Biodegradable Plastics

Further research needed to meet environmental mandate

Christopher Rivard, PhD.
(1). Agents such as ultraviolet stabilizers

Abstract
Rpcent encironmental interest has prompted legislation mandating the production and
use of biodgradableplastics. *However,the degradation or destruction of commercial
piustic formulations is contra? to the history of their development. Simply blending
biodegradable natural polymers with non- biodegradable plastic polymers may not
meet Ute biodegradation mandate. The appropriate solution may involve a fresh
cipproach to the chemism of plastic formulations.

m t research in plastic formulation

focused on extending the useful
lifetime of plastic polymers. usuallv
stabilizing these structures to photoand biological-mediated degradation I1 ).
Comriicrcial plastic formulations do not.
in Keneral. support microbial growth However. with ctnestimated 320 billion pounds
of municipal solid wastes (MSW) being
produced and discarded each year in the
United States (2). plastic biodegradation
has become an important issue.
The major bulk of the waste material
currently is either landfilled or b u m e d
[ h e to public concern over hazardous
emissions from combustion processes, as
well iis the decreased initiation or siting of
lie** Inridfills and closure of mature landfill
sites, interest in o!temative waste dis~ O S processes
RI
and waste reduction hy
recvcling ha9 increased
.Although the composition of MSW varies
with rrspect to location. season and time
of day. the major components are biodegradcrblc. These are cellulose (paper),
lignoceUulosics (sawdust. wood. p a s s c l i p
pings, cardboard) and food wastes (3-7).
Other components, such as glass and
metals. are non-biodegradable b u t may be
removed and recycled Plastics constitute
4-7% of the MSW materials and are considered inert to biological degradation
processes occurring naturally in landfills
or in biological conversion processes designed to convert the waste to useful fuels.
The plastics industry has devoted significant c.ffort to increase the stability of
plastic formulations. The resulting plastic
materials do not degrade in landfills and
are. therefore, of environmental concern
Many states currently are coneidering, or
have passed, legislation requiring mandatory recycling of garbage (8). In 1986.
Riiode Island hecame the first to require

curbside recycling of newsprint, glass,

metals and plastic.
Public concern. in fact, has generated a
movement to ban non-biodegradable plastics. Berkeley. Calif., for instance, recently
instituted a ban on non-biodegradable
packaging in takeout food operations (9).
Manystates(l1 todate) arerequiringthat
biodegradable plastics be used in six-pack
beverage carriers which may constitute as
much as 50 million pounds of polymer
(9).
Such recent legislation and public concern has affected many major U.S. corporations (8).McDonalds recently banned
foam plastic containers made with chlorofluorocarbons, Burger King has switched
to biodegradable paper packaging and
Coca-Cola Co. has decided to postpone
use of the plastic can
Spokespersons for the plastics industry
believe that government is attempting to
solve the litter problem by mandating the
use of plastics which are fully biodegradable (9.10). Self-destructing plastics have
uses beyond dissipating litter, however.
Plastic sheeting with predetermined life
span, for example, is of great interest and
economic significance ( I 1) for a variety of
agricultural purposes.

Historical perspective
Over the past century plastic formulations
have been developed to resist deterioration and provide long service. To achieve
the desired durability, various agents have
been developed to reduce microbial degradation and photo-oxidation
T h e resistance of plastic polymers to
biodegradation may be due to the unavailability of chain ends for initial oxidation
by microbial enzymes. Elaetic formulations are hydrophobic in nature and
therefore conditions favorable to microbial enzymes, such as wfitrr ahaorption.
swelling arid proper pfi, twe noc present

and biocides may be added in processing

to further decrease photo-oxidation or
microbial attack.
Plastic formulations include polyolefis.
polyesters and polyurethanes. Addition.
ally, plasticizers have been developed to
modify the natural properties of plastic
formulations. For example, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC)is hard. stiff and stronp: its
properties can be modified, however, t ~ v
incorporating various natural or synthetic
oils. This resula in a more flexible material
suitable for films, insulation tor electrical
wire or raincoats.

Biodegradation potential
of standard formulations
Although most plastic formulations are
not biodegradable. microbial growth especially fungal, may occur. Such growth
will degrade a products appearance and
often require its replacement. Research
has sought to develop reliable and reproducible protocols for determining biodegradation potential and identifying the
microorganisms responsible for such activity.
The majority of microorganiams responsible for plastic biodegradation are
fungal and aie found in soil (12). Current
test protocols involve the use of pure
culturesoffungit 13-15)and soil inoculum
(16,17). Of the standard plastic for.
mulations used today, polyurethane has
greater potential for micro1)iai degradation than polyester. Polyester. in turn. has
greater potential than polyethylene (11.
Even polyethylene, however. may be biodegraded to some extent if it is subjected
to photo-oxidation, which produces carbonyl groups or accessible polymer chain
ends that are sites for microbial attack
(18).

Plasticizers are made of various natural

and synthetic oils which are significantly
more biodegradable than plastic formulations (19-211. In general. lie microbial degradation of plastic copolymers,
which employ plasticizers. is due to microbial attackon the plasticizer component
which results in the subsequent loss of
elasticity of the copolvmer.
In summary. very few plastic polymer
formulations can be degraded aierobially, and most microhid gymvth thRt
does w c u r is ~ I J tPo 1 tip vti1im::m c!f pinuticlzeis used
ii!l:rc~seelafiticity.
. ,

Alternative approaches
While it is comparatively easy to dispose
~ u c hmaterials as paper, cardboard,
w w d . glass and metals, stabilized plastic
Iormulations are water insoluble, nom biodegradatile nnd often unsinkable when
disposed of tit $ea Research interest. in
biodegradable plastics began KIthe 1!46Os.
but WIN discontinued with the oil crisis of
1973 in favor of plastic recycling efforts
designed to reduce dependence on petroleum-baaed products.
In the late 19HOs, interest in plastic disposal resurfaced, this time due to the cost
of mrinicipal solid waste disposal, and
c m c e m for cycling of carbon in the environment. The development t)f biode
gradable p l a s t i n has branched into three
distinct ureas: photo self-destruction, co;)olymerP t)f piastic and cellulose or starch,
iind niiclot)iullv derived materials which
liemoii-ti.aie high degradation rates.
Photo self-destruction. The photooxidation and subsequent loss of durability
i n pltistir formulutions has been posruiored B J .I iTit~c'hIIiliYmfor destruction of
cmmmcrc!iil plastics. Depending upon t e i perature. normul plastic films have been
estimated to take three months to three
years to photo-degrade (9).
Plastics disposed of in landfills, however, are rarely exposed to sunlight for any
appreciable time before additional garbage or soil is added for cover. Therefore,
photo-oxidation does not play an important role in disposaL Plastics that photo
self-destruct are important, especially in
t h e sgictiltiiial field where plastic films
serve a variety of specialized purposes,
many intended to create controlled environments for growing crops.
These thin plastic films use a photostabilizing agent for a predetermined active
period ( 11). When that time is up, the
photo-lrtabilirer becomes inactive and
further exposure t o sunlight causes photooxidarion of the plastic polymer and loss
of structural integrity. Photo-oxidation
results in carbonyl end formation which
increases the further biological breakdown of the plastic film.
Plastic copolymers. T h e mixture of
plastic polymers with natural polymers
known lor considered) to be readily hiodegradable. such as cellulose and starch.
improves the biodegradation of the C*
polymer R Y a whole (9,22). 'These iiuniral
polymers are available in great supply and
may he less costly than oil-derived component plastics. However, the percentage of
natural biodegradable polymer required
tu achieve significant biodegradation of
the copolymer, and thus pollution control,
hae been estimated a t 30-50% (9).
A t these high natural polymer addition
rates. the copolymer is difficult to process
and loss of physical properties is evident
.January/ February 1% 1
(jt'

h o b c o u r ( e 9 of W a d g o n e 'Technologier i n c

Additional research is needed to determine the exact amount of natural polymer

that should be used to optimize not only
biodegradabikry, bur. ais0 the retention of
the deslred physical properties and production p u a m e t e r s of t h e copolymer.

Microbial derived plastics

producmg PHBV copolymers tor specidtv

applications (9). Research in I he mlcrobial production of tailored high ~ t i l i i e ,
special-property. materials IS onpoirig both
at IC1 and by university-industrv c'cioperative ventures.
Copolymers produced today vary from
products similar to unplasticized P\'C or
polystyrene, to soft and flexible products
like polyethylene. Their most simificaiit
property is their biodegredabilitv. 'l'hin
films of PHBV degrade i n 1 0 d a w in
anaerobic sewage treatment plilrit3 d n d
one year in landfills 19).
Costs remain high, however. ( 'irrrent
production cost at the 1,000 ton/nionth
plant is $15/pound and the estimated h i dustrial price is Sl/pound, which is still
higher than polyethylene terephthtilitte
(PET) a n d polystyrene beads at a . 6 5 - ( . ( I
and $.(iO:pountl. ~cspectivelv131.

A different approach calls for production

of "new" polymers. Polyhydroxy butyrate
(PHB, 2 3 ) is a n alphatic. polyester h o m e
polymer wkch is stored aa an energy reserve
in the ceils of many bacteria including
Alcaligenes rutrophrw (24). This bacterium can be grown 111 large fermentation
vessels on a variety of substrates w d the
polymer (PHB) can be easily separnted
from the cells.
T h e physical properties of PHI3 are
comparable to those of polypropylene.
although it is stlffer and more brittle ( 2 5 1
This drawback can be overconie by induc- Need for future research
ing the bacterium to rwoduce corxilvmers
Since World War II, the plastics i r d t i a r r - v
of-PttB end polyhydroxyvalertk (k'ti\'J
has grown bv producing i n c r e a s i ~ i & i~i I ( J 1 t'
( 2 6 ) . These copolymers have a random
durable products. The oil-derived plti~ii(.
structure. reduced stiffness and increased
polymers are cheaper than comliarntilr
impact strength Hy producing copolymers
natural polymers arid syntheric pl~isrics
withvaryingproportionsoCPHV, the stiffness and strength 0 1 the material can be can be produced with relativt. eiisv N I I ~
consistent quality. Hiodegradut~iliivr i i ~ i s
exactly determined MY appropriute to the
contrary to their originally foriiiul~ted
application
IC1hns a pilot plant operation in England propei.tieu. mid the indusrn I i , i \ t ~ 1~t
.,;
.., I
Journal of Environmental Health

riowledged that new chemistries now are

required (9).
Obviously. there is n need for biodegradat)le plastics and several avenues
t,urreritly are available for their developtrient. 'I'he production of copolymers of
plastics and natural polymers provide one
s u c h nwctlnnism. by increasine the frngrnentation of plnstic polymers And thus
increasing the su tlsequent plastic biodegradation
The development of naturd polymers
with tiiodeprndable capabilities. such as
P H H . P H V and copolymers o f the two,
d s o is important However, a great deal of
resetwcti is needed to improve the physird properties of plastic copolymers (or
naturiil ru)lvmers). while reducing their
ibrod\irt ion r o s t s t o levels competitive
:vitli c w m w t l y used oil-based plastic formulations. Cl
Hcfereaces
I

KIniiqm*.!er. KE, and C.C. A n d r e w ( 19R1). Planti<

Iii .Ificrobio, Hrorbfenorotirrn V o l 6. AH.
l{fmt-. I.:d.. Academic Preas. Krw York K.Y pp.
T

121 46.4

2 'I'hawr. A hl 119HR). Solid Wnate Conrrrn Spur

Plastir. I t r q cling Efforts. ( . k m E r y r .sic*u<r6 i : i .
15.
:I ['s. Envimnmental hoccetion Agenry I I R R 4 ) .
Ilrnource Recover?. and Waste Reduction. 7hvd
Hvporrfn ( onpresn. Pub. h o . SW-161. Waahinp

ton.

D.C.

4 . Hanaelriia

F. (19841, Varishility

of Municipal

Solid Wante and Emissions from itn Combustion

ASME Sohi WasteI+ormsuly C'oqkwhrp, Orlando.

Fls
5. Haraelriia F. 11984). What i n Municipal Solid
U'aate? In Rpfise.l)entrd &'UP( Pmcesrmg. Ann
Arbor Science, Boaton Mass
6. Schwanz S.C.and C R Brunnrr l19R3). Solid
Wsste: Quantitv and Componition In E n c r p ond
Hcsource Hccotper).f" H'astr.hove0 Data ('orp.
7 Evann KJ. and T.A Milne 1 1 9 R i l . Liquid Fuels
from the Pyrolysis of Miinictpal Solid Waste and
ita Componentr: Rapid Product Charactenration
and Process Parameter Screenmg by Molecular
Beam. Mans Spectrometq. Elecrnfh Swnpoaium
on h r w b m Biomassund IC;istrs. IGT. Ckcano.
8. Hen. LE.. hlS. Cold and C . 0 Hell 11987). War
on 1)isposables. AioFrL. 2R:46
9 . Smock D. ( 1987). Are Hiodepradahle Plastics the
Anawrr to Littefl!. Plnsllcs Mhrld 4k28.33.
IO. Anonymous (19861. Uiodegradables to Worsen
Problem. ('hem. I n d 17:564.
11. Gilead. D. 11985). Plnsticn that Self Destruct.
('hemtech 15:299-30 1.
12. (brlenko. h t (19831, Some Bio1ogw.l Anpects of
Riodeterioratlon In BodelPnoraion 5 , John Wiley
and Sons. Chiehenter. England pp. 578-581
13. Darbj. RT. and A.M. Kaplan(l9fiR).Fungal Susceptibilttv of Polyurethane*. AppL Microbrol
16:900.
1 4 . Pathirana RA. and K J . Seal (1943). Gliocladium
roseum ( hainier). a potential hiodeieriogen of

polyester polyurethane elastomera In Llrodetmorolron.5. John Wiley and Sons. Chichester. England
pp. 6 7 9 4 8 9 .
15. Shutdewotth W.A.andKJ. Seal(1986). ARapid

Technique for Evaluating the Riodeterioratlon

Potential of Polyurethane Elastomers. Appl Mir.

mbtol Erotcrhnnf 2 3.4 (Ii - 4 0 9.

16 SuaatL R H , D P O'Grady. S Banerpe. P fl
Howard P H and W E Cledtull ( 19Pl). Shake
Rank Biodepadshon of 14 Commercial Phthalate
Entera, AppL Enuimn Micmbiol 47 601 .606
I; S e a l K J , M PantkenndD AllsoppIlYB6).Mic.
robial Testing of Plasucs. KunsLstoff~. Grrmnn
Mnsfrcs 76:22.
18 Albemnon A-C.. S 0 Andernnon and S Karlsson
(1987). The Mechaninm of Aiodegrsdntion of
Polylethylene. Pokmfr IJr#mdorton ond Sfnbth@

18:;B-R;.
19. Stahl W.H.and H. Pcsien (19531. Microbial
1)eRradation of Plaaticuern. Appl Micmbiol 1 3 0
20. DeCoste. J . B (I9AR). Soil Burial Reaiotancc of
Vinyl Chloride Plastics. Indusfrtnl and EnginwrIIIK L'hemtstty Product Research and IJetwlopmenf
7.2.39.247,
2 1 . Klauamcier. R.E. and

E.1 damiaon ( 1 9 i 3 ) . A
Hepid Method for Estlmatlon of Microbial Depadation of Plastics. [ k i d o p m e n t . ~in [n f u s t n n i
.Ifirrobtolo@ I 4 :2SP3-2G3.
22. Nsrayan. R. (19ARl. Preparation of Rio.Rased
poiymern for Matenals Appiicatlw. Appl lhrherrr
Biotech 17;7.22.
23. Lemoipne. M.(19271. hlicmbisl Autolynis and the
Autolytic Origin of heta.hydrox?tinir~rir acid.
Ann. Inst Pastcur 41:14R
24. Schlepel. httnchnlk and von Barta (1961). Formation and Lkil:ration of Polv-bemhvdroxybut\nr
Acid hv b a l l g a ~Bacteria I H i d r o p ~ n n m o r r o s ~ .
.VotuT 191 463

25. Westlake. 1t.P 119871. Riopol - The Contrihiilion of il Hirjdepadnhie Thrrr"pisu:ic 1') the
ReryclinE Issue. h'rimcnuk und I A . : Z , ~ I I ~ U 5 . ; t . V r l i F
40:20.1 '21'4

26. Holmes I' A I 19S51. .\ppbrniions of P H R ~-A

Microhiulii I ' Y ~ tI t r ~l ! I i r & p n r i H i ) l P
'I'hrr.
moplastir. / ' * : \ , \ , ~ \ I * ~ 1 . ' i v r , , v ~ . \ l t i : :.'..<6.

. .