4.6 Article

Assessing the Time Dependence of AOPs on the Surface Properties of Polylactic Acid

期刊

JOURNAL OF POLYMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 345-357

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10924-022-02608-w

关键词

Plastics degradation; AOPs; Ultrasonication; UV photodegradation; DBD plasma; PLA; XPS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the impact of different advanced oxidation processes on the near surface structure of polylactic acid samples and promote the adhesion of enzymes or bacteria for biodegradation. Ultrasonic and UV treatments significantly alter the surface properties of PLA, while plasma treatment exposes oxygen groups on the surface.
Plastics are artificial synthetic organic polymers that have been used in every area of daily life. However, because of their slow degradation rate, their use is contentious. The treatment of the surface of the sample is considered necessary as enzymatic or bacterial attach is not possible if the plastic surface environment is not ideal. The main topic of this work is the investigation of the effect of different advanced oxidation processes (AOP) on the near surface structure of polylactic acid (PLA) samples, which, in turn, can promote the adhesion of enzymes or bacteria for further biodegradation. The Advanced Oxidation Processes that have been used are Ultrasonication, UV photodegradation and Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD) plasma. After the treatments, the surfaces were characterized by Infrared Spectroscopy (IR), Drop Contact Angle (DCA), Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). Both ultrasonic and UV treatments have a significant impact on the surface properties of immersed PLA by removing the oxygen-containing groups of the polymer chain, albeit in different ways, while plasma tends to uncover oxygen groups on the surface. The influence of the pre-treatment on improving the adhesion of bacteria on the PLA surface has been proven using a pseudomonas knackmussii strain.

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