| Literature DB >> 34129279 |
Christian Sonnendecker1, Juliane Oeser2, P Konstantin Richter3, Patrick Hille2, Ziyue Zhao1, Cornelius Fischer4, Holger Lippold4, Paula Blázquez-Sánchez5,6, Felipe Engelberger5,6, César A Ramírez-Sarmiento5,6, Thorsten Oeser2, Yuliia Lihanova1, Ronny Frank7, Heinz-Georg Jahnke7, Susan Billig1, Bernd Abel8, Norbert Sträter3, Jörg Matysik1, Wolfgang Zimmermann1,2.
Abstract
Earth is flooded with plastics and the need for sustainable recycling strategies for polymers has become increasingly urgent. Enzyme-based hydrolysis of post-consumer plastic is an emerging strategy for closed-loop recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The polyester hydrolase PHL7, isolated from a compost metagenome, completely hydrolyzes amorphous PET films, releasing 91 mg of terephthalic acid per hour and mg of enzyme. Vertical scanning interferometry shows degradation rates of the PET film of 6.8 μm h-1 . Structural analysis indicates the importance of leucine at position 210 for the extraordinarily high PET-hydrolyzing activity of PHL7. Within 24 h, 0.6 mgenzyme gPET -1 completely degrades post-consumer thermoform PET packaging in an aqueous buffer at 70 °C without any energy-intensive pretreatments. Terephthalic acid recovered from the enzymatic hydrolysate is then used to synthesize virgin PET, demonstrating the potential of polyester hydrolases as catalysts in sustainable PET recycling processes with a low carbon footprint.Entities:
Keywords: biocatalysis; hydrolases; metagenome; polymer degradation; recycling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34129279 PMCID: PMC9303343 DOI: 10.1002/cssc.202101062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ChemSusChem ISSN: 1864-5631 Impact factor: 9.140
Figure 1Characterization of PHL enzymes: (A) Phylogenetic tree of PHL and other confirmed or putative polyester hydrolases from Actinobacteria with reference to the metagenomic LCC and Ideonella sakaiensis. (B) Weight loss of amorphous PET film determined after a reaction time of 24 h at different temperatures with PHL1, PHL2, PHL4, PHL5, and PHL6 compared to TfCut2. (C) Weight loss of amorphous PET films determined after a reaction time of 24 h at different temperatures with PHL3 and PHL7 compared to TfCut2. (D) Relative weight loss of amorphous PET films determined after a reaction time of 24 h at 70 °C with PHL3, PHL7 (100 %), and the corresponding variants F210L and L210F.
Figure 2Comparison of the crystal structures of PHL7 and LCC and docking experiments: (A) Active site structures of PHL7 (chain A) and LCC. S131 adopts two different conformations, of which the most occupied is displayed. (B) Predicted per‐residue binding energy contribution based on a docking of 1,2‐ethylene monoterephthalate mono(2‐hydroxyethyl terephthalate) (EMT) in PHL7 and LCC. The best five out of 40000 complexes with the lowest interface binding energy and RMSD lower than 1.5 Å in relation to the p‐nitrophenol and HEMT cocrystal structure of IsPETase are shown. (C,D): Lowest RMSD pose of the 0.25 % best interface binding energy complexes of EMT with PHL7 (C) and LCC (D).
Figure 3Hydrolysis of amorphous PET films by PHL7: (A) Initial reaction velocity expressed as TPAeq (sum of TPA and MHET) released from G‐PET films within 1 h of reaction as a function of enzyme concentration. A curve fit of the initial velocity was performed with a Langmuir type heterogeneous kinetic model.[ , ] (B) Specific G‐PET film hydrolysis activity of PHL7 and LCC at different reaction times with 0.6 mgenzyme gPET −1. (C) TPA and MHET released from G‐PET films by PHL7 and LCC within 16 h of reaction time with 0.6 mgenzyme gPET −1. (D) Comparison of the weight loss of G‐PET films after reaction times of 4, 8, and 16 h with 0.6 mgenzyme gPET −1 of PHL7 and LCC.
Figure 4Surface topography of G‐PET films exposed to PHL7 and LCC. (A,B) Surface retreat after an exposure time of 1 h compared to a masked surface area (left part) with LCC (A) and PHL7 (B). (C–F) Topographic details of the surface sections after an exposure time of 1 h (C,D) and 16 h (E,F).
Figure 5(A,B) Degradation rate maps and histograms of G‐PET films after exposure for 1 h with LCC (A) and PHL7 (B). (C) Rate distribution curves of (A) and (B) indicating different retreat rate modes of 1.0 μm h−1 for LCC compared to 4.0 μm h−1 for PHL7. Although both rate histograms are moderately skewed left, the degradation rate distribution observed with PHL7 (B) shows a larger variability of the lower rate portions, exemplified by the map and rate histograms of sections B.1 and B.2. For better visibility, the graphs of B.1 and B.2 are vertically magnified.