residue by differences in density is necessary. Furthermore,
the susceptibility of PET during processing step to adhesive residues also requires more
aggressive conditions in the washing step in order to maximize the adhesive removal (Sanko,
1999). Care must be taken not to use high alkalinity content. As an alternative, increments
on the bath temperature are recommended.
A flow-sheet of the cleaning process including some considerations of parameters pre-
viously estimated is given in Fig. 2. The subdivision of the cleaning process in pre-
washing, washing and rinsing steps is common both in industrial scale and in scientific
work (Devlieghere et al., 1997; Franz et al., 1998).
Ordinary tap water without addition of any chemical was used for the pre-washing step.
Caustic soda was then used in the washing step for both plastics, though surfactant was used
only for PET. The effluent generated in the rinsing step was not considered in this study,
since preliminary analyses indicated a very slight polluting impact because the plastic
material was already clean. Time interval composite sample of each step were collected at
the systems for the various analyses.

2.5. Analyses

Table 1 lists the parameters used to characterize the effluent, as well as the methods and
equipment employed. All analyses were performed in duplicate.
164 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

Fig. 3. Data of COD (a) and total solids (b) in the instantaneous effluent from polyolefins pre-washing step at
different intervals.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Evaluation of process parameters effectiveness

The results of COD and total solids of pre-washing step were reported in Fig. 2. These
parameters approached zero as the time elapsed. This tendency clearly shows that the ability
of tape water in cleaning plastic waste tends to a limit where all soluble and free impurities
are removed. After that, the addition of chemical agents is necessary to improve cleaning
efficiency (Fig. 3).
Nevertheless, a large percent of the total efficiency of this stage was almost achieved in
the first 4–6 min of the pre-washing step. Therefore, considering the relation benefit versus
efficiency, the residence time of pre-washing step should be around 5 min.
The optimum time of the rinsing step for polyolefins flakes, washed according to the
washing conditions described in Fig. 2, was around 5 min. After that interval, no more color

Fig. 4. Alkalinity results of effluent from the rinsing step of PET flakes at distinct intervals.
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 165

change could be observed on pH test papers. Following, alkalinity results for the rinsing
step of PET flakes from syst2 were showed in Fig. 4.
According to those data, the caustic soda residue reduced to minimum values only after
9–10 min. Once PET is susceptible to this residue during the processing step, a suitable
rinsing step is only obtained after this time interval. However, a huge efficiency in the
removal of caustic soda is already obtained after 5 min of rinsing, as was also observed for
the polyolefins.
In summary, the characterization of the effluent showed to be an appropriate way to
measure the residence time of different steps for the cleaning process. The sensibility of
the method employed to determine the effectiveness of the alkalinity removal is important
and depends on the susceptibility of the plastic to the caustic soda residues. Furthermore,
the result of different effluent characteristic behaved similarly during the determination of
the residence time of pre-wash step.

3.2. Polyolefins and PET cleaning process in the recycling process

3.2.1. Intrinsic differences between polyolefin and PET effluent

The results of effluents characterization for the pre-washing and washing stages of PET
and HDPE:PP are reported, respectively, in Tables 2 and 3. The values shown correspond
to the minimum and maximum values of the attained results and their respective averages.
These values were based in the analyses of three distinct samples coming from one lot of
40 kg for each material.
As can be observed, measurements through the three distinct samples showed significant
discrepancies in the actual amounts of constituents, despite they are from the same source
and their previous homogenization. These dispersions in the results arise from the large
heterogeneity and diversity of contamination present in the plastic waste from MSW. Fur-
thermore, they evidence the limitation of effluent analyses to estimate process parameters
whose evaluation cannot be performed through only one batch, unless the sensitivity of
effluent characteristic to process parameter is higher than that from sample heterogeneity.
On the other hand, PET washing step showed slight variations in the values of the param-
eters, which can be attributed to a large extent to the removal of superficial contamination
during the pre-washing step and to the composition of this waste be basically composed by
a single type of packaging (carbonated soft drinks).
Some parameters clearly presented large influence of package products themselves
and from the residue source (curbside, landfill, etc.). Contamination with fecal coliforms
(Escherichia coli), for instance, is probably caused mainly by contact with sanitary waste
such as disposable diapers, toilet paper and animal feces, which contain coliforms in orders
of magnitude greater than human feces (Metcalf & Eddy Inc., 1991). This characteristic
is a problem due to the high propensity of this kind wastewater to transmit diseases.
Variations in the oil and fat content in polyolefins were probably not so significant due
to the existence of a defined fraction of automotive oil packaging in this waste (ca. 2%).
On the other hand, the PET packaging used for cooking oils occurs occasionally in the
PET residues. This causes a large variation in the oil and fat content in the PET washing
effluents.
166 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

Table 2
Results of parameters used to characterize the wastewater from pre-washing and washing steps of PET
Parameters Pre-washing Washing

Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average

Solids (mg L−1 )
Total 660 1310 943 5180 5455 5338
Fixed 484 1010 745 1910 2060 1991
Volatile 110 300 198 3120 3545 3346
Suspended 345 634 498 732 1136 907
Fixed 302 500 406 586 829 697
Volatile 44 134 97 135 307 210
Filterable 315 799 446 4723 3783 4291
Fixed 182 578 360 1166 1442 1294
Volatile 74 210 138 2985 3399 3136
Settleable solids (mL L−1 ) 7 24 17 17 29 26
COD (mg L−1 ) 315 684 458 750 983 897
Turbidity (UNT) 110 130 115 280 330 303
pH 7 7 7 11.9 11.9 11.9
Oil and grease (mg L−1 ) 23 122 88 20 96 53
Total coliforms (108 NMP 100 mL−1 ) 2 1860 670 6 131 48
E. coli (106 NMP 100 mL−1 ) 36 3715 1381 9 113 44
Heavy metals (mg L−1 )
Pb 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.80 1.84 1.29
Cd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Mn (mg L−1 ) 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.08
Fe (mg L−1 ) 4.75 8.06 6.42 6.73 7.86 7.46
nd: Not detected.

Metals such as Pb and Cd probably originated from caustic soda attack to packages
prints (returnable PET bottles with printed labels, yellow butter packages of PP),
storage batteries (improperly disposed by consumers), gasoline additives (polyolefins
packages, misuse of PET bottles by consumers), etc. Traces of Cd were found only
in pre-washing step of polyolefin cleaning process. In a general way, caustic soda
behaved as an important parameter during the removal of these heavy metals from plastic
waste.
Similar contents of Fe and Mn, which are dissolved from minerals, were observed in the
PET and polyolefin effluents. However, in the case of the polyolefins, the pre-washing was
sufficient to remove a good portion of the Fe, while for PET the removal of Fe was achieved
only under the most severe conditions in the washing step. This probably could be due to
the favorable coordination of the superficial carboxylic ends of the PET with metallic ions,
as reported by Allen et al. (1994). These authors investigated the interactions of metal ions
(Ca, Al, Mn, Ni, Cu and Fe) contained in the soil with PET when it is disposed in contact
with soil. In spite of the Fe ions did not appear to be the metal ion with the best coordi-
nation with ester functionality, it exhibited some coordination level when in contact with
dry soil.
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 167

Table 3
Results of parameters used to characterize the wastewater from pre-washing and washing steps of polyolefins
(HDPE:PP)
Parameters Pre-washing Washing

Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average

Solids (mg L−1 )
Total 650 1090 830 7810 8090 7975
Fixed 480 905 623 690 1570 1150
Volatile 165 270 207 6520 7120 6825
Suspended 450 876 613 211 466 364
Fixed 329 732 483 141 380 274
Volatile 62 183 130 70 116 91
Filterable 138 300 217 7559 7674 7611
Fixed 93 173 133 549 1270 876
Volatile 41 208 125 6404 7050 6734
Settleable solids (mL L−1 ) 20 31 25 6 33 20
COD (mg L−1 ) 340 581 439 100 267 190
Turbidity (UNT) 120 160 140 90 150 127
pH 7 7 7 12.4 12.4 12.4
Oil and grease (mg L−1 ) 156 266 205 70 130 97
Total coliforms (108 NMP 100 mL−1 ) 89 1516 677 0.05 6.69 2.50
E. coli (106 NMP 100 mL−1 ) 21 1508 519 0.06 0.71 0.27
Heavy metals (mg L−1 )
Pb nd nd nd 0.80 1.35 1.10
Cd nd nd nd 0.04 0.06 0.05
Mn (mg L−1 ) 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.07
Fe (mg L−1 ) 7.13 12.90 9.13 3.03 6.06 4.37
nd: Not detected.

The change in pH values was strongly associated with the use of caustic soda in the
washing process, which generated a basic effluent in this stage compared to the neutral pH
of the pre-washing step. Likewise, the increase in total solids content and, more specifically,
in dissolved solids, resulted from the addition of soda in the washing step, which must also
have inhibited the amount of coliforms in this stage. This inhibition was more noticeable
for polyolefins, in which double amount of caustic soda was added.
On the other hand, the effluent turbidity in the washing step of PET increased as result of
the use of surfactant. Moreover, the surfactant’s fatty alcohol polyglycol ether-based chem-
ical composition also resulted in much higher COD values. The contribution of cleaning
chemicals to COD measurements has already been reported in the literature (Schindler,
1993). The increase in turbidity measurements with surfactant concentration was experi-
mentally demonstrated in Fig. 4.

3.2.2. Evaluation of environmental pollution

The characteristics of liquid effluents in the cleaning of post-consumer plastic waste for
recycling purposes were equivalent to those in untreated domestic wastewater classified as
being mid-way between medium and strong. However, the total solids content in the washing
168 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

Table 4
Data of the pollutant load in PET and polyolefins pre-washing and washing effluents in relation to the quantity of
cleaned plastic
Parameters HDPE/PP PET

Pre-washing Washing Pre-washing Washing

Total solids (g kg−1 ) 22.1 – 25.2 –
Settleable solids (L kg−1 ) 0.50 0.70 0.46 0.26
COD (g kg−1 ) 11.70 5.10 12.2 –
Oil and grease (g kg−1 ) 5.50 2.60 2.35 0.53
Total coliforms (1010 NMP kg−1 ) 1800 6.70 1790 48
E. coli (108 NMP kg−1 ) 1380 0.70 3680 44
Heavy metals (mg kg−1 )
Pb – 29.3 2.67 12.9
Cd – 1.30 – –
Mn (mg kg−1 ) 2.90 1.90 2.67 0.80
Fe (mg kg−1 ) 244 116.5 171.2 74.6

step due to the presence of caustic soda and the total coliform concentration approximates
the typical composition found in the septage.
Furthermore, the overall environmental pollution through recycling industries was sim-
ply approximated by the calculus of the effluent characteristics in relation to the quantity
of cleaned plastic (Table 4). Nevertheless, these data can be used only for guide purposes
because both the constituents and their concentrations in wastewater vary with the hour of
the day, the day of week, the month of the year and other local conditions. These values
must be used with great care due to the wide fluctuation that occurs in waste constituents
even when flow rates vary only slightly.
These data clearly pointed out the differences between the environmental pollution emit-
ted in the pre-wash and washing stages, justifying the subdivision of these two steps and
allowing for greater efficiency in the possible recovery and reuse of effluents containing
cleaning agents. Other alternatives to prolong the life of cleaning products are welcome to
reduce their pollution.

3.2.3. Government requirements

Table 5 presents typical discharge levels allowed according to the legislation of São Paulo
state (where the study is located) for emission into domestic sewage (Decree no. 997/76,
article 19A, São Paulo, 31/05/1976). Comparing those levels with the ones achieved in
this study, these effluents would need to be treated before being discharged into rivers or
domestic sewage. The emission requirements for rivers are more stringent. Therefore, the
implementation of plastic recycling units should foresee an appropriate treatment for such
effluents according to their final discharge.
This comparison suggests that the emission level of settleable solids, pH in the washing
step, oil and grease in polyolefins pre-washing step, and Pb in the PET washing step must
be lowed before discharge into the domestic sewage. Despite Pb content was lower than
the levels of emission required, the high deviation of this measurement makes the reduction
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 169

Table 5
Comparison between the emission standards of SABESP (state department responsible for wastewater management
and disposal) in domestic sewage and the wastewater characteristics from PET and polyolefins pre-washing and
washing steps
Parameters SABESP Pre-washing Washing

Sewage HDPE/PP PET HDPE/PP PET

pH 6–10 7 7 12.4 11.9
Temperature (◦ C) <40 23 23 23 ∼80
Settleable solids (mL L−1 ) 20 25 17 20 26
Oil and grease (mg L−1 ) 150 205 88 97 53
Pb (mg L−1 ) 1.5 – 0.10 1.10 1.29
Cd (mg L−1 ) 1.5 – – 0.05 –
Mn (mg L−1 ) 1.0 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.08
Fe (mg L−1 ) 15.0 9.13 6.42 4.37 7.46

in the emission levels of that pollutant necessary before its discharge in domestic sewage.
Pathogens reduction was not a matter of concern for emission into domestic sewage because
the sanitary department is responsible to treat biologically this effluent afterwards, reducing
the pathogens levels properly.
Those parameters interfere on water biological action, modify esthetic properties of
water, contaminate the ground water, and cause maintenance problems, increments in COD,
pathogens protection and pollutants adsorption. Nevertheless, they could be easily decreased
by a typical physical–chemical treatment.
A unit to remove coarse solids by means of screening is recommended to promote
(for) the safe operation of subsequent treatment units. Following, a preliminary tank to
remove settleable solids can be used. Regarding residues of polyolefins, this preliminary
tank should have also a skimmer to reduce the oil and grease content. Subsequently,
a unit for flocculation (chemical precipitation) is necessary to improve the suspended
solids removal, and promote Pb precipitation. Additionally, it also contributes for
reduction in the percentage of COD and pathogens. Finally, another settling tank is
necessary to remove the precipitated material, and just before the discharge of this
treated effluent in the domestic sewage, a neutralization step is necessary to adjust the
pH values.
Once the sludge accumulated in the first tank is basically constituted of inert material
like clays and sand, this sludge can be properly placed in a sanitary landfill. The sludge of
the second tank is a chemical one and therefore it needs a further characterization to verify
if its toxicity level was less than the level allowed by the government. If it is considered
dangerous, this sludge should be send to an industrial landfill for hazardous waste, otherwise
a sanitary landfill can be an appropriate destination.
Despite the effluent treated as suggested above complies with the requirements, the
best selection of treatment process will involve compatibility with the owner facilities, their
proper financial considerations and considerations about seasonal and production processes
variations.
170 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171

4. Conclusions

The use of the effluent characteristics to evaluate the process parameters demonstrated
good correlations since there is no addition of chemicals and all the performance was
evaluated through only one batch.
No significant differences in the effluent characteristics were found between the two types
of plastic studied and between the pre-washing and washing steps, except those differences
intrinsic to the cleaning processes (temperature, surfactant, caustic soda concentration). On
the other hand, the pollutant load in relation to kilogram of cleaned plastic associated to the
effluent from pre-washing step presented higher values than that in the washing step. The
dilution factor associated with the pre-washing step, i.e., its high flow rate of water omitted
it.
According to the requirements for emission of wastewater in the domestic sewage, these
effluents should be treated before their discharge. Some specific unit differences are nec-
essary depending on the type of plastic used due to extrapolation of emission limits of oil
and grease in polyolefins pre-washing step and Pb excess in PET washing step. However,
in a general sense, a preliminary tank followed by a unit for chemical precipitation and a
neutralization step seemed to be enough for both effluents.
As a final point, the environmental pollution generated in the cleaning of these plastics is
strongly influenced by their source, i.e., a non-selective collection from MSW. Therefore,
the use of wastes from a curbside system (selective collection) could reduce the need for
cleaning agents and the emission of some pollutants, thereby reducing the costs of treatment
units.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to MCT/PADCTIII/CNPq for the financial support of this work.

References

Agnelli JAM, et al. Polymer recycling: Brazil situation. Polı́meros Ciência e Tecnologia; 1996. p. 9–18 [in Por-
tuguese, with English abstract].
Allen NS, et al. Physicochemical aspects of the environmental degradation of poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polym
Degrad Stab 1994;43:229–37.
Broek WHAM, et al. Plastic identification by remote sensing spectroscopic NIR imaging using Kernel partial least
squares. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 1996;35:187–97.
Devlieghere F, Huyghebaert A. Removal of microorganisms from polymer bottles by caustic washing.
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 1997;30:62–9.
Devlieghere F, et al. Evaluation, modeling and optimization of the cleaning process of contaminated plastic food
refillables. Food Addit Contam 1997;14:671–83.
Franz R, Huber M, Welle F. Recycling of post-consumer poly(ethylene terephthalate) for direct food con-
tact application—a feasibility study using a simplified challenge test. Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau
1998;94:303–8.
Mancini SD, Remédio MVP, Zanin M. Municipal plastic waste composition. Saneamento Ambiental
2000;9(67):34–8 [in Portuguese].
 A.S.F. Santos et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 159–171 171

Manrich S, et al. Washer and dryer for polymeric materials. BR 7901580; 1999 [in Portuguese].
Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1991.
Sanko G. Cleaning during the recycling process. Recycl Prod News 1999;7(6):3.
Schindler M. Environmental influence of chemicals used in the dairy industry which can enter dairy wastewater.
Bull Int Dairy Feder (IDF) 1993;288:17–31.
Syrinek AR, Tex R. Use of caustic and surfactant as a cleaner for recycled plastic. US Patent 5,330,581; 1994.