On the Farm:
Agrochemical Packaging
P
lastic packaging is
increasingly being
designed to do more
than simply house prod-
ucts. This is especially
the case when those
products are agricultural chemicals
such as pesticides and fertilizer, which
can be harmful to users and the wider
environment if not stored and
applied properly.
So plastic pesticide and fertilizer
containers need to retain these poten-
tially toxic chemicals safely and
securely, ensuring there’s no possibili-
ty of leakage. This is not always easy,
because the chemicals can undergo
reactions during storage that damage
the packaging.
What’s more, the chemicals should
be able to be released safely and con-
veniently from the packaging. If in
liquid form, the chemicals must pour
out quickly with little chance of
spillage, and the packaging should be
easy to empty and rinse. This, in
turn, requires that the chemicals
shouldn’t collect or become trapped
in certain areas of the packaging.
What happens to the packaging
after it’s been used is also an impor-
tant concern. Several studies have
shown that farmers in certain coun-
tries may dispose of empty pesticide
containers by burning or dumping
them. For example, a 2007 survey of
farmers in northern Greece found
that 30% simply dumped empty pes-
ticide containers alongside their
fields, 18% burnt them, and 33%
threw them into streams or canals.
Burning plastic containers releases
pollutants into the atmosphere, while
residual pesticide can leak out of
8 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | MAY 2012 | www.4spe.org
By Jon Evans
dumped containers and contaminate
nearby bodies of water, particularly if
they’re thrown directly into the water.
Farmers have also been known to
reuse empty pesticide containers as
storage containers for other materials,
including food and water, the poten-
tial dangers of which are obvious.
What’s more, the agriculture sector
generates a lot of waste packaging.
According to CropLife International,
a global federation of national crop-
protection industry associations, the
worldwide pesticide market utilizes
about 190,000 tonnes of packaging
each year.
So agrochemical companies are
continually working to make their
packaging safer, greener, and more
convenient. “We are constantly in the
High-density
polyethylene,
polypropylene, and
polyamide are
ideal for pesticide
packaging,
because they’re
robust and
chemically
inert.
process of improving our packaging,
and we’re always looking at what we
can do better,” says Robert Huber,
head of packaging and labeling,
Europe, for the Crop Protection divi-
sion of BASF, the German chemical
giant.
“We have a community of packag-
ing specialists around the world who
are developing a multitude of innova-
tive packaging solutions,” says a
spokesperson for the Anglo-Swiss
crop-protection company Syngenta.
The right materials
The first step in this process is find-
ing the right packaging material.
Fortunately, plastics such as high-
density polyethylene (HDPE),
polypropylene, and polyamide are
ideal for pesticide packaging, because
they’re robust and chemically inert,
meaning they don’t react with the
pesticide or fertilizer in any way. As a
result, containers made of HDPE,
which is used for water-based pesti-
cide formulations, and a mixture of
HDPE and plastics such as
polyamide, which are used for sol-
vent-based formulations, are able to
house and store pesticides for extend-
ed periods of time without degrading
at all, making them perfectly safe.
Another advantage of HDPE,
polypropylene, and polyamide is that
they can be readily recycled, and
recycling schemes for plastic pesticide
containers have been introduced in
many countries, often by industry
associations. According to CropLife
International, there are currently
about 50 national container-manage-
ment programs in which CropLife
member associations play a major
 
 



role. Most of these programs are in Europe, where they
tend to be legally required, and in North and South
America, where they are mainly voluntary. Under these
programs, farmers can leave their used pesticide con- 






tainers at defined collection sites, often the stores where
they buy their new pesticides.
In North and South America, the used pesticide con-
tainers are reused as feedstocks in the production of a
wide range of different products and materials, includ-
ing concrete, pipes, fence posts, and electrical conduit.
In Europe, the used containers are mainly burnt to pro-
duce energy in power stations and cement kilns.
Companies such as Syngenta are even looking at the
potential of using returnable and refillable pesticide
containers, negating the need for recycling at all.
The proportion of plastic pesticide packaging that is
recycled under these schemes varies widely, from 12.5%
in Costa Rica to 55% in Germany to 70% in Canada.
Overall, CropLife International estimates, about 20% of
global pesticide packaging is currently recycled. The
main reason the recycling of pesticide containers is not
becoming more widespread is that in many countries,
used pesticide containers are classified as hazardous
waste, greatly increasing the cost of collecting and recy-
cling them.
The concern, of course, is that used pesticide contain-
ers will be contaminated with potentially harmful pesti-
cides. However, CropLife International maintains, the
process of triple-rinsing, in which used pesticide con-
tainers are washed out with water three times, with the
water poured into a pesticide spray and applied to a
crop, removes more than 99.99% of pesticide residue.
In fact, almost all the existing recycling schemes require
that the used pesticide containers be triple-rinsed before
collection.
The fertilizer industry is also keen to encourage the
recycling of fertilizer packaging—for instance, the
European fertilizer association, Fertilizers Europe, pro-
motes recycling of fertilizer packaging through its
Product Stewardship Program—although fertilizer
often comes in bags rather than plastic containers.
Environmental concerns are influencing many other
aspects of modern agrochemical packaging. For exam-
ple, the requirement for triple rinsing prior to recycling
has led many agrochemical companies to redesign their
pesticide packaging to ensure that it’s easy to rinse out.

New designs
In 2009, BASF launched new eco-friendly packaging
for pesticide products, which it is now rolling out over
Europe. The new packaging consists of a plastic bottle
with a milk bottle–like design that reduces spillage and
“glugging.” “The most obvious change is having a cen-
tral spout instead of a side spout, and we got rid of the
induction seal [the metal foil that must be removed

www.4spe.org | MAY 2012 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 9

CONTINUED

On the Farm:
Agrochemical Packaging
before the pesticide can be poured BASF bottle, the S-Pac does away by both external factors, like being
out] by changing the closure system,” with the induction seal, pours quickly dropped, and internal factors.
says BASF’s Huber. without glugging, and has Internally, chemical reac-
This new design makes the bottle smooth sides for easy rinsing. tions taking place within
easier to open, pour, and rinse, reduc- The S-Pac also comes in a wide fertilizer products can pro-
ing the time taken for these activities range of sizes, from 250 mL to duce gases, increasing the
by 25%. “We’ve already got some 20 L, allowing farmers to pressure within the pack-
very nice feedback,” says Huber. purchase the correct amount aging, while some pesti-
“The farmers really appreciate the of pesticide for their needs, cides react with oxygen
induction-free closure, and we have reducing levels of unwanted in the bottle, reducing
considerably lower contamination waste pesticide. the pressure. Changes in
risk with the new packaging concept “Farmers around the world temperature and altitude
than we had with the old one.” have a huge diversity of vary- can also affect the pres-
As with the previous generation, ing needs,” explains a sure difference between
these new bottles are made from Syngenta spokesperson. the inside and outside of
HDPE or a mixture of HDPE and “Smallholder farmers in the bottle.
polyamide, depending on whether developing countries typical- If the walls of the
they contain water-based ly need a small package that packaging aren’t thick
formulations or solvent- contains just enough prod- enough, the pressure dif-
based formula- uct to treat their plots of ference can cause the
tions. And these less than a hectare (2.47 packaging to distort and
new bottles contain acres), whereas tech- potentially rupture. This
approximately 25% nology-oriented obviously places a con-
less plastic materi- large-scale farm- straint on the extent to
al than the previ- ers in the U.S., BASF 1-liter container. which the packaging
ous generation; the Ukraine, or material can be
this not only Brazil require reduced, unless there is
saves resources, it bulk packaging for their another way to deal with the changes
also makes the enormous plots.” in pressure. One way is vents in the
packaging lighter, Crop-protection packaging.
meaning that less company Bayer Basically, packaging vents allow gas
energy is required CropScience has gone one to flow in and out of the plastic bot-
to transport the step further in meeting tle through the cap, ensuring that the
bottles. Overall, the needs of farmers in pressures inside and outside the bottle
BASF predicts, developing countries who always remain the same, thus protect-
introducing this work in very small areas. ing it from damage. This means that
bottle throughout It recently launched a the walls don’t need to withstand
Europe, which mono-dose packaging sys- large pressure differences and so don’t
should happen by BASF 5-liter container. tem, consisting of a single have to be as thick.
2014, will reduce hand-held spray canister. “Most customers that have prob-
emissions of green- lems with either off-gassing or
house gases by 2000 tonnes per year. Must be robust chemistries that cause collapsing do
Syngenta is another crop-protection The main challenge in reducing the look at using a packaging vent,
company that has recently developed amount of material in pesticide and because in the end it’s cheaper than
a novel packaging system for liquid fertilizer packaging is making sure the thick walls,” says Terry Czerwinski,
pesticides, termed S-Pac, which it is packaging is still robust enough to global product manager for GORE
launching in Europe. Like the new resist damage. Damage can be caused Packaging Vents.

10 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | MAY 2012 | www.4spe.org

 The U.S. fluoropolymer company
Gore, which is best known for pro-
ducing Gore-Tex fabrics, is a major
supplier of vents for fertilizer and
pesticide packaging. All Gore’s prod-
ucts are based on fluoropolymers; its
packaging vents consist of microp-
orous expanded polytetrafluoroethyl-
ene (ePTFE) membranes that are per-
meable to gases but not to liquids.
These membranes, incorporated
into the caps of pesticide bottles, let
gases pass into and out of the bottle
in one of two ways. In the most
straightforward way, the gases pass
through a hole in the cap, and the
impermeable membrane prevents any
of the liquid pesticide or fertilizer
from leaking out. The other way,
which is slightly more ingenious,
involves gas passing through the
ePTFE membrane and then being
directed out through the threads that
join the cap to the bottle, removing
the need for a hole.
Gore is able to produce ePTFE
membranes with various different
pore sizes and surface properties,
allowing it to produce packaging
vents suitable for any type of agro-
chemical. For instance, liquids, espe-
cially viscous liquids, can clog the
pores in microporous membranes,
preventing any gases from passing
through. To overcome this problem,
Gore has engineered its ePTFE mem-
branes to be both hydrophobic and
oleophobic, meaning that any water
or oil coming into contact with the
membrane slides right off without
clogging the pores. This also helps
prevent the liquids from leaking out
through the membranes.
Still, as Czerwinski admits, these
membranes are currently required in
only 5%–10% of pesticide packaging.
“We’re not in all packaging because,
quite honestly, customers aren’t going
to pay the additional money for vent-
ing unless they need it, so it’s really
only focused on certain chemistries,”
she says. Even for these chemistries,
vents are not the only option; for
example, BASF flushes oxygen out of
its bottles with nitrogen before seal-
ing to prevent oxidation reactions
and the associated loss of pressure.
The end result is the same,
though: a new generation of pesti-
cide containers with thinner walls.
Not only are these new containers
lighter and less resource-intensive,
they also assist the recycling effort,
because lighter bottles cost less to
recycle. “We allow our customers to
decrease the thickness of the walls in
their bottles, and because of that,
their recycling costs go down,”
Czerwinski explains.
Despite their generally toxic reputa-
tions, pesticides and fertilizers have
actually become safer and more envi-
ronmentally friendly over the past 50
years. It’s good to see that their pack-
aging is now beginning to follow suit.
Jon Evans is a technical writer based in
the UK.

Kenics® Static Mixers

Optimize Operating Efficiency and Minimize Costs
Dependable, efficient in-line mixing performance results from Kenics’ helical mixing element that
consistently produces complete radial mixing and flow division.
• Precise blending and dispersion of all flowable materials
• Utilizes no moving parts for minimal maintenance
• Promotes plug flow in continuous processes
• Provides rapid mixing with minimum pressure drop
• Boosts heat transfer rates and reduces thermal degradation

For additional information, visit www.chemineer.com/kenics.

For the nearest sales office, call 1-800-643-0641 or go to www.chemineer.com/sales.

www.kenics.com

www.4spe.org | MAY 2012 | PLASTICS ENGINEERING | 11