CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This paper discusses the impact of recycled plastic in the world by referring and
acknowledging the previous literature studies and other related resources. This review clarifies
the impact of recycled plastic in certain area of production. In this chapter, there are two
sections, namely:

1. Impact of plastic towards the environment

2. Challenges and Utilization with Plastics Recycling

All these sections are discussed accordingly in this chapter. Some of the section also consist of
its own sub sections

Impact of plastic towards the environment

There are many types of plastics ranging from synthetic or non-synthetic plastics that
can be moulded into permanent shape. Plastic are widely used in commercial usage such as
electrical appliances, panel for walls, household appliances, etc.

According to Reddy M.S et al (n.d), in 2018, world plastic consumption is to be

estimated at 260 million tonnes. Even though plastic have many usages, it pollutes the
environment if not properly dispose. There are many types of plastic pollution that can give
adverse effect on human and environment.

Effect on land. Chlorinated plastics can release harmful chemical into the soil, which
seeps into underground water system or sources. It can cause problem to species that drink
from this direct source. Landfill area are constantly piled up with different types of plastics
waste. In this area, there are many microorganisms that will increase the rate of degradation of
plastics. In the eyes of society, higher rate of degradation of plastic, the better it is. But, without
proper disposable of plastic waste, degradation of plastic will cause harm to the environment.
Degradation of plastics leads to releases of methane gas which is the main contributor of green
house effect. Only some country installed capture methane gas facility to be used as energy,
while other not due to incorporated of such technology.

Effect to marine wildlife. Countless marine creatures and sea birds become intertwine
with marine debris or consume it. This can cause serious problem and often result in their
demise. Plastic pollution has the potential to poison animals, which can adversely affect human
food supply. Some marine species, such as sea turtles, have been found to contain high amount
of plastic in the stomach.

Ingestion of plastic. A study by Moser and Lee (1992) shows that 55% of the 1033
birds species collected from the Coast of North Carolina contain plastic particle in their guts.
The author claimed that the evidence they found that some seabirds select specific plastic
shapes and colour, mistaking them for food. Other researcher such as Shaw and Day (1994),
came with the same conclusion, as they studied the present of floating plastic particle with
different shape and colour in the North Pacific. Other harmful symptoms of ingesting plastic
particle including blockage of gastric enzyme secretion, decreasing feeding stimulus, lowering
steroid hormone level, and barren (Azarello et al, 1987). The level of harmful towards different
species in vary. For example, Procellariiformes species in more vulnerable due to them unable
to regurgitate plastics (Azarello et al, 1987).

Laist (1987) and Fry et al. (1987) observed that parent that able to regurgitate plastic
particle could be pass them onto the chicks during feeding. For example, the chicks of Laysan
albatrosses in the Hawaiian island unable to regurgitate the plastic particle which accumulate
in their guts which decreasing their mortality rate as 90% of the chicks observed had plastic
particle stuck in their upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract (Fry et al., 1987). Even Antarctic and
sub-Antarctic bird species can run away from this problem (Slip et al., 1990). For instance, a
white-faced storm-petrel is found dead with its gizzard filled with plastic pellets (Bourne and
Imber, 1892) and Wilson’s storm-petrel pick up plastic debris while spending their winter at
different area (Van Franeker and Bell, 1988).

This harm from plastic ingestion s not only enshrined to seabirds. Polyethylene bags
floating on the ocean looks like a potential prey by the turtles (Bugoni et al., 2001). There are
several studies that support the previous statement. A study by Balazs (1985) shows that there
are 79 recorded cases of turtles with guts full of various type of plastic and O’Hara et al, (1988)
cited that a turtle was found in New York swallowed a 540 m of fishing line. In other study,
Bugoni et al., (2001) stated that 38 specimens of Chelonia mydas, a type of endangered sea
turtle, on the south of Brazil, 60.5% of the turtle total sample had ingested an anthropogenic
debris which is mainly plastics.

Entanglement in plastic debris. Marine life form can be entangled in marine debris
can cause injury or death. Entanglement can lead to suffocation, starvation, drowning,
increasing vulnerability to predators, or any other injury. Marine debris can confine entangled
animal’s movement which results in fatigue or development of injury cause by tightening
material. According to ICC, Ocean Conservancy report in 2008, volunteers participate in 2008
International Coastal Clean-up event discovered 443 animals and bird ensnare or captured by
marine debris. Not only entanglement affects the survival of endangered sea turtles (Carr,
1987), it is also a problem to marine mammals, such as fur seals, which is both curios and
playful (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986).

Young and curios fur seal are attracted to drifting debris and dive and roll about in it
(Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). According to them, the young seal will approach the object and
often poke their head into loops and holes of the plastics (Laist, 1987). Many seal puppies grow
into plastics collar, the plastic will cut the seal’s arteries or snare them (Weisskopf, 1988). The
plastic band free to be picked by other victim that eat the entangled prey. (DOC, 1990).

According to Henderson (1990) and Fowler (1987), the population of northern sea lion,
endangered Hawaiian monk seal, and northern fur seals declining due to entanglement of young
animals in lost or discarded nets and packing bands. Based in Pribiloff Islands, in the Bering
Sea west of Alaska, the percentage of northern fur seals that return to rookeries entangled in
plastic bands from zero in 1969 increasing to 38% in 1937 (Mattlin and Cawthorn, 1986). The
population of the fur seals decreasing at a pace of 4% to 6% a year and the scientist estimated
that the fur seals being killed by plastic entangle about 40, 000 a year. (Weisskopf, 1988).

Discarded fishing net pose a great risk. The “ghost net” continue to entrap animal even
if they lie on the seabed (Laist, 1987). According to DeGange and Newby (1980) in 1978,
around 99 dead seabird and more than 200 dead salmon were counted during retrieval of 1500
m ghost net at the south of Aleutian Islands. In a survey off the coast of Japan in 1983/84, it
was estimated that 533 fur seals were entangled and drowned in the ghost net in the area (Laist,
1987). Sometimes whales also become the victim of the ghost net. The whale sometimes lunges
for school of fish and the net getting caught in their mouth or entangled on their head or tail
(Weisskopf, 1988).

Challenges and Utilization with Plastics Recycling

To reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the vehicles is to be light by using more
plastics replacing heavier materials, such as steel, where is possible. Most of CO2 emission
originally from the use phase of a vehicle, with only less than 1% being attributed to recycling
and waste stage (Weill D et al., 2014). But only certain plastic parts being recycled, usually
bumper, dashboard, and battery casings (Yang Y. et al., 2012).

One of the main reason difficulties in plastic recycling is due to the type of plastic which
is thermoset and thermoplastic. Thermoset materials cure into given shape by application of
heat. However, when thermoset plastic has been cured the changes is permanent due to the
crosslinking and thus, it cannot be re-melt or change its shape. The only option for mechanical
recycling is to grind it to small shape and use it as filler (Rebeiz and Craft, 1995). It is a different
story for thermoplastic. Thermoplastic materials become malleable when heated, allowing
them to be shape. As the material cools it will harden, but no curing and crosslinking. This
allow the material to be used as many times as possible although continual recycling will result
in degradation.

Public support in recycling. Public awareness of recycling for sustainability and

consumption have been raised. This motivate the local authorities to organize collection

Lack of infrastructure. Plastic manufacturer recycled their own scrap material. Once
the plastic left manufacturing until their end application, the recycling become complicated. A
major challenge in producing recycled product from plastic waste is most of the plastic some
of them are incompatible with each other due to different properties such as immiscibility.
Hence, it is not feasible to add recycled plastic to virgin polymer without decreasing its
performance even though this is often done for non-critical application such as refuse bag.
 In the current automobile recycling, only certain parts will be used depending on the
condition, makes, models, market demands, and end-live-vehicles ages processed. In general,
only 5% to 42% of the total vehicle mass used. The remainder will be sent to shredder facility.
Around 15% to 25% of the mass is leftover and ends up in landfill in the form of shredder
residue (SR). European government force a reduction to 5%, which will need more segregation
and recycling of plastics. In order to achieve that goal, a change in infrastructure is required. It
is expected that new vehicle composition will reach 10%-15% compared to current 6%-8%
(Namry F et al., 2008).

Economic. Two key economic influence that viability of the recycled polymer which
are prices between virgin and recycled plastics and cost of recycling plastic with alternative
forms of acceptable disposal. Other additional issues associated with variance in the quality
and quantity of the supplied compared with virgin plastics. Historically, the main method in
disposing the waste have been by landfill or incineration. Cost of landfill is depending on
underlying geology and land-use patterns and it can influence the viability of using recycled
plastic as alternative disposal route. For instance, in Japan the excavation needed for landfill is
expensive because of underlying volcanic bedrock; while in Netherlands it is expensive due to
permeability from the sea.

The price of virgin polymer is influenced by the oil price, which is the feedstock for
plastic production. Due to quality of used plastic is much lower than virgin plastic, the price of
the virgin sets the prices of used plastics. The oil price increase drastically the last few years,
ranging USD 25 per barrel to between USD 50 -150 since 2005. Hence, due to increasing the
oil price, recycling has become more attractive in term of financial.

Technological advancement in recycling can improve the economic in two main ways
– by decreasing the cost of recycling in terms of productivity and decreasing the gap value
between virgin and recycled polymer. The latter point is particularly for turning plastic into
food grade polymer by removing contamination.

Current trends in plastic recycling. In western Europe, generation of plastic is

approximately 3 percent per year, roughly in line with long-term economic growth. Whereas,
the amount of mechanical recycling increased at rate 7 percent per year. In 2003, only 14.8
percent of the plastic generated from all the sources. Together with from feedstock (1.7 percent)
and energy recover (22.5 percent), only 39 percent total recovery from 21.1 million tonnes of
plastic waste generated in 2003. The trend for both mechanical recycling and recovery to
increase continuously.

Volumes of plastic waste disposed to landfill, and recovered by various methods in Western
Europe, 1993–2003 (APME 2004)
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methodology

The samples used in this experiment are retrieved from Recycle Station Ayer Keroh, Melaka.
Material comprises of recycled plastic bottles and container being tested in this experiment.
The samples are prepared in 3 different composition; (1) pure polypropylene, (2) polypropylene
80% with 20% Low Density Polyethylene, (3) polypropylene 60% with 40% Low Density
Polyethylene. The compounding material goes through the crunching process, extruded and
moulded to enable physical testing in determining the samples characteristics.

3.2 Composite Preparation

This processing stage is to prepare the polypropylene with low density polyethylene
composite. The formulations of the composite are presented in table 3.1. Each formulation was
determined by amount additive (LDPE) added into the recycled plastic

Table 3. 1: Formulation of Composite Compound

Code Polyprop Low Density

ylene Polyethylene
(PP) (LDPE)
wt.%
PP 100 -

Recycled PP 80 20

Recycled PP (2 times 60 40
recycled)
3.3.1 Blending

Figure 3.2 Twin screw extruder

The blending process was carried out by using twin screw extruder. The temperature
used for this process is 190°C with speed 50rpm. The complete blending will be indicated by
stabilization of torque. After this process are completed, the compounded composite will be
crunching to turn in in pellet form.

3.3.2 Compression Moulding

Figure 3.4 Compression Moulding Machine

 The temperature used for compression moulding were 190°C, compression time; 4
minutes and cooling time; 4 minutes. Before the material undergo compression stage, it needs
to be pre-heated for 8 minutes. Pre-heat is needed to make the material soften and easy
moulded.

3.4 Mechanical Testing

3.4.1 Tensile Test

Figure 3.5 Universal Testing Machine

The tensile test was conducted by using Universal Testing Machine (Instron model 3366).
Tensile test is a measurement of the ability of a material to withstand forces that tend to pull
the specimen apart and to determine to what extent the material stretches before breaking. This
test was conducted under ASTM D 638 Standard. Different type of polymeric materials are
often compared on the basic of tensile strength, and tensile modulus data. There are 5
specimens from each batch was tested. The specimen thickness is 4mm and width 10mm.
Figure 3.6 Samples for tensile test

The experiment was conducted in laboratory atmosphere of 24˚C and humidity 50

percent. Crosshead speed 5.000mm/min, grip distance 101.600 mm and specimen G.L 50.000
mm.

3.4.2 Flexural Test

Figure 3.7 Lloyds Universal Testing Machine

Flexural strength is the ability of the material to withstand bending forces applied perpendicular
to its longitudinal axis. The flexural test was done by using Lloyds Universal Testing Machine
followed by ASTM D 790 Standard. Number of specimens tested are 5 samples. The width and
the thickness of the sample are 10mm and 4mm. The strain rate used was 20mm/min and
support span 64mm.
Figure 3.8 Samples for flexural test

A three-point loading system is utilizing center loading on a simple supported beam. A bar of
rectangular cross section rests on two supports and is loaded by means of a loading nose
midway between the supports. The maximum axial fiber stresses occur on a line under the
loading nose.

3.4.3 Impact Test

Figure 3.9 Ray Ran Pendulum Impact System

The impact properties of the polymeric materials are directly related to the overall
toughness of the material. This experiment was run by using Ray Ran Pendulum Impact System
with hammer weight and impact velocity is 1.189kg and 2.9m/s respectively. The area under
the stress strain curve is directly proportional to the toughness of a material. Impact resistance
is ability to of a material to resist breaking under a shock loading or the ability to resist the
fracture under stress applied high speed.
Figure 3.10 Samples of impact test

The thickness of specimens is 4mm while the width is 10mm. Charpy test specimens normally
measure 55x10x10mm and have notch machined across one of the larger faces. The notches
may be; V-notch with 2mm depth, 45° angle and 0.25mm radius along the base. This
experiment was conducted by following ASTM D 256 Standard.

3.4.3.1 Types of failure load

Brittle fracture is the part fractures without yielding. A catastrophic mechanical failure
such as the one in the case of general-purpose acrylic is observed. Other main failure is slight
cracking. This failure shows evidence of slight cracking and yielding without losing its shape
or integrity. the part yields showing obvious deformation and stress whitening but no cracking
take place. Ductile failure is characterized by the definite yielding if material along with
cracking. Polycarbonate is considered a ductile material.
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Tensile Properties

Figures 4.1, and 4.2 show the tensile properties of the composites i.e.; tensile strength (TS),
and Young’s modulus (YM) respectively, using different loading of LDPE compared to pure
PP. The terms denote PP-LDPE composites using 80wt.% 20%wt, and 60 wt.%40 wt.%
correspondingly. The raw data of the tensile test can be referred to in Appendix 1.

Figure 4.1: Tensile Strength of PP & Recycled PP with different composition

Figure 4.2: Young’s Modulus of PP & Recycled PP with different composition

By adding 20wt.% 40 wt.% of PP-LDPE the TS decreases by 5% from 32 MPa to 30 MPa (Fig.
4.1). At 20 wt.% of MA-g-PP, the Young’s modulus was considered like PP-LDPE 40%, only
by a difference of 20% (Figure 4.2). Beyond this amount, a gradual decrease in both TS and
Young’s modulus was observed probably due to the softening/ plasticizing effect. The
softening/ plasticizing effect was consistent with Fig. 4.3 where the YM increases as the
amount of recycling of PP was added. Bourmaud and Pimbert (2008) studied PP system using
LDPE and PVC at 0, 2, and 5 wt.%. The tensile modulus was found to be the lowest at 40 wt.%.
It was observed that the TS decreased slightly as the PP recycled amount and LDPE additive
increased up to 40 wt.%.

4.1 Flexural Properties

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the flexural strength and flexural modulus of the composites,
respectively. Comparing the FS of PP, PP-LDPE20 & PP-LDPE40 decreases4 from 40Mpa
to33MPa. As the amount of LDPE was increased, both the FS and FM show a similar trend as
observed for the tensile strength and the Young’s modulus. The observation on flexural
properties could be explained similarly as for the tensile properties. The raw data of the flexural
test can be referred to in Appendix 2.
Figure 4.3: Flexural Strength of PP & Recycled PP with different composition

Figure 4.4: Flexural Strength of PP & Recycled PP with different composition

4.5 Impact Properties

Figure 4.5 shows the impact strength of the composites. By adding 20 wt.% and 40 wt.% LDPE
to the recycled PP composite there was a tremendous decrement in Impact Strength (IS). The
increment was by 40.4 J/m2 (50%) from PP-LDPE20wt%.

Figure 4.5: Impact Strength of PP & Recycled PP with different composition

As a conclusion, polypropylene gives the desired mechanical and morphogical properties of

PP-LDPE composite. Dobreva et al. (2006) reported the same trend as reported from this study
which indicates the consistency and agreement with their findings in other recycled plastic in
using PP based plastic with PVC,PE and PS, a decrease in the properties with recycled
plastics.).