4.5 Article

Pre-oxidation of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) by ultraviolet light (UV) promotes enhanced degradation of LDPE in soil

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-017-6351-2

关键词

LDPE; UV treatment; In situ bioremediation; Microbial colonization; Microbial metabolic activity

资金

  1. Assam Science Technology & Environment Council (ASTEC) (Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Assam, India) [ASTEC/S&T/192(157)/2015-2016/3933]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyethylene represents nearly 64% of all the synthetic plastics produced and are mainly used for domestic and industrial applications. Their extensive use poses a serious environmental threat because of their non-biodegradable nature. Among all the polyethylene remediation strategies, in situ bioremediation happens to be the safest and efficient one. In the current study, efforts had been given to compare the extent of LDPE degradation under UV-treated and UV-untreated conditions by soil microcosm. Landfill soil was collected and UV-treated and UV-untreated LDPE were added separately to the soil following incubation under similar conditions. Electron microscopic images as well as the weight loss and the tensile strength results clearly revealed that UV-treated LDPE showed better degradation than the non-treated ones in soil. To elucidate the mechanism of this enhanced biodegradation, the bond spectra of differentially treated LDPE were analyzed by FTIR. The results obtained from bond spectra studies revealed that UV treatment increases both carbonyl and terminal double-bond index of the LDPE, thereby making it highly susceptible for microbial degradation. Moreover, incubation of UV-treated LDPE with soil favors better adherence of metabolically active and significantly higher number of microorganisms on it. Taken together, all these results demonstrate the higher microbial association and their better metabolic potential to the UV-treated LDPE that lead to enhanced degradation of the LDPE by the soil microorganisms.

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

4.5
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