Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends

and future scenarios
Camila Távora de Mello Soares a, *, Monica Ek a, Emma Östmark b, Mikael Gällstedt b,
Sigbritt Karlsson a
a
Department of Fiber and Polymer Technology, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Teknikringen
56-58, Stockholm SE-100 44, Sweden
b
Stora Enso Innovation Centre for biomaterials, PO Box 4158, Nacka SE-131 04, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Multi-material multilayer plastic packaging (MMPP) is widely applied in fast moving consumer goods (FMCG)
Multi-material multilayer packaging combining functionalities of distinct materials. These packaging structures can enhance properties, such as
Plastic packaging recycling resource-use efficiency and barrier performance leading to consequential benefits like a prolonged shelf-life.
Advanced recycling technologies
Nevertheless, they represent a challenge for existing recycling systems, confronting circular economy princi­
Future foresight
Scenario planning
ples. This study aim was to foresight the future of recycling technologies for MMPP in the next five to ten years.
Future scenarios were identified, including (1) high-performance material recycling, (2) recycling into hydro­
carbons, (3) business as usual, and (4) downcycling. In-depth interviews and a feedback survey were methods
used to validate the scenario matrix while defining experts’ expectations towards the future. The analysis showed
that distinct technologies will develop unevenly in different parts of the world. A mix of all scenarios is probable
in the upcoming years, depending, essentially, on regulations and technology availability. Advanced high-
performance material recycling encounters systemic bottlenecks, such as insufficient sorting technology for
post-consumer waste. In contrast, chemical recycling (feedstock) is concentrating investments as a solution,
requiring low input-characterization. Additionally, design for recycling trends might reduce multilayers’
complexity. A gap between recycling targets and recycling technologies was identified, representing short-term
opportunities for more sustainable materials, such as bio-based.

1. Introduction positive environmental benefits of a circular production model

Most manufactured plastic items are made of non-renewable mate­
rials, mainly fossil-based (Shogren et al., 2019). In a planet with finite
resources, the intensive extraction of these materials to feed a linear
economic model of production, consumption, and disposal proves to be
unsustainable (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Circular economy
models have been studied as solutions to current and future environ­
mental challenges (Ghisellini et al., 2016). In this sense recycling is
identified as a pillar, enabling materials to be reinserted in production
chains (Nikanorova and Stankevičienė, 2020; Ranta et al., 2018; Fellner
et al., 2017). Under this perspective, plastics materials used in packaging
and other applications require a well-functioning recycling process to
shift from a linear flow to a cycle (Picuno et al., 2021). Reduction of
natural resources extraction, waste production and carbon emissions are
(Korhonen et al., 2018).
Despite well-known environmental advantages, materials with
recycling potential still have inappropriate destinations, such as
dumpsites; or less desired ones, such as landfills and incineration with
energy recovery (Conversio Market and Strategy GmbH, 2019). Besides
the shortage of natural resources, plastic-related environmental issues
often entail other environmental threats, such as land and sea pollution
(Windsor et al. 2019). This is a common situation for plastic packaging
materials, which have a short lifespan, large production volume, and
various compositions; creating challenges for their waste management
(Huysman et al., 2017). In Europe, plastic packaging represents 39,6%
of the plastic demand, while a great part of that becomes waste just after
the use (Plastics Europe, 2020).
Nevertheless, plastic packaging is essential in some applications.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ctdms@kth.se (C.T.M. Soares), monicaek@kth.se (M. Ek), emma.ostmark@storaenso.com (E. Östmark), mikael.gallstedt@storaenso.com
(M. Gällstedt), sigbritt@kth.se (S. Karlsson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105905
Received 1 April 2021; Received in revised form 30 June 2021; Accepted 2 September 2021
Available online 28 September 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.T.M. Soares et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905

Packaging is employed for different purposes, such as containing, pro­ Table 1

tecting, communicating with the customer, and branding the product Some materials applied on MMPP packaging (adapted from Lamberti et al. 2020,
(Klimchuk and Krasovec, 2013). Moreover, the evolution of plastic Reichert et al. 2020, Kaiser et al. 2018 and Mieth et al. 2016).
production technology allowed the creation of packaging comprising Material Layer Application
different materials in a single structure, through many layers (Walker Functionality Example
et al., 2020). Consequently, multi-material multilayer plastic packaging Synthetic Polyethylene (PE) - heat-sealable Beverage cartons
(MMPP) enabled the industry to minimize the average thickness of Polymer - moisture (usually contains
packaging materials while combining functional properties, such as (fossil- barrier LDPE layer)
based - combination
barriers, mechanical strength, and heat tolerance (Mieth et al., 2016). As
sources) with gas/aroma
a result, MMPP became important for various applications, avoiding the barriers (e.g.,
overuse of materials and its consequential costs or the insufficient use PA, EVOH)
and products’ losses (Anukiruthika et al., 2020). Polypropylene (PP) - moisture Toiletries,
However, MMPP embedded heterogeneity became a hindering factor barrier cosmetics,
- coated with microwavable
for the recycling industry (Walker et al., 2020). Waste characterisation is heat seal food packaging
key for the efficiency of mechanical recycling steps with high-quality coatings
end-products (Garcia and Robertson, 2017) and conventional waste (PVDC,
management systems are not adapted to identify, sort and recycle acrylate) for
mechanical
multi-material multilayers (Kaiser et al., 2018). Therefore, MMPP
strength
became a difficult to recycle material; thus, a circular economy chal­ - combined with
lenge (Mulakkal et al., 2021). gas/aroma
In this sense and motivated by the packaging industry need to shift barriers
from a linear to a circular approach, this work identified and assessed Polyethylene - gas/aroma Food packaging
terephthalate (PET) barrier such as bottles,
possible techniques that are being considered for multi-material multi­
- moisture meat, or cheese
layer packaging recycling in a global perspective, when at least one of barrier
the components is a plastic polymer. Furthermore, trends that are likely - mechanical
to evolve in the field in the next five to ten years were studied with the strength
- heat-sealable
ultimate goal to enhance recycling knowledge.
Polystyrene (PS) - gas Printable outside
permeability layer for fresh
1.1. Multi-material and mono-material multilayers - printability food packaging
- combined with
Multi-material multilayer structures consist of more than one layer of gas/aroma
barriers
distinct materials where the components are layered to form flexible Polyvinyl Chloride - gas/aroma Stretch wrap
packaging (pouches, bags, shrink films, other pliable products) or rigid (PVC) barrier
ones (trays, cups, containers, other rigid plastic sheets) (Wagner, 2016). - mechanical
This type of packaging is widely applied in the FMCG (Fast Moving strength
Polyamide (PA) - gas/aroma Thermoformed
Consumer Goods) industry, in items with a relatively low-cost price and
barrier food packaging
with a relative short lifespan, like beverages, food, and toiletries - mechanical
(Cooper, 2013). It is estimated that MMPP account for 26% of the strength
flexible packaging market by weight (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, - heat-sealable
2017). Ethylene vinyl alcohol - oxygen barrier Oxygen sensitive
(EVOH) food packaging
Packaging for fresh food products may consist of four to seven layers Ethylene-vinyl acetate - adhesive Interlayer to bond
of different components (Butler and Morris, 2016). A wide range of (EVA) - heat- sealable PE to PVC
substances with different physical and chemical characteristics form Polyurethane (PUR) - adhesive (dry Cosmetics,
multi-material multilayers (Mieth et al., 2016). Various polymers are bond pharmaceutical
lamination) packaging
applied, such as polyolefins PE and PP and chemical variants (HDPE,
- heat- sealable
LDPE, LLDPE, OPP), or polyesters such as PET and PLA. (Kaiser et al., Polyvinylidene chloride - gas/aroma Film wraps
2018). These multilayer multi-material films and sheets are developed (PVDC) barrier
by co-extrusion or lamination techniques (Wagner and Marks, 2016). An - moisture
overview of the main materials, their functionalities and applications barrier
- abrasion
are shown (Table 1). protection
In multi-material multilayer packaging, the use of different materials Synthetic Polylactic acid (PLA) - gas/aroma Cups, containers,
in different layers is connected to functionalities and packaging per­ Bio- barrier take-away
formance needs (Table 1). Packaging design demands include adequate based - moisture packaging
polymer barrier
strength to contain and resist impacts (Robertson, 2016). Additionally,
- mechanical
sealing performance plays an important role in preserving the product strength
and avoiding deterioration. Therefore, protecting the goods from abra­ Bio-Polyethylene (Bio- - heat-sealable Similar uses as
sion, moisture, oxygen, light, odor, flavor, and chemicals; can be PE) - resistant to fossil fuel PE (uses
essential for packaging performance (Ragaert et al., 2020). Moreover, hydrolysis/ the same
oxidation recycling stream)
high-speed equipment requirements for packaging production can - flexibility
include specifications of rigidity, pliability, and heat resistance, being Polyhydroxyalkanoates - gas/aroma Applications in
fundamental for a flawless packaging engineering (Hahladakis and (PHA) barrier development -
Iacovidou, 2018). - moisture may replace PET
barrier
Another type of multilayer packaging can be produced with different
- mechanical
layers of the same polymer, that is chemically modified to reveal slightly strength
distinct functionalities and denominated mono-materials multilayers (continued on next page)
(Pettersen et al., 2020). Differentiation of molecular characteristics

2
C.T.M. Soares et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905

Table 1 (continued ) allows MMPP recycling in one stream (Lahtela et al., 2020). Addition­
Material Layer Application ally, an emerging recycling route is through chemical processes such as
Functionality Example pyrolysis with the production of feedstock, that do not require the sep­
Polyethylene Furanoate - gas/aroma Applications in
aration of layers (Solis and Silveira, 2020).
(PEF) barrier development - A simplified roadmap for plastic packaging shows the recycling paths
- moisture may replace PET and the possible end-products through the value chain (Fig. 1).
barrier Diverse studies and new technologies aiming to improve plastics
- mechanical
recycling are in development, and unknown treatment methods may
strength
Other Aluminium Foil - light barrier Oxygen sensitive arise in the following years (Mumladze et al., 2018; Vollmer et al., 2020;
materials - gas/aroma foods packaging Solis and Silveira, 2020). In this sense, recent studies have suggested
barrier that enzymes secreted by some microorganisms may bring insights to
- moisture depolymerization processes while exploring the possibilities to degrade
barrier
Paper or paperboard - mechanical Beverage cartons
PET to its monomers (Knott et al., 2020). These innovative methods can
strength facilitate the degradation and recycling of MMPP structures in the future
- abrasion (Taghavi et al., 2021).
resistance
1.2.1. Delamination
Multi-material multilayers may include adhesives for bonding in­
allows modification of physical, mechanical and barrier properties.
terlayers; thus, recycling can include delamination steps (Horodytska
However, this type of packaging usually has limited properties, such as
et al., 2018). Zhang et al. (2015) studied a post-consumer liquid pack­
limited barrier performance or seal-ability properties; and may be un­
aging board delamination through bonding damage. Acetone was the
able of meeting packaging requirements (Anukiruthika et al., 2020). On
solvent used by Fávaro et al. (2013) to delaminate food packaging with
the other hand, considering that mono-materials are more homogeneous
PE/Aluminium/PET composition. The application of physical processes
than multi-material multilayers, conventional recycling systems can
to delaminate multilayers is unusual due to the bonding’s strength;
usually absorb their flows (Ragaert et al., 2020). For this reason, there is
however, basic structures could be separated by shredding and washing
a growing pressure on the packaging industry to abolish or decrease the
(Perick et al., 2016). Kaiser et al. (2018) and Anukiruthika et al. (2020)
use of multi-material multilayer packaging, under the statement that
summarized delamination techniques and patents dating back to the
mono-materials would be able to be managed with current recycling
1990s to separate layers; however, no commercial treatment in
methods (Picuno et al., 2021). Trends towards mono-material packaging
industrial-scale was currently identified (Walker et al., 2020). Innova­
have increased, especially in Europe, with CEFLEX Consortium (Circular
tive technology is being developed by the German company (Saperatec
Economic for Flexible Packaging) and more than a hundred stakeholders
GmbH, 2021) to establish a low-energy material recycling process to
in the packaging value chain (CEFLEX, n.d.). The organization has
launched a series of voluntary guidelines denominated “Designing for a
Circular Economic (D4ACE)”, aiming to help current systems to recycle
flexible packaging (CEFLEX, 2020). Design for recycling includes the
maximization of recyclable components in the structures, avoidance of
hazardous materials or non-recyclables, reduction of complexity, among
other efforts to increase recyclability (Maris et al., 2018). Other tools to
foster the design of more recyclable packaging materials are being
launched, such as “Recyclass”, which assesses compositions of pack­
aging and suggests best practices for recyclability (Plastics Recyclers
Europe, 2020). Similar initiatives are being developed willing to in­
crease the harmonization of packaging materials.

1.2. Status and advanced recycling technologies

In general, the MMPP recycling is complex since the recycling in­

dustry is not able to identify, sort and separate the diverse layers with
current standard technologies (Horodytska et al., 2018). Therefore,
MMPP is usually sorted as mixed plastic waste in post-consumer streams
(also called other types of plastics) and frequently incinerated with en­
ergy recovery in European countries, which does not prioritize recycling
as a circular economy practice (Kaiser et al., 2018). In low-income
countries, these packaging materials are usually disposed on dump­
sites or landfills Conversio Market and Strategy GmbH, 2019) and a
fraction also leaks to the environment due to the common lightweight
and short lifespan (Hahladakis and Iacovidou, 2019).
As solutions, there are two main advanced methods to recycle Fig. 1. Plastic packaging value chain and its recycling routes, including exist­
MMPP. The first one includes the detaching of the distinct components ing and emergent technologies. The production of plastic materials starts with
raw materials from fossil (most of the current production) or bio-based feed­
for further treatment of materials separately; while another option is the
stocks. Then, different processes are used to produce distinct types of pack­
processing of all layers altogether (Kaiser et al., 2018). These methods
aging. After its use and end-of-life, packaging materials are sorted according to
prepare the packaging for further steps of recycling techniques. In this the local infra-structure. If recycled, the usual recycling route for mono-
sense, MMPP waste usually needs to be partially or entirely decon­ material plastic packaging is through mechanical recycling. Other processes
structed to become recyclable and transformed into other products such as solvent-based techniques and pyrolysis (represented by dashed lines
(Walker et al., 2020). If the structure is separated, delamination or se­ arrows) are emerging alternatives for difficult to recycle materials, such
lective dissolution are possible treatments. Otherwise, compatibilization as MMPP.

3
C.T.M. Soares et al.
delaminate MMPP. This process includes a shredding step followed by a
microemulsion with a surfactant that promotes layers’ separation (Chen
et al., 2021). According to Saperatec, the technique can delaminate
structures such as PE/Aluminum, PP/Aluminum, and PE/PET by mini­
mizing interlayers forces (Saperatec, n.d.). Vollmer et al. (2020) remark
that it would be an innovative category of separation since it does not
dissolve completely the forming polymers. Similarly, an Australian
company, “PVC Separation”, developed a similar process to delaminate
multilayers by swelling the polymer in a low boiling solvent and by the
addition of hot water, the solvent releases the desired polymers
(Vollmer et al., 2020).
1.2.2. Selective-dissolution
Selective dissolution techniques are another solvent-based method to
separate layers of MMPP. It takes advantage of polymers’ different sol­
ubility, where a specific solvent dissolves targeted component and
removes materials in steps (Mieth et al., 2016). Thermoplastic polymers
(PE, PP, PS, PET and PVC) dissolution is an important technique used in
recycling systems (Hadi et al., 2012). The solvent’s choice is an essential
step of this practice, while a range of solvents may allow the recovery of
diverse layers (Walker et al., 2020). Along the process, the target poly­
mer is dissolved, and other polymers remain at a solid phase; then, the
solvent is used to target another polymer, or a different solvent can be
used (Zhao et al., 2018). Specific components of the multilayer structure
can be selectively-dissolved for further recovery, with low contamina­
tion rates (Schlummer et al., 2020). At least two initiatives are being
developed in Europe, with the Fraunhofer Institute and APK AG, that use
solvent-based solutions for selective dissolution of polyolefins with
further recycling (Vollmer et al., 2020). Recycling of beverage cartons
using solvent-based techniques was also evaluated (Georgiopoulou
et al., 2021). These methods produce high-quality end-products com­
parable to virgin materials (Schlummer et al., 2020) and show that
solvent-based technologies are a realistic recycling approach (Walker
et al., 2020).
1.2.3. Compatibilization
Multi-material multilayers usually include polymer blends that are
mechanically unstable (Xie and Sui, 2020). For this reason, compatibi­
lization uses chemical substances to increase multilayers’ mechanical
stability and further recycle all layers in a single stream without sepa­
ration (Mostafapoor et al., 2020). These methods make polymer blends
less immiscible by adding another component to the structures (Ragaert
et al.., 2017). Compatibilizers are usually a blocky structure, chosen
according to the polymer blend, thus directly dependent on the com­
ponents of the packaging (Ragaert et al., 2017). An innovative compa­
tibilization process is applied by the company “Dow” that incorporates
compatibilizers within the multilayer packaging (Dow, 2016). In this
way, the packaging would have a “self-recyclable” structure and a better
performance against the addition of the additive on a separate recycling
stream (Dow, 2021).
1.2.4. Feedstock recycling
An alternative emerging treatment for difficult to recycle plastic
waste might be producing chemicals and fuels such as monomers or
hydrocarbons feedstocks. Processes known to perform this are gasifi­
cation, pyrolysis, fluid-catalyzed cracking, and hydrocracking (Ragaert
et al., 2017). Pyrolysis may become an active technology for plastic
waste that is complex to be depolymerized such as MMPP (Thiounn and
Smith, 2020). The process occurs in high temperatures and absence of
oxygen when polymers are broken down and, with further processing,
result in petrochemical feedstock such as naphtha or diesel (Ragaert
et al., 2017). This process known as chemical recycling include ther­
molysis through catalysts to selectively generate gases, liquids, or
waxes, and are new developments that go beyond mechanical recycling
(Garcia and Robertson, 2017). Until the present, this is not a widespread
recycling practice due to energy costs (Solis and Silveira, 2020).
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
However, the technology might evolve as a future feasible option for
plastics or plastics-containing waste that is difficult to be materially
recycled from an economical and systematic perspective, opening new
routes and opportunities (Plastics Europe, 2020).
A study developed by Solis and Silveira (2020) assessed eight tech­
nologies regarding feedstock recycling for mixed plastic waste and their
technology readiness level (TRL). The most developed were pyrolysis,
catalytic cracking, and conventional gasification, whereas other
emerging technologies noticeably demand more investments to be at a
commercial-stage (Solis and Silveira, 2020). BASF; Borealis; Unilever,
Recycling Technologies & Neste; and Sabic & Plastics Energy are ex­
amples of companies developing the technology, investing on the suc­
cess of the alternative as a plastics recycling future solution (Vollmer
et al., 2020). However, it is still unclear how these processes would
become economically and environmentally efficient (Ügdüler et al.,
2020).
2. Methodology
This study included various methods, including in-depth interviews,
scenario planning, and an online feedback survey with experts (Fig. 2,
Appendix 1). An in-depth interview is a discovery-oriented model that
gathers comprehensive data beyond simple answers (Guion et al., 2011).
The in-depth interviews followed open-ended questions and a
semi-structured format with conversational answer flow.
Scenario planning is a tool that develops a systemic understanding of
an issue, using projected assumptions and elements necessary for those
(Störmer et al., 2020). Data collected on scientific literature review and
interviews with experts allowed the scenario planning design. Preceding
the establishment of key elements (axes), this research identified diverse
factors that could affect the system; regarding economics, technology,
society, or regulations. Then, two critical uncertainties were defined for
each of the axes as driving forces for the scenario matrix. Accordingly,
possible future scenarios were established for each of the quadrants.
Characteristics such as description; current facts; assumptions; stop/­
slow possibilities, qualitative impacts, and timeframe; were defined for
each scenario.
Various professionals deliberately collaborated on the interview and
survey stages, including experts from academia, brand-owners, plastics
recycling industry, packaging industry, waste processing, flexible
packaging, and circular economy organizations. Due to data protection
required by interviewees, this study will not list the names of collabo­
rators. Generally, professionals of 26 backgrounds, including polymer
science, packaging engineering, plastic recycling, industrial economy,
and sustainability, were contacted between October and December of
2020 on online settings. Moreover, experts’ experiences were mostly
from a European and high-income country perspective, including Ger­
many, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and the UK. A few participants from
the US also provided assessments. Some participants were from low-
income countries, such as Brazil, Indonesia, and African countries (not
specified). The selection of experts was based on a holistic and targeted
analysis, comprising distinct perspectives, which included waste man­
agement and packaging specialists from different parts of the world.
Furthermore, the online survey combined a background explanation
regarding the scenario matrix with open-ended questions to gather
feedback from experts. The survey included questions motivated by the
Fig. 2. Structure of the sequence of methods applied.
C.T.M. Soares et al.
scenario matrix. The questionnaires were sent out by email, and a
deadline was established. Experts could access it and the background
information at any time within the timeframe selected.
The first open-ended questions asked for specific feedback on each of
the four scenarios “What are your thoughts towards scenario 1/2/3/4?”.
The subsequent questions were:
Q5. From the scenarios mapped, which one do you think is more
likely to be developed in the next 5–10 years? Where? Why?
Q6. Would you mention any other possible scenario for the future of
the recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging? Which
one? Why?
Q7. What are the most critical factors to be described in each
scenario?
Q8. What did you think about the critical uncertainties chosen?
Would you define another key factor as more relevant for the future
of multilayer packaging recycling? Why?
A final line for additional comments and opinions was also included.
A Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tool was used for content
analysis and to process the qualitative data obtained in the survey.
3. Results
3.1. Key drivers
Multiple driving forces that affect the future of multilayer plastic
recycling were identified, such as: environmental benefits of the recy­
cling technology, ability of use of recycled material in food-contact
packaging, availability of collection/logistic systems, traceability of
recyclates, volume of material to recycle, costs of recycling methods,
costs of recycled materials, use of other alternative materials for pack­
aging (biodegradable, compostable), increase of mono-materials, ban of
plastics, consumer behavior, political decisions, and others considered
of less relevance for the scope of this study.
Then two key-drivers were chosen for the matrix, defined as critical
for the future of the recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic
packaging:
(1) regulatory pressure towards recycling and,
(2) advanced sorting and separation technologies.
The first one was motivated by worldwide emerging regulations that
seek to hinder plastic packaging waste and increase recycling rates. For
instance, in Europe, the EU Plastics Strategy requires all plastic pack­
aging to be reusable or recycled in a cost-effective manner by 2030,
limiting other destinations such as incineration and landfill (European
Commission, 2018). The Australian legislation is banning single-use
plastics from March 2021 (EPA South Australia, 2021). Similar pres­
sures are being created in the UK; in some US states and in other
countries, such as China, that have packaging waste legislation planned
for the upcoming years (Roland Berger, 2020).
The second key element was motivated by the requirements of
advanced recycling technologies. Since most of them demand a well-
known input of materials to perform an efficient treatment, high-
performance separation, and sorting is critical for a post-consumer
recycling system. Projects in smart packaging such as digital marks for
plastic sorting corroborated the assumption that better performance
sorting technology is needed to increase material recycling rates (e.g.,
Holy Grail project).
3.2. Scenarios matrix
The scenario matrix shows the key drivers as main assumptions and
comprises a range of possible future scenarios for the recycling of MMPP
(Fig. 3). Each scenario is described according to the described
5
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
Fig. 3. Scenario matrix for the future of MMPP recycling, considering sorting
technologies performance and recycling regulation pressure on the axes (x/y).
Scenario 1 represents the foreseen future when both factors are existent in a
(+/+) scenario; scenario 2 shows the future for a (-/+) case, scenario 3 a (-/-)
situation and scenario 4 a (+/-) situation.
methodology.
• Scenario 1: High-performance recycling
A demanding recycling regulation combined with a high-
performance sorting technology (+/+) will shift the MMPP waste
management towards high-performance recycling, where the recycled
material has similar quality as virgin polymer.
(1) Facts: solvent-based techniques that perform high-performance
material recycling demand high-precision sorting and have
high-quality polymers as end-products.
(2) Assumptions: sorting technologies will identify and differentiate
multi-material multilayer plastic packaging composition with
high-precision, including distinct layers. Recycling regulation
will aim for high-performance processes.
(3) Slow/stop: trend into mono-material packaging could reduce
MMPP waste volume in the market, reducing the need for in­
vestments in sorting and treatment technologies. Constraints on
technology, costs, recyclate market, food-contact regulations
hindering closed-loop recycling for these applications, new pri­
orities (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic and uncertainties on sustain­
ability investments in some countries).
(4) Qualitative impacts:
(5) Positive: tackle eventual costs due to the lack of plastic recycling
(EU plastic tax over non-recyclable plastics from 2021); decrease
environmental impacts linked to other forms of disposal such as
incineration or landfill; increase of recycled material available on
the market, reducing its costs.
(6) Negative: high investments on new technologies, modification of
recycling systems including sorting logistics, costs of recycled
material; probable long timeframe until the technology is
commercially viable and spread out.
(7) Timeframe: 5–10 years.
Scenario 2: Recycling into hydrocarbons (feedstock)
A demanding recycling regulation towards recycling and a lack of
high-performance sorting technology (+/-) will drive legislators to
accept other processes, such as chemical recycling into hydrocarbons
(feedstock), as a valid recycling route.
C.T.M. Soares et al.
(A) Facts: diverse initiatives comprising feedstock recycling pro­
cesses and aiming to be a feasible solution for plastic waste are
being developed worldwide.
(B) Assumptions: directives and legislations will allow the classifi­
cation of feedstock recycling streams as recycling, once the final
products can be used for plastic production and contribute to the
circular economy.
(C) Slow/stop: high energy consumption, uncertainties about the
genuine environmental benefits, high investments, lack of recy­
clate’s traceability in the recycled product.
(D) Qualitative impacts:
(E) Positive: tackle eventual costs due to the lack of plastics recycling
(e.g. EU plastic tax); avoid the need for high-precision sorting
logistics and its costs; feedstock produced can be allocated for
different purposes; opening of new treatment routes and avoid­
ance of plastic leakage to the environment.
(F) Negative: additional energy consumption for re-processing hy­
drocarbons into materials (if the feedstock is used to produce
plastic materials), costs of implementation, costs and logistics for
up-scale, costs of recycled material.
(G) Timeframe: <5 years.
Scenario 3: Business as Usual (BAU)
The lack of an established regulation towards plastic waste recycling
and the scarcity of separation and sorting logistics (-/-) will hinder
changes in the management of multi-material multilayer plastic pack­
aging waste, which remains the same, i.e., energy recovery, landfill, etc.
(A) Facts: diverse low-income countries still lack effective plastic
packaging waste regulation. In many countries, the reality con­
cerns tackling dumping and environmental leakage, still far from
high-performance sorting solutions.
(B) Assumptions: low-income countries will not change completely
their plastic waste streams in the next few years; global packaging
actors might take advantage of less regulated countries to keep
doing “business as usual”.
(C) Slow/stop: global cooperation towards the Circular Economy,
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) without country
boundaries, innovation, recycling technologies with lower costs
and adapted to low-developed systems.
(D) Impacts: Positive: avoid extra costs for implementation of other
technologies, avoid risks of change to a new technology that is
not established yet.
Negative: eventual costs for non-recycled plastic (e.g., EU plastic
tax), environmental impacts of disposal process such as GHG emissions,
pollution of soils, depletion of natural resources, etc.; leakage of plastic
waste to the environment, such as oceans.
(A) Timeframe: <10 years.
Scenario 4: Low-performance recycling (Downcycling)
A scenario where some sorting is available, and the regulation does
not compel the industry towards high-quality recycling (+/-) will drive
the practice to a mechanical recycling path with low requirements and
low-quality end-products (downcycling).
(A) Facts: some initiatives of post-consumer separation schemes for
flexible packaging perform mixed recycling and produce low-
quality products (as items for road construction, playgrounds,
etc.).
(B) Assumptions: the lack of a strict regulation or governmental
support for the recycling industry will prevent significant in­
vestments in new technologies of high-performance material
recycling.
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
(C) Slow/stop: consumer awareness and pressure towards more
innovative solutions, global trends towards a genuine and sus­
tainable circular economy with multiple cycles of recycling,
decrease of costs of other recycling alternatives.
(D) Qualitative impacts:
Positive: tackle costs connected to the lack of plastic packaging
recycling (e.g., EU plastic tax); possibility of production of new material
products; reduction of material consumption to produce items; low costs
compared to high-performance material recycling, technology already
established in some regions, feasibility at low-income countries.
Negative: do not permit the recycling of materials diverse times,
lacking contribution to a continuous and strong circular economy.
(A) Timeframe: < 5 years.
3.3. Survey results
In the first part of the survey, the experts were consulted about their
opinions on each scenario. The answers showed that half of them expect
high-performance recycling to be developed in five to ten years’ future.
When asked about recycling through feedstock, experts mention that the
technology is already an active field. Various companies are testing it in
some parts of the world, and 56% expect its development in the next
5–10 following years. Regarding conventional solutions such as landfill
or energy recovery, the open-ended survey detected a desire that this
scenario will not be part of the future. However, around 20% of the
experts believe that considering present trends, a ten years’ time-frame
is a short-time to shift entire waste management systems in some
countries. The background of these experts was mainly linked to low-
income regions. For the fourth scenario, 53% of respondents consid­
ered that low-performance recycling is likely to happen or keep
happening in some parts of the world. As a more established and cheaper
material recycling technology, experts mention that downcycling is part
of the solution, despite the lack of multiple-cycles recycling.
For the second part of the survey, answers for question Q5 comprised
a mix of scenarios expected for the future. The results included the
scenarios below, in the same proportionality rate (18, 75% of opinions
received).
• 1, 2,3 & 4 (all scenarios).
• 1,2 & 4.
• 2,3 & 4.
As seen, two of the most frequent answers do not include the business
as usual scenario, which might be a result of most experts’ European
backgrounds.The European socio-political context demands solutions
that match local recycling targets and frameworks such as the new
Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020). There­
fore, business as usual solutions are not considered acceptable for the
future, in this perspective.
Regarding question Q6 and other non-mentioned possible scenarios,
the main result was the possibility of alternative materials to substitute
MMPP packaging, such as reusable or mono-material packaging, which
would reduce waste and consequent issues in the waste management.
However, it is noticeable that this scenario mentioned does not include a
recycling solution, and, therefore, is outside of the boundaries of this
study.
Moreover, the answers to question Q7 showed that most respondents
are concerned about identifying relevant legislation and regulation
frameworks associated to each scenario. It was considered essential that
life cycle assessments (LCA’s) of each technology are provided, detailing
the holistic environmental impacts; also the overall implementation and
operational costs.
Question Q8 regarded other key aspects for MMPP recycling rather
than the two axes established. The results showed the interest about
C.T.M. Soares et al.
recycled material costs and if the market will accept more expensive
recycled materials. Local collection logistics availability was another
key factor pointed by some experts; among others (Fig. 4).
4. Discussion
The following panorama illustrates future perspectives for the recy­
cling of MMPP around the world, according to cross-linked analysis of
in-depth interviews, feedback survey and literature review (Fig. 5).
The answers emphasize that, at present, there is no expectation of a
global mainstream solution for the recycling of multi-material multi­
layer plastic packaging . Distinct innovation projects are being devel­
oped and tested for waste management systems in various parts of the
world. For this reason, the future will likely comprise a mix of different
recycling solutions. Advanced recycling treatment is being developed in
high-income countries, while conventional solutions are part of low-
income countries reality. Therefore, the difference in plastics recycling
technologies and treatment efficiency between high-income and low-
income nations will persist in the next five to ten years.
Additionally, countries in Europe need to find alternatives to MMPP
and other non-recyclable packaging due to recently increased pressures,
such as the new plastic tax over non-recycled plastic, that is active from
January 2021 (European Council, 2020). Moreover, the Packaging
Waste Directive (94/62/EC) includes ambitious targets of a minimum of
50% by weight of all packaging waste to be recycled by the end of 2025
and 55% in 2030 (European Commission, 2018). Additionally, the New
Circular Economy Action Plan set a target requiring that all plastic
packaging placed on the EU market must be reusable or recyclable in a
cost-effective manner by 2030 (European Commission, 2020). These
regulations foster the search within the packaging value chain for new
recycling routes and recycled materials. Within this window of oppor­
tunity, advanced recycling technologies for multilayers and other
non-recycled materials may evolve in the following years, especially in
high-income countries, such as Germany. Germany is alsoassociated
with high contributions to the EU levy on non-recycled plastics, based on
Eurostat data (Eurostat (European Commission), 2020), which may
speed the investments in high-performance recycling solutions.
In terms of feedstock recycling, the interviews and the survey un­
veiled a mix of opinions amongst experts either supporting this solution
or those that do not believe that technology can bring real benefits,
economically and environmentally. Concerns about this technology
include the high energy consumption, the operational costs and for
scaling-up, the volume of material needed for scalability, and the recy­
cled content’s traceability. Despite the uncertainties, feedstock recycling
is already an active field in some countries. Thiounn and Smith (2020)
mention that some companies are developing feedstock approaches for
chemical recycling of plastic waste. Germany, the Netherlands, the UK,
and the US are some countries that may use this type of technology in the
next few years (Vollmer et al., 2020; Solis and Silveira, 2020).
Furthermore, some experts highlighted the contrast between post-
consumer and post-industrial MMPP waste flows. The waste produced
by the industry is prevailing cleaner than the post-consumer, which, in
contrast, is heterogeneous and highly contaminated with other
Fig. 4. Other important aspects mentioned in the feedback survey.
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
components than the plastic products, such as organic waste (Hahla­
dakis et al., 2018). Besides, around 40% of manufactured multilayer
films inputs become post-industrial waste due to inefficiencies in cutting
and packaging manufacturing processes (Walker et al., 2020). These
fractions have low contamination levels, and the composition is more
straightforward to define than post-consumer (Huysman et al., 2017).
Some initiatives such as the solvent-based process “Newcycling” devel­
oped by APK AG or the “Creasolv” by the Fraunhofer Institute are
emerging technologies that recycle post-industrial fractions, still on
small scales (Vollmer et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the feedback survey
showed that post-industrial recycled material does not have the same
acceptance in the recycling market as post-consumer recyclate. On the
other hand, post-consumer recycling initiatives such as the Australian
REDcycle includes partnerships with local supermarkets to collect and
mechanically recycle mixed flexible packaging (including MMPP),
reducing the leakage to the environment (The REDcycle, 2017). Mixed
recycling produces low-quality materials, such as trash bags or land­
scaping items, and due to low mechanical properties, these materials
frequently cannot be recycled again (Sheldon and Norton, 2020). In
Australia and New Zealand, there are trends towards single-use plastics
ban and downcycling recycling as a treatment for flexible packaging
(Wurm et al., 2020). In some low-income countries, downcycling is part
of the current and future plastics recycling panorama, significant for
recycled material rates and important for local economies.
In addition, business as usual solutions are part of low-income na­
tions future, which includes landfilling activities. In many of these
countries, the applicability of packaging recycling regulation is inexis­
tent or limited, and investments in plastic recycling technologies are
insufficient. However, the survey identified that new schemes are
starting to explore the possibility of high-income countries of investing
in plastic recycling projects in low-income ones (e.g., Verra 2021).
On the other hand, mono-material solutions and pressures might also
affect the plastic packaging market. A mono-material multilayer prac­
tical example is the “RecycleReady’’ launched by the company “Dow” in
the US, targeting the substitution of multi-material pouches for the
alternative mono-material, offering “same properties” and an integrated
recycling system (Dow, 2019). The company “Borealis” also developed a
mono-material multilayer structure made of different PE layers, aiming
recyclability, and relying on existing recycling methods (Borealis,
2019). Following CEFLEX recommendations, the companies “Nestlé”
and “Amcor’’ announced pouches for pet animals’ food made of PP
structure coated with an ultra-thin barrier while targeting the main­
stream recycling of most European countries (Packaging Europe, 2020).
Nevertheless, this shift could bring other burdens such as decreased
packaging quality, and product losses, such as food waste. Therefore,
such substitutions might be inadequate for some MMPP applications.
Moreover, for food-contact purposes, regulation and contamination
factors might hinder closed-loop mechanical recycling, which also in­
cludes mono-material packaging recycling. Furthermore, alternatives to
replace multi-material multilayer packaging usually comprise
mono-material layers coated with additives (e.g., Dow and Borealis so­
lutions). If this type of structure substitutes most of MMPP in the market,
they would probably increase contamination in conventional mechani­
cal recycling, leading to a demand for additional recycling’ treatment
steps.
Noticeably, the methods used in this study for data gathering;
including in-depth interviews, survey, scenario planning and future
foresight; include uncertainties. These consist of the subjectivity of
people’s opinions and assessments. For a more robust analysis, further
studies including quantitative data are recommended, such as LCA’s,
and cost-benefit analysis..
5. Conclusions
A complex system is characterized by various components, sub­
systems, and diverse interactions (Blomkvist and Johansson, 2016). In
C.T.M. Soares et al.
Fig. 5. Future of MMPP recycling according to the methods assessed.
this context, multi-material multilayer plastic packaging value chains
are complex systems that require holistic analysis; and steps of collec­
tion, separation and sorting are essential to enable its recycling.
Therefore, these heterogeneous systems are not straightforward to be
changed.
Globally, multi-material multilayer plastic packaging is a solution for
diverse packaging requirements and uses. However, it also became an
issue for the recycling industry due to the difficulties of sorting, sepa­
rating layers and the high costs of treatment. Therefore, this packaging
material is usually disposed of in mixed plastic streams and further
incinerated with energy recovery or landfilled.
Concerning the next five to ten years, more than half of the experts
consulted in this study believe in the development of advanced tech­
nologies to recycle multi-material multilayer plastic packaging waste,
mainly in high-income countries. This includes high-performance ma­
terial recycling technologies with advanced sorting technologies, espe­
cially in Europe. Further, chemical recycling solutions (feedstock) are an
alternative with high-expectations for the future, mainly in high-income
countries. The Facts 2020 Report declared that a small fraction of
plastics recycling is already being performed by chemical recycling
processes in Germany (0, 2%) and Italy (0, 1%) (Plastics Europe, 2020).
Therefore, this type of technology is expected to grow as a valid recy­
cling stream in the next few years. Additionally, low-performance
recycling (downcycling) is seen as part of the solution, contributing to
reduce plastic leakage to the environment. Hence, the future holds a mix
of solutions for MMPP recycling, including all scenarios, also the less
desired one, business as usual. The treatment of this type of packaging
material will depend on local capabilities, regulations, investments, and
priorities.
Additionally, to increase recyclability, it was identified a need for
more integration and transparency amongst all actors in the packaging
value chain. This means joint efforts from various stakeholders
regarding waste management actors, governments, packaging industry,
research institutions, brand-owners, and consumers, towards a more
harmonic system. Challenges such as the heterogeneity of local waste
management systems, the highly varied composition of MMPP materials
and the differences of regulations increase the difficulties to achieve a
transparent circular economy in this industry.
In this sense, the plastics recycling industry requires cost-effective
solutions to enhance technologies. In 2018, Eurostat (European Com­
mission) (2020) mentioned that packaging waste reached 174 kg per
inhabitant in Europe, a record number on a rising trend. In contrast, a
study by IFP (2020) indicated that 10–20 new recycling plants and ten
times increase in recycled material-use would be necessary to approach
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
the European target of 55% plastic packaging recycling for 2030, based
on current volumes of all plastics. Therefore, there is a gap between
established recycling technologies and the recycling targets, widening
innovation opportunities for the use of more sustainable materials, such
as bio-based.
Ultimately, a great part of the world still lacks basic waste man­
agement and conventional recycling systems. As a result, even if Europe
or few developed countries have the most efficient technology to recycle
multilayers and other plastic packaging materials, global problems such
as plastic pollution in oceans, carbon emissions from plastic production
and depletion of fossil resources will persist, as well as their conse­
quences. To tackle some of these burdens, the increased use of bio-based
materials in MMPP and in overall plastic packaging can be a short-term
opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and decouple packaging mate­
rials from the fossil-based economy. Hence, the use of renewable ma­
terials in packaging materials can enhance the sustainability
performance where multi-material multilayer plastic packaging is
essential and its recycling is not available yet.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
and the School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and
Health, Department of Fiber and Polymer Technology. Additionally, the
guidance and support of Stora Enso was essential for the development of
this research.
References
Anukiruthika, T., Sethupathy, P., Wilson, A., Kashampur, K., Moses, J.A.,
Anandharamakrishnan, C., 2020. Multilayer packaging: advances in preparation
techniques and emerging food applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 19 (3),
1156–1186.
P. Blomkvist and P. Johansson, 2016. Systems thinking in industrial dynamics. a
dynamic mind. Perspect. Ind. Dyn. Honour Staff. Laestadius,VOL.1, pp.45-75.
Borealis, 2019. New polyethylene and polypropylene-based monomaterial pouch
solutions developed in value-chain collaboration. Available at: https://www.boreali
sgroup.com/news/borealis-and-borouge-offer-monomaterial-solutions-suitable-fo
r-the-most-demanding-consumer-packaging-applications.
Butler, T.I., Morris, B.A., 2016. PE-based multilayer film structures. Multilayer Flexible
Packaging. William Andrew Publishing, pp. 281–310. Available at: https://www.sci
C.T.M. Soares et al.
encedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978032337100100017X [Accessed: 2021-03-
07].
Chen, X., Kroell, N., Wickel, J., Feil, A., 2021. Determining the composition of post-
consumer flexible multilayer plastic packaging with near-infrared spectroscopy.
Waste Manag. 123, 33–41 (Oxford).
Conversio Market and Strategy GmbH. Global plastics flow 2018. Available at: https:
//www.bkv-gmbh.de/fileadmin/documents/Studien/Global_Plastics_Flow_Summ
ary_Oct29_2019.pdf.
Cooper, T.A., 2013. Developments in plastic materials and recycling systems for
packaging food, beverages and other fast-moving consumer goods. Trends in
Packaging of Food, Beverages and Other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG),
pp. 58–107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B97808570950395
00047.
N.D. Dow, Retain polymer modifier. Available at: https://www.dow.com/en-u
s/brand/retain.html [Accessed: 2021-03-07]. 2021.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing Action. World
Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
/assets/downloads/New-Plastics-Economy_Catalysing-Action_13-1-17.pdf
[Accessed: 2021-03-07].
EPA South Australia, 2021. Ban on single use plastics. Available at: https://www.epa.sa.
gov.au/articles/2021/02/24/ban_on_single_use_plastics_from_1_march_2021
[Accessed: 2021-03-07].
European Commission, 2017. A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy.
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strat
egy-brochure.pdf [Accessed: 2021-03-07].
European Commission, 2020. A new circular economy action plan - for a cleaner and
more competitive Europe. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E
N/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN [Accessed: 2021-03-07].
European Council, 2020. Special meeting of the European council (17, 18, 19, 20 and 21
July 2020) – conclusions. p. 64. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu
/media/45109/210720-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf [Accessed: 2021-03-07].
Eurostat (European Commission), 2020. Packaging waste statistics. Available at: https
://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics
[Accessed: 2021-03-07].
Fávaro, S.L., et al., 2013. PET and aluminum recycling from multilayer food packaging
using supercritical ethanol. J. Supercrit. Fluids 75, 138–143.
Fellner, 2017. Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Scharff, C., Laner, D., 2017. Present Potentials
and Limitations of a Circular Economy with Respect to Primary Raw Material
Demand: Present Potentials and Limitations of a Circular Economy. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 21, 494–496. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
Garcia, J.M., Robertson, M.L., 2017. The future of plastics recycling. Science 358 (6365),
870–872.
Georgiopoulou, I., Pappa, G.D., Vouyiouka, S.N., Magoulas, K., 2021. Recycling of post-
consumer multilayer Tetra Pak® packaging with the selective dissolution-
precipitation process. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 165, 105268.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 114, 11–32.
[PDF] Conducting an In-depth Interview: FCS6012/FY393, rev. 8/2011LA Guion, DC
Diehl, D McDonald - EDIS, 2011 - 206.224.222.133In-depth interviewing is a tool for
collecting rich information that can inform programdevelopment and evaluation.
Learn the basics with this 3-page fact sheet written by Lisa A.Guion, David C. Diehl,
and Debra McDonald, and published by the UF Department of Family.
Hadi, A.J., Najmuldeen, G.F., Ahmed, I., 2012. Polyolefins waste materials
reconditioning using dissolution/reprecipitation method. APCBEE Procedia 3,
281–286.
Hahladakis, J.N., Iacovidou, E., 2019. An overview of the challenges and trade-offs in
closing the loop of post-consumer plastic waste (PCPW): focus on recycling.
J. Hazard. Mater. 380, 120887.
Hahladakis, J.N., Iacovidou, E., 2018. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials:
what is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci. Total Environ. 630,
1394–1400.
Hahladakis, J.N., Purnell, P., Iacovidou, E., Velis, C.A., Atseyinku, M., 2018. Post-
consumer plastic packaging waste in England: assessing the yield of multiple
collection-recycling schemes. Waste Manag. 75, 149–159 (Oxford).
Horodytska, O., Valdés, F.J., Fullana, A., 2018. Plastic flexible films waste
management–a state of art review. Waste Manag. 77, 413–425 (Oxford).
Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., 2017.
Performance indicators for a circular economy: a case study on post-industrial plastic
waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120, 46–54.
Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., Schlummer, M., 2018. Recycling of polymer-based multilayer
packaging: A review. Recycling 3 (1), 1.
Klimchuk, M.R., 2013. Packaging design: Successful product branding from concept
to shelf. John Wiley & Sons.Vancouver. John Wiley & Sons.
Knott, B.C., Erickson, E., Allen, M.D., Gado, J.E., Graham, R., Kearns, F.L., Pardo, I.,
Topuzlu, E., Anderson, J.J., Austin, H.P., Dominick, G., 2020. Characterization and
engineering of a two-enzyme system for plastics depolymerization. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 117 (41), 25476–25485.
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., Seppälä, J., 2018. Circular economy: the concept and its
limitations. Ecol. Econ. 143, 37–46.
Lahtela, V., Silwal, S., Kärki, T., 2020. Re-processing of multilayer plastic materials as a
part of the recycling process: the features of processed multilayer materials.
Polymers 12 (11), 2517.
Lamberti, F.M., Román-Ramírez, L. A., & Wood, J., 2020. Recycling of bioplastics: Routes
and benefits. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 28(10), 2551-2571. Recycling
of bioplastics: Routes and benefits. 28 (10).
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
Maris, J., Bourdon, S., Brossard, J.M., Cauret, L., Fontaine, L., Montembault, V., 2018.
Mechanical recycling: compatibilization of mixed thermoplastic wastes. Polym.
Degrad. Stab. 147, 245–266.
Mieth, A., Hoekstra, E., Simoneau, C., 2016. Guidance for the Identification of Polymers
in Multilayer Films Used in Food Contact Materials. European Commission JRC.
Technical reports.
Mostafapoor, F., Khosravi, A., Fereidoon, A., Khalili, R., Jafari, S.H., Vahabi, H.,
Formela, K., Saeb, M.R., 2020. Interface analysis of compatibilized polymer blends.
Compatibilization of Polymer Blends. Elsevier, pp. 349–371.
Mulakkal, M.C., Castillo, A.C., Taylor, A.C., Blackman, B.R., Balint, D.S., Pimenta, S.,
Charalambides, M.N., 2021. Advancing mechanical recycling of multilayer plastics
through finite element modelling and environmental policy. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 166, 105371.
Mumladze, T., Yousef, S., Tatariants, M., Kriūkienė, R., Makarevicius, V., Lukošiūtė, S.I.,
Bendikiene, R., Denafas, G., 2018. Sustainable approach to recycling of multilayer
flexible packaging using switchable hydrophilicity solvents. Green Chem. 20 (15),
3604–3618.
Nikanorova, M., Stankevičienė, J., 2020. Development of environmental pillar in the
context of circular economy assessment: Baltic Sea region case. J. Entrep. Sustain.
Issues 8 (1), 1209.
Plastics Europe, 2020. Plastics – the Facts 2020. Available at: https://www.plasticseu
rope.org/en/resources/publications/4312-plastics-facts-2020.
Pettersen, 2020. Pettersen, M.K., Grøvlen, M.S., Evje, N. and Radusin, T., 2020.
Recyclable mono materials for packaging of fresh chicken fillets: New design
for recycling in circular economy. Packaging Technology and Science, 33(11),
pp.485-498. Packaging Technology and Science.
Perick, M., 24 August 2016. Method for Recycling Plastics from a Film Packaging Bag,
Film Packaging Bag and Film Composite Sheet for Manufacturing a Film Packaging
Bag. EP3059061 A1. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3059061A1/en.
Picuno, C., Alassali, A., Chong, Z.K., Kuchta, K., 2021. Flows of post-consumer plastic
packaging in Germany: an MFA-aided case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 169,
105515.
Plastics Recyclers Europe (Eunomia), 2020. Flexible films market in Europe - state of
play. Available at: https://743c8380-22c6-4457-9895-11872f2a708a.filesusr.co
m/ugd/dda42a_ff8049bc82bd408faee0d2ba4a148693.pdf [Accessed: 2021-03-07].
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Van Geem, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid
plastic waste. Waste Manag. 69, 24–58 (Oxford).
Ragaert, K., Huysveld, S., Vyncke, G., Hubo, S., Veelaert, L., Dewulf, J., Du Bois, E., 2020.
Design from recycling: a complex mixed plastic waste case study. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 155, 104646.
Ranta, 2018. Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2018).
Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-
regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 135, 70-82. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
Reichert, C.L., Bugnicourt, E., Coltelli, M.B., Cinelli, P., Lazzeri, A., Canesi, I., Braca, F.,
Martínez, B.M., Alonso, R., Agostinis, L., Verstichel, S., 2020. Bio-based packaging:
materials, modifications, industrial applications, and sustainability. Polymers 12 (7),
1558.
RISE & Intressentföreningen Packforsk (IFP), 2020. Rethinking the packaging system –
innovation manifesto. Available at: https://www.ri.se/en/what-we-do/our-areas/
packaging [Accessed: 2021-03-07].
Robertson, G.L., 2016. Food Packaging: Principles and Practice. CRC press.
Roland Berger, 2020. Packaging sustainability in the consumer goods sector. Roland
Berger perspectives and expertise highlights September 2020. Available at: htt
ps://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Packaging-sustainability-
2030.html [Accessed 21 November 2020].
Saperatec GmbH, n.d. Technology. Available at: https://www.saperatec.de/en/technolo
gy.html [Accessed: 2021-03-07]. 2021.
Schlummer, M., Fell, T., Mäurer, A., Altnau, G., 2020. A role of chemistry in plastics
recycling - a comparison of physical and chemical plastics recycling. Kunstst. Int.
Recycl. 5, 34–37.
Sheldon, R.A., Norton, M., 2020. Green chemistry and the plastic pollution challenge:
towards a circular economy. Green Chem. 22 (19), 6310–6322.
Shogren, R., Wood, D., Orts, W., Glenn, G., 2019. Plant-based materials and transitioning
to a circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 19, 194–215.
Solis, M., Silveira, S., 2020. Technologies for chemical recycling of household plastics–a
technical review and TRL assessment. Waste Manag. 105, 128–138 (Oxford).
Störmer, E., Bontoux, L., Krzysztofowicz, M., Florescu, E., Bock, A.K., Scapolo, F., 2020.
Foresight–using science and evidence to anticipate and shape the future. Science for
Policy Handbook. Elsevier, pp. 128–142.
Taghavi, N., Singhal, N., Zhuang, W.Q., Baroutian, S., 2021. Degradation of plastic waste
using stimulated and naturally occurring microbial strains. Chemosphere 263,
127975.
The REDCycle Program, 2017. Available at: https://www.redcycle.net.au/wp-content/
uploads/2017/04/REDcycle-A4-A5_brochure_v6_08.03.17.pdf [Accessed: 2021-03-
07].
Thiounn, T., Smith, R.C., 2020. Advances and approaches for chemical recycling of
plastic waste. J. Polym. Sci. 58 (10), 1347–1364.
Ügdüler, S., Van Geem, K.M., Roosen, M., Delbeke, E.I., De Meester, S., 2020. Challenges
and opportunities of solvent-based additive extraction methods for plastic recycling.
Waste Manag. 104, 148–182 (Oxford).
Verra, 2021. Plastic waste reduction standard. Plastic program guide. Available at: https:
//verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Plastic-Program-Guide-v1.0.pdf
[Accessed: 2021-03-07].
Vollmer, I., Jenks, M.J., Roelands, M.C., White, R.J., van Harmelen, T., de Wild, P., van
der Laan, G.P., Meirer, F., Keurentjes, J.T., Weckhuysen, B.M., 2020. Beyond
C.T.M. Soares et al.
mechanical recycling: giving new life to plastic waste. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56
(36), 15402–15423. Vancouver.
Wagner, J.R., 2016. Multilayer Flexible Packaging. William Andrew.
Walker, T.W., Frelka, N., Shen, Z., Chew, A.K., Banick, J., Grey, S., Kim, M.S., Dumesic, J.
A., Van Lehn, R.C., Huber, G.W., 2020. Recycling of multilayer plastic packaging
materials by solvent-targeted recovery and precipitation. Sci. Adv. 6 (47), eaba7599.
Windsor, F.M., Durance, I., Horton, A.A., Thompson, R.C., Tyler, C.R., Ormerod, S.J.,
2019. A catchment-scale perspective of plastic pollution. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25 (4),
1207–1221.
Wurm, F.R., Spierling, S., Endres, H.J., Barner, L., 2020. Plastics and the
environment—current status and challenges in Germany and Australia. Macromol.
Rapid Commun. 41 (18), 2000351.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 176 (2022) 105905
Xie, X.M., Sui, X., 2020. Compatibilization of polymer blends by the addition of random
copolymers. Compatibilization of Polymer Blends. Elsevier, pp. 145–177.
Zhang, S., Luo, K., Zhang, L., Mei, X., Cao, S., Wang, B., 2015. Interfacial separation and
characterization of Al–PE composites during delamination of post-consumer Tetra
Pak materials. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 90 (6), 1152–1159.
Zhao, Y.B., Lv, X.D., Ni, H.G., 2018. Solvent-based separation and recycling of waste
plastics: a review. Chemosphere, 209, 707–720.
2020. New design guidelines set to help deliver a circular economy for flexible
packaging. .