Here are 16 major differences we used to differentiate between the two types of technologies, Nor-X advanced additives vs the rest!
| Nor-X | OTHERS |
| Nor-X produces its own unique "advanced technology" thru a patented process Nor-X additive is quality controlled in house and is thus far more Nor-X intelligent additives are reliable and their performance is Nor-X has used independent reputable test facilities to valid date its Nor-X Nor-X has an open style of communication, hiding very little from potential Nor-X seeks to provide degradation as per ASTM D 6954-4 stds (i.e. 24 months) The ASTM D 6954-04 has clearly stated objectives which is Nor-X policy to Nor-X Nor-X Nor-X uses recognized and highly reputable institutions /qualified personnel. Nor-X Nor-X understands the need to provide tests results for potential "degradable/bio-degradable" products, to eliminate any risk on the Nor-X uses every effort to support its eco friendly technology in situations where their client requires to valid his product, in comparisons to and against other commercial Bio product forces, who seek to discredit the Nor-X intelligent additives are an inexpensive means "to limit the life" of |
Older technologies are known to be inconsistent in their degradation systems. Clients want consistent degradation performance within a known time frame. Degradation periods can be "blocked' by anti oxidant levels inherent in the film. Others use in the main their own research to validate Oxo bio technology Very Little known about any possible on going research for product Secrecy Other companies have no stated degradation time frame for degradation Other Oxo Bio additive companies have used Cobalt salts and other ingredients. Other Oxo Bio companies are based in countries where there maybe no regulation Other Oxo Bio providers have little in the way of validated supporting Some oxo bio additive providers say test this additive yourself, no test |
These are the basic differences between using the Nor-X advanced technology versus the older technologies that have been around "commercially" for the past 10 years. Some completely un-validated additive systems have been copied from existing additive systems in China/the Far East for example. There is no way that these can be regarded as substantial, any
user considering these does so at his own risk as it were.
Branded users of packaging products cannot afford the risk associated in attempting to use these additives, these additive may simply regarded as cheap and nasty, with no real research or supporting
documentation.