You’re caught up.

Home/Issues/Issue 10/Study

In vitro adsorption study with molecular dynamics simulation Online publication date confirmed against the PubMed publication date field, ahead of the April 2023 print issue.

Three common plastics stuck to lactic acid bacteria in a tube, and the smallest particles stuck hardest

AI narration, generated on first listen
Journal
Chemosphere 320:138038
Authors
Zhao L, Dou Q, Chen S, Yang Q
Institution
Henan Normal University
Published
1 February 2023
Source
PMID 36736839 · DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138038
Design
In vitro adsorption experiments with three plastic types, particle size and hydrophobicity comparisons, separate testing of cell components, and molecular dynamics simulation of the binding forces.
Sample
Lactic acid bacteria isolated from infant faeces, tested against nanoscale polypropylene, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride.

What biosorption is

Biosorption is what happens when something sticks to the outside of a cell rather than being taken in or broken down. The cell wall is doing the work of a filter surface, and the material it catches is still chemically the same material afterwards. Nothing about it requires the cell to be alive, and nothing about it destroys what has been caught.

Drawn from background physiology, not from this paper.

Why they ran it

Nanoplastics are now detected across water supplies and food, and the authors set out from the position that people are already swallowing them daily from wrapping, salt and drinking water. Their question was whether a familiar and food safe organism could be put to work as an absorbent, removing particles from what someone eats or reducing the harm once they are inside.

Drawn from the paper's introduction.

Lactic acid bacteria isolated from infant faeces were incubated with nanoscale particles of three plastics. Polypropylene was adsorbed at 78.57 percent, polyethylene at 71.59 percent and polyvinyl chloride at 66.57 percent.

Particles stained with Nile red were seen aggregated on the surfaces of the bacterial cells rather than inside them.

The smaller the particle, the stronger the adsorption onto the cell surface. The hydrophobicity of both the particles and the bacterial cells influenced how much stuck.

Cell components were tested separately against whole cells. The whole cell adsorbed better than any single component tested on its own.

Molecular dynamics analysis attributed the adsorption to electrostatic interactions, van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds, with hydrophobic interaction also taking part.

The numbers

Polypropylene adsorption78.57 percent
Polyethylene adsorption71.59 percent
Polyvinyl chloride adsorption66.57 percent
Particle size effectsmaller particles adsorbed more strongly
Forces identifiedelectrostatic, van der Waals, hydrogen bonding, with hydrophobic interaction

Why this might happen

Shown in this study The study measured this step directly.

The forces doing the work are the ordinary ones that govern any two surfaces meeting in water. Opposite charges attract, van der Waals forces pull at close range, hydrogen bonds form where the chemistry allows it, and water pushes two water hating surfaces together.

That the whole cell outperformed its separated components points at the intact surface as the unit that matters, rather than any one molecule on it. The size effect fits the same picture, since smaller particles present more surface for a given mass of plastic.

Drawn from the paper's molecular dynamics analysis and component experiments.

What this does not show

  • This does not show that anything left an animal or a person. Every measurement here was made in a tube. Adsorption onto a cell in buffer is not the same event as a particle being carried out of a gut, and no living system was involved at any point.
  • This does not show that the bacteria break plastic down. The particles were found on the outside of the cells and the forces identified are physical. The plastic is unchanged by being stuck to something.
  • This does not show what happens in food or in a gut. The incubations were done in clean buffer. A meal contains fat, protein and fibre that compete for the same surfaces, and none of that was present.
  • This does not identify a strain anyone can buy. The isolates came from infant stool samples and are described at the group level. Nothing here establishes that a commercial culture behaves the same way.

Where this leaves us

The starting premise of this whole line of work is now on the record with numbers attached. Plastic does stick to these organisms, in quantity, and it does so by physics rather than biology.

Nanoscale particles of three plastics, meeting bacterial isolates in clean buffer.

Everything downstream depends on whether this survives contact with a real gut, where food, bile and a resident microbial community all compete for the same surfaces.

Caveats worth holding

  • In vitro only, in buffer, with no food matrix and no living gut.
  • Isolates from infant faeces, described at group level rather than as named commercial strains.
  • No open full text was reachable, so this rests on the abstract and its stated conclusions.

Newsletter

Each issue by email, when the newsletter launches. Leaving your address puts you on the list, nothing is sent yet.