4.6 Article

Biodegradation of microplastic in freshwaters: A long-lasting process affected by the lake microbiome

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 12, 页码 2669-2680

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.16177

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that the rate of plastic biodegradation and carbon disappearance varies in different freshwater environments. The biodegradation rate is significantly higher in humic-lake waters compared to clear-lake waters and artificial freshwater medium. Complete biodegradation of plastic can take anywhere from 100-200 years in humic-lake waters to potentially thousands of years in other water bodies. Additionally, specific types of bacteria play a key role in the degradation process.
Plastics have been produced for over a century, but definitive evidence of complete plastic biodegradation in different habitats, particularly freshwater ecosystems, is still missing. Using C-13-labelled polyethylene microplastics (PE-MP) and stable isotope analysis of produced gas and microbial membrane lipids, we determined the biodegradation rate and fate of carbon in PE-MP in different freshwater types. The biodegradation rate in the humic-lake waters was much higher (0.45% +/- 0.21% per year) than in the clear-lake waters (0.07% +/- 0.06% per year) or the artificial freshwater medium (0.02% +/- 0.02% per year). Complete biodegradation of PE-MP was calculated to last 100-200 years in humic-lake waters, 300-4000 years in clear-lake waters, and 2000-20,000 years in the artificial freshwater medium. The concentration of 18:1 omega 7, characteristic phospholipid fatty acid in Alpha- and Gammaproteobacteria, was a predictor of faster biodegradation of PE. Uncultured Acetobacteraceae and Comamonadaceae among Alpha- and Gammaproteobacteria, respectively, were major bacteria related to the biodegradation of PE-MP. Overall, it appears that microorganisms in humic lakes with naturally occurring refractory polymers are more adept at decomposing PE than those in other waters.

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