4.7 Article

Biodegradation of a synthetic co-polyester by aerobic mesophilic microorganisms

Journal

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
Volume 93, Issue 8, Pages 1479-1485

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2008.05.005

Keywords

biodegradation; microorganisms; polyesters; mesophiles

Funding

  1. NSERC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aerobic biological degradation of the synthetic aliphatic-aromatic co-polyester Ecoflex (TM) (BASF) by 29 strains of enzyme-producing soil bacteria, fungi and yeasts was investigated at moderate environmental conditions. Previous studies had shown that these materials could be degraded but these studies were done under thermophilic conditions. In this paper, a screening procedure was developed to assess the biodegradability of the co-polyester at ambient environmental conditions and to investigate the mechanism of biodegradation. Results showed that the aliphatic-aromatic co-polyester could be degraded by a number of different microorganisms. However, after 21 days exposure to even the most promising cultures of pure microorganisms, only partial degradation of the Ecoflex (TM) was accomplished and only a few samples showed visible signs of degradation as loosely defined by the mechanical weakening of the films. Weight loss was not as obvious as the visual degradation and suggested broader types of microbial attack. The bacteria studied preferentially degraded the bonds between aliphatic components of the copolymer and the rate of biodegradation of oligomers was appreciably faster than that for the polymer chains. Using GC-MS techniques, degradation intermediates were identified to be the monomers of the co-polyester. Gel permeation chromatography results suggested exo-enzyme type degradation, where the microbes hydrolysed the ester bonds at the termini of the polymeric chains preferentially. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available