Systems, methods, and compositions related to copolymerization of crystallizable polymers for enzymatic degradation

Abstract

Compositions generally related to recycled polymers, copolyester products and related methods, are generally described. The compositions may include copolyester products comprising crystallizable polymers and / or copolymers, which may be present in a post-consumable / post-industrial polymeric material. The copolyester products may have characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. In some instances, a polymeric feedstock material can include the copolyester product.

Description

[0001]SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPOSITIONS RELATED TO COPOLYMERIZATION OF CRYSTALLIZABLE POLYMERS FOR ENZYMATIC DEGRADATION RELATED APPLICATIONS This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.63 / 590,318, filed October 13, 2023, and entitled “COPOLYMERIZATION FOR ENZYMATIC DEGRADATION OF CRYSTALLIZABLE POLYMERS,” which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes. REFERENCE TO AN ELECTRONIC SEQUENCE LISTING The contents of the electronic sequence listing (P118370017WO00-SEQ- TJO.xml; Size: 50,440 bytes; and Date of Creation: October 10, 2024) is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. TECHNICAL FIELD Methods used to improve enzymatic degradation of polymers are generally described. BACKGROUND Generally, the accumulation of post-consumer and / or post-industrial polymeric materials (PC / IPMs) presents significant environmental and economic concerns. The challenges associated with degradation and / or depolymerizing methods of PC / IPMs, and polyester-based waste specifically, are well known in the art. However, to summarize briefly, current degradation and / or depolymerizing methods are insufficient to address the widespread production and accumulation of polymeric materials. While enzymatic degradation of polymeric materials is a promising method, the crystallizable nature and rapid crystallization during the degradation process of the amorphous phases of some PC / IPMs, such as textiles and / or PC / IPMs comprising a plurality of polymers, limits the efficiency and effectiveness of enzymatic degradation of polymeric materials. Accordingly, the development of improved methods and compositions of enzymatic degradation of polymeric materials are highly desired. SUMMARY The subject matter of the present disclosure involves, in some cases, interrelated products, alternative solutions to a particular problem, and / or a plurality of different uses of one or more systems and / or articles. One aspect is generally related to a recycled polymer. In some embodiments, the recycled polymer comprises a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation. In some embodiments, a recycled polymer, comprising: a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation, comprising a copolyester product from a transesterification reaction between at least a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, wherein the copolyester product is provided as a feedstock material for enzymatic degradation. In some embodiments, a recycled polymer, comprising: a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation, comprising a copolyester product from a transesterification reaction between at least a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, wherein at least one of the first and / or second polymer or copolymer is recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation, and the copolyester product has characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. Another aspect is generally directed to methods of polymeric degradation. A polymeric degradation method, comprising: reacting a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, to produce a copolyester product; and exposing the copolyester product to a polymer-degrading enzyme. Other advantages and novel features of the present disclosure will become apparent from the following detailed description of various non-limiting embodiments of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying figures. In cases where the present specification and a document incorporated by reference include conflicting and / or inconsistent disclosure, the present specification shall control. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS Non-limiting embodiments of the present invention will be described by way of example with reference to the accompanying figures, which are schematic and are not intended to be drawn to scale. In the figures, each identical or nearly identical component illustrated is typically represented by a single numeral. For purposes of clarity, not every component is labeled in every figure, nor is every component of each embodiment of the invention shown where illustration is not necessary to allow those of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention. In the figures: FIG.1 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the materials synthesized in Example 2, according to some embodiments. FIG.2 shows the1H-NMR spectrum in CDCl3 / d-TFA (80 / 20 v% mix) of the sample synthesized in Example 1 with the residence time of 60 min, according to some embodiments. FIG.3 shows the13C-NMR spectrum in CDCl3 / d-TFA (80 / 20 v% mix) of the sample synthesized in Example 1, with the residence (mixing) time of 60 min, according to some embodiments. FIGs.4A-4B show the chemical structures of (FIG.4A) PET repeating unit, (FIG.4B) PBT repeating unit, according to some embodiments. FIG.5 shows the absorbance vs. mass concentration calibration curve of TPA in NaOH 0.5 wt.% solution, according to some embodiments. FIGs.6A-6C show the scheme of the procedure used to obtain the reaction yield of depolymerization vs time by absorbance at 242 nm. The enzymatic assays correspond to the description given in Example 26. Absorbance curves (FIG.6A) were measured at different reaction times. Also shown is Absorbance at 242 vs time (FIG.6B) and the corresponding reaction yield (%) vs time (FIG.6C), according to some embodiments. FIG.7 shows the variation of the axial force during mixing in the compounder the material synthesized in Comparative Example 1. Arrow indicates the mixing time at which the samples was withdrawn from the compounder, according to some embodiments. FIG.8 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) as a function of time of PC / IPM bottle-grade PET described in the Comparative Example 1 using an LCC variant at T=65°C. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation, according to some embodiments. FIG.9 shows the variation of the axial force during mixing in the compounder the materials synthesized in Example 10. Arrow indicates the mixing time (5 min) at which the samples was withdrawn from the compounder, according to some embodiments. FIG.10 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained by melt extrusion of PC / IPM bottle-grade PET (A) described in Example 9 and 100% PET textile waste (B) described in the Example 10. Enzymatic degradation was performed at T=65°C using the LCC variant catalyst. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation, according to some embodiments. FIG.11 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the materials synthesized in Example 11. Arrow indicates the mixing time (5 min) at which the samples was withdrawn from the compounder, according to some embodiments. FIG.12 shows the (1) enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of plastic materials obtained from PC / IPM PBT described in Comparative Example 6 using the LCC variant at T=65°C. (2) enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of plastic materials obtained from PC / IPM PBT described in Comparative Example 6 and PC / IPM bottle-grade PET described in Comparative Example 2 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.13 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the materials synthesized in Example 12, according to some embodiments. Arrows indicate the mixing times at which the samples were withdrawn from the compounder. FIG.14 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of melt extruded PC / IPM bottle-grade PET (A), 100% PET textile waste (B) and polyester textile waste made of fibers containing PET and PBT described in Comparative Example 1, Comparative Example 2 and Comparative Example 4, respectively. Enzymatic assays were performed using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.15 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the materials synthesized in Example 13, according to some embodiments. FIG.16 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of plastic materials obtained by melt extrusion of PC / IPM bottle-grade PET described in Comparative Example 6 (A) and PC / IPM bottle-grade PET contaminated with 10 wt.% of PC / IPM PBT described in the Comparative Example 5 (B) using the LCC variant at T=75°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.17 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of plastic materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of a polyester textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers for a residence time of 90 min (Example 14) and 5 min (Comparative Example 4) using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.18 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of a polyester textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers for a residence time of 90 min (Example 15) and 5 min (Comparative Example 7) using the LCC variant at T=75°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.19 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the material synthesized in Example 16, according to some embodiments. FIG.20 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the materials synthesized in Example 17, according to some embodiments. Arrows indicate the mixing times at which the samples were withdrawn from the compounder. FIG.21 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time plot of mixed polyester textile wastes made of PET and PBT by reactive mixing / extrusion for 90 min (Example 18, batch of Example 16) and 5 min (Comparative Example 8, batch of Example 17) using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.22 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials made by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed polyester textile wastes made of PET and PBT for a residence time of 90 min (Example 18: batch of Example 16 and of Example 17) and 5 min (Comparative Example 8: batch of Example 17 and batch #2). Enzymatic assays were performed using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.23 shows the reaction yield at 24h obtained for polyester materials made by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed polyester textile wastes made of PET and PBT for a residence time (tres) of 5 min (Example 17) and Comparative Example 8 Batch #2 and of 90 min (Example 16 and Example 17) using the LCC variant at 65°C. FIG.24 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time for polyester materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed PC / IPMs containing PET and PBT for different residence times, tres, (5 min:^; 30 min:^; 60 min:^ and 90 min:^). Enzymatic assays were done using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.25 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made with PET and PBT fibers with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min (Example 22) and 5 min (Comparative Example 10), according to some embodiments. Enzymatic assays were performed using NovHiC at T=65°C. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. Table 38 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. FIG.26 shows the chemical structure of diglycidyl terephthalate, according to some embodiments. FIG.27 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the material synthesized in Example 18, according to some embodiments. Arrows indicate different mixing times at which samples were withdrawn from the compounder and the time at which reactive agent DGT was added. FIG.28 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained from PC / IPM described in the Example 24 and Comparative Example 8 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. Table 40 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. FIG.29 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the material synthesized in Example 19, according to some embodiments. Arrow indicates the time at which reactive agent DGT was added. FIG.30 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained from PC / IPM described in the Example 26 and Comparative Example 8 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.31 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the material synthesized in Example 27, according to some embodiments. Arrows indicate the different mixing times at which samples were withdrawn from the compounder and the addition of DGT reactive agent. FIG.32 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained from PC / IPM described in the Example 28 and Comparative Example 4 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.33 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained from polyester textile waste described in the Example 29 and Comparative Example 7 using the LCC variant at T=75°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.34 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder of the material synthesized in Example 30, according to some embodiments. Arrows indicate the different mixing times at which samples were withdrawn from the compounder and the addition of DGT reactive agent. FIG.35 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of polyester materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion a mixture of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes and polyester PET / PBT textile waste described in the Example 31 and Comparative Example 9 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. FIG.36 shows the linear correlation between composition (B[mol%]) of PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT and composition (B[mol%]) of the polymer materials after processing by melt extrusion / reactive extrusion, according to some embodiments. Compositions (before and after processing) in B[mol%] were determined from1H-NMR characterization for different examples of reference. FIG.37 shows the ATR-FTIR spectra of PET and PBT, according to some embodiments. FIG.38 shows the evolution of [Absorbance at 1340 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] over 100 – B (mol%), according to some embodiments. FIG.39 shows the evolution of [Absorbance at 1041 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] over 100 – B (mol%), according to some embodiments. FIG.40 shows the evolution of [Absorbance at 935 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] over B (mol%), according to some embodiments. FIG.41 shows the variation of the axial force during reactive mixing in the compounder of the mixture of PET / PTT staple fibers described in Example 34, according to some embodiments. FIG.42 shows a1H-NMR spectrum of PET / PTT staple fibers described in Example 34, according to some embodiments. FIG.43 shows a1H-NMR spectrum of the product of reactive mixing PET / PTT staple fibers for 90 min described in Example 34, according to some embodiments. FIG.44 shows a13C-NMR spectra in the region of aromatic quaternary carbons of PET / PTT staple fibers after melt mixing for 5 min and 90 min as described in Example 34, according to some embodiments. FIG.45 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) versus time of polyester materials obtained from PC / IPM mixed staple fibers of PET and PTT described in the Example 34 and Comparative Example 11 using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. FIG.46 shows variation of the axial force during reactive mixing in the compounder of the post-industrial PET fiber blend described in Comparative Example 12, according to some embodiments FIG.47 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) versus time of post- industrial blend of PET textile fibers described in the Comparative Example 12 and PET bottle flakes using the LCC variant at T=65°C, according to some embodiments. FIG.48 shows the integrated heat flow versus incubation time at 65°C in the presence of buffer for micronized and sieved PET textile fibers and PET bottle in the size range (150-300 µm), according to some embodiments. FIG.49 shows enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) versus time of post- industrial PET textile fibers described in the Comparative Example 12 using the LCC variant at T=55°C, according to some embodiments. FIG.50 shows variation of the axial force during reactive mixing in the compounder of the mixture of PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT as described in Example 35, according to some embodiments. FIG.51 shows the enzymatic depolymerization yield (%) vs time of the samples obtained by reactive mixing post-industrial PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT described in the Example 35 and of PET textile fiber described in Comparative Example 12 (batch 2) using the LCC variant at T=55°C, according to some embodiments. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Post-consumer and post-industrial polymeric materials (PC / IPMs) comprising crystallizable polymers are generally recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation and typically cannot be efficiently depolymerized using enzymatic strategies known to those of ordinary skill in the art. While crystallizable polymers were expected to degrade at relatively high temperatures due to higher enzyme activity and higher chain mobility, it was found that the enzymatic degradation of crystallizable polymers resulting in slow reaction rates and low yields despite reacting at relatively high temperatures. The crystallizable nature and rapid crystallization during the degradation process of the amorphous phases of some PC / IPMs, such as textiles and / or PC / IPMs, limits the efficiency and effectiveness of enzymatic degradation of polymeric materials. For example, the rate and the yield of enzymatic depolymerization of polyester textiles (textile-grade PET) are generally lower than that of bottle-grade PET, which generally limits the application of enzymatic depolymerization of textile waste, a relatively important class of polyester waste. Textile waste generally has a lower molecular weight than bottle-grade PET and a faster crystallization speed, which may influence it recalcitrance to enzymatic depolymerization (e.g., degradation). Also, plastic wastes often contain a mixture of semi-crystalline polymers that cannot be separated / sorted in a convenient way. For example, textiles made with fibers of two different semi-crystalline polyesters (e.g. PET and PBT) one of which (PBT) crystallizes very fast, exhibit very low enzymatic depolymerization yield compared to bottle-grade PET even when fast crystallizing component (PBT) content is very low. The presence of polymer contaminants and chemically different polymers in the waste severely limits the enzymatic recycling efficiency and is particularly detrimental for recycling of polyester textiles, carpet, and other PC / IPM. Surprisingly, the inventors have discovered that reacting a first crystallizable polymer that is recalcitrant to enzyme degradation with a second crystallizable polymer that is recalcitrant to enzyme degradation produces a copolymer product that is amenable to enzymatic degradation and improves the rates and yields of enzymatic degradation. Reactive mixing of PC / IPM comprising chemically different polymers (e.g., polyesters) leads to formation of copolymer (e.g., copolyester) materials that can be efficiently depolymerized in the presence of enzymes (e.g., polymer-degrading enzymes). Such reactive mixing may allow PC / IPMs that are generally recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation, both individually and after certain amorphization regimes such as melting and fast cooling with one or more other PC / IPMs, to become a feedstock (e.g., via transesterification) that is amenable to enzymatic degradation. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be a product of transesterification between PC / IPMs, at least one PC / IPM being recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation (e.g., crystallizable and / or crystalline).Without wishing to be bound by any particular theory, the amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues (Equation 2) of the copolymer relative to the original first crystallizable polymer and original second crystallizable polymer is changed by the aforementioned reaction. During reactive mixing, the proportion of different esters may change and this change is generally indicative that the PC / IPM that underwent reactive mixing comprises chemically different polymers. PC / IPM, as described later, may comprise additives (e.g., catalysts, dyes, processing aids, stabilizers, sizing agents, fillers, and / or plasticizers) which differ in their chemical nature and content. In particular, the presence of different catalysts used to polymerize different polyesters affects transesterification reactions and also can lead to the above-mentioned changes in different esters content. When the composition and / or transesterification degree is adequately adjusted and reactively mixed, even PC / IPM comprising fast crystallizing polymers that are generally recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation can be efficiently depolymerized. In some embodiments, the amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues increases after the transesterification reaction relative to the amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues in the first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. By increasing the transesterification degree as measured by the content of heterolinkages in the material after transesterification, the enzymatic depolymerization rate and yield can be improved. In some embodiments, the amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues decreases after the transesterification reaction relative to the amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues in the first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product of a transesterification reaction between the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers, having different amounts of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues, may have an intermediate amount of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues compared to the first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. The degree of crystallinity in the copolymer product may be lower than that of the original first crystallizable polymer and the original second crystallizable polymer. Moreover, the cold crystallization temperature may increase in the copolymer product compared to the original first crystallizable polymer and the original second crystallizable polymer which can prevent crystallization during enzymatic degradation that would otherwise impede the degradation process. In certain embodiments, terephthalic acid can be obtained from PET mixed with PC / IPMs containing polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and / or polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), which are materials typically recalcitrant to depolymerization, via enzymatic degradation. In some embodiments, PC / IPMs are depolymerized to recover acids via transesterification reactions. Surprisingly, it was found that transesterification reactions can be carried out without the addition of catalysts. The catalysts present in PC / IPMs, in some embodiments, are sufficient to carry out the transesterification reaction. In some embodiments, metal and / or organic catalysts can be added to accelerate and control the reaction rate and / or yield. Accordingly, it has been recognized, within the context of the present disclosure, that certain embodiments described herein can have a number of advantageous effects, including but not limited to enhancing the enzymatic degradation of polymeric materials comprising crystallizable polymers (e.g., by increasing reaction rates and / or yields), allowing polymer degradation processes to be continuous rather than batch, and expanding the types of enzymes that may be used to degrade crystallizable polymers (e.g., thermophilic enzymes). Methods and compositions relating to enzymatic degradation of crystallizable polymers that are present in PC / IPMs are general described herein. Certain aspects of this disclosure are directed to polymer degradation methods comprising reacting a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer with a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer to produce a copolyester product. At least one of the crystallizable polymer or copolymers may be present in a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the polymer degradation method comprises exposing the copolyester product to a polymer-degrading enzyme. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a copolymer. In some embodiments, the copolymer comprises a first repeat unit comprising at least a portion of a repeat unit of the first crystallizable polymer and a second repeat unit comprising at least a portion of a repeat unit of the second crystallizable polymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product is produced by reacting the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and other additives (e.g., reactive agents, virgin materials, catalysts, contaminants, etc) in a transesterification reaction. In some cases, the copolyester product is produced by reacting the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and other additives (e.g., reactive agents, virgin materials, catalysts, contaminants, etc.). Other aspects of this disclosure are generally directed to compositions for a polymeric feedstock material. In some embodiments, the polymeric feedstock material comprises a copolyester product from a transesterification reaction. In some embodiments, the transesterification reaction comprises the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. At least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers may be present in a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester product from the transesterification reaction can be provided as a feedstock for enzymatic degradation. Plastic waste and mixed plastic waste comprising post-consumer and post- industrial polymeric materials (post-consumer / industrial polymeric materials; PC / IPMs) have generally been a challenging class of materials to recycle. Typically, PC / IPMs include a myriad of polymeric materials (e.g. polymers and / or polymer-based composites, etc). PC / IPMs are material the makeup of which will be clearly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. In one set of embodiment, PC / IPMs are polymeric materials generated by households, and / or by commercial, institutional, and / or industrial entities in their role as end or intermediate users of products which can no longer be used or is undesirable for its intended purpose. A PC / IPM can be a polymer material diverted during the manufacturing or commercial process. For example, such materials can be polymers and / or copolymers that have been formed for a particular use, then identified for a subsequent transformation, process, reaction, or interaction, such as recycling. The PC / IPM may comprise polymeric material that has been used in one or more consumer products (e.g., food and beverage containers, packaging for health and beauty products, clothing, automotive components, etc.), industrial products (e.g., a product used in a manufacturing process), and / or industrial processes (e.g., waste from a manufacturing process). In some embodiments, the PC / IPM comprises one or more additives (e.g., stabilizers, dyes, plasticizers, catalysts, antioxidants). In some embodiments, the PC / IPM comprises one or more contaminants (e.g., paper fibers, adhesives, other polymers, etc.). In some cases, the PC / IPM is formed by mechanically processing (e.g., grinding, washing, drying, etc.) raw waste from one or more consumer products, industrial products, and / or industrial processes. Many PC / IPMs are crystallizable, i.e., the materials exhibit at least one or more crystalline phases when subjected to certain conditions and / or processes (e.g. cooling from melt, applying pressure or stresses such as in mechanical stretching or in flow, solvent evaporation or precipitation from solvent, solvent casting, aging, irradiation, and / or weathering), and may be partially and / or fully amorphous under certain conditions which may be different than the aforementioned conditions. Crystallizable polymers or copolymers can include semi-crystalline polymers or copolymers wherein the semi-crystalline polymers or copolymers comprise at least one or more regions of a crystalline phase. Polymers and / or copolymers that may be considered amorphous can be crystallizable when subjected to the aforementioned conditions and / or processes, and therefore, crystallizable polymers or copolymers may include amorphous polymers or copolymers. Those of ordinary skill in the art understand the meaning of each of these terms. As an example, semi-crystalline materials often exhibit some crystalline behavior, but do not always exhibit such behavior under all conditions. It is to be understood that wherever “crystallizable” is used herein, this can include semi-crystalline materials. It is also to be understood that wherever “semi-crystalline” is used herein, this can include crystallizable materials. Surprisingly, the inventors have discovered that reacting a first polymer or copolymer, a second polymer or copolymer, and other additives (e.g. reactive agents, virgin materials, catalysts, contaminants, stabilizers, fillers, nucleating agents, and / or impact modifiers), where at least one (or optionally both) of the first and / or second polymers or copolymers is crystallizable or semi-crystalline, and where at least one of the polymers or copolymer is present in a PC / IPM, with guidance from the teachings of this disclosure, produces a copolyester product that can be provided as a feedstock material for enzymatic degradation and / or has characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. The copolyester product, in some embodiments, may have a lower degree of crystallinity compared to the first or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and may exhibit characteristics of reduced crystallization of amorphous phases during enzymatic degradation. A lower degree of crystallinity and the aforementioned characteristics may allow for higher degradation rates and yields upon exposure to enzymatic degradation processes. Methods and compositions relating to recycling PC / IPMs into a feedstock material for enzymatic degradation are generally described. In some embodiments, PC / IPM comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET). In some embodiments, PC / IPM comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in an amount greater than or equal to 10 wt.%, greater than or equal to 20 wt.%, greater than or equal to 30 wt.%, greater than or equal to 40 wt.%, greater than or equal to 50 wt.%, greater than or equal to 60 wt.%, greater than or equal to 70 wt.%, greater than or equal to 80 wt.%, and / or greater than or equal to 90 wt.%. In some embodiments, PC / IPM comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in an amount less than or equal to 90 wt.%, less than or equal to 80 wt.%, less than or equal to 70 wt.%, less than or equal to 60 wt.%, less than or equal to 50 wt.%, less than or equal to 40 wt.%, less than or equal to 30 wt.%, less than or equal to 20 wt.%, or less than or equal to 10 wt.%. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g. greater than or equal to 10 wt% and less than or equal to 90 wt.%). Other ranges are also possible. In some embodiments, at least a portion of PC / IPM may crystallize when cooled from a melt. The temperature at which crystallization occurs from a melt may vary depending on the composition of the PC / IPM. In some embodiments, PC / IPM may have several temperatures at which portions of the PC / IPM crystallize when cooled from a melt. In some embodiments, the highest crystallization temperature when cooled from a melt of PC / IPM is less than or equal to 250 °C, less than or equal to 225 °C, less than or equal to 200 °C, less than or equal to 199 °C, less than or equal to 175 °C, less than or equal to 150 °C, less than or equal to 125 °C, less than or equal to 100 °C, less than or equal to 75 °C, less than or equal to 50 °C, less than or equal to 25 °C, or less than or equal to 0 °C at a rate of 20 °C / minute. In some embodiments, PC / IPM may have several temperatures at which portions of the PC / IPM crystallize when cooled from a melt. In some embodiments, the highest crystallization temperature when cooled from a melt of PC / IPM is greater than or equal to 25 °C, greater than or equal to 50 °C, greater than or equal to 75 °C, greater than or equal to 100 °C, greater than or equal to 125 °C, greater than or equal to 150 °C, greater than or equal to 175 °C, greater than or equal to 200 °C, greater than or equal to 225 °C, or greater than or equal to 250 °C at a rate of 20 °C / minute. Combinations of these ranges are possible (greater than or equal to 25 °C and less than or equal to 250 °C). Other range are also possible. According to some embodiments, the crystallizable polymer or copolymer may be any polymer comprising a plurality of crystalline regions and a plurality of amorphous regions. The crystallizable polymers or copolymers can be a homopolymer, a block copolymer, a random copolymer, a graft copolymer, and / or an alternate copolymer. Non- limiting examples of suitable crystallizable polymers include polyesters, polyamides, polyolefins, polystyrenes (e.g., syndiotactic polystyrenes), fluoropolymers, polyurethanes, polyether ether ketones, crystallizable thermoplastic polyurethanes, substituted forms of the foregoing, and combinations thereof. Crystallizable copolymers comprise a copolymer (e.g., a polymer comprising more than one type of monomer) capable of crystallization. Generally, crystallizable polymers or copolymers can be recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation. That is, crystallizable polymer or copolymers, when exposed to polymer-degrading enzymes known in the art, do not degrade at sufficient rates or yields at easily obtainable temperatures. Without wishing to bound to any particular theory, crystallizable polymers or copolymers can be recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation due to their rapid recrystallization despite being quenched in a metastable state at a low degree of crystallinity. The rapid recrystallization of crystallizable polymers or copolymers decrease the efficiency of the enzymatic degradation processes especially at high temperatures. In some embodiments, the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer is present in a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers are PC / IPMs. The first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer can, in some embodiments, comprise any of a myriad of polymeric materials. Examples of crystallizable polymers or copolymers include, but are not limited to, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly(lactic acid) (PLA), poly(L-lactic acid) (PLLA), poly(D-lactic acid) (PDLA), polybutylenesuccinate (PBS), polycaprolactone (PCL), poly(ethylene adipate), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), and combinations thereof. Examples of polyamides include, but are not limited to, polyamide 6, poly(beta-caprolactam), polycaproamide, polyamide-6,6, poly(hexamethylene adipamide) (PA6,6), poly(11-aminoundecanoamide) (PA11), polydodecanolactam (PA12), poly(tetramethylene adipamide) (PA4,6), poly(pentamethylene sebacamide) (PA6,10), poly(hexamethylene dodecanoamide) (PA6,12), poly(m-xylyleneadipamide) (PAMXD6), polyhexamethylene adipamide / polyhexamethylene terephthalamide copolymer (PA66 / 6T), polyhexamethylene adipamide / polyhexamethylene isophthalamide copolymer (PA66 / 6I), polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), glycol- modified poly (1,4-cyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate) (PCTG), or TMCD-modified (2,2,4,4-Tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol ) PCT copolyester (PCTT), and combinations thereof. Examples of polyolefins include, but are not limited to, polyethylene (e.g., high- density polyethylene, medium-density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, very-low-density polyethylene, etc.), polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and combinations thereof. An example of a fluoropolymer includes, but is not limited to, polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF). In some embodiements PC / IPMs contain biopolymers such as polysaccharides present in cotton, cellulose, flax etc and their derivatives. In some embodiments PC / IPM comprise polyurethanes including but not limited to elastane (e.g. polyether and polyurea copolymers, Spandex, Lycra). In some embodiments, the crystallizable PC / IPM is a heterogeneous crystallizable polymer material containing a mixture of polymers having the one or more of the above-referenced chemistries. When present in small proportions the above referenced polymers are contaminants which can perturb crystallization of polyesters and copolyesters. In some embodiments, any of the above material may form the basis of the first and / or second crystallizable polymer. For example, the first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer may comprise a polybutylene terephthalate based copolyester. A virgin material, in some embodiments, is a plastic produced directly by the manufacturer and can be subsequently used to produce a plastic by other compounder(s) or manufacturer(s). A virgin material and / or a virgin polymeric material generally refers to a polymeric material that has been produced directly from petrochemical feedstock (e.g., crude oil, natural gas) and has not been previously used or processed (e.g., processed into a consumer or industrial product, used in an industrial process). In some embodiments, a virgin material and / or polymeric material can be produced from at least a portion of biomass feedstock. In some embodiments, virgin polymeric materials comprises crystallizable polymers or copolymers in virgin form. A virgin material and / or a virgin polymeric material is a material the makeup of which is well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. A virgin material, in certain cases, may comprise some amount (if any) of additives (e.g., catalysts, antioxidants, unreacted monomers, plasticizers, etc.) and comprise crystallizable polymers or copolymers containing some comonomers. The post-consumer and / or post-industrial polymeric material, in certain cases, may comprise some amount of additives (e.g., polymers, small molecules such as but not limited to processing aids, dyes, antioxidants, pigments, fillers, etc.) incorporated into the virgin material. The virgin polymeric materials, in some embodiments, comprises PBT, PTT, polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), glycol-modified poly (1,4- cyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate) (PCTG), or TMCD-modified (2,2,4,4- Tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol) PCT copolyester (PCTT). In some cases, the virgin polymeric material comprises one or more additives (e.g., catalysts, dyes, contaminants, lubricants, etc). According to some embodiments, the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer can be reacted with a reactive agent. In some embodiments, the reactive agent is an agent that induces or facilitates chain extension, branching, and / or cross-linking of the crystallizable polymer. The use of a reactive agent, in some cases, may reduce the degree of crystallinity within the copolyester product thereby increasing the rate and / or of enzymatic degradation, without wishing to be bound by any particular theory. In some embodiments reactive agent may promote transesterification and formation of heterodyads centered on acid residues. The reactive agent may be a reactive molecule, a monomer, a comonomer, an oligomer, a polymer, or a mixture of thereof. To produce the copolyester product, the reactive agent may react with both the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, or neither. In some instances, the reactive agent comprises at least one reactive functional group. In some embodiments, the reactive agent may comprise one or more epoxy, glycidyl, anhydride, glyceryl, boronic acid, boronate ester, maleimide, dioxaborolane, thioester, polysulfide, aldehyde, amine, acetoacetate ester, radical, furan, and / or olefin- containing groups. In some instances, the reactive agent comprises diglycidyl terephthalate, triglycidyl terephthalate, or a mixture of thereof. In some embodiments, the reactive agent shares a common moiety with the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some cases, the common moiety is a terephthalate group. In some embodiments, the reactive agent comprises at least a portion of a repeat unit of a backbone of the first and / or the second crystallizable polymer. In some cases, the reactive agent may comprise two or more epoxy, glycidyl, anhydride, glyceryl, boronic acid, boronate ester, maleimide, dioxaborolane, thioester, polysulfide, aldehyde, amine, acetoacetate ester, radical, furan, and / or olefin-containing groups. In some embodiments, the reactive agent comprises diglycidyl terephthalate (DGT), tris(oxiranylmethyl) benzene-1,2,4-tricarboxylate, Araldite PT910, Araldite PT912, tris(oxiran-2-ylmethyl)benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylate, bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (DGEBA), novolac resin, cycloaliphatic epoxy, diglycidyl benzenedicarboxylate, triglycidyl benzene tricarboxylate, triglycidyl isocyanurate, epoxidized styrene-acrylic copolymer, diglycidyl phthalate, resorcinol diglycidyl ether, tetrabromobisphenol A diglycidyl ether, bisphenol F diglycidyl ether, 3,4-epoxycyclohexylmethyl-3’-4’- epoxycyclohexane carboxylate, tetraglycidyl methylene dianiline, triglycidyl glycerol, poly(glycolic acid), 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether, N,N′-bis[3(carbo-2′,3′- epoxypropoxy)phenyl]pyromellitimide, bis(3,4-epoxycyclohexylmethyl)adipate, 3,4- epoxycyclohexylmethyl-3,4-epoxycyclohexylate, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol diglycidyl ether, 4,4′-methylene-bisphenyl isocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, 1,6- diisocyanato hexane, poly(phenyl isocyanate-co-formaldehyde), polymeric methylene diphenyl isocyanate, bisphenol-A dicyanate, pyromellitic dianhydride, trimellitic anhydride, a polyol, a polysulfide, a chain extender, glycidyl modified oligomers and polymers (e.g. Joncryl ADR 4400, Joncryl ADR 4385, Joncryl ADR 4468, Lotader, Lotader GMA reactive polymers, etc), and / or a maleimide-bearing diaxaborolane. A reaction between the crystallizable polymer or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer may occur through a variety of mechanisms. In some embodiments, the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer reacts with the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer in a transesterification reaction. A transesterification reaction involves a conversion of an ester or diester to another ester or diester via an exchange of one or more an alkoxy groups. Those of ordinary skill in the art can readily select materials that can undergo a transesterification reaction based on knowledge in the art combined with the teachings of this disclosure. Other reaction mechanisms are also possible (e.g. transalkylation, transamination, transcarbamoylation, etc). In some embodiments, transesterification between the first and the second crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer may be induced and / or facilitated by reactive mixing of the first and second crystallizable copolymer. In some embodiments, the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and / or the reactive agent react to form one or more dynamic covalent bonds. In some cases, dynamic covalent bonds (which, in some cases, can be achieved by an associative or dissociative mechanism) can advantageously produce chain extension, branching, and / or cross- linking of the crystallizable polymer without reducing processability during reactive mixing and / or extrusion. According to some embodiments, a mass content of the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer in the transesterification reaction comprises at least 10 wt.%, at least 15 wt.%, at least 20 wt.%, at least 25 wt.%, at least 30 wt.%, at least 35 wt.%, at least 40 wt.%, at least 45 wt.%, at least 50 wt.%, at least 60 wt.%, at least 65 wt.%, at least 70 wt.%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 80 wt.%, at least 90 wt.%, or more. In some embodiments, a mass content of the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer in the transesterification reaction comprises at least 1 wt.%, at least 2 wt.%, at least 3 wt.%, at least 4 wt.%, at least 5 wt.%, at least 10 wt.%, at least 15 wt.%, at least 20 wt.%, at least 25 wt.%, at least 30 wt.%, at least 35 wt.%, at least 40 wt.%, at least 45 wt.%, at least 50 wt.%, at least 55 wt.%, at least 60 wt.%, at least 65 wt.%, at least 70 wt.%, at least 80 wt.%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 90 wt.% , or more. In some embodiments, a mass content of the reactive agent in the transesterification reaction comprises at least 0.5 wt.%, at least 0.75 wt.%, at least 1 wt.%, at least 1.5 wt.%, at least 2 wt.%, at least 2.5 wt.%, at least 3 wt.%, at least 4 wt.%, at least 5 wt.%, at least 6 wt.%, at least 7 wt.%, at least 8 wt.%, at least 9 wt.%, at least 10 wt.%, at least 15 wt.%, or at least 20 wt.% and / or no more than 50 wt.%. In some embodiments, the transesterification reaction may occur within a compounder. The compounder can, as one of ordinary skill in the art may know, subject the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymers to conditions of temperature and / or stress to induce transesterification. The temperature subjected by the compounder on the crystallizable polymers and / or copolymers may be sufficient to induce a phase change. That is, the temperature may be greater than at least one glass transition temperature and / or at least one melting temperature of the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, the compounder may mix and / or extrude the copolyester product. In some embodiments, reacting the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises extruding the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer in an extruder. The extrudate may be the copolyester product. The methods described herein, in certain embodiments, may comprise thermally annealing the copolyester product. Thermally annealing the copolyester product comprises exposing the copolyester product to a single and / or range of temperatures for a certain duration of time. In some embodiments, thermally annealing the copolyester product comprises heating the copolyester product to a maximum temperature that is at or above a temperature that is a range from 5°C higher than at least one melting temperature Tmof the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer to 5°C lower than at least one degradation temperature Tdeg of the first crystallizable polymer. The methods described herein, in certain embodiments, may comprise slow cooling of the copolyester product. Slow cooling of the copolyester product comprises reducing the temperature of the copolyester product from a reaction temperature. In some embodiments, the slow cooling step may be followed by an annealing step. In some embodiments, the slow cooling step may replace an annealing step. The methods described herein, in certain embodiments, comprise fast cooling of the copolyester product in a cooling liquid. In some cases, fast cooling of the copolyester product in a cooling liquid comprises exposing the copolyester product after a reactive extrusion or reactive mixing step to a cooling liquid. In some cases, fast cooling of the copolyester product in a cooling liquid comprises submerging the copolyester product after a reactive extrusion or reactive mixing step in a cooling liquid. In some instances, fast cooling comprises exposing the product of a prior step of the method (e.g. an extrudate) to a cooling liquid at a fast cooling temperature for a fast cooling duration. In some embodiments, the cooling liquid is water (e.g. ice water). In some embodiments, the cooling temperature 25 °C or less, 20 °C or less, 15 °C or less, 10 °C or less, 5 °C or less, 4 °C or less, 3 °C or less, 2 °C or last, or 1 °C or less. In some embodiments, the fast cooling duration is greater than or equal to 1 second, greater than or equal to 2 seconds, greater than or equal to 5 seconds, greater than or equal to 8 seconds, greater than or equal to 10 seconds, greater than or equal to 60 seconds, greater than or equal to 180 seconds, and / or greater than or equal to 720 seconds. In some embodiments, the fast cooling duration is less than or equal to 720 second, less than or equal to 180 seconds, less than or equal to 60 seconds, less than or equal to 10 seconds, less than or equal to 8 seconds, less than or equal to 5 seconds, less than or equal to 2 seconds, and / or less than or equal to 1 second. In certain embodiments, the fast cooling step comprises depositing a product of a prior step of the method (e.g., the copolyester product) into a bath of a cooling liquid. According to some embodiments, reacting the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises irradiating the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers. In some embodiments, reacting the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises irradiating the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and the reactive agent. In some cases, irradiating the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers product comprises exposing the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers product to electromagnetic irradiation (e.g., infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc), electron beam irradiation, and / or gamma irradiation. In certain embodiments, irradiating the first and second crystallizable polymers or copolymers may increase the degree of crosslinking within the copolyester product and reduce the rate of recrystallization in the copolyester product. According to some embodiments, reacting the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer with the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer to produce the copolyester product. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a first repeat unit comprising at least a portion of a repeat unit of the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second repeat unit comprising at least a portion of a repeat unit of the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some cases, the copolyester product is a random copolymer, block copolymer, graft copolymer, branched copolymer, cross- linked copolymer, and / or alternate copolymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a recycled polymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a reaction product from the transesterification reaction between the first crystallizable polymers or copolymers and the second crystallizable polymers and copolymers, wherein at least one of the first and / or second polymer or copolymer is recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation. The methods described in this disclosure advantageously produce the copolyester product with characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. Without wishing to be bound to any particular theory, the copolyester product exhibits a lower crystallization rate than the recalcitrant first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer increasing the rate and yields of enzymatic degradation process. Characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation include but are not limited to low degrees of crystallinity, low metastable crystallinity degree induced by thermal quenching, low crystallinity when exposed to an aqueous buffer solution, slowly crystallizing polymers or copolymers which had been quenched to a metastable state with low crystallinity, cold crystallization temperatures higher than the glass transition temperature in the absence and / or presence of a buffer solution, and / or heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues. According to some embodiments, the copolyester product is a reaction product from the transesterification reaction between the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a mass content of at least 10 wt.%, at least 15 wt.%, at least 20 wt.%, at least 25 wt.%, at least 30 wt.%, at least 35 wt.%, at least 40 wt.%, at least 45 wt.%, at least 50 wt.%, at least 60 wt.%, at least 65 wt.%, at least 70 wt.%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 80 wt.%, at least 90 wt.%, or more of the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises a mass content of at least 10 wt.%, at least 15 wt.%, at least 20 wt.%, at least 25 wt.%, at least 30 wt.%, at least 35 wt.%, at least 40 wt.%, at least 45 wt.%, at least 50 wt.%, at least 60 wt.%, at least 65 wt.%, at least 70 wt.%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 80 wt.%, or at least 90 wt.% of the second crystallizable polymer or copolymers. It should be noted that the mass content of the first and / or second crystallizable product may include the mass content of chemical derivatives of the first and / or second crystallizable product in the copolyester product. In many cases, the copolymer product, which can be a copolyester product, includes one or more chemical moieties that serve as indicators that it was previously used, and is a recycled polymer and / or a recycled product. A recycled polymer or product (material) is defined here as a product obtained from a PC / IPM by a transformation or series of transformations such as processing, blending or reactive blending with another polymer or reactive polymer, cross-linking, copolymerization, functionalization, adding additives such as catalysts, stabilizers, fillers, dyes, pigments, impact modifiers, processing aids, and / or combinations of the aforementioned additives. These moieties can include pigments, fillers, dyes, etc, sometimes in combinations that would exist in PC / IPMs but typically would not exist in product made of virgin polymer or copolymer. Sometimes these moieties / indicators are chemical linkages, chemical residues, end groups, or the like. Sometimes these indicators are chemical or physical properties, such as molecular weight profiles, fluidity (melt or Tg) profiles, ASTM profiles, or the like, which would indicate to those of ordinary skill in the art that the material is a PC / IPM. In a set of embodiments, such a material, optionally a copolyester product, can include heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising 2,6 naphthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue, 1,4- butanediol residue, isophthalic acid residue, terephthalic acid residue 1,3-propanediol residue, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residue, and / or any combination of these. The copolyester product, in some embodiments, includes heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues. Heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues, Te,b expressed in mol %, can, in certain embodiments, comprise terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residues as shown in equation 1, ^^,^^^^^ %^ = 100 Equation 1 where ^^, ^^, ^^, and ^^are the area of peaks of a C-NMR spectra corresponding to heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues ^^and ^^, and homolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues ^^and ^^, respectively. Additional details regarding the quantification of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues can be found in Example 2. Heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues of other residues are also possible including but not limited to isophthalic residues, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residues, and / or 1,3-propanediol residues. More generally, the copolyester product includes heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residue, T^,, comprising any diol residue αα and any diol residue β present in the copolyester product, where said heterlolinkage dyads centered on diacid residue is expressed in mol % wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residue as shown in Equation 2, Equation 2 with n being a number of diol residues and N^being the number of dyads centered on diacid residue as measured by13C-NMR and / or1H-NMR. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues (which can serve as indicators of the material having derived from a PC / IPM) in an amount greater than or equal to 0.2 mol%, greater than or equal to 0.4 mol%, greater than or equal to 0.6 mol%, greater than or equal to 0.8 mol%, greater than or equal to 1 mol%, greater than or equal to 2 mol%, greater than or equal to 3 mol%, greater than or equal to 4 mol%, greater than or equal to 5 mol%, greater than or equal to 6 mol%, greater than or equal to 7 mol%, greater than or equal to 8 mol%, greater than or equal to 9 mol%, greater than or equal to 10 mol%, greater than or equal to 15 mol%, greater than or equal to 20 mol%, greater than or equal to 25 mol%, greater than or equal to 30 mol%, greater than or equal to 35 mol%, greater than or equal to 40 mol%, greater than or equal to 45 mol%, greater than or equal to 50 mol%, greater than or equal to 55 mol%, greater than or equal to 60 mol%, greater than or equal to 65 mol%, greater than or equal to 70 mol%, greater than or equal to 75 mol%, and / or greater than or equal to 80 mol%, wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues (which can serve as indicators of the material having derived from a PC / IPM) in an amount less than or equal to 90 mol%, less than or equal to 80 mol%, less than or equal to 75 mol%, less than or equal to 70 mol%, less than or equal to 65 mol%, less than or equal to 60 mol%, less than or equal to 55 mol%, less than or equal to 50 mol%, less than or equal to 45 mol%, less than or equal to 40 mol%, less than or equal to 35 mol%, less than or equal to 30 mol%, less than or equal to 25 mol%, less than or equal to 20 mol%, less than or equal to 15 mol%, less than or equal to 10 mol%, less than or equal to 9 mol%, less than or equal to 8 mol%, less than or equal to 7 mol%, less than or equal to 6 mol%, less than or equal to 5 mol%, less than or equal to 4 mol%, less than or equal to 3 mol%, less than or equal to 2 mol%, less than or equal to 1 mol%, less than or equal to 0.8 mol%, less than or equal to 0.6 mol%, less than or equal to 0.4 mol%, and / or less than or equal to 0.2 mol%. wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. Combinations of the above-referenced ranges are possible (e.g., at least 2 mol % and less than or equal to 80 mol %). Other ranges are also possible. Measurement methods used to determine the mol% of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues can be found above and in the examples later in the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester comprises heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue in an amount greater than or equal to 1 mol%, greater than or equal to 2 mol%, greater than or equal to 5 mol%, greater than or equal to 10 mol%, greater than or equal to 15 mol%, greater than or equal to 20 mol%, greater than or equal to 25 mol%, greater than or equal to 30 mol%, greater than or equal to 35 mol%, greater than or equal to 40 mol%, greater than or equal to 45 mol%, greater than or equal to 50 mol%, greater than or equal to 55 mol%, greater than or equal to 60 mol%, greater than or equal to 65 mol%, and / or greater than or equal to 70 mol%, wherein said mol% is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue. In some embodiments, the copolyester comprises heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue in an amount less than or equal to 70 mol%, less than or equal to 65 mol%, less than or equal to 60 mol%, less than or equal to 55 mol%, less than or equal to 50 mol%, less than or equal to 45 mol%, less than or equal to 40 mol%, less than or equal to 35 mol%, less than or equal to 30 mol%, less than or equal to 25 mol%, less than or equal to 20 mol%, less than or equal to 15 mol%, less than or equal to 10 mol%, less than or equal to 5 mol%, less than or equal to 2 mol%, and / or less than or equal to 1 mol%, wherein said mol% is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue. Combinations of these ranges are also possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 70 mol%). Other ranges are possible. Suitable measurement methods used to determine the mol% of dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue can be found above and in the examples later in the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises 1,4 butanediol residues which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. In certain embodiments, the copolyester product comprises at least 10 wt%, at least 20 wt%, at least 30 wt%, at least 40 wt%, at least 50 wt%, at least 60 wt%, at least 70 wt%, at least 80 wt%, or at least 90 wt% of a crystallizable PET-based copolymer with 1,4 butanediol residues. According to some embodiments, the copolymer comprises a copolyester comprising from 1 mol% to 5 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 10 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 15 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 20 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 25 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 30 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 35 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 40 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 45 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 50 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 55 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 60 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 65 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 1 mol% to 70 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 10 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 15 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 20 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 25 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 30 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 35 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 40 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 45 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 50 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 55 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 60 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, from 5 mol% to 65 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, and / or from 5 mol% to 70 mol% 1,4 butanediol residues, wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises isophthalic residues, which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises greater than or equal to 0.1 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.2 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.3 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.4 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.5 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.6 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.7 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.8 mol %, greater than or equal to 0.9 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.0 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.1 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.2 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.3 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.4 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.5 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.7 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.8 mol %, greater than or equal to 1.9 mol %, greater than or equal to 2 mol %, greater than or equal to 3 mol %, greater than or equal to 4 mol %, or greater than or equal to 5 mol % isophthalic residues wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dicarboxylic acid or equivalents. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises less than or equal to 0.1 mol %, less than or equal to 0.2 mol %, less than or equal to 0.3 mol %, less than or equal to 0.4 mol %, less than or equal to 0.5 mol %, less than or equal to 0.6 mol %, less than or equal to 0.7 mol %, less than or equal to 0.8 mol %, less than or equal to 0.9 mol %, less than or equal to 1.0 mol %, less than or equal to 1.1 mol %, less than or equal to 1.2 mol %, less than or equal to 1.3 mol %, less than or equal to 1.4 mol %, less than or equal to 1.5 mol %, less than or equal to 1.7 mol %, less than or equal to 1.8 mol %, less than or equal to 1.9 mol %, less than or equal to 2 mol %, less than or equal to 3 mol %, less than or equal to 4 mol %, or less than or equal to 5 mol % isophthalic residues wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dicarboxylic acid or equivalents. Additional details regarding the quantification of isophthalic residues can be found in Example 2. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises 1,4- cyclohexanedimethanol residues, which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises 1,4- cyclohexanedimethanol residues in an amount greater than or equal to 0.1 mol%, greater than or equal to 1 mol%, greater than or equal to 10 mol%, greater than or equal to 20 mol%, greater than or equal to 30 mol%, greater than or equal to 40 mol%, greater than or equal to 50 mol%, greater than or equal to 60 mol%, greater than or equal to 70 mol%, greater than or equal to 80 mol%, and / or greater than or equal to 90 mol%, wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol residues in an amount less than or equal to 90 mol%, less than or equal to 80 mol%, less than or equal to 70 mol%, less than or equal to 60 mol%, less than or equal to 50 mol%, less than or equal to 40 mol%, less than or equal to 30 mol%, less than or equal to 20 mol%, less than or equal to 10 mol%, less than or equal to 1 mol%, and / or less than or equal to 0.1 mol% wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 90 mol%). Other ranges are possible. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises ethylene glycol residues, which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises ethylene glycol in an amount greater than or equal to 0.1 mol%, greater than or equal to 1 mol%, greater than or equal to 2 mol%, greater than or equal to 10 mol%, greater than or equal to 20 mol%, greater than or equal to 30 mol%, greater than or equal to 40 mol%, greater than or equal to 50 mol%, greater than or equal to 60 mol%, greater than or equal to 70 mol%, greater than or equal to 80 mol%, and / or greater than or equal to 90 mol% ethylene glycol residues wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises ethylene glycol in an amount greater than or equal to 90 mol%, greater than or equal to 80 mol%, greater than or equal to 70 mol%, greater than or equal to 60 mol%, greater than or equal to 50 mol%, greater than or equal to 40 mol%, greater than or equal to 30 mol%, greater than or equal to 20 mol%, greater than or equal to 10 mol%, greater than or equal to 2 mol%, greater than or equal to 2 mol%, and / or greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% ethylene glycol residues wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 90 mol%). Other ranges are possible. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises aliphatic impurities, which can be another indicator of the material deriving from a PC / IPM. Aliphatic impurities, in certain embodiments, can derive from products of degradation, irradiation, aging, weathering, impurities, comonomers, dyes, brightening agents, fillers, nucleating agents, processing aids, impact modifiers, lubricants, stabilizers, organic catalysts, and / or additives, byproducts, or contaminants that may be present within the copolyester product. Accordingly, the presence of aliphatic impurities within the copolyester product may be an indicator that the copolyester product, in certain embodiments, is a product of a transesterification reaction involving a PC / IPM. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises greater than or equal to 0.01%, greater than or equal to 0.03%, greater than or equal to 0.05%, greater than or equal to 0.07%, greater than or equal to 0.09%, greater than or equal to 0.1 %, greater than or equal to 0.2 %, greater than or equal to 0.3 %, greater than or equal to 0.4 %, greater than or equal to 0.5 %, greater than or equal to 0.6 %, greater than or equal to 0.7 %, greater than or equal to 0.8 %, greater than or equal to 0.9 %, greater than or equal to 1.0 %, greater than or equal to 1.1 %, greater than or equal to 1.2 %, greater than or equal to 1.3 %, greater than or equal to 1.4 %, greater than or equal to 1.5 %, greater than or equal to 1.7 %, greater than or equal to 1.8 %, greater than or equal to 1.9 %, greater than or equal to 2 %, greater than or equal to 3 %, greater than or equal to 4 %, or greater than or equal to 5 % aliphatic impurities. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises less than or equal to 5 %, less than or equal to 4 %, less than or equal to 3 %, less than or equal to 2 %, less than or equal to 1.9 %, less than or equal to 1.8 %, less than or equal to 1.7 %, less than or equal to 1.6 %, less than or equal to 1.5 %, less than or equal to 1.4 %, less than or equal to 1.3 %, less than or equal to 1.2 %, less than or equal to 1.1 %, less than or equal to 1.0 %, less than or equal to 0.9 %, less than or equal to 0.8 %, less than or equal to 0.7 %, less than or equal to 0.6 %, less than or equal to 0.5 %, less than or equal to 0.4 %, less than or equal to 0.3 %, less than or equal to 0.2 %, less than or equal to 0.1 %, less than or equal to 0.09 %, less than or equal to 0.07 %, less than or equal to 0.05%, less than or equal to 0.03 %, or less than or equal to 0.01 % aliphatic impurities. Combinations of these ranges are also possible (e.g. less than or equal to 5% and greater than or equal to 0.01%). The percentage is based on the percentage of the sum of areas of aliphatic protons in the range greater than or equal to 0 ppm and less than or equal to 1 ppm, wherein said percentage of area is based on 100 percent of area of aromatic protons of terephthalic acid residues in the range between 8.5 ppm and 7.98 ppm. The percentage of aliphatic impurities in the copolyester product can be quantified using Equation 15 and the procedures described in Example 2. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises 0.1 % to 10 %, from 0.1 % to 20 %, from 0.1 % to 30 %, from 0.1 % to 40 %, from 0.1 % to 50 %, from 0.1 % to 60 %, 0.4 % to 10 %, from 0.4 % to 20 %, from 0.4 % to 30 %, from 0.4 % to 40 %, from 0.4 % to 50 %, or from 0.4 % to 60 %, aliphatic impurities wherein said percentage is based on 100 percent of area of aromatic protons of terephthalic acid residues in the range between 0 ppm and 1ppm. The following algorithmic description addresses how monomer units within a copolymer (e.g. the copolyester product) can be arranged, in one set of embodiments, in connection with all products and processes of this disclosure. Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the copolymer (e.g. the copolyester product) can comprise a certain arrangement and / or distribution (e.g. chemical correlations) of monomer units along the chain and between different chains. The composition of the copolyester product is the number average over the polymer chains present in the product. Without wishing to be bound by any particular theory, copolyesters and / or other copolymers may be generated by a stationary first-order Markov stochastic process involving two monomers, monomer A and monomer B, and that the polymer chains have the same polymerization index .. To determine the complete specification of the monomer sequence distribution, only two parameters need to be determined according to the first-order Markov model. The first parameter is the average composition / of copolymers, which is the average mol fraction of monomer A that are present in the polymer chains. By assuming the reaction between monomer A and monomer B is at steady state, / can be interpreted as the probability that a segment at an arbitrary position along the chain is monomer A. In the first-order Markov model, the elements of the matrix of pair probabilities, 0^1l, giving the conditional probability that a monomer of type ^ (monomer A or monomer B) at some arbitrary location on a chain is immediately followed by a segment 2 (monomer A or monomer B). By conservation of probabilities, two of the pair probabilities can be eliminated resulting in Equation 3 and Equation 4 034= 1 − 044Equation 3 043= 1 − 033Equation 4 A third relationship among the 0^1results from the stationary assumption that / and 0^1are independent of location on the chain: / = 044 / + 043)1 − / + Equation 5 From these equations, it is clear that only one element of the 0^1matrix is independent. It can be convenient to choose this one degree of freedom as the parameter a linear combination: 9 = 044+ 033− 1 Equation 6 where 9 is a parameter that characterizes the strength of the chemical correlations along the polymer chains.9 can assume values ranging from -1 to +1. According to some embodiments, 9 may describe sequences of monomers units within the copolymer (e.g. the copolyester product). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that 9 in certain embodiments, can generally refer to the distribution (e.g. chemical correlations) and / or arrangement of monomers in any of a myriad of sequences in the copolyester product or other copolymer, including but not limited to, random sequences, alternating sequences, and / or in block sequences. In certain embodiments, 9 is equivalent to 1 which which can be achieved only when 044= 033= 1. Accordingly, when 9 = 1 indicates that the copolyester product or other copolymers may comprise a mixture of a homopolymer of the plurality of first monomers units and a homopolymer of the plurality of second monomer units. That is, each of the plurality of first monomer units do not neighbor any of the plurality of the second monomer units. The copolyester product or other copolymers comprise two types of chains: a fraction / of the chains are A homopolymers and the remaining fraction 1- / of chains are B homopolymers. In certain embodiments, 9 is equivalent to the opposite limit -1 met only when 044= 033= 0. The extreme value 9 = −1 indicates that the copolyester product or other copolymer comprises an ideal alternating copolymer (AB)Q / 2of the plurality of first monomer units and the plurality of second monomer units. All chains are identical and only one copolyester or other copolymer molecular species is present. In certain embodiments, 9 is equivalent to 0 which corresponds to a situation in which the types of monomers at adjacent locations on a chain are completely uncorrelated i.e., independent of one another. The value 9 = 0 is achieved whenever + 033= 1.9 equivalent to 0 indicates that the copolyester product or other copolymer is an ideal random copolymer and comprises chains that differ in overall composition and / or sequencing of the plurality of first monomer units and the plurality of second monomer units. In some embodiments, -1<9<1 a the copolyester product or other copolymer is characterized by a continuous distribution of molecular species, each being selected from the ensemble of 2;possible arrangements of A and B segments on a chain, subject to the global constraint that the overall average copolyester product or other copolymer composition is equal to / . In some embodiments, 9 is in a range between 0 and 1 which indicates a tendency for blockiness, i.e., repeated monomers of the same type, the extent of which depends on how close 9 is to the upper limit. It should be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the at least one or more block sequences comprises at least one of the plurality of first monomer units neighboring at least another of the plurality of first monomer units or at least one of the plurality of second monomer units neighboring at least another of the plurality of second monomer units.9 is in a range between 0 and -1 which corresponds to the copolyesters or other copolymers with the bias towards alternation of A and B monomers along the chain and indicates that at least a portion or more of the copolyester product may comprise an alternating sequence of the plurality of first monomer units and the plurality of second monomer units. The aforementioned methodology to determine the arrangement and / or chemical correlations of the plurality of first monomer units and the plurality of second monomer units can be applied to describe the copolyester product. With the benefit of the above framework, the relative strength of the distribution of the plurality of first monomer units and a plurality of second monomer units in the copolyester product can, in some embodiments, be calculated using Equation 7 Equation 7 wherein λCPcharacterizes the relative strength of the chemical correlations of the plurality of first monomer units and a plurality of second monomer units along the polymer chains in the copolyester product, Te,b is defined as in Equation 1 and can be measured using13C NMR techniques known in the art, and f is the mole fraction of the plurality of first monomer units and / or ethylene glycol residues in the copolyester product and can measured using NMR. One aspect to the discovery of the invention, in some embodiments, is that the relative strength of the distribution of the plurality of first monomer units and a plurality a second monomer units, λCP, is greater than or equal to -0.2, greater than or equal to 0, greater than or equal to 0.4, greater than or equal to 0.6, greater than or equal to 0.8. or greater than or equal to 0.9. In some embodiments, the relative strength of the distribution of the plurality of first monomer units and a plurality a second monomer units, λCP, is less than or equal to 0.9, less than or equal to 0.8, less than or equal to 0.6, less than or equal to 0.4, less than or equal to 0.2, less than or equal to 0, or less than or equal to -0.2. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g. greater than or equal to -0.2 and less than or equal to 0.9). In some embodiments, the mole fraction of ethylene glycol residues is greater than or equal to 0.5, greater than or equal to 0.55, greater than or equal to 0.6, greater than or equal to 0.65, greater than or equal to 0.7, greater than or equal to 0.75, greater, or than or equal to 0.8, greater than or equal to 0.85, greater than or equal to 0.9, or greater than or equal to 0.95. In some embodiments, the mole fraction of ethylene glycol residues is less than or equal to 0.95, less than or equal to 0.9, less than or equal 0.85, less than or equal to 0.8, less than or equal to 0.75, less than or equal to 0.7, less than or equal to 0.65, less than or equal to 0.6, less than or equal to 0.55, or less than or equal to 0.5. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g. greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 0.8). In some embodiments, the plurality of first monomer units comprises ethylene glycol residues. The number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues in the copolyester product can be described, in certain embodiments, by Equation 8, DA^^=>?,@Equation 8 wherein Leis the number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues, f is the mole fraction of the ethylene glycol residues and can measured using NMR, and Te,b is defined as in Equation 1 and can be measured using13C NMR techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues in the copolyester product can be in a range greater than or equal to 1, greater than or equal to 5, greater than or equal to 10, greater than or equal to 40, greater than or equal to 80, greater than or equal to 120, greater than or equal to 160, greater than or equal to 200, or greater than or equal to 240. In some embodiments, the number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues in the copolyester product can be in a range less than or equal to 240, less than or equal to 200, less than or equal to 160, less than or equal to 120, less than or equal to 80, less than or equal to 40, less than or equal to 10, less than or equal to 5, or less than or equal to 1. In some embodiments, the plurality of second monomer units comprises 1,4- butanediol residues. The number average length of a sequence of 1,4-butanediol residues in the copolyester product can be described, in certain embodiments, by Equation 9, D^ =2)1 − / +^Equation 9^,^wherein Lbis the number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues, f is the mole fraction of the ethylene glycol residues and can measured using NMR, and Te,b is defined as in Equation 1 and can be measured using13C NMR techniques known in the art. In some embodiments, the number average length of a sequence of 1,4 - butanediol residues in the copolyester product can be in a range greater than or equal to 1, greater than or equal to 2, greater than or equal to 4, greater than or equal to 6, greater than or equal to 8, greater than or equal to 10, greater than or equal to 12, or greater than or equal to 14. In some embodiments, the number average length of a sequence of ethylene glycol residues in the copolyester product can be in a range less than or equal to 2, less than or equal to 4, less than or equal to 6, less than or equal to 8, less than or equal to 10, or less than or equal to 12. In some embodiments, the copolyester product comprises n>2 different diol residues with / #mole fraction of G type diol residues. The number average length of a sequence of the G type diol residues in the copolyester product can be described, in certain embodiments, by Equation 10, Equation 10 wherein D#is the number average length of a sequence of G type diol residues, / #is the mole fraction of the G type diol residues and can be measured using1H NMR, and ^#$is defined as in Equation 2 and can be measured using13C NMR techniques known in the art. In some embodiments D#is the number average length of a sequence of the G type diol residues with the G type diol corresponding to the polyester homopolymer exhibiting the fastest crystallization rate. In the context of this disclosure, the G type diol can be any of a myriad of residues including but not limited to ethylene glycol residues, 1,4-butanediol residues, 1,3-propanediol residues, terephthalic acid residues, 1,4- cyclohexanedimethanol residues, isophthalic acid residues, and / or 2,6 naphthalic acid residues. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to measure the crystallization time by the isothermal DSC or determine the fastest crystallization rate by comparing the cold crystallization temperature in a non-isothermal DSC scans. Without wishing to be bound by any particular theory, terephthalic acid polyesters with 1,4-butanediol residues crystallize faster than those with 1,3 propanediol residues which crystallize faster than those containing ethylene glycol residues. According to some embodiments, a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation comprises the copolyester product. In some embodiments, the polymeric material feedstock comprises characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. The polymeric material feedstock may be fed into a reactor and / or vessel comprising polymer degrading enzymes to breakdown and / or depolymerizer the polymer material feedstock. In some embodiments, the polymer material feedstock further comprises PC / IPMs and / or virgin materials. The polymer material feedstock may undergo further mechanical, thermal, and / or chemical processing prior to enzymatic degradation including but not limited to milling, grinding, shredding, melting, freezing, swelling, and / or other processes altering the physical, chemical, and / or mechanical properties of the polymer material feedstock. In some embodiments, the PC / IPM comprises materials are relatively challenging to sort and / or separate. In some embodiments, as described elsewhere in the disclosure, PC / IPM comprises fibers, some of which may be composite fibers (e.g., Lycra such as Lycra 400) having filaments comprising two or more polymers (e.g., different polymers). In some embodiments, PC / IPM comprises a blend of staple fibers, such as those used in fillings (e.g., in furniture, cushions, etc.) and / or garments (e.g., coats, parkas). Despite the varying composition of PC / IPM, the methods described herein may allow for the preparation of a feedstock for enzymatic degradation from PC / IPM comprising fibers of mixed composition. Examples 12 and 34, among others, describe such preparation. A feedstock material for enzymatic degradation processes may have characteristics that allow the feedstock material to be amenable to enzymatic degradation. Such characteristics are described elsewhere in the disclosure. The feedstock material, in accordance with certain embodiments, may be in a form that is suitable for enzymatic degradation, such as a form that has a relatively high surface-to- volume ratio (e.g., a plurality of particles). It should be understood that, in some embodiments, the feedstock material is a chemical product of a transesterification reaction between the first and second crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer, and accordingly, the feedstock material is considered a different material than the first and / or second crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer, rather than a “treated” embodiment of the first and / or second crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer. In some embodiments, the polymeric material feedstock comprises at least a portion (e.g., at least 5 wt%, at least 10 wt%, at least 20 wt%, at least 30 wt%, at least 40 wt%, at least 50 wt%, at least 60 wt%, at least 70 wt%, at least 80 wt%, at least 90 wt%, or more) of an amorphous phase. Accordingly, when exposed to polymer-degrading enzymes, the polymer-degrading enzymes may advantageously depolymerize the polymeric material feedstock. According to some embodiments, the polymeric feedstock material comprises a plurality of particles, wherein the plurality of particles were the product of a milling process. Generally, polymer-degrading enzymes may be able to degrade the copolyester product more efficiently compared to the crystallizable polymers or copolymers in the original state. Accordingly, polymer-degrading enzymes may be able to degrade larger particles of the copolyester product compared to the crystallizable polymers or copolymers in the original state under otherwise essentially identical conditions. In some embodiments, the polymeric feedstock material comprises an average particle size less than or equal to 5 mm, less than or equal to 4 mm , less than or equal to 3 mm, less than or equal to 2 mm, less than or equal to 1 mm, less than or equal to 600 µm, less than or equal to 500 µm, less than or equal to 400 µm, less than or equal to 300 µm, less than or equal to 200 µm, less than or equal to 100 µm, less than or equal to 50 µm, or less than or equal to 25 µm. In some embodiments, the polymeric feedstock material comprises an average particle size greater than or equal to 5 mm, greater than or equal to 4 mm, greater than or equal to 3 mm, greater than or equal to 2 mm, greater than or equal to 1 mm, greater than or equal to 600 µm, greater than or equal to 500 µm, greater than or equal to 400 µm, greater than or equal to 300 µm, greater than or equal to 200 µm, greater than or equal to 100 µm, greater than or equal to 50 µm, or greater than or equal to 25 µm. Combinations of these ranges are also possible (e.g., less than or equal to 5 mm and greater than or equal to 25 µm). Other ranges are also possible. As used herein, the “size” of a particle refers to the maximum distance between two opposed boundaries of an individual particle that can be measured (e.g., a diameter, a length). The “average size” of a plurality of particles refers to the number average of the size of the particles. The average particle size may be determined according to any method known in the art, such as laser diffraction and / or dynamic image analysis. Essentially identical conditions, especially as applied to conditions associated with enzymatic degradation, is a concept that will be clearly understood with precision by those of ordinary skill in the art. As examples, “essentially identical conditions” embraces conditions that can change appreciably without appreciably changing a yield of enzymatic degradation over a number of otherwise identical tests. “Essentially identical conditions” does not include conditions which, if changed appreciably, appreciably changed the yield of enzymatic degradation. Conditions such as temperature of the degradation solution and / or environment, volume of the solution, agitation of the solution, content of the solution including concentration of various species and especially the enzyme, etc. May be changed and may affect appreciably, or not affect appreciably, yield of degradation over otherwise identical tests. As noted, where a condition is changed and appreciably affects yield, all other things being essentially equal, it would not fall within the category of essentially identical conditions. Surface area of material exposed to degradation conditions, for example in particular surface area per unit volume and / or unit mass of material to undergo degradation, is not an essentially identical condition because all other things being equal higher surface area per unit volume and / or unit mass (e.g., smaller particle size) will result in a higher rate of degradation. In some embodiments, the plurality of particles has a relatively broad particle size distribution. As noted above, polymer-degrading enzymes may be able to degrade larger particles of the polymeric material feedstock than the crystallizable polymer or copolymers and, therefore, may be able to degrade particles having a broader size distribution than would otherwise be possible. In some embodiments, the standard deviation of particle sizes of the plurality of particles (e.g., particles of the copolyester product and / or the polymeric material feedstock) is at least 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or 50% of the average particle size. In some embodiments, the standard deviation of particle sizes of the plurality of particles is in a range from 10% to 20%, 10% to 30%, 10% to 40%, 10% to 50%, 20% to 30%, 20% to 40%, 20% to 50%, 30% to 40%, 30% to 50%, or 40% to 50% of the average particle size. Standard deviation (σ) is given its normal meaning in the art and can be calculated according to Equation 11: Equation 11where Xi is the size of particle i, Xavg is the average size of the plurality of particles, and N is the number of particles. The percentage comparisons between the standard deviation and the average particle size outlined above can be obtained by dividing the standard deviation by the average particle size and multiplying by 100%. According to some embodiments, the copolyester product has characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation. In some cases, enzymatic degradation of the polymeric material feedstock and / or the copolyester product comprises, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or the copolyester product to polymer degrading enzymes. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a thermostable and / or thermophilic enzyme. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises a hydrolase, esterase, protease, cutinase, lipase, oxidase, peroxidase, and / or amidase. In some cases, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises the LCC variant or HiC Novozym. Other polymer-degrading enzymes may also be identified by one of ordinary skill in the art. According to some embodiments, the copolyester product may be exposed to the polymer-degrading enzymes. In some embodiments, exposing the copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzymes comprises exposing the copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzymes to reduce the quantity of the copolyester product over time. In some cases, exposing the copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzymes comprises exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or the copolyester product at a temperature greater than or equal to 15°C lower than the lowest of at least one glass transition temperature Tg*of the first or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, wherein Tg* is the lowest of the at least one Tg of the first and / or second crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs for a duration of at least 10 minutes, at least 30 minutes, at least 60 minutes, at least 90 minutes, at least 2 hours, at least 4 hours, at least 6 hours, at least 8 hours, at least 10 hours, at least 12 hours, at least 1 day, at least 2 days, at least 3 days, or at least 4 days. In certain embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs for a duration greater than or equal to 10 minutes, greater than or equal 30 minutes, greater than or equal 60 minutes, greater than or equal 90 minutes, greater than or equal 2 hours, greater than or equal 4 hours, greater than or equal 6 hours, greater than or equal 8 hours, greater than or equal 10 hours, greater than or equal 12 hours, greater than or equal 1 day, greater than or equal2 days, greater than or equal 3 days, and / or greater than or equal 4 days. In certain embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs for a duration less than or equal to 10 minutes, less than or equal 30 minutes, less than or equal 60 minutes, less than or equal 90 minutes, less than or equal 2 hours, less than or equal 4 hours, less than or equal 6 hours, less than or equal 8 hours, less than or equal 10 hours, less than or equal 12 hours, less than or equal 1 day, less than or equal2 days, less than or equal 3 days, and / or less than or equal 4 days. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 10 minutes and less than or equal to 4 days). Other ranges are also possible. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme for a first duration results in a reaction yield of at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, at least 99%, or about 100%. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme for the duration results in a reaction yield greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, greater than or equal to 30%, greater than or equal to 40%, greater than or equal to 50%, greater than or equal to 60%, greater than or equal to 70%, greater than or equal to 80%, greater than or equal to 90%, greater than or equal to 95%, and / or 100%. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer- degrading enzyme for the duration results in a reaction yield less than or equal to 100%, less than or equal to 90%, less than or equal to 80%, less than or equal to 70%, less than or equal to 60%, less than or equal to 50%, less than or equal to 40%, less than or equal to 30%, less than or equal to 20%, and / or less than or equal to 15%. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 15% and less than or equal to 100%). Other ranges are also possible. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme at a first temperature in a range from 50 °C to 75 °C, from 50 °C to 100 °C, from 50 °C to 125 °C, from 50 °C to 150 °C, from 50 °C to 175 °C, from 50 °C to 200 °C, from 75 °C to 100 °C, from 75 °C to 125 °C, from 75 °C to 150 °C, from 75 °C to 175 °C, and / or from 75 °C to 200 °C. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme at a first temperature for a first duration results in a reaction yield greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, greater than or equal to 30%, greater than or equal to 40%, greater than or equal to 50%, greater than or equal to 60%, greater than or equal to 70%, greater than or equal to 80%, and / or greater than or equal to 90%. In some embodiments, exposing the polymeric material feedstock and / or copolyester product to the polymer-degrading enzyme at a first temperature for a first duration results in a reaction yield less than or equal to 90%, less than or equal to 80%, less than or equal to 70%, less than or equal to 60%, less than or equal to 50%, less than or equal to 40%, less than or equal to 30%, less than or equal to 20%, and / or less than or equal to 15%. Combinations of these ranges are possible (e.g., greater than or equal to 15% and less than or equal to 90%). Other ranges are possible. In some embodiments, exposing the first crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer and / or copolymer to the polymer-degrading enzyme at the first temperature for the first duration results in a reaction yield in a range from 0% to 5%, 0% to 10%, 0% to 15%, 5% to 10%, or 5% to 15%. The following publications and patent applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes: Fredrickson, G., et al. “Multicritical Phenomena and Microphase Ordering in Random Block Copolymer Melts,” Macromolecules 1992, 25, 6341-6354; U.S. Application No.18 / 480,430, filed on October 3rd, 2023, entitled “Enzymatic Degradation of Semi-crystalline Polymers and Plastic Waste Containing Semi-crystalline Polymers;” and U.S. Provisional Application No.63 / 437,953, filed on January 9th, 2023, entitled “Pretreatment and Enzymatic Degradation of Semi-crystalline Polymers;” and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63 / 590,331, filed on October 13th, 2023, entitled “Copolymer Materials Made From Post- Consumer / Industrial Materials.” Further examples of polymer-degrading enzymes that are useful in methods and compositions provided herein are described in the following literary publications which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for all purposes: Sulaiman S, Yamato S, Kanaya E, Kim JJ, Koga Y, Takano K, Kanaya S. Isolation of a novel cutinase homolog with polyethylene terephthalate-degrading activity from leaf-branch compost by using a metagenomic approach. Appl Environ Microbiol.2012 Mar;78(5):1556-62. doi: 10.1128 / AEM.06725-11. Epub 2011 Dec 22. PMID: 22194294; PMCID: PMC3294458; Tournier, V., Topham, C.M., Gilles, A. et al. An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles. Nature 580, 216–219 (2020). doi.org / 10.1038 / s41586-020-2149-4; Then J, Wei R, Oeser T, Barth M, Belisário-Ferrari MR, Schmidt J, Zimmermann W. Ca2+ and Mg2+ binding site engineering increases the degradation of polyethylene terephthalate films by polyester hydrolases from Thermobifida fusca. Biotechnol J.2015 Apr;10(4):592-8. doi: 10.1002 / biot.201400620. Epub 2015 Jan 19. PMID: 25545638; Sonnendecker C, Oeser J, Richter PK, Hille P, Zhao Z, Fischer C, Lippold H, Blázquez-Sánchez P, Engelberger F, Ramírez-Sarmiento CA, Oeser T, Lihanova Y, Frank R, Jahnke HG, Billig S, Abel B, Sträter N, Matysik J, Zimmermann W. Low Carbon Footprint Recycling of Post- Consumer PET Plastic with a Metagenomic Polyester Hydrolase. ChemSusChem.2022 May 6;15(9):e202101062. doi: 10.1002 / cssc.202101062. Epub 2022 Feb 10. PMID: 34129279; PMCID: PMC9303343; Pfaff L, Gao J, Li Z, Jäckering A, Weber G, Mican J, Chen Y, Dong W, Han X, Feiler CG, Ao YF, Badenhorst CPS, Bednar D, Palm GJ, Lammers M, Damborsky J, Strodel B, Liu W, Bornscheuer UT, Wei R. Multiple Substrate Binding Mode-Guided Engineering of a Thermophilic PET Hydrolase. ACS Catal.2022 Aug 5;12(15):9790-9800. doi: 10.1021 / acscatal.2c02275. Epub 2022 Jul 27. PMID: 35966606; PMCID: PMC9361285; Richter, P.K., Blázquez-Sánchez, P., Zhao, Z. et al. Structure and function of the metagenomic plastic-degrading polyester hydrolase PHL7 bound to its product. Nat Commun 14, 1905 (2023). doi.org / 10.1038 / s41467-023- 37415-x; Erickson, E., Gado, J.E., Avilán, L. et al. Sourcing thermotolerant poly(ethylene terephthalate) hydrolase scaffolds from natural diversity. Nat Commun 13, 7850 (2022). doi.org / 10.1038 / s41467-022-35237-x; Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Takehana T, Taniguchi I, Yamaji H, Maeda Y, Toyohara K, Miyamoto K, Kimura Y, Oda K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science.2016 Mar 11;351(6278):1196-9. doi: 10.1126 / science.aad6359. PMID: 26965627; Han X, Liu W, Huang JW, Ma J, Zheng Y, Ko TP, Xu L, Cheng YS, Chen CC, Guo RT. Structural insight into catalytic mechanism of PET hydrolase. Nat Commun.2017 Dec 13;8(1):2106. doi: 10.1038 / s41467-017-02255-z. PMID: 29235460; PMCID: PMC5727383; Cui H, Eltoukhy L, Zhang L, Markel U, Jaeger KE, Davari MD, Schwaneberg U. Less Unfavorable Salt Bridges on the Enzyme Surface Result in More Organic Cosolvent Resistance. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl.2021 May 10;60(20):11448- 11456. doi: 10.1002 / anie.202101642. Epub 2021 Apr 7. PMID: 33687787; PMCID: PMC8252522; Son J, Kalafatovic D, Kumar M, Yoo B, Cornejo MA, Contel M, Ulijn RV. Customizing Morphology, Size, and Response Kinetics of Matrix Metalloproteinase-Responsive Nanostructures by Systematic Peptide Design. ACS Nano. 2019 Feb 26;13(2):1555-1562. doi: 10.1021 / acsnano.8b07401. Epub 2019 Jan 30. PMID: 30689363; PMCID: PMC6475088; Lu H, Diaz DJ, Czarnecki NJ, Zhu C, Kim W, Shroff R, Acosta DJ, Alexander BR, Cole HO, Zhang Y, Lynd NA, Ellington AD, Alper HS. Machine learning-aided engineering of hydrolases for PET depolymerization. Nature.2022 Apr;604(7907):662-667. doi: 10.1038 / s41586-022-04599-z. Epub 2022 Apr 27. PMID: 35478237; Bell, E.L., Smithson, R., Kilbride, S. et al. Directed evolution of an efficient and thermostable PET depolymerase. Nat Catal 5, 673–681 (2022). doi.org / 10.1038 / s41929-022-00821-3; Zhenkun Shi, Rui Deng, Qianqian Yuan, Zhitao Mao, Ruoyu Wang, Haoran Li, Xiaoping Liao, Hongwu Ma. Enzyme Commission Number Prediction and Benchmarking with Hierarchical Dual-core Multitask Learning Framework. Research.2023;6:0153.DOI:10.34133 / research.0153; Danso D, Schmeisser C, Chow J, Zimmermann W, Wei R, Leggewie C, Li X, Hazen T, Streit WR. New Insights into the Function and Global Distribution of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)- Degrading Bacteria and Enzymes in Marine and Terrestrial Metagenomes. Appl Environ Microbiol.2018 Apr 2;84(8):e02773-17. doi: 10.1128 / AEM.02773-17. PMID: 29427431; PMCID: PMC5881046; Blázquez-Sánchez P, Engelberger F, Cifuentes- Anticevic J, Sonnendecker C, Griñén A, Reyes J, Díez B, Guixé V, Richter PK, Zimmermann W, Ramírez-Sarmiento CA. Antarctic Polyester Hydrolases Degrade Aliphatic and Aromatic Polyesters at Moderate Temperatures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2022 Jan 11;88(1):e0184221. doi: 10.1128 / AEM.01842-21. Epub 2021 Oct 27. PMID: 34705547; PMCID: PMC8752145; Chen X, Liu M, Zhang P, Leung SSY, Xia J. Membrane-Permeable Antibacterial Enzyme against Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. ACS Infect Dis.2021 Aug 13;7(8):2192-2204. doi: 10.1021 / acsinfecdis.1c00222. Epub 2021 Jul 7. PMID: 34232613; Avilan L, Lichtenstein BR, König G, Zahn M, Allen MD, Oliveira L, Clark M, Bemmer V, Graham R, Austin HP, Dominick G, Johnson CW, Beckham GT, McGeehan JE, Pickford AR. Concentration-Dependent Inhibition of Mesophilic PETases on Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Can Be Eliminated by Enzyme Engineering. ChemSusChem.2023 Apr 21;16(8):e202202277. doi: 10.1002 / cssc.202202277. Epub 2023 Mar 23. PMID: 36811288; Meyer Cifuentes IE, Wu P, Zhao Y, Liu W, Neumann-Schaal M, Pfaff L, Barys J, Li Z, Gao J, Han X, Bornscheuer UT, Wei R, Öztürk B. Molecular and Biochemical Differences of the Tandem and Cold-Adapted PET Hydrolases Ple628 and Ple629, Isolated From a Marine Microbial Consortium. Front Bioeng Biotechnol.2022 Jul 21;10:930140. doi: 10.3389 / fbioe.2022.930140. PMID: 35935485; PMCID: PMC9350882; Inglis GD, Yanke LJ, Selinger LB. Cutinolytic esterase activity of bacteria isolated from mixed-plant compost and characterization of a cutinase gene from Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes. Can J Microbiol.2011 Nov;57(11):902-13. doi: 10.1139 / w11-083. Epub 2011 Oct 26. PMID: 22029433; Haernvall K, Zitzenbacher S, Wallig K, Yamamoto M, Schick MB, Ribitsch D, Guebitz GM. Hydrolysis of Ionic Phthalic Acid Based Polyesters by Wastewater Microorganisms and Their Enzymes. Environ Sci Technol.2017 Apr 18;51(8):4596-4605. doi: 10.1021 / acs.est.7b00062. Epub 2017 Apr 7. PMID: 28345898; Bollinger A, Thies S, Knieps-Grünhagen E, Gertzen C, Kobus S, Höppner A, Ferrer M, Gohlke H, Smits SHJ, Jaeger KE. A Novel Polyester Hydrolase From the Marine Bacterium Pseudomonas aestusnigri - Structural and Functional Insights. Front Microbiol.2020 Feb 13;11:114. doi: 10.3389 / fmicb.2020.00114. PMID: 32117139; PMCID: PMC7031157; Macromolecules 2009, 42, 14, 5128–5138, Publication Date:July 2, 2009, doi.org / 10.1021 / ma9005318; Wallace M, Green CR, Roberts LS, Lee YM, McCarville JL, Sanchez-Gurmaches J, Meurs N, Gengatharan JM, Hover JD, Phillips SA, Ciaraldi TP, Guertin DA, Cabrales P, Ayres JS, Nomura DK, Loomba R, Metallo CM. Enzyme promiscuity drives branched- chain fatty acid synthesis in adipose tissues. Nat Chem Biol.2018 Nov;14(11):1021- 1031. doi: 10.1038 / s41589-018-0132-2. Epub 2018 Oct 16. PMID: 30327559; PMCID: PMC6245668; Eiamthong B, Meesawat P, Wongsatit T, Jitdee J, Sangsri R, Patchsung M, Aphicho K, Suraritdechachai S, Huguenin-Dezot N, Tang S, Suginta W, Paosawatyanyong B, Babu MM, Chin JW, Pakotiprapha D, Bhanthumnavin W, Uttamapinant C. Discovery and Genetic Code Expansion of a Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Hydrolase from the Human Saliva Metagenome for the Degradation and Bio-Functionalization of PET. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl.2022 Sep 12;61(37):e202203061. doi: 10.1002 / anie.202203061. Epub 2022 Jun 21. PMID: 35656865; PMCID: PMC7613822; Sagong HY, Son HF, Seo H, Hong H, Lee D, Kim KJ. Implications for the PET decomposition mechanism through similarity and dissimilarity between PETases from Rhizobacter gummiphilus and Ideonella sakaiensis. J Hazard Mater.2021 Aug 15;416:126075. doi: 10.1016 / j.jhazmat.2021.126075. Epub 2021 May 11. PMID: 34492896; Erickson E, Gado JE, Avilán L, Bratti F, Brizendine RK, Cox PA, Gill R, Graham R, Kim DJ, König G, Michener WE, Poudel S, Ramirez KJ, Shakespeare TJ, Zahn M, Boyd ES, Payne CM, DuBois JL, Pickford AR, Beckham GT, McGeehan JE. Sourcing thermotolerant poly(ethylene terephthalate) hydrolase scaffolds from natural diversity. Nat Commun.2022 Dec 21;13(1):7850. doi: 10.1038 / s41467-022-35237-x. PMID: 36543766; PMCID: PMC9772341; Shirke AN, White C, Englaender JA, Zwarycz A, Butterfoss GL, Linhardt RJ, Gross RA. Stabilizing Leaf and Branch Compost Cutinase (LCC) with Glycosylation: Mechanism and Effect on PET Hydrolysis. Biochemistry.2018 Feb 20;57(7):1190-1200. doi: 10.1021 / acs.biochem.7b01189. Epub 2018 Jan 30. PMID: 29328676; Xi X, Ni K, Hao H, Shang Y, Zhao B, Qian Z. Secretory expression in Bacillus subtilis and biochemical characterization of a highly thermostable polyethylene terephthalate hydrolase from bacterium HR29. Enzyme Microb Technol.2021 Feb;143:109715. doi: 10.1016 / j.enzmictec.2020.109715. Epub 2020 Nov 18. PMID: 33375975; Dresler K, van den Heuvel J, Müller RJ, Deckwer WD. Production of a recombinant polyester-cleaving hydrolase from Thermobifida fusca in Escherichia coli. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng.2006 Aug;29(3):169-83. doi: 10.1007 / s00449-006-0069-9. Epub 2006 Jun 13. PMID: 16770590; PMCID: PMC1705536; Müller, R. J., Schrader, H., Profe, J., Dresler, K., & Deckwer, W. D. (2005). Enzymatic Degradation of Poly (ethylene terephthalate): Rapid Hydrolyse using a Hydrolase fromT. fusca. Macromolecular Rapid Communications, 26(17), 1400-1405. Kleeberg I, Welzel K, Vandenheuvel J, Müller RJ, Deckwer WD. Characterization of a new extracellular hydrolase from Thermobifida fusca degrading aliphatic-aromatic copolyesters. Biomacromolecules.2005 Jan-Feb;6(1):262-70. doi: 10.1021 / bm049582t. PMID: 15638529; Macromolecules 2011, 44, 12, 4632–4640, Publication Date:May 20, 2011,doi.org / 10.1021 / ma200949p; Furukawa M, Kawakami N, Tomizawa A, Miyamoto K. Efficient Degradation of Poly(ethylene terephthalate) with Thermobifida fusca Cutinase Exhibiting Improved Catalytic Activity Generated using Mutagenesis and Additive-based Approaches. Sci Rep.2019 Nov 5;9(1):16038. doi: 10.1038 / s41598-019-52379-z. PMID: 31690819; PMCID: PMC6831586; Roth C, Wei R, Oeser T, Then J, Föllner C, Zimmermann W, Sträter N. Structural and functional studies on a thermostable polyethylene terephthalate degrading hydrolase from Thermobifida fusca. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2014 Sep;98(18):7815-23. doi: 10.1007 / s00253-014-5672-0. Epub 2014 Apr 13. PMID: 24728714; Wei R, Oeser T, Schmidt J, Meier R, Barth M, Then J, Zimmermann W. Engineered bacterial polyester hydrolases efficiently degrade polyethylene terephthalate due to relieved product inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng.2016 Aug;113(8):1658-65. doi: 10.1002 / bit.25941. Epub 2016 Feb 4. PMID: 26804057; Ribitsch D, Hromic A, Zitzenbacher S, Zartl B, Gamerith C, Pellis A, Jungbauer A, Łyskowski A, Steinkellner G, Gruber K, Tscheliessnig R, Herrero Acero E, Guebitz GM. Small cause, large effect: Structural characterization of cutinases from Thermobifida cellulosilytica. Biotechnol Bioeng.2017 Nov;114(11):2481-2488. doi: 10.1002 / bit.26372. Epub 2017 Aug 15. PMID: 28671263; Ribitsch D, Herrero Acero E, Greimel K, Dellacher A, Zitzenbacher S, Marold A, Rodriguez RD, Steinkellner G, Gruber K, Schwab H, et al. A New Esterase from Thermobifida halotolerans Hydrolyses Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) and Polylactic Acid (PLA). Polymers.2012; 4(1):617-629. doi.org / 10.3390 / polym4010617; Kitadokoro K, Kakara M, Matsui S, Osokoshi R, Thumarat U, Kawai F, Kamitani S. Structural insights into the unique polylactate-degrading mechanism of Thermobifida alba cutinase. FEBS J.2019 Jun;286(11):2087-2098. doi: 10.1111 / febs.14781. Epub 2019 Feb 28. PMID: 30761732; Miyakawa T, Mizushima H, Ohtsuka J, Oda M, Kawai F, Tanokura M. Structural basis for the Ca(2+)-enhanced thermostability and activity of PET- degrading cutinase-like enzyme from Saccharomonospora viridis AHK190. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2015 May;99(10):4297-307. doi: 10.1007 / s00253-014-6272-8. Epub 2014 Dec 11. PMID: 25492421; Kawai F, Oda M, Tamashiro T, Waku T, Tanaka N, Yamamoto M, Mizushima H, Miyakawa T, Tanokura M. A novel Ca²⁺-activated, thermostabilized polyesterase capable of hydrolyzing polyethylene terephthalate from Saccharomonospora viridis AHK190. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2014 Dec;98(24):10053-64. doi: 10.1007 / s00253-014-5860-y. Epub 2014 Jun 15. PMID: 24929560; Oda M, Yamagami Y, Inaba S, Oida T, Yamamoto M, Kitajima S, Kawai F. Enzymatic hydrolysis of PET: functional roles of three Ca2+ ions bound to a cutinase- like enzyme, Cut190*, and its engineering for improved activity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2018 Dec;102(23):10067-10077. doi: 10.1007 / s00253-018-9374-x. Epub 2018 Sep 24. PMID: 30250976; Jabloune R, Khalil M, Ben Moussa IE, Simao-Beaunoir AM, Lerat S, Brzezinski R, Beaulieu C. Enzymatic Degradation of p-Nitrophenyl Esters, Polyethylene Terephthalate, Cutin, and Suberin by Sub1, a Suberinase Encoded by the Plant Pathogen Streptomyces scabies. Microbes Environ.2020;35(1):ME19086. doi: 10.1264 / jsme2.ME19086. PMID: 32101840; PMCID: PMC7104285; Carr CM, Keller MB, Paul B, Schubert SW, Clausen KSR, Jensen K, Clarke DJ, Westh P, Dobson ADW. Purification and biochemical characterization of SM14est, a PET-hydrolyzing enzyme from the marine sponge-derived Streptomyces sp. SM14. Front Microbiol.2023 May 12;14:1170880. doi: 10.3389 / fmicb.2023.1170880. PMID: 37250061; PMCID: PMC10213408; Tiong E, Koo YS, Bi J, Koduru L, Koh W, Lim YH, Wong FT. Expression and engineering of PET-degrading enzymes from Microbispora, Nonomuraea, and Micromonospora. Appl Environ Microbiol.2023 Nov 29;89(11):e0063223. doi: 10.1128 / aem.00632-23. Epub 2023 Nov 9. PMID: 37943056; PMCID: PMC10686063; Ribitsch D, Heumann S, Trotscha E, Herrero Acero E, Greimel K, Leber R, Birner-Gruenberger R, Deller S, Eiteljoerg I, Remler P, Weber T, Siegert P, Maurer KH, Donelli I, Freddi G, Schwab H, Guebitz GM. Hydrolysis of polyethyleneterephthalate by p-nitrobenzylesterase from Bacillus subtilis. Biotechnol Prog.2011 Jul;27(4):951-60. doi: 10.1002 / btpr.610. Epub 2011 May 13. PMID: 21574267; Perz V, Zumstein MT, Sander M, Zitzenbacher S, Ribitsch D, Guebitz GM. Biomimetic Approach to Enhance Enzymatic Hydrolysis of the Synthetic Polyester Poly(1,4-butylene adipate): Fusing Binding Modules to Esterases. Biomacromolecules. 2015 Dec 14;16(12):3889-96. doi: 10.1021 / acs.biomac.5b01219. Epub 2015 Nov 24. PMID: 26566664; Distaso MA, Chernikova TN, Bargiela R, Coscolín C, Stogios P, Gonzalez-Alfonso JL, Lemak S, Khusnutdinova AN, Plou FJ, Evdokimova E, Savchenko A, Lunev EA, Yakimov MM, Golyshina OV, Ferrer M, Yakunin AF, Golyshin PN. Thermophilic Carboxylesterases from Hydrothermal Vents of the Volcanic Island of Ischia Active on Synthetic and Biobased Polymers and Mycotoxins. Appl Environ Microbiol.2023 Feb 28;89(2):e0170422. doi: 10.1128 / aem.01704-22. Epub 2023 Jan 31. PMID: 36719236; PMCID: PMC9972953; Konstantinos Makryniotis, Efstratios Nikolaivits, Christina Gkountela, Stamatina Vouyiouka, Evangelos Topakas, Discovery of a polyesterase from Deinococcus maricopensis and comparison to the benchmark LCCICCG suggests high potential for semi-crystalline post-consumer PET degradation, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 455, 2023, 131574, ISSN 0304- 3894, doi.org / 10.1016 / j.jhazmat.2023.131574; ACS Catal.2021, 11, 14, 8550–8564, Publication Date:June 29, 2021, doi.org / 10.1021 / acscatal.1c01204; Carniel, A., Valoni, É., Nicomedes, J., Gomes, A.D., & Castro, A.M. (2017). Lipase from Candida antarctica (CALB) and cutinase from Humicola insolens act synergistically for PET hydrolysis to terephthalic acid. Process Biochemistry, 59, 84-90; Brackmann R, de Oliveira Veloso C, de Castro AM, Langone MAP. Enzymatic post-consumer poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) depolymerization using commercial enzymes.3 Biotech.2023 May;13(5):135. doi: 10.1007 / s13205-023-03555-6. Epub 2023 Apr 25. PMID: 37124991; PMCID: PMC10130296; Silva, C. M., Carneiro, F., O'Neill, A., Fonseca, L. P., Cabral, J. S., Guebitz, G., & Cavaco‐Paulo, A. (2005). Cutinase—a new tool for biomodification of synthetic fibers. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 43(11), 2448- 2450; Dimarogona, M., Nikolaivits, E., Kanelli, M., Christakopoulos, P., Sandgren, M., & Topakas, E. (2015). Structural and functional studies of a Fusarium oxysporum cutinase with polyethylene terephthalate modification potential. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects, 1850(11), 2308-2317; Brueckner, T., Eberl, A., Heumann, S., Rabe, M., & Guebitz, G. M. (2008). Enzymatic and chemical hydrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate) fabrics. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 46(19), 6435-6443; Eberl, A., Heumann, S., Brückner, T., Araujo, R., Cavaco-Paulo, A., Kaufmann, F., ... & Guebitz, G. M. (2009). Enzymatic surface hydrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate) and bis (benzoyloxyethyl) terephthalate by lipase and cutinase in the presence of surface active molecules. Journal of biotechnology, 143(3), 207-212; Vázquez-Alcántara, L., Oliart-Ros, R. M., García-Bórquez, A., & Peña- Montes, C. (2021). Expression of a cutinase of Moniliophthora roreri with polyester and PET-plastic residues degradation activity. Microbiology Spectrum, 9(3), e00976-21; Robles-Martín, A., Amigot-Sánchez, R., Fernandez-Lopez, L., Gonzalez-Alfonso, J. L., Roda, S., Alcolea-Rodriguez, V., ... & Guallar, V. (2023). Sub-micro-and nano-sized polyethylene terephthalate deconstruction with engineered protein nanopores. Nature Catalysis, 1-12; Sevilla ME, Garcia MD, Perez-Castillo Y, Armijos-Jaramillo V, Casado S, Vizuete K, Debut A, Cerda-Mejía L. Degradation of PET Bottles by an Engineered Ideonella sakaiensis PETase. Polymers.2023; 15(7):1779. doi.org / 10.3390 / polym15071779; Edwards S, León-Zayas R, Ditter R, Laster H, Sheehan G, Anderson O, Beattie T, Mellies JL. Microbial Consortia and Mixed Plastic Waste: Pangenomic Analysis Reveals Potential for Degradation of Multiple Plastic Types via Previously Identified PET Degrading Bacteria. International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2022; 23(10):5612.doi.org / 10.3390 / ijms23105612; Ho, N. H. E., Effendi, S. S. W., Ting, W. W., Yi, Y. C., Yu, J. Y., Chang, J. S., & Ng, I. S. (2023). Heterologous expression and characterization of Aquabacterium parvum lipase, a close relative of Ideonella sakaiensis PETase in Escherichia coli. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 197, 108985; Qi, X., Ji, M., Yin, C.-F., Zhou, N.-Y. & Liu, Y. (2023) Glacier as a source of novel polyethylene terephthalate hydrolases. Environmental Microbiology, 25(12), 2822–2833. Available from: doi.org / 10.1111 / 1462-2920.16516; Chen S, Tong X, Woodard RW, Du G, Wu J, Chen J. Identification and characterization of bacterial cutinase. J Biol Chem.2008 Sep 19;283(38):25854-62. doi: 10.1074 / jbc.M800848200. Epub 2008 Jul 24. PMID: 18658138; PMCID: PMC3258855; Su L, Woodard RW, Chen J, Wu J. Extracellular location of Thermobifida fusca cutinase expressed in Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) without mediation of a signal peptide. Appl Environ Microbiol.2013 Jul;79(14):4192-8. doi: 10.1128 / AEM.00239-13. Epub 2013 Apr 19. PMID: 23603671; PMCID: PMC3697513; Lykidis A, Mavromatis K, Ivanova N, Anderson I, Land M, DiBartolo G, Martinez M, Lapidus A, Lucas S, Copeland A, Richardson P, Wilson DB, Kyrpides N. Genome sequence and analysis of the soil cellulolytic actinomycete Thermobifida fusca YX. J Bacteriol.2007 Mar;189(6):2477-86. doi: 10.1128 / JB.01899- 06. Epub 2007 Jan 5. PMID: 17209016; PMCID: PMC1899369; Hegde K, Veeranki VD. Production optimization and characterization of recombinant cutinases from Thermobifida fusca sp. NRRL B-8184. Appl Biochem Biotechnol.2013 Jun;170(3):654- 75. doi: 10.1007 / s12010-013-0219-x. Epub 2013 Apr 19. PMID: 23604968; Wei R, Oeser T, Then J, Kühn N, Barth M, Schmidt J, Zimmermann W. Functional characterization and structural modeling of synthetic polyester-degrading hydrolases from Thermomonospora curvata. AMB Express.2014 Jun 3;4:44. doi: 10.1186 / s13568- 014-0044-9. PMID: 25405080; PMCID: PMC4231364; Hu X, Thumarat U, Zhang X, Tang M, Kawai F. Diversity of polyester-degrading bacteria in compost and molecular analysis of a thermoactive esterase from Thermobifida alba AHK119. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.2010 Jun;87(2):771-9. doi: 10.1007 / s00253-010-2555-x. PMID: 20393707; Almeida EL, Carrillo Rincón AF, Jackson SA, Dobson ADW. In silico Screening and Heterologous Expression of a Polyethylene Terephthalate Hydrolase (PETase)-Like Enzyme (SM14est) With Polycaprolactone (PCL)-Degrading Activity, From the Marine Sponge-Derived Strain Streptomyces sp. SM14. Front Microbiol.2019 Oct 1;10:2187. doi: 10.3389 / fmicb.2019.02187. PMID: 31632361; PMCID: PMC6779837; Zhang, H., Dierkes, R.F., Perez-Garcia, P., Costanzi, E., Dittrich, J., Cea, P.A., Gurschke, M., Applegate, V., Partus, K., Schmeisser, C., Pfleger, C., Gohlke, H., Smits, S.H.J., Chow, J. and Streit, W.R. (2024), The metagenome-derived esterase PET40 is highly promiscuous and hydrolyses polyethylene terephthalate (PET). FEBS J, 291: 70-91. doi.org / 10.1111 / febs.16924; Zhang H, Perez-Garcia P, Dierkes RF, Applegate V, Schumacher J, Chibani CM, Sternagel S, Preuss L, Weigert S, Schmeisser C, Danso D, Pleiss J, Almeida A, Höcker B, Hallam SJ, Schmitz RA, Smits SHJ, Chow J, Streit WR. The Bacteroidetes Aequorivita sp. and Kaistella jeonii Produce Promiscuous Esterases With PET-Hydrolyzing Activity. Front Microbiol.2022 Jan 5;12:803896. doi: 10.3389 / fmicb.2021.803896. PMID: 35069509; PMCID: PMC8767016; and Perez- Garcia, P., Chow, J., Costanzi, E. et al. An archaeal lid-containing feruloyl esterase degrades polyethylene terephthalate. Commun Chem 6, 193 (2023). doi.org / 10.1038 / s42004-023-00998-z. Further examples of such polymer-degrading enzymes that are useful in methods and compositions provided herein are listed Table 1. In some embodiments, a polymer- degrading enzyme useful in methods and compositions provided herein has an amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, or 38. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of any one of the foregoing enzymes in which the variant has an insertion, deletion, or substitution of up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 amino acids compared with an amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, or 38. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of any one of the foregoing enzymes, in which the variant has at least 85%, 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity compared to an amino acid sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, or 38. Table 1. Examples of Polymer-degrading enzymes In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a HiC. In some embodiments, the amino acid sequence of the HiC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 1 or a fragment thereof. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of HiC having an insertion, deletion, or amino acid substitution at any one or more of the following positions: 1, 2, 5, 43, 55, 79, 115, 161, 181, 182, G8, S116, S119, A4, T29, L167, S48, N15, A88, N91, A130, T166, Q139, I169, I178 or R189 compared with the amino acid sequence of the HiC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 1. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of HiC having an amino acid substitution at up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 sites selected from the previous list. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of HiC, in which the variant of HiC has at least 85%, 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity compared with the amino acid sequence of the HiC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 1. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a leaf-branch compost cutinase (LCC). In some embodiments, the amino acid sequence of the LCC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 20 or a fragment thereof. In some embodiments, the polymer- degrading enzyme is a variant of LCC having an insertion, deletion, or amino acid substitution at any one or more of the following positions: D238, S283, E208, L237, N239, A207, A244, V63, S64, R65, L66, S67, V68, S69, G70, F71, G72, G73, G74, A138, L117, G88, L139, L142, L154, A156, L159, I89, M91, L105, L109, A162, V185, L187, L203, V205, P231, V233, V235, V254, Y255, T256, S258, W259, M260, L274, T287, N288, H291, S36, Y39, Q40, R41, N44, S48, T51, S57, T60, Y61, Y78, S83, T85, R107, S133, N140, R143, S148, N157, S180, K182, T195, N197, S216, Q224, N225, S228, T229, S247, N248, N266, T268, R271, Q272, N276, N278, N289, R290, Q293, V212I, Y127G, Y127P, F243I, F243W, T96M, V205I, D238C, S283C, E208R, E208A, N239D, or L237R compared with the amino acid sequence of the LCC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 20. For example, in some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of LCC having one or more of the following substitutions F243I, D238C, S283C, and Y127G compared with the amino acid sequence of the LCC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 20. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises or consists of an amino acid sequence corresponding to positions 36 to 258 of SEQ ID NO: 20. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises or consists of an amino acid sequence corresponding to positions 36 to 258 of SEQ ID NO: 20 with an insertion, deletion, or amino acid substitutions at any one or more of the corresponding positions of the previous lists. In some embodiments, the polymer- degrading enzyme is a variant of LCC having an amino acid substitution at up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 sites selected from the previous list. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of LCC, in which the variant of LCC has at least 85%, 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, or 99% identity compared with the amino acid sequence of the LCC enzyme is set forth as: SEQ ID NO: 20. In some embodiments, polymer-degrading enzymes can be engineered according to information in the following literary publications which are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes: Dombkowski A, Sultana KZ, Craig D. Protein disulfide engineering. FEBS Letters Volume 588, Issue 2, 206-212.2014; Liu Q, Xun G, Feng Y. The state-of-the-art strategies of protein engineering for enzyme stabilization. Biotechnol Adv.2019 Jul-Aug;37(4):530-537. doi: 10.1016 / j.biotechadv.2018.10.011. Epub 2018 Oct 26. PMID: 31138425; Federica Rigoldi, Stefano Donini, Alberto Redaelli, Emilio Parisini, Alfonso Gautieri; Review: Engineering of thermostable enzymes for industrial applications. APL Bioeng.1 March 2018; 2 (1): 011501. doi.org / 10.1063 / 1.4997367; Chen, K., Arnold, F.H. Engineering new catalytic activities in enzymes. Nat Catal 3, 203–213 (2020). doi.org / 10.1038 / s41929-019-0385-5; Robert Chapman and Martina H. Stenzel. All Wrapped up: Stabilization of Enzymes within Single Enzyme Nanoparticles. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2019141 (7), 2754-2769. DOI: 10.1021 / jacs.8b10338; Spence M, Kaczmarski J, Saunders J, Jackson C. Ancestral sequence reconstruction for protein engineers. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, Volume 69.2021; Raquel A. Rocha, Robert E. Speight, and Colin Scott. Engineering Enzyme Properties for Improved Biocatalytic Processes in Batch and Continuous Flow.Organic Process Research & Development 202226 (7), 1914-1924. DOI: 10.1021 / acs.oprd.1c00424; Chowdhury, R, Maranas, CD. From directed evolution to computational enzyme engineering—A review. AIChE J.2020; 66:e16847. doi.org / 10.1002 / aic.16847; and Ferreira P, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Modern computational methods for rational enzyme engineering. Chem Catalysis, Volume 2, Issue 10, 2481-2498.2022. In some embodiments, a polymer-degrading enzyme comprises one or more conservative amino acid substitutions relative to a reference sequence. Such conservative substitutions of amino acids include substitutions made amongst amino acids within the following groups: (a) M, I, L, V; (b) F, Y, W; (c) K, R, H; (d) A, G; (e) S, T; (f) Q, N; and (g) E, D. In general, a conservative amino acid substitution refers to an amino acid substitution that does not alter the relative charge or size characteristics of the protein in which the amino acid substitution is made. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more amino acid substitutions within the active site of the enzyme. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more amino acid substitutions outside the active site of the enzyme. In some embodiments, the polymer-degrading enzyme is a variant of an enzyme that comprises a substitution of one or more amino acids in or proximal to a divalent metal binding site of the enzyme with cystine amino acids to promote formation of a disulfide bridge, e.g., thereby increasing thermostability relative to the parent enzyme. In some embodiments, exposing the feedstock to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs at a relatively high temperature. In some embodiments, exposing the feedstock to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs at a temperature close or higher than a glass transition temperature of the crystallizable polymer or copolymer. In some embodiments, exposing the feedstock to the polymer-degrading enzyme occurs at a temperature in a range from a temperature that is 5°C, 10°C, 15°C, or 20°C lower than a glass transition temperature of the crystallizable polymer or copolymer to a temperature of at least 95°C, 100°C, 105°C, 110°C, 115°C, or 120°C. In certain embodiments, the temperature is in a range from a temperature that is 15°C less than a glass transition temperature of the crystallizable polymer or copolymer to a temperature of 120°C. In certain embodiments, the temperature is in a range from a temperature that is 10°C lower than a glass transition temperature of the crystallizable polymer or copolymer to a temperature of 95°C. The following examples are intended to illustrate certain embodiments of the present invention, but do not exemplify the full scope of the invention. EXAMPLE 1 Preparation of samples for enzymatic degradation test This example presents the method of preparation of samples for enzymatic degradation (depolymerization) tests. The PC / IPM or materials made of PC / IPM were cut into pieces typically of 3 mm – 5 mm size. The pieces were milled using a centrifugal mill (Retsch ZM200) operating at 14000 RPM. The milling step was performed with a ring sieve having an internal diameter of 10 cm and a mesh size of 0.5 mm. The milled sample was fractionated by sieving using an analytical sieve shaker (Retsch, AS200) operating at an amplitude of 0.7 mm for 10 minutes. Fractionation was performed using stainless steel test sieves (Retsch) with a diameter of 100 mm and mesh sizes of: 300 µm and 150 µm. For all assays with exception of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes, around 1 g of extrudate was milled and the fraction between 150 µm and 300 µm was 25 wt.% of the initial mass. For PC / IPM bottle flakes (PolyQuest, polyquest.com / products / pet-and-rpet / ) around 10 g of extrudate were milled. After sieving, the fraction between 150 µm and 300 µm was 26 wt.% of the initial mass. The milled fraction retained by the 150 µm mesh (containing the fraction of sizes between 150 µm and 300 µm) was used for the enzymatic degradation characterization. In the examples which follows, the procedures to characterize the enzymatic degradation of a PC / IPM by absorbance are presented. EXAMPLE 2 NMR characterization of PET based polyesters, copolyesters and PC / IPM containing PET and PBT polyesters. This example illustrates a method of reacting crystallizable mixed polyester waste by reactive mixing in a molten state followed by extrusion and cooling. The example describes NMR characterization of molecular composition of thus a copolyester product. PET based polyester materials were synthesized by reactive mixing / extrusion a PC / IPM containing 50 wt.% of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes (PolyQuest, polyquest.com / products / pet-and-rpet / ) and 50 wt.% of polyester swimsuit short (Nike Hydrastrong solid jammer color 494 game royal, Nessa 006, Performance Swimwear, Nike) containing PET and PBT fibers. Polyester textile was previously cut with scissors to separate the polyester textile from the elastics, which were not included in the processing.12 g of the PC / IPM and an antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) were fed into a hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) equipped with co-rotating conical screws, recirculation channel allowing mixing during a controlled residence time and a circle die with diameter of 3.0 mm allowing for extrusion of the material from the compounder. The feeding / mixing / extrusion were performed under circulation of nitrogen, with a barrel temperature profile as follows: top position (270°C), middle position (270°C), and exit position (280°C). The speed of rotation of the screws was 60 RPM. The extruder was filled in around 5 min. After feeding the extruder, the compound was mixed. At different mixing times samples of about 1g were withdrawn directly through the die, extruded into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. The sampling times and the mass of the withdrawn samples were as follows: - 5 min (1.2 g) - 10 min (0.93 g) - 30 min (1.22 g) - 60 min (1.1 g) - 90 min (1.0 g) The remaining material inside the extruder was used to prepare other materials as explained in Example 30. FIG.1 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The extruded samples were optically homogeneous and the extrudates were smooth. Conditions of1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra acquisitions. Samples for NMR analysis were prepared in the solvent mixture CDCl3 / d-TFA 80 / 20 v / v %. d-TFA and CDCl3 were supplied by Euroisotop. Polymer material made of plastic postconsumer / postindustrial waste comprising a semi-aromatic crystallizable PET based copolyester (30-50) mg was pre-dissolved in 150 μL of d-TFA in a closed glass vial for 15 h. Then, 600 μL of CDCl3 was added and the resulting sample was mixed by vortex mixing for 30 s. Some turbidity was noticed in samples containing textile waste, and sedimentation of a thin white powder was observed after a few hours in the tubes. NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker spectrometer instrument.13C and1H NMR were measured at 100 MHz and 400 MHz, respectively. CDCl3signal was chosen as reference: 7.26 ppm in1H NMR and 77.16 ppm in13C NMR. TFA signals were observed between 9 and 12 ppm in1H NMR and led to two quadruplets at around 162-160 ppm and at 119-110 ppm in13C NMR. For one example, HSQC NMR were also recorded. Analysis of1H-NMR spectra. FIG.2 presents1H NMR spectrum of the sample synthesized in Example 1 and extruded after residence (mixing) time of 60 min. The attribution of peaks based on literature is given in Table 2. (R. Hariharan, A.G. Pinkus, Useful NMR solvent mixture for polyesters: Trifluoroacetic acid- d / chloroform-d. Polymer Bulletin 30, 91–95 (1993). doi.org / 10.1007 / BF00296239 ; F. Samperi, C. Puglisi, R. Alicata, G. Montaudo, Thermal degradation of poly(butylene terephthalate) at the processing temperature, Polymer Degradation and Stability 83 (2004) 11–17; L. Finelli, M. Fiorini, V. Siracusa, N. Lotti, A. Munari, Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(ethylene isophthalate-co-ethylene terephthalate) Copolyesters, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 92, 186 –193 (2004). doi.org / 10.1002 / app.13430). Table 2. NMR chemical shifts of PET and PBT signals by1H NMR in d-TFA / CDCl320 / 80v%. No other proton signals in the aromatic region were identified, according to the precision of the method. Therefore, the aromatic impurities are taken to be 0. The features of the material compositions obtained from1H-NMR are defined as follows: • Fraction of 1,4-butanediol residues B: B (mol%) = mol % of 1,4-butanediol residues wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents; B can be calculated from1H-NMR as: Eq.12: V^^^^ %^ ^ 100 Equation 12 With ^^integrated area of peak Y^in the range between 2.25 ppm and 1.8 ppm and ^^integrated area of peak Y^in the range between 5.15 ppm and 4.67 ppm. • Fraction of ethylene glycol residues E: E (mol%) = mol % of ethylene glycol residues wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents; E can be calculated from1H-NMR as: Eq.13: Z^^^^ %^ ^ 100 Equation 13With ^^integrated area of peak Y^in the range between 2.25 ppm and 1.8 ppm and ^^integrated area of peak Y^in the range between 5.15 ppm and 4.67 ppm. • Fraction of isophthalic acid residues I: I (mol%) = mol % of isophthalic residues wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dicarboxylic acid or equivalents; I can be calculated from1H-NMR as: Eq.14: [^^^^ %^ ^ 100 Equation 14 with ^^integrated area of peak Hγ in the range between 7.64 ppm and 7.54 ppm and ^^,_integrated area in the range between 8.50 ppm and 7.98 ppm. The precision on I value is estimated to be about ± 0.1 %. • Fraction of other aliphatic protons ia: Other aliphatic protons: other aliphatic protons, corresponding to but not limited to contaminants, products of degradation, impurities, comonomers, dyes, brightening agents, lubricants, stabilizers organic catalysts etc. which could be present in the material but were not identified, are considered here as undefined proton signals. Their presence is a feature related to the use of PC / IPM as a reaction feed and it impacts the final material. The reaction product material can be characterized by defining quantitatively this feature a^[%] using following equation: Eq. 15: Equation 15 aa is the percentage of the sum ^b of areas of aliphatic protons in the range between3.5 ppm and 2.25 ppm and in the range between 1.8 and 0 ppm, wherein said percentage of area is based on 100 percent of area of aromatic protons of terephthalic acid residues in the range between 8.5 ppm and 7.98 ppm. In calculating ^bpeaks with area lower than 0.02% of the area ^^,_are neglected. The precision on ia value is estimated to be about ± 0.1 %. Analysis of13C-NMR spectra. FIG. 3 shows the13C-NMR spectrum of the material described in Example 1 for the sample synthesized with residence time of 60 minutes. The attribution of peaks based on literature is given in Table 3. (R. Hariharan, A.G. Pinkus, Useful NMR solvent mixture for polyesters: Trifluoroacetic acid- d / chloroform-d. Polymer Bulletin 30, 91–95 (1993), doi.org / 10.1007 / BF00296239 ; Newmark, R. A. (1980). Sequence distribution in polyethylene / tetramethylene terephthalate copolyesters by 13C-NMR. Journal of Polymer Science: Polymer Chemistry Edition, 18(2), 559–563. doi:10.1002 / pol.1980.170180216). Table 3. NMR chemical shifts of PET and PBT signals by13C NMR in d-TFA / CDCl320 / 80v%. The material compositions obtained from13C-NMR can be defined as follows: • Fraction of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues ^^,^: Heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues cd,e[mol %]: mole percentage of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,4 – butanediol residue. Eq.16: ^^,^^^^^ %^^ 100 Equation 16 Where ^^, ^^, ^^, and ^^are the area of peaks corresponding to heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues ^^and ^^, and homolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues ^^and ^^, respectively. The precision on ^^,^value is estimated to be about ± 3 %. Table 4 summarizes the features characterizing the material of Example 1 synthesized with the residence time of 60 min. Table 4. NMR-defined features of the polyester textile waste of Example 1. EXAMPLE 3 Absorbance method to measure the enzymatic depolymerization. This example presents a method of determining the yield and the rate of the depolymerization reaction of polyester and co-polyester particles by measuring the absorbance of plastic particle suspensions. The absorbance method is applied to polyester wastes and copolyester products containing esters of terephthalic acid and diols. Depolymerization reaction yield measured by terephthalic acid (TPA) equivalent production and enzymatic depolymerization reaction time are referred below as “reaction yield” and “reaction time”, respectively. Calibration curve for determination of terephthalic acid (TPA) equivalent in the reaction bath The repeating units of PBT and PET contain terephthalate units as presented in FIGs.4A-4B. Upon enzymatic depolymerization of PC / IPM or materials made of PC / IPM containing esters of terephthalic acid, diols and co-monomers such as PET, PBT or co- polyesters, TPA and / or soluble low molecular weight molecules such as mono(2- hydroxyethyl) terephthalate and bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate for example, are released into the solution as depolymerization products. TPA has a maximal absorption band in UV-visible spectrum at 242 nm. UV-Visible spectra were recorded using Clariostar LVis plate from BMG Labtech. All other soluble molecules containing esters of terephthalic acid contribute to the absorbance signal as well. A calibration curve (Absorbance at 242 nm vs. TPA concentration) was obtained by measuring the absorbance of TPA (provided by Sigma Aldrich, purity 98%, used as received) aqueous solutions of NaOH 0.5 wt.% in milli-Q water of known concentrations, as presented in FIG.5. A linear fit of the calibration curve gives the following equation: Equation 17: Absorbance at 242 nm (a.u.) = 70.47 (L / g) *[TPA] (g / L) Equation 17 In what follows this calibration curve is used to convert the absorbance signal into the TPA concentration as if only TPA was produced. This method is called determination of reaction yield by determination of TPA equivalent. Determination of TPA equivalent reaction yield at a certain reaction time for polyesters, mixed polyesters or polyester copolymers of different compositions From the calibration curve presented in FIG.5, it is possible to obtain the concentration of TPA as the enzymatic depolymerization proceeds, and calculate the corresponding reaction yield at a certain reaction time. For an enzymatic depolymerization assay, around 5 mg (between 4.8 and 5.3 mg) (Sartorius CP224S, precision 0.1 mg) of milled PC / IPM obtained as described in Example 1 was weighted in a 2 mL Eppendorf vial. Buffer and enzyme were added for depolymerization test. At a reaction time t, a 2 μL aliquot was taken from the reaction medium and was diluted (if required) by a factor of 5, 10 or 20 in NaOH 0.5 wt.% solution to ensure that the absorbance at 242 nm was in the linear range of TPA calibration curve presented in FIG. 5. The UV-Visible absorbance spectrum was recorded between 220 nm and 800 nm (FIG.6A) using a Clariostar LVis plate (BMG Labtech). The reaction yield was calculated as the concentration of TPA equivalents produced at time t in reference to the maximum TPA concentration (g / L) corresponding to 100% reaction yield, as follows: Eq.18: W^AoA / ijka^l mah^n)%+= 7'p q Xgh 0.47∗ 100 Equation 18 ^ rs t∑v4(uvt4^vwwhere A242nm is the absorbance of 2µL (diluted) aliquot, fd is the dilution factor of the aliquot, m is the weighted mass of plastic material waste of the assay (in g), V is the reaction volume (in L) MAis the molecular weight of TPA, Xiis the mole fraction of diol residue ai as determined from1H-NMR, and MAai is the molecular weight of the repeating unit of polyester i. Depending on the composition of the mixed waste ai could denote ethylene glycol, 1-4 butanediol, polypropylene glycol, 1,4- cyclohexanedimethanol, and other residues Eq.7 neglects the fraction of components not having esters of terephthalic acid in the PC / IPM. If such fraction is significant, then Eq.7 leads to an underestimation of the reaction yield. In the PC / IPMs used in the Examples and Comparative Examples the fraction of aromatic components which are not terephthalic acid residues is estimated to be lower than the precision of the reaction yield experiments (≤ 5%), and therefore it is neglected in Equation 7. FIG.6B shows the TPA equivalents vs time of enzymatic degradation characterization of the material described in Example 24. FIG.6C shows the reaction yield as a function of reaction time of the material described in Example 24. EXAMPLE 4 Procedure to follow depolymerization reaction yield as a function of time This example describes the methodology to obtain the enzymatic depolymerization kinetic curves based on the absorbance method described in Example 2. From these curves, the initial depolymerization rate can be determined. Each depolymerization reaction assay was carried out starting from PC / IPM or materials made of PC / IPM prepared as described in Example 1. To obtain the enzymatic depolymerization reaction yield vs reaction time, around 5 mg of plastic material was weighted in a 2 mL Eppendorf vial.1mL of potassium phosphate buffer (pH 8), prepared from potassium phosphate monobasic (H2KPO4) and potassium phosphate dibasic (HK2PO4) (Sigma Aldrich), was added in the Eppendorf vial. The Eppendorf vial was then cooled to 0°C in ice and a certain quantity of enzyme was added in a proportion to the mass of plastic material. Then, the Eppendorf vial was closed and incubated in an Eppendorf Thermomixer at a pre-set temperature and shaken at 1200 rpm over several hours.2 μL aliquots were taken from the vial at different times t by taking the Eppendorf vial out of the incubator. Reaction yield as a function of time t was determined following the procedure described in Example 2. Reaction yield vs reaction time plots were obtained by averaging the reaction yield of triplicate samples, i.e.3 aliquots taken from 3 different vials under the same reaction conditions, with error bars corresponding to the standard deviation of the three measurements. Calculation of initial depolymerization rate The initial depolymerization rate expressed in grams of TPA equivalents (x ^y^^z) per hour per liter was estimated from the reaction yield (%) difference between 2h and 1h, as follows. Eq.19: Equation 19 where R%(2h) is the reaction yield at 2 h in percentage, R%(1h) is the reaction yield at 1h in percentage, m is the weighted mass of plastic material waste of the assay (in g), V is the reaction volume (in L) MA is the molecular weight of TPA (g / mol), Xi is the mole fraction of diol residue ai, as determined from1H-NMR, and MAaiis the molecular weight of the repeating unit of polyester i (g / mol). EXAMPLE 5 Procedure to determine reaction yield after 24h This example describes the procedure to estimate the reaction yield for the enzymatic depolymerization of polyester PC / IPMs and copolyester products after reaction time of approximately 24h. In order to prevent / minimize evaporation that could occur during the procedure of kinetic experiments described in Example 3, the reaction yield at 24 h of reaction was estimated by performing the enzymatic degradation assays in a sealed vial. The depolymerization reaction assay was performed from PC / IPMs prepared as described in Example 1. The enzymatic depolymerization assay was performed as described in Example 3 with the exception that the Eppendorf vial containing PC / IPM, enzyme and buffer was sealed with PTFE film prior to the reaction. The reaction was continued for 24 h without any extraction of intermediate aliquots. This way, the closed vial was not opened during the assay, thus limiting the evaporation of reaction media (weight loss due to evaporation was estimated to be less than 1wt.%). After 24 h of reaction, the PTFE film was removed and a 2 μL aliquot was taken from the Eppendorf vial. The reaction yield was determined as described in Example 3. The reaction yield at 24 h was obtained by averaging the reaction yield of triplicate samples, i.e.3 aliquots taken from 3 different vials in the same conditions, with error bars corresponding to the standard deviation of the three measurements. The following examples provide details of the enzymes used for depolymerization assays. EXAMPLE 6 Description of the LCC variant used for enzymatic degradation of PC / IPM Some of the depolymerization assays were carried out using PET depolymerase LCC variant. The wild-type DNA sequence was obtained from GenBank (accession number: AEV21261) and mutated to make the LCC variant. In each vial, a volume of 9.43 * (m / 5) μL of the LCC variant stock solution was added to reach a final concentration of 2 mg of enzyme per g of polyester in the vial, where “m” is the weighted mass in mg of PC / IPM. Enzymatic degradation reaction was carried out at 65°C, unless otherwise stated. EXAMPLE 7 Description of HiC Novozyme 51032 used for enzymatic degradation of plastics Some of the depolymerization assays were carried out using the commercially available thermostable cutinase (HiC, Novozym 51032), referred to as NovHiC. As received solution of NovHiC (LOT 1382204) was diluted by 2.5 into a stock solution in Tris-HCl buffer 0.1 M (pH 8). In each vial, a volume of 8.33 * (m / 5) μL of NovHiC stock solution was added, were m is the weighted mass in mg of PC / IPM. Enzymatic degradation reaction was carried out at 65°C. EXAMPLE 8 This example describes the procedure to characterize the thermal properties of polyester PC / IPMs and of copolyester products. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) protocol: DSC first heating scans of materials made plastics, PC / IPM or mixed PC / IPM containing crystallizable polymers were measured using a calorimeter (TA, discovery Q200).10 mg of the extrudate material were cut and introduced in a capsule (TA, Tzero Pan T 220228 and Tzero Hermetic Lid T 220315). The following DSC protocol was performed for each sample: 1) Equilibrate temperature from room temperature to 0°C; 2) Isothermal step (0°C) for 1 min; 3) Heating step from 0°C to 290°C at a heating rate of 10°C / min. The third step is the heating scan. From the normalized heat flow curve vs temperature of the heating scan, the following parameters and features of materials were obtained using TRIOS software version v3.1.5.3696. Heating scan: - Glass transition temperature (Tg) taken as the midpoint of the transition. - Onset of cold crystallization temperature (Tocc) taken from visually determined starting point temperature of the crystallization exothermic peak at around 100- 140°C. In some examples cold crystallization does not occur. - Cold crystallization temperature (Tcc) taken as the peak temperature of the crystallization exothermic peak at around 100-140°C. In some examples cold crystallization does not occur. - Cold crystallization enthalpy (ΔHcc) taken as the peak area of the crystallization exothermic peak at around 100-140°C from visually determined respective starting points to end points using a straight baseline between them. In some examples cold crystallization does not occur. - Melting peak temperature (Tm) taken as the peak temperature of the endothermic melting peak at around 200-255°C. - Melting peak enthalpy (ΔHm) taken as the peak area of the endothermic melting peak at around 200-255°C from visually determined respective starting points to end points using a straight baseline between them. Material preparation and enzymatic characterization: Some PC / IPM containing crystallizable polymers that crystallize slowly can be efficiently depolymerized by current enzymatic strategies. Current enzymatic strategies for plastic depolymerization containing crystallizable polymers include a material preparation step aiming to conveniently limit the fraction of crystalline domains. However, such strategies are efficient only for some crystallizable polymers that crystallize slowly, such as bottle-grade PET. The following comparative examples provide a description of the preparation of PC / IPM and the Enzymatic degradation assays. The preparation of plastic is performed by a classical procedure comprising on melt extrusion followed by fast cooling from the melt, which will be taken as a reference procedure for treating PC / IPM. In Comparative Example 1, bottle-grade PC / IPM PET flakes (rPET) are used. It is worth noting that bottle-grade PET flakes are also the material of choice for mechanical recycling which puts a pressure on price. EXAMPLE 9 Melt extrusion of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes followed by fast cooling. This example presents a method of preparation by melt extrusion and cooling of PC / IPM PET bottle waste for enzymatic depolymerization and provides NMR characterization of molecular composition as well as DSC characterization of thermal properties of thus copolyester products. PC / IPM PET flakes (rPET) (PolyQuest, polyquest.com / products / pet-and-rpet / ) were used as received (not pre-dried). rPET flakes (12g) and antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) were fed into a hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) equipped with co-rotating conical screws, recirculation channel allowing mixing during a controlled residence time and a circle die with diameter of 3.0 mm allowing for extrusion of the material from the compounder. The feeding / mixing / extrusion were performed under circulation of nitrogen, with a barrel temperature profile as follows: top position (270°C), middle position (270°C), and exit position (280°C). The speed of rotation of the screws was 60 RPM. The extruder was filled in around 1.5 min. After feeding the extruder, the compound was mixed for 5 min. Then the sample was withdrawn directly through the die, extruded into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. The mass of the obtained extrudate was 11.27 g. The mass difference between the feed and the extrudate was 0.73 g (6.1%), which is a typical value of mass difference when mixing polyesters with the compounder of the present example. FIG.7 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which the sample was withdrawn from the extruder. The resulting extrudate material was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of sample obtained by mixing the PC / IPM PET bottle flakes for a residence time of 5 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 5 summarizes the features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence time of 5 min. Table 5. Summary of the features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence time of 5 min. Thermal properties 10 mg of the sample obtained by mixing the PC / IPM PET bottle flakes for 5 min were characterized by DSC. Table 6 summarizes the thermal characterization of the sample obtained by melt extrusion of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes with the residence time of 5 min. Table 6. Thermal characterization by DSC of the sample obtained by melt extrusion of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes with the residence time of 5 min. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 1 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes This comparative example illustrates that the depolymerization of PC / IPM PET bottle waste catalyzed by the LCC variant enzyme is almost complete after 12 h of reaction at 65 °C. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 9 (RPET) was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. Table 7 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 7: Initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Reaction yield vs time plot is presented FIG.8. As presented in FIG.8, almost complete depolymerization of RPET obtained by melt extrusion and fast cooling can be achieved with the LCC variant. The comparative example 1 illustrates that for PC / IPM PET bottle PC / IPM enzymatic depolymerization can be efficient. However, the current enzymatic strategies for enzymatic PC / IPM recycling are not as efficient for other types of crystallizable polyesters PC / IPM containing polymers, precluding enzymatic recycling at the industrial scale. PC / IPM containing plastic textiles: The following examples illustrate that textiles made of plastics are more challenging to enzymatic depolymerization. Polyester fibers used in textiles are manufactured using polyester grades with shorter chains, which crystallize fast, negatively affecting the efficiency of the enzymatic depolymerization reaction (rate and yield). Even more challenging, polyester fibers used in textiles may comprise a variety of additives, such as dyes, inorganic additives which could act as nucleating agents and accelerate the crystallization of the crystallizable polymers, thus decreasing the efficiency of enzymatic depolymerization reaction. EXAMPLE 10 Melt extrusion of a 100% PET polyester textile waste followed by fast cooling. 12 g of a lining from swimsuit textile (8-13471A369, Eco endurance +, Speedo) were cut with scissors and milled using a Moulinex grinder (180 W) for 30 s. The obtained material comprising on mixed pieces and fluff (12 g) was fed into hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity). The extruder was filled in around 10 min. After feeding the extruder, the compound was mixed under the same conditions described in Comparative Example 1. At a mixing time of 5 min the sample was withdrawn directly through the die, extruded into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.9 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which the sample was withdrawn from the compounder. The resulting extrudate material was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of sample obtained by mixing the PET textile waste for 5 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 8 summarizes the features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence time of 5 min. Table 8. Features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence time of 5 min Thermal properties 10 mg of the sample obtained by mixing the 100% PET textile waste for 5 min were characterized by DSC. Table 9 summarizes the thermal characterization of the sample obtained by melt extrusion of a PET textile waste with the residence time of 5 min. Table 9: Thermal characterization of the sample obtained by melt extrusion of a PET textile waste with the residence time of 5 min by DSC. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 2 Enzymatic degradation assay of a PET based polyester material obtained by melt extrusion of a 100% PET textile waste followed by fast cooling. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 10 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. Table 10 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Reaction yield vs time plots corresponding to PC / IPM bottle-grade PET and 100% PET textile waste FIG.10. Table 10: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. It can be noticed that the reaction yield at 12 h of the material prepared from 100% PET textile waste is around 50%, whereas that of the material obtained from PC / IPM bottle-grade PET is higher than 95%. Therefore, the enzymatic depolymerization of PC / IPM prepared by classical melt extrusion followed by fast cooling may not be efficient enough to allow efficient depolymerization of PET polyester textile waste. PC / IPM containing a fast crystallizing crystallizable polymers: The following comparative examples further illustrate that the efficiency of enzymatic depolymerization is greatly affected when the PC / IPM contains a fast crystallizing polyester, which makes enzymatic recycling of such PC / IPMs more challenging. In the following examples the fast crystallizing polyester is PBT. EXAMPLE 11 Melt extrusion of PC / IPM PBT waste followed by fast cooling. This example illustrates that contrary to PC / IPM PET bottle waste fast cooling of PBT waste does not amorphize the material. PBT Valox 315 was obtained from Sabic Innovative Plastics. PBT was stored in a plastic bag for 7 years. Given the length of time between the date of manufacture and the date of use (more than 7 years), the PBT of this example is a PC / IPM no longer considered to be of practical use.12 g of PC / IPM PBT in the form of powder were mixed with an antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) and were fed into hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity). The extruder was filled in around 5 min. After feeding the extruder, the compound was mixed under the same conditions described in Comparative Example 1. After a mixing time of 5 min the material was extruded through the die into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.11 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which the sample was withdrawn from the compounder. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of the sample obtained by mixing the PC / IPM PBT waste for 5 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 11 summarizes the features characterizing the PC / IPM PBT (before melt extrusion) and the polyester textile material obtained by melt extrusion of PBT waste. Table 11. Summary of the features characterizing the PC / IPM PBT (before melt extrusion) and the polyester textile material obtained by melt extrusion of PBT waste. NMR spectra of melt extruded / water cooled show that the content of 1,4- butanediol residues B is not 100% and as much as 6% of ethylene residues appear during melt processing in the compounder. The fraction of protons in other aliphatic residues increases as well. Thermal characterization 10 mg of the sample obtained by mixing the PC / IPM PBT for 5 min were characterized by DSC. Table 12 summarizes the thermal characterization by DSC. Table 12: Thermal characterization of the sample obtained by melt extrusion of PC / IPM PBT with the residence time of 5 min by DSC. *no cold crystallization observed Contrary to PC / IPM PET bottle waste fast cooling of PBT waste does not amorphize the material as no cold crystallization peak could be detected in DSC traces. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 3 Enzymatic degradation assays of a PC / IPM PBT waste. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 11 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. Table 13 summarizes initial rate of depolymerization reaction. Table 13: Initial rate of depolymerization reaction. The enzymatic degradation yield vs time plots corresponding to PC / IPM PBT waste and PC / IPM bottle-grade PET are presented FIG.12. The above results show that contrary to PC / IPM PET bottles waste, a PC / IPM PBT material prepared by the classical method of melt extrusion followed by fast cooling remain recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation. The yield of the enzymatic depolymerization by the LCC variant at 65°C is as low as 1% compared to almost complete depolymerization of PC / IPM PET bottles waste. The ratio between the reaction yield of bottle-grade PET and PC / IPM PBT was around 200, using the LCC variant at 65°C. Without wishing to be bound to any particular theory, a failure of amorphization by fast cooling and the presence of fast crystallizing crystallizable polymers in a PC / IPM significantly affects the enzymatic depolymerization efficiency (yield and rate). Plastic textiles containing mixed polyesters PET and PBT: Enzymatic degradation of PC / IPM comprising polyester textiles composed of fibers made of different polyesters, for example PET and PBT or PET and polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), or elastomultiester is challenging. Such PC / IPMs are particularly recalcitrant to enzymatic depolymerization because of the presence of fast crystallizing PBT. EXAMPLE 12 Melt extrusion / reactive mixing / extrusion of a polyester textile waste made of fibers of PET and PBT followed by fast cooling. A polyester swimsuit short (Nike Hydrastrong solid jammer color 494 game royal, Nessa 006, Performance Swimwear, Nike) was cut with scissors to separate the polyester textile from the elastics.12 g of the polyester textile cuts were fed into hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) and the extruder was filled in around 5 min. Processing of the textile waste was performed following the conditions described in Comparative Example 1. At different mixing times samples of about 1g were withdrawn directly through the die, extruded into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. The sampling times and the mass of the withdrawn samples were as follows: - 5 min (1.49 g) - 10 min (1.24 g) - 30 min (1.28 g) - 60 min (1.21 g) - 90 min (1.1 g) The remaining material inside the extruder was used to prepare other materials not included in this example (see Example 27). The extruded samples were optically homogeneous and the extrudates were smooth. FIG.13 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. The resulting extrudate material was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of samples obtained by mixing a textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 14. Summary of the features characterizing the polyester textile made of PET and PBT fibers and the polyester material synthesized by melt extrusion / reactive mixing / extrusion of polyester textile waste for different residence times. This example illustrates that chemical reactions take place during the mixing / extrusion process of a PC / IPM waste containing PBT crystallizable polymer. Notably, even in the absence of any added catalyst, during melt mixing the transesterification reactions take place and copolyesters are synthesized. The quantity of heterolinkages ^^,^increases when the reaction time increases. Other reactions result in a change of the material composition. NMR spectra evidence a decrease in the content of 1,4-butanediol residues B, the appearance of ethylene residues and an increase in the number of other aliphatic ia protons. The change of the material’s composition occurs even when the residence time in the compounder is as short as 5 min. This change of composition during the reactive mixing is a feature of the mixed polymer waste. Without wishing to be bound to any particular theory, different additives are present in different components of the waste and their proportion vary depending on the composition of the waste. In particular, the catalysts remaining in PBT and in PET for examples are different and they can give rise and influence the occurrence of the chemical reaction during the reactive mixing. The presence of these catalysts not only controls the transesterification reactions, but also induces secondary reactions leading to the variation of composition of copolyesters during the reaction. Thermal properties 10 mg of the materials obtained in Example 12 by mixing a textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers for different times were characterized by DSC. Table 15 summarizes the thermal characterization of the polymer materials obtained in Example 12 by mixing a textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers for different times. Table 15. Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained at different mixing times as described in Example 10. * two different melting peaks ** taken from the sum of both melting peaks This example shows that the above method produces materials exhibiting lower crystallinity degree. Yet, the yield of the depolymerization of the material is as low as 10% (FIG.14). COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 4 Enzymatic degradation assays of a polyester textile waste containing PET and PBT fibers. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 12 with a residence time of 5 min was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. Table 16 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 16. Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The enzymatic degradation kinetic plots corresponding to a textile waste comprising PET and PBT fibers, PC / IPM bottle-grade PET and 100% PET textile waste are presented FIG.14. It is observed that enzymatic degradation yield of the material obtained from a textile containing a mixture of PET and PBT fibers is relatively low (<10%). It is also evidenced that the presence of highly recalcitrant PBT affects the enzymatic depolymerization of PET, which represents 70 mol% of the material tested in Comparative Example 4, as determined by1H-NMR. Yet, the yield of the depolymerization of the material is less than 10 %. Enzymatic degradation of mixed PC / IPM: PET with 10% of PBT PC / IPM often contain mixed plastics. Method to sort plastics from mixed PC / IPM are often not convenient, are expensive or are not efficient to separate mixed plastics into single PC / IPMs. Importantly, the following examples show that if a slow crystallizing crystallizable polyester (here PC / IPM bottle-grade PET) is processed by melt extrusion with a minor proportion (10 wt.%) of another PC / IPM comprising a fast crystallizing polyester (here PC / IPM PBT), the enzymatic depolymerization efficiency of the resulting material is decreased. A lower yield of enzymatic depolymerization is obtained, compared to the expected reaction yield if the PET fraction was depolymerized. EXAMPLE 13 Melt extrusion of mixed PC / IPM followed by fast cooling: PC / IPM bottle grade PET (90%) and PC / IPM PBT (10 wt.%). PC / IPM PET bottle flakes described in Example 2 (not pre dried) were mixed with PC / IPM PBT described in Example 11 (not pre dried) in a proportion 90 wt.% PET and 10 wt.% PBT. An antioxidant was added (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma).12 g of the resulting mixture were fed into hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) and the extruder was filled in around 1.5 min. Processing of the mixed PC / IPM was performed following the conditions described in Comparative Example 1. At a residence (mixing) time of 5 min the sample was withdrawn directly through the die, extruded into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.15 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. The resulting extrudate material was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of the sample obtained after mixing PC / IPM PET and PC / IPM PBT) in a proportion 90 wt.% PET and 10 wt.% PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 17 summarizes the features characterizing the sample obtained by mixing for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min as described in Example 13. Table 17: Features characterizing the sample obtained by mixing for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min as described in Example 13 Thermal properties 10 mg of the sample obtained by mixing PC / IPM PET and PC / IPM PBT in a proportion 90 wt.% PET and 10 wt.% PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min were characterized by DSC. Table 18 summarizes the thermal characterization of the sample. Table 18: Thermal characterization by DSC of the sample obtained in Example 13 by mixing PC / IPM PET and PC / IPM PBT in a proportion 90 wt.% PET and 10 wt.% PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 5 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of mixed PC / IPM: PC / IPM PET (90wt.%) and PC / IPM PBT (10wt.%). LCC variant at 75°C The enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of the sample described in Example 13 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6, with the only exception that the enzymatic assay was carried out at 75°C instead of at 65°C. Table 19 summarizes initial rate of depolymerization reaction. Table 19: Summary of the initial rate of depolymerization reaction. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 6 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of PC / IPM PET. LCC variant at 75°C The enzymatic depolymerization yield as a function of time of the material described in Example 9 was performed following the description of Comparative Example 1, with the only exception that the enzymatic assay was carried out at 75°C instead of at 65°C. Table 20 summarizes initial rate of depolymerization reaction. Table 20: Summary of initial rate of depolymerization reaction. The enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time plots corresponding to Comparative Examples 5 and 6 are presented FIG.16. The reaction yield measured at 75°C as a function of time for the material of Example 9 was as high as 70 % at 12 hs, whereas the reaction yield of the material of Comparative Example 13 containing PET and a minor fraction of PBT was around 30%, as presented in FIG.16. Therefore, the presence of contaminants such as fast crystallizing polymers in PC / IPM containing PET decreases the enzymatic depolymerization yield of PET. Reacting crystallizable polymers or copolymers in the manner described above may lead to synthesis of copolyesters is particularly advantageous for efficient enzymatic depolymerization of recalcitrant polyester PC / IPMs. The method described here comprises exposing such copolyesters containing materials to a PET degrading enzyme. It was discovered that the rate and the yield of enzymatic depolymerization of a PC / IPM containing a crystallizable polyester can be improved by reactive mixing it with another PC / IPM containing a challenging fast crystallizing crystallizable polyester. The following examples illustrate the enzymatic depolymerization of polyester textile PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT fibers after processing by reactive mixing / extrusion. Enzymatic depolymerization assays were performed at different temperatures. EXAMPLE 14 Enzymatic depolymerization assays at 65°C of material obtained by mixing a polyester textile waste containing PET and PBT fibers subjected to reactive mixing during 90 min. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 12 with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 5. Table 21 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 21: Summary of initial rate and yields (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time plots described in Example 14 and Comparative Example 4 are presented FIG.17. From the reaction yield vs time plots and the reaction yield at 24 h, there is no significant difference between samples obtained by mixing for 5 min or 90 min. EXAMPLE 15 Enzymatic depolymerization assay at 75°C of textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers subjected to reactive mixing for 90 min. This example illustrates the effect of temperature on enzymatic degradation. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 12 with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6 at 75°C. Table 22 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 22: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Reaction yield vs time plot is presented FIG.18. From the reaction yield vs time plots and the reaction yield there is limited difference between samples obtained by mixing for 5 min or 90 min. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 7 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of PET based polyester material made by melt extrusion (residence time of 5 min) of PET / PBT textile waste. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 12 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6 at 75°C. Table 23 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 23: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The reaction yield vs time plot is presented FIG.18. Examples 14 and 15 and Comparative Example 7 illustrate that the above method leading to transesterification may not be sufficient to improve the enzymatic depolymerization rate and yield. The following examples show that the composition of the polyesters in the waste may need to be adjusted in order to achieve an improvement of the depolymerization rate and yield by reactive mixing and resulting transesterification. EXAMPLE 16 Reactive mixing for 90 min followed by extrusion and cooling of a mixture of textile wastes, a 100% PET textile waste and a PET / PBT textile waste containing a mixture of PET and PBT fibers. A polyester swimsuit short (Nike Hydrastrong solid jammer color 494 game royal, Nessa 006, Performance Swimwear, Nike) was cut with scissors to separate the polyester textile from the elastics.6 g of said Nike textile cuts were mixed with 6 g hand cuts of a lining from swimsuit textiles (8-13471A369, Speedo Eco endurance + Medalist AF Blue swimsuit with reference number #2000050986, Speedo). The mixed cuts (12 g) of different polyester textiles were milled using a Moulinex grinder (180 W) for 30 s. The resulting material was fed into a hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) in around 6 min and was mixed under the same conditions as described in Example 2. After feeding the extruder, the sample was mixed for 90 min and was then withdrawn from the compounder, directly extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.19 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. The resulting extrudate material was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of the sample obtained at a residence (mixing) time of 90 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 24 summarizes the features characterizing the sample obtained by mixing for a residence (mixing) time of 90 min as described in Example 16. Table 24. Summary of characteristics at residence time of 90 minutes Thermal properties 10 mg of the sample obtained by mixing polyester textile wastes comprising PET and PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 90 min were characterized by DSC. Table 25 summarizes the thermal characterization of the sample. Table 25: Thermal characterization by DSC of the sample obtained by mixing polyester textile wastes comprising PET and PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 90 min. EXAMPLE 17 Reactive mixing for varying residence times followed by extrusion and cooling of a mixture of textile wastes, a 100% PET textile waste and a PET / PBT textile waste containing a mixture of PET and PBT fibers. Mixed polyester textile wastes were processed by reactive mixing / extrusion as described in Example 16 with the only difference that samples (around 1 g) were withdrawn through the die at different residence (mixing) times, directly extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. The sampling times and the mass of the withdrawn samples were as follows: - 5 min (1.55 g) - 10 min (1.13 g) - 30 min (1.39 g) - 60 min (1.07 g) - 90 min (1.23 g) The remaining material inside the extruder was used to prepare other materials not included in this example (see Example 23). FIG.20 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The extruded sample were optically homogeneous and the extrudates were smooth. The resulting extrudate materials were characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of samples obtained by mixing a 100% PET textile waste and a textile made of fibers of different polyesters as described above were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 26. Summary of the features characterizing the material synthesized with different residence time. Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate materials obtained by mixing at different residence times were characterized by DSC. Table 27 summarizes the thermal characterization of the polymer materials obtained by mixing a 100% PET textile waste and a textile waste made of fibers of PET and PBT for different mixing times. Table 27. Thermal characterization by DSC of the polymer materials obtained by mixing a 100% PET textile waste and a textile waste made of fibers of PET and PBT for different mixing times. This example shows that by increasing the reactive mixing time, the transesterification reaction yield increases and the degree of crystallinity of the copolyester products decreases. The cold crystallization temperature also increases indicating that the substrate crystallization during the depolymerization might be retarded. These features could be favorable for improving enzymatic depolymerization efficiency. EXAMPLE 18 Enzymatic depolymerization assays of copolyester products obtained by reactive mixing for 90 min followed by extrusion and cooling of a mixture of textile wastes, a 100% PET textile waste and a PET / PBT textile waste containing a mixture of PET and PBT fibers. (Example 16). The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assays of the materials described in Example 16 and Example 17 with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min were performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Table 28 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 28: Summary of the initial rate and yield (24h) of depolymerization reaction. The reaction yield vs time plots are presented FIG.21. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 8 Enzymatic depolymerization of copolyester products obtained by melt extrusion (5 min residence time) and followed by cooling of a mixture of textile wastes, a 100% PET textile waste and a PET / PBT textile waste containing a mixture of PET and PBT fibers (example 17). The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assay of the material described in Example 17 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. A second batch (batch #2) of the material was prepared following the same conditions described in Example 17 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min, and the enzymatic degradation assays were performed as described above. Table 29 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 29: Summary of the initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The reaction yield vs time plot of the material described in the Comparative Example 8 is presented in FIG.21. FIG.21 shows that the new materials from the waste are efficiently depolymerized by the LCC variant, and even more importantly the yield at 24hs it is greatly improved by a material containing a fast crystallizing polymer as PBT. Reproducibility of the reaction yield vs time plots is presented in FIG.22 by comparing the results of two different batches obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed polyester textile wastes made of PET and PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 90 min and two different batches obtained by melt extrusion of mixed polyester textile wastes made of PET and PBT for a residence (mixing) time of 5 min. The enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time plots show that materials synthesized with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min are more readily degraded by enzymes compared to materials synthesized with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min. The observed difference between reaction yield vs time of materials obtained at a residence (mixing) time of 90 min mixing could be attributed to some difference in the level of evaporation from about 8 h of reaction. For this reason, yield of reaction is compared at 24 h by the protocol described in Example 4, which has almost no effect of evaporation. Reaction yields at 24 h are presented in FIG.23 showing good reproducibility between different material batches at a given residence (mixing) time. From the previous examples, it was noted that efficient enzymatic depolymerisation of PC / IPM containing PET and PBT can be achieved depending on the composition of polyesters in the PC / IPM and efficiency of transesterification reaction during the aforementioned process. The following example illustrates that efficient depolymerization of PC / IPMs containing PET and PBT can be achieved by adjusting the PC / IPM composition by mixing different types of PC / IPMs. Furthermore, the following examples confirms the effect of transesterification reaction during processing the PC / IPMs containing PET and PBT on the enzymatic degradation of the PC / IPM. EXAMPLE 19 Reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers. PET based polyester materials were synthesized by reactive mixing / extrusion a PC / IPM containing 50 wt.% of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes and 50 wt.% of a polyester textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers following the procedure described in Example 2. The extruded samples were optically homogeneous and the extrudates were smooth. NMR characterization1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of samples obtained by mixing bottle flakes and textiles made of fibers of different polyesters were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 30. Summary of the features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence times. Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers were characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Table 31 summarizes the thermal characterization of the samples obtained at different mixing times as described in Example 19. Table 31: Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained at different mixing times as described in Example 1. EXAMPLE 20 Enzymatic degradation assays with the LCC variant at T=65°C Enzymatic depolymerization assays of polyester textiles made by reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers (Example 19). The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the materials described in Example 19 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5 for the sample obtained at at residence (mixing) time of 90 min. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Enzymatic depolymerization vs time plots of the material described in Example 19 (residence times: 30 min; 60 min; 90 min) are presented in FIG.24. Table 32 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization of the materials obtained at different residence (mixing) times in Example 19. Table 32. Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization of the materials obtained at different residence (mixing) times in Example 19. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 9 Enzymatic depolymerization assays of polyester textiles made by melt extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers. Assay of enzymatic depolymerization as a function of the materials described in Example 19 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min was performed by the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h of the material described in Example 19 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic samples were milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Enzymatic degradation vs time plot is presented in FIG.24 for different residence (mixing) times. Table 33 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 33: Summary of the initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The following examples illustrates the reproducibility of the results presented in the Example 19 and Example 20. EXAMPLE 21 Reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made with fibers of different types of polyesters. (Nike+rPET). The procedure of the Example 19 was repeated under the same to assess the reproducibility of results. The extrudate obtained after reactive mixing 90 min followed by fast cooling was characterized by NMR and DSC following the protocols described in Example 2 and Example 8, respectively. NMR characterization1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of sample were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 34. Summary of the features characterizing the material synthesized with the residence times. Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate material were characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Table 35 summarizes the thermal characterization of the sample obtained with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min. Table 35: Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained at different mixing times as described in Example 1. Enzymatic degradation assays with the LCC variant at T=65°C The enzymatic depolymerization yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Enzymatic depolymerization yield at 24 h was (84±2)%. Enzymatic degradation assays with NovHiC at T=65°C The following examples illustrate the enzymatic degradation of the materials prepared in Example 19 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min and 90 min using the commercial enzyme NovHiC. EXAMPLE 22 Enzymatic depolymerization assay of a polyester material obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers for a residence time of 90 min. Enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assay of the material described in Example 19 with a residence (mixing) time of 90 min was performed following the procedure of Example 4. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the enzyme NovHiC as described in Example 7. Initial depolymerization rate was estimated from the reaction yield vs time following the procedure described in Example 2 and is reported in Table 36. Reaction yield vs time plot is presented in FIG.25 Table 36: Summary of initial rate and depolymerization yield at 24 hr. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 10 Enzymatic depolymerization assay of a polyester material obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of PC / IPM PET bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers for a residence time of 5 min. Enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assay of the material described in Example 19 with a residence (mixing) time of 5 min was performed following the procedure of Example 4. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the enzyme NovHiC as described in Example 7. The initial depolymerization rate was estimated from the reaction yield vs time following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 37 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 37: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. FIG.25 shows the enzymatic degradation reaction vs. time plots described in Example 22 and Comparative Example 10. Table 38: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The following examples illustrate that by incorporating a reactive agent, here exemplified by diglycidyl terephthalate (DGT) (FIG.26), in the synthesis of PET copolyester materials made from PC / IPM containing PET and PBT it is possible to improve the efficiency (rate and yield) of enzymatic depolymerization of some PC / IPMs containing PET and PBT. EXAMPLE 23 Reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed textile wastes in the presence of DGT: 100% PET textile mixed with a textile made of PET and PBT fibers followed by addition of DGT. Reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed textile wastes was performed following the same procedure described in Example 17. Samples were withdrawn at different mixing times as described in Example 17. After withdrawing the sample at a mixing time of 90 min, the remaining material inside the compounder was further processed in the presence of reactive agent DGT (Denacol EX-711 Nagase ChemteX Corporation). DGT (300 mg) was fed into the compounder and the sample was further mixed up to the time at which the axial force was 6650 N. The sample was directly extruded through the die into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.27 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn and DGT was added. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The observed increase of axial force after addition of DGT is related with chain extension / branching / cross-linking reactions. The extruded samples after addition of DGT had a roughened appearance and were not soluble in organic solvents such as HFIP or TFA / CHCl3 (20 / 80 v / v%). The resulting extrudate material was characterized by DSC Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate material was characterized by DSC. DSC scans of the material described above were obtained by the protocol described in Example 6 and are presented in Table 39. Table 39: Thermal characterization by DSC of the polymer material obtained in Example 18. EXAMPLE 24 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of a mixture of polyester textiles made with fibers of different types of polyesters with addition of DGT as cross-linker after 90 min of mixing. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 23 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Enzymatic degradation yield vs time plot is presented is presented FIG.28. Table 40: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. The following example illustrates that the reactive agent DGT be added at an early stage of the reactive mixing / extrusion process of the PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT. EXAMPLE 25 Reactive mixing / extrusion mixed polyester textile wastes containing PET and PBT with addition of DGT as reactive agent after a mixing time of 5 min. Swimsuit short (Nike Hydrastrong solid jammer color 494 game royal, Nessa 006, Performance Swimwear, Nike) was hand cut with scissors. The polyester textile was separated from the elastics.6 g of said Nike textile cuts were mixed with 6 g hand cuts of a lining from swimsuit textiles (8-13471A369, Speedo Eco endurance + Medalist AF Blue swimsuit with reference number #2000050986, Speedo). The mixed cuts (12 g) of different polyester textiles were milled using a Moulinex grinder (180 W) for 30 s. The resulting material (12 g) was fed into a hot conical twin screw extruder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) in around 6 min and was mixed under the same conditions as described in the Example 2. After feeding the extruder, the sample was mixed for 5 min. Immediately after, the reactive agent DGT (600 mg, Denacol EX-711 Nagase ChemteX Corporation) was added into the compounder. The sample was further mixed. After addition of DGT the axial force increased, as presented in FIG.29. When the axial force reached 6600 N the material was withdrawn through the die, extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. The extruded sample had a roughened appearance and was soluble in TFA / CHCl3 (20 / 80 v / v%). NMR characterization 1H-NMR and13C-NMR spectra of the copolyester material synthesized by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed textile wastes with addition of DGT at a residence (mixing) time of 5 min were recorded following the procedure described in Example 2. Table 41 summarizes the features characterizing the polyester material synthesized by reactive mixing / extrusion of mixed textile wastes with addition of DGT at a residence (mixing) time of 5 min. Table 41. NMR-defined features of the material described in Example 25 Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate material was characterized by DSC. Table 42 summarizes the thermal characterization of the polymer material obtained in by mixing textile wastes in the presence of DGT as described in Example 25. Table 42: Thermal characterization by DSC of the polymer material obtained in Example 19. EXAMPLE 26 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of a mixture of polyester textiles made with fibers of different types of polyesters with addition of DGT as cross-linker after 90 min of mixing. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 25 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. The enzymatic degradation yield vs time described in Example 26 and Comparative Example 8 is presented FIG.30. Table 43 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 43: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. EXAMPLE 27 Reactive mixing / extrusion a textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers, followed by addition of reactive agent DGT Reactive mixing / extrusion of textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers was performed following the same procedure described in Example 12. Samples were withdrawn at different mixing times as described in Example 12. After withdrawing the sample at a mixing time of 90 min, the remaining material inside the compounder was further processed in the presence of reactive agent DGT (Denacol EX-711 Nagase ChemteX Corporation). DGT (300 mg) was fed into the compounder and the sample was further mixed up to the time at which the axial force reached 6000 N. The sample (3.43 g) was directly extruded through the die into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.31 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn and DGT was added. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The observed increase of axial force after addition of DGT is related with chain extension / branching / cross-linking reactions. The extruded samples after addition of DGT had a roughened appearance and was not soluble in organic solvents such as HFIP or TFA / CHCl3 (20 / 80 v / v%). The resulting extrudate material was characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate material were characterized by DSC. Table 44 summarizes the thermal characterization of the polymer materials obtained by reactive mixing / extrusion of a textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers followed by addition of reactive agent DGT as described in Example 27. Table 44. Thermal characterization by DSC of the polymer material obtained in Example 20. EXAMPLE 28 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of a polyester textile made of fibers of different types of polyesters with addition of DGT as cross-linker after 90 min of mixing. Enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assays of the material described in Example 27 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6. Depolymerization yield vs time plot is presented FIG.32. Table 45: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. EXAMPLE 29 Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time of a polyester textile made of fibers of different types of polyesters with addition of DGT as cross-linker after 90 min of mixing. T=75°C The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material described in Example 27 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant enzyme as described in Example 6 at 75°C. Depolymerization yield vs time plot is presented FIG.33. Table 46 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 46: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. EXAMPLE 30 Reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM: bottle flakes and textiles made of fibers of different polyesters, followed by addition of reactive agent DGT. Reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers was performed following the same procedure described in Example 2. Samples were withdrawn at different mixing times as described in Example 2. After withdrawing the sample at a mixing time of 90 min, the remaining material inside the compounder was further processed in the presence of reactive agent DGT (Denacol EX-711 Nagase ChemteX Corporation). DGT (344 mg) was fed into the compounder and the sample was further mixed up to the time at which the axial force reached 5100 N. The sample was directly extruded through the die into an ice / water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.34 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder. The arrows indicate the time at which samples were withdrawn and DGT was added. The observed dropped of axial force during the extrusion of the samples is related to decrease of the filling level of the compounder. The observed increase of axial force after addition of DGT is related with chain extension / branching / cross-linking reactions. The extruded sample after addition of DGT had a roughened appearance and was not soluble in organic solvents such as HFIP or TFA / CHCl (20 / 80 . The extrudate material was characterized by DSC. Thermal properties 10 mg of the extrudate material was characterized by DSC. Table 47 summarizes the thermal characterization of the polymer materials obtained reactive mixing / extrusion of a mixture of PC / IPM bottle flakes and textiles made of PET and PBT fibers followed by addition of reactive agent DGT as described in Example 30. Table 47. Thermal characterization by DSC of the polymer material obtained in Example 30. EXAMPLE 31 Enzymatic depolymerization assays of polyester material made by reactive mixing / extrusion of bottle flakes and polyester textile waste made of PET and PBT fibers in the presence of reactive agent DGT. Enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time assay of the material described in Example 30 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The reaction yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The plastic sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. Enzymatic depolymerization yield vs time plot described in Example 31 is presented FIG.35. Table 48 summarizes initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. Table 48: Summary of initial rate and yield (24 h) of depolymerization reaction. It is important to control the composition of copolyester materials synthesized during the reactive mixing of PC / IPM. It was found that the composition of the PC / IPM containing PET and PBT can be correlated with the composition of the PET / PBT copolyesters obtained by reactive mixing of such PC / IPM. The example below provides a method for predicting the composition of the PET based polymer / copolymer from a given composition of the PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT. EXAMPLE 32 Correlation of composition B[mol%] vs B[mol%] between PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT and the polymer material obtained after processing said PC / IPM by melt / reactive extrusion. FIG.36 shows the correlation between PC / IPM composition comprising PET and PBT and the polymer material obtained after processing said PC / IPM by melt extrusion / reactive mixing. Compositions (before and after processing) were determined by1H-NMR characterization as described in Example 2 and are expressed in B[mol%] for different examples presented above. The correlation presented in the Example 32 is useful to predict the final composition of the copolyesters prepared by reactive mixing / extrusion from a given composition of a PC / IPM comprising PET and PBT wastes. The composition of the mixed PC / IPM and of PET based copolyesters can be measured by FT-IR. FT-IR is a convenient technique for quantitative characterization of PC / IPMs comprising different polyesters. It has the advantage of being a fast and simple method suitable for routine analysis (online) at the industrial scale. The following example illustrates the application of FT-IR to quantify the composition of a plastic material comprising PET and PBT. EXAMPLE 33 Determination of polyester composition by FT-IR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy – Attenuated Total Reflectance (FTIR-ATR) FTIR-ATR spectra were recorded using a Tensor 27 (Bruker) instrument. The spectra were recorded with a resolution of 4 cm-1and a 64-scan accumulation. FIG.37 shows the FTIR-ATR spectra of samples obtained by the conditions described in Comparative example 5 and Comparative example 2 in the range 2000 – 600 cm-1, as illustrative examples of IR spectra of PET and PBT respectively. Some common features can be noticed. Notably, absorbance of C=Caromaticvibration band at 1408 cm-1from aromatic units was chosen for normalization of spectra of all spectra. Stacking highlights specific signals for each polyester, notably: - signals at 1340 cm-1and 1041 cm-1that were considered as specific from PET in PET / PBT mix. - signal at 935 cm-1that was considered as specific from PBT in PET / PBT mix. A quantification of different polyesters in a plastic mixture can be obtained relying on their specific vibration bands by IR spectroscopy. This was verified relying on the composition (B[mol%]) of different examples and comparative examples previously introduced. It was highlighted that normalized absorbance of PET specific signals at 1340 cm-1or 1041cm-1could be correlated to 100-B (mol%) (ethylene glycol proportion) and normalized absorbance of PBT specific signal at 935 cm-1could be correlated to B (mol%) (butanediol proportion). Evolution of [Absorbance at 1340 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] and [Absorbance at 1041 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] over 100-B (mol%) is represented FIGs.38 and 39; and [Absorbance at 935 cm-1 / Absorbance at 1408 cm-1] over B (mol%) is represented FIG.40. A linear correlation was found between the three normalized absorbance and material composition. Using this correlation, the composition of an unknown sample could be estimated from the ATR-FTIR absorbance spectrum. Combined measurement of absorbance at 1340 cm-1, 1041 cm-1, and 935 cm-1could be useful to get a more accurate estimation of composition. The following example demonstrates that a recalcitrant mixture of PTT and PET staple fiber wastes can be readily depolymerized by polymer-degrading enzymes after transesterification by reactive mixing. EXAMPLE 34 Reactive mixing for 90 min followed by extrusion and cooling of a mixture of PET and PTT staple fibers waste having a composition PET 50% (mol%) and PTT 50% (mol%). A mixture of PTT and PET staple fibers were taken from the filler of a jacket (CMP purchased by Amazon, article ref: 30Z204464ZF) containing SEE® insulation with DuPontTM Sorona®. The composition of polyesters PET and PTT in the mixture of staple fibers was measured by1H-NMR (PET 50% (mol%) and PTT 50% (mol%), see FIG.42). The mixture of PTT / PET staple fibers (12 g) and an antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) were fed into a hot conical twin screw compounder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3 capacity) in around 4 min and was mixed under the same conditions as described in Example 2. After feeding the extruder, the sample was mixed for 5 min or for 90 min and was then withdrawn from the compounder, directly extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. FIG.41 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder for 90 min. The extruded sampled after mixing 5 min of 90 min were optically homogeneous and the extrudates were smooth. NMR characterization of PET / PTT staple fibers, and extrudates after mixing for a residence time of 5 min and 90 min. Samples for NMR analysis were prepared following the protocols and experimental conditions described in Example 2.1H-NMR spectra of PET / PTT staple fibers and the product obtained after mixing 90 min are presented in FIG.42 and FIG.43, respectively.13C-NMR spectra of the products obtained after mixing the PET / PTT staple fibers for 5 min and 90 min are presented in FIG. 44. The attribution of peaks based on literature is given in Table 49 (1H-NMR) and Table 50 (13C-NMR). (R. Hariharan, A.G. Pinkus, Useful NMR solvent mixture for polyesters: Trifluoroacetic acid-d / chloroform-d. Polymer Bulletin 30, 91–95 (1993). doi.org / 10.1007 / BF00296239 ; A. Martínez de Ilarduya , S. Muñoz-Guerra, Chemical Structure and Microstructure of Poly(alkylene terephthalate)s, their Copolyesters, and their Blends as Studied by NMR. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2014, 215, 2138−2160. DOI: 10.1002 / macp.201400239. Table 49. NMR chemical shifts of PET and PTT signals by1H NMR in d-TFA / CDCl3 20 / 80v%. Table 50. NMR chemical shifts of PET and PTT signals by13C-NMR in d-TFA / CDCl320 / 80v%. Based on1H-NMR and13C-NMR characterization the following features of the products of melt mixing were obtained: Table 51: NMR features of the polyester textile waste of Example 34. Where the mol % of ethylene glycol residues is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents and can be calculated from 1H-NMR as: 100*[Ab / (Ab+Aq)], with Abthe integrated area of peak Hb and Aq the integrated area of peak Hq. The mol % of 1,3-propanediol residues is based on 100 mole percent of diol or diol equivalents and can be calculated from 1H-NMR as: 100*[Aq / (Ab+Aq)], with Abthe integrated area of peak Hb and Aq the integrated area of peak Hq. The heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues (mol %) comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,3-propanediol residue wherein said mol % is based on 100 mole percent of dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue and 1,3-propanediol residue and can be calculated from 13C-NMR as: Heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues (mol %) = 100*[(Ar+As) / (Ar+As+Ab+An)], where Ar,As, Aband Anare the area of peaks corresponding to heterolinkage dyands centered on diacid residues Cr and Cs and homolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues Cband Cn, respectively. Thermal properties: 10 mg of the samples obtained by mixing the PC / IPM PET / PTT staple fibers for 5 min and 90 min were characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Table 52 summarizes the thermal characterization by DSC. Table 52: Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained at different mixing times as described in Example 34. * two melting peaks Enzymatic depolymerization assays of the product of reactive mixing PET / PTT fibers for 90 min with the LCC variant at T=65°C. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material obtained after melt mixing the PET / PTT staple fibers for 90 min as described above was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The depolymerization yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5 for the sample obtained at a residence (mixing) time of 90 min. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield vs. time is presented in Figure 45. Table 53 summarizes initial rate and depolymerization yield (24 h) of the above mentioned material. Table 53: Summary of the initial rate and depolymerization yield (24h) of the PET / PTT staple fiber after reactive mixing for 90 min. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 11: Enzymatic depolymerization assays of the product of melt mixing PET / PTT fibers for 5 min with the LCC variant at T=65°C The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material obtained after melt mixing the PET / PTT staple fibers for 5 min as described in the Example 34 was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The depolymerization yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5 for the sample obtained at a residence (mixing) time of 5 min. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield vs. time is presented in FIG.45. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. Empty symbols represent the depolymerization yield at 24 h. Table 54 summarizes initial rate and depolymerization yield (24 h) of the above mentioned material. Table 54: Summary of the initial rate and depolymerization yield (24h) of the PET / PTT staple fiber after melt mixing for 5 min. The following comparative example illustrates a non-sortable post-industrial blend of PET textile fibers which is recalcitrant to enzymatic depolymerization. Compared to PET bottle flakes the post-industrial PET fibers crystallize rapidly negatively affecting the efficiency of the enzymatic depolymerization reaction (rate and yield). Even more challenging, polyester fibers used in textiles may comprise a variety of (unknown) additives, such as dyes, inorganic additives, among others, which could act as nucleating agents and accelerate crystallization of the crystallisable polymers, thus decreasing the efficiency of enzymatic depolymerization reaction. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 12 Post-industrial blend of PET textile fibers recalcitrant to enzymatic depolymerization. Post-industrial nonwoven PET fibers consisting of a blend of PET textile fibers of different colors was supplied by AJ Nonwovens, LLC.12 g of said PET textile fibers and an antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) were fed into a hot conical twin screw extruder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) in around 5 min and were mixed under the same conditions as described in the Example 2. After feeding the extruder, the sample was mixed for 5 min. Immediately after the material was withdrawn through the die, extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. The extruded sample was optically homogeneous and the extrudate was smooth. Figure 46 shows the variation of the axial force during the mixing in the compounder for 5 min. In order to assess the variability of sample preparation a total of 3 batches were prepared following the same procedure described above. Thermal properties: 10 mg of the samples obtained by mixing the post-industrial PET textile fibers, were characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Table 55 summarizes the thermal characterization by DSC of the 3 different batches. Table 55: Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained by reactive post- industrial PET textile fibers as described in the Comparative Example 12. Enzymatic depolymerization assays of post-industrial blend of PET textile fibers with the LCC variant at T=65°C. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of post-industrial blend of PET textile described above was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield vs. time is presented in FIG.47, which shows that the post-industrial blend of PET textile fibers is significantly less depolymerized than PET bottle flakes, under the same conditions. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. Isothermal crystallization: Crystallization kinetics was followed by measuring the heat flow as a function of incubation time at the temperature of enzymatic hydrolysis tests (65°C) in the presence of buffer (potassium phosphate buffer pH 8, 0.1M).7 mg of micronized and sieved (150-300 µm) plastic particles used for enzymatic depolymerization assays were introduced in a capsule (TA, Tzero Pan T 220228 and Tzero Hermetic Lid T 220315) together with 4 µL of buffer. The capsule was hermetically closed. Samples were equilibrated at 30°C for 1 min, then heated at 40°C / min up to 65°C. The temperature was maintained at 65°C for 24 h. The signal of heat flow vs. time at 65°C was integrated and integrated heat flow vs. time is plotted. The integrated heat flow as a function of incubation time at 65°C shows that the post-industrial PET textile fibers crystallize more rapidly than the PET bottle flakes, as shown in FIG.48. The faster increase of the integrated heat flow of the PET textile fiber compared to PET bottle flakes is due to a faster crystallization of the PET textile fiber sample. Enzymatic depolymerization assays of post-industrial blend of PET textile fibers with the LCC variant at T=55°C. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of post-industrial blend of PET textile described above was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The depolymerization yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield vs. time is presented in FIG.49. Table 58 summarizes initial rate and depolymerization yield (24 h) of the above mentioned material. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. COMPARATIVE EXAMPLE 13 Enzymatic depolymerization assay of PBT with the LCC variant at T=55°C. The enzymatic depolymerization yield at 24 h of PBT material described in the Example 11 was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield at 24 h is presented in Table 58. The following example illustrates that recalcitrant non-sortable blend of post-industrial PET textile fibers can be readily depolymerized by enzymes after reactive mixing with recalcitrant PBT and DGT. EXAMPLE 35 Reactive mixing / extrusion of post-industrial PET textile waste and PBT with addition of DGT as reactive agent. Post-industrial nonwoven PET fibers consisting of a blend of PET textile fibers of different colors was supplied by AJ Nonwovens, LLC.8.55 g of said PET textile fibers, 2.85 g of PBT (Valox 315, Sabic Innovative Plastics) and an antioxidant (0.1 wt.%, Irganox 1010, Sigma) were fed into a hot conical twin screw extruder (DSM, Xplore, 15 cm3capacity) in around 5 min and were mixed under the same conditions as described in the Example 2. After feeding the extruder, the sample was mixed for 5 min. Immediately after, the reactive agent DGT (600 mg, Denacol EX-711 Nagase ChemteX Corporation) was added into the compounder. The sample was further mixed. After addition of DGT the axial force increased, as presented in FIG.50. When the axial force reached 6500 N the material was withdrawn through the die, extruded into an ice water bath kept at 5°C. The extruded sample had a roughened appearance and was soluble in TFA / CHCl3 (20 / 80 v / v%). In order to assess the variability of sample preparation a total of 4 batches were prepared following the same procedure as described above. NMR characterization: Samples for NMR analysis were prepared following the protocols and experimental conditions described in Example 2.1H-NMR spectra of the copolyester obtained by reactive mixing post-industrial PET textile fibers; PBT and DGT is presented in Table 56. Table 56. NMR-defined features of the material described in Example 35. Thermal properties: 10 mg of the samples obtained by mixing the post-industrial PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT were characterized by DSC following the protocol described in Example 8. Table 57 summarizes the thermal characterization by DSC of the 4 different batches. Table 57: Thermal characterization by DSC of the samples obtained by reactive mixing post-industrial PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT as described in Example 35. Enzymatic depolymerization assays of the product of reactive mixing post-industrial PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT with the LCC variant at T=55°C. The enzymatic depolymerization as a function of time of the material obtained after melt mixing post-industrial PET textile fibers, PBT and DGT as described above was performed by following the procedure of the Example 4. The depolymerization yield at 24 h was determined by following the procedure described in Example 5. The initial rates were taken as described in Example 5 with the only difference that it was calculated from the depolymerization yields at 1.5h and 3h. The polyester extrudate sample was milled and sieved following the Example 1 and the enzymatic depolymerization was performed using the LCC variant as described in Example 6. The depolymerization yield vs. time is presented in FIG.51. Reaction yield is expressed as the average of triplicate measurements and error bars correspond to the standard deviation. Table 58 summarizes initial rate and depolymerization yield (24 h) of the above mentioned materials. Table 58: Summary of the initial rate and depolymerization yield (24h) at 55°C using the LCC variant for post-industrial PET textile fibers mixed with PBT and DGT described in the Example 35, post-industrial PET textile fibers described in the Comparative Example 12 and PBT described in the Comparative Example 13. While several embodiments of the present disclosure have been described and illustrated herein, those of ordinary skill in the art will readily envision a variety of other means and / or structures for performing the functions and / or obtaining the results and / or one or more of the advantages described herein, and each of such variations and / or modifications is deemed to be within the scope of the present disclosure. More generally, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that all parameters, dimensions, materials, and configurations described herein are meant to be exemplary and that the actual parameters, dimensions, materials, and / or configurations will depend upon the specific application or applications for which the teachings of the present disclosure is / are used. Those skilled in the art will recognize or be able to ascertain using no more than routine experimentation, many equivalents to the specific embodiments of the invention described herein. It is, therefore, to be understood that the foregoing embodiments are presented by way of example only and that, within the scope of the appended claims and equivalents thereto, the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described and claimed. The present disclosure is directed to each individual feature, system, article, material, and / or method described herein. In addition, any combination of two or more such features, systems, articles, materials, and / or methods, if such features, systems, articles, materials, and / or methods are not mutually inconsistent, is included within the scope of the present disclosure. The indefinite articles “a” and “an,” as used herein in the specification and in the claims, unless clearly indicated to the contrary, should be understood to mean “at least one.” The phrase “and / or,” as used herein in the specification and in the claims, should be understood to mean “either or both” of the elements so conjoined, i.e., elements that are conjunctively present in some cases and disjunctively present in other cases. Other elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified by the “and / or” clause, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified unless clearly indicated to the contrary. Thus, as a non-limiting example, a reference to “A and / or B,” when used in conjunction with open-ended language such as “comprising” can refer, in one embodiment, to A without B (optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to B without A (optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to both A and B (optionally including other elements); etc. As used herein in the specification and in the claims, “or” should be understood to have the same meaning as “and / or” as defined above. For example, when separating items in a list, “or” or “and / or” shall be interpreted as being inclusive, i.e., the inclusion of at least one, but also including more than one, of a number or list of elements, and, optionally, additional unlisted items. Only terms clearly indicated to the contrary, such as “only one of” or “exactly one of,” or, when used in the claims, “consisting of,” will refer to the inclusion of exactly one element of a number or list of elements. In general, the term “or” as used herein shall only be interpreted as indicating exclusive alternatives (i.e. “one or the other but not both”) when preceded by terms of exclusivity, such as “either,” “one of,” “only one of,” or “exactly one of.” “Consisting essentially of,” when used in the claims, shall have its ordinary meaning as used in the field of patent law. As used herein in the specification and in the claims, the phrase “at least one,” in reference to a list of one or more elements, should be understood to mean at least one element selected from any one or more of the elements in the list of elements, but not necessarily including at least one of each and every element specifically listed within the list of elements and not excluding any combinations of elements in the list of elements. This definition also allows that elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified within the list of elements to which the phrase “at least one” refers, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified. Thus, as a non-limiting example, “at least one of A and B” (or, equivalently, “at least one of A or B,” or, equivalently “at least one of A and / or B”) can refer, in one embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, with no B present (and optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, B, with no A present (and optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, and at least one, optionally including more than one, B (and optionally including other elements); etc. Some embodiments may be embodied as a method, of which various examples have been described. The acts performed as part of the methods may be ordered in any suitable way. Accordingly, embodiments may be constructed in which acts are performed in an order different than illustrated, which may include different (e.g., more or less) acts than those that are described, and / or that may involve performing some acts simultaneously, even though the acts are shown as being performed sequentially in the embodiments specifically described above. Use of ordinal terms such as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., in the claims to modify a claim element does not by itself connote any priority, precedence, or order of one claim element over another or the temporal order in which acts of a method are performed, but are used merely as labels to distinguish one claim element having a certain name from another element having a same name (but for use of the ordinal term) to distinguish the claim elements. In the claims, as well as in the specification above, all transitional phrases such as “comprising,” “including,” “carrying,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” “holding,” and the like are to be understood to be open-ended, i.e., to mean including but not limited to. Only the transitional phrases “consisting of” and “consisting essentially of” shall be closed or semi-closed transitional phrases, respectively, as set forth in the United States Patent Office Manual of Patent Examining Procedures, Section 2111.03.

Claims

CLAIMS What is claimed is:

1. A recycled polymer, comprising: a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation, comprising a copolyester product from a transesterification reaction between at least a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, wherein the copolyester product is provided as a feedstock material for enzymatic degradation.

2. A recycled polymer, comprising: a polymeric material feedstock for enzymatic degradation, comprising a copolyester product from a transesterification reaction between at least a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, wherein at least one of the first and / or second polymer or copolymer is recalcitrant to enzymatic degradation, and the copolyester product has characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation.

3. A polymeric degradation method, comprising: reacting a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM, to produce a copolyester product; and exposing the copolyester product to a polymer-degrading enzyme.

4. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the PC / IPM comprises at least 50 wt.% of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and / or the PC / IPM has a highest crystallization temperature less than 199 °C when cooled from a melt at a rate of 20 °C / min.

5. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymeric material feedstock comprises a mole fraction of heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprising terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue, 1,3-propanediol residue, and / or 1,4 – butanediol residue.

6. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymeric material feedstock comprises from 1 mol % to 80 mol % 1,4 butanediol residues wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol residues or diol equivalents.

7. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymeric material feedstock comprises from 1 mol % to 80 mol % 1,3-propanediol residue wherein mol % is based on 100 mole percent of diol residues or diol equivalents.

8. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymeric material feedstock comprises from 2 mol % to 50 mol % heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues, wherein the heterolinkage dyads centered on diacid residues comprise terephthalic acid residue, ethylene glycol residue, 1,4- butanediol residue, isophthalic acid residue, and / or 1,3-propanediol residue.

9. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymeric material feedstock comprises at least a portion of an amorphous phase when exposed to polymer-degrading enzymes.

10. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises a polyester or copolyester.

11. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate or a polyethylene terephthalate copolyester.

12. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate or a polybutylene terephthalate based copolyester.

13. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the transesterification reaction further comprises a reactive agent.

14. The recycled polymer or method as in claim 11, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and the reactive agent each comprise a common moiety.

15. The recycled polymer or method as in claim 12, wherein the common moiety comprises a terephthalate group.

16. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the claims 11-13, wherein the reactive agent comprises diglycidyl terephthalate.

17. The recycled polymer as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises a virgin polymeric material.

18. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the copolyester product comprises characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation at a temperature in a range from 40°C to 120°C.

19. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the copolyester product comprises characteristics amenable to enzymatic degradation for a duration in a range from 10 minutes to 4 days.

20. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the copolyester product enzymatically degrades in the presence of an enzyme with a reaction yield in a range from 15% to 99%.

21. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate or a polyethylene terephthalate based copolyester.

22. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises polybutylene terephthalate or a polybutylene terephthalate based copolyester.

23. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprises polytrimethylene terephthalate or a polytrimethylene terephthalate based copolyester.

24. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising a first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, a second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and a reactive at least one of the crystallizable polymers or copolymers is present in a PC / IPM.

25. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer, the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer, and the reactive agent each comprise a common moiety.

26. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the common moiety comprises a terephthalate group.

27. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the reactive agent comprises diglycidyl terephthalate.

28. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the first crystallizable polymer or copolymer and / or the second crystallizable polymer or copolymer comprise one or more catalysts.

29. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising thermally annealing the copolyester product.

30. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising fast cooling the mixture in a cooling liquid.

31. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising irradiating the mixture.

32. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises a hydrolase, esterase, protease, cutinase, lipase, oxidase, peroxidase, and / or amidase.

33. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the polymer-degrading enzyme comprises an LCC variant or HiC Novozym.

34. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the PC / IPM comprises fibers.

35. The recycled polymer or method as in any one of the preceding claims, wherein the fibers comprise composite fibers and / or staple fibers.

Images