[HN Gopher] Scientists break down plastic using a simple, inexpe...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists break down plastic using a simple, inexpensive catalyst
       and air
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 54 points
       Date   : 2025-03-21 20:12 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | kikokikokiko wrote:
       | Well, they used a "simple, inexpensive catalyst" and then HEATED
       | the plastic/catalyst mysture. Nowhere in the article it gives you
       | an estimate of the final cost of the process.
        
         | IAmBroom wrote:
         | Yes. I can break down plastics that way, using ordinary tap
         | water.
         | 
         | Actually, the tap water is optional.
         | 
         | And instead of monomers, the end product is carbon - which is
         | even more recyclable!
        
         | kibibu wrote:
         | The journal article is open access.
         | https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/gc/d4gc0...
         | 
         | > Catalytic amounts of AC/MoO2 selectively convert waste PET
         | into its monomer, terephthalic acid (TPA), within 4 h at 265
         | degC with yields as high as 94% under 1 atm air.
         | 
         | I'm not a chemist so don't know if you can find a way to
         | calculate the cost, but the authors claim that it's cheaper
         | than current methods.
         | 
         | The bigger deal imo is that it recovers PET monomers from mixed
         | plastics, which means avoiding manufacturing more plastic.
        
           | projektfu wrote:
           | Yeah, these are pizza oven temperatures. The temperature
           | appears to be just above the melting point for PET. It is
           | also in the liquid phase for PBT, PEN and PEF.
           | 
           | I think most recycling methods for PET require melting
           | anyway.
        
           | PaulHoule wrote:
           | This is contrast to the pyrolysis-based "chemical recycling
           | of plastics" which makes a mix of petrochemicals similar to
           | what you find in the BTX stage of a petrochemical factories
           | [1], especially for condensation polymers like PET. That is,
           | this process produces fairly pure Terephthalic acid [2] and
           | Acetaldehyde [3] and the first of those could be recycled
           | into more PET.
           | 
           | The thing is BTX chemicals and other precursors of mass
           | produced plastics cost about 50 cents a pound which makes it
           | hard for any kind of recycling process to be competitive.
           | 
           | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTX_(chemistry)
           | 
           | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terephthalic_acid
           | 
           | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde
        
             | culi wrote:
             | > about 50 cents a pound which makes it hard for any kind
             | of recycling process to be competitive.
             | 
             | We've had almost a century of subsidization of the oil
             | industry. The gov't needs to play a bigger similar role if
             | the recycling industry is ever gonna be able to compete
             | 
             | We need a tax on the full lifecycle cost of plastics so we
             | can stop treating waste as an economic externality
        
               | PaulHoule wrote:
               | Landfilling plastics on the other costs about 4 cents a
               | pound. The nightmare scenario about plastics is not that
               | they get landfilled but that people chuck them on the
               | ground and they find their way to the ocean and get
               | ground up into microplastics.
        
           | jandrese wrote:
           | That's within the range of a kitchen oven. The biggest
           | problem is that plastic is so cheap that even that relatively
           | modest energy use may make it uneconomic compared to virgin
           | TPA, especially if you have to clean the inputs thoroughly
           | first.
        
             | roughly wrote:
             | In fairness, that's mostly because current plastic
             | production externalizes the cost of everything about the
             | lifecycle before and after manufacturing and use.
        
               | hinkley wrote:
               | Tariff on virgin, and at least half the same for recycled
               | material.
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | 4 hours sounds like a lot of factory space to generate a
           | substantial flow of output.
        
             | ta988 wrote:
             | Those processes can be made continuous most of the time.
        
       | kylehotchkiss wrote:
       | I was expecting a much more complicated catalyst!
        
       | wolfi1 wrote:
       | there is also the possibility to recycle pet-bottles into food
       | grade bottles again using just mechanical means, I know at least
       | two European companies who provide such machines
        
         | PaulHoule wrote:
         | I've seen 100% recycled PET bottles for Coca-Cola products in
         | the US
         | 
         | https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/food/coca-cola-new-bottles/in...
         | 
         | and Pepsi is selling 100% post-consumer bottles in some EU
         | countries
         | 
         | https://www.pepsico.com/our-stories/press-release/pepsico-co...
         | 
         | Those clear beverage containers are an ideal case for
         | mechanical recycling. This company
         | 
         | https://repreve.com/
         | 
         | makes polyester fiber from recycled PET. I have a few garmets
         | made from it and my impression is that the fabric feel is nicer
         | than average.
        
           | culi wrote:
           | Yes PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) are the two easiest plastics to
           | recycle and the most commonly recycled
        
       | Xiol32 wrote:
       | Break down into what? Is this also going to end up in my
       | testicles?
        
         | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
         | terephthalic acid and acetaldehyde (the paper: https://pubs.rsc
         | .org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/gc/d4gc0591...)
        
         | tigerBL00D wrote:
         | It says "Leveraging the trace amounts of moisture in air, the
         | broken-down PET is converted into monomers--the crucial
         | building blocks for plastics. From there, the researchers
         | envision the monomers could be recycled into new PET products
         | or other, more valuable materials." I don't know if there's
         | some enormous challenge hiding behind the word "envision", but
         | I'm assuming it's a closed system until something useful comes
         | out of the other end. The method just can't be a lot more
         | expensive than to make the same thing/material from scratch or
         | it's never going to gain traction.
        
           | Imustaskforhelp wrote:
           | Well let's truly hope that its not that much expensive
        
       | culi wrote:
       | What percentage is actually broken down into monomers? How much
       | microplastic waste is left behind. Given the reliance on "ambient
       | air" I imagine it's not 100%.
       | 
       | Regardless, I'm excited to hear about progress on solving the
       | plastic waste crisis. It seems better than the current
       | alternatives the article presents:
       | 
       | > "The U.S. is the number one plastic polluter per capita, and we
       | only recycle 5% of those plastics," said Northwestern's Yosi
       | Kratish, the study's co-corresponding author. "There is a dire
       | need for better technologies that can process different types of
       | plastic waste. Most of the technologies that we have today melt
       | down plastic bottles and downcycle them into lower-quality
       | products.
        
       | culi wrote:
       | This is great but PET (symbol #1) is one of the few plastics that
       | ARE recyclable. I wonder if any of these techniques can be used
       | to solve the non-recyclable plastic problems
        
         | iwontberude wrote:
         | Not infinitely so, maybe this is used on old PET
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-25 23:01 UTC)