The TimePlast Solution

A plastic treated with Timeplast displays all of its benefits right 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 because our plastic is not biodegradable, it's 98% Plastic-Free and wax-based; everything we do, we do it chemically.

To create a 98% Plastic-Free product our technology micro-dissolves the polymer chain during the manufacturing process of any plastic product; using the heat from the extrusion process and chemical aids, we reverse the process of molecular combination by Nano-depolymerization at a certain degree. Micro-formation of wax can be seen from a Molar Mass Distribution test. This creates a plastic that contains in fact versions of itself, which increases its recyclability and its capacity to fragment in Nature into benign molecules and not micro-plastics.

The altered plastic is not biodegradable but Nano-degraded, marking the weak points of the chain with the solely purpose of the eventual broken chain not being longer than paraffin wax's, and the improvement of the recycling stream's quality.

We don't mask the problem, we delete 98% of the Plastic pollution from day 1.



At Timeplast we're also raising our voice along these 150 organizations to ban the oxo-biodegradable technologies. The Oxo-bio premise is so wrong that I can't believe that even still today you'd find publicly traded companies on this segment of the market. 

The science is against them.

According to EPA, and the entire scientific community for that matter; a landfill's gas composition is 50% Methane, almost 50% Carbon Dioxide and less than 1% of a mix between nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). So if Oxygen is the major requirement for oxo-biodegradables additives to function, who could they do so if there's virtually no oxygen in a landfill?

If the concern is that our technology might be similar to the oxo-biodegradables technologies, you can rest assure that we're 180 degrees away from anything related to these technologies, for plenty of reasons; let me give you several ones:

1. Their entire scientific evidence relies on something that supposedly  will happen to their altered plastic. 
2. We rely on evidence that can be seen  from day one  in our altered plastic. As an example, it would be the same difference that exists between a pill that supposedly makes your hair grow after years of daily intake, rather than a sugar pill claiming by their manufacturers to be a candy, this claim can obviously be validated from day one. Our claims and alterations can be validated immediately after manufacturing.
3. Their technology requires  very specific levels of water, oxygen, enzymes and soil bacteria just to begin any factual alteration. This will only happen if the environment in which the plastic finally ends up happens to have exactly the same variables as in the laboratory study they claim as "valid" evidence. Temperature, water and oxygen levels are fixed in a laboratory study, however in Nature these variables fluctuate not only through day and night, but also through the change of seasons. For these and many other reasons extrapolating a laboratory test to reality is definitely not valid evidence. A plastic piece might end up in an almost undefined number of environments, from the Mount Everest to a Tropical Rain Forest.
4. We, on the other hand, provide  100% of the requirements our technology needs to function at optimal levels before the plastic leaves manufacturing, which are heat from the extrusion process, solvents, oxidants, plasticizers, strengtheners, carriers and a physical cooling phase to stop the chemical reaction. All of those requirements are met when a plastic is manufactured with our proprietary liquid and computerized delivery system.
5. They use solid forms of elements and components that are not blended homogeneously inside the polymer chain, essentially creating a pollutant factor to plastic in general and negatively affecting the recycling stream specifically. 
6. We use liquid components that match the nature of the polymer treated (made from the same plastic targeted itself), 100% of the solvents and other elements used to alter the chain are selected for their phasing point, so we can program them to phase out during the extrusion process, that way they can do their job and then leave no trace of themselves.
7. In average, the only significant change that the oxo-biodegradables-treated plastics have is a faster ability to fragment in Nature into micro plastics, which is even worse for the environment because of proven  global biomagnification issues. 
8. We, on the other hand, induce the formation of micro wax made from the same plastic targeted itself, so when the plastic finally breaks down in nature, the fragments will have the length of benign wax; However if it ends up in the recycling stream it'll act as a "younger" version of itself which improves the quality of recycled plastic, creating a material with the same qualities that a 98.4% virgin plus 2% recycled mix would have (according to independent studies our plastic only loses 1.6% of quality per cycle, instead of 79% that virgin plastic loses)
9. We're not in the business of selling a "biodegradable" or "degradable" plastic, they are. 
10. They harm by a huge margin the recycling stream's quality.
11. We improve it by 307.5%. We're also in the process of getting an APR certification, with a preliminary scientific certainty that we will get it.
12. Simply put, they insert some oxo-biodegradable elements in plastic waiting for Mother Earth to do the job; Contrary to that, we don't wait for Nature, we do the job ourselves because we understand Mother Earth can't digest plastics, it can only fragment them. So instead of waiting for an impossibility,  we make sure that those fragments will not be harmful to the environment.

Over 150 World-wide organizations have asked for the ban of Oxo-biodegradable plastics, explain to me how Timeplast is so different from them?

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 thick 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 a 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. 

In order to take advantage of the higher recyclability factor, would all materials collected need to HAVE BEEN ALREADY treated with TimePlast? or can they be treated AFTER collection? 
A big article just came out regarding Danone/evian partnering with Loop Industries on a technology that allows them to use 100% recycled materials for their bottles. Are these guys a competitor or can the 2 technologies be used together? This is one of the articles - Danone's Evian vows to use 100% recycled plastic in bottles by 2025


Waiakea is already doing this, all of their bottles are 100% recycled PET, the question is not whether they can or can't recycle PET, because PET can be recycled, the problem is that it loses a lot of its quality, this is a scientific fact. 
RPET or Recycled PET has been on the market for many years, you can use it now if you want to. 
Big companies don't use RPET because it's darker and lower quality, however they won't pay attention to that by 2025 is what they're saying, nothing less.

There're a lot of misleading ideas and fake environmental marketing behind companies claiming to recycle 100% of the plastic they produce by 2025 or to use 100% of recycled PET  because of several reasons:

1) PET can't be recycled more than 2 times without a major Thermoplasticity loss. The only way for a company to use 100% RPET is through an external Virgin-PET consumption structure or company, that will ultimately feed their recycling stream. In any case new plastic must be on the equation, introduced by them or by others, because if not, after the third cycle PET would be so damaged that it'll be completely brownish and very brittle. 
2) No matter how much plastic is recycled, given the loss in quality per cycle, there will always be an increasing volume of plastic entering the environment. This means that even when recycling is a noble effort, and it sounds like a huge environmental plus, in reality is only a minor push against the incredible huge and ever-increasing production of new plastics.
3) We should be focusing on addressing the Plastic Pollution issue on a much stronger and broader approach, because if we don't, Plastic Pollution will affect human's sustainability in an irreversible manner. 
4) Recycling with Timeplast increases the number of cycles that a PET can go through without a major loss in quality by a factor of 30 times, this hasn't been achieved in the past, and we have no competitor in this regard.
5) Regarding your recycling question; We can alter the plastic on the front or back end, tests show that a recycled plastic without Timeplast, when altered with our technology, recovered 98% of its Impact resistance, meaning that not only we can increase recyclability of products altered with Timeplast when new, but also products that haven't been altered in its life beginning but during recycling process.

I completely understand this scientific approach and I embrace it and it is very important. But maybe I’m not understanding some other things. Based on my past experience, my customers who were Buyers, Purchasing, and Plant personnel wanted to actually see what happens to the actual plastic in its degraded form at the end of its programed shelf life. In other words, can I have multiple bottle samples manufactured for instance, with our treated product that have a date of manufacturing, and an actual date of proposed degradation? This way they can put the samples in their office and see for themselves the end shelf life degraded form of the bottles. That explains why I asked you about a 1 day to 10 year programed degradation timeline. I promise you, they are going to want to see this for themselves.

I can strongly see you're still comparing Timeplast to a biodegradable technology. We will never have a "proposed date of degradation", neither us nor any plastic manufacturer whatsoever. It's impossible to truly address the obsolescence time without entering misleading "extrapolation-type of claims".
The potential customer who asks for what you're mentioning will only indicate that they were sold on a "Degradable" approach.
We don't make plastic biodegradable. We don't claim to accelerate the biodegradation of plastics either.
Our plastic will never biodegrade, period, just like sand glass, it will break into smaller and smaller pieces which will not be harmful to the environment. How do we know this? Well if you analyze the molecular weight / molar mass distribution of a material, and it is 98% corn starch, sand glass or wax, it will not break into plastic, but into corn starch, glass or wax.
Let's please try to set our minds like if we were selling a bio-based technology like the corn-starch-based PLA, or sand glass.
Do you consider reasonable for a customer asking when a glass bottle will biodegrade? When have you ever seen an activist environmental group raising concerns about glass not being biodegradable?
Nature Works (one of the biggest manufacturers of PLA) publicly claimed that their plastic will not break down in landfill conditions. We claim the exactly same thing. Nobody knows when a bio-based bottle will biodegrade or how it will do so, however they're the biggest green-label selling technology nowadays. 
I have found this same thought structure when trying to sell Timeplast since the beginning. The paradigm of a "degradable" product is extremely easy to sell. That's why it sold for many years only based in extrapolated science.
Please allow me to help you understand our marketing perspective, I hope I'm not being too rough.
When you ask me for a degradation test, is like asking to the president of Rolls Royce to have a car with a 0-60mph time under 3 seconds, because "that's what the customer will want to see for themselves". 0-60 time is what's require for a Nissan GTR, a Porshe 911, Ferrari and Lambos to sell, but Rolls Royce and Bently, which are slower, offer something different, they have another selling point: comfort and luxury.

Plastic pollution is a tremendous problem that we don't address in its absolute expression. There are several points a green-technology can address about this global issue:

1. Accumulation of plastic waste (through lack of biodegradation)
2. Carbon Footprint 
3. Biomagnification (the concentration of toxins in an organism as a result of its ingesting other plants or animals in which the toxins are more widely disbursed)
4. Recycling (Ability to be reintroduced in the manufacturing cycle with little to no lost in quality properties)

A "dream plastic" is the one that meets all of the four criteria; it would be 100% biodegradable for it to solve the 1 issue, it would have to produce very low to zero Carbon Dioxide during its lifespan in order for it to meet the 2 criteria, to meet criteria 3, it would have to be made out of a material that will not accumulate in any living organism, because it can be metabolized (Bisphenol A, a micro plastic, cannot be metabolized by living cells through the entire food chain, so it accumulates as a toxin) and finally it would meet criteria 4 if it's completely recyclable (no plastic is 100% recyclable but downcyclable)

Bio-based plastics will not meet criteria 1, it will worsen criteria 2 with respect to regular fossil-based plastic, plus it will be increasing food scarcity by demand for a food source like Corn, but it will meet criteria 3 if a product is manufactured 100% with a bio-based polymer like PLA. Bio-based plastic will not meet criteria number 4 because it cannot be recycled alongside other forms of PET, unless its percentage in mass is lower than 5%, in which case it would be considered a pollutant factor to the recycling stream that will not impact overall quality outside standard deviation limits.

Glass will not meet criteria 1, since it's not biodegradable, it won't meet criteria 2 because it requires a lot of energy to be produced, it will definitely meet criteria 3 since it's made out of a natural element which can be metabolized, and it will meet criteria 4 because is completely recyclable

So-called biodegradable plastics will not be criteria 1 in landfill conditions, and conditions with a temperature lower than 30 degrees Celsius, which means almost the entire world throughout the year. It won't meet criteria 2 because they will increase the Carbon Footprint via biodegradation of the additive itself (actually the only biodegradable element on these technologies). It won't meet criteria 3 because these technologies don't change the chemistry of plastics, so essentially all of the toxic elements continue to be there as usual, and it will definitely not meet criteria 4 because it has been proven that they are directly proportional to the increase in pollutant or contaminant elements in the recycling stream.

Timeplast will not meet 1, just like glass and Bio-based plastics, it will meet 2 because the energy required to re-engineer a plastic with our technology is marginal to the energy required to produce untreated plastic in the first place, we don't add a new requirement of energy that surpasses 0.001% of the energy already involved in the forming process of plastic. Timeplast will also meet criteria number 3 since it can be seen that most of it's core structure is not plastic but wax, which can be metabolized, and finally Timeplast will meet criteria 4 since for the first time ever, it has been proven an increase in Izod Notched Impact resistance (energy to break down plastic, and mechanical quality factor for recyclability) of 307.5% with respect to Virgin Plastic, this benefit will largely affect the potential reduction in Carbon Footprint, given the fact that the more cycles a plastic can be recycled, the less new plastic has to be used, thus the less Carbon Footprint generated.

In other words, having met 3 out of 4 criteria, why would you focus on the only criteria we don't meet? We're the best possible solution for the plastic pollution.
Let's not try to sell a Rolls Royce for it's 0-60 time, and specially let's help the plastic manufacturers of today to stop polluting the environment in 3 out of the 4 possible ways.

Could you explain us how TimePlast works? I mean, I understood that it works during plastic process, but how after the product was manufactured it converts plastic into wax?
How can we assure that is not going to produce micro plastics instead of wax?

We use solvation and oxidation as the core chemical process in our technology. We have an independent-certified test that shows how our proprietary reaction if not stopped, turns 100% of the plastic being treated into paraffin wax, and as you may know, the only way to accomplish this is by altering holistically the plastic. Another independent and certified test showed that with only 0.01% of our active ingredient, a plastic treated lost 25% of it's notched Izod impact resistance, which means a lowering of the energy required to break plastic.

We address the issue of not creating micro plastics by marking by oxidation aleatory weak spots on the chain, so when it finally breaks down in nature, its ultimate lenght has a probability of not being longer than paraffin wax's and not micro-plastics, those instead, are easily formed in nature when the alteration is, for example, through the blending of another component inside the polymer, such as a biodegradable or oxo-biodegradable additive, which will only be attached to a monomer radical in the best case escenario, and when the plastic breaks down in nature, that point is exactly where it'll break, leaving behind a complete monomer or pollutant microscopic plastic without being altered at all, which is even worse for the environment since it can now enter the food chain given it's size, turning into a biomagnification global issue.

The main principle behind our technology is the fact that we don't rely on Nature to do the job of breaking down plastic like the biodegradable additives, we disintegrate it ourselves at the manufacturing process, because it's the only way to control the final state of plastic waste; Wax in our case, and not microscopic plastic.

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 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 already degraded, chemically most of the bottle will contain micro-formation of wax from day 1, plus its lifespan will be reduced.

Definitions of terms used by you including “baby plastic,”  and any other terms used in describing the technology that do not have the meaning found in a standard reference source such as Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Wikipedia, or the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Why?

Of course there are no definitions yet in those sources, dictionaries, chemistry books and such since they can't make references to nomenclature that wasn't invented at the time they were written. We came up with that terminology because there's no other terminology to describe our novel process. However I'm sure that "wax" as a material is widely referenced. 

The patent application describes a chemistry similar to that of other oxobiodegradation chemistries we have studied. How does this differ?

Our patent explains that the disintegration of the polymer chain happens chemically, the entire process described isn't determined by any living organism, so the term "bio" doesn't apply to any part of our technology. Everything we do, we do it chemically. Oxo-biodegradable technologies base their disintegration or plastic digestion in microorganisms' metabolism, we base our digestion in synthetic enzymatic approaches and other processes like solvation and oxidation which are 100% chemical. Moreover, a patent is a public statement, in order for us to maintain control of our intellectual property we have secured most of our knowledge as a trade secret, so our patent doesn't completely represents what our technology is all about.

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 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.

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). 

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 <in nature>. 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 <at the manufacturing process> We brake it, Oxo-bio waits for nature to brake it, and it never does, 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?

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.

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 most of the additives being sold today never got approved in the past? Why do they have patents pending for years and years? Why the only patents approved in the biodegradation have no real commercial applications?

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" 

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?

Even though our technology is not suited for biodegradation tests, 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.

In terms of shelf-life, we perform an accelerated test through UV light, heat and moisture exposure, in order for us to be able to warrant our client's selected shelf-life

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. This means our plastic doesn't generate biogas, but it turns into cell mass or Carbon soil uptake instead, according to the study. We've also confirmed this number with the recycling stream improvement, given the fact that if you have the ability to recycle more, it means less new plastic has to be formed, thus less Carbon Footprint generated.

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.

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 extrusion 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 are working with one of the two only laboratories certified by the APR, our preliminary results indicates that we will definitely get a certification from the APR, since our plastic does not affect negatively the recycling stream, on the contrary, it improves it.

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 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 the supporting 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, 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

This equation represents the micro-formation of wax within the chain. 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
A Kg of Plastic + B Kg of TimePlast (0.1%) = C Kg Wax micro-positioned withing the chain
In other words, C% 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 C% of the carbon in raw materials
2 Kg Oil x (2/3) raw materials = 1.3333 x C% = 1.3035 x (3 Kg CO₂ per Kg Oil) = D Kg
1 Kg of TimePlast-treated Polyethylene = D Kg CO₂ reduced

1 Kg= 0.4535 lb. Therefore, 1 lb of TimePlast-treated Polyethylene reduces D Kg CO₂
Ergo, TimePlast reduces E(depending on the polymer)% of Plastic’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 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 a significant percentage less of whatever the time it was suppoused to last.
Manuel Rendon replied: As an Environmental Engineer and a passionate defender of our beautiful planet, I've been deeply concerned about Plastic Pollution, because it seems we're not caring enough about it given our ability to hide most of our eternal waste in landfills; However plastic is silently becoming the number 1 obstacle for the sustainability of our society, for several irrefutable reasons, being the most important one the fact that is the most used material by humans and at the same time the most difficult material for Mother Nature to decompose. As we all know, plastic doesn't come from this world, in biosphere terms, it comes from 100 million years ago and it was buried deep down the earth, so its chemistry is truly great for modern applications but completely incompatible with any life's metabolism as a whole.

Knowing my efforts would most likely be in vane, since finding the solution for the Plastic Pollution is a colosal task, I worked at a lab for a very long time, and after 5 years and over 1200 experiments, I discovered, by accident, how to solve the problem of eternal waste. The answer was in fact fairly simple, instead of leaving the job of breaking down plastic to Nature, why don't we take on said job and break the plastic ourselves? Our biggest discovery was the fact that plastic is so over-engineered, that even if you effectively break it down 98% chemically, it will behave as an untouched plastic in almost all senses.

What is the inspiration behind creating this project? 

Studies show how micro plastics like BPA are linked to several health issues, some of them horrifying, like the direct correlation between miscarriages and high levels of this component, or the ability to accumulate in our bodies generation after generation through biomagnification; and it's happening! Nowadays 93% of all Americans have BPA in their bodies, this is very scary. There's almost no place in the world we won't find plastic polluting.  

Burning plastic? Dioxins are immediately generated, and they're the single most powerful carcinogenic every created by humans.

Why does this need to exist in the world? 

Why is this better than any other solutions on the market? 

Well for all of the reasons explained before, plus we are the first and only technology approved by the USPTO on the actual chemical degradation of plastic, and not the "bio"degradation of plastic. All of the alternatives for the plastic pollution problem are based on Mother Nature biodegrading plastic waste, and it turns out she can't. Biodegradation of plastic has been debunked and proven that only works in unrealistic laboratory conditions, but in reality, and in the best case scenario, plastic would only look like it's biodegrading, only to be disappearing from sight and becoming a dangerous micro plastic that will now enter the food chain. We present a chemical approach and not a biological one.
Our plastic does not require soil bacteria, water, or oxygen to disintegrate, no biological process is involved. Study shows our plastic doesn't have a biogas output correlation to the degradation.
What gasses are released into the atmosphere when degradation happens? What molecules are left behind?
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.

Which tests were performed on your technology? The conclusions?

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.

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

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 a percentage 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 depolymerization, solvation and oxidation, 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. All the other companies that claim to have a biodegradable (or Oxo-biodegradable) additive for fossil-based plastics, only fragment the polymer chain into microscopic 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 components are programmed to phased out during the extrusion process,  for that matter there are no contaminants left in the chain. On the contrary what can be seen is an actual version, or micro-wax formation inside the chain, created from the same polymer itself. This will actually improve the recycling stream, since a Timeplast-altered plastic is a more virgin-like type of plastic than its untreated counterpart. 

Any plastic is a combination of a polymer chain plus additives, most of the latter, phases out each time the plastic is melted, and for that matter plastic as a whole is not entirely recyclable. Timeplast when used in recycling, improves the clarity, lowers the crosslinks formed, increases the Notched Izod Impact resistance, and more! 

However, 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.

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".
We don't use this component in any of the final or actual liquid that will be in contact with the plastic treated, we use BHT to manufacture our active component only, so no BHT is present in any of our formulations. However plastics are not meant to be consumed by humans, and just like any other component inside plastics they 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] “

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

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 additives are always based on a biological mechanism. 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.

We, on the other hand, don't rely on a biological mechanism, but on a chemical one.

What about the competition?

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

And what about the certified tests that they have?

Again, the fact that we dont claim that something will happen in the future with our plastic, we claim something that can be seen from day 1. 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?

Taken from an Oxo-biodegradable patent pending, they state (Quote): “an Oxo-Biodegradation additive…, …imparts to them a property whereby they fragment…, … plastic polymers”

This means their 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?


All of the components in our additive have been individually and independently approved by 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.