4.6 Article

Evaluation of PET Degradation Using Artificial Microbial Consortia

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.778828

关键词

artificial microbial consortia; Polyethylene terephthalate; biodegradation; terephthalic acid; ethylene glycol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study constructed an artificial microbial consortium to degrade PET, which gradually increased the weight loss rate to 23.2% by adding different microorganisms step by step, demonstrating the potential of artificial microbial consortia in utilizing complex substrates.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) biodegradation is regarded as an environmentally friendly degradation method. In this study, an artificial microbial consortium composed of Rhodococcus jostii, Pseudomonas putida and two metabolically engineered Bacillus subtilis was constructed to degrade PET. First, a two-species microbial consortium was constructed with two engineered B. subtilis that could secrete PET hydrolase (PETase) and monohydroxyethyl terephthalate hydrolase (MHETase), respectively; it could degrade 13.6% (weight loss) of the PET film within 7 days. A three-species microbial consortium was further obtained by adding R. jostii to reduce the inhibition caused by terephthalic acid (TPA), a breakdown product of PET. The weight of PET film was reduced by 31.2% within 3 days, achieving about 17.6% improvement compared with the two-species microbial consortium. Finally, P. putida was introduced to reduce the inhibition caused by ethylene glycol (EG), another breakdown product of PET, obtaining a four-species microbial consortium. With the four-species consortium, the weight loss of PET film reached 23.2% under ambient temperature. This study constructed and evaluated the artificial microbial consortia in PET degradation, which demonstrated the great potential of artificial microbial consortia in the utilization of complex substrates, providing new insights for biodegradation of complex polymers.

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

4.6
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