EREMA's Markus Huber-Lindinger on building recycling lines that handle variability without sacrificing output quality : "Specialisation at the edges, flexibility in the core"

How has your product lineup changed over the past five years in response to material-specific requirements? Are you offering more specialised machines or fewer general-purpose models?

Over the past five years, our portfolio has evolved toward a modular platform approach: fewer “one-size-fits-all” promises, and instead application-specific configurations built on proven core machine concepts. You can see this in how we combine stable extrusion fundamentals with targeted technology building blocks—especially in filtration, degassing and odour handling. 

A good example is how we are scaling high-performance solutions through new filtration concepts and compact system design, such as our Laserfilter 812 developments and the related filtration packages referenced for our lines. 

Likewise, we are increasingly bringing application-focused variants into the INTAREMA^® family—such as INTAREMA^® TVEplus^® DuaFil^® Compact—to match market demand for low energy consumption, gentle extrusion and high-quality filtration performance in post-consumer recycling. 

And we also expand our technology reach across polymer families by transferring proven concepts—like EcoGentle^® plasticising technology—from PET into polyolefins and other streams where melt quality and energy efficiency matter. 

Finally, our lineup covers the value chain breadth—from recycling systems to compounding-type solutions such as COREMA within our public product overview—reflecting that material-specific requirements often extend beyond extrusion alone.

What material presents the biggest technical challenge for extrusion equipment today, and why? What specific engineering modifications does it require?

For me, the toughest challenge today is highly variable post-consumer polyolefin packaging—especially film-rich streams. The reason is not the polymer chemistry alone, but the combination of low bulk density, fluctuating moisture, and a wide contamination and odour spectrum that stresses feeding, melt stability, filtration uptime and final pellet quality.

Engineering-wise, this pushes modifications in three very concrete directions:

• Gentler, more stable plasticising to protect melt quality across varying viscosities and bulk densities. That is precisely where EcoGentle^® plays a role: This plasticising technology lowers melt temperature and reduces extruder drive power consumption in multipurpose HDPE/PP applications, translating into stable processes and lower production costs.
• Boosted degassing performance to manage volatiles and odour-critical components. Our VOLEX technology for the INTAREMA^® line is explicitly positioned as “high performance degassing,” including reductions in VOCs and certain substances at full throughput.
• High-performance filtration + odour management for premium output. Here, the combination of robust filtration (e.g., Laserfilter concepts, including LF 812 references) and downstream odour treatment like ReFresher is central to addressing post-consumer realities.

When a waste processor asks for equipment that can handle multiple plastic types, what trade-offs do you have to explain to them? Where does versatility compromise performance?

The key message is: versatility is possible, but physics sets boundaries. Different polymers bring different melting behaviour, viscosity windows, thermal sensitivity and contamination patterns. When you try to run “everything” on one line, you typically compromise in at least one of three areas: throughput, quality, or operating cost.

Where versatility most often costs performance:

1. Plasticising window and melt quality. If you want to cover wider variability, technologies like EcoGentle^® are valuable because they are designed to stabilise processing over different bulk densities/viscosities while reducing melt temperature and energy consumption.
2. Degassing needs. Materials with higher volatiles or odour sensitivity may require boosted degassing concepts. VOLEX is a clear example of technology focused on higher degassing performance and VOC reduction, but that specialisation is not always needed—or economically justified—for simpler streams.
3. Filtration strategy and uptime. Mixed input usually increases contamination variability, which can demand more advanced filtration setups. Our Laserfilter 812 is explicitly described as enabling high filtration throughput in a compact design and opening new scope for system design. 

So, I usually frame it like this: we can engineer a broad process window, but if the business case depends on premium-grade output, we either define the feedstock corridor tightly—or we configure the line with the right modules (plasticising, filtration, degassing, odour).

How much of your R&D budget now goes toward material-specific customisation versus general equipment improvements? Has this shifted significantly?

I don’t disclose internal budget splits, but directionally: yes, the centre of gravity has shifted. The market is forcing equipment makers to solve material- and stream-specific pain points—odour, volatile management, contamination tolerance, moisture swings, and compliance—while still improving general performance like reliability, energy efficiency and digital serviceability. 

You can see that shift reflected in the portfolio of innovations and application modules: EcoGentle^® (material-window and energy focus), VOLEX (degassing/volatiles), Laserfilter 812 (filtration capacity and compact design), and even digital integration topics around ReFresher.

Are there any plastic materials or waste streams you've decided to stop supporting with your equipment? What drove that decision?

We don’t fundamentally rule out any plastic material or waste stream upfront. Our default mindset at EREMA is to work with the customer to find a technical solution—often by defining the boundary conditions and qualifying the material through testing, rather than saying “no” on day one. 

That said, there are clear economic limits. At the end of the day, every project needs a shared business case that is robust for both sides. If the input corridor is too undefined or the variability/contamination requires disproportionate complexity, downtime risk, or operating cost to hit the target specification, then the solution may become technically possible but economically unjustifiable. 

How are emerging feedstocks—like pyrolysis oils from chemical recycling or mixed flexible packaging—forcing you to rethink traditional extruder design?

Two trends are reshaping traditional extruder thinking.

First: mixed flexible packaging. Low bulk density, moisture fluctuations, and odour load move the “centre of process control” toward stabilisation of the melt and removal of volatiles. That is where innovations like our Preconditioning Unit (PCU) with Counter Current®, EcoGentle® (wider reliable processing for variable regrinds) and VOLEX (boosted degassing and VOC reduction) directly address new realities in post-consumer streams. 

Second: chemical recycling feedstocks. Upstream of pyrolysis, the success factor is reliable, continuous, energy-efficient feeding despite widely varying input properties—exactly the rationale of our CHEMAREMA^® approach for mechanical preparation upstream of chemical recycling. 

In short, the design mindset shifts from “extrude a polymer” to “stabilise a feedstock system”—with stronger integration of preparation, control, degassing, filtration and quality monitoring.

Looking three years ahead, do you see the industry moving toward greater specialisation, or will advances in technology allow for more flexible equipment that can truly handle multiple materials effectively?

I expect both, but in a specific form: specialisation at the edges, flexibility in the core.

• Specialisation will increase where regulations and end-market specs demand validated performance—food contact is the obvious example, with rising validation requirements and stricter frameworks.
• Flexibility will improve through modular architectures and targeted “enablers”: energy-efficient plasticising (EcoGentle^®), higher degassing performance (VOLEX), scalable filtration (Laserfilter 812) and odour optimisation modules (ReFresher)—so processors can adapt to variability without giving up premium targets. 

So, I do not expect a single universal line that runs every polymer equally well. I do expect flexible platforms that can be specialised quickly and predictably for defined material families and quality targets.