Sustainability in rotational molding: a study on recycling and the influence of additives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rationale for recycling in the rotational molding community is arguably stronger than other sectors of the polymer industry since the process is more likely to produce extremely large parts and regardless of whether scrap is generated from an end-of-life situation or from off-spec production, this material is often too much and too valuable for diversion to landfill. It is therefore important for the community to establish test methods and knowledge on how to keep these polymeric materials within a circular economy. There is unfortunately little experimental data on recycling by rotomolding for processors to understand the feasibility of reclaiming scrap material in their production, for which this study aims to address. The molded parts of a commercial-grade and reactor-grade polyethylene were examined over several repeated molding cycles, in each case with between 10 and 50 % reclaim content, and then examined for quality indicators based on mechanical and rheological properties, part color and surface void content. The stabilized resin showed negligible changes over four recycle passes, except for yellowness, while the unstabilized resin showed minor signs of change on the second recycle pass. A narrow examination followed to understand the contributions of antioxidants versus UV stabilizers in the performance witnessed in the recycling trials. Overall, the study shows that robust recycling is very possible for the rotational molding industry with polyethylene grades, especially those intended for this process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".