Symphony mobile logo

Symphony Environmental

clip path

Disposable Protective Mask


  • Pleated style with ear loops
  • High filtration efficiency for protection in many environments
  • 3-ply construction
  • Bacterial Filter Efficiency (BFE) no less than 95% filtration
  • Adjustable nose clip
  • Non-sterile


  • Non-medical
  • Personal protection
  • Industrial

Technical Data:

Product Reference: 2100/G
Model: Xnmc2020
Material: 3 layers non-woven pp layer 25g/m2

+ 25g/m2 BFE95 Filtration materials

+ PP layer 25g/m2

Colour: Blue
Size: 17.5 x 9.5cm
Shelf-life: 2 Years EU market
Packaging: 50 pcs per printed box

40 printed boxes / brown export carton

Printed Box Dimensions: 200 x 105 x 80mm
Carton Dimensions: 820 x 540 x 185mm
Carton weight: 4.1 – 4.2Kg
Certification: CE Mark
Classification: FFP2
Norms and Standards: EN149:2001 + A1:2009

Related to Directive(s): R2016/425

(Regulation on Personal Protective Equipment)

Origin Republic of China




EU stops scientific investigation into oxo plastics

On 8th May 2019 it was announced that the EU Commission had instructed its scientific experts, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to terminate their inquiry into “oxo-degradable” plastics. There is therefore no scientific dossier published by ECHA to support any restriction on such plastics in Europe.

In January 2018 the Commission published a Report in which they said that “a process to restrict the use of oxo-plastics in the EU will be started.”  This is the correct way to give effect to the precautionary principle in the EU, and the Commission asked ECHA to investigate under Art. 69 of REACH, because the Commission thought that these plastics created microplastics.

In July 2018 the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) submitted a detailed scientific dossier to ECHA, and on 30th October 2018 ECHA advised that it was not yet convinced that microplastics are formed. It was at about that time that the Environment Committee of the EU Parliament was persuaded to insert a ban on “oxo-degradable” plastics into the draft Directive. No such ban had been proposed in the Commission’s 2018 Report and it had not been included in the draft Directive submitted by the Commission to the Parliament and Council.


In fact, microplastics are formed by the disintegration of ordinary plastics, and they are very persistent.

The opponents of “oxo-degradable” technology have therefore sought to evade the well-established procedure for restricting products in Europe, laid down in Arts 68-73 of REACH, and therefore to deprive all stakeholders of the safeguards which those Articles provide, including a scientific dossier complying with Annex XV, review by two committees, and public consultation.

This is astonishing, and shows the extent to which the processes of the EU can be manipulated against the public interest.  The OPA has long believed that the “bio-based” plastic industry has been lobbying hard within the EU against products which they see as a threat to their market-share. This is however hard to understand in this case, because bio-based plastic is intended for transporting organic matter to industrial composting facilities and to biodegrade under those conditions.  By contrast, oxo-biodegradable plastic is intended to biodegrade if it gets into the open environment as litter.  There is room for both technologies in Europe.

ECHA Instruction

We now find that the instruction to ECHA was co-signed on behalf of the Commission by Carlo Pettinelli, who is a member of the Board of the Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking, which also includes a representative of Novamont, a large Italian producer of bio-based plastics.

There is a difference between oxo-degradable and oxo-biodegradable plastics1  The OPA agrees that there is a case for banning plastics which merely fragment, but this does not apply to Oxo-biodegradable plastics.  These plastics are necessary, because they are for the time being the only way to prevent the accumulation of plastic in the open environment.  They do this by degrading much more quickly than ordinary plastic so that they can then be recycled back into nature by bacteria and fungi, and will not accumulate as a problem for future generations.2  If collected during their useful life they can be recycled with ordinary plastic.

This draft Directive has not yet been adopted by the Council, but if it is adopted there could very well be legal action to declare the proposed ban invalid, and to make it clear that it does not apply to oxo-biodegradable plastic.

For more information please contact


[1] See CEN definitions in TR15351

2 See

OPA Responds to MacArthur Report


Michael Stephen (OPA Chairman)

The world and particularly the oceans are being choked by plastic.

In an ideal world all plastic waste would be collected and recycled, but we do not live in an ideal world.

Microplastics are a serious environmental problem.  They are caused by the embrittlement and erosion of ordinary plastic, and these fragments of plastic can lie or float around for decades.

Oxo-biodegradable plastic (OBP) is an upgrade to ordinary plastic, which ensures that if plastic litter escapes into the open environment, it will convert rapidly into biodegradable materials and will not remain there for decades as conventional plastic does now. 

Given that our oceans are fast approaching a crisis caused by plastic waste, governments, companies and consumers’ worldwide need to be pragmatic and they need to act.  Some governments in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia have already made OBP mandatory.

There is no easy solution to the problem of plastic in the environment – but OBP can make a huge contribution and it can be implemented right now at little or no extra cost.

The merits of OBP have been debated for more than ten years

Time is not on our side and action cannot wait any longer.


Eunomia Consultants were appointed by the European Commission to report on oxo-biodegradable plastics.  Their 2017 report found that “…it is possible for [OBP] plastic to fully mineralise in an open environment, with the prodegradant additives encouraging this action, and thus the polymers and entrained substances can be assimilated into the natural environment.”

Eunomia continued “The debate around the biodegradability of [OBP] plastic is not finalised, but should move forward from the assertion that it merely fragments, towards confirming whether the timeframes observed for total biodegradation are acceptable from an environmental point of view and whether this is likely to take place in natural environments.” We agree, and have assisted the Commission to answer these questions.

There is no longer any justification for anyone to confuse the public by referring to OBP as “oxo-fragmentable” or “oxo-degradable” (as the MacArthur Foundation report does). Moreover, the European Standards organisation CEN has clearly defined Oxo-biodegradation (in TR 15351) as “degradation resulting from oxidative and cell-mediated phenomena, either simultaneously or successively.”  The MacArthur report confuses the reader by mentioning enzyme-mediated degradable plastics, but they are not OBP and they are not recognised by this Association as having any value.

For oxo-biodegradable plastic generally see


OBP items can be programmed to degrade according to whatever timescale is required. They are (like all other plastic items) designed to have a service-life before they will start degrading in normal use or storage, and during that time they can be re-used in the same way as conventional plastic items.  It can easily be demonstrated that under any given conditions in the open environment OBP will degrade at a much faster rate than conventional plastic and will therefore be available for biodegradation in a much shorter time-frame.  OBP are therefore much less persistent and cannot accumulate in the environment as conventional plastics do. The key point is that OBP items are in substitution for, not in addition to, conventional plastic items, and are therefore much more acceptable from an environmental point of view.

The Natural Environment

The very many laboratory tests on OBP over the past three decades have not been done for the amusement of scientists – they have been done to replicate the performance of OBP in the natural environment. Ageing techniques in the laboratory, and the temperatures used, have been developed and are well understood so as to produce the same mechanisms and products of degradation as are observed in natural ageing. In addition, OBP has been tested many times for degradation in real time in seawater, most recently at Bandol in France.  The residue of the material was sent to Queen Mary University London who observed it being used as a food-source by bacteria commonly found on land and in the oceans, with no harmful effects.

Some of the scientific work has been commissioned by stakeholders in the oxo-biodegradable plastic industry, but it is performed by universities and tests houses who will not of course work free of charge but are rightly protective of their scientific independence. The oxo-biodegradable plastics industry nevertheless welcomes proper and appropriate testing commissioned by anyone.


A report has been published under the auspices of the Ellen McArthur Foundation, which bears the logos of a number of companies and organisations. Many of these are aggressively promoting a rival technology, and others are themselves producers of most of the plastic articles which are found in the environment. The MacArthur Foundation have not declared the amounts of money which they received from those companies and organisations. 

A draft of the MacArthur report was submitted by its authors to Prof. Ignacy Jakubowicz, one of the world’s leading polymer scientists, who said that it did not accord with his understanding nor the science in this field.

He also explained to them that “The degradation process is not only a fragmentation, but is an entire change of the material from a high molecular weight polymer, to monomeric and oligomeric fragments, and from hydrocarbon molecules to oxygen-containing molecules which can be bioassimilated.”  They are then recycled back into nature by the naturally-occurring micro-organisms.  This point is absolutely crucial to an understanding of OBP.

Rival Technology

The rival technology is called “bio-plastic,” but this is deceptive because 50% or more of its composition is from petro-chemicals.  This type of plastic can be up to 400% more expensive, it cannot be recycled together with ordinary plastic, and it is tested to biodegrade in the special conditions found only in industrial composting or anaerobic digestion. It therefore has to be collected and taken to an industrial facility, which does not resolve the key issue of plastic which has found its way into the open environment.  Although sold as “compostable” it does not convert into compost but converts instead into CO2 within 180 days, which is emitted to atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. It is deceptive to call this “organic-recycling” or “plastics-recovery.”  The promoters of this type of plastic see OBP as a threat to their market share, as it is much more useful, with better performance, a better LCA, and much less expensive.

OBP and other oil-based plastics do not cause fossil resource-depletion.  They are made from an inevitable by-product of oil which used to be wasted. The oil is extracted from the ground to make fuels and lubricants, and the same amount would be extracted even if oil-based plastics did not exist. Therefore, until other fuels and lubricants are found for vehicles, ships, aircraft, buildings, and factories, it makes sense to use this by-product instead of consuming large amounts of fossil fuel in the agricultural production, transport, and polymerisation of “bio-plastics.” See

In 2014 The French Federation of Commerce & Distribution described the law introduced by Ségolène Royal, forcing shops to change to paper or bioplastic bags, as “Une mesure dangereuse, inefficace et coûteuse pour les Français”  and said that it represents an additional cost of 300 million euros and would lead to higher food prices  – All this for no benefit.

This MacArthur report is ultimately counter-productive and confusing.  It seeks to deprive our environment of the benefits of a technology which has for more than ten years and in nearly 100 countries been making a real contribution to reducing the accumulation of plastic litter, with no reports of any adverse effects.

We wrote to Dame Ellen MacArthur herself on 13th March 2017 but have never received a reply.  She is not a polymer scientist and it seems that she is being misled. We have now given her an open invitation to meet with us at a time and place of her choice, but have received no reply.

This MacArthur report is the latest in a series of commercially-motivated attacks on OBP over more than ten years.  The authors of the report have done no research themselves, and are relying on a selective review of the literature.  They rely heavily on reports from lobby groups who promote “bio-based” plastic such as “SPI Bioplastics Council,” “European Bioplastics,” and “Biodegradable Products Institute.”


With regard to companies whose packaging is responsible for much of the plastic waste in the environment, they all say that they support redesign, re-use, and recycling, and so do we, but it is really surprising that they are not willing to engage with the OBP industry to run trials and find out whether OBP will work for them.  It is disappointing that they align themselves instead with people who attack the technology while thousands of tons of their plastic products get into the open environment every year, where they will lie or float around for decades.  It is sad that they care more about their profits than about the environment, and do not see the benefits of OBP for their own industry, which is under attack every day because its products can lie or float around in the environment for decades.

OBP is mandatory in several countries because their governments know that it is not possible to collect all the plastic waste and they need to ensure that if it does escape into their open environment, it will not remain there for decades.  Less plastic accumulating on land means less plastic in the world’s oceans – this is crucial because 80% of the plastic waste in the oceans is estimated to have been carried into the ocean from the land.

One might have expected the MacArthur Foundation to have more respect for the technical experts in those countries who have carried out a detailed evaluation of the suppliers of the additives and of the science and technology, over several years.

The report also talks about microplastics, which are indeed a big concern. However, most of the micro-plastics come from conventional plastic items, which have become embrittled and fragmented but remain as pieces of plastic, accumulating toxins and harming wildlife for decades.  By contrast OBP technology works by quickly dismantling the molecular structure of the plastic so that it is no longer a plastic and can be consumed and returned to nature by naturally-occurring microorganisms. This in itself is a major improvement to conventional plastic.


According to the recycling charity RECOUP (“Recyclability by Design” 2006) “In cases where plastic products are particularly lightweight and contaminated with other materials, the energy and resources used in a recycling process may be more than those required producing new plastics. In such cases recycling may not be the most environmentally sound option.”  These are the very products in which OBP technology is commonly used and they are not plastics in high-value use.

Members of the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) and their customers have been successfully recycling OBP for more than ten years with no adverse reports, but so as to address external concerns extensive scientific tests were done by Roediger Laboratories of Stellenbosch, South Africa.  They concluded that “Plastic products made with OBP technology may be recycled without any significant detriment to the newly formed recycled products, and further test by the Transfercenter fur Kunsststofftechnic Gmbh (TCKT) laboratory in Austria came to the same conclusion. See  There is therefore no need for separation of OBP from conventional plastics.

These were “worst-case-scenario” tests, using up to 100% recyclate; and 100% oxo recyclate, but neither of these conditions are likely to occur in practice. These tests were designed to be representative of internal and external industrial recycling, and post-consumer recycling including kerb-side collection i.e. scenarios where there has been no significant exposure to outdoor conditions which would promote the onset of degradation. Plastic products of any kind which do escape into the environment and remain there for long enough for significant degradation to occur, are unlikely to be recycled.

There have been several stories in the trade press recently about recyclate from Southern European countries causing defects and ruptures in new film.  When you look a little closer it becomes clear that the defects were caused by substances used in the manufacture of “bio-plastics” made from starch, polylactide (PLA) and which are not used in the manufacture of OBP.

This is a problem that is likely to get worse, as governments in France, Italy, Spain and now Greece have been persuaded by the manufacturers of “bio-plastics” to prefer their products.

Composting and Landfill

It is easy to attack a product by demonstrating that it will not do the things that it is not designed and supplied to do, andhe authors of the MacArthur report have attempted to do this in relation to composting and landfill.  Although OBP has been shown to work well in industrial composting and will degrade in the upper layers of a landfill, these are not its primary purposes. Its primary purpose is to ensure that if the plastic finds its way into the open environment it will become biodegradable and return to nature much more quickly than conventional plastic.  Perversely, OBP cannot comply with EN13432 for composting because it does not emit CO2 gas fast enough! 


OBP is an upgrade to ordinary plastic, and is manufactured to comply with the American Standard ASTM D6954 (which has six pass/fail tests), the British Standard 8472, the French Accord T51-808, the Swedish Standard SPCR 141, the UAE Standard 5009:2009 and the Saudi Standard 2879/2016.

The Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association (OPA) is as much concerned as anyone to ensure that only OBP made by reputable manufacturers in accordance with international standards should be placed on the market, and that marketing material should make only those claims which can be supported by credible evidence.

This Association is therefore willing to perform this service for OBP on the same basis that Vinçotte (a private company) verifies products marketed as “compostable.”  We have therefore written a Standard which will be submitted to the European Commission.

UK Judge find the case for oxo-biodegradable plastic proven

Symphony Environmental Technologies PLC has today (5th November 2018) warmly welcomed a report by the distinguished lawyer and former deputy Judge of the High Court in England, Peter Susman QC, which has declared the scientific case for oxo-biodegradable technologies to be “clear and compelling”.

Symphony Environmental Technologies Plc is the UK’s leading producer of oxo-biodegradable plastic products, which are now mandatory in twelve countries.

Oxo-biodegradable technology is intended to deal with plastic which escapes into the open environment, and especially the oceans, from which it cannot realistically be collected, and where it would otherwise persist for decades as a serious problem for future generations.

Mr Susman examined the processes of abiotic and biotic degradation of plastics, and then looked specifically at degradation in air and degradation in seawater.

He concluded, in a 15 page written opinion, that oxo-biodegradable technology:

  • does facilitate the ultimate biodegradation of plastics in air or seawater by bacteria, fungi or algae, within a reasonable time, so as to cause the plastic to cease to exist as such, far sooner than ordinary plastics, without causing any toxicity; • that “the benefit is obvious of reducing future contributions to the scourge of plastic pollution of land and sea”; • that oxo-biodegradable technology is compatible with composting and recycling; and • “the criticism alleging that oxo-biodegradable plastic technology would materially encourage littering [can only be regarded] as fanciful and unrealistic.” Commenting on his report, Peter Susman QC said:

“I have been asked imagine that I have been appointed as the sole member of an independent tribunal with jurisdiction to review, on a balance of probabilities, and in the light of the available scientific evidence, the effectiveness and utility of Oxo-biodegradable plastic technology in facilitating the speedier final degradation of certain plastics.

“It is no longer tenable to conclude that there is ‘no firm evidence either way’ whether oxo-biodegradable plastic technology is effective. I consider that recent research provides clear and compelling evidence that oxo-biodegradable plastic is indeed effective in facilitating very significantly speedier degradation than is the case when that technology is not used.”

Michael Laurier, Chief Executive of Symphony Environmental said:

“We are delighted that Peter Susman QC has found the scientific case for Symphony’s d2w oxobiodegradable technology to be proven.

“This is a pivotal period for Symphony, with growing demand for our products across the world.

“In addition to Mr Susman’s reasoned Opinion, d2w oxo-biodegradable technology is validated in terms of degradability, biodegradability, and ecotoxicity by reference to existing European and US Standards, and also conforms with the EU Packaging Waste Directive. It is the only oxo-biodegradable product to have been awarded an ABNT Eco-label”