[HN Gopher] Durable plastic gets a sustainability makeover in no...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Durable plastic gets a sustainability makeover in novel
       polymerization process
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 81 points
       Date   : 2025-02-10 12:44 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | userbinator wrote:
       | _We 've spent 100 years trying to make polymers that last
       | forever, and we've realized that's not actually a good thing,"
       | Fors said._
       | 
       | Indeed not a good thing for continued profits and the cartel of
       | planned obsolescence.
        
         | animal_spirits wrote:
         | And fish
        
           | bjelkeman-again wrote:
           | Microplastics are a major issue for all animals and maybe for
           | all living things.
        
             | userbinator wrote:
             | Never been a problem and likely never will.
        
               | jaapz wrote:
               | That's a lot of confidence for a field of research that
               | is relatively new
        
       | wongarsu wrote:
       | The "sustainability makeover" reads like it can in principle be
       | recycled, and if we really want to we can make it from plants
       | (though we likely wouldn't).
       | 
       | I don't have access to the full paper, but "Flexible and soft,
       | the resulting material can be completely chemically recycled
       | using heat and degraded by acid" doesn't inspire confidence that
       | it would actually degrade well in nature. At least from that
       | short description it does at least sound economically viable for
       | deliberate recycling. At least with the right incentives.
       | 
       | They call it "bio-sourced material". Now I don't have a chemistry
       | degree, but my amateur understanding is that most of the
       | synthesis chains available here ultimately derive from oil. For
       | example you can get DHF by catalyzing 1,4-butanediol on cobalt or
       | aluminum oxide. Wikipedia lists a number of ways 1,4-Butanediol
       | is made industrially, but they all boil down to oil product,
       | natural gas, or the occasional "we mostly make this from oil, but
       | sometimes ethanol is used instead". The most "bio-sourced" of
       | those is via Butadiene, where wikipedia claims "While not
       | competitive with steam cracking for producing large volumes of
       | butadiene, lower capital costs make production from ethanol a
       | viable option for smaller-capacity plants."
       | 
       | It reads like a nice material, but as usual temper your
       | expectations
        
         | m0llusk wrote:
         | Nearly any petrochemical derived polymer can also be
         | constructed from plant sugars. Much of this has been known for
         | a while and the real question is how to scale these processes
         | industrially and integrate them with existing supply chains for
         | plastic production. In this case it appears that alcohol is
         | synthesized from plants for production:
         | 
         | ... synthesis and characterization of a strong thermoplastic
         | made from 2,3-dihydrofuran (DHF), a monomer made in one step
         | from 1,4-butanediol, a bioalcohol already produced on the plant
         | scale. ...
         | 
         | from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.2c06103
        
           | awanderingmind wrote:
           | Interesting comment, thank you.
        
         | jajko wrote:
         | One thing I would go miles and miles to avoid - having it break
         | down during use, releasing god knows what into my food.
         | 
         | Acidity breaks it down? What if some ketchup in bun or some
         | other acidic part of food is wrapped with it? In 2 hours when
         | you unpack you look at holes in that plastic wondering if you
         | will eat that material (of course you will). Had enough BPAs
         | and PFOAs scare to not trust novel chemical crap from companies
         | that have no issue poisoning half the planet for profit and
         | having real food safety only as an annoying afterthought.
        
           | nicoburns wrote:
           | Indeed. I'm not a big fan of Teflon. But at least it's almost
           | completely inert (unless overheated), which makes it much
           | less likely to be harmful than substitutes.
        
             | Someone wrote:
             | > But at least it's almost completely inert (unless
             | overheated), which makes it much less likely to be harmful
             | than substitutes.
             | 
             | I don't think that's a strong argument. Asbestos is quite
             | inert, and that is what makes it so harmful. A fiber will,
             | over time, harm more and more cells.
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | Teflon isn't a sub-cellular sized needle though.
        
             | PaulHoule wrote:
             | Probably breaks down to shorter chain PFAS
             | 
             | https://chemsec.org/the-teflon-chemical-ptfe-is-often-
             | touted...
             | 
             | Although it is claimed that very little migrates to food
             | 
             | https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-
             | food/authorize...
             | 
             | The monomer used to make it is considered "probably
             | carcinogenic"
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrafluoroethylene#Safety
             | 
             | so occupational exposure at the factory and environmental
             | release are concerns.
        
               | nicoburns wrote:
               | > The monomer used to make it is considered "probably
               | carcinogenic"
               | 
               | Yeah, this is what I heard before. That the coating
               | itself isn't so bad, but the manufacturing process
               | produces stuff that is awful enough that we probably
               | shouldn't use it.
        
           | metalman wrote:
           | yup, acidity breaking plastic down is a big no no, for ANY
           | human contact or use in a engineered structural component.
           | the latest "eco plastic" offering fits into the same category
           | as the latest battery tech, wonder food, la la la, foofoo
           | berries. Some of these things WILL pan out eventualy, but the
           | evaluation needs to be cold blooded, and explicit based on
           | access to real test data and real world third party
           | evaluation. Till then it's quasi organic energy enhancing foo
           | foo berry powder, though the expectation is that we all abase
           | ourselves before the deployment of the magic word,
           | sustainability.
        
         | lazide wrote:
         | The underlying problem of course is that recyclable and
         | biodegradable properties are almost always at complete odds
         | with durable, stability during use, chemically non-reactive.
        
           | blueflow wrote:
           | This is a human issue. When in use, we expect the material to
           | be durable. When we throw it away, we expect the material to
           | decompose. We do not have materials that react to human
           | intention.
        
             | numpad0 wrote:
             | But it is problematic when electrical insulations and
             | personal ID cards start to decompose over the courses of
             | 5-10 years.
        
           | tartoran wrote:
           | Could be solved with a tax policy, durable plastics being
           | made more expensive to encourage reuse and conversely
           | biodegradable less durable plastic taxed less. Eventually
           | things converge naturally towards an equilibrium.
        
             | lazide wrote:
             | nah - you can't have something which both resists
             | degradation when exposed to food, the environment, etc. AND
             | naturally biodegrades in a reasonable time.
             | 
             | it's like wanting a useful fuel which doesn't burn. they
             | mutually contradict each other.
        
           | PaulHoule wrote:
           | I think the #1 concern about plastic waste are single-use
           | plastics. For instance you might get takeout food in a
           | polystyrene clamshell, foamed or not. Lately I noticed this
           | product line
           | 
           | https://www.healthychoice.com/cafe-steamers
           | 
           | which are some of the tastiest frozen meals on the market,
           | but they not only come in a plastic bowl, but there are two
           | layers of the plastic bowl, one of which is perforated to
           | separate the sauce from the food so that the food gets
           | steamed. Boy is there a lot of plastic.
           | 
           | Thing is, these are all thermoplastics
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Classifications
           | 
           | unlike the thermoset plastic that this article is about. I
           | mean, if you make a plastic bowl out of this thermoset
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine_resin
           | 
           | and use it thousands of times the amount of waste generated
           | is dramatically less than is generated by those steamers. The
           | environmental risk people are most concerned out now is that
           | some fraction of plastics are not recycled, burned, or
           | landfilled and wind up in the environment where they get
           | ground into microplastics. As much as people blame industry
           | on blaming the consumer, it's a lot better to chuck plastic
           | in the trash than to chuck it outdoors and a good idea to
           | pick it up on the side of the road whenever you can. That
           | black agricultural plastic is a disaster. (See also the risk
           | of plastic car tires!)
        
             | rob_lh wrote:
             | Adding some personal analysis to your point, the last time
             | I looked at plastic market research in detail, the two
             | biggest markets by volume and revenue were packaging and
             | insulation, which I believe were dominated by
             | thermoplastics. Those are the big ones if you want to make
             | an impact on plastic usage.
             | 
             | Also, pulling from memory that may not be quite right, but
             | I recall roads taking a substantial amount of polymer
             | additives and that tire degradation is a major source of
             | microplastic exposure for humans. The tire problem is
             | poised to get worse with EVs being so heavy and
             | accelerating so hard that the tires are bigger and wear
             | faster, but I'm not aware of even any promising research
             | there besides more bio-based feedstocks to improve the
             | sustainability.
        
               | PaulHoule wrote:
               | In building there is also a lot of use of PVC which is
               | environmentally awful, for instance for flooring and
               | siding.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride#Health_a
               | nd_...
        
         | rob_lh wrote:
         | Having worked in polymers and seen the development of some
         | recyclable, 3D-printed thermosets like what's proposed here, I
         | think this is a fair take. On the whole, I'm glad to see other
         | researchers continuing to research the space.
         | 
         | There are a few big challenges to be managed. One is material
         | diversity--it's cool they got it to work with one monomer (most
         | thermosets are two that you mix together), but it's a long road
         | to showing the process works well in just one application let
         | alone. To make a substantial impact, the process would have to
         | be suitable to a bunch of different applications, likely
         | requiring different material properties that would require many
         | different monomers.
         | 
         | Then we can talk about value. While the value of fully
         | recycling plastic can be managed as an externality by
         | government taxes/fees, the big question is how much it actually
         | costs in energy, time, money, and material waste that somebody
         | has to pay for--there's no free lunch here, and it's rolling
         | all those costs back up into the product. I have been secretly
         | hoping that automated waste sorting and excess solar capacity
         | could be used to run such waste management processes and close
         | the business case, but energy demand and prices seem to only be
         | going up due to AI. Still, it's good there's another example of
         | it being possible but a long road to really reducing single-use
         | plastics.
        
       | 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
       | I don't understand why recycling plastics is desirable. Plastics
       | are made from hydrocarbons, right? So putting them in the ground
       | amounts to carbon sequestration, which is good? What am I
       | missing?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-02-12 23:01 UTC)