The TimePlast Solution

TimePlast introduces an encapsulated solvent at a molecular level, targeting the links between the polymer chain.

The plastic is doomed to degradation from its inception, regardless if it is tossed into a landfill, into the ocean or even into orbit in outer space; for that matter our additive does not require soil bacteria, oxygen, water or any other conventional variable for the degradation of plastic; everything we do, we do it chemically.

Our technology partially dissolves the covalent bonds in the polymer chain during the manufacturing process of any plastic product through Oxidation and Solvation.

The altered plastic is not biodegradable but Nano-degraded, reducing it's chemical lifespan while marking by substitution the weak points of the chain with bio-based Carbon; all of this with the solely purpose of the broken chain not being longer than paraffin wax's.

In other words, we break down plastic into smaller chains that are held together by a bio-based Carbon chain, while using the energy from the meting process in the manufacturing to induce depolymerization through Oxidation and Solvation; then the oxygen and solvent in our propietary liquid attack the Carbonyl group starting in most cases at the tertiary Carbon. At the end of this process the conventional cooling phase of any plastic product's manufacturing system will stop this reaction.

We don't mask the problem, we degrade the plastic during the manufacturing process in order for it to be degraded from day 1.



IF these guys are already lying by saying they have the only US patent (look up patents US8222316, US8026301, US20100120308, US3941759 – and there are more) and that even the harshest chemicals cannot break down plastic (put a try to fill a PS foam cup with toluene and see what happens), do you trust their other claims?

By the way, this question came from an ENSO plastics personnel when one of our partners approached them.

All of these patents are for the biodegradation of plastic, not the actual chemical degradation of plastic. We don't rely on Nature to do our job, everything we do, we do it chemically at the manufacturing process, a totally new approach. Also all of these patents are based on thin layers of plastic, not an actual plastic piece, and that's how it became a nice experiment, however real applications are close to be illegal (

About the foam cup, you don't need such an strong solvent like Toluene, Acetone will do. Our quote talks about hydrofluoric acid and Polyethylene. We're very specific, by the way our quote is from Breaking Bad, the TV series, there's a moment in which Walter White explains to Jessy Pinkman that Hydrofluoric Acid can't dissolve plastic, however can dissolve rock, metal, and ceramic.

One thing is to dissolve plastic, another is to turn it into wax. Big difference. You might wonder, could you do that to a polystyrene foam cup with Toluene? No you could not. 

Basically why hasn’t it been done up til now?

The main reason why something like this wasn't invented before can be defined in two facts; First, most of the scientific research for over 70 years related to polymers has always been focused on how to make plastic better and stronger, not weaker, and we saw it as an opportunity because it's a very innovative perspective. Second of all the "Sustainable" approaches to the plastic pollution issue have been directed to make plastic "biodegradable" something that simply can't happen, plastic is plastic, it will never be biodegradable, not even bio-based plastic, that's why Nature Works, one of the biggest manufacturers of bio-based plastics publicly admitted that their plastics won't biodegrade; instead of following the same idea, we don't leave the job of degrading the plastic to nature, we degrade the plastic chemically from the manufacturing process, something that Nature would otherwise be required to do. We don't make the plastic biodegradable either, we turn the polymer into something that's not plastic anymore, we convert it into wax, and wax is in fact biodegradable. A whole new approach. 

What has been the biggest challenges in creating this additive?

The two biggest challenges we had were related to the amount of iterations needed to fine tune the solvation and oxidation processes without losing the typical commercial quality properties in plastic, basically it's very difficult to disintegrate 98% of a material without making it lose its integrity. And the second biggest challenge was to obtain the first and only patent approved by the USPTO on the degradation of plastic, something not even the biggest petrochemical companies have managed to obtain. 

What happens to bottles once consumers have used them? 

It doesn't matter if they end up in the ocean, a landfill, the top of the Everest or even outer space, Timeplast-altered bottles will be 98% already degraded, chemically most of the bottle will be wax from day 1. Being precise, its lifespan will be only 2.21% of regular plastic's lifespan. 

Can they be recycled alongside standard PET bottles?

Yes, and not only our bottles can be recycled, but they actually improve the recycling stream because a Timeplast-altered plastic is essentially a depolymerized version of its mother chain, meaning less cross-links, less density, lower melting points, and overall a virgin-resin-like plastic. 
This person had a great point with respect to degradable technologies, the question is just misleading because we're not a degradable technology. 

Our technology creates a chemical disintegration that happens at the manufacturing process, and we have all the evidence independently certified for all those processes, plus the first and only USPTO-approved Patent on it. We will also perform a mass spectrometry test in your actual product, so the Nano-Degradation can be actually seen beyond any reasonable doubt. 

The following is very important; there's a huge legal difference in saying something will happen in the future than saying something already happened. That's how we differentiate ourselves so much from others so-called biodegradable technologies; because one thing is to say this "will biodegrade" than to say this "is already degraded" 

One branch of the government already approved our technology. The FTC will never get into our business because we have a valid claim irrefutable from start, we are not misleading the general consumer stating that something will happen in the future, that will in fact not. 

If you sell a pill claiming that "the person that takes it will lose 50lb in 6 months", the FTC will eventually have a problem with that claim if that person doesn't lose those pounds in exactly that time, however if you sell a pill claiming that "it tastes like cinnamon", and it does, the FTC will never have a problem with you because, again, you're not misleading the general consumer of your product. 

About the recycling stream we have a test that proves how our plastic increases the quality after being melted and reintroduced. We're not a degradable technology like the person in this question mentions, we're a Nano-technology that reengineers plastic without any biological mechanism needed. 

It's actually very easy to understand, we have a proprietary liquid that when put in contact with plastic it turns it into wax. There's not a biodegradable, oceanic, or any bio mechanism involved in our claim, everything we claim we do it chemically. 

Do you have all the data needed to back up the claims and keep you off the radar of the FTC? – Especially as it relates to the degradability and environmental claims. All the information I have seen regarding degradables indicate they definitely affect the recycle stream due to the reduced chain length with heat cycles and APR has spoken out directly against degradable technologies.

There's nothing similar between the oxo-degradable technology and our technology. 

Oxo-biodegradable additives use a component that's in fact biodegradable, and other enzymes that stimulate further biodegradation inside a soil rich in water, oxygen and bacteria, breaking down plastic . He's somewhat right in one part, the oxo-bio technologies shorten the plastic length if biodegradation is achieved, from big plastic pieces to microscopic plastic pieces. The actual polymer length remains the same. 

Our technology uses solvation and oxidation to shorten the polymer chain, from the full polymer length to paraffin wax. Wax is way, way shorter than plastic's core molecules or polymer chain, and we do it by breaking down the Carbon-to-Carbon-covalent bond, the strongest bond in plastic. We brake it, Oxo-bio waits for nature to brake it, big difference. Our sister company Zero Plast which was just recently created, turns plastic into wax using the same liquid, but in seconds, so we built a device that turns any plastic into biodegradable wax, without burning plastic (pyrolysis) and at 100% mass rate. 

Is using a liquid to turn any plastic into Biodegradable wax also similar to the oxo-biodegradable technology according to the logic of the person who asked this question?

Do you realize it is very similar to oxo-degradable additives? It has a different formulation, but the mechanism is the same. It creates weak links and shortened polymer chains that make it more susceptible to oxidize (fragment). 

They state that they don’t fragment the plastic, but that is exactly what is happening to lower the molecular weight of the plastic and ultimately turn it into a wax. No different than the oxo guys. 

This is absolutely not true. The "oxo guys" never turn plastic into wax. 
There's no other route to address the plastic pollution issue. 

The "natural route" would be using bio-based plastic?  Please know that one of the biggest manufacturers of PLA (corn starch based plastic) Nature Works (own by Cargill) publicly admitted that their plastic won't biodegrade in landfill conditions, bio-based doesn't mean biodegradable. Bio-based achieves the same chemical structure as regular plastic in order for it to have the same quality, and it will contribute to the main reason why plastic is such a huge problem, because it never goes away. Bio-based plastic has a much higher holistic Carbon footprint, the process to distill glycol from corn is tremendously energy-dependent, plus increases the demand on a food source in a planet with millions of people suffering from food scarcity, and in my humble opinion trying to save the environment while turning our back into the global food scarcity issue is hypocritical. 

Studies show you can never meet fossil-based demand with a bio-based source, and you can't substitute high quality plastic like Nylon, ABS, Polystyrene and others. 

Personally, I prefer to go the natural route and work with natural processes rather than disintegrate the plastic chemically. 

Again totally not true, doing a small exercise we could tell that this comment doesn't resist the minimum argumentation, for example; if that statement is true, why is it that we own the only patent on the degradation of plastic? 

The following is from

"Patents are awarded on three basic criteria. An invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious. The first and third criteria are fairly straight forward. For instance, I wouldn't be able to patent a cell phone, as it's already been invented. Also, I couldn't paint my cell phone blue and have it patented, as that would not make it a sufficiently novel invention. But how about the useful requirement? 

Following are a few explanations of the "useful" criteria:

"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness; that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."

"To be patentable, an invention must be "useful." This requirement is known in patent law as utility. There are three "types" of utility that appear in precedent: together, they form the notion of "utility" as it is applied by the Patent Office.

General utility is the notion that a patentable invention must "do something." It must have a useful function of some kind. In practice, it is not difficult to find a function for an invention: an invention can be purely entertaining and still be useful.

Specific utility refers to the ability of the invention to perform its function. It is the most commonly invoked form of utility. The specific utility doctrine is used to invalidate inventions such as perpetual motion machines, which may have a formal function but which are highly unlikely to fulfill that function."

If the Oxo-biodegradable or any other Biodegradable technology and Timeplast are the same, why they never got approved in the past? Why do they have patents pending for years and years and we got approved in 5 months?

If this statement is true, why there's no such thing as the "perpetual motion machine patent approved"? However many patent applications for this device are submitted each year. If they "don't need to work" how come they never get approved? 

How come the Wright brothers were the first ones in obtaining a patent for the airplane 400 years after Leonardo Davinci invented the warp wing? Because they were the first to make it fly. 

There are two types of patents, incremental patents, and transformational patents. The differences between the two are:

Incremental patents:

Fairly simple to obtain because of the fact that is based on an invention that nobody has shown interest in the past in patenting, it's very very specific, the claims are narrow, not ambitious, and there are not historic applicants after the same claim. An example would be the patent US3427335A, let's look at the name of this patent "Double metal cyanides complexed with an acyclic aliphatic saturated monoether,an ester and a cyclic ether and methods for making the same..."

See how specific is the name of the patent? So the probability of someone had worked in the past in the same invention is very low. 

Transformational patents:

These patents are very hard to obtain because thousands of applicants are after the same patent, years go by and many of the applicants never get a patent on it, it seems impossible to obtain. The patent examiner knows that there were many inventions looking to obtain the same claim, so he's particularly careful not to approve it unless he's completely sure it fulfills the three requirements by law, one of them is that it has to actually make irrefutable sense in terms of science. Patent examiners are not only lawyers, they're highly respectable pHDs, doctors, and extremely educated in the field of the invention. 

Another key element to identify a transformational patent is based on the fact that an entire industry can be founded on it. It opens the door for many other inventions based on it. 

And most of all, Very often it's a very simple And elegant solution to a very complex problem. Example of these types of patents: 
Our patent, let's see the name of our patent:

"Composition for the degradation of plastic" 

It's very simple right? Is there a possibility that many others tried to patent such a non-specific invention before? How come we're the only one? 

Just FYI - contrary to what they claim, a patent does NOT mean that a technology works. That is not a requirement to obtain a patent you know?

What life cycle analysis has been done to validate claims?

We have a Woods End's independent study performed by their Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Will Brinton, in which it shows that TimePlast's plastic lost 36% of its weight each 32 days without any biogas correlation (no greenhouse emissions) validating that our technology doesn't require soil bacteria, water or oxygen to degrade.

What is the measurable impact of this product on carbon footprint vs traditional PET?

65.175% reduction of Plastic's Carbon Footprint. The results from Woods End are the basis for the didactic chemistry displayed in our website that validates the Carbon Footprint reduction.

What studies validate that this product does not impact the protective properties of PET?

We have a certified independent test from Datapoint Labs Technical Center for Materials, in which is shown that TimePlast altered plastic has the same Tensile and Flexural properties as virgin plastic. However we understand that all of our potential customers would want to perform their own tests on an actual product, this is the ultimate way to test our technology, specially because Timeplast is not a generic solution, it's a tailor-made application that could dramatically change from one type of plastic to another. For this matter having tests for all types of plastic is not practical for us as a company at this stage. 

What other formal studies/ analysis have been done with Timeplast?

We have several certified independent studies; the most important one shows what happens when our technology is in contact with plastic at the standard-in-the-industry temperature and pressure during the manufacturing process. The results showed that our technology turns 100% of the polymer chain into wax, ergo, the ability to pre-degrade plastic when it's being manufactured.

From our side two main applications come to my mind initially, later they could be more. As PET bottles, or multilayer PET / PA bottles. We also could be interested in retort pouches, which can be made as you know from PET, PP, PA or PE besides Al layer of course. What approach do you recommend us to test your solution on these applications? Next steps?

There would be 3 next steps:

1) Production Validation: We'll set our tailored delivery system to your selected manufacturing facility, to do a run test, in order to examine the required absolute compatibility between every channel of operation, including software and mechanical systems. For this first step you would require a small sample purchase order for testing. 

2) Quality Validation: The test run will also serve to produce a sample batch of your product(s) that will be used to test each and every quality variable such products must have to meet your company's standards. 

3) Nano-Degradation Validation: We will order a  test from a internationally-recognized and accredited independent laboratory, so we can certify exactly what happens when our proprietary liquid is in contact with your specific polymer structure at the precise temperature and pressure which your manufacturing process works on. This way your company will have the ability to claim irrefutably the green label our technology provides. The results will demonstrate that the plastic is broken down to a Carbon-to-Carbon level, and that it is absolutely achievable at your specific manufacturing process and with your specific plastic products. 

When you explain your solution is intended to be dosed in the point of formation, does it mean in the polymerization step, before getting the polymer resin? Or could it be added in the processing, for instance at injection molding?

Yes, at the injection molding or blow molding process. Please check the Tab "Timeplast Installed" at

In case we wanted to move forward taking into the scope the PET bottles and multi-polymer retort pouches, should the roadmap to be followed still be designed or by contrast do you already have experience on how to proceed and which steps should be done?

​Also, Could we have a first estimation in terms of 1)  cost, 2) timeline and 3) requirements from our side to fulfill the validation process?

The first step will be ordering a small sample from us, we would set up the entire system and we would take care of everything in regards to the 3 steps described before. The cost of this first step is negligible.


TimePlast will take care of all costs implied in the sampling and Validation process, unless an exclusive agreement is on the table. The purchase order needed is only a formality.


From the moment the PO has taken place and the technical information we require has cleared, it'll take 2 to 3 weeks for the first step A.K.A. "Production Validation" to finalize. The goal is to have our delivery system (hardware and software wise) in optimal terms already in your facility.

Step 2 "Quality Validation": This timeline is entirely up to your company, it involves the performing of the quality tests you regularly do on your products in order for them to meet your standards. This time said quality tests will be done on altered-by-TimePlast products (EX. water bottles). The goal is to have an undistinguished line of water bottles in terms of quality after we introduce our technology. 

Step 3 "Nano-degradation Validation": this step will take from 1 to 2 months. Our goal is to have a certified study from an independent-internationally-accredited laboratory (Like Avomeen Laboratories) in which we shall set clear the most solid and scientifically sound evidence of what happens at your specific manufacturing facilities every time our proprietary technology is in contact with your specific product at the precise point of formation. The results will demonstrate that the end Plastic is disintegrated down to a Carbon-to-Carbon level, which is exactly our claim. 

Requirements from your side will be:

A) Location selected to perform the pilot testing/water bottles manufacturing facility. This is for logistics purposes. 

B) Manufacturing heat signatures (we have a good idea just by knowing it's blow-molding, but we would have to take into consideration additional information if there's an unconventional melting/softening temperature) 

C) Expected Shelf life of your water bottles.

D) Additional information in case you use additives to improve PET performance that contain a different polymer chain (other than PET), we would have to take that into consideration as well. 

When talking about Timeplast product, do we talk about just one single reference, or is there a portfolio depending on the application or intended use?

We have a portfolio of products, that are tailored to our customers' specific requirements, going from shell-life, polymer chain targeted, heat signatures during the manufacturing process and others.  

Timeplast product, is it correct to be considered as a master-batch? When is it intended to be “inserted” into the polymer, in the polymerization phase, during processing (injection moulding, etc…) or either of them is convenient?

We provide a complete end-to-end solution. The optimal presentation and use of our technology comes in a way of computerized-cloud-connected delivery system, in which we control the doses of our liquid proprietary product through a gravimetric approach in the point of formation (carefully selected depending on each specific process). Quality control is measured through black lighting, which provides a specific-spectrum reference in a way of Timeplast-Hue-only-Green luminescence, thanks to the use of a tailored optical brightener. 

Once the level of our liquid technology is nearing a low level, the system automatically sends TimePlast a message to deliver a new drum to the customer, and the old drum will be replaced by a simple unplug-and-plug process. If there's some liquid left on the drum, we will provide credit for the next drum. 

We have partnered up with Maguire ( for the delivery system and with Riverdale Global ( for the manufacturing of the additive in order for us to have mass production and global reach.  

There is no additional cost for the infrastructure required. We take care of everything, from the cost of the delivery system, to the installation, and subsequent maintenance. Unless there's an exclusive agreement on the table. 

We charge by 1000 pounds treated. One pound of our technology is equivalent to 1000 pounds of your plastic being reengineered. 

When considering polymer degradation, which has been found to be latest end product or type of product after the chain of reactions to take place? What kind of residue is expected to be found after full degradation?

The process of degradation happens in the manufacturing process, we degrade the plastic from day 1. In nature the wax-based material will be only separated at a rate that allows its absorption as soil or ocean Carbon uptake. During our tests in Woods End Laboratories, the plastic disintegrated itself without any biogas production. That's why our carbon footprint is much smaller. 

PET as material of choice for bottled water industry is our main concern. Have you already tested on modified PET-Timeplast product key properties as sturdiness, tenacity, optical properties, gas barrier properties?

Yes. We performed over 1200 tests before obtaining the patent, with almost all plastics currently being commercialized, in all cases Timeplast doesn't alter any of Plastic targeted quality properties. However we order new tests with our potential customer's actual polymer chain and its particularities, so there won't be generic tests, but specific tests done for your product. Once we start working, we will take note of your requirements in terms of testing, and then we will have them done through and independent laboratory.

Can Timeplast product be applied to PET, PA, PP, PE, or any other packaging involved polymer without restrictions?

Yes, all of them. Without restrictions. 

Degradation with Timeplast product is explained to occur under anaerobic conditions. Does presence of oxygen affect to the mechanism? How can other environment conditions affect (e.g. different climates according to geographical areas,…) to the degradation process?

We performed an anaerobic test because there are no standardized tests for a technology like ours, and the anaerobic test it's the most difficult test to pass in terms of biodegradation, given the fact that it is done without oxygen and at a relatively cold temperature. That test showed our plastic disintegrated, and lost its weight without any biogas correlation, which confirms that our technology doesn't require soil bacteria, water or any biological or environmental mechanism to be converted into carbon uptake. Our technology is not designed for anaerobic or any biodegradation-related process whatsoever, all of the degradation occurs chemically during the manufacturing process. Again, we had to use that test because there are no standardized tests for our technology, however the results were groundbreaking because now we can be sure that no matter if Timeplast's plastic ends up the ocean or even in outer space, because it will disintegrate itself, just like intended. 

In terms of recyclability, it is claimed that “Timeplast-modified products” may be included in the recycling stream without restrictions. Has this innovative solution been applied to APR in the States or EPBP in Europe to get a positive assessment?

We're a new technology, for that matter we still haven't partnered up with any recycling organization to obtain assessments. However we know for a fact that using Riverdale's carrier the plastic targeted not only maintains its quality properties, but actually improves them. So recycling of a Timeplast product will only have a positive impact in the recycling stream. In terms of recycling we have to light up the fact that our technology works at 0.1% and up to 90% of that small percentage phases out during the manufacturing process. 

We designed the entire solution seeing the plastic industry as a whole, that's why our application is absolutely feasible. 

Once our additive kicks-in, the carrier is programmed to maintain its concentration and reactivity until the last heating signature, after which it'll phase out using that same energy, ultimately breaking down the Carbon-to-Carbon covalent bonds and leaving no trace in the end product. 

Has the additive technology been tested to prove the process actually works (in the lab, as well as at scale)?

We’ve tested through independent and accredited laboratories all of the claims in our technology. The carbon footprint reduction, the disintegration with no biological mechanism requirement, the potential to fully turn plastic into wax, the disrupting of 1 out of every 4 Carbon atoms in the chain through a loss in 25% of Izod Notched impact resistance just by altering 0.01% of the mass in plastic, and finally the ability to make all of these alterations without lowering any of the physical variables endemic to commercial plastic. However because the number of possible applications for Timeplast is very high, we will rely on  specific products’ testing performed by our own potential customers.

Does the additive require a specific type of existing plastic to work as intended?

Any plastic with a melting point below 500 degrees Celsius is inside our scope of applications. However, we don’t have an unique solution for all types of plastic, we tailor our technology depending on the type of polymer, among other things.

Is the technology safe with regard to food-contact concerns?

All of the components we use in our technology are independently FDA approved as an FCS (food contact substance) however we are required by law to file a new FCS every time we use the same listed components in a different application.

What exactly was Pepsico’s role in creating this technology, and any current arrangement?

There is no arrangement with Pepsico, nor has there ever been. Pepsico had no role in creating or developing this technology. Mr. Rendon first started working for Pepsico in May, 2014 and left January, 2016. The US Patent (US9181412 B2) was applied for on January 20, 2014 and all supporting the chemistry was developed prior to Mr. Rendon commencing with Pepsico.

Is there potential for Pepsico claim to this patent?

Pepsico has never made a claim nor given any indication that there was an interest in making a claim on this patent. Pepsico was aware of Mr. Rendon’s invention and patent application when Mr. Rendon was hired. The patent application was discussed with certain individuals in Pepsico with a view towards developing an application for Pepsico. However, at the time of Mr. Rendon’s employment and subsequent discussions of the technology, the patent was not yet approved by the USPTO. Moreover, Pepsico believed it would never get approved because of the Patent’s very ambitious nature. As a result, a full interest by Pepsico was not perceived, and Mr. Rendon adopted a wait and see approach. Mr. Rendon left Pepsico within two months of the patent being granted. Therefore, no further discussions with Pepsico were had.

What is TimePlast’s funding to continue to prosecute your patent?

Two of the Members of TimePlast, LLC are entrepreneurs whose interest in the company is based on their funding. The law firm of Greenberg, Traurig, LLP has been consulted regarding the patent and will undertake the representation of TimePlast, LLC., on matters related thereto.  

How do you reduce Plastic's Carbon Footprint?

And what about the fact you do 97.79% of the job that nature otherwise has to do?

The science behind TimePlast reaction has to be explained through dissociation chemistry, since we want to take pollutant carbon atoms out of the picture, yet the separation of atoms from its mother chain mostly occurs in components when metal and nonmetal atoms are held together by ionic bonds, like salt for example, or NaCl, in which Sodium is a metal and Chlorine a nonmetal; In that case, the dissolution is achievable easily with a polar solvent like water, then, individual atoms of Sodium with positive charge and Chlorine with negative charge represent the final solution. However not all chemical bonds are so easy to break, for example the bonds found in sugar molecule, are much more difficult, thus, if we try to dissolve sugar in water, no individual atoms will ever be left in the solution, the entire molecule will continue to be held together. These bonds are called Covalent or Molecular.

The ultimate representation of covalent structures, in strength, longitude, and molar mass are plastics, which is why disintegrating plastic down to a covalent level is so difficult, and definitively not an easy task. 

On the other hand, paraffin wax is the weakest and shortest covalent molecule with the same structure as plastic; then again, that is why all waxes are biodegradable.

Our meta-additive has been scientifically proven to completely convert plastic into wax at the standard-in-the-plastics-industry temperature, which means that the moment said meta-additive is introduced in the manufacturing process of plastic this is what happen: (Some numbers have been substituted with an X to maintain the trade secret THIS IS ONLY A DIDACTIC EXPLANATION, the oxidation formula is protected, and the real formula contains many more elements in play):

 (CH₂-CH₂)ₓ           +           CₓHₓ                             -->           CₓH₂ₓ           +           (CH₂-CH₂)ₓ
Polyethylene         +        TimePlast                    -->             Wax            +          Polyethylene

If our meta-additive is a limiting reagent, then only a given percentage of plastic will become paraffin wax, to calculate exactly how much, we have to use the Noyes-Whitney Equation, which governs the process of solvation that ultimately tells the mass diffusivity. The equation follows:

Dm/Dt = A(D/d)
m= Mass of dissolved material
t= Time
A= Surface area of the interface between the dissolving substance and the solvent
D= Diffusion coefficient = m.seg⁻ⁱ
D= Thickness of the boundary layer of the solvent at the surface of the dissolving substance
Cs= Mass concentration of the substance on the surface
Cd= Mass concentration of the substance in the bulk of the solvent

Considering that in the process of extrusion:
a.The inter-molecular interactions tends to infinity
b.The time of contact tends to infinity
c.The diffusion layer thickness tends to zero

Applying the Noyes-Whitney Equation tells us that the rate of dissolution is directly proportional to the difference between the instantaneous concentration and the saturation solubility, in other words the amount of additive and its concentration will ultimately determine how much of the plastic will be converted into wax with no other variable playing a part.
m = Cs
Therefore, balancing the dissolution equation with TimePlast’s meta-additive as limiting reagent:
    (CH₂-CH₂)ₓ           +           CₓHₓ                             -->           x(CₓH₂ₓ)           +           (CH₂-CH₂)ₓ
Polyethylene         +        TimePlast                    -->             Wax            +          Polyethylene

a.1 mol of TimePlast creates x mol of Wax
b.Molecular weight of TimePlast’s = xxx gr/mol
c.Molecular weight of Wax = 14 gr/mol
(xxxx gr/mol) x (1 mol TimePlast) = xxx gr TimePlast
(x mol Wax) x (14 gr/mol) = xxx gr Wax
(xxx gr Wax) / (xxx gr TimePlast) = xxx gr Wax/TimePlast
999 Kg of Plastic + 1 Kg of TimePlast (0.1%) = 977.9 Kg Wax out of 1000 Kg 
In other words, 97.79% of the carbon inside the treated plastic is already benign (wax) carbon, thus reducing the Carbon footprint of pollutant Plastic by returning it to an ecological Carbon cycle as Terrestrial uptake, Soil Carbon, Plant Biomass, and Ocean Uptake for Plantae, Fungi, Animalia, or Protista Kingdom.
The Polyethylene’s Carbon footprint found in literature is:
1 Kg of Polyethylene = 2 Kg of Oil (1/3 energy + 2/3 raw materials) = 6 Kg CO₂
Given the fact we are converting 97.79% of the carbon in raw materials
2 Kg Oil x (2/3) raw materials = 1.3333 x 97.79% = 1.3035 x (3 Kg CO₂ per Kg Oil) = 3.9105 Kg
1 Kg of TimePlast-treated Polyethylene = 3.9105 Kg CO₂ reduced

1 Kg= 0.4535 lb. Therefore, 1 lb of TimePlast-treated Polyethylene reduces 1.773 Kg CO₂
Ergo, TimePlast reduces 65.175% of Polyethylene’s Carbon Footprint.

How do you control recycling of the product within the dissolution timeframe? 

If the Timeplast product is co-mingled into other recycled material and enters the product stream they could become a use concern?

 If a treated plastic is recycled then we would have to reintroduce our additive again in the recycling forming process.

How long does it take for the plastic to disintegrate down to a molecular level ?

 A polymer chain treated with our technology is already 97.79% degraded. We'll issue a warranty that specifies that our customer's plastic products won't disintegrate before intended. Nowadays plastics last from thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, a TimePlast's plastic treated will last only 2.21% of whatever the time it was suppoused to last.

What happens to the plastic after it’s degraded, what does it turn into?


It turns into wax, which is the most basic form of carbon structure.
What gasses are released into the atmosphere when degradation happens? What molecules are left behind?
Our plastic does not require soil bacteria, water, or oxygen to disintegrate, no biological process is involved, which means no gases are produced. The molecule left is Wax:


Which tests were performed on your technology? The conclusions?

The Standardized test performed is called “GB21” an Anaerobic, 69.8 Fahrenheit degrees, which is the most realistic environmental test done to plastics. In contrast, nowadays so called “Biodegradable additives” only pass tests at  122 Fahrenheit degrees an unrealistic tests, and also most of them are only Oxo-biodegradable, which means they will only degrade in presence of Oxygen; a huge limitation.

In our case the test showed a 36% of weight loss in 32 days in Polypropylene case and a 21% of weight loss in the same period for the Polyethylene, with no correlation of biogas production which means that our plastic does not require soil bacteria, water, or oxygen to disintegrate, and no biological process is involved.

Avomeen Analytical Services also performed a test on our technology and concluded our additive has the power to completely convert plastic into Wax.

Where were these tests performed? Are they certified laboratories? Who performed the tests?

Yes, certified laboratories have studied this technology, the samples were synthesized at MATRIC | Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research & Innovation Center, and tested on Woods End Farm & Laboratories Inc by PhD Will Brinton, Chief Science Officer, and Avomeen Analytical Services.

What´s the density of the material?
What's the resistance?
Does it keep the resistance of normal plastic? Is it hard to be ripped as normal plastic? Like shopping bags, food, etc.?

It changes depending on client's type of plastic.

The additive does not change any property from the host plastic.
The treated plastic will be indistinguishable from the untreated plastic.


Our products have a two year shelf life.  I am not so sure how you delay the process for breaking down the plastic but we obviously need the container to hold up during the entire shelf life.

We control the degradation timing stoichiometrically, the ratio between the dissolving power and the reaction time is exponential, and the critical point in which the plastic begins to disintegrate occurs when the function peaks and the exponential ratio becomes asymptotical. For that matter our additive preserves all the quality features of the host plastic for a selectable period; After that period has passed, the polymer chain begins its natural process of braking down to a molecular level (BPA oxidated, not micro plastics) in 2.21% of the time that would have taken without our technology (down from thousands of years), the end result is a wax-like material such as paraffin, which is a biodegradable compound.

Our technology is based on the well-known chemical process called "Solvation", which is the only feasible and environmental-friendly way to get rid of plastic. Our technology does not make the plastic "Biodegradable", because plastic is a substance the earth cannot digest, our technology breaks down the Carbon-to-Carbon covalent bonds. All the other companies that claim to have a biodegradable (or Oxo-biodegradable) additive for fossil-based plastics, only fragment the polymer chain into microscopital plastics and/or monomers, and the only compound that truly biodegrades is the additive itself; But because the plastic is no longer visible, they assume their additive got the job done, which in reality a bigger problem is being created, because micro plastics can now enter the food chain and pollute the entire ecosystem, including humans.

Our additive's major component is also fossil-based, for that matter there is no a pollutant substance to be concerned; that alteration is maintained only in the first formation process, if a second formation process is performed, the additive phases out. Additionally, our additive has the same nature as the plastic targeted for degradation, which translates into a zero pollution correlation based on our technology. There will be no difference between the altered plastic and the regular plastic in terms of recycling.

Any plastic is a combination of a polymer chain plus additives, the latter, phases out each time the plastic is melted, and for that matter plastic as a whole is not recyclable but reusable.

Unlike metal and glass, plastics cannot be melted and reformed infinitely; specially because the polymer chain is thermoplastic, which means that each time the plastic is reused, the melting point increases, up to a point in which it cannot be re-used (Plastics in this state are known as thermo-set plastics).  This is why plastic is not recyclable but Downcyclable.

The main environmental concern is not related to the recycled bottles, but the ones that enter the waste stream and eventually end up in the landfills and oceans, and it has been proven that a lot more plastic ends in nature than in the recycling process.

Finally, recycling is an environmental-friendly approach but not a sustainable one, because even if plastic is recycled, it'll never go away; we have to remember the fact that Mother Earth will always be the end user.

We will be very sensitive to contaminating the waste stream and negatively impacting recycling.

We will not participate in anything that contaminates the recycled waste stream.

Why do we need to worry about the BPA in our plastics products?

The US National Library of Medicine, The National Institutes of Health and PubMed through several studies such as the one from scientist Rochester JC, explains that 93% of all Americans have BPA in their bodies and that BPA "is an endocrine disruptor that has been shown to be harmful", and that "A comprehensive literature search found 91 studies linking BPA to human health" also "showing associations between BPA exposure and adverse perinatal, childhood, and adult health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, metabolic disease, and other health effects"

Our technology is the only feasible way to create a "BPA Free" plastic-degradable product as our US Patent states through a chemical process based on the Japanese study quoted; “Yoshida - Oxygenation of Bisphenol A to Quinones by Polyphenol Oxidase".

Butylated Hydroxytoluene, or BHT for short, which is one of the components in the additive is related to cancer risk?

 Our additive is not meant to be consumed by humans, and just like any other component inside plastics, BHT can be toxic if ingested. The components inside our additive are in contact with food, yet thanks to the barrier properties in plastics, a whole industry of plastic containers has been successfully and safely improving the quality of food packaging for many years. Information about BHT can be easily found on the web, here are some quotes and links:

“ BHT is marketed as a health food supplement in capsule form. It has been reported to have anti-viral effects, particularly in use against herpes family viruses, sometimes in combination with L-lysine and vitamin C.
[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] This latter use has made it into some of the more popular literature.[28][29][30]

Debate surrounds the link of BHT to cancer risk, asthma and behavioral issues in children;[15] some studies show a potential to increase and some showing a decreased risk.[16][17][18] There is in vitro indication for endocrine disruption with effect on the testes and thyroid.[19] Because of this uncertainty the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest recommend to avoid BHT and puts BHT in its "caution" column.[20] The National Cancer Institute determined in 1979 that it was non-carcinogenic in a mouse model.[9] “
All of the companies in today's market that offer biodegradation through an additive approach the problem via the biodegradation of the additive itself, in other words their addives are always Bio-based. There is one absolute truth “Plastic is a substance that earth cannot digest, period”. Just like any other biological system for digesting or biodegradation, like the one humans have, it can’t digest something just by adding to the indigestible component a digestible one, what happens is simple; the digestible component is the only one that will biodegrade. To put it in perspective; “Is it possible for a human being to digest plastic? – No. And what about if the plastic contains biodegradable barbecue sauce? The barbecue sauce will be digested, the plastic won’t.”

However, under certain laboratory environments, with a very thin layer of plastic (Like a plastic bag), in presence of oxygen and at 125.6 degrees Fahrenheit, there can be forced or induced a biodegradation/composting process, because the bio-based additive is bonded between monomers, and when said component biodegrades, a part of the Hydrogen-Carbon chain is detached, however non of these studies have proven 100% of biodegradation.

Many companies show as prove of concept said test at 125.6 degrees Fahrenheit, because that’s the maximum limit of operation of a landfill allowed by U.S. government, but according to NASA the global environmental temperature of the Planet Earth is 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
Not only the plastic under normal circumstances is not at 125.6F, but it also won’t be in contact with landfill bacteria or oxygen, where at, for example, the oceans.

The highest temperature ever recorded in the United States, is the whopping 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913. The second highest 125F in Laughlin, Nevada on June 29, 1994. And that was only on the surface, 4 inches below the surface the temperature decreases substantially.

What about the competition?

How is TimePlast different from other companies offering "Biodegradable additives"?

And what about the certified tests that they have?

Most of our additive is fossil-based, our active component is also fossil based. However we also use Cellulose, then again not to induce biodegradation like the competition, but to replace structural covalent Carbon-to-Carbon bonds, and to avoid plastic to lose its physical properties. It is an intrinsic difference.

Almost all of our competitors have stated themselves in their promotional videos the fact that they use “Organic compounds” to make plastics more "biodegradable". This correlates to the same approach pursued by other companies explained in the previous question.

Also, it is not displayed a hold on a patent on any of their products, probably meaning one or both of the following:
1) Their product does not truly work in the eyes of the USPTO, or only works on ASTM laboratory-like and non-real-environments.
2) They are not the first company that brought this approach to the market.
These companies are aware of the fact that California State does not allow the use of these additives, they actually put this information in their web page:

Important California Notice
California law prohibits the sale of plastic packaging and plastic products that are labeled with the terms ‘biodegradable,’ ‘degradable,’ or ‘decomposable,’ or any form of those terms, or that imply in any way that the item will break down, biodegrade or decompose in a landfill or other environment.

This is due to the fact that Californian authorities know and understand from experience that “so called” biodegradable additives either doesn’t work under real scenarios, or create micro-plastics which aggravates the environmental problem instead of fixing it.
Simply the ASTM tests that prove its concept are unrealistically set, and these companies thrive under the assumption of a plastic pollution’s masking technology.

 How is TimePlast different from the rest of the competition? I mean, does Timeplast also use any bio-based component?

Oxo-biodegradable additives’ technology only have two patent applications, and they have not passed as approved by the USPTO since 2012, here they are:


They continue to have an “Application” status, meaning they haven’t been approved since their publication in 2012.
In our case, we were published on November 2015 and approved on December 2015. Our status is “Grant”

In any case, these patents states (Quote): “an Oxo-Biodegradation additive…, …imparts to them a property whereby they fragment…, … plastic polymers”

This means this technology only fractures plastics, but they still continue in the nature in form of microscopical plastics, which is just a mask for the environmental problem.

Bio-based plastics:
It is a well-known fact that food sources can’t simply satisfy the global demand of plastics, we would require several Planets Earth-like current production capabilities to grow the crops necessary to keep up with oil-based plastics’ consumption and the demographic explosion.
On the other hand, today, bioplastics can only substitute a narrow section of the oil-based global market applications, meaning we will always require regular plastics.
Bio-based plastics pollute the recycling stream, and even beyond that, as one of the biggest manufacturers of PLA stated: “NatureWorks (Cargill) accepted that its products would not fully break down on landfill sites.”

Thus their technology won’t solve the plastic problem.

What about Oxo-biodegradable additives  or Bio-based plastics like PLA?

The synthetic components in our additive have been individually and independently approved by the FDA. We need to submit one file per application, and because of the fact each additive is tailor made, we need to know our customer's need before filing a petition for the FDA. The FDA reminds us that:

" The database lists effective premarket notifications for food contact substances that have been demonstrated to be safe for their intended use. The list includes the food contact substance (FCS), the notifier, the manufacturer of the FCS, the intended use, the limitations on the conditions of use for the FCS and its specifications, the effective date, and its environmental decision. Under section 409(h)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348 (h)(2)(C)) a food contact substance notification (FCN) is only effective for the manufacturer or supplier identified in the notification. Persons who market a FCS based on an effective notification must be able to demonstrate that the notification is effective for their food contact substance. All persons who purchase a food contact substance manufactured or supplied by a manufacturer or supplier identified in an effective notification may rely on that notification to legally market or use the food contact substance for the use that is the subject of the notification, consistent with any limitations in that notification. 

Here's the independent approval by the FDA on Heptane for example:

Additionally in the Threshold of Regulation (TOR) Exemptions, which are the exemptions that have been issued under 21 CFR 170.39 Threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles, generally applicable and are effective for the food contact substance (FCS) for the listed intended use regardless of manufacturer or supplier. "
As TOR substance can be found: "

Aromatic petroleum resins (CAS Reg. No. 71302-83-5) 

Acrylic copolymers (consisting of isooctyl acrylate (CAS Reg. No. 29590-42-9), ethoxylated hydroxyethyl methacrylate (CAS Reg. No. 25736-86-1) and monomers regulated in 21 CFR 177.1010 (a)(1), (2) and (3)) and D&C Green No. 5 (CAS Reg. No. 4403-90-1)

Acrylic polymers consisting of methacrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, and 2-ethylhexyl acrylate in which the methacrylic acid is present at levels not exceeding 9% by weight and the 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate are present at no less than 50% by weight of the finished polymer in accordance with 21 CFR 177.1010"

And other polymer structures, and given the fact that the active component in our additive is below 0.1%, it is pragmatically impossible for each application not to be susceptible to FDA approval.

Is it FDA approved? 

A terrifying report by John Vidal from TheGuardian on Bio-based plastics

The worldwide effort by supermarkets and industry to replace conventional oil-based plastic with eco-friendly "bioplastics" made from plants is causing environmental problems and consumer confusion, according to a Guardian study.

The substitutes can increase emissions of greenhouse gases on landfill sites, some need high temperatures to decompose and others cannot be recycled.

Many of the bioplastics are also contributing to the global food crisis by taking over large areas of land previously used to grow crops for human consumption.

The market for bioplastics, which are made from maize, sugarcane, wheat and other crops, is growing by 20-30% a year.

Concern centers on corn-based packaging made with Polylactic Acid (Pla). Made from GM crops, it looks identical to conventional polyethylene terephthalate (Pet) plastic and is produced by US Company NatureWorks. The company is jointly owned by Cargill, the world's second largest biofuel producer, and Teijin, one of the world's largest plastic manufacturers.

NatureWorks accepted that its products would not fully break down on landfill sites.