The Search for Sustainable & Economical High-Performance Fiber Reinforcements for Plastics
Large brands that make durable goods are facing steeper and steeper. In today's world, one bad review or social media post can send a brand's stock price and reputation plummeting. So, how do large brands in the 21st century try to prevent this? By focusing on performance.
The only problem: high performance comes with high cost. Durable goods are meant to last decades and withstand some of the harshest conditions. The testing on durable goods goes over and above what is typically required of traditional plastic products. We live in a society today where people test the theoretical limits of anything and everything. When brands make durability claims, many consumers see an opportunity to make viral videos where they prove the big brands wrong. This has resulted in brands overengineering the plastics that are used in the durable goods they sell across the world. This overengineering comes at a price. The strength of the materials used in durable goods typically results in an increase in the cost of goods for manufacturers that produce these products. Naturally, these additional costs end up with consumers facing higher prices.
However, these high costs are more than just a result of the high-performance plastic resinss that are used in durable goods. Most high-performance plastics are composites, made up of a mixture of materials that are employed for different purposes. We use additives to enhance impact properties, flame retardant properties, UV resistance properties, and dozens of other physical and mechanical properties that are required for a specific application.
The materials that often matter the most in the performance of durable goods are reinforcement agents. These are the materials that add the mechanical performance characteristics that are required of durable goods to be, well, durable.
Comparing Glass Fiber to traditional Carbon Fiber Soultions
Although glass fiber is considered strong by many consumers, it has many problems compared to a higher-performance reinforcement agent like carbon fiber.
Here are just a few of the problems with glass fiber-reinforced plastics (GFRP):
Lower strength-to-weight ratio – GFRPs are heavier for the same performance.
Lower stiffness – GFRPs are more prone to deformation under load.
Higher density – Glass fiber increases part weight.
Inferior fatigue resistance – GFRPs degrade faster under cyclic loading.
Higher creep – GFRPs deform more over time under stress.
Higher thermal expansion – GFRPs expand/contract more with temperature changes.
Poor electrical conductivity – Not suitable for conductive or EMI shielding applications.
Lower thermal conductivity – Less effective in heat-dissipating applications.
Rougher surface finish – Less aesthetic and requires more post-processing.
UV degradation – Faster degradation under sunlight without protective measures.
Many companies are looking for alternatives to glass fiber because it has a horrible strength-to-weight ratio. Yes, glass fiber is fairly strong. But it is also heavy, and more overall material is required in the part design to meet structural performance requirements. Using a higher performing additve like carbon fiber can allow the design to use thinner walls and less material. In the world of high-performance plastics, the lightest weight design will win.
Lightweighting is becoming more important in the mobility sector (cars, boats, planes, etc) because acceleration and fuel efficiency (or range for electric vehicles) are top of mind for consumers. Lightweighting a plastic component means lower density material but more importantly less plastic required to create the same component. This naturally lowers the cost and carbon footprint of a plastic product.
So, Does That Mean That Virgin Carbon Fiber Is King?
Virgin carbon fiber, unfortunately, comes with many caveats as well. Here are just a few of the problems with carbon fiber-reinforced plastics.
High cost – Expensive to produce, limiting its use in cost-sensitive applications.
Energy-intensive production – High environmental impact due to energy use.
Supply constraints – Limited production capacity and availability can lead to shortages and price volatility.
It is commonly known that every 1 pound of virgin carbon fiber requires 20–40 pounds of CO2e to produce. That makes carbon fiber the highest carbon footprint reinforcement additive by a landslide. In a world that is focused on net zero targets for 2050, this is a problem. Companies are reverse engineering their 2050 goals to make sure they are on track by 2025 and 2030. This means cutting out all the materials that are significantly increasing their Scope 3 Carbon Emissions
So, what should a manufacturer do if they are looking to make high-performance plastic parts with a low carbon footprint?
Vartega Recycled Carbon Fiber, Striking a Balance between Performance, Cost, and Sustainability
Vartega’s recycled carbon fiber offers a sustainable, energy-efficient alternative to traditional virgin carbon fiber. By using up to 99% less energy in the production process, Vartega minimizes environmental impact without sacrificing quality, as the recycled fibers retain nearly 100% of the mechanical strength and durability of virgin carbon fiber. Additionally, Vartega’s solution is highly cost-effective, with prices up to 50% lower than those of virgin carbon fiber, making it an attractive option for industries seeking both performance and sustainability.
Vartega’s recycled carbon fiber is available in versatile formats to meet various production needs. It can be supplied in their proprietary EasyFeed Bundle™ technology, which streamlines the integration of carbon fiber into thermoplastic compounding and other processes, or as a dry, chopped fiber, which offers flexibility for different thermoset applications.
Vartega EasyFeed Carbon Fiber Bundles for thermoplastic compounding
What about Alternative & Natural Fiber Reinforcements?
Natural and alternative fiber options are now more accessible than ever. For years, innovators have sought replacements for traditional glass and carbon fiber, experimenting with various materials. This includes natural fibers, basalt fiber, and, most commonly, inexpensive minerals like talc and calcium carbonate.
However, each of these alternatives brings its own set of challenges.
Natural Fibers Challenges
At the surface, natural fibers seem like a great solution, but they come with many challenges.
Inconsistent quality and lower mechanical strength make it challenging for manufacturers to maintain high standards.
Moisture absorption and poor fiber-matrix adhesion reduce durability and long-term performance.
Thermal degradation and stability limit processing options.
Biodegradability conflicts with long-term durability, making natural fibers more suitable for short-life or non-structural applications.
Processing challenges and flammability add complexity to manufacturing and safety compliance.
On top of these problems, there are limited production volumes and a high variance in feedstocks. The natural fibers grown in one part of the country can be significantly different than fibers grown just a few hundred miles away. This can make it difficult for a manufacturer to rely on natural fibers as a reinforcement agent for durable goods that require high performance over extended periods of time.
Basalt Fibers Challenges
Recently, basalt fiber has been explored as an alternative to glass fiber by some of the large automotive companies, but many are discovering problems that are preventing commercial applications of basalt fiber-reinforced plastics.
Higher cost compared to glass fiber limits its adoption in cost-sensitive markets.
Processing challenges due to fiber brittleness and dispersion issues.
Limited availability and supply chain constraints can lead to delays and price volatility.
Lack of standardization and limited commercial use reduce confidence in its performance data.
Fiber-matrix adhesion issues can reduce composite strength.
Brittleness makes it unsuitable for flexible or high-impact applications.
Recycling difficulties and end-of-life challenges raise sustainability concerns.
Health and safety risks due to inhalation of fine basalt particles during processing.
Abrasion of processing equipment increases operational and maintenance costs.
Temperature sensitivity in polymer matrices limits use in high-heat environments.
Resin compatibility issues may restrict the range of applications.
Many of the manufacturers focused on sustainable alternatives to glass fiber that are exploring basalt fibers are failing to realize that basalt is a heavy mineral that must be extracted from the earth. This is counterproductive to many of the sustainability goals that our society is focused on attaining over the coming years.
Mineral Filler Challenges (Talc / Calcium Carbonate)
Talc, calcium carbonate, and other minerals have been used for decades to reduce the cost and maintain the performance of plastics. However, cost reductions by using these types of mineral fillers come with other side effects.
Reduced impact strength – These fillers increase stiffness but make plastics more brittle.
Increased density – Adds weight to composites, negating the advantages of lightweight plastics.
Surface finish and aesthetic issues – Rougher texture and less gloss can be problematic in visible applications.
Processing challenges – Increased viscosity and equipment wear during production.
Poor mechanical properties at high loadings – Too much filler can reduce flexibility and tensile strength.
Compatibility issues – Often require coupling agents or treatments for proper bonding with polymers.
Moisture absorption – Leads to voids, warping, and potential quality issues.
Health and environmental concerns – Talc, in particular, may pose safety risks if not properly processed.
Limited reinforcement – Provides less strength and durability compared to glass or carbon fiber.
Equipment wear – Mineral fillers are abrasive, increasing wear and tear on machinery.
Limited thermal stability – Not suitable for high-heat applications.
Color alteration – Fillers can dull or whiten the plastic, affecting its appearance.
Dimensional stability trade-offs – Can cause warping or shrinkage in complex molded parts.
One of the main side effects of minerals like talc and calcium is the trace elements found in the materials. It is common for minerals like talc and calcium to be contaminated with asbestos and crystalline silica. You may be familiar with asbestos from lawsuits in previous decades. Many people are less familiar with crystalline silica, but there is a long history of health conditions because of this material as well. Many people in the mineral industry will refer to this as “silica” because consumers don’t see silica as a problem.
Here are just some of the complications with the contamination of asbestos and crystalline silica in mineral fillers used in plastics.
Asbestos contamination in talc – Poses serious health risks, including cancer, and is highly regulated.
Crystalline silica in both minerals – Can cause silicosis and lung cancer if inhaled, requiring strict dust control.
Occupational health risks – Workers in industries that handle these materials are at risk, necessitating protective measures.
Legal and financial liability – Asbestos and silica contamination have led to costly lawsuits, recalls, and settlements.
Supply chain challenges – Sourcing asbestos- and silica-free materials adds complexity and cost to the supply chain.
Reputation and consumer perception – Concerns about contamination can harm brand reputation and sales, even in compliant products.
Environmental impact – Mining can release harmful particles into the environment, leading to regulatory fines and community opposition.
Many companies are actively looking to remove these materials from their supply chains by replacing them with more sustainable alternatives.
Balancing the Requirements of High-Performance Reinforcements
If you have been looking for reinforcement agents that meet cost, weight, performance, and carbon footprint requirements, then you know how difficult it can be. Of course, if the solution were easy, then everyone would do it. The problem is you typically have to compromise one metric for another. Finding sustainable alternatives is really about finding the balance between costs, performance, CO2e, and weight. There is no perfect material, but over the years, sustainable alternatives such as Vartega’s recycled carbon fiber solutions are helping to bridge the gap between performance, sustainability, and cost effectiveness.
Vartega’s recycled carbon fiber is available in versatile formats tailored to a wide range of production needs. Choose from our proprietary EasyFeed Bundle™ technology for seamless integration into manufacturing processes, or opt for dry, chopped fiber for added flexibility in diverse applications. With Vartega’s sustainable and innovative solutions, you can achieve your performance and environmental goals. To learn more, reach out to our team at sales@vartega.com and discover how we can support your next project.
