>The Kyoto researchers identified the gene in the bacteria's DNA that is responsible for the PET-digesting enzyme. They then were able to manufacture more of the enzyme and then demonstrate that PET could be broken down with the enzyme alone.
Sounds like this is quite a big step forward in our ability to reduce plastics to more base elements.
Has anyone caught what the exact output of this process is? Some waste must be excreted by these microbes, right?
Well if these genes exist somewhere, and we commercialize them. Is it not a matter of time until these genes become more common in bacteria in general and then we can no longer use plastics, I guess then we would have to put some antibacterial in plastics too. Like say a long time period.
> Mincer said: "I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
How it's better is that recycling is really just downcycling. Recycled plastics are of worse quality and are put to inferior uses. Plastic bottles that are recycled are not only melted but also shredded. Over multiple recyclings, the shredding reduces the molecular length and therefore qualities like tensile strength. The mixing of different plastics also degrades quality.
So then this bacterial approach provides a potential exit path for plastic that has been recycled too many times to be of any decent use any more.
It sounds like these particular bacteria do a better job of breaking down plastic than what happens to "biodegradable" plastic when it is left out in the elements namely turning into "plastic dust" that hangs around.
Everyone seems to see this as a good thing, but think of terrible it would be if all the plastic items around you decomposed like wood. Sure, it would be beneficial for garbage and litter to "go away," but just think of how much more plastic we would need to use if every plastic item needed to be replaced every 10 years. I think it might have a significant impact on recycling as well - "rotten" plastic might be unrecylable, leading to even more use of virgin (?) plastic.
A lot of them do, if exposed to sunlight. Put a plastic water bottle or shopping bag out where it will get daily exposure to the sun. It doesn't take too long (e.g. less than a year?) before it first gets brittle and crumbly and then disintegrates completely.
I'm a bit confused. In the article it has these 2 statements:
> "...enzyme breaks it down even further, providing the bacteria with carbon and energy to grow."
> "I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
Is it degrading it to basic elements such as carbon, or is the bacteria just breaking the plastic down into smaller, microscopic pieces? If the bacteria actually breaks the plastic down to base components, then that is undoubtedly different than melting and recycling the plastic. There could be incubation centers that focus on reproducing this bacteria at mass scale and then releasing them into dumps to break down the plastic that is mixed in with the garbage.
According to another piece I saw on this [0], the reaction products are ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid. Both of those are useful industrial chemicals, though not things you'd want to eat yourself.
ETA: The Gizmag article characterizes these chemicals as "environmentally harmless", which might be a slight exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if terephthalic acid turned out to be an endocrine disruptor, given its benzene ring. But neither chemical is acutely toxic.
> putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones
This can't be done with the type of plastic used to make bottles. Plastic bottles are either reused as-is, or "downcycled" to lower grade plastic used for different products, like fleece clothing or fiberboards.
What's the issue with having plastic in dumps? IMO, they dumps are one of the few carbon sinks humans actually use. Releasing that carbon seems to be a waste.
If we're thinking about the same thing - that 'island of plastic' turned out to be incredibly diffuse - something like a few particles of plastic per cubic meter.
My username is a reference to Project Wildfire from "The Andromeda Strain". In the novel, Andromeda mutates into something that can consume rubber -- the same materials used throughout the world as seals against contagion.
So, yeah, if life imitates art it could get pretty interesting.
What are you talking about? So far this was just a discovery of an already existing bacterium. They identified it and studied it a little bit. I find no plans for "helping this new bacteria thrive" anywhere in the article.
Sounds like a great discovery until you get to the end of the article
> Mincer said the study was impressive and did a good job showing that these organisms were eating the plastic pretty well.
> However, he said it was not immediately clear whether or not it would help keep plastics out of the ocean, for example.
"When I think it through, I don't really know where it gets us," he said. "
>I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
> I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
You don't have to waste money and energy sorting bottles out of the trash if you can just dump a bunch of this bacteria in your landfill.
The problem with recycling is that it's economics hinges on the price of oil. The recycling industry where I am (Northern California) has collapsed with the decline in the price of oil[1]. It would be better to use regulation to force recycling but in the absence of that a way to simply dispose of plastic bottles seems excellent.
It would nice if the bacteria would be put in dormant form on the bottle labels, making bottles pseudo-biodegradable.
My first thought when I read this headline was, "Thank God. We're going to need this in weaponized form when the robots take over." Next up, bacteria that eats carbon fiber...
Reminds me a bit of one of the plot points of the Ringworld novels. Our world runs on plastic; I wonder what would happen if a massively successful plastic-eating bacteria took off.
[+] [-] unprepare|10 years ago|reply
>The Kyoto researchers identified the gene in the bacteria's DNA that is responsible for the PET-digesting enzyme. They then were able to manufacture more of the enzyme and then demonstrate that PET could be broken down with the enzyme alone.
Sounds like this is quite a big step forward in our ability to reduce plastics to more base elements.
Has anyone caught what the exact output of this process is? Some waste must be excreted by these microbes, right?
[1] http://phys.org/news/2016-03-plastic-munching-bacteria-fuel-...
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulmalenke|10 years ago|reply
Teen Decomposes Plastic Bag in Three Months: http://www.wired.com/2008/05/teen-decomposes/
[+] [-] sveme|10 years ago|reply
(Note to self: when using "talking" URLs in a future web app, use the whole article title, not just a snippet)
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
How it's better is that recycling is really just downcycling. Recycled plastics are of worse quality and are put to inferior uses. Plastic bottles that are recycled are not only melted but also shredded. Over multiple recyclings, the shredding reduces the molecular length and therefore qualities like tensile strength. The mixing of different plastics also degrades quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling
So then this bacterial approach provides a potential exit path for plastic that has been recycled too many times to be of any decent use any more.
It sounds like these particular bacteria do a better job of breaking down plastic than what happens to "biodegradable" plastic when it is left out in the elements namely turning into "plastic dust" that hangs around.
[+] [-] mason240|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|10 years ago|reply
A paint can also protect stuff for a long time.
[+] [-] facepalm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanniabu|10 years ago|reply
> "...enzyme breaks it down even further, providing the bacteria with carbon and energy to grow."
> "I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
Is it degrading it to basic elements such as carbon, or is the bacteria just breaking the plastic down into smaller, microscopic pieces? If the bacteria actually breaks the plastic down to base components, then that is undoubtedly different than melting and recycling the plastic. There could be incubation centers that focus on reproducing this bacteria at mass scale and then releasing them into dumps to break down the plastic that is mixed in with the garbage.
[+] [-] ScottBurson|10 years ago|reply
ETA: The Gizmag article characterizes these chemicals as "environmentally harmless", which might be a slight exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if terephthalic acid turned out to be an endocrine disruptor, given its benzene ring. But neither chemical is acutely toxic.
[0] http://www.gizmag.com/pet-enzyme-plastic-waste/42262/
[+] [-] mortehu|10 years ago|reply
This can't be done with the type of plastic used to make bottles. Plastic bottles are either reused as-is, or "downcycled" to lower grade plastic used for different products, like fleece clothing or fiberboards.
http://www.greenhome.com/blog/what-is-downcycling
[+] [-] Retric|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnm1019|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amatus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbattle|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SixSigma|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nataliam511|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyldfire|10 years ago|reply
So, yeah, if life imitates art it could get pretty interesting.
[+] [-] logfromblammo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] restalis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmajunkie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaonashi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] appleflaxen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsmithatx|10 years ago|reply
> Mincer said the study was impressive and did a good job showing that these organisms were eating the plastic pretty well.
> However, he said it was not immediately clear whether or not it would help keep plastics out of the ocean, for example. "When I think it through, I don't really know where it gets us," he said. "
>I don't see how microbes degrading plastics is any better than putting plastic bottles in a recycling bin so they can be melted down to make new ones."
[+] [-] awda|10 years ago|reply
You don't have to waste money and energy sorting bottles out of the trash if you can just dump a bunch of this bacteria in your landfill.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|10 years ago|reply
The problem with recycling is that it's economics hinges on the price of oil. The recycling industry where I am (Northern California) has collapsed with the decline in the price of oil[1]. It would be better to use regulation to force recycling but in the absence of that a way to simply dispose of plastic bottles seems excellent.
It would nice if the bacteria would be put in dormant form on the bottle labels, making bottles pseudo-biodegradable.
[1] http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5288760-181/recycling-cent...
[+] [-] jonstokes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gardano|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhandley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xivzgrev|10 years ago|reply
"Life, uh, always finds a way"
The danger of humans is whether we give life enough time.