Dear Austine Ofondu Chinomso Iroegbu, I don't think your statement is correct. Terminology related to the field is up-to-date reviewed by IUPAC, an organization in charge by all facets and progress in such an area. My Regards

Abdelkader BOUAZIZ

What statement do you consider incorrect?

The article addresses "plastic" per real world application

Redefining terminology.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273666130_A_brief_guide_to_polymer_nomenclature_IUPAC_Technical_Report

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chin-Han-Chan/publication/318544657_The_Contribution_of_IUPAC_to_Polymer_Science_Education/links/5a39f4b9a6fdcc34776a4756/The-Contribution-of-IUPAC-to-Polymer-Science-Education.pdf

https://iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Compendium-of-Polymer-Terminology-and-Nomenclature-IUPAC-Recommendations-2008.pdf

Abdelkader BOUAZIZ

Please understand - these "plastics" are commercial materials - not simple , homogenous polymers. The "polymer" portion is combined with fillers and plasticizers etc. that often make up > 50% of the material. By analogy, it is incorrect to claim wood a lignin or cellulose polymer. Austine is correct and IUPAC is not relevant in addressing a complex material as you offered.

Yours is a common error esp. seen with so much 1/2-assed research reporting "biodegradation" of plastic. Interpreting apparent loss of structure as biodegrdation when it is due to physical, chemical and biological degradation of plasticizers and fillers, leaving microplastic particles unaffected.

There is a lot of corrections in your extended text. Polymers with the additives you mentioned are called composites, and they are also included in the IUPAC concerns. The links I posted are just samples, the author of the question may find further more specialized IUPAC documents. Lingnin and cellulose are also polymers of a natural origins, that are also used as composites.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244742365_Definition_of_Terms_Related_to_Polymer_Blends_Composites_and_Multiphase_Polymeric_Materials_IUPAC_Recommendations_2004

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ci.2004.26.4.10/html

Dear Abdelkader BOUAZIZ,

Thank you for engaging with the discussion. However, it appears there may be a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter, and I would kindly encourage a more thorough reading of the article in question to fully grasp the context and definitions provided.

To clarify: plastics are not the same as polymers. While all PLASTICS are based on polymers, they become plastics only after polymers are processed and compounded with additives to tailor their properties for specific applications. This distinction is important. For example, cellulose is a natural polymer, but when processed into cigarette filters, it becomes a plastic and contributes to plastic pollution.

I hope this helps to clarify the scientific distinctions being made. I won’t be engaging further on this point, but I appreciate your attention to the details.

Regards.

Polymers are rarely used in their virgin forms. Additives are used for special tasks, such as stabilizers, plasticizers, inert and reinforcing fillers and fibers, which are bind together by the polymer matrix. When pollution is in question, the whole cycle of polymer synthesis to application to recycling is questionable. Monomer synthesis from petrochemical complexes is accompanied by pollution, polymer synthesis, processing, and recycling all produce pollutants, usually refered as VOC (volatile Organic Compounds or Chemicals). For polymer Scientists these are abvious items since their discovery and application in different areas such as composites, paints, an so on.

Right - as Austine said "composite".

I've no idea what purpose your other comments serve - they appear to be pretty irrelevant