Reverse vending machines are not “smart bins”. They are selective material handling systems: they accept or refuse objects based on rules, compact them in specific ways, and create guaranteed, high‑quality material streams for recycling. The value of an RVM in any collection initiative is directly linked to how well it handles material flows.

This article explains, from an engineering and operational point of view:

• Why PET and aluminium should usually be your starting point
• How separation choices (PET vs alu vs glass) affect real recycling and logistics
• Why Recyclever RVM5 deliberately does not handle refillable glass
• How forced glass breakage works and what it means downstream
• Why carton/Tetrapak is a special case that must be co‑designed with the recycling system

The perspective is practical: what makes a collection initiative actually work rather than just looking good in a pilot.

1. Why start with PET (and aluminium)?

The vast majority of today’s recycling challenge in beverage packaging is PET bottles. If you are designing a new initiative, especially in a non‑DRS market, PET should almost always be the first material in scope, with aluminium cans typically added alongside it.

An RVM is an automated return point which selectively accepts or refuses objects, based on material, dimensions, shape and, in DRS, barcode. A bin cannot do this.

• If you specify “PET only”, a Recyclever RVM5 will ensure that only PET bottles end up in the PET bin.
• If you specify “PET and aluminium, separated”, you will end up with one bag that is only PET and another that is only aluminium.

With a bin:

• You save on technology up front, but
• You have no guarantee of what is inside, meaning:
  • Higher contamination
  • Lower recycling quality
  • More manual sorting (if done at all)
  • No trustworthy data

For a serious initiative, especially if you care about ESG reporting, brand integrity and fraud resistance, you need that selectivity. PET (plus aluminium) is where you get maximum impact for the complexity you introduce.

2. PET in an RVM: memory, compaction and fraud

PET is deceptively simple. It’s “just a plastic bottle”, but mechanically it is one of the trickiest materials to compact well.

• PET has a strong shape memory: if you compress it badly, it tends to bounce back, recreating volume in the bag.
• If you crush it too aggressively in the wrong way, you can damage labels and structure in a way that affects identification and handling.

Recyclever’s RVM5 uses a patented compactor with blades specifically tuned for PET:

• The aim is to compact bottles by roughly 80% volume reduction, so you can fit about five times more PET into the same space than uncompacted loose bottles.
• On a very simple example:
  • 1,000 x 1 L PET bottles loosely thrown into a container might occupy, say, ~1 m³.
  • Compacting by 80% means that same number of bottles fits into ~0.2 m³.
  • In logistics terms, one truckload of compacted PET can replace multiple truckloads of loose PET.

The compactor is designed to:

• Eliminate PET “memory”, so bottles do not try to re‑inflate after compaction.
• Scar the PET – creating controlled deformations that:
  • Prevent reinflation and reuse of the same container for fraud.
  • Maintain enough integrity for downstream recycling (labels, barcodes where needed).

This is how you get the density you want without creating a material that recyclers dislike. You are not shredding; you are compacting intelligently.

3. Aluminium cans: high value, sharp edges and tuned blades

Aluminium cans bring excellent recycling value but have their own mechanical challenges.

If you over‑crush alu with the wrong geometry, you create:

• Sharp, dangerous edges that are a safety risk for staff.
• Shapes that can snag in conveyors or bags.

Recyclever’s approach is:

• Use different blades for aluminium than for PET.
• Tune the compaction stroke and pattern to:
  • Flatten the can reliably (again targeting ~80% volume reduction).
  • Avoid forming knife‑like fins and sharp creases.

The result is:

• High‑density alu fractions (fewer trucks per tonne).
• Safer handling for staff who empty bags or bins.
• Clean, mono‑material alu streams that recyclers can value correctly.

4. Separation logic: PET vs aluminium vs glass

RVM5 has two internal compartments and can be configured flexibly, but Recyclever’s preferred configuration in most deployments is:

• PET in one compartment
• Aluminium in the other

This yields:

• A bag that is guaranteed only PET
• A bag that is guaranteed only aluminium

From a downstream point of view, this is extremely attractive:

• Recyclers receive pure streams that match their plant design.
• There is no need for local secondary sorting.
• Material prices and offtake conditions tend to be more favourable.

Some clients request co‑mingled PET + alu in one compartment, sometimes with glass in the other. RVM5 can do this as well, and an important differentiator is that:

• RVM5 can always separate two materials without adding extra modules or external sorting units, whereas many competitors require more expensive add‑ons to achieve similar separation.

The trade‑off:

• Separated PET and alu streams give maximum material quality and price, at the cost of a slightly more constrained internal configuration.
• Co‑mingling is acceptable where downstream infrastructure can easily separate metals from plastics, or where logistics simplicity is prioritised over maximum purity.

In practice, Recyclever’s advice is:

• Always separate lightweight (PET/alu) from glass.
• Within lightweight, prefer PET vs alu separation where volumes and business model justify it.

5. Glass: why RVM5 breaks bottles (and does not handle refillables)

5.1. When to include glass

For new, non‑DRS initiatives, Recyclever generally recommends:

• Start with PET + aluminium,
• Exclude glass at the very beginning, unless:
  • The initiative is well organised.
  • There is a clear, existing glass recycling route.
  • The operator understands the operational implications.

However, glass is fully within the scope of RVM5, technically and mechanically.

5.2. Forced glass break and how it works

RVM5 is designed for one‑way glass bottles going to recycling, not for refillable bottle loops.

Refillable systems require:

• Bottles to remain completely intact.
• Gentle “soft‑drop” handling.
• Manual sorting or large accumulation areas where intact bottles are picked up by hand and placed into reusable crates.

That is a different system design, with:

• High labour input.
• Large back‑of‑house infrastructure.
• Complex logistics.

Recyclever’s philosophy is clear: RVM5 optimises glass for recycling, not reuse.

In glass mode:

• Accepted glass bottles are force‑broken into large shards.
• A special liner bag is used in the glass bin:
  • The glass falls freely into the bag, as PET and alu do into theirs.
  • The bag structure supports the weight and shape of glass shards.

The benefits:

• High density: a bag of broken glass is much denser than loose bottles, dramatically improving transport efficiency.
• Fraud resistance: once broken into shards, glass cannot be re‑used in the system.
• Recycling‑ready material: cullet is optimised for melting and new glass production.

The primary downside is operational:

• Handling broken glass bags requires care.
  • Staff must avoid tilting or dropping the bag.
  • Appropriate PPE and handling procedures are needed.

But for a well‑designed initiative with trained staff and a clear glass recycling partner, this is a manageable trade‑off for the density and fraud benefits.

6. Carton/Tetrapak: capability vs real‑world recycling

Technically, RVMs can be configured to accept liquid cartons (Tetrapak and similar). Mechanically they can be identified and routed like other containers.

However, Tetrapak is a multi‑layer composite (paper, polymers, sometimes aluminium) and its recyclability is highly dependent on:

• Whether there is a specialised factory capable of separating these layers at scale.
• The economics of that separation in the specific country or region.

The hard question for any operator is: “If we collect Tetrapak, what exactly happens next?”

Open issues include:

• If you compact cartons aggressively and scar them to avoid fraud, do you make separation and fibre recovery harder or impossible for local plants?
• If you allow cartons to free‑fall with minimal compaction to preserve structure, do you leave more room for fraud (e.g. refilling, replay of containers)?
• Does your recycler want them mixed with PET or in a dedicated stream, and can you guarantee sufficient volume to justify that?

Recyclever’s position is deliberately cautious:

• RVM5 can technically accept and route cartons,
• But Recyclever does not recommend including Tetrapak by default in collection initiatives unless:
  • The local recycler explicitly confirms a realistic, scalable processing route.
  • Compaction and handling parameters are co‑designed with that recycler.

In short: do your homework carefully. It is better to run a high‑quality PET/alu/glass initiative with real recycling than to boast “we collect everything” while feeding materials into weak or non‑existent recycling streams.

7. Quantifying compaction and logistics (PET & alu)

To give a sense of scale, assume:

• PET and alu are compacted to about 20% of their original volume (≈80% reduction).
• Glass is broken but we’ll ignore it here for simplicity.

On a representative example:

• Suppose a site generates 1,000 PET bottles + 500 aluminium cans per day.
• As loose items, this might occupy:
  • PET: say 1.0 m³
  • Alu: say 0.3 m³
  • Total: ~1.3 m³/day

With Recyclever’s tuned compaction:

• PET volume becomes ~0.2 m³
• Alu volume becomes ~0.06 m³
• Total becomes ~0.26 m³/day

Over a month (30 days):

• Loose: ~39 m³
• Compacted: ~7.8 m³

Even with rough numbers, this illustrates:

• Around 5× improvement in volume utilisation,
• A similar factor reduction in required container space and truck trips,
• Easier storage and handling at intermediate facilities.

This is why compaction design is not a “nice‑to‑have” but a central part of the material flow and CO₂ story.

8. Design priorities: no fraud, clean output, robust system

From Recyclever’s perspective, designing material flows in an RVM is about building a well‑designed, successful collection initiative, not just a machine.

Design priorities, in order, are roughly:

1. No fraud from users

   • Vision, material detection, dimensions, weight, motion and silhouette checks combined.
   • Forced breaking for glass.
   • Compaction and scarring for PET and alu to prevent re‑use.

2. Quality of output

   • PET only in PET bags, alu only in alu bags, glass cullet optimised for recycling.
   • Avoiding contamination and mixed fractions that recyclers dislike.

3. User experience

   • Clear, fast interaction via touch screen and media screen.
   • Transparent feedback on acceptance, rejection and rewards.
   • Reliable, quick throughput (40+ containers per minute is realistic).

4. Machine robustness and modularity

   • Patented compactor with material‑specific blades.
   • Modular RVM5‑800/1000/1200 frames for different capacities.
   • In‑house design of key systems for long‑term support.

5. Cost of manufacturing and total cost of ownership

   • Competitive against the top 4 established suppliers, not “entry‑level” newcomers.
   • Separation of two material streams without costly extra modules.

6. Solid IT and data infrastructure

   • Telemetry and data flows through the RecyHub portal.
   • DRS database updates where applicable.
   • APIs for POS, loyalty and third‑party systems.

In this view, “collect everything” is not a virtue if it leads to fraud, mixed contamination and poor data. The goal is:

• A bin that is full only of what you wanted to collect.
• A system that users can trust and enjoy.
• Data that operators, brands and municipalities can rely on.

Read more

For deeper technical detail on each aspect of an RVM project, see these dedicated articles:

Designing an RVM Collection Initiative (DRS and non‑DRS)
Step‑by‑step walkthrough of how to specify a collection initiative using RVMs, including DRS vs non‑DRS operating modes, user groups, fraud risks, logistics and business model.

User Interaction and Reward Options for Reverse Vending Machines
Detailed look at user journeys: static vs logic‑based printed vouchers, QR codes on screen, NFC/QR readers, app integrations and APIs for POS and loyalty systems.

RVM Compaction Technology and CO₂ Impact
Inside the compaction system: bottle and can flattening, forced glass breakage, single vs dual chambers, adjustable plates, changeable blades and how these choices influence density and transport emissions.

RecyHub: Data, Telemetry and Analytics for RVM Fleets
How RecyHub collects and distributes data: container‑level events, machine telemetry, alerts, reports, API access and how operators, retailers and brands can use this data to optimise their initiatives.