4.8 Article

Aerobic biodegradation of polyethylene glycols of different molecular weights in wastewater and seawater

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 19, Pages 4791-4801

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.08.028

Keywords

Biodegradation; Marine microorganisms; Seawater; Polyethylene glycols; Analysis; MALDI-TOF-MS

Funding

  1. BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

in order to distinguish between aerobic biodegradation of synthetic polymers in fresh and seawater, polyethylene glycols (PEGS) were systematically and comparatively investigated in inocula from municipal wastewater and seawater aquarium filters for the first time. The molecular weight (MW) of the PEGS, (HO(CH2CH2O)(n)H, n = 3-1350) as representatives of water-soluble polymers, ranged from 250 to 57,800 Da. The biodegradation was observed by removal of dissolved organic carbon and carbon dioxide production by applying standardized ISO and OECD test methods. Specific analyses using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) were performed. All PEGS selected were completely biodegradable in freshwater media within 65 d. PEGS with an MW up to 14,600 Da have a similar degradation pathway which is characterized by gradual splitting of C-2-units off the chain resulting in formation of short-chain PEGS. In artificial seawater media, full biodegradation of PEGS up to 7400 Da required more time than in freshwater. PEGS with MW 10,300 and 14,600 Da were only partially degraded whereas PEGS with MW 26,600 and 57,800 Da were not degraded for a period of 135 d. The biodegradation pathway of PEG 250 and PEG 970 in seawater is similar to that for freshwater. For PEGS having an MW from 2000 to 10,300 Da, the degradation pathway in seawater differs from the pathway of the shorter PEGS. (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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available