ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Systematic Review
Revised

Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 02 Sep 2024
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of the research was to demonstrate the efficiency of microorganisms and the effectiveness of biodegradation techniques on Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastics. The research question was: What is the efficiency of LDPE-degrading microorganisms and the effectiveness of biodegradation techniques?

Methods

The systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles were obtained from Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, and Google Scholar. The DeCS/Mesh search terms were: Low-density polyethylene, efficiency, biodegradation, microbial consortia, fungi, bacteria. Inclusion criteria were: scientific articles that included bacteria, fungi, and microbial consortia reported as LDPE degraders that report the percentage of weight loss; articles published from January 2010 to October 2022, and publications in Spanish and English with open access. Exclusion criteria were: studies that do not report gravimetry, the biodegradation time of LDPE, and the genus or species of the polyethylene-degrading microorganism.

Results

Out of 483 studies found, 50 were included in this Systematic Review (SR). The most frequent study techniques were scanning electron microscopy (SEM), gravimetry, and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and in the case of microorganisms, the most studied belonged to the genus Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Aspergillus. Regarding the isolation place, the most frequent mentioned in the reviewed articles were landfill soil and sanitary landfill soil. The efficiency of LDPE-degrading microorganisms was higher in bacteria such as Enterobacter spp., Pantoea spp., Pseudomonas spp., Escherichia coli, and Bacillus spp., which obtained a range of DE of 9.00-70.00%, 24.00-64%, 1.15 – 61.00%, 45.00%, and 1.5-40% with DT of 4-150, 120, 4-150, 30, and 30-120 days, respectively; in the case of fungi, the main microorganisms are Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis, Colletotrichum fructicola, and Thyrostroma jaczewskii with efficiencies of 54.34, 48.78, and 46.34%, in 90 days, respectively; and the most efficient microbial consortia were from Enterobacter spp. and Pantoea sp. with 38.00 – 81.00%, in 120 days; and, Pseudomonas protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis and Paenibacillus sp. with 55. 00 – 75.00% in 120 days.

Conclusions

The most efficient microorganisms in LDPE degradation are Enterobacter spp., Pantoea spp., Pseudomonas spp., Escherichia coli, and Bacillus spp.; in fungi Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis, Colletotrichum fructicola, and Thyrostroma jaczewskii; and in microbial consortia, those formed by Enterobacter spp. and Pantoea sp., and that of P. protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis and Paenibacillus sp.; and the most effective techniques used in LDPE biodegradation are SEM, gravimetry, and FTIR.

Keywords

Low-density polyethylene; efficiency; biodegradation; microbial consortia; fungi; bacteria.

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Based on the reviewers' comments, the relevant changes were made; hence, the changes made relate to: Paragraph 7 of the article was modified to indicate more precisely and specifically the different types that are used in the degradation process of LDPE plastics, including photo-oxidation, thermal degradation, ozonation, mechano-chemical degradation, catalytic degradation, and biodegradation. Paragraph 8 was separated from paragraph 7 to contextualize the importance of biodegradation and the action of microorganisms on polymers through different enzymes.
In the method section, the title of Table 1 was modified because the column containing the titles of the publications was excluded; on the other hand, a column equivalent to the sample used in the biodegradation was added; furthermore, the methods, microorganisms identified, and the analysis techniques were broken down into columns.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Claudio Quiñones-Cerna
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Magaly de la Cruz Noriega

Introduction

Plastics are synthetic polymeric molecules characterized by their versatility, lightness, low cost, and high durability.1 Among the most common are polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, and polycarbonate, which are considered highly persistent with a capacity for bioaccumulation; they also contaminate the soil, mainly cultivable areas, thus reducing the water filtration capacity and fertilization of plants.2,3 Currently, they have become one of the most significant pollutants in marine ecosystems where most of these float and disintegrate into small fragments when exposed to the sun, taking the name of microplastics.4

Plastics are classified into1: easily degradable, which includes biologically phase plastics such as compostable and biodegradable ones, and2 difficultly degradable, among which thermoset and thermoplastic plastics such as polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) can be mentioned.5 The latter, globally, are the most marketed, with a production of 390.7 million tons in 2021, of which 50% was produced in Asia and 22% in America.6 Polyethylene is the most commonly used plastic in everyday life, accounting for 96% of all plastics on the market.7

LDPE accounts for 64%, and is primarily used in the form of bags, wrappings, and containers, which are discarded after use.8 The mismanagement of plastic waste increases daily, mainly in Asian countries such as China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and in Western countries like the United States. Of the plastics produced, considered to be 18 billion metric tons, 6% are incinerated, 23% are reused, 62% are disposed of in landfills, and 9% are considered recycled.1

It has been demonstrated in-vitro that the ingestion of plastics by living beings produces a high impact on fauna. It is mentioned that they cause neurotoxic and degenerative damages in rodents, marine invertebrates, fish, and mammals, who are exposed to the presence of high levels of microplastics.9 Some studies in fish indicate that microplastic particles can cause oxidative damage to lipids in the gills and muscles, as well as neurotoxicity through the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase and alterations in neurotransmitter levels.10

Humans, as an important component of the ecosystem, are also affected by plastic waste. It has been estimated that a weekly intake of microplastics (MPs) with values ranging between 0.1 and 5 g can be found bound to food and drinking water, thereby generating adverse health effects.11 In the city of Beijing, China, an analysis of feces conducted on young people between 18 to 25 years old who consumed water and food revealed the presence of microplastics such as polypropylene with a size of 20 – 800 nm.12 Another study in Mexico found up to 30 microplastic particles in a series of foods such as energy drinks, tea, sodas, and beers13; another work conducted in Iran, in the analysis of bottled mineral water, found values of 8.5 ± 10.2 particles/L of PET, PS, PP.14

MPs are a globally recognized problem due to their prevalence in natural environments and the food chain, as well as their high impact on human health. Plastics directly affect living beings, either through ingestion or toxicity. It is noted that they could act as vehicles for invasive species and by adsorption on their surface of other synthetic chemical pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), or organochlorines, currently used by the chemical industry, thus potentiating or synergizing their toxic power due to components they contain such as plasticizers, heavy metal additives, etc.15 Studies on microbiota have allowed the assessment of the effect of MPs, especially PETs, on microbiota, demonstrating that they would act at the colon level, decreasing the values of Staphylococcus spp., Bifidobacterium spp., and Clostridium spp.16

An important aspect to consider is the degradation process of plastics, such as with LDPE, which can take up to 400 years to decompose.17 Different types of degradation are used como son: (a) Mechanisms of photooxidation, this process uses light absorption, acting by photooxidation and photodegradation; (b) Thermal degradation, is carried out by depolymerization or accidental reaction, using initially high temperature and ultraviolet light; (c) Ozonation, the ozone present in the atmosphere causes the degradation of polymers, transforming them into so-called reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are a group of free radicals capable of producing oxidative damage; (d) Mechanochemical degradation, the process breaks the polymer chains by exposing them to mechanical stress and ultrasonic irradiation; (e) Catalytic degradation, residual polymers are catalytically transformed into hydrocarbons producing oils and gases; y, (f) Biodegradation, the process involves various microorganisms, mainly bacteria (aerobic or anaerobic) and fungi.5

The capability of hydroxylases, lipases, and laccases enzymes, secreted by LDPE-degrading microorganisms, which are responsible for breaking the polymer chain into low molecular weight fragments, must be mentioned.18 Extracellular enzymes play a very important role in biodegradation through the depolymerization of LDPE to form intermediate products that can be used as a carbon source by microorganisms,19 as they oxidize, reduce, hydrolyze, esterify, and cut the internal molecular structure of the polymer.20

Microorganisms accelerate and increase the degradation process, making them an alternative to reduce the accumulation of petroplastics in the environment.21 There are reports of bacteria (Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.) and fungi (Aspergillus spp. and Fusarium spp.) that can degrade this plastic under laboratory conditions.22,23 The use of more efficient microorganisms in the degradation of LDPE will allow the proper selection of bacteria or fungi with greater action and degradative efficiency of plastic.24 At the industrial level, it will involve the handling of various effective methods of detection and quantification, such as gravimetry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM),2530 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS), which complement the study of the polymer’s natural degradation.31

The purpose of this systematic review is to demonstrate the efficiency of LDPE-degrading microorganisms and the efficacy of the main biodegradation techniques on this type of plastics.

Methods

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology was used, which is established for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statements.32 The information was extracted from articles obtained from various databases such as: Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, and Google Scholar. The identification, screening, and eligibility of scientific articles were organized through the Zotero Bibliographic Manager.33 The protocol of the systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) under the number CRD42024506168.

The search strategy in all databases consisted of managing Boolean operators (AND, OR, and NOT), keywords (biodegradation, low-density polyethylene), years of publication (2010 – 2022), type of document (original article), language (Spanish, English), and open access publications. The DeCS/Mesh search terms were: Low-Density Polyethylene, LDPE, efficiency, biodegradation, microbial consortia, fungi, and bacteria.

The auxiliary search strategy included:

  • Scopus

((TITLE-ABS-KEY (BIODEGRADATION) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,“English”) OR LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,“Spanish”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2010) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2011) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2012) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2013) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2014) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2015) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2016) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2021) ORLIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,2022)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD,“Article”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE,“j”)))

  • Web of Science (WOS)

(ALL=(biodegradation)) AND ALL=(low density polyethylene) and 2022 or 2021 or 2020 or 2019 or 2018 or 2017 or 2016 or 2015 or 2014 or 2013 or 2012 or 2011 (Publication Years) and 28 Article (Document Types) and Article (Document Types) and All Open Access (Open Access) and English (Languages)

  • Embase

“biodegradation AND polyethylene AND low AND density AND [2010-2022]/py AND [article]/lim AND ([english]/lim OR [spanish]/lim”

  • Google Scholar

The advanced search in this database included the exact phrase “LDPE biodegradation”; at least one of the following terms: Fungi, bacteria, or microbial consortia; terms mentioned in all scientific articles. It was also possible to delimit the years and languages of publication for each study.

Selection criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • Scientific articles that included bacteria, fungi, and microbial consortia reported as LDPE degraders.

  • Scientific articles that report the percentage of weight loss after the process.

  • Articles published from January 2010 to October 2022.

  • Publications in Spanish and English with open access.

Exclusion criteria

  • Studies that do not report gravimetry.

  • LDPE biodegradation time.

  • Genus or species of the polyethylene-degrading microorganism.

The coordination and development of the review activities were carried out through the Zoom video chat software. To include the studies, their relationship with the research question was verified, based fundamentally on the terms: Biodegradation, LDPE, bacteria, and fungi. Then, for the quality assessment of the Systematic Reviews, Meta-analysis and a scientific article evaluation scale were used to ensure strict compliance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned in previous paragraphs. The web application used throughout the process of identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion was Zotero. To collect relevant data from each report, PRISMA 2020 was used. Empirical articles were evaluated using an analytical rubric designed according to the parameters founded on the SSAHS scale by López-López E, Tobón S, JuárezHernández LG) for the consideration of scientific articles. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, utilizing an observation guide (checklist style as indicated by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute).34 Data systematization tables were used considering year, author(s), sample, study type, methods, identified microorganism, and the study technique (TE) were included. The variables for which relevant information was sought were: degradation efficiency (DE) of LDPE degrading microorganisms, biodegradation of plastics, degradation time (DT), and percentage of weight loss.

Results

Figure 1 shows the PRISMA methodology, whose search protocol identified 483 primary articles, of which 133 duplicates, 279 by title, 5 by abstract, 11 by access, and 20 for not meeting the inclusion terms were excluded. A total of 35 full-text articles were obtained, and 15 were included from previous review.

8e94bfa2-1ded-4c87-87c6-9566acc86b9f_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Flowchart of identification, screening, eligibility, and included articles.

Table 1 indicates the number of articles found, totaling 50, with the highest quantity produced between the years 2018 to 2022. Also, it is observed that 100% of the articles correspond to experimental research works. Likewise, it points out the study techniques, with the most frequent being: SEM, gravimetry, and FTIR. Regarding the microorganisms identified in each of the studies, the most frequent in the phylum bacteria belonged to the genera Pseudomonas and Bacillus; as for the phylum of fungi, Aspergillus spp. predominated. As for the isolation site, the most used and mentioned in the reviewed articles were landfill soil and sanitary landfill.32

Table 1. Articles Classified by Year, Author, Study Type, Sample, Methods, Identified microorganisms and Study Technique.

YearAuthorsStudy typeSampleMethodsIdentified microorganismsStudy Technique
12010Uribe D, Giraldo D, Gutiérrez S, Merino F.35ExperimentalLDPE from landfillBiologicalPseudomonas sp. MP3a., MP3b., Penicillium sp., Rhodotorula sp., Hyalodendrun sp.Gravimetry, FTIR
22012Kyaw B, Champakalakshmi R, Sakharkar M, Lim C, Sakharkar K.28ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalP. aeruginosa PAO1 (ATCC15729), P. aeruginosa (ATCC15692), P. putida (KT2440 ATCC47054), P. syringae (DC3000 ATCC10862)Gravimetry, FTIR-ATR, SEM,
GC-MS, Tensile strength
32013Tribedi P, Sil A.30ExperimentalSolid waste landfill soilBiologicalPseudomonas sp. AKS2Gravimetry, SEM, AFM, Tensile strength
42014Bhatia M, Girdhar A, Tiwari A, Nayarisseri A.25ExperimentalSanitary landfill soilBiologicalP. citronellolis EMBS027Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, TGA
52014Muthumani S, Anbuselvi S.36ExperimentalPolyethylene trashBiologicalStreptococcus sp., E. coli, Klebsiella sp., Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Saccharomyces sp., A. niger, A. flavus, Streptomyces sp.Gravimetry, Optical microscopy
62014Das M, Kumar S.26ExperimentalSolid waste soilBiologicalAspergillus sp. (FSM-3, 5, 6, 8), Fusarium sp. (FSM-10)Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Optical microscopy
72015Quinchía A, Maya S.29ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalPycnoporus sanguineus UTCH03Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, DSC
82015Duddu M, Tripura K, Guntuku G, Divya D.37ExperimentalNot mentionedBiologicalStreptomyces coelicoflavus nbrc 15399Gravimetry, FTIR, Optical microscopy, BATH
92015Das M, Kumar S.38ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalB. amyloliquefaciens (BSM-1 and BSM-2)Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Sturm
102015Deepika S, Jaya Madhuri R.39ExperimentalGarbage soilBiologicalStreptomyces sp., Pseudomonas sp., A. niger, A. flavusGravimetry
112016Gajendiran A, Krishnamoorthy S, Abraham J.27ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalA. clavatus JASK1Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Sturm, AFM
122016Abraham J, Gosh E, Mukherjee P, Gajendiran A.40ExperimentalSludge plus garden soilBiologicalStreptomyces sp., A. noniusGravimetry, FTIR, GC-MS, Sturm, AFM
132016Skariyachan S, Manjunatha V, Sultana S, Jois C.41ExperimentalPlastic waste from rural and urban areasBiologicalProteus spp., Enterobacter spp., Enterobacter spp., Pseudomonas spp., Pantoea spp.Gravimetry, GC-FID, SEM, Tensile strength, FTIR
142017Skariyachan S, Setlur A, Naik S, Naik A, Usharani M, Vasist K.42ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalP. protegens bt-dsce02, Stenotrophomonas sp. bt-dsce03, B. vallismortis bt-dsce01, Paenibacillus sp. bt-dsce04.Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, EDS, NM
152017Gajendiran A, Subramani S, Abraham J.43ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalA. versicolorGravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Sturm, AFM
162017Ojha N, Pradhan N, Singh S, Barla A., Shrivastava A, Khatua P, Rai V, Bose S.44ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalP. oxalicum NS4 (KU559906),
P. chrysogenum NS10 (KU559907)
Gravimetry, FTIR, FE-SEM, AFM
172017Awasthi S, Srivastava N, Singh T, Tiwary D, Kumar P.45ExperimentalNot mentionedBiologicalRhizopus oryzaeGravimetry, SEM, AFM, Tensile strength
182018Denisse Yans Z. Dela Torre, Lee A. Delos Santos, Mari Louise C. Reyes and Ronan Q. Baculi.46ExperimentalWater from rock crevicesBiologicalB. krulwichiae, B. pseudofirmus, Prolinoborus fasciculus, Bacillus sp.Gravimetry, SEM, FTIR
192018Munir E, Sipayung F, Priyani N, Suryanto D.47ExperimentalSanitary landfill soilBiologicalStreptococcus sp. Sp2,
Streptobacillus sp. Sp4
Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM
202018Munir E, Harefa R, Priyani N, Suryanto D.48ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalTrichoderma viride, A. noniusGravimetry, Tensile strength
212018Hikmah M, Setyaningsih R, Pangastuti A.49ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalTrichoderma spp. (TL1), Trichoderma spp. (TL2), Trichoderma spp. (TL3)Gravimetry, SEM, DSC, BATH
222018Thamizhmarai T, Kannahi M.50ExperimentalVedharaniyam waste soilBiologicalPseudomonas sp., A. niger, A. flavus, A. oryzaeGravimetry, FTIR, SEM
232018P. Priyadarshini, Summera Rafiq, SK. Jasmine Shahina, K. Vijaya Ramesh.51ExperimentalSolid waste landfillBiologicalNocardiopsis albaGravimetry, FTIR, SEM
242018Jayaprakash V, Palempalli U.52ExperimentalPE bags in soil for 6 monthsBiologicalA. oryzaeGravimetry, FTIR, SEM
252019Sáenz M, Borodulina T, Diaz L, Banchon C.53ExperimentalMangrove (Santay Island Ecuador)BiologicalA. terreus, A. nigerGravimetry, SEM
262019Bardají D, Furlan, J, Stehling E.54ExperimentalSolid waste landfill and incineratorBiologicalPaenibacillus sp.Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM
272019Islami A, Tazkiaturrizki T, Rinanti A.55ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalThiobacillus sp. K29:AA29p,
Clostridium sp.
Gravimetry, SEM
282019De Silva J, Jayasekera G, Nanayakkara C.56ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalFusarium sp._PS3, Penicillium sp. Ps2, A. nigerGravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Optical microscopy
292019Kartikey Kumar, Deepa Devi57ExperimentalSoil adhered to plasticBiologicalBacillus sp. ISJ51, ISJ55, ISJ57Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, BATH
302020Montazer Z, Najafi M, Levin D.58ExperimentalLarvaeBiologicalCupriavidus necator H16, P. putida LS46, P. putida IRN22, Lysinibacillus fusiformis, B. aryabhattaiGravimetry, GC-FID
312020Butrón S.59ExperimentalLDPE from dumpsiteBiologicalP. aeruginosaGravimetry, optical, fluorescence microscopy
322020Gupta K, Devi D.20ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalP. aeruginosa ISJ14Gravimetry, FTIR, FE-SEM, BATH
332020Dey A, Bose H, Mohapatra B, Sar P.60ExperimentalPlastic landfill wasteBiologicalStenotrophomonas sp. P2, Achromobacter sp. DF22Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, AFM, BATH
342020Sarker R, Chakraborty P, Paul P, Chatterjee A, Tribedi P.61ExperimentalAgricultural soilBiologicalEnterobacter cloacae AKS7Gravimetry, SEM, BATH, Tensile strength, Fluorescence microscopy
352020Samanta S, Datta D, Halder G.62ExperimentalLandfillBiologicalB. tropicus MK318648Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, AFM, Tensile strength
362021Glen Cletus DSouza, Ryna Shireen Sheriff, Varun Ullanat, Aniruddh Shrikrishna, Anupama V. Joshi, Lingayya Hiremath, Keshamma Entoori63ExperimentalCIBiologicalA. niger, A. flavus, A. oryzaeGravimetry, FT-IR and SEM
372021Maroof L, Khan I, Yoo H, Kim S, Park H, Ahmad B, Azam S.19ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalB. siamensis, B. cereus, B. wiedmannii, B. subtilis, P. aeruginosa, Acinetobacter iwoffiiGravimetry, FTIR, FE-SEM, XRD, Carbon analysis
382021Soleimani Z, Gharavi S, Soudi M, Moosavi Z.64ExperimentalPlastic landfill soilBiologicalStreptomyces sp. IR-SGS- T10(MK719894.1), Streptomyces sp. IR-SGS-Y1 (MK719896.1, Streptomyces sp. IR-SGS-T5 (MK611552.1) S. alborgiseolus IR-SGS- T10(MK719894.1), Streptomyces sp. IR-SGS-K3 (MK608706.1), S. gancidicus IR-SGS-K2 (MH819728.1), Streptomyces sp. IR-SGS-K1 (MK608363.1), Rhodococcus ruber IR-SGS-T6 (MK611559.1), R. ruber IR-SGS-T7 (MK611560.1), Nocardia sp. IR-SGS-T9 (MK719893.1), N. farcinica IR-SGS-T8 (MK719892.1)Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Tensile strength
392021Waqas M, Haris M, Asim N, Islam H, Abdullah A, Khan A, Khattak H, Waqas M, Ali S.65ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalB. safensis, B. amyloliquefaciensGravimetry, SEM
402021Khruengsai S, Sripahco T, Pripdeevech P.66ExperimentalInstitute of Excellence in Fungal ResearchBiologicalD. italiana, T. jaczewskii, C. fructicola, S. citrulli, A. nigerGravimetry, FTIR, SEM, GC-MS
412021Khandare S, Chaudhary D, Jha B.67ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalCobetia sp., Halomonas sp., Exiguobacterium sp., Alcanivorax sp.Gravimetry, FTIR-ATR, FE-SEM, AFM, TGA
422021Nadeem H, Alia K, Muneer F, Rasul I, Siddique M, Azeem F, Zubair M.68ExperimentalSolid waste landfillsBiologicalSerratia sp., Stenotrophomonas sp., Pseudomonas sp.Gravimetry, FTIR
432021Chaudhary A, Chaitanya K, Dalmia R, Vijayakumar R.69ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalThermomyces lanuginosusGravimetry, FTIR, SEM, TGA
442021Skariyachan S, Taskeen N, Kishore A, Krishna B, Naidu G.70ExperimentalLandfill soilBiologicalEnterobacter sp. nov. bt DSCE01, E. cloacae nov. bt DSCE02, P. aeruginosa nov. bt. DSCE-CD03Gravimetry, FTIR, SEM, AFM, XRD, EDS
452021Zahari N, Abdullah S, Tuah P, and Cleophas F.71ExperimentalStrain identifiedBiologicalB. subtilis, C. tropicalisGravimetry, FTIR, SEM
462021Perera P, Deraniyagala A, Mahawaththage M, Herath H, Rajapakse C, Wijesinghe P, Attanayake R.72ExperimentalDry reserve forestBiologicalPhlebiopsis flavidoalba, Schizophyllum commune, Phanerodontia chrysosporiumGravimetry, FTIR, SEM, Tensile strength
472022Saira A, Maroof L, Iqbal M, Farman S, Lubna, Faisa S.73ExperimentalPeshawar district landfillsBiologicalA. Niger, A. flavus, PenicilliumGravimetry, FTIR
482022Maleki M, Moghimi H, Azin E.74ExperimentalCompostBiologicalAchromobacter denitrificans
Ebl13
Gravimetry, Sturm, FTIR, SEM, TGA
492022Khruengsai S, Sripahco T, Pripdeevech P.75ExperimentalInstitute of Excellence in Fungal ResearchBiologicalNeopestalotiopsis phangngaensisGravimetry, SEM, Sturm, Tensile strength
502022Liu X, Zhang Y, Sun Q, Liu Z, Zhao Y, Fan A, Su H.76ExperimentalHousehold waste landfillBiologicalB. velezensis C5Gravimetry, FTIR-ATR, SEM, EDS, FE-SEM, HTGPC, GC-MS

Table 2 allows for the descriptive observation of microorganisms classified into bacteria, fungi, and microbial consortia, in quantities of 23, 17, and 9 respectively. Also, it specifies the species and the efficiency of LDPE-degrading microorganisms expressed in weight loss from highest to lowest and the days used for complete degradation, highlighting among bacteria Enterobacter spp., Pantoea spp., P. spp., Escherichia coli, and B. spp. which obtained an ED range of 9.00-70.00%, 24.00-64.00%, 1.15 – 61.00%, 45.00%, and 1.50-40.00% with TD of 4-150, 120, 4-150, 30, and 30-120 days, respectively; in the case of fungi, the main microorganisms are Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis, Colletotrichum fructicola, and Thyrostroma jaczewskii with ED of 54.34, 48.78, and 46.34%, respectively, and TD of 90 days; and, the most efficient microbial consortia were from E. spp. and Pantoea sp. with ED of 38.00 – 81.00%, and TD of 120 days; and, P. protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis, Paenibacillus sp. with ED of 55.00 – 75.00% and TD of 120 days.

Table 2. Degradation efficiency (ED) of LDPE by microorganisms expressed as weight loss (%) and degradation time (TD) in days, 2010 – 2022.

MicroorganismsDegradation time (Days)Degradation efficiency weight loss (%)
Bacteria
Enterobacter spp.41,61,7045-1209.00-70.00
Pantoea spp.4112024.00-64.00
Pseudomonas spp.19,20,25,28,30,36,39,41,50,59,684-1501.15-61.00
Escherichia coli363045.00
Bacillus spp.19,36,38,47,57,58,62,65,71,7630-1201.50-40.00
Proteus spp.4112016.00-59.00
Streptomyces spp.36,37,39,40,6428-902.31-46.70
Serratia sp.6815040.00
Nocardiopsis alba5115032.25
Stenotrophomonas spp.60,68100-1507.54-32.00
Paenibacillus sp.5490-12011.60-30.80
Klebsiella sp.363021.00
Achromobacter spp.60,7460-1007.45-12.30
Lysinibacillus fusiformis58188.20
Rhodococcus spp.64603.01-6.23
Nocardia spp.64603.60-5.98
Prolinoborus fasciculus47905.10
Halomonas sp. H-25568901.72
Cobetia sp. H23768901.40
Exiguobacterium sp. H25668901.26
Alcanivorax sp. H26568900.97
Acinetobacter iwoffii19900.76
Streptococcus spp.36,47300.16
Fungi
Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis759054.34
Colletotrichum fructicola669048.78
Thyrostroma jaczewskii669046.34
Stagonosporopsis citrulli669045.12
Diaporthe italiana669043.90
Saccharomyces363043.00
Aspergillus spp.26,27,36,39,40,43,48,50,52,53,56,66,7330-2704.90-40.60
Penicillium chrysogenum NS10(KU559907)73900.35-36.60
Schizophyllum commune72609.65
Thermomyces lanuginosus69309.21
Fusarium spp.26,5660-900.59-9.00
Rhizopus oryzae45308.40
Trichoderma spp.48,4935-454.87-7.51
Candida tropicalis7173.20
Phlebiopsis flavidoalba72602.60
Phanerodontia chrysosporium72602.50
Pycnoporus sanguineus UTCH03291800.66
Microbial Consortia
Enterobacter spp., Pantoea sp.4112038.00-81.00
P. protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis, Paenibacillus sp.4212055.00-75.00
Enterobacter sp.nov. bt DSCE01, E. cloacae nov. bt DSCE02, P. aeruginpsa nov. bt. DSCE-CD037016064.25
Lysinibacillus xylanilyticus, A. niger7712615.80-29.50
A. niger, A. flavus, A. oryzae635526.15
Cupriavidus necator H16,58 P. putida (LS46,IRN22)581813.50
Thiobacillus sp. K29, Clostridium sp.55305.30-6.40
Pseudomonas spp. (MP3a, MP3b)35605.40
Penicillium sp., Rhodotorula sp., Hyalodendron sp.35604.80

LDPE: Low-density polyethylene. IL: Isolation Location. MI: Identified Microorganism. TE: Study Technique. FTIR: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. FTIR-ATR: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy - Attenuated Total Reflectance. SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy. GC-MS: Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry. EDS: Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy. FE-SEM: Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy. HT-GPC: High Temperature Gel Permeation Chromatography. TGA: Thermogravimetric Analysis. AFM: Atomic Force Microscopy. XRD: X-ray Diffraction. BATH: Bacterial Adhesion to a Hydrocarbon. GC-FID: Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector. DSC: Differential Scanning Calorimetry. NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.

Discussion

According to the data analyzed (Table 1), in recent years there has been an increase in studies on LDPE-degrading microorganisms with the aim of minimizing environmental impacts through bioremediation.78 The requirement for special technologies allows understanding the degree of polymer disintegration and the nature of its resulting products. In the SR, up to 20 study techniques used in the biodegradation of LDPE have been detected. From our point of view, we consider highlighting in this article those methods that, due to frequency and especially efficacy, stand out among others. These methods include the following: SEM,67,6971 gravimetry,25,26,27,28,29,30,35,36,39,40 and FTIR.20,28,60,66

The SEM study technique,19,4244,46,4954,56,62,63,70,72 is used to detect the biodegradation of LDPE and is employed to monitor changes on the surface of the LDPE film.72,7476 The adhesion of microorganisms to the surface is essential for biodegradation.65 After incubating LDPE with selected degrading microorganisms on the surface, some characteristics such as erosion, holes, and cavities are observed, which are attributed jointly to the formation of bacterial film and the penetration of fungal hyphae.60,68 Erosion is considered the primary cause of the mass reduction of the surface due to the secretion of enzymes and microbial extracellular metabolites.20

Another frequently used technique in the reviewed articles is gravimetry,20,4246,4855,6871 which is a simple and highly precise test to determine the polymer weight reduction, originating as a consequence of being used as a source of carbon and energy by microorganisms.19,6265,7274,76 This weight loss is considered proportional to the surface area, as biodegradation starts on the polymer’s surface.38 With Gram-positive bacteria, the degradation efficiency (DE) in terms of LDPE weight loss has been reported: Streptomyces sp. DE 5.2% and degradation time (DT) of 90 days40 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DE 11% and DT 60 days.38

It was found in the review that various articles mentioned the FTIR technique,19,25,26,27,28,29,30,35,37,40,44,46,50,51,64,6770,7476 as the third most frequent of those applied to determine biodegradation; in addition, the cited studies consider it analytical and efficient, useful for identifying the chemical configuration of organic, polymeric, and inorganic material, and the morphological changes, which are supported by the chemical structural changes at the level of the carbon chains, observing new functional groups (alkoxy, acyl, carboxyls, and nitro) or absence of them, and modifications in the chains such as breaks, stretches, and formation of double bonds; moreover, this technique determines the carbonyl index (CI), which measures the degree of degradation of the LDPE and in which its value depends on the degraded carbonyl bonds.28 In reality, it involves measuring the concentration of carbonyl groups (CG) corresponding to acids, aldehydes, and ketones.35 In the process of LDPE biodegradation, the initial weight corresponds to the oxidation of the chain that leads to the formation of CG, and subsequently, these form carboxylic groups that are degraded by β-oxidation and then through the citric acid cycle to CO2 and H2O.77

In Table 2, as observed, the microorganisms frequently reported in the articles analyzed in Table 1 include bacteria from the genera Bacillus, Brevibacillus, Cellulosimicrobium, Comamonas, Delftia, Enterobacter, Escherichia, Idonella, Kocuria, Lysinibacillus, Paenibacillus, Pantoea, Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus, Rhodotorula, Stenotrophomonas, and Streptomyces,25,28,30,42,46,58,59 with the genera Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Streptomyces predominating. Other microorganisms are fungi, with Aspergillus sp. most frequently cited.39,48,50,52,63 Among the less frequently cited species include Rhizopus oryzae, Paenibacillus sp., Streptomyces coelicoflavus, Thiobacillus, Clostridium, Achromobacter denitrificans, Penicillium oxalicum, P. chrysogenum, Pycnoporus sanguineus, Enterobacter cloacae.29,37,44,45,54,55,61,74

In the same table, it is analyzed that among the most efficient bacteria in the degradation of LDPE according to the weight loss of the polymer include several species such as Enterobacter spp. with an ED of 9.00 – 70.00%, and TD of 4 -150, Pantoea spp. with an ED of 24.00 – 64.00% and TD of 120, Pseudomonas spp. with an ED of 1.15 – 61.00% and TD of 4-150, Escherichia coli with an ED of 45.00% and TD of 30, and finally, Bacillus spp. with an ED of 1.50 – 40.00% and TD of 30-120. Bacillus sp. is also considered as another important species in the biodegradation process, having a consumption rate of 0.0019 g of the polymer per day45; or, participating in consortia such as the one constituted by Bacillus vallismortis, Pseudomonas protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., and Paenibacillus sp.42

It has been determined that P. aeruginosa cultured on LDPE as the only carbon source has an ED of 0.0015 g of LDPE per day and a TD of 462 days to reduce a polyethylene film from 1g to 0.5g20; Enterobacter cloacae AKS7 and Escherichia coli possess another type of degradative action, and it is due to the secretion of extracellular polymeric substances and the high hydrophobicity of the microorganism’s cell wall, which allows a greater formation and adherence of the bacterial biofilm.36,61 In the case of Pantoea sp., its efficiency can be measured either individually or in consortium with Enterobacter.41

Fungi (Table 2), like bacteria, are considered LDPE-degrading microorganisms. The most efficient are: Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis, Colletotrichum fructicola, and Thyrostroma jaczewskii with EDs of 54.34, 48.78, and 46.34%, respectively, and a TD of 90 days. The mycotic activity is considered to be due to their great capacity for adherence. In the polymer biodegraded for 40 days, the biofilm formed by the strongly adhered fungi is observed; at 80 days, surface deformation is evident and microcracks are differentiated.28 Other efficient species are also reported, such as A. clavatus with an ED of 35.00% and a TD of 90 days27 and A. versicolor with 40.60% and a TD of 90 days.43

The degradative efficiency of microbial consortia has also been reported in different studies,35,41,63,70 showing the most efficient to be the one formed by Enterobacter spp. and Pantoea sp., and the one of Pseudomonas protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis, and Paenibacillus sp. The cooperation of different microorganisms allows the use of different and complementary metabolic capacities for their growth, forming pure or mixed biofilms (fungi and bacteria), more resistant and metabolically more active.79

LDPE-degrading microorganisms form a biofilm on the polymer and use it as a carbon source for consumption, an event that is reflected in weight loss. The biodegradation by microorganisms is a process of high metabolic activity, in which the count of viable cells, the concentration of surface proteins, and the efficiency in degradation expressed as polymer weight loss must be taken into account.20 The most frequent place of isolation of microorganisms with LDPE-degrading capacity came from landfill soil and sanitary landfills with the presence of plastics. Various studies have indicated that bacteria and fungi adapt under different environmental conditions, a process mediated by complex cellular changes at the enzymatic level,19,56 maintain physiology and metabolism, thus ensuring the survival of microorganisms. It has been demonstrated that bacteria such as Pseudomonas putida is a resistant and efficient xenobiotic decomposer because it presents an effective efflux pump; similarly, Streptomyces atacamensis shows xerotolerant latency and spore response to desiccation, and upregulation of proteins that are functional during xeric stress,80 which probably explains why certain microorganisms are more efficient at degrading LDPE compared to others.

Considering that degradation is a slow process (this activity occurs before 60 days of incubation), and that degradation methods are heterogeneous, some authors conclude that there is no standard methodology in relation to analytical methods.15 However, in this article, we present the various biodegradation techniques, so a more precise vision could be had to assess which of them is the most consistent and effective according to their ED and TD.

Finally, based on the detection and quantification tests of polymer degradation, the exposed microorganisms constitute a sustainable alternative, useful for bioremediation and minimization of environmental impacts, with the aim of reducing environmental pollution by LDPE.

Conclusions

  • The microorganisms with the highest degradation efficiency on LPDE-type plastics in bacteria are Enterobacter spp., Pantoea spp., Pseudomonas spp., Escherichia coli, and Bacillus spp.; in fungi Neopestalotiopsis phangngaensis, Colletotrichum fructicola, and Thyrostroma jaczewskii; and in microbial consortia, those formed by Enterobacter spp. and Pantoea sp., and the one by P. protegens, Stenotrophomonas sp., B. vallismortis, and Paenibacillus sp.

  • The most effective techniques used in LDPE biodegradation are SEM, gravimetry, and FTIR.

Limitations

The results obtained allow for the identification of a lack of studies on microorganisms efficient in the biodegradation of LDPE, which limits the possibility of expanding their number and understanding their efficiency. Moreover, there are few studies on alternative methods that are effective in biodegradation. These limitations should be taken into account for the guidance and development of new research.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Morales Ramos JG, Fernández Tarrillo LM, Guevara Bravo AX et al. Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:745 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151338.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 02 Sep 2024
Revised
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 20 Feb 2025
Astri Rinanti, Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Technology, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia 
Approved
VIEWS 0
  • The search method has been clearly explained, including the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
  • Quantitative analysis of the degradation rate should be highlighted to strengthen the conclusion.
  • The references used are numerous and relevant,
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Rinanti A. Reviewer Report For: Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:745 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170129.r363815)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
1
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Feb 2025
Laura Schaerer, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 1
"Studies on microbiota have allowed the assessment of the effect of MPs, especially PETs, on microbiota, demonstrating that they would act at the colon level, decreasing the values of Staphylococcus spp.Bifidobacterium spp., and Clostridium spp." - this sentence would benefit from additional ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Schaerer L. Reviewer Report For: Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:745 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170129.r360173)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024
Views
16
Cite
Reviewer Report 30 Jul 2024
Magaly de la Cruz Noriega, Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias y Tecnología, University Cesar Vallejo, Lima District, Lima Region, Peru 
Approved
VIEWS 16
This research work is very interesting and relevant, as it gives us updated information on the role of microorganisms in degrading low-density plastic. But for its indexing some details are required.

In the introduction, it is necessary ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Noriega MdlC. Reviewer Report For: Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:745 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165977.r300136)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 02 Sep 2024
    Jorge Guillermo Morales Ramos, Lambayeque, Universidad De San Martin de Porres - Filial Norte, Chiclayo, Peru
    02 Sep 2024
    Author Response
    The observations made in terms of classifying degradation types and highlighting biodegradation among them were raised. The second point on table 1, the table was constructed on the basis of ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 02 Sep 2024
    Jorge Guillermo Morales Ramos, Lambayeque, Universidad De San Martin de Porres - Filial Norte, Chiclayo, Peru
    02 Sep 2024
    Author Response
    The observations made in terms of classifying degradation types and highlighting biodegradation among them were raised. The second point on table 1, the table was constructed on the basis of ... Continue reading
Views
19
Cite
Reviewer Report 25 Jul 2024
Claudio Quiñones-Cerna, Escuela de Medicina, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad César Vallejo, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Nacionalde Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru 
Approved
VIEWS 19
The article titled "Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review" was published in F1000Research. This systematic review, based on the PRISMA method, examines studies published between January 2010 and October 2022, analyzing the ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Quiñones-Cerna C. Reviewer Report For: Efficiency of Microorganisms and Effectiveness of Biodegradation Techniques on LDPE Plastics: A Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 13:745 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.165977.r299819)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 07 Aug 2024
    Jorge Guillermo Morales Ramos, Lambayeque, Universidad De San Martin de Porres - Filial Norte, Chiclayo, Peru
    07 Aug 2024
    Author Response
    We are grateful for this review of our article.
    Competing Interests: None
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 07 Aug 2024
    Jorge Guillermo Morales Ramos, Lambayeque, Universidad De San Martin de Porres - Filial Norte, Chiclayo, Peru
    07 Aug 2024
    Author Response
    We are grateful for this review of our article.
    Competing Interests: None

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Jul 2024
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.