Next Article in Journal
Low Salt Influences Archaellum-Based Motility, Glycerol Metabolism, and Gas Vesicles Biogenesis in Halobacterium salinarum
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of the Liver Transcriptome of Beijing You Chickens and Guang Ming Broilers under Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/microorganisms10122441
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Isolation of Thermophilic Bacteria and Investigation of Their Microplastic Degradation Ability Using Polyethylene Polymers

by
Sadin Özdemir
1,
Ceyhun Akarsu
2,
Ömer Acer
3,
Mireille Fouillaud
4,
Laurent Dufossé
4,* and
Nadir Dizge
5,*
1
Food Processing Programme, Technical Science Vocational School, Mersin University, Mersin 33343, Turkey
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul 34320, Turkey
3
Department of Medical Microbiology, Medical Faculty, Siirt University, Siirt 56100, Turkey
4
Chemistry and Biotechnology of Natural Products, CHEMBIOPRO, ESIROI Agroalimentaire, Université de La Réunion, 15 Avenue René Cassin, CS 92003, CEDEX 9, F-97744 Saint-Denis, France
5
Department of Environmental Engineering, Mersin University, Mersin 33343, Turkey
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(12), 2441; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122441
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Microbial Biotechnology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Microplastics (MPs) pose potential public health challenges because of their widespread occurrences in all environmental compartments. While most studies have focused on the occurrence fate of microplastics in wastewater treatment systems, the biodegradation of microplastics in wastewater is generally little understood. Therefore, we used two Gram-positive and thermophilic bacteria, called strain ST3 and ST6, which were identified by morphological, biochemical, physiological, and molecular analyses, to assess the growth and biodegradation potential of two different sized (50 and 150 m) polyethylene particles. The degradation was monitored based on structural and surface morphological changes. According to 16S rRNA analyses, ST3 and ST6 were identified as Anoxybacillus flavithermus ST3 and Anoxybacillus sp. ST6, respectively. The occurrence of cracks, holes, and dimensional changes was detected by scanning electron microscopy. Moreover, critical characteristic absorption band formation and modifications were determined by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. In addition to these, it was found that Anoxybacillus flavithermus ST3 and Anoxybacillus sp. ST6 produced high level of alpha-Amylase. These results showed that thermophilic bacteria are capable of the biodegradation of microplastics and production of alpha-Amylase.

1. Introduction

Human activities, which are significant components of global pollution, are the largest source of many pollutants, including plastics, due to broad usage and inappropriate disposal [1,2]. Plastic usage has been steadily increasing over the last 50 years as a result of technological improvements [3]. In fact, assuming current growth rates hold, by 2050, the world’s plastic manufacturing will have tripled from 350 million tons to 1100 tons [4]. However, the rate of inadequately managed waste has been estimated at a mean of 50% [5,6]. As a result, a significant amount of plastic may build in vast amounts in rivers, waterways, and coastal regions, leading to the creation of microplastics [7,8].
Microplastics, which are plastics less than 5 mm, are divided into different groups as primary and secondary types, sizes, shapes, and chemical properties [9,10,11]. Mostly, secondary microplastics have the same chemical properties whatever polymer the plastic is made of.
Many sectors have been related to the occurrence of microplastics in freshwater [12], marine [13], and wastewater treatment plants [14], including textiles, laundry services, and raw plastics manufacturing. According to numerous studies published in the last few years, the primary source of microplastics reaching the environment is wastewater treatment plants [15,16]. Therefore, some studies focused on determining and increasing microplastic removal of wastewater treatment plants to prevent microplastic pollution in marine ecosystems. However, these current methods practically cause a trade-off between water and sludge soil [17]. Moreover, the removal of the potential of the WWTPs is uncertain hence they are not currently built up to remove microplastics [18]. Even if WWTP removes up to 95% of microplastics, the remaining 5% is still a significant amount on account of the high volume of generated wastewater effluent [19]. Carr et al. (2016) reported that 9.3 × 105 MP is discharged from the WWTP each day even with 99% removal efficiency [20]. With an average removal rate, WWTPs can emit ranging from 4.2 × 104 and 13.9 × 1010 MPs/day [21]. It should be noted that sewage sludge contains the majority of the retained microplastics, which range from 1.0 to 24.0 MP per gram [22,23]. Therefore, it’s critical to create a process that can turn this pollutant into a finished good.
In the degradation of plastics and MPs, the polymer molecules in such plastics first begin to degrade by organisms (Figure 1). Then the polymers turn into polymer fragments, and the carbon in the polymer chain, which is finally degraded and undergoes mineral degradation. Thus, polymer degradation by microorganisms takes place [24,25]. The primary factor affecting the biodegradation of microplastics is a polymer’s characteristics, which include its chemical composition, molecular mass, and degrees of crystallinity [26]. Besides, appropriate enzymatic and metabolic pathways must be possessed to enhance biodegradation by potential microbial degrading organisms.
So far, more than 20 bacterial genera including various Gram-negative and Gram-positive species have been successfully isolated from the natural environment such as sludge, sediment, and wastewater [27], and the degradation of polyethylene has been investigated [28]. Additionally, the complete biodegradability of polyethylene was enhanced by adding several additives. For example, Arkatkar et al. (2010) reported the complete degradation of PE particles with P. fluorescens in presence of surfactant and bio-surfactant [29]. Similarly, Tribedi and Sil (2013) also reported that the addition of mineral oil has slightly increased the degradation of LDPE films [30].
However, only a few of them have investigated the biodegradation of microplastics with a limited number of polymer types [31,32]. Current studies on bacterial isolates, their degradation properties, and their effects on MPs are given in Table 1. Auta et al. (2017) carried out one of the first studies on microplastic degradation after incubation with Rhodococcus sp. strain 36 and Bacillus sp. strain 27 [33]. Accordingly, the weight loss were 6.4% and 4.0% for Rhodococcus sp. strain 36 and Bacillus sp. strain 27, respectively. Further studies demonstrate that bacteria can predominantly change the appearance of MPs including their chemical and other properties. Thermophilic bacteria, for example, may live in a range of conditions and generate oxidation and hydrolase enzymes, presenting a significant possibility for microplastic biodegradation resulting in numerous cracks and grooves [34,35]. The maximum weight loss of polymer particles was reached with Bacillus strains, which indicates that this species has a relatively better degradation effect on plastic particles [27,36].
In this study, novel amylase-producing thermophilic bacteria were used to examine the possible degradation of non-biodegradable MPs. The amylase enzyme is known to belong to the hydrolase family, which can hydrolytically degrade long polymer chains into smaller monomers including polymers [46,47]. Specifically, many studies deal with the enzymatic degradation of polymers with particular attention to investigating the influence of processing conditions, types of enzymes used for degradation, and processing times [48,49]. Consequently, the potential of the biodegradability of MPs using the thermophilic Anoxybacillus genus was investigated. Moreover, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to investigate the morphological changes on microplastic surfaces. Changes in polymer functional groups were analyzed using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling, Pre-Enrichment, and Characterization

The water and muddy soil samples from Ömer hot springs were used to isolate thermophilic bacteria in Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. An enrichment medium by serial dilution approach was utilized to isolate thermophilic bacteria. For this, nutritional broth (NB, agar 1.5%) was used to culture a suspension of soil and water samples for 24 h at 55 °C. After 1–2 cycles of enrichment, the cultures were plated for 48 h on a solid NB medium. The colonies with varied phenotypes on the plates were then moved to a new fresh medium. Strong amylolytic bacteria were selected by adding Lugol’s iodine solution after incubation of the bacteria on starch agar plates as previously described by Acer et al. (2020) [50].
Gram staining was carried out according to Dussault (1955) [51]. Growing bacteria at different temperatures and pH ranges were used to evaluate the impact of temperature and pH on growth. The novel isolates were cultivated in a liquid Basal Salt Medium (BSM) to investigate the use of a single carbon source. A final concentration of 10 g/L was achieved by adding carbon sources as filter-sterilized solutions. All growth assays were conducted at 55 °C and a pH of 6.0. Carbon sources included glucose, lactose, and sucrose. Following a two-day incubation period, positive growth was seen when the OD values at 600 nm were more than 0.300. The oxidase activity was determined by oxidation of p-aminodimethylaniline oxalate. Hydrogen peroxide solution (3% v/v) was used to assess catalase activity. The urease activity was determined as described by Lanyi (1988) [52]. Citrate utilization was determined by using Simmons’ citrate agar and indole production was determined by Kovac’s reagent. Through the use of an NB medium with various concentrations of NaCl, the tolerance to NaCl was evaluated. To evaluate β-galactosidase activity, the release of o-nitrophenyl-D-galactopyranoside (o-NPG, Sigma) was quantified. The phosphatase activity was investigated performing agar medium containing both phenolphthalein diphosphate and methyl green; in these culture media, phosphatase-producing microorganisms grow deep-green-stained colonies, whereas non-producing microorganisms do not.

2.2. Phylogenetic Analysis and Bioinformatics Processing

DNA isolation of the samples was realized as previously mentioned by Akarsu et al. (2022) [53]. For identification of the species, partial 16S rRNA genes were amplified in PCR analysis using universal primers (PA5′AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′-PH5′ AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCCGCA-3′) [54], which amplify the complete 16S rRNA Gene Iontek Company (Istanbul, Turkey) used an AB1373 Automated Sequencer from Invitrogen in Carlsbad, California to sequence the 16S rRNA gene.
The raw sequence data were pre-processed as previously described [53]. To get rid of blank spaces and incomplete data, the sequences were cleaned up. Partial 16S rRNA gene sequences of the strains were used to perform homology analysis. We compared the sequences to those in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). After CLUSTAL X performed multiple alignments on the data, we used Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis (MEGA) version X to construct the phylogenetic sequence tree [55]. A distance based method called “The Neighbor-Joining” was used to infer the evolutionary history [56]. The evolutionary distance was measured by the Maximum Composite Likelihood method [57].

2.3. Biodegradation Assay and Analysis

Polyethylene is chemically inert and is regarded as the most difficult polymer to recycle [58]. Accordingly, the main polymer composition of MPs was polyethylene in wastewater treatment plants [59]. Despite the fact that particle size is an important independent factor influencing the rate of surface erosion as well as polymer type [60], very few studies have evaluated the effect of particle diameter [53,61]. Therefore, two different-sized polyethylene microplastics (PE-MPs) were used in this study.
Polyethylene particles known as Aldrich-434272 and Goodfellow-9002884 have a size of 50 µm and 150 µm, respectively. In order to counteract photo-degradation, the degradation experiment was conducted for 10 days without light. After the period, the remaining polyethylene particles were filtered for further analysis.
The microbial biodegradation studies were carried out in 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks containing 100 mL using Nutrient Broth medium. After sterilization, 20 mL of the sample was taken from the original culture and transferred into tube, and then cultured at 140 rpm/min on a shaker, and periodically sampled and tested.
So far, several techniques such as FTIR, GC-MS, SEM, tensile strength, and weighting had been used to reveal biodegradation [62] (Figure 2). In the present study, the changes in PE MPs’ structure were analyzed by FTIR Spectroscopy (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) in the frequency range of 4000–400 cm−1. SEM (Gemini Zeiss Supra 55, Oberkochen, Germany) was used to view the morphology of the degraded PE MPs’. In addition, the carbonyl index was used to evaluate the oxidation states of MPs and the deterioration in their mechanical properties in this study [63]. The carbonyl index has a fixed location and is free from other bands that may interfere since it has been used for many years to monitor changes in the carbonyl band (C = O) [64].
C a r b o n y l   i n d e x = A 1 A 2
where A 1 is the absorbance at 1720 cm−1 and A 2 is the reference peak of polyethylene [63].

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of Phenotypic Diversity

In the present study, two thermophilic bacterial species, which are Gram-positive, rod-shaped, spore-forming, and motile, able to hydrolyze starch, named ST3 and ST6 strains, respectively, were isolated from habitats in Ömer thermal springs (Turkey) (Table 2).
β-galactosidase, amylase, catalase, oxidase, citrate, and phosphate tests were all positive for strain ST3; however, urease and protease were negative. As carbon sources, the strain could use glucose, lactose, and sucrose. As shown in Figure 3a,b, 55–60 °C and a pH of 5.5–6.0 were the ideal media for microbial growing, respectively. It was determined that if the NaCl concentration was 1–7.5% (w/v), it did not prevent the growth of ST3 strain and ST6 strain, and accordingly, values between 2.5–5% (w/v) and 1–5% (w/v) were considered suitable for the optimum concentration, respectively (Figure 3c). Amylase, catalase, oxidase, citrate, phosphate, and protease tests for strain ST6 were found to be positive, and it was discovered that these enzymes could degrade glucose, lactose, and sucrose as carbon sources. The growth kinetics of both bacteria under optimum conditions are also presented in Figure 3d.
The effect of incubation time on amylase production of ST3 and ST6 was tested and the results are shown in Figure 4a. As can be clearly seen in Figure 4a, both ST3 and ST6 were found good sources of alpha amylase. Amylase production increased rapidly from the 12th h and reached the 24th h maximum level for strain ST3 and also 36th h maximum level for strain ST6. ST3 and ST6 exhibited near-maximum amylase production activity between 24–36th and 36–72nd h. In addition to these, the effect of incubation temperature (Figure 4b) and fermentation pH (Figure 4c) on alpha-amylase production were examined. It was also determined that the optimum incubation temperature and fermentation pH was found as 55 °C and 6.0 for ST3 and ST6.

3.2. Phylogenetic Analyses

For 16S rRNA analysis, 1051 nucleotides were specified for ST3 and 1000 nucleotides for the ST6 strain. Following BLAST analysis, the sequences were submitted to GenBank. KJ434781 for strain ST3 and KJ434783 for strain ST6 were assigned as the accession numbers for the sequences. 16S rRNA analysis revealed that strains ST3 and ST6 were members of the genus Anoxybacillus. Figure 5 and Figure 6 present, respectively, the neighbor-joining-constructed phylogenetic trees for strain ST3 and strain ST6. It was determined that the partial 16S rRNA sequence of ST3 strain was 100% similar to Anoxybacillus flavithermus strain HBB-134 and Anoxybacillus kestanbolensis strain ACT14, respectively. It also indicated 99.90% homology to Anoxybacillus flavithermus strain 8POT11. The partial 16S rRNA sequence of strain ST6 showed 99.10%, 98.8%, and 98.7% homology to Anoxybacillus gonensis strain TP9, Anoxybacillus gonensis strain AT23, and Anoxybacillus kamchatkensis strain J-18, respectively.

3.3. Determination of Biodegradation by FTIR

With the inoculation of the thermophilic bacteria into PEs, several significant peaks at 720 and near 1450 cm−1 were assigned to the C-H alkyl bend, whereas the peak at 905 cm−1 was attributed to the =C-H (Figure 7a,b). The peaks between 1000, 1050, and 1200 cm−1 were for the C–O phenolic bands. In addition, the N-O peaks (1500–1600 cm−1) were mainly assigned.
Figure 7 shows the peak near 1475 and 1465 cm−1 due to the CH2 scissoring vibration which also shows a reduction of carbonyl bands [33]. The peaks at 1500 and 1600 cm−1 are attributed to the possible formation of amine groups [65]. Overall, the replacement of the carbonyl band with the amine band indicates that thermophilic bacteria form a biofilm layer on the polymer surface, proving that it causes a change in the chemical structure of PE [26]. With this information, it is easy to understand the degradation mechanisms of PEs.
To provide support to this claim, CI was determined to consider the degradation of the PE. CI is constantly used to assess the surface oxidation level of polymers, especially for polypropylene and polyethylene [66,67]. Carboxyl indices of 50 µm PE and 150 µm PE carboxyl indices for ST3 and ST6 were determined as 1.888, 0.748, 1.905, and 0.522, respectively (Table 3).

3.4. Morphology of Microplastics

Physical, chemical, and biological factors such as surface area, degrees of crystallinity, and molecular weight play an essential role to assess the degradation of polymer molecules [26,68]. SEM scans of raw and incubated PE-MPs revealed particles of various sizes and shapes, as shown in Figure 8. Having irregular folds in the polymer structure of raw polyethylene supports the formation of biofilms by adhesion of microorganisms to the surface.

4. Discussion

Enzymes secreted by thermophilic microorganisms have recently been of great importance in biotechnology [69]. One of these enzymes, alpha amylase, is widely used in biotechnology for many different purposes [70]. Both thermophilic microorganisms used in this study were good amylase producers. Therefore, they may be important from a biotechnological point of view.
The results revealed that particles with a diameter of 50 µm deteriorated significantly. In contrast to the findings of this study, polyethylene particles were known as less oxidized polymers, making them more robust than other polymers [67]. PE is relatively inert due to its hydrophobicity, and possible degradation of this polymer by microorganisms leads to losses of its properties including structural and mechanical deformations [71]. Until recently, only a few of the bacteroids including Klebsiella, Micrococcus Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, and Streptococcus were identified as polymer degradation microbial species [72]. The recent studies on the biodegradation of MPs using different microbial degraders have increased [73]. For example, Enterobacter and Pseudomonas exhibited significant biodegradation of plastics, showing up to 15% weight loss in 120 days [74]. Similarly, Maroof et al. (2021) also revealed that a new bacterial strain, B. siamensis, showed a degradation ability with a percentage of 8.46% LDPE after 90 d of incubation [75].
However, the current analytical methods for the detection of polymer degradation seem very obscure due to the fact that the weight loss and surface structure changes resulting from the degradation of additives [28]. In this regard, the carbonyl index offers a great opportunity as a robust, reliable method to assess the biodegradability of polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene. Although the carbonyl index has been widely used to observe the oxidation reactions that take place on the polymer, only a few studies, to the best of our knowledge, have looked at the carbonyl index of microbially decomposed microplastics. The determination of the carbonyl index makes it easier to measure and identify degradation level; hence, it shows a strong correlation with the average molecular weight of the polymers [76]. Dey et al. (2020) reported a 20-fold increase in the carbonyl index by investigating the catabolic repertoire of natural bacteria for plastic biodegradation in one of their studies [77]. Akarsu et al. (2022) also reported higher carbonyl indexes ranging from 0.23 to 0.53 [63]. Normally this means that ST3 and ST6 strains have better capability to degrade polyethylene compared to the microorganisms in their study.
Cracks and grooves were observed in this study as proof of the deterioration of the plastic beads because of the activity of the bacteria. Surface-level degradation was detected in higher 50 µm sized particles. Consistent with our findings, García-Depraect et al. (2022) also determined that a higher degradation level was detected at the lowest particle size tested [60].
Current research also revealed that the specific surface area of PE was higher than most polymers including polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) [78,79]. However, dimensional alterations, abnormalities, cracks, and/or holes were reported for both bacteria and PE sizes, as regards the length of all samples. This finding is consistent with earlier studies. Curiously, authors demonstrate the extent of bacterial colonization and degradation using SEM micrographs of erosions, voids, and pores formed in plastic films [61]. Similarly, Sowmya et al. (2015) reported the occurrence of holes, scions, and cracks on the surface of the PE with fungal consortia [80]. Moreover, some researchers also investigated the bacteria surface interactions [63,81]. According to this, the secretion of extracellular enzymes by the isolates results in the formation of a biofilm on the cell surface. Consequently, enzymes entering the polymer pores weaken the polymer properties [82].

5. Conclusions

The environmental pollution caused by plastics poses a great threat to society, health, and the economy. The biodegradation potential of polyethylene can contribute to a better understanding of ways to promote the reduction of plastic and microplastic pollution. In this study, microplastics were efficiently used as a carbon source and degraded with two thermophilic bacteria. In addition, the relatively high levels of PE-MP degradation with alpha-amylase showed promising results.
FTIR and SEM analyses are the most used biodegradation detection methods. FTIR results indicated that the decomposition of PEs resulted in the formation of functional groups. Consequently, SEM analysis showed disturbances such as scions and holes.
The degradation performance of microplastics with various physical and chemical properties must still be further investigated in future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A., M.F., L.D. and N.D.; methodology, S.Ö., C.A. and Ö.A.; formal analysis, C.A., M.F., L.D. and N.D.; data curation, S.Ö. and C.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A., M.F., L.D. and N.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. López-Pedrouso, M.; Varela, Z.; Franco, D.; Fernandez, J.A.; Aboal, J.R. Can proteomics contribute to biomonitoring of aquatic pollution? A critical review. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Othman, A.R.; Hasan, H.A.; Muhamad, M.H.; İsmail, N.I.; Abdullah, S.R.S. Microbial degradation of microplastics by enzymatic processes: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 3057–3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dang, T.C.H.; Nguyen, D.T.; Thai, H.; Nguyen, T.C.; Tran, T.T.H.; Le, V.H.; Nguyen, V.H.; Tran, X.B.; Pham, T.P.T.; Nguyen, T.G.; et al. Plastic degradation by thermophilic Bacillus sp. BCBT21 isolated from composting agricultural residual in Vietnam. Adv. Nat. Sci. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 015014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme, Beat Plastic Pollution. Available online: https://www.unep.org/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  5. Singh, P.; Sharma, V.P. Integrated Plastic Waste Management: Environmental and Improved Health Approaches. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Veiga, J.M.; Fleet, D.; Kinsey, S.; Nilsson, P.; Vlachogianni, T.; Werner, S.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Dagevos, J.; Gago, J.; et al. Identifying of Sources Marine Litter, MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nizzetto, L.; Futter, M.; Langaas, S. Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 10777–10779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Qi, R.; Jones, D.L.; Li, Z.; Liu, Q.; Yan, C. Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, J.; Green, C.; Reynolds, A.; Shi, H.; Rotchell, J.M. Microplastics in mussels sampled from coastal waters and supermarkets in the United Kingdom. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 241, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moore, C.J. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 2018, 108, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lechner, A.; Ramler, D. The discharge of certain amounts of industrial microplastic from a production plant into the River Danube is permitted by the Austrian legislation. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 200, 159–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ugwu, K.; Herrera, A.; Gómez, M. Microplastics in marine biota: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 169, 112540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Akarsu, C.; Kumbur, H.; Gökdağ, K.; Kıdeyş, A.E.; Sanchez-Vidal, A. Microplastics composition and load from three wastewater treatment plants discharging into Mersin Bay, north eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gallagher, A.; Rees, A.; Rowe, R.; Stevens, J.; Wright, P. Microplastics in the Solent estuarine complex, UK: An initial assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 102, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, X.; Yuan, W.; Di, M.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. Transfer and fate of microplastics during the conventional activated sludge process in one wastewater treatment plant of China. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 362, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lv, X.; Dong, Q.; Zuo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Huang, X.; Wu, W. Microplastics in a municipal wastewater treatment plant: Fate, dynamic distribution, removal efficiencies, and control strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Habib, R.Z.; Thiemann, T.; Al-Kendi, R. Microplastics and wastewater treatment plants—A review. J. Water Res. Prot. 2020, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Miloloža, M.; Cvetnić, M.; Kučić Grgić, D.; Bulatovic, V.O.; Ukic, S.; Rogosic, M.; Dionysiou, D.D.; Kusic, H.; Bolanca, T. Biotreatment strategies for the removal of microplastics from freshwater systems. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 1377–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carr, S.A.; Liu, J.; Tesoro, A.G. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2016, 91, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sol, D.; Laca, A.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Microplastics in Wastewater and Drinking Water Treatment Plants: Occurrence and Removal of Microfibres. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lassen, C.; Hansen, S.F.; Magnusson, K.; Hartmann, N.B.; Jensen, P.R.; Nielsen, T.G.; Brinch, A. Microplastics: Occurrence, Effects and Sources of Releases to the Environment in Denmark; Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015; ISBN 978-87-93352-80-3. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mahon, A.M.; O’Connell, B.; Healy, M.G.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R.; Nash, R.; Morrison, L. Microplastics in sewage sludge: Effects of treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 810–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Blair Espinoza, R.M. Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Systems and Receiving Waters. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  25. Atanasova, N.; Stoitsova, S.; Paunova-Krasteva, T.; Kambourova, M. Plastic Degradation by Extremophilic Bacteria. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wilkes, R.A.; Aristilde, L. Degradation and metabolism of synthetic plastics and associated products by Pseudomonas sp.: Capabilities and challenges. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 123, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Yuan, J.; Ma, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, T.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, F. Microbial degradation and other environmental aspects of microplastics/plastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ghatge, S.; Yang, Y.; Ahn, J.H.; Hur, H. Biodegradation of polyethylene: A brief review. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2020, 63, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arkatkar, A.; Juwarkar, A.A.; Bhaduri, S.; Uppara, P.V.; Doble, M. Growth of Pseudomonas and Bacillus biofilms on pretreated polypropylene surface. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2010, 64, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tribedi, P.; Sil, A.K. Low-density polyethylene degradation by Pseudomonas sp. AKS2 biofilm. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2013, 20, 4146–4153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gong, J.; Kong, T.; Li, Y.; Li, Q.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J. Biodegradation of Microplastic Derived from Poly(ethylene terephthalate) with Bacterial Whole-Cell Biocatalysts. Polymers 2018, 10, 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Chandra, P.; Enespa Singh, D.P. Microplastic degradation by bacteria in aquatic ecosystem. In Microorganisms for Sustainable Environment and Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 431–467. [Google Scholar]
  33. Auta, H.S.; Emenike, C.U.; Fauziah, S.H. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 2017, 102, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shah, A.A.; Hasan, F.; Hameed, A.; Ahmed, S. Biological degradation of plastics: A comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008, 26, 246–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Thakur, P. Screening of Plastic Degrading Bacteria from Dumped Soil Area. Master’s Thesis, Department of Life Science National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohan, A.J.; Sekhar, V.C.; Bhaskar, T.; Nampoothiri, K.M. Microbial assisted High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) degradation. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 213, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Auta, H.S.; Emenike, C.U.; Jayanthi, B.; Fauziah, S.H. Growth kinetics and biodeterioration of polypropylene microplastics by Bacillus sp. and Rhodococcus sp. isolated from mangrove sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 127, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, J.; Yang, Y.; Wu, W.M.; Zhao, J.; Jiang, L. Evidence of polyethylene biodegradation by bacterial strains from the guts of plastic-eating waxworms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 13776–13784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shah, Z.; Krumholz, L.; Aktas, D.F.; Hasan, F.; Khattak, M.; Shah, A.A. Degradation of polyester polyurethane by a newly isolated soil bacterium, Bacillus subtilis strain MZA-75. Biodegradation 2013, 24, 865–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, M.Y.; Kim, C.; Moon, J.; Heo, J.; Jung, S.P.; Kim, J.R. Polymer film-based screening and isolation of polylactic acid (PLA)-degrading microorganisms. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 27, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Miao, L.; Wang, P.; Hou, J.; Yao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, S.; Li, T. Distinct community structure and microbial functions of biofilms colonizing microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 2395–2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Uscátegui, Y.L.; Arévalo, F.R.; Díaz, L.E.; Cobo, M.I.; Valero, M.F. Microbial degradation, cytotoxicity and antibacterial activity of polyurethanes based on modified castor oil and polycaprolactone. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2016, 27, 1860–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Delacuvellerie, A.; Cyriaque, V.; Gobert, S.; Benali, S.; Wattiez, R. The plastisphere in marine ecosystem hosts potential specific microbial degraders including Alcanivorax borkumensis as a key player for the low-density polyethylene degradation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 380, 120899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Syranidou, E.; Karkanorachak, K.; Amorotti, F.; Repouskou, E.; Kroll, K.; Kolvenbach, B.; Corvini, P.F.-X.; Fava, F.; Kalogerakis, N. Development of tailored indigenous marine consortia for the degradation of naturally weathered polyethylene films. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Tareen, A.; Saeed, S.; Iqbal, A.; Batool, R.; Jamil, N. Biodeterioration of Microplastics: A Promising Step towards Plastics Waste Management. Polymers 2022, 14, 2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaushal, J.; Khatri, M.; Arya, K.S. Recent insight into enzymatic degradation of plastics prevalent in the environment: A mini—Review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 2, 100083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Qi, X.; Ren, Y.; Wang, X. New advances in the biodegradation of Poly(lactic) acid. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 117, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stepczynska, M.; Rytlewski, P. Enzymatic degradation of flax-fibers reinforced polylactide. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 126, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Barth, M.; Oeser, T.; Wei, R.; Then, J.; Schmidt, J.; Zimmermann, W. Effect of hydrolysis products on the enzymatic degradation of polyethylene terephthalate nanoparticles by a polyester hydrolase from Thermobifida fusca. Biochem. Eng. J. 2015, 93, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Acer, Ö.; Güven, K.; Poli, A.; Di Donato, P.; Leone, L.; Buono, L.; Finore, I. Acinetobacter mesopotamicus sp. nov., petroleum-degrading bacterium, isolated from petroleum-contaminated soil in Diyarbakir, in the southeast of Turkey. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 3192–3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Dussault, H.P. An improved technique for staining for halophilic bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 1955, 70, 484–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Lányi, B. Classical and rapid identifcation methods for medically important bacteria. Method Microbiol. 1988, 19, 1–67. [Google Scholar]
  53. Akarsu, C.; Özdemir, S.; Ozay, Y.; Acer, Ö.; Dizge, N. Investigation of two different size microplastic egradation ability of thermophilic bacteria using polyethylene polymers. Environ. Technol. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ozdemir, S.; Acer, O.; Kılınç, E. Bioaccumulation, tolerance, and removal of U (VI) and Th (IV) by a novel thermophilic Bacillus cereus ST14 isolated from hot spring mud samples in Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saitou, N.; Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987, 4, 406–425. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tamura, K.; Nei, M.; Kumar, S. Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 11030–11035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bäckström, E.; Odelius, K.; Hakkarainen, M. Trash to treasure: Microwave-assisted conversion of polyethylene to functional chemicals. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 14814–14821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Sun, J.; Dai, X.; Wang, Q.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Ni, B. Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res. 2019, 152, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. García-Depraect, O.; Lebrero, R.; Rodriguez-Vega, S.; Bordel, S.; Santos-Beneit, F.; Martínez-Mendoza, L.J.; Aragão Börner, R.; Börner, T.; Muñoz, R. Biodegradation of bioplastics under aerobic and anaerobic aqueous conditions: Kinetics, carbon fate and particle size effect. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chinaglia, S.; Tosin, M.; Degli-Innocenti, F. Biodegradation rate of biodegradable plastics at molecular level. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018, 147, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Oliveira, J.; Belchior, A.; da Silva, V.D.; Rotter, A.; Petrovski, Ž.; Almeida, P.L.; Lourenço, N.D.; Gaudêncio, S.P. Marine Environmental Plastic Pollution: Mitigation by Microorganism Degradation and Recycling Valorization. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 567126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Akarsu, C.; Sönmez, V.Z.; Altay, M.C.; Pehlivan, T.; Sivri, N. The spatial and temporal changes of beach litter on Istanbul (Turkey) beaches as measured by the clean-coast index. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 176, 113407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, X.; Shubella, R.; Ammidown, E.; Chenette, H.C.S. Characteerizing microplastic degradation in a simulated marine environment. J. Undergrad. Chem. Res. 2021, 20, 49. [Google Scholar]
  65. Idris, S.A.; Mkhatresh, O.A.; Heatley, F. Assignment of 1H NMR spectrum and investigation of oxidative degradation of poly(ethylenimine) using 1H and 13C 1-D and 2-D NMR. Polym. Int. 2006, 55, 1040–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Akarsu, C.; Madenli, Ö.; Deveci, E.Ü. Characterization of littered face masks in the southeastern part of Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 47517–47527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rodrigues, M.O.; Abrantes, N.; Gonçalves, F.J.M.; Nogueira, H.; Marques, J.C.; Gonçalves, A.M.M. Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in water and sediments of a freshwater system (Antuã River, Portugal). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1549–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wang, F.; Shih, K.M.; Li, X.Y. The partition behavior of perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanesulfonamide (FOSA) on microplastics. Chemosphere 2015, 119, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Berlemont, R.; Gerday, C. Extremophiles. In Comprehensive Biotechnology, 2nd ed.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 229–242. [Google Scholar]
  70. Koul, B.; Chaudhary, R.; Taak, P. Extremophilic microbes and their application in bioremediation of environmental contaminants. In Microbe Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants; Woodheadd Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2021; pp. 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  71. Agustien, A.; Jannah, M.; Djamaan, A. Screening Polyethylene Synthetic Plastic Degrading-Bacteria from Soil. Pharm. Lett. 2016, 8, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  72. Elahi, A.; Bukhari, D.A.; Shamim, S.; Rehman, A. Plastics degradation by microbes: A sustainable approach. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Miri, S.; Saini, R.; Davoodi, S.M.; Pulicharla, R.; Brar, S.K.; Magdouli, S. Biodegradation of microplastics: Better late than never. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Skariyachan, S.; Taskeen, N.; Kishore, A.P.; Krishna, B.V.; Naidu, G. Novel consortia of Enterobacter and Pseudomonas formulated from cow dung exhibited enhanced biodegradation of polyethylene and polypropylene. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Maroof, L.; Khan, I.; Yoo, H.S.; Kim, S.; Park, H.; Ahmad, B.; Azam, S. Identification and characterization of low density polyethylene-degrading bacteria isolated from soils of waste disposal sites. Environ. Eng. Res. 2021, 26, 200167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Andrady, A.L.; Pegram, J.E.; Tropsha, Y. Changes in Carbonyl Index and Average Molecular Weight on Embrittlement of Enhanced-Photodegradable Polyethylenes. J. Environ. Polym. Degrad. 1993, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dey, A.S.; Bose, H.; Mohapatra, B.; Sar, P. Biodegradation of Unpretreated Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) by Stenotrophomonas sp. and Achromobacter sp., Isolated from Waste Dumpsite and Drilling Fluid. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 603210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hüffer, T.; Hofmann, T. Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized plastic particles in aqueous solution. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 214, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Xu, B.; Liu, F.; Brookes, P.C.; Xu, J. Microplastics play a minor role in tetracycline sorption in the presence of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 240, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Sowmya, H.V.; Ramalingappa, B.; Nayanashree, G.; Thippeswamy, B.; Krishnappa, M. Polyethylene degradation by fungal consortium. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 9, 823–830. [Google Scholar]
  81. Gajendiran, A.; Krishnamoorthy, S.; Abraham, J. Microbial degradation of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) by Aspergillus clavatus strain JASK1 isolated from landfill soil. 3 Biotech 2016, 6, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Sheik, S.; Chandrashekar, K.R.; Swaroop, K.; Somashekarappa, H.M. Biodegradation of gamma irradiated low density polyethylene and polypropylene by endophytic fungi. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 105, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 10 02441 g001 550
Figure 1. Overview of the degradation of conventional plastic waste.
Figure 1. Overview of the degradation of conventional plastic waste.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g001
Microorganisms 10 02441 g002 550
Figure 2. Microplastic biodegradation detection methods in the laboratory.
Figure 2. Microplastic biodegradation detection methods in the laboratory.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g002
Microorganisms 10 02441 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of (a) temperature, (b) pH, (c) NaCI on microbial growth, and (d) microbial growth kinetics.
Figure 3. Effect of (a) temperature, (b) pH, (c) NaCI on microbial growth, and (d) microbial growth kinetics.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g003
Microorganisms 10 02441 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of (a) incubation time, (b) temperature, (c) pH on alpha-amylase production.
Figure 4. Effect of (a) incubation time, (b) temperature, (c) pH on alpha-amylase production.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g004
Microorganisms 10 02441 g005 550
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between strain ST3 and related taxa. The used outgroup was Metallosphaera sedula DSM 5348.
Figure 5. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between strain ST3 and related taxa. The used outgroup was Metallosphaera sedula DSM 5348.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g005
Microorganisms 10 02441 g006 550
Figure 6. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between strain ST6 and related taxa. The used outgroup was Metallosphaera sedula DSM 5348.
Figure 6. Phylogenetic tree depicting the relationships between strain ST6 and related taxa. The used outgroup was Metallosphaera sedula DSM 5348.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g006
Microorganisms 10 02441 g007 550
Figure 7. ATR-FTIR spectra in the region 600–1800 cm−1 of (a) 50 µm-sized and (b) 150 µm-sized PE-MPs inoculated with ST3 and ST6 strains.
Figure 7. ATR-FTIR spectra in the region 600–1800 cm−1 of (a) 50 µm-sized and (b) 150 µm-sized PE-MPs inoculated with ST3 and ST6 strains.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g007
Microorganisms 10 02441 g008 550
Figure 8. Surface changes of microbial degraded PE-MPs at magnifications of ×250.
Figure 8. Surface changes of microbial degraded PE-MPs at magnifications of ×250.
Microorganisms 10 02441 g008
Table
Table 1. Bacterial strains associated with microplastic degradation [27].
Table 1. Bacterial strains associated with microplastic degradation [27].
Genus-StrainSourceMP Type 1Duration Time (Day)Biodegradation Analysis MethodReferences
WeightingFTIRSEMOther 2
Bacillus 27Mangrove sedimentPP40++++[37]
Rhodococcus 36Mangrove sedimentPP40 [37]
Bacillus gottheiliiMangrove ecosystemsPE, PET, PP, PS40+++-[33]
Enterobacter asburiae YT1Plastic-eating waxwormsPE28++++[38]
Bacillus YP1Plastic-eating waxwormsPE28++++[38]
Bacillus subtilis MZA-75Soil samplesPUR28-+++[39]
PseudomonasDigester sludgePLA40--++[40]
Bacillus MYK2Digester sludgePLA40--++[40]
PirellulaceaseFresh waterPE, PP21---+[41]
Escherichia coli-PU3+-++[42]
Alcanivorax borkumensisFloating plastics in oceansPET, LDPE, PS1–6++--[43]
Lysinibacillus sp.Plastic samples at surface waterPE180+++-[44]
Alcaligenes faecalisMunicipal dumpsitesLDPE, HDPE, PES15+++-[45]
Bacillus cereusMunicipal dumpsitesLDPE, HDPE, PES15+++-[45]
1 LDPE: Low-density polyethylene; HDPE: High-density polyethylene; PES: Polyethersulfone; PET: Poly Ethylene Terephtalate; PLA: Polylactic acid; PS: Polystryene; PU: Polyurethane. 2 Other analysis methods include atomic force microscopy, gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy, and tensile strength.
Table
Table 2. Differential phenotypical characteristics of the strains ST3 and ST6 (-: not secreted; +: moderate secreted; ++: good secreted; +++: excellent secreted).
Table 2. Differential phenotypical characteristics of the strains ST3 and ST6 (-: not secreted; +: moderate secreted; ++: good secreted; +++: excellent secreted).
CharacterizationStrain ST3Strain ST6
Motility++
Gram++
Spore++
NaCl range (%, w/v)1–7.51–7.5
NaCl optimum (%, w/v)2.5–51–5
Temperature growth range45–9045–90
Optimum temperature (°C)55–6055–60
pH growth range4.5–8.55.5–9.0
Optimum pH5.5–6.06.0
Urease-+
β-galactosidase++
Amylase+++++
Protease-+
Catalase+++
Oxidase++
Citrate++
Phosphate++
Acid production from:
 -Glucose++
 -Lactose++
 -Sucrose++
Table
Table 3. CI values of raw and incubated PE-MPs.
Table 3. CI values of raw and incubated PE-MPs.
PolyethyleneRawST3ST6
50 µm0.7091.8881.905
150 µm0.3700.7480.522
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Özdemir, S.; Akarsu, C.; Acer, Ö.; Fouillaud, M.; Dufossé, L.; Dizge, N. Isolation of Thermophilic Bacteria and Investigation of Their Microplastic Degradation Ability Using Polyethylene Polymers. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2441. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122441

AMA Style

Özdemir S, Akarsu C, Acer Ö, Fouillaud M, Dufossé L, Dizge N. Isolation of Thermophilic Bacteria and Investigation of Their Microplastic Degradation Ability Using Polyethylene Polymers. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(12):2441. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122441

Chicago/Turabian Style

Özdemir, Sadin, Ceyhun Akarsu, Ömer Acer, Mireille Fouillaud, Laurent Dufossé, and Nadir Dizge. 2022. "Isolation of Thermophilic Bacteria and Investigation of Their Microplastic Degradation Ability Using Polyethylene Polymers" Microorganisms 10, no. 12: 2441. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10122441

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop