4.7 Article

Degradation of abiotically aged LDPE films containing pro-oxidant by bacterial consortium

期刊

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
卷 93, 期 10, 页码 1917-1922

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2008.07.016

关键词

Polyethylene; Degradation; Pro-oxidant; Photo-oxidantion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation of abiotically aged low density polyethylene (LDPE) films containing trace quantities of a representative pro-oxidant (cobalt stearate) was investigated in the presence of well defined enriched microbial strains namely, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus halodenitrificans and Bacillus cereus in Basal salt medium. The films were initially subjected to an abiotic treatment comprising UV-B irradiation, and subsequently inoculated with the bacterial strains. The degradation in the polymeric chain was monitored by changes in the mechanical, morphological, structural and thermal properties. The abiotic treatment led to the formation of extractable oxygenated compounds as well as unoxidised low molecular weight hydrocarbons, which was confirmed by GC-MS studies. These were utilized by the bacterial consortium in the subsequent biotic phase and led to a mass loss of the polymer (8.4 +/- 1.37%). which was also accompanied by an increase in the bacterial count. A decrease in the surface tension of the cell free medium was observed, which indicates that the bacterial consortium produced extracellular surface active molecules in order to enhance the bioavailability of the polymeric fixed carbon. The spectroscopic investigations reveal that the bacteria preferentially consume the oxygenated products leading to a decrease in the Carbonyl Index (CI), which in turn leads to an increase in the initial decomposition temperature as observed in the TGA traces. The morphological investigations reveal a biofilm formation on the surface, which was found to be scattered in certain regions and not uniform on the polymeric surface. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据