4.7 Article

Biodegradation of Different Types of Plastics by Tenebrio molitor Insect

Journal

POLYMERS
Volume 13, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym13203508

Keywords

mealworm; waste management; entomoremediation; bioremediation

Funding

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2019/35/D/NZ9/01835]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of insects for biodegradation of plastics is a promising approach, with experiments showing that the mealworm Tenebrio molitor is able to efficiently degrade various types of plastic waste such as polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyethylene. Both larvae and adult insects were found to be active plastic eaters, but separating them in different containers can help to increase the consumption rate and shorten the experiment duration.
Looking for new, sustainable ways to utilize plastics is still a very pertinent topic considering the amount of plastics produced in the world. One of the newest and intriguing possibility is the use of insects in biodegradation of plastics, which can be named entomoremediation. The aim of this work was to demonstrate the ability of the insect Tenebrio molitor to biodegrade different, real plastic waste. The types of plastic waste used were: remains of thermal building insulation polystyrene foam (PS), two types of polyurethane (kitchen sponge as PU1 and commercial thermal insulation foam as PU2), and polyethylene foam (PE), which has been used as packaging material. After 58 days, the efficiency of mass reduction for all of the investigated plastics was 46.5%, 41.0%, 53.2%, and 69.7% for PS, PU1, PU2, and PE, respectively (with a dose of 0.0052 g of each plastic per 1 mealworm larvae). Both larvae and imago were active plastic eaters. However, in order to shorten the duration of the experiment and increase the specific consumption rate, the two forms of the insect should not be combined together in one container.

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