| Literature DB >> 31948075 |
Zahra Montazer1,2, Mohammad B Habibi Najafi2, David B Levin1.
Abstract
Polyethylene (PE) is the most abundant synthetic, petroleum-based plastic materials produced globally, and one of the most resistant to biodegradation, resulting in massive accumulation in the environment. Although the microbial degradation of polyethylene has been reported, complete biodegradation of polyethylene has not been achieved, and rapid degradation of polyethylene under ambient conditions in the environment is still not feasible. Experiments reported in the literature suffer from a number of limitations, and conclusive evidence for the complete biodegradation of polyethylene by microorganisms has been elusive. These limitations include the lack of a working definition for the biodegradation of polyethylene that can lead to testable hypotheses, a non-uniform description of experimental conditions used, and variations in the type(s) of polyethylene used, leading to a profound limitation in our understanding of the processes and mechanisms involved in the microbial degradation of polyethylene. The objective of this review is to outline the challenges in polyethylene degradation experiments and clarify the parameters required to achieve polyethylene biodegradation. This review emphasizes the necessity of developing a biochemically-based definition for the biodegradation of polyethylene (and other synthetic plastics) to simplify the comparison of results of experiments focused for the microbial degradation of polyethylene.Entities:
Keywords: abiotic degradation; biodegradation; low-density polyethylene; microbial degradation
Year: 2020 PMID: 31948075 PMCID: PMC7022683 DOI: 10.3390/polym12010123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Published review articles on plastic biodegradation.
| Authors | Year of Publication | Topic | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shimao | 2001 | Biodegradation of plastics | [ |
| Koutny et al. | 2006 | Biodegradation of polyethylene films with prooxidant additives | [ |
| Arutchelvi et al. | 2008 | Biodegradation of polyethylene and polypropylene | [ |
| Shah et al. | 2008 | Biological degradation of plastics | [ |
| Lucas et al. | 2008 | Polymer biodegradation: Mechanisms and estimation techniques | [ |
| Tokiwa et al. | 2009 | Biodegradability of Plastics | [ |
| Sivan | 2011 | New perspectives in plastic biodegradation | [ |
| Ammala et al. | 2011 | An overview of degradable and biodegradable polyolefin | [ |
| Restrepo-Flórez et al. | 2014 | Microbial degradation and deterioration of polyethylene | [ |
| Sen and Raut | 2015 | Microbial degradation of low density polyethylene | [ |
| Raziyafathima et al. | 2016 | Microbial Degradation of Plastic Waste: A Review | [ |
| Emadian et al. | 2017 | Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments | [ |
| Harrison et al. | 2018 | Biodegradability standards for carrier bags and plastic films in aquatic environments: A critical review | [ |
Bacteria used in biodegradation studies of polyethylene (PE) degradation. The bacteria are listed alphabetically by genus.
| Genus (and Species) | Source | Experiment Duration | Experiment Condition | Biodegradation Result | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Municipal landfill | 30 days | 37 °C Non-pretreated PE | Biomass production | [ |
|
| Dumped soil area | 1 month | PE bags | 20%–30% W.L. * | [ |
|
| |||||
|
| Pelagic waters | 30 days | PE bags | 1.5%–1.75% W.L. | [ |
|
| Waste coal, a forest and an extinct volcano crater | 225 days | Modified PE | Reduction of mechanical properties by 98% | [ |
|
| Shallow waters of ocean | 1 year | HDPE and LDPE; Untreated and Heat treated | 3.5% and 10% | [ |
|
| Soil | 90 days | 45 °C photo-degraded oxobiodegradable PE | 7%–10% mineralization | [ |
|
| Solid waste dumped | 60 days | LDPE | 11%–16% | [ |
|
| MCC No. 2183 | 30 days | Adding Biosurfactant | 9.26% W.L. | [ |
|
| Pelagic waters | 30 days | PE bags | 1.5–1.75 W.L. % | [ |
|
| DSMZ | 90 days | 50 °C Irradiated LDPE | 17% W.L. | [ |
|
| Waste disposal site | 3 weeks | Pretreated PE | 37.5% W.L. | [ |
|
| Waste water activated sludge soil | 1 month | UV-radiated LLDPE | - | [ |
|
| Plastic debris in soil | 90 days | Non-treated LDPE | Changing in chemical properties | [ |
|
| Plastic debris in soil | 90 days | Non-treated LDPE | Changing in chemical properties | [ |
|
| Pelagic waters | 30 days | PE bags | 1% | [ |
|
| Having Gene bank ID | 2 months | Pretreated LDPE | 61% W.L. | [ |
|
| Mangrove soil | 1 month | PE | 20.54% W.L. | [ |
|
| Petroleum contaminated beach soil | 80 days | LMWPE | 40.8% W.L. | [ |
|
| Beach soil contaminated with crude oil | 80 days | 37 °C LMWPE | 4.9%–28.6% CO2 production | [ |
|
| Garbage soil | 6 months | PE bags | 37.09% W.L. | [ |
|
| Municipal Landfill | 4 days | LDPE | 17.8% W.L. | [ |
|
| Having Gene bank ID | 2 months | Pretreated LDPE | 50.5% W.L. | [ |
|
| ATCC | 120 days | Untreated PE | 9%–20% | [ |
|
| Waste disposal site | 3 weeks | Pretreated PE | 40.5% W.L. | [ |
|
| PE agricultural waste in soil | 4 weeks | Treated LDPE | Up to 8% W.L. | [ |
|
| PE agricultural waste in soil | 60 days | LDPE | 0.86% W.L./week | [ |
|
| PE agricultural waste in soil | 30 days | LDPE | 1.5%–2.5% W.L. | [ |
|
| ATCC | 6 months | 27 °C Degradable PE | 60% mineralization | [ |
|
| ATCC 29672 | 6 month | PE containing prooxidant additives | Different amount of mineralization | [ |
|
| Waste disposal site | 3 weeks | Pretreated PE | 33% W.L. | [ |
|
| Three forest soil | 30 days | LDPE containing prooxidant additives | Confirmation of Adhering | [ |
|
| Various soil environments | 30 days | PE | 13.6% W.L. | [ |
|
| Plastic debris in soil | 90 days | Non-treated LDPE | Changing in chemical properties | [ |
|
| Solid waste dump site | 56 days | Modified LDPE | Confirmed by FTIR | [ |
|
| Nile River Delta | 1 month | 30 °C Heat treated degradable PE bags | 3 species showed slight W.L. | [ |
* W.L., Weight loss report as %.
Figure 1Degradation pathways of polyethylene containing pro-oxidant additives.
Characterization peaks in FT-IR [50].
| SI No. | Wave Number (cm−1) | Bond | Functional Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3000–2850 | –C–H stretch | Alkanes |
| 2 | 2830–2695 | H–C = O: C–H stretch | Aldehyde |
| 3 | 1710–1665 | –C = O stretch | Ketones, Aldehyde |
| 4 | 1470–1450 | –C–H Bend | Alkanes |
| 5 | 1320–1000 | –C–O stretch | Alcohol, Carboxylic acid, esters, ethers |
| 6 | 1000–650 | =C–H Bond | Alkenes |
Figure 2Proposed mechanism for the biodegradation of PE.
Figure 3Polyethylene structure. (a) General chemical structure; (b) Schematic differences between (i) High-density Polyethylene (HDPE), (ii) Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE), and (iii) Linear Low-density Polyethylene (LLDPE) [from [18] with permission from the author].
Fungi capable of PE biodegradation.
| Species | Reference |
|---|---|
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
|
| [ |
Figure 4Scanning electron microscope image of (a) LDPE particles before treatment (magnification ×100); (b) LDPE film before treatment (magnification ×2000); (c) microbial colonization on PE particles by Sphingobacterium moltivorum (magnification ×5000); (d) Holes and penetration in PE sheet after treatment with Delftia tsuruhatensis (magnification ×2000); (e) microbial colonization by Pseudomonas Putida LS46 (magnification ×20,000); and (f) Corrosion of PE sheet after treatment with Sphingobacterium moltivorum (magnification ×2000) (preparation of images by MIM unit at University of Manitoba and Central Laboratory at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad).
Figure 5A suggested flow chart for biodegradation experiments.