Effects of biodegradable poly(butylene adipate‐co‐terephthalate) and poly(lactic acid) plastic degradation on soil ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite that biodegradable plastics are perceived as environmentally friendly, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of their fate in soil. Current Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, along with new UNEP regulations on plastic pollution, necessitate scientific information on plastic degradation in soils for developing sustainable biodegradable plastics. In this study, we examined the degradation rates of two biodegradable plastics, poly(butylene adipate‐co‐terephthalate) (PBAT) and poly(lactic acid) (PLA), in a laboratory microcosm experiment using uncontaminated soil, with PBAT or PLA added at 8.3% (w/w). Our aim was to further understand the impact of these plastic types on soil properties and microbial communities under different incubation temperatures. Both PBAT and PLA treatments elevated cumulative CO 2 efflux compared with the control soil incubated at 25 and 58°C. After 33 weeks, 9.2% and 6.1% of the added PBAT and PLA degraded, respectively, at 58°C, while only 2.3% of PBAT and 1.7% of PLA degraded at 25°C, implying slower degradation rates of PBAT and PLA under the lower temperature. Degradation at 58°C increased total soil carbon by 0.6%, 1.9%, and 4.3% for Control, PBAT, and PLA, respectively, and soil electrical conductivity by 0.17, 0.33, and 2.38 dS m −1 , respectively, but decreased soil pH. Microbial diversity and richness decreased under thermophilic conditions at 58°C compared with that at 25°C. We conclude that the degradation of PBAT and PLA varies with environmental condition, and influences soil properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".