Paper products are omnipresent; however, the high versatility due to different coatings complicates the assessment of their biodegradability. Simple and rapid screening methods are essential and traditionally dependent on time-consuming biodegradation trials, which require the measurement of the tensile strength of buried paper strips over several days. Commercial cellulase formulations were evaluated for correlation to biodegradation in soil as a fast alternative requiring only 1 hour using 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid. In addition, substances potentially accelerating biodegradation were assessed to demonstrate the suitability of the screening method for evaluation of materials with enhanced recycling properties. The addition of starch and lignosulfonates to the assay resulted in enhanced enzyme activity of up to +24.1% and +44.4%, respectively, whereas gluconolactone inhibited β-glucosidase activity. The same trend was seen for the hydrolysis of coated paper based on the release of reducing sugars and high-performance liquid chromatography quantification of mono- and oligosaccharides. Biodegradation trials were performed in soil to validate the developed screening method. Indeed, enzymatic hydrolysis correlated to biodegradation in soil where a faster decrease of tensile strength of 43.45% and 22.16% was seen after 3 days for polymerized lignosulfonates and starch, respectively. This indicates that the biodegradation in soil is affected by extracellular cellulases of microorganisms. This was further confirmed by measurement of endoglucanase (on derivatized cellopentaose) and β-glucosidase activity in soil which again resulted in increased activity in the presence of starch and lignosulfonates. Hence, time-consuming soil biodegradation trials of cellulosic materials can be replaced by enzyme-based in vitro activity assays and considerably reduce testing times.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShaikhS, YaqoobM, AggarwalP. An overview of biodegradable packaging in food industry. Curr Res Food Sci, 2021; 4:503–520; doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2021.07.005
2.
ChenY, GanL, DaiY, et al.Transparent cellulose-based film with water resisstance and thermal protective for agriculture application. Biomass Conv Bioref, 2023; doi: 10.1007/s13399-023-04516-y
3.
SongJH, MurphyRJ, NarayanR, et al.Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2009; 364(1526):2127–2139; doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0289
4.
MastalyginaE, AbushakhmanovaZ, PolettoM, et al.Biodegradation in soil of commercial plastic bags labelled as “Biodegradable. Materials Research, 2023; 26; doi: 10.1590/1980-5373-MR-2022-0164
5.
Manoj KumarB, NoobiaS, MythriS. Studies on biodegradation of plastic packaging materials in soil bioreactor. Indian JAdvanChemi Sci, 2016; S1:297–299.
6.
AhmedSF, AhmedS, HallAM, et al.Comparative biodegradability assessment of different types of paper. 2018.
7.
OrtnerA, HoferK, BauerW, et al.Laccase modified lignosulfonates as novel binder in pigment based paper coating formulations. React Funct Polym, 2018; 123:20–25; doi: 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2017.12.005
8.
MaurerHW. Starch in the paper industry. In: Starch: Chemistry and Technology. Elsevier Inc; 2009; pp. 657–713; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-746275-2.00018-5
9.
WeiQ, ZhengH, ZhuM, et al.Starch-based surface-sizing agents in paper industry: An overview. Paper and Biomaterials, 2021; 6(4):54–61; doi: 10.1213/j.issn.2096-2355.2021.04.007
10.
OrłowskiA, RógT, PaavilainenS, et al.How endoglucanase enzymes act on cellulose nanofibrils: Role of amorphous regions revealed by atomistic simulations. Cellulose, 2015; 22(5):2911–2925; doi: 10.1007/s10570-015-0705-0
11.
WangM, LiZ, FangX, et al.Cellulolytic enzyme production and enzymatic hydrolysis for second-generation bioethanol production. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol, 2012; 128:1–24; doi: 10.1007/10_2011_131
12.
YennamalliRM, RaderAJ, KennyAJ, et al.Endoglucanases: Insights into thermostability for biofuel applications. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2013; 6(1):136; doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-6-136
13.
RamL, KaurK, SharmaS. Screening isolation and characterization of cellulase producing micro-organisms from soil. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Invent. 2014:12–18.
14.
MeenaA, RaoKS. Assessment of soil microbial and enzyme activity in the rhizosphere zone under different land use/cover of a semiarid region. India. Ecol Process, 2021; 10(1); doi: 10.1186/s13717-021-00288-3
15.
HelalGA, KhalilRR, GalalYG, et al.Studies on cellulases of some cellulose-degrading soil fungi. Arch Microbiol, 2022; 204(1):65; doi: 10.1007/s00203-021-02705-9
16.
NaglM, Haske-CorneliusO, BauerW, et al.Enhanced energy savings in enzymatic refining of hardwood and softwood pulp. Energy Sustain Soc, 2023; 13(1); doi: 10.1186/s13705-023-00398-0
17.
HuberD, OrtnerA, DaxbacherA, et al.Influence of oxygen and mediators on laccase-catalyzed polymerization of lignosulfonate. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng, 2016; 4(10):5303–5310; doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00692
18.
GhoseTK. Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure & App! Chem, 1987; 59(2):257–268; doi: 10.1351/pac198759020257
19.
McClearyBV, ManganD, DalyR, et al.Novel substrates for the measurement of endo-1,4-β-glucanase (endo-cellulase). Carbohydr Res, 2014; 385:9–17; doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2013.12.001
20.
ParryNJ, BeeverDE, OwenE, et al.Biochemical characterization and mechanism of action of a thermostable β-glucosidase purified from Thermoascus aurantiacus. Biochem J, 2001; 353(Pt 1):117–127; doi: 10.1042/bj3530117
21.
JiangT, DuanQ, ZhuJ, et al.Starch-based biodegradable materials: Challenges and opportunities. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res, 2020; 3(1):8–18; doi: 10.1016/j.aiepr.2019.11.003
22.
ZoungrananY, LyndaE, Dobi-BriceKK, et al.Influence of natural factors on the biodegradation of simple and composite bioplastics based on cassava starch and corn starch. J Environ Chem Eng, 2020; 8(5):104396; doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104396
23.
AbeMM, BrancifortiMC, BrienzoM. Biodegradation of hemicellulose-cellulose-starch-based bioplastics and microbial polyesters. Recycling, 2021; 6(1):22; doi: 10.3390/RECYCLING6010022
24.
IselauF, Malmborg-NyströmK, HolmbergK, et al.Parameters influencing hydrophobization of paper by surface sizing. Nord Pulp Paper Res J, 2018; 33(1):95–104; doi: 10.1515/npprj-2018-3015
25.
MøllerMS, SvenssonB. Structural biology of starch-degrading enzymes and their regulation. Curr Opin Struct Biol, 2016; 40:33–42; doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2016.07.006
26.
ValkV, EeuwemaW, SarianFD, et al.Degradation of granular starch by the bacterium microbacterium aurum strain B8.A involves a modular α-amylase enzyme system with FNIII and CBM25 domains. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2015; 81(19):6610–6620; doi: 10.1128/AEM.01029-15
27.
VermaN, KumarV. Impact of process parameters and plant polysaccharide hydrolysates in cellulase production by Trichoderma reesei and neurospora crassa under wheat bran based solid state fermentation. Biotechnol Rep (Amst), 2020; 25:e00416; doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00416
28.
DatsomorO, YanQ, Opoku-MensahL, et al.Effect of different inducer sources on cellulase enzyme production by white-rot basidiomycetes pleurotus ostreatus and phanerochaete chrysosporium under submerged fermentation. Fermentation, 2022; 8(10):561; doi: 10.3390/fermentation8100561
29.
NechitaP, MirelaR, CiolacuF. Xylan hemicellulose: A renewable material with potential properties for food packaging applications. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2021(24):13; doi: 10.3390/su132413504
30.
LeeSH, LeeHL, YounHJ. Adsorption of xylan onto cellulose fibers pretreated with cationic polyelectrolyte and its effect on paper properties. Bioresources, 2015; 10(1):851–865; doi: 10.15376/biores.10.1.851-865
31.
ChakdarH, KumarM, PandiyanK, et al.Bacterial xylanases: Biology to biotechnology. 3 Biotech, 2016; 6(2):150; doi: 10.1007/s13205-016-0457-z
32.
KumarPS, YaashikaaPR, SaravananA. Isolation, characterization and purification of xylanase producing bacteria from sea sediment. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol, 2018; 13:299–303; doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2018.01.007
33.
BhardwajN, KumarB, VermaP. A detailed overview of xylanases: An emerging biomolecule for current and future prospective. Bioresour Bioprocess, 2019; 6(1); doi: 10.1186/s40643-019-0276-2
34.
ZhangJ, TangM, ViikariL. Xylans inhibit enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials by cellulases. Bioresour Technol, 2012; 121:8–12; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.010
35.
ShiJ, EbrikMA, YangB, et al.Application of cellulase and hemicellulase to pure xylan, pure cellulose, and switchgrass solids from leading pretreatments. Bioresour Technol, 2011; 102(24):11080–11088; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.003
36.
QingQ, YangB, WymanCE. Xylooligomers are strong inhibitors of cellulose hydrolysis by enzymes. Bioresour Technol, 2010; 101(24):9624–9630; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.137
37.
MatsushitaY, YasudaS. Preparation and evaluation of lignosulfonates as a dispersant for gypsum paste from acid hydrolysis lignin. Bioresour Technol, 2005; 96(4):465–470; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.023
38.
MuslO, GallerS, WurzerG, et al.High-resolution profiling of the functional heterogeneity of technical lignins. Biomacromolecules, 2022; 23(3):1413–1422; doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.1c01630
39.
AroT, FatehiP. Production and application of lignosulfonates and sulfonated lignin. ChemSusChem, 2017; 10(9):1861–1877; doi: 10.1002/cssc.201700082
40.
RuwoldtJ. Emulsion stabilization with lignosulfonates. In: Lignin - Chemistry, Structure, and Application IntechOpen: IntechOpen; 2022; doi: 10.5772/intechopen.107336
41.
ZhengW, LanT, LiH, et al.Exploring why sodium lignosulfonate influenced enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency of cellulose from the perspective of substrate-enzyme adsorption. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2020; 13(1):19; doi: 10.1186/s13068-020-1659-5
42.
DongC, PengY, HadiP, et al.Reducing specific binding affinity while maintaining the enzyme activity: Dual effects of lignosulfonates on enzyme hydrolysis of sulfite-pretreated lignocellulose. BioRes, 2019; 14(4):8803–8820.
43.
LouH, ZhouH, LiX, et al.Understanding the effects of lignosulfonate on enzymatic saccharification of pure cellulose. Cellulose, 2014; 21(3):1351–1359; doi: 10.1007/s10570-014-0237-z
44.
MayrSA, SchwaigerN, WeberHK, et al.Enzyme catalyzed copolymerization of lignosulfonates for hydrophobic coatings. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2021; 9:697310; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.697310
45.
GavandePV, NathP, KumarK, et al.Highly efficient, processive and multifunctional recombinant endoglucanase RfGH5_4 from ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 v3 for recycling lignocellulosic plant biomasses. Int J Biol Macromol, 2022; 209(Pt A):801–813; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.04.059
46.
WangW, ArchboldT, LamJS, et al.A processive endoglucanase with multi-substrate specificity is characterized from porcine gut microbiota. Sci Rep, 2019; 9(1):13630; doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50050-1
47.
CouturierM, FeliuJ, HaonM, et al.A thermostable GH45 endoglucanase from yeast: Impact of its atypical multimodularity on activity. 2011.
48.
ZhouW, QinX, LyuD, et al.Effect of glucose on the soil bacterial diversity and function in the rhizosphere of Cerasus sachalinensis. Hortic Plant J, 2021; 7(4):307–317; doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.02.002
49.
ChenL, WangC, SuJ. Understanding the effect of different glucose concentrations in the oligotrophic bacterium bacillus subtilis BS-G1 through transcriptomics analysis. Microorganisms, 2023; 11(10); doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11102401
50.
HobbieJE, HobbieEA. Microbes in nature are limited by carbon and energy: The starving-survival lifestyle in soil and consequences for estimating microbial rates. Front Microbiol, 2013; 4(NOV):324; doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00324
51.
Avellaneda-TorresLM, Guevara PulidoCP, RojasET. Assessment of cellulolytic microorganisms in soils of nevados park, Colombia. Braz J Microbiol, 2014; 45(4):1211–1220.
52.
Ferraz-AlmeidaR, Pinheiro Da MotaR, Ferraz De AlmeidaR, et al.Soil quality: Enzymatic activity of soil β-glucosidase. Global J Agricult Res Rev, 2015; 3(2):146–150.
53.
DattaR. Enzymatic degradation of cellulose in soil: A review. Heliyon, 2024; 10(1):e24022; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24022
54.
StegePW, MessinaGA, BianchiG, et al.Determination of β-glucosidase activity in soils with a bioanalytical sensor modified with multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Anal Bioanal Chem, 2010; 397(3):1347–1353; doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-3634-7
55.
WangZJ, LanTQ, ZhuJY. Lignosulfonate and elevated pH can enhance enzymatic saccharification of lignocelluloses. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2013; 6(1):9; doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-6-9
56.
XuH, YuG, MuX, et al.Effect and characterization of sodium lignosulfonate on alkali pretreatment for enhancing enzymatic saccharification of corn stover. Ind Crops Prod, 2015; 76:638–646; doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.07.057
57.
WangZ, ZhuJY, FuY, et al.Lignosulfonate-mediated cellulase adsorption: Enhanced enzymatic saccharification of lignocellulose through weakening nonproductive binding to lignin. Biotechnol Biofuels, 2013; 6(1):156; doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-6-156
58.
WilkensC, SvenssonB, MøllerMS. Functional roles of starch binding domains and surface binding sites in enzymes involved in starch biosynthesis. Front Plant Sci, 2018; 9:1652; doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01652
59.
SidarA, AlbuquerqueED, VosholGP, et al.Carbohydrate binding modules: Diversity of domain architecture in amylases and cellulases from filamentous microorganisms. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:871; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00871
SlezakR, KrzystekL, PuchalskiM, et al.Degradation of bio-based film plastics in soil under natural conditions. Sci Total Environ, 2023; 866:161401; doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161401
62.
ZhuJ, WakisakaM. Application of lignosulfonate as the growth promotor for freshwater microalga Euglena gracilis to increase productivity of biomass and lipids. Fuel, 2021:283; doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118920
63.
LeeS, KangM, BaeJH, et al.Bacterial valorization of lignin: Strains, enzymes, conversion pathways, biosensors, and perspectives. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019; 7:209; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00209
64.
PriyadarshineeR, KumarA, MandalT, et al.Unleashing the potential of ligninolytic bacterial contributions towards pulp and paper industry: Key challenges and new insights. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2016; 23(23):23349–23368; doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7633-x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
