BIST
1419
USD/EUR
1,1727
Amerikan Doları
2,3884
Euro
10,3494
İngiliz Sterlini
12,1357
Japon Yeni
8,1479
Rus Rublesi
2,2923
SA Riyali
2,1252
Altın
1,03299
Son Güncelleme: 18.09.2021 23:27
Site İstatiğimiz
Toplam: 50338399

Top News

Is the circular economy transition fast enough?

Despite the growing attention in the public, among legislators and companies, the shift to business models that design waste out of the system seems to progress slowly.

“So far, growing stakeholder and regulatory pressures such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in March 2020 do not seem to have impacted the transition speed significantly,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV. “With only 5.9% of the companies indicating a leading approach coupled with the limited uptake of business model innovation, there is much left to be done before we reach a state of true circular economy required to shift from a linear take-make-waste industrial model to significantly impact our UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

The ViewPoint Survey “Circular Economy. How are companies transitioning” shows that companies focus more on process and product innovation, such as resource recovery (30.3%) or product life extension (39.6%).  Fewer have moved into more advanced business models innovations such as product as a service (17.6%) and sharing platforms (12.5%).  Most companies experience cost savings (57.2%) as a main benefit, which is not surprising given the focus on existing processes and products.

“While the private sector’s commitment to circularity is clear, external communications for their efforts are inconsistent in scope and barometer used. As investors, customers and regulators increasingly request information on circular performance, those companies equipped to measure, monitor and improve their circularity stand to capture the most value and showcase their true leadership,” says Brendan Edgerton, Circular Economy Director WBCSD.

The fact that only 24.7% determine initial level (baseline) of circularity before implementing initiatives, while 26.7% set specific goals and targets and 19.8% have identified performance indicators poses a significant barrier to progress. Identifying the successful initiatives to scale and communicating transparently on performance becomes infinitely harder without proper metrics. This is not aided by a total of 65.6% using their own circular measurement framework rather benchmarked frameworks designed by established organisations like the WBCSD and Ellen McArthur Foundation.

“Customers and consumers increasingly require sustainability claims and performance to be well-founded and transparent. Results seem to indicate that performance communication and digital solution application is limited. Here we see is a huge potential to take advantage of existing solutions, building necessary stakeholder and consumer engagement and trust by combining verified metrics with blockchain-enabled track and trace applications,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV.

Full survey results

Is the circular economy transition fast enough?

Despite the growing attention in the public, among legislators and companies, the shift to business models that design waste out of the system seems to progress slowly.

“So far, growing stakeholder and regulatory pressures such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in March 2020 do not seem to have impacted the transition speed significantly,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV. “With only 5.9% of the companies indicating a leading approach coupled with the limited uptake of business model innovation, there is much left to be done before we reach a state of true circular economy required to shift from a linear take-make-waste industrial model to significantly impact our UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

The ViewPoint Survey “Circular Economy. How are companies transitioning” shows that companies focus more on process and product innovation, such as resource recovery (30.3%) or product life extension (39.6%).  Fewer have moved into more advanced business models innovations such as product as a service (17.6%) and sharing platforms (12.5%).  Most companies experience cost savings (57.2%) as a main benefit, which is not surprising given the focus on existing processes and products.

“While the private sector’s commitment to circularity is clear, external communications for their efforts are inconsistent in scope and barometer used. As investors, customers and regulators increasingly request information on circular performance, those companies equipped to measure, monitor and improve their circularity stand to capture the most value and showcase their true leadership,” says Brendan Edgerton, Circular Economy Director WBCSD.

The fact that only 24.7% determine initial level (baseline) of circularity before implementing initiatives, while 26.7% set specific goals and targets and 19.8% have identified performance indicators poses a significant barrier to progress. Identifying the successful initiatives to scale and communicating transparently on performance becomes infinitely harder without proper metrics. This is not aided by a total of 65.6% using their own circular measurement framework rather benchmarked frameworks designed by established organisations like the WBCSD and Ellen McArthur Foundation.

“Customers and consumers increasingly require sustainability claims and performance to be well-founded and transparent. Results seem to indicate that performance communication and digital solution application is limited. Here we see is a huge potential to take advantage of existing solutions, building necessary stakeholder and consumer engagement and trust by combining verified metrics with blockchain-enabled track and trace applications,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV.

Full survey results

Is the circular economy transition fast enough?

Despite the growing attention in the public, among legislators and companies, the shift to business models that design waste out of the system seems to progress slowly.

“So far, growing stakeholder and regulatory pressures such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in March 2020 do not seem to have impacted the transition speed significantly,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV. “With only 5.9% of the companies indicating a leading approach coupled with the limited uptake of business model innovation, there is much left to be done before we reach a state of true circular economy required to shift from a linear take-make-waste industrial model to significantly impact our UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

The ViewPoint Survey “Circular Economy. How are companies transitioning” shows that companies focus more on process and product innovation, such as resource recovery (30.3%) or product life extension (39.6%).  Fewer have moved into more advanced business models innovations such as product as a service (17.6%) and sharing platforms (12.5%).  Most companies experience cost savings (57.2%) as a main benefit, which is not surprising given the focus on existing processes and products.

“While the private sector’s commitment to circularity is clear, external communications for their efforts are inconsistent in scope and barometer used. As investors, customers and regulators increasingly request information on circular performance, those companies equipped to measure, monitor and improve their circularity stand to capture the most value and showcase their true leadership,” says Brendan Edgerton, Circular Economy Director WBCSD.

The fact that only 24.7% determine initial level (baseline) of circularity before implementing initiatives, while 26.7% set specific goals and targets and 19.8% have identified performance indicators poses a significant barrier to progress. Identifying the successful initiatives to scale and communicating transparently on performance becomes infinitely harder without proper metrics. This is not aided by a total of 65.6% using their own circular measurement framework rather benchmarked frameworks designed by established organisations like the WBCSD and Ellen McArthur Foundation.

“Customers and consumers increasingly require sustainability claims and performance to be well-founded and transparent. Results seem to indicate that performance communication and digital solution application is limited. Here we see is a huge potential to take advantage of existing solutions, building necessary stakeholder and consumer engagement and trust by combining verified metrics with blockchain-enabled track and trace applications,” says Luca Crisciotti, CEO in Supply Chain & Product Assurance in DNV.

Full survey results

Recovered Carbon Black emerging in the rubber industry

This article deals with the question of whether the scientific recommendations for the development of new modification methods for upgrading recovered Carbon Black (rCB) derived from end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis have not already been (partially) overtaken by industrial practice. This question does not mean that the extensive research on rCB is unnecessary. Quite the contrary! Past and new research results were and are of priceless value for the development of new ASTM approved characterization methods to be able to predict rCB performance in rubber applications in a practical and science-based manner.

A current scientific paper (just one example of many) published by Jiaxue Yu and colleagues (2019) stresses the “immediate significance” for the further development of modified rCB (ash purified and structure modified). These recommendations are undoubtedly valuable for special applications, for example as a replacement for the virgin CB as colour pigments, as energy storage material in batteries or as super capacitators (etc.). However, since the primary application is as (semi-) reinforcing agent in tires and other rubber products, such cost-intensive and complex modification methods appear neither objectively necessary nor economically viable.

The sustainable rCB has already made the leap into industrial practice and is making an important contribution to closing the loop in the tire and rubber industry. The essential prerequisites are good and consistent product quality, constant production quantities from several thousand tons per year (the more the better), as well as an adequate business strategy.

The rCB produced anyway must always meet the ASTM D8178 definition and must be free of steel wire and fabrics, intensive milled (to eliminate the hard agglomerates) and pelletized, and properly packed, stored and transported.

Need for new classification standards for rCB

The latest opinion which emerged from the Recovered Carbon Black Congress held in Berlin (May 2019) defines rCB as a new material rather then being a 1 to 1 substitute to virgin Carbon Black. That is undoubtedly correct, as rCB is a heterogeneous material, regarding not only the ash content, particle size, morphology and both surface chemistry and activity and the fact that rCB is a mixture of more than one grade of virgin CB. Besides, the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic additives also exacerbates the complexity of the pyrolysis process by producing new substances that didn’t exist in the rubber pyrolysis products. [YU et.al.; 2019]

Recovered Carbon Black is a complex mixture consisting of carbonaceous deposits and oils absorbed during the pyrolysis process, together with various organic and inorganic additives. [YU et.al.; 2019] Carbonaceous deposit, resulting from secondary reaction during the pyrolysis process, is probably the most unwanted characteristic as it covers the surface (char layers), leads to much rougher particle sizes and limits the performance of rCB to a certain degree. (In our next article, we will deal in detail with how this disadvantage can be almost eliminated through reactor design and process parameters.)

In general, the quality and yield of rCB depends on the tire composition as well as pyrolysis conditions.

Already considered superficially, it becomes clear that rCB is a new and very valuable nano-material that cannot only be characterized with traditional definitions and standards for virgin CB.

It is therefore most welcome that an ASTM commission (D36) is making intensive efforts to develop adequate standardization methods for the resource-saving and environmentally friendly rCB.

Industrial practice continues to advance in favour of rCB

Although there is still a lot of discussion on the research side about the differences between rCB and virgin CB, which is a positive and sensible process, the rubber and Carbon Black industry now seems to be increasingly relying on the advantages of using rCB.

Recent tests and scientific findings have shown that in carefully blending rCB with virgin CB, the same performance properties can be achieved.

MAKROchem, a specialist in CB based in Poland, has been researching rCB/CB blends and their performance in rubber compounds over the last three years while testing more than 30 rCB products available in the market. Mainly rubber compounds based on SBR and BR were analysed, establishing differences in the kinetics of vulcanization between rCB and N550 (attributed to the presence of mineral and organic inclusions). Nevertheless, in rCB/CB blends those differences are eliminated. During joint research conducted with its customers, MAKROchem learned that 10-20% blends of rCB/CB may be used in most rubber applications, while following a special industrial blending procedure. For specific applications, rCB content could be even increased to 30% or more.

A recently published study goes into even more detail and examines the effect of rCB from ELTs on the properties of styrene-butadiene rubber compounds (SBR). In this work, a commercially very successful rCB (ET black) was compared with N660 carbon black in SBR using ASTM testing and material recipes.

This extensive study shows that rCB (ET black) can replace 20% in N660 without much influence for SBR compounds (e.g.) in terms of tensile strength and tear strength.

Weibold Consulting

Recovered Carbon Black emerging in the rubber industry

This article deals with the question of whether the scientific recommendations for the development of new modification methods for upgrading recovered Carbon Black (rCB) derived from end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis have not already been (partially) overtaken by industrial practice. This question does not mean that the extensive research on rCB is unnecessary. Quite the contrary! Past and new research results were and are of priceless value for the development of new ASTM approved characterization methods to be able to predict rCB performance in rubber applications in a practical and science-based manner.

A current scientific paper (just one example of many) published by Jiaxue Yu and colleagues (2019) stresses the “immediate significance” for the further development of modified rCB (ash purified and structure modified). These recommendations are undoubtedly valuable for special applications, for example as a replacement for the virgin CB as colour pigments, as energy storage material in batteries or as super capacitators (etc.). However, since the primary application is as (semi-) reinforcing agent in tires and other rubber products, such cost-intensive and complex modification methods appear neither objectively necessary nor economically viable.

The sustainable rCB has already made the leap into industrial practice and is making an important contribution to closing the loop in the tire and rubber industry. The essential prerequisites are good and consistent product quality, constant production quantities from several thousand tons per year (the more the better), as well as an adequate business strategy.

The rCB produced anyway must always meet the ASTM D8178 definition and must be free of steel wire and fabrics, intensive milled (to eliminate the hard agglomerates) and pelletized, and properly packed, stored and transported.

Need for new classification standards for rCB

The latest opinion which emerged from the Recovered Carbon Black Congress held in Berlin (May 2019) defines rCB as a new material rather then being a 1 to 1 substitute to virgin Carbon Black. That is undoubtedly correct, as rCB is a heterogeneous material, regarding not only the ash content, particle size, morphology and both surface chemistry and activity and the fact that rCB is a mixture of more than one grade of virgin CB. Besides, the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic additives also exacerbates the complexity of the pyrolysis process by producing new substances that didn’t exist in the rubber pyrolysis products. [YU et.al.; 2019]

Recovered Carbon Black is a complex mixture consisting of carbonaceous deposits and oils absorbed during the pyrolysis process, together with various organic and inorganic additives. [YU et.al.; 2019] Carbonaceous deposit, resulting from secondary reaction during the pyrolysis process, is probably the most unwanted characteristic as it covers the surface (char layers), leads to much rougher particle sizes and limits the performance of rCB to a certain degree. (In our next article, we will deal in detail with how this disadvantage can be almost eliminated through reactor design and process parameters.)

In general, the quality and yield of rCB depends on the tire composition as well as pyrolysis conditions.

Already considered superficially, it becomes clear that rCB is a new and very valuable nano-material that cannot only be characterized with traditional definitions and standards for virgin CB.

It is therefore most welcome that an ASTM commission (D36) is making intensive efforts to develop adequate standardization methods for the resource-saving and environmentally friendly rCB.

Industrial practice continues to advance in favour of rCB

Although there is still a lot of discussion on the research side about the differences between rCB and virgin CB, which is a positive and sensible process, the rubber and Carbon Black industry now seems to be increasingly relying on the advantages of using rCB.

Recent tests and scientific findings have shown that in carefully blending rCB with virgin CB, the same performance properties can be achieved.

MAKROchem, a specialist in CB based in Poland, has been researching rCB/CB blends and their performance in rubber compounds over the last three years while testing more than 30 rCB products available in the market. Mainly rubber compounds based on SBR and BR were analysed, establishing differences in the kinetics of vulcanization between rCB and N550 (attributed to the presence of mineral and organic inclusions). Nevertheless, in rCB/CB blends those differences are eliminated. During joint research conducted with its customers, MAKROchem learned that 10-20% blends of rCB/CB may be used in most rubber applications, while following a special industrial blending procedure. For specific applications, rCB content could be even increased to 30% or more.

A recently published study goes into even more detail and examines the effect of rCB from ELTs on the properties of styrene-butadiene rubber compounds (SBR). In this work, a commercially very successful rCB (ET black) was compared with N660 carbon black in SBR using ASTM testing and material recipes.

This extensive study shows that rCB (ET black) can replace 20% in N660 without much influence for SBR compounds (e.g.) in terms of tensile strength and tear strength.

Weibold Consulting

Recovered Carbon Black emerging in the rubber industry

This article deals with the question of whether the scientific recommendations for the development of new modification methods for upgrading recovered Carbon Black (rCB) derived from end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis have not already been (partially) overtaken by industrial practice. This question does not mean that the extensive research on rCB is unnecessary. Quite the contrary! Past and new research results were and are of priceless value for the development of new ASTM approved characterization methods to be able to predict rCB performance in rubber applications in a practical and science-based manner.

A current scientific paper (just one example of many) published by Jiaxue Yu and colleagues (2019) stresses the “immediate significance” for the further development of modified rCB (ash purified and structure modified). These recommendations are undoubtedly valuable for special applications, for example as a replacement for the virgin CB as colour pigments, as energy storage material in batteries or as super capacitators (etc.). However, since the primary application is as (semi-) reinforcing agent in tires and other rubber products, such cost-intensive and complex modification methods appear neither objectively necessary nor economically viable.

The sustainable rCB has already made the leap into industrial practice and is making an important contribution to closing the loop in the tire and rubber industry. The essential prerequisites are good and consistent product quality, constant production quantities from several thousand tons per year (the more the better), as well as an adequate business strategy.

The rCB produced anyway must always meet the ASTM D8178 definition and must be free of steel wire and fabrics, intensive milled (to eliminate the hard agglomerates) and pelletized, and properly packed, stored and transported.

Need for new classification standards for rCB

The latest opinion which emerged from the Recovered Carbon Black Congress held in Berlin (May 2019) defines rCB as a new material rather then being a 1 to 1 substitute to virgin Carbon Black. That is undoubtedly correct, as rCB is a heterogeneous material, regarding not only the ash content, particle size, morphology and both surface chemistry and activity and the fact that rCB is a mixture of more than one grade of virgin CB. Besides, the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic additives also exacerbates the complexity of the pyrolysis process by producing new substances that didn’t exist in the rubber pyrolysis products. [YU et.al.; 2019]

Recovered Carbon Black is a complex mixture consisting of carbonaceous deposits and oils absorbed during the pyrolysis process, together with various organic and inorganic additives. [YU et.al.; 2019] Carbonaceous deposit, resulting from secondary reaction during the pyrolysis process, is probably the most unwanted characteristic as it covers the surface (char layers), leads to much rougher particle sizes and limits the performance of rCB to a certain degree. (In our next article, we will deal in detail with how this disadvantage can be almost eliminated through reactor design and process parameters.)

In general, the quality and yield of rCB depends on the tire composition as well as pyrolysis conditions.

Already considered superficially, it becomes clear that rCB is a new and very valuable nano-material that cannot only be characterized with traditional definitions and standards for virgin CB.

It is therefore most welcome that an ASTM commission (D36) is making intensive efforts to develop adequate standardization methods for the resource-saving and environmentally friendly rCB.

Industrial practice continues to advance in favour of rCB

Although there is still a lot of discussion on the research side about the differences between rCB and virgin CB, which is a positive and sensible process, the rubber and Carbon Black industry now seems to be increasingly relying on the advantages of using rCB.

Recent tests and scientific findings have shown that in carefully blending rCB with virgin CB, the same performance properties can be achieved.

MAKROchem, a specialist in CB based in Poland, has been researching rCB/CB blends and their performance in rubber compounds over the last three years while testing more than 30 rCB products available in the market. Mainly rubber compounds based on SBR and BR were analysed, establishing differences in the kinetics of vulcanization between rCB and N550 (attributed to the presence of mineral and organic inclusions). Nevertheless, in rCB/CB blends those differences are eliminated. During joint research conducted with its customers, MAKROchem learned that 10-20% blends of rCB/CB may be used in most rubber applications, while following a special industrial blending procedure. For specific applications, rCB content could be even increased to 30% or more.

A recently published study goes into even more detail and examines the effect of rCB from ELTs on the properties of styrene-butadiene rubber compounds (SBR). In this work, a commercially very successful rCB (ET black) was compared with N660 carbon black in SBR using ASTM testing and material recipes.

This extensive study shows that rCB (ET black) can replace 20% in N660 without much influence for SBR compounds (e.g.) in terms of tensile strength and tear strength.

Weibold Consulting

Recovered Carbon Black emerging in the rubber industry

This article deals with the question of whether the scientific recommendations for the development of new modification methods for upgrading recovered Carbon Black (rCB) derived from end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis have not already been (partially) overtaken by industrial practice. This question does not mean that the extensive research on rCB is unnecessary. Quite the contrary! Past and new research results were and are of priceless value for the development of new ASTM approved characterization methods to be able to predict rCB performance in rubber applications in a practical and science-based manner.

A current scientific paper (just one example of many) published by Jiaxue Yu and colleagues (2019) stresses the “immediate significance” for the further development of modified rCB (ash purified and structure modified). These recommendations are undoubtedly valuable for special applications, for example as a replacement for the virgin CB as colour pigments, as energy storage material in batteries or as super capacitators (etc.). However, since the primary application is as (semi-) reinforcing agent in tires and other rubber products, such cost-intensive and complex modification methods appear neither objectively necessary nor economically viable.

The sustainable rCB has already made the leap into industrial practice and is making an important contribution to closing the loop in the tire and rubber industry. The essential prerequisites are good and consistent product quality, constant production quantities from several thousand tons per year (the more the better), as well as an adequate business strategy.

The rCB produced anyway must always meet the ASTM D8178 definition and must be free of steel wire and fabrics, intensive milled (to eliminate the hard agglomerates) and pelletized, and properly packed, stored and transported.

Need for new classification standards for rCB

The latest opinion which emerged from the Recovered Carbon Black Congress held in Berlin (May 2019) defines rCB as a new material rather then being a 1 to 1 substitute to virgin Carbon Black. That is undoubtedly correct, as rCB is a heterogeneous material, regarding not only the ash content, particle size, morphology and both surface chemistry and activity and the fact that rCB is a mixture of more than one grade of virgin CB. Besides, the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic additives also exacerbates the complexity of the pyrolysis process by producing new substances that didn’t exist in the rubber pyrolysis products. [YU et.al.; 2019]

Recovered Carbon Black is a complex mixture consisting of carbonaceous deposits and oils absorbed during the pyrolysis process, together with various organic and inorganic additives. [YU et.al.; 2019] Carbonaceous deposit, resulting from secondary reaction during the pyrolysis process, is probably the most unwanted characteristic as it covers the surface (char layers), leads to much rougher particle sizes and limits the performance of rCB to a certain degree. (In our next article, we will deal in detail with how this disadvantage can be almost eliminated through reactor design and process parameters.)

In general, the quality and yield of rCB depends on the tire composition as well as pyrolysis conditions.

Already considered superficially, it becomes clear that rCB is a new and very valuable nano-material that cannot only be characterized with traditional definitions and standards for virgin CB.

It is therefore most welcome that an ASTM commission (D36) is making intensive efforts to develop adequate standardization methods for the resource-saving and environmentally friendly rCB.

Industrial practice continues to advance in favour of rCB

Although there is still a lot of discussion on the research side about the differences between rCB and virgin CB, which is a positive and sensible process, the rubber and Carbon Black industry now seems to be increasingly relying on the advantages of using rCB.

Recent tests and scientific findings have shown that in carefully blending rCB with virgin CB, the same performance properties can be achieved.

MAKROchem, a specialist in CB based in Poland, has been researching rCB/CB blends and their performance in rubber compounds over the last three years while testing more than 30 rCB products available in the market. Mainly rubber compounds based on SBR and BR were analysed, establishing differences in the kinetics of vulcanization between rCB and N550 (attributed to the presence of mineral and organic inclusions). Nevertheless, in rCB/CB blends those differences are eliminated. During joint research conducted with its customers, MAKROchem learned that 10-20% blends of rCB/CB may be used in most rubber applications, while following a special industrial blending procedure. For specific applications, rCB content could be even increased to 30% or more.

A recently published study goes into even more detail and examines the effect of rCB from ELTs on the properties of styrene-butadiene rubber compounds (SBR). In this work, a commercially very successful rCB (ET black) was compared with N660 carbon black in SBR using ASTM testing and material recipes.

This extensive study shows that rCB (ET black) can replace 20% in N660 without much influence for SBR compounds (e.g.) in terms of tensile strength and tear strength.

Weibold Consulting

Recovered Carbon Black emerging in the rubber industry

This article deals with the question of whether the scientific recommendations for the development of new modification methods for upgrading recovered Carbon Black (rCB) derived from end-of-life tire (ELT) pyrolysis have not already been (partially) overtaken by industrial practice. This question does not mean that the extensive research on rCB is unnecessary. Quite the contrary! Past and new research results were and are of priceless value for the development of new ASTM approved characterization methods to be able to predict rCB performance in rubber applications in a practical and science-based manner.

A current scientific paper (just one example of many) published by Jiaxue Yu and colleagues (2019) stresses the “immediate significance” for the further development of modified rCB (ash purified and structure modified). These recommendations are undoubtedly valuable for special applications, for example as a replacement for the virgin CB as colour pigments, as energy storage material in batteries or as super capacitators (etc.). However, since the primary application is as (semi-) reinforcing agent in tires and other rubber products, such cost-intensive and complex modification methods appear neither objectively necessary nor economically viable.

The sustainable rCB has already made the leap into industrial practice and is making an important contribution to closing the loop in the tire and rubber industry. The essential prerequisites are good and consistent product quality, constant production quantities from several thousand tons per year (the more the better), as well as an adequate business strategy.

The rCB produced anyway must always meet the ASTM D8178 definition and must be free of steel wire and fabrics, intensive milled (to eliminate the hard agglomerates) and pelletized, and properly packed, stored and transported.

Need for new classification standards for rCB

The latest opinion which emerged from the Recovered Carbon Black Congress held in Berlin (May 2019) defines rCB as a new material rather then being a 1 to 1 substitute to virgin Carbon Black. That is undoubtedly correct, as rCB is a heterogeneous material, regarding not only the ash content, particle size, morphology and both surface chemistry and activity and the fact that rCB is a mixture of more than one grade of virgin CB. Besides, the presence of a variety of organic and inorganic additives also exacerbates the complexity of the pyrolysis process by producing new substances that didn’t exist in the rubber pyrolysis products. [YU et.al.; 2019]

Recovered Carbon Black is a complex mixture consisting of carbonaceous deposits and oils absorbed during the pyrolysis process, together with various organic and inorganic additives. [YU et.al.; 2019] Carbonaceous deposit, resulting from secondary reaction during the pyrolysis process, is probably the most unwanted characteristic as it covers the surface (char layers), leads to much rougher particle sizes and limits the performance of rCB to a certain degree. (In our next article, we will deal in detail with how this disadvantage can be almost eliminated through reactor design and process parameters.)

In general, the quality and yield of rCB depends on the tire composition as well as pyrolysis conditions.

Already considered superficially, it becomes clear that rCB is a new and very valuable nano-material that cannot only be characterized with traditional definitions and standards for virgin CB.

It is therefore most welcome that an ASTM commission (D36) is making intensive efforts to develop adequate standardization methods for the resource-saving and environmentally friendly rCB.

Industrial practice continues to advance in favour of rCB

Although there is still a lot of discussion on the research side about the differences between rCB and virgin CB, which is a positive and sensible process, the rubber and Carbon Black industry now seems to be increasingly relying on the advantages of using rCB.

Recent tests and scientific findings have shown that in carefully blending rCB with virgin CB, the same performance properties can be achieved.

MAKROchem, a specialist in CB based in Poland, has been researching rCB/CB blends and their performance in rubber compounds over the last three years while testing more than 30 rCB products available in the market. Mainly rubber compounds based on SBR and BR were analysed, establishing differences in the kinetics of vulcanization between rCB and N550 (attributed to the presence of mineral and organic inclusions). Nevertheless, in rCB/CB blends those differences are eliminated. During joint research conducted with its customers, MAKROchem learned that 10-20% blends of rCB/CB may be used in most rubber applications, while following a special industrial blending procedure. For specific applications, rCB content could be even increased to 30% or more.

A recently published study goes into even more detail and examines the effect of rCB from ELTs on the properties of styrene-butadiene rubber compounds (SBR). In this work, a commercially very successful rCB (ET black) was compared with N660 carbon black in SBR using ASTM testing and material recipes.

This extensive study shows that rCB (ET black) can replace 20% in N660 without much influence for SBR compounds (e.g.) in terms of tensile strength and tear strength.

Weibold Consulting

EU stays within air pollutant emission limits

The European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing ‘National Emission reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive reporting status 2021’, published yesterday, provides an annual update assessing European Union (EU) Member States’ progress in cutting air pollutant emissions. The briefing shows that while most Member States met their respective limits in 2019, further efforts are needed to achieve the reduction commitments set for the period 2020-29 and for 2030 and onwards.

Based on the latest national air pollutant inventories, all Member States respected their national emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides (NOX), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), while four Member States — Croatia, Czechia, Ireland and Spain — exceeded their limit for ammonia (NH3).

The lockdown measures implemented across Europe to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and the subsequent reduced economic activity in 2020 can be expected to have had an impact on emissions of some pollutants. The impact of the measures on emissions in 2020 will only become clear once national air pollutant inventories for 2020 are reported in mid-2022.

Looking forward, nine Member States have already achieved cuts in emissions set for the period 2020-2029 for all five key pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5). However, to reach the 2030 commitments, all Member States except Estonia need to reduce their NOX emissions, 22 Member States need to reduce NH3 emissions, and 18 Member States need to reduce NMVOCs emissions.

In terms of emissions of PM2.5, — the main pollutant driving premature death and disease from air pollution — EU emissions fell by 29 % from 2005 to 2019. Nevertheless, significant efforts are needed to achieve reduction commitments set for 2030 and onwards for this pollutant. In particular, three Member States — Czechia, Hungary and Romania — will need to reduce their emissions by more than 50 % and 10 Member States by more than 30 %.

Changes in the energy sector will be crucial for meeting the 2020-29 and 2030 reduction commitments for PM2.5, with a focus on reducing the use of biomass and coal in residential heating needed in certain Member States. Ammonia (NH3) — mainly emitted from the agriculture sector, in particular livestock management and the use of fertilisers — also contributes to the formation of PM2.5 in the atmosphere, with further action needed to reduce emissions of NH3 from the sector. Road transport is the principal source of NOX emissions.

Reporting under UNECE Air Convention

Along with the EEA briefing on the NEC Directive, the EEA has also published the report European Union emission inventory report 1990-2019, which looks at air pollutant emissions reported under the UNECE Air Convention. The report shows considerable reductions in the 1990-2019 emissions of five key pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), NH3, NOX, NMVOCs, and sulphur oxides (SOX). SOX emissions have fallen by 92 % since 1990, as a result of switching from high to low sulphur fuels, the use of emission abatement technologies and increased energy efficiency in industry and in commercial and institutional buildings and households.

EU stays within air pollutant emission limits

The European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing ‘National Emission reduction Commitments (NEC) Directive reporting status 2021’, published yesterday, provides an annual update assessing European Union (EU) Member States’ progress in cutting air pollutant emissions. The briefing shows that while most Member States met their respective limits in 2019, further efforts are needed to achieve the reduction commitments set for the period 2020-29 and for 2030 and onwards.

Based on the latest national air pollutant inventories, all Member States respected their national emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides (NOX), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), while four Member States — Croatia, Czechia, Ireland and Spain — exceeded their limit for ammonia (NH3).

The lockdown measures implemented across Europe to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and the subsequent reduced economic activity in 2020 can be expected to have had an impact on emissions of some pollutants. The impact of the measures on emissions in 2020 will only become clear once national air pollutant inventories for 2020 are reported in mid-2022.

Looking forward, nine Member States have already achieved cuts in emissions set for the period 2020-2029 for all five key pollutants, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5). However, to reach the 2030 commitments, all Member States except Estonia need to reduce their NOX emissions, 22 Member States need to reduce NH3 emissions, and 18 Member States need to reduce NMVOCs emissions.

In terms of emissions of PM2.5, — the main pollutant driving premature death and disease from air pollution — EU emissions fell by 29 % from 2005 to 2019. Nevertheless, significant efforts are needed to achieve reduction commitments set for 2030 and onwards for this pollutant. In particular, three Member States — Czechia, Hungary and Romania — will need to reduce their emissions by more than 50 % and 10 Member States by more than 30 %.

Changes in the energy sector will be crucial for meeting the 2020-29 and 2030 reduction commitments for PM2.5, with a focus on reducing the use of biomass and coal in residential heating needed in certain Member States. Ammonia (NH3) — mainly emitted from the agriculture sector, in particular livestock management and the use of fertilisers — also contributes to the formation of PM2.5 in the atmosphere, with further action needed to reduce emissions of NH3 from the sector. Road transport is the principal source of NOX emissions.

Reporting under UNECE Air Convention

Along with the EEA briefing on the NEC Directive, the EEA has also published the report European Union emission inventory report 1990-2019, which looks at air pollutant emissions reported under the UNECE Air Convention. The report shows considerable reductions in the 1990-2019 emissions of five key pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), NH3, NOX, NMVOCs, and sulphur oxides (SOX). SOX emissions have fallen by 92 % since 1990, as a result of switching from high to low sulphur fuels, the use of emission abatement technologies and increased energy efficiency in industry and in commercial and institutional buildings and households.