PET Purity
 and
Related Issues

Introduction

The Internet and mainstream media have recently discovered the potential dangers of Bisphenol-A (BPA - see below), which is used to make polycarbonate (PC – ) plastics and the coatings used to line cans. There are good and valid reasons to be concerned about BPA and also about plasticizers (see below); however, all the media hyperbole and non-science is causing great confusion about which plastics are safe. PET ()containers have been widely used and rigorously tested for over 20 years.1 Nevertheless, news and Web articles stating that PET is unsafe and harmful to the environment keep popping up. Most of the time, these articles repeat some utterly foolish, long ago debunked, urban legend. For example, there's the legend about how PET containers release toxins when they are washed and re-used – absolute nonsense. Not infrequently, reporters and editors have so little technical knowledge about chemistry or plastics that they: A) Confuse PET with polyethylene, a completely different type of plastic; B) Conclude that PET contains toxic phthalate plasticizers; or C) Lump PET and polycarbonate together, because both are tough, clear plastics. In some cases, articles reference anonymous scientists associated with lobby groups that represents a competing industry – dirty tricks. PET is an extremely safe plastic and Better-Bottle PET (polyethylene tere-phthalate) plastic is not made with BPA or plasticizers.

Not too long ago, there was a great deal of chatter about the danger of crushing grapes in enamel bathtubs and basins. Well, there is solid science here. The glazes on those old tubs and basins are likely to contain toxic heavy metals that will dissolve in weakly acidic grape juices.2 Ingenuity has always been part of the fun of home winemaking or brewing; however, unless you have specialized knowledge, it is not wise to use materials that have not been approved for use with this class of beverages and the related cleaning and sanitizing agents.

1 The Safety of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Plasticsinfo.org 2006, Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council, 1300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington VA 22209 (Referenced12/14/07)
2 Mangas S, Visvanathan R, van Alphen M. Lead Poisoning from Homemade Wine: A Case Study. Enviro Health Perspec. 2001; 109:433-435
PET Purity / Safety – Debunking Urban Legends
Reusing PET Re-using beverage containers made of PET does not pose a health risk – provided the containers are properly sanitized. — Though repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, warnings of dire health consequences, resulting from chemicals released from PET bottles, keep circulating in newspaper and television reports, chain E-mail letters, and a variety of green newsletters and Web sites.1 Supposedly, the chemicals are released by PET bottles when the bottles are re-used, heated, or frozen. The chemicals mentioned are: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, DEHP (see below); di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, abbreviated DEHA (see below); and diethylhydroxyl amine, also abbreviated DEHA (see below). Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate are plasticizers (see below) used in a wide variety of plastics, but not in PET.2 Diethylhydroxyl amine also has nothing to do with PET. Apparently, it became mixed into the circulating misinformation when people unfamiliar with chemistry looked up "DEHA" and picked the wrong chemical. When the authors of the misinformation deem it necessary to provide proof, they almost always make vague reference to a "2001 University of Idaho Study" and/or a "2003 Italian Study". The University of Idaho Study is actually a masters thesis in which the student describes an experiment to search for contaminants in other students' drinking water bottles and concludes that DEHA migrates from PET bottles into drinking water.3 However, the experimental design of the study and the analysis of the results were not peer reviewed and in retrospect, the conclusion of the thesis was simply wrong. The Italian Study, looked for the migration of DEHP into water bottled in PET and stored for prolonged periods. The researchers found no migration of DEHP during the first 8 months of storage and an abrupt pulse of migration at about 9 months with no further migration during the next 3 months of their one year experiment.4 No attempt was made to explain these peculiar results, which strongly suggest that a systematic measurement error of some sort occurred about 8 months into their study. Many other researchers have been unable to find evidence that DEHA or DEHP migrates from PET bottles; however, they have observed that DEHA and DEHP plasticizers are such ubiquitous environmental and laboratory contaminants that it is very difficult to avoid accidental contamination.5

So why to do suppliers of single-serve beverages, packaged in PET, tend to discourage reuse of their bottles? It is because they have concerns relating to sanitization, not the stability and safety PET. Single-serve bottles typically have small openings, so they are not washed effectively in a standard dishwasher. Unless automated bottle washing equipment is available, they must be hand washed and sanitized with bleach or an equivalent sanitizing agent. However, a wealth of practical experience indicates that many people are complacent and resort to a simple, quick rinse – often with nasty results.6 Drinking from a bottle, any type of bottle, will introduce microorganisms that will multiply in the remaining liquid or on the damp walls of the container. If a drink contains nutrients (e.g., flavor and nutrient enhanced water, juices, sports drinks etc.), microorganism growth will be much more rapid. PET bottles can be safely reused, provided: 1) They are carefully washed and sanitized between fillings; 2) They are handled in a sanitary fashion during re-filling; and 3) Re-filled bottles are treated the way "open bottles" containing a similar liquid should be handled (i.e., refrigerated and/or consumed in a reasonable period of time). In general, it makes good sense to pour from a bottle into a cup when drinking, unless the drink is to be consumed in a relatively short period of time.

Just to put a final lid on the issue of PET bottle reuse, it is worth noting that health organizations around the world actively recommend the re-use of PET bottles as part of the Solar Disinfection, SODIS, process. Microbiologically unsafe water can be made potable by placing it in single-serve PET bottles and leaving the filled bottles in direct sunlight for a sufficient period of time. UV-A light penetrates the PET and water to kill microorganisms of all types. There is no evidence that toxic chemicals migrate (leach) from the PET. 7,8

1 Bottle Royale. Snopes.com (Referenced12/14/07)
2 The PET Bottle: Is it safe? National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) Press Release 09/25/07
3 Lilya D. Analysis and risk assessment of organic chemical migration from reused PET plastic bottles. (MScThesis Environmental Engineering). USA, University of Idaho, Environmental Science Program. 2001
4 Biscardi D, et al. Evaluation of the migration of mutagens/carcinogens from PET bottles into mineral water by Tradescantia/micronuclei test, Comet assay on leukocytes, and GC/MS. The Science of The Total Environment. 2003 (Jan 20); vol. 302 (Issues 1-3): pgs 101-108
5 Wegelin M, Schmid P. Migration of organic compounds from PET bottles. International Water and Sanitation Centre, Report Updated 07/23/03 (Referenced 12/14/07)
6 Oliphant JA, Ryan MC, Chu A. Bacterial water quality in the personal water bottles of elementary students. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2002; vol. 93 (no. 5): pgs 366-367
7 Berg M, Hug S. Water Treatment Technologies in Low Income Water Treatment Technologies in Low Income Regions Lecture: Water Resources and Drinking Water. EAWAG, Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland (Referenced 12/14/07)
8 Wegelin M, et al. Does sunlight change the material and content of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles?. Aqua. 2000; vol. 50: pgs. 125-135.
Plasticizers
Phthalates
DEHP
DEHA
 Unlike many other types of plastics, PET does not contain plasticizers.1 — Plasticizers are added to make plastics soft or flexible.2 For example, semi-rigid, polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) plastic typically contains about 10 percent by weight of plasticizers and very soft, polyvinyl chloride tubing may contain as much as 80 percent. Plasticizers migrate out of plastics and they are widely distributed in the environment.

Phthalate plasticizers – Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, DEHP, benzyl butyl phthalate (BBzP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) are examples of very popular ortho-phthalate plasticizers used in a wide variety of plastic products (e.g., construction materials, food packaging, children toys, medical devices, cling wrap, plastic tubing . . .). Ortho-phthalates are associated an increased risk of cancer, weakening of immune responses, and reproductive system toxicity.3,4,5 The US and other countries are slowly beginning to limit the use of these phthalates. The US Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which is being appealed to various degrees, states that DEHP, BBzP, and DBP may not be present in children's products and child care articles at concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent.6,7 Additionally, products that are expected to be placed in a child's mouth must not contain more than 0.1 percent of the iso-phthalate plasticizers diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP).

There are three classes of phthalate esters, ortho-, iso-, and tere-, which differ by the relative positions of the two ester groups on the benzene ring. Evidence suggests that ortho-phthalate plasticizers are metabolized quite rapidly to mono-esters (i.e., the replacement of a single "R" carbon chain with a hydrogen atom). These mono-esters are toxic and not readily metabolized further. Iso- and tere-phthalates are metabolised quickly to iso- and tere-phthalic acid (i.e., both "R" carbon chains are replaced with hydrogen atoms) and the acids are excreted.

Some people mistakenly believe that PET contains phthalate plasticizers. The tere-phthalate in PET is not a plasticizer additive that can migrate, it is tere-phthalic acid that is chemically bonded (ester polymerized) with ethylene glycol to make extremely long, stable, insoluble chains of polyethylene-tere-phthalate – PET. Pure PET is rigid and opaque due to the formation of dispersed micro crystals. In order to make clear PET bottles, a certain amount of iso-phthalic acid or similarly angled 1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol is used to replace a percentage of tere-phthalic acid or ethylene glycol respectively; thereby, forcing random bends in the chemical chains of the PET and preventing the formation of micro crystals. Just to be absolutely clear, iso-phthalic acid and 1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol are not additives, they are chemically bonded into the PET chains as copolymers – PET does not contain plasticizers.

Adipate plasticizers – Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, DEHA, is an example of a very popular adipate plasticizer that is used in a wide variety of plastic products.2 Food wrap films contain about 25% by weight of DEHA. Adipate plasticizers are considerably less toxic than ortho-pthalates; however, there is evidence in rats that DEHA can disrupt fetal development.4 DEHA is not inherent in PET plastic as raw material, by product, or decomposition product.

1 National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) Frequently Asked Questions (Referenced 12/14/07)
2 Wikipedia – Plasticizers (Referenced 01/30/09)
3 Wikipedia – Phthalates (Referenced 01/30/09)
4 Wikipedia – Dibutyl phthalate (Referenced 01/30/09)
5 Preliminary Report – On The Safety of Medical Devices Containing DEHP-plasticized PVC or Other Plasticizers on Neonates and Other Groups Possibly at Risk. European Commission - Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Plenary Session June 21-22, 2007
6 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Referenced 01/30/09)
7 Prohibition on the Sale of Certain Products Containing Specified Phthalates, Section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 11/14/08 (Referenced 01/30/09)
Bisphenol-A (BPA) Bisphenol-A (BPA) has nothing whatever to do with PET. — BPA was first synthesized by A.P. Dianin in 1891 and was studied during the 1930s as a possible nonsteroidal estrogen, but diethylstilbestrol (DES), which has been linked to cancer and birth defects, was considered more promising.1,2 BPA is not used to make PET plastics, nor is it used as a starting material to make any of the materials used in the manufacture of PET. However, BPA has been used for many years to make a wide variety of other plastic materials, for example: 1) As an antioxidant in plasticizers, 2) As a polymerization inhibitor in PVC, 3) To make the epoxy resins that line nearly all metal food and beverage cans, including liquid and powdered infant formula; and 4) As the monomer that is polymerized to make polycarbonate (PC) plastic, one of the plastics with a recycle number of "7".3

PC is made by polymerizing BPA in the presence of sodium hydroxide (a strong caustic) and phosgene. All manner of food and beverage containers are made from PC, many of them intended for reuse; however, caustics and even hot water can reverse the polymerization of PC to release BPA.4,5 This is reason for serious concern, because these are the very conditions used to wash and sanitize PC products. Many widely used dish washing detergents and sanitizers, like sodium hypochlorite (bleach), are caustic. Moreover, people often fill their PC bottles with hot drinks, coffee for example.


By and large, recent literature on low-doses effects of BPA seem to split between industry-funded studies that find no significant reasons for concern and publicly funded studies that find plenty of reasons for alarm.6,7 There is a wealth of animal studies demonstrating adverse genetic and endocrine effects at extremely low concentrations – effects that may last for many generations.2,8,9,10 In April of 2008, Health Canada and the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued reports describing BPA as dangerous.11,12,13 The NIH concluded that for the most part people in developed countries have measurable blood, tissue, and urine levels of BPA, levels which exceed the low levels known to cause biological changes in animals. Research, just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, demonstrates a significant association between higher urinary levels of PBA and cardiovascular problems, diabetes, and liver changes.14 For all of these reasons, businesses are moving to discontinue the use and sales of PC bottles and US and Canadian governmental agencies are considering restrictions on the use of BPA.15-22

On October 18, 2008, the Canadian Government listed BPA as a toxic substance and announced it would immediately proceed with drafting regulations to prohibit the importation, sale and advertising of bottles containing bisphenol A and limit the amount released into the environment.23 On October 31, 2008, FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach announced that an FDA-commisioned panel of scientific experts was sharply critical of the FDA's August report that BPA is safe at current levels found in plastic food containers. The panel accused the FDA of relying too heavily on studies funded by the chemical industry and failing to support its conclusion with scientific evidence.24 In May of 2009, manufacturers of cans for beverages and foods and some of their biggest customers, including Coca-Cola, met to devise a strategy to block looming government bans of BPA. The plan appears to call for hiring a pregnant model to tour the country extoling the virtues of BPA. 25


1 Dianin AP. Zhurnal russkogo fiziko-khimicheskogo obshchestva.1891; vol. 23: pg. 492.
2 Wikipedia – Bisphenol-A (Referenced 12/12/07)
3 Wikipedia – Diethylstilbestrol (Referenced 12/12/07)
4 Wikipedia – Polycarbonate (Referenced 12/12/07)
5 Lea HA, Carlsona EM, Chuaa JP, and Belcher SM – Bisphenol A is released from polycarbonate drinking bottles and mimics the neurotoxic actions of estrogen in developing cerebellar neurons Toxicology Letters. 2007; vol 176 (Issue 2):pgs.149-156
6 vom Saal FS, Hughes C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; vol.113 (Issue 8): pgs. 926-33. PMID 16079060. (Referenced 12/15/07)
7 vom Saal FS, Hughes C. Bisphenol A: vom Saal and Hughes Respond. Environ Health Perspect. 2006; vol.114(Issue1): pgs.A16-A17
8 Hunt P, et al. Bisphenol A Exposure Causes Meiotic Aneuploidy in the Female Mouse, Current Biology. 2003; vol.13: pgs.546-553
9 Colborn T, et al. Our Stolen Future: How We Are Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival-- A Scientific Detective Story. Plume Press 1997, (ISBN 0452274141)
10 Richter CA, et al. Estradiol and Bisphenol A Stimulate Androgen Receptor and Estrogen Receptor Gene Expression in Fetal Mouse Prostate Mesenchyme Cells. Environ Health Perspect. 2007; vol.115(Issue 6): pgs. 902-908
11 Mittelstaed M. Canada first to label bisphenol A as officially dangerous. Globe and Mail 04/15/08 (Referrenced 04/15/08)
12 Draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A. 04/14/2008; The Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Referrenced 04/15/08)
13 NTP-CERHR Expert Panel Report on the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Bisphenol A. The Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Referrenced 04/15/08)
14Lang, IA, et al. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. JAMA. 2008; vol 300(11): pgs1303-1310 (Referrenced 09/19/08)
15 Recalls & Safety Alerts: A new focus on plastic ingredient in bottles and cans. Consumer Reports May 2008, pages 10-11
16 Weisbaum H. Group Warns of Chemical Found in Cans of Baby Formula. KPIC Channel 4 11/26/07
17 Black D, Gillespie K. Call for ban on chemical in baby bottles, Toronto Star, Nov 21, 2007 (Referrenced12/18/07)
18 Fillion R. Deep Rock pulls its plastic jugs – Company cites chemical linked to cancer in animals. Rocky Mountain News 12/01/07
19 Sibonney C. Canadian retail chain pulls plastic water bottles. CanadianPlastics.com 11/26/07
20 Mittelstaed M. NationalMountain Equipment pulls water bottles off shelves – Country's largest specialty outdoor-goods retailer cites concern over possible health risks. Globe and Mail 12/07/07 (Referrenced12/20/07)
21Nurwisah, R. Lululemon pulls bottles containing bisphenol A off shelves. National Post 12/18/07 (Referrenced12/20/07)
22 Some retailers removing BPA bottles. The Canadian Press 04/15/2008 (Referrenced 04/15/08)
23 Canada adds bisphenol A to toxic list. The Star 10/18/2008 (Referrenced 10/18/08)
24 Favole J. Review Reignites Questions Over BPA. The Wall Street Journal 10/31/2008 (Referrenced 10/31/08)
25 Layton L. Strategy Being Devised To Protect Use of BPA. The Washington Post 05/31/2009 (Referrenced 05/31/09)
Additives
Antioxidants
Slip additives
Antimicrobials
. . .
 		Better-Bottle PET carboys and fittings are made without problem additives. — Many other plastics that are used to mold bottles and fittings contain additives to protect the polymers during processing and use, as well as to enhance performance. To list a few, there are: antioxidant additives, including UV blocking additives, to prevent parts from degrading; slip additives to prevent parts from sticking together and to molds; nucleating additives to speed production and improve clarity; antifogging additives to make surfaces more wetable; antimicrobial additives; and coloring additives. Depending on the plastic and the additives, there is the potential for the additives to leach into, and/or react with beverages.
Dioxins There are no Dioxins in PET and none are formed if PET is burned.1,2 — There is absolutely no truth to the Internet-circulated rumors that dioxins can be leached from PET bottles when they are frozen. Dioxins are chlorine-containing chemicals and PET contains no chlorine. Dioxins are a group of chemicals, which include 75 different chlorinated molecules of dibenzo-p-dioxin and 135 chlorinated dibenzofurans. Some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also are referred to as dioxin-like compounds. These substances can be inadvertently produced during the bleaching of pulp and manufacturing of pesticides, like Agent Orange, and other chlorinated aromatics; however, dioxins are also produced by burning of materials containing chlorine. Natural fires and volcanic eruptions were producing dioxins before modern chemistry came along. But, burning large amounts of chlorinated plastics, like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) certainly increase the levels of dioxins in the environment. According to Rolf Halden, Ph.D., burning chlorinated plastics in a back yard fire can put out as much, or more, dioxin as a full-sized incinerator burning hundreds of tons of refuse per day.2 The incinerators are equipped with state-of-the-art emission controls that limit dioxin formation and their release into the environment.

1 National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) Frequently Asked Questions (Referenced 12/14/07)
2 Halden R. Researcher Dispels Myth of Dioxins and Plastic Water Bottles. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Public Health News Center, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205 (Referenced 12/14/07)
Antimony The leaching of Antimony (Sb) from PET has been blown out of proportion. — Antimony oxides (primarily antimony trioxide) are used as fire retardants for plastics, textiles, rubber, adhesives, pigments, and paper. Antimony trioxide is also used as a catalyst in the production of CSD (carbonated soft drink) types of PET, which are typically used to make small bottles that are intended for single use. Catalysts are substances that act in very small concentrations to promote chemical reactions by lowering energy barriers for a chemical reaction; they do not become part of the product, except as possible trace contaminants. Dr. Bill Shotyk, who had been studying Sb concentrations in polar snow and ice at concentrations of a few parts per trillion, found traces of Sb in single-serve, PET bottled water and concluded that it was not advisable to use PET containers to store his samples. Dr. Shotyk examined 12 brands of natural waters from Canada and three brands of deionized water and determined that they contained 156+/- 86 ppt Sb and 162+/- 30 ppt Sb respectively.1 The news media, not always the most reliable group of scientific journals, have picked up on what Dr. Shotyk reported and attached attention-grabbing headlines. It is important to give this issue some scientific perspective:
  1. One part per trillion (ppt) is the equivalent of 1 second in about 32,000 years.
  2. A part per million is 1000 times greater than a part per billion (ppb), which is 1000 times greater than a part per trillion (ppt).
  3. The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a drinking water level of 20 ppb (20,000 ppt) and the European Food Safety Authority has established a food level of 40 ppb (40,000 ppt).2
  4. US, Canadian, and European standards accept 5-6 ppb (5000-6000 ppt) levels in drinking water.3
  5. It is so difficult to measure levels of Sb in foods and beverages at levels of less than 1 ppb that there is almost no data; however, according to a January 2000 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, the average concentration of Sb in meats, vegetables, and seafood is 0.2 to 1.1 ppb (200-1100 ppt).4
On average, an adult takes in approximately 7.44 ug (7,440,000 trillionths of a gram) of Sb each day. About 38% of this intake would be expected to come from the consumption of water, typically municipal supplies. The contribution to this average from PET bottles is negligible.5

1 Shotyk W, Krachler M, Chen B. Contamination of Canadian and European bottled waters with antimony from PET containers. J Environ Monit. 2006; vol.8: pgs. 288-292
2 Antimony in drinking-water. Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality 2003). Geneva, World Health Organization (WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/74).
3 Ground Water & Drinking Water: Consumer Factsheet on: ANTIMONY. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); November 28th, 2006 (Referenced 12/14/07)
4 Technology Transfer Network - Air Toxics Web Site: Antimony Compounds (7440-36-0). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); November 6th, 2007 (Referenced 12/14/07)
5 Water Quality and Health - Antimony: Exposure. Health Canada. Date Modified: 2007-12-17 (Referenced 12/17/07)

Szilvia Keresztes, Enikő Tatár, Victor G. Mihucz, István Virág, Cornelia Majdik and Gyula Záray, Leaching of antimony from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles into mineral water, Science of The Total Environment: Volume 407, Issue 16, 1 Pages 4731-4735, August 2009

Paul Westerhoff, Panjai Prapaipong, Everett Shock and Alice Hillaireau, Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water, Water Research: Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 551-556, February 2008,

William Shotyk* and Michael Krachler, Contamination of Bottled Waters with Antimony Leaching from Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Increases upon Storage, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, 41 (5), pp 1560–1563



PET and our Planet – Debunking Urban Legends
Is Glass Greener? Glass is not better for the environment than PET. — Various authorities, such as the National Geographic Green Guide have repeated a claim that appears to have been made first by Sheela.R.Chunkath, a writer for The Hindu (July of 2001), “Producing a 500 ml PET bottle generates more than 100 times the toxic emissions to air and water than making the same size bottle out of glass.”1,2 This statement is wildly incorrect. It takes between 43.6-99.2 MJ (12.1- 27.5 Kilowatt hours) to make a 6 gallon (22.7 L), 24 pounds (10.9 Kg) glass carboy, depending on the scale and efficiency of the glass plant producing them, and only 25.1 MJ (7 Kilowatt hours) to make a 6 gallon (22.7 L), 1.5 pounds (0.68 Kg) Better-Bottle carboy.3,4 This means that the glass carboys require 173%-395% more energy to produce than the Better-Bottle carboy. Moreover, the extra energy cost of glass does not stop with production: 1) Glass carboys require 16 times more energy to transport than Better-Bottle carboys; 2) Glass carboys require 2-3 times more packaging to protect them during shipment; and 3) The energy saving for reheating recycled glass is only about 40%, with the result that in many markets recycled glass is hardly worth sorting, grinding, and transporting ($20-$40/ton). Very few municipal recycling services will pick up large glass carboys. In Florida, recycled glass is being turned back into sand for beaches.5

1 Chunkath, S.R. Hazardous Hues: Plastic vs. Glass. The Hindu, July of 2001 (Referenced 03/20/08)
2 Plastic Containers – The Backstory. National Geographic: Green Guide (Referenced 03/20/08)
3 Gerngross. T.U. and Slater, S.C. How Green are Green Plastics? Scientific American Aug 2000. (Referenced 03/20/08)
4 Benefits of Recycling to the Glass Manufacturer (Special focus on UK). GlassTec Topic of the Month – April 2008 (Referenced 04/10/08)
5 Costello, P.J. Saving Florida’s Bikinis. RecyclingBizz.Com, 09/12/07 (Referenced 03/20/08)