Talk:Biodegradable plastic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Google test 2 Merge 3 Importance 4 Biodegradation 5 Contradiction 6 Irrelevant "Environmental Concerns" section

[edit] Google test

[edit] Merge

Merge to Bioplastics? How can you merge a product to manufacture bioplastics into bioplastics?

Well I got confused (still am a bit) why are there different articles for bioplastic and biodegradeable plastic. there should at least be links to each article from the other with explainations if there is a reason that they aren't merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbdougl (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

This article can help reduce the landfills in 1-5 years. No other product can do that without leaching into the groundwater and have a true environmental impact.

[edit] Biodegradation

Please explain your "opinions" on the Bio-Batch work, as well as your "opinion" on biodegradation.

According to ASTM 5511 ASTM 5338 as well as the ISO 14001.

Thank you, ASTM 6400 is a unique test made only for industrial composting facilities that do not exist in numbers in the US. Also Composting is much different then Biodegradation, you can look this up in any dictionary, and if rightfully so, then PLA and PSM do not fit in this category of composting and should be labelled as Industrial Composting Only.

Biodegradation is The breakdown of organic materials into simpler components by microorganisms, composting is also the breakdown of organic materials into simpler components by microorganisms and hence composting is a form of biodegradation. The Bio-Batch article reads like an advert for the Bio-Batch technology and the links you have inserted into articles such as biodegradation read very much like spam. I suggest you tweak your article to be NPOV and place links to the Bio-Batch website where it is relevant- i.e. bioplastics and on the Bio-Batch article. A link to the Bio-Batch website is not appropriate on the biodegradation article. --Alex 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The biogradation article has several sentences that are the same or very similar to sentences in this one paragraph source: http://www.bio-tec.biz/biobatch.html . Is it a copyright violation? Or did the original contributor perchance write both sources? Cardamon 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a direct connection between one and the other. Perhaps we can be enlightened ? Mrs Trellis 18:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an article stub created by removing of an article which was clearly advertising by User:Callsign. Anyone that has a technical knowledge of biodegradable plastics and are able to provide differentiation with bioplastic, unbiasedly, would be very welcome! Alex 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The main disadvantage with oil-based biodegradable plastics is that their degradation contributes to global warming through the release of carbon dioxide as a main end product. This does not apply to starch based plastics as they are formed from carbon which is already in the ecosystem (via photosynthesis).

Unless someone can cite this it doesn't make scientific sense because oil based plastics were formed from oils, formed from animals which ate plants and so the carbon from the oil came from plants and from photosynthesis, so any carbon dioxide release will be long overdue by millions of years... would also have come from the ecosystem.Tourskin 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that does make some sense. (No, I did not write it.) First, let's consider a simpler question. Why does pumping oil out of the ground and then burning it cause the amount of CO2 in the air to increase, while growing plants and then burning them doesn't? Most oil that is pumped out of the ground would have stayed there for many millions of years if it had not been pumped. So, burning oil puts carbon (in carbon dioxide) into the air that would not have been in either the air or the ecosystem had the oil not been pumped out of the ground. On the other hand, burning plants just returns carbon dioxide to the air that the plants originally took from the air using photosynthesis; thus it makes little long term difference to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. (In the short run, growing plants and storing them for a while temporarily removes carbon dioxide from the air.) If the plastic really is biodegraded by aerobic respiration by bacteria, as the author of the passage is assuming, the end result will be as if it had been burned. So the only questionable thing is whether all these plastics really are biodegraded by aerobic respiration. Cardamon 07:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

in order for anything to biodegrade by science standards you will create either CO2 or CH4, depending on if it is Anearobic or Aerobic biodegradation. The person siting this makes no sense. PHA's PHB's PLA's Oil Based, PCL's, PBS's, yada yada all create CH4 or CO2, or they are not biodegrading. User:Callsign —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant "Environmental Concerns" section

The "Environmental Concerns" section seems irrelevant to this article, at least as it is currently worded. It appears to refer to plastics in general, not Biodegradable plastics in particular. Perhaps it should be reworded or removed completely.