For three decades starting in
the 1940s, General Electric dumped solvents from its manufacturing
facilities into New York’s Hudson River, contaminating it with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Scientists worried about how best
to clean up the pollutants. “At that time, they thought
PCBs were completely nonbiodegradable,” says Lawrence P. Wackett,
a biochemist at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities who consulted for the
company in the late 1980s.But analysis of sediment cores extracted
from the river throughout the 1980s showed that the PCBs were slowly
losing their chlorine atoms and turning into benign hydrocarbons.
Later, scientists determined that the transformation was performed by microbes.Now, researchers are hoping microbes could do the same for per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also
known as forever chemicals. Used in personal care
products as well as firefighting foam, stain-repellent coatings, and
membranes for chlor-alkali production, PFAS have strong carbon–fluorine
bonds that make them difficult to degrade. PFAS have become a high-profile
contaminant, polluting areas near manufacturing facilities that make
or use them and military sites like air bases. Researchers are still
trying to fully understand the health effects of PFAS but have determined
that some are carcinogenic and toxic to multiple systems.Traditionally,
to treat contaminated water, remediators first concentrate the PFAS, typically
via an activated carbon filter, and then incinerate the saturated filters at high temperatures. Biological remediation could
be more cost-effective for low levels of PFAS in large volumes of contaminated material. So far, no organism has been found that can
completely defluorinate PFAS, but researchers have no reason to believe
that microbes couldn’t eventually do the job. “Never
say never in terms of what they can’t handle,” Wackett
says.Researchers
hope that microbes like Dehalococcoides bacteria (round cells) that can break down chlorinated compounds can also
be coaxed to degrade fluorinated compounds. Credit: Yujie Men.The US Department of Defense’s Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) has funded
extensive research into the chemical and physical remediation of PFAS.
In 2018, SERDP launched a call for research proposals exploring the
biodegradation of PFAS and awarded $2.75 million to five projects
beginning last year.However, other scientists, like Rolf U.
Halden, an environmental engineer at Arizona State University, worry
that investigating bioremediation of PFAS distracts from the real
work of having to dial back on their use. Halden is “very, very skeptical”
that a microbe could be practically deployed to remediate PFAS. “I
think that this will only delay the actual hard question that we have
to answer: How much [PFAS] is too much, and how do we get to a healthy use
of these very useful materials?” he says.
Microbial infallibility
In his 1951 textbook, The Chemical Activities of Bacteria, British microbiologist Ernest Gale put forward the microbial infallibility
hypothesis—that if there is energy to be gained from a compound,
a microorganism will figure out how to extract it and create a niche
for itself. After the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, for example, scientists
found that microbes eventually ate most of the energy-rich hydrocarbon
compounds that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, resolving part of
the problem naturally.Halogenated compounds such as PCBs contain much less
energy than hydrocarbons, but microbes can still use
them.
In the Hudson River, Dehalococcoides bacteria living
in oxygen-poor environments in the sediment transfer electrons to
the PCBs, reducing them and kicking out chloride ions, Wackett explains.In fact, Dehalococcoides are obligate dehalogenators, Halden says, meaning they can survive only by dumping their electrons on halogenated organic compounds.
But there are significant differences between PFAS and their chlorinated
counterparts, he says. To start, carbon–fluorine bonds are
much stronger and harder to break than carbon–chlorine bonds.More importantly, microbes evolved along with thousands of naturally
occurring chlorinated compounds, so when bacteria like Dehalococcoides encounter human-made chlorinated pollutants like PCBs or trichloroethylene
(TCE), they do not see those pollutants as completely foreign. “These
organisms existed before we created TCE,” Halden says. But
naturally occurring fluorinated compounds are rare; only fluoroacetate
is well studied in plants, and it contains just one fluorine atom.
PFAS, in contrast, especially the perfluorinated ones, are swathed
in fluorine atoms. “That renders the chemicals almost bulletproof,”
Halden says.PFAS are so recalcitrant that one of the five SERDP-funded
projects investigating biological methods to destroy PFAS instead
demonstrated that previously reported chemical degradation methods
don’t work. Pedro J. J. Alvarez, an environmental engineer
at Rice University, had been working with bacteria that can produce
copious amounts of superoxide outside their cells. Alvarez read
that superoxide generated by decomposing hydrogen peroxide could break down perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), one of the most common PFAS found in the environment,
so he proposed that superoxide-generating bacteria could perhaps degrade
PFAS. He and his colleagues found, however, that superoxide generated
chemically or enzymatically could not break
down PFOA. When Alvarez and his team
dug more deeply, they found that another heavily investigated substance
for PFOA degradation, hydroxyl radicals, could not
do the job either.Gordonia bacteria
can chop up
the long tails of fluorotelomers, such as 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic
acid (top) and 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonamide alkylbetaine (bottom),
one carbon at a time. Credit: C&EN.But
Alvarez is not discouraged. “If it’s going to fail,
let’s fail fast so that we do not waste time on this,” he says. That way, the research community can move on and try other approaches. His
team’s recent work on using the superoxide-generating bacteria
to dechlorinate TCE has shown outstanding results, Alvarez says.
The bacteria are effective even when oxygen, which could compete with
TCE as an electron acceptor, is present. Because TCE is a common co-contaminant
with PFAS, Alvarez thinks the superoxide-generating bacteria could
still prove useful by eliminating other pollutants that may interfere
with remediation processes that target PFAS.And Alvarez believes
in the microbial infallibility hypothesis—that a microbe will
find a way to use even tough compounds like PFAS. “I am certain
that it can happen,” he says.
A point of weakness
A key factor for how easily a microbe can break down a fluorinated
compound is if the molecule contains a spot vulnerable to attack,
such as a carbon–hydrogen bond, says Jinxia Liu, an environmental
engineer at McGill University. Liu has been investigating the biotransformation
of polyfluorinated compounds called fluorotelomers for over a decade.
Fluorotelomers such as 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate, which is used
in firefighting foams, contain such a spot that is susceptible to
microbial action.Aerobic Gordonia bacteria
perform a well-known transformation on fluorotelomers: they consume
the sulfonated part, leaving a highly persistent, perfluorinated carboxylic
acid. Liu has observed perfluorinated biotransformation products that
are one or two carbons shorter, though, suggesting that Gordonia is also capable of chopping up the fluorinated tail one carbon at
a time. “In theory, we can completely defluorinate a fluorotelomer,”
says Liu, whose calculations show that the process is energetically
favorable. But Liu’s team observed that the removal usually
stops after two cycles. The researchers are working to figure out
why the defluorination stops and how to push the microbes to repeat
the removal until all the fluorine atoms are gone.In perfluorinated
molecules, moieties like a double bond could serve as the necessary
point of weakness. Yujie Men of the University of California, Riverside, incubated KB1, a commercially available microbial culture that is used for dechlorination and that includes Dehalococcoides bacteria,
with lactate and a variety of perfluorinated molecules. The lactate
provides electrons for the microbes, while the PFAS act as electron
acceptors. After 180 days, 90% of the unsaturated
perfluorinated molecules were degraded compared with none
of the saturated perfluorinated ones.A commercially
available microbial
culture could degrade unsaturated PFAS such as (E)-perfluoro(4-methylpent-2-enoic acid) (left) and 4,5,5,5-tetrafluoro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pentenoic
acid (right). Credit: C&EN.Men’s team has identified intermediates suggesting that two
initial reactions—with opposite effects—compete during
the biotransformation process. The microbes could be replacing fluorine
atoms on the double-bonded carbons with hydrogen, thereby making the
molecule more vulnerable to additional defluorination. Or they could
be adding two hydrogen atoms across the double bond, creating a saturated
compound that is more resistant to defluorination. Men is working
to identify the specific bacteria responsible for the
reactions and the enzymes involved. “There is a way to direct
them as long as we know which microorganism and which enzymes are
carrying out the defluorination reaction and the hydrogenation reaction,”
she says.As for PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which contain no weak spots, a bacterium native to the wetlands of New Jersey may be
able to defluorinate them. Peter R. Jaffé and his group at
Princeton University have been studying A6, a strain of the microbe Acidimicrobium, since 2005. This microbe performs
a reaction called Feammox, in which it transfers electrons from ammonium
ions to iron (III) ions in acidic soil.A strain known as A6 of the microbe Acidimicrobium can degrade perfluorooctanoic acid (top) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (bottom). Credit: C&EN.Jaffé’s
team sequenced A6’s genome and noticed it had genes coding
for dehalogenases. “Some of them were quite novel,”
Jaffé says. The team then decided to see what happens when A6 is given
only PFAS as its sole source of carbon. Over 100 days of incubation
with either PFOA or PFOS, the researchers found a steady disappearance
of up to 60% of the compounds, with an accompanying rise in dissolved
organic carbon and fluoride ions.Jaffé is now collaborating
with the University of Minnesota’s Wackett to decipher the mechanisms behind
A6’s defluorinating power. Wackett is using a combination of
computational and experimental techniques to narrow down the enzymes
and the genes that could be responsible.
Practicality
In
the laboratory, researchers can create ideal conditions for microbes
to feed on PFAS or even force them to do it. Deploying microbes out
in the environment for in situ remediation, however, presents significant
challenges. Halden notes that Jaffé’s and Men’s studies
used high concentrations of PFAS. But in the real-world environment, even though
PFAS are present in some places at levels dangerous to people’s
health, they still exist only at parts-per-billion concentrations.Worse, there are many other goodies in the environment for microbes
to feast on, and it is hard to control what they choose. Men has witnessed
microbes in the commercial KB1 culture turn from consuming PFAS to eating an alternative
like TCE when it is present. “It’s very difficult because
it’s like you’re asking someone to eat grass rather
than normal food,” Men says.Whether microbial action
can be exploited cost-effectively will also depend on the
contaminated site, Alvarez says. A key parameter is how quickly water will carry
PFAS at a particular site to another place:
if the migration is slow, remediators can get away with a slow microbial
degradation process. “But if the rate of migration is fast,
then you better look for a more aggressive, faster solution to protect
public health,” he says.A more feasible option is ex
situ remediation, in which the contaminated material is pumped away
and treated in an isolated bioreactor under controllable conditions.
In a treatment facility, biological remediation can also be paired
with chemical remediation. Bruce E. Rittmann, an environmental engineer
at Arizona State University, is taking such a two-step approach.“Our strategy is based on the understanding that we aren’t
going to be able to directly biodegrade these PFAS,” he says.
“We need to start the job for the microorganisms.”In Rittmann’s strategy, PFAS first go through a hydrogenation
reaction with a palladium catalyst, which replaces some of the fluorine
atoms with hydrogen. Then, the partially defluorinated material is
fed to a diverse group of microbes that finish the defluorination
job. Rittmann has successfully demonstrated the steps individually
and is now working to link them in a two-stage setup. The group
is also investigating various research questions, such as how much
defluorination is required in the first step and what the biotransformation
products are.Bruce
Rittmann is taking a two-step approach to PFAS degradation, starting
with a palladium catalyst to partially defluorinate (left tube) the PFAS followed
by microbes to finish the job (right tube). Credit: Bruce Rittmann.McGill’s Liu is collaborating with
microbiologist Nancy N. Perreault of Canada’s National Research
Council to explore microbial biodegradation of PFOS after
it first receives photochemical treatment that partially defluorinates
it.Currently, the microbes being studied for PFAS degradation grow too slowly, and their defluorination
performances are not good enough for any practical remedy for environmental
contamination of PFAS, Men says. Nevertheless, at the risk of sounding too optimistic, Men says she is hopeful that microbes will eventually rise to the challenge: “Bacteria have really huge
potential, and they evolve very fast.”Whether
or not microbes are ever able to conquer PFAS, most researchers agree that
the use of PFAS should be restricted without delay. Despite voluntary
phase-outs and even international bans on a few PFAS, some 1,400 PFAS are still being
used in about 200 applications, spanning almost every industry.
Some applications, such as medical equipment and chlor-alkali membranes,
might justify the use of PFAS. But PFAS may not be required for other
products—like artificial turf, guitar strings, or children’s
rain jackets. “We have to look deeper into
what’s really necessary and what is not,” Liu says.XiaoZhi Lim is a freelance contributor
to, the weekly newsmagazine
of the American Chemical Society.