Team:Lund/HP/Gold Integrated

Practices

Inspired by the global campaign on reducing marine litter initiated by the United Nations Environmental program the year prior, we decided to approach the iGEM competition through a green lens and focus our project on microplastics. To get a better overview of how we could contribute to the movement using the tools of synthetic biology, we carried out an extensive literature review in which we encapsulated the current research on microplastics [1]. In summary, we found studies suggesting considerable accumulation in biota and presence in drinking water, salt and other everyday commodities [2] [3]. Several adverse effects has been noted in the interaction with living organisms [4].

Understanding local strategies

To investigate what systems had been implemented in our local community to minimize the dispersal of microplastics, we contacted the research department of AnoxKaldnes, an independent contractor working for Lund Municipality with water purification. They courteously invited us to visit their facilities to outline and discuss different water treatment strategies. We were informed that no system was installed with the purpose of filtering microplastics and that the municipality relied on non-selective filtration methods for larger particles, in particular sedimentation. While the vast majority of microplastics in the 20 to 300 µm range do indeed sediments appropriately, the nutrient-rich sludge that is created is often used as crop fertilizers, redistributing the caught plastic particles [5]. Due to limited legislation in the European Union and the consequent apathy from the municipality to invest in specialized technology, AnoxKaldnes had chosen to not engage in research into microplastic sanitation systems. Clearly, awareness of microplastics among concerned stakeholders was not the issue at hand, but rather general lack of response from policy makers.

Elucidating current obstacles

To better grasp the reasoning behind the lack of engagement, we set up a line of communication with the Division of Water Resource Engineering at Lund University that blossomed into a series of rewarding exchanges that fundamentally shaped our final project design. We initially met with Professor Kenneth M. Persson that kindly assisted us by elucidating some of the difficulties in introducing water purification technologies with regards to microplastics. Then unbeknownst to us, there still exists some major ambiguity as to the impact and prevalence of microplastics, splitting the opinion on the rush of developing sustainable, proactive solutions to the most common sources of pollution alongside reactive mechanisms to catch the particles. A major factor in the propagation of this dispute was apparently the difficulty of realizing an accurate and rapid method of mapping the microplastic content. Due to inherent unreactive nature of the microplastics, developing a set of tools for this purpose has turned out to be very challenging. In fact, no microplastic specific sensor was utilized in water purity analysis to his knowledge. Rather, the water purity is evaluated on the basis of general turbidity, which reflects the average amount of particles in the sample. This does not, however, reflect the toxicity of the content and as noted during our initial literature review, microplastics have a propensity of sorbing chemical toxicants and pollutants and transmitting them to living organisms [6] [7]. Thus, engineering a tool for microplastic detection is warranted on the basis of accurately mapping their presence so that adequate filtrations systems can be put in place to minimize the risk of toxicity to the biota. Inspired, we set out to construct just such a tool for accurate detection of microplastics.

Kenneth
The meetings with Prof. Kenneth Persson was a great pleasure and the discussions resulted in several key aspects used for designing our biosensor.

Mapping the demand

To give our biosensor a proper context, the next step in the development process was to recognize the extent of its practical applications. We proceeded by contacting stakeholders in the plastic industry to give an indication of the potential demand for a method of determining their contribution to the microplastic distribution. Cenova, a contract manufacturer working with plastic injection molding, took a keen interest in the proposed design and decided to meet with us to further elaborate on the issue and their role as a business working with plastic. We discovered that while they did not have an initial insight into the proposed ubiquity and adverse effects of microplastics, they expressed concern about their potential contribution.

Cenova
Presenting our project concept for Cenova. On the far right we have quality manager Johannes Kask.

From similar exchanges with other stakeholders, we drew the following conclusions. While the awareness of the issue in its entirety is limited among enterprises working outside the development of environmental technology, familiarisation with the topic prompted both the request for a method of assessing their contributions and showcased a willingness to incorporate more ecoconscious approaches in their activities. Inspired by their commitment to the cause, we took it upon ourselves to finalize the realization of our biosensor and to extent our public outreach goals. For a more extensive discussion on our efforts, see results and engagement respectively.

References

  1. [1] UNEP (2016), ‘Marine plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change.’, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
  2. [2] Yang, D, Shi, H, Li, J, Jabeen, K, Kolandhasamy, P, & Li, L n.d., (2015)  'Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China', Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 22, pp. 13622-13627
  3. [3] Lachenmeier, D, Kocareva, J, Noack, D & Kuballa, T., (2015), ‘Microplastic identification in German beer - an artefact of laboratory contamination?’, Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau: Zeitschrift für Lebensmittelkunde und Lebensmittelrecht, 111, 437-440.
  4. [4] da Costa, J, Santos, P, Duarte, A, & Rocha-Santos, T., (2016), '(Nano)plastics in the environment - Sources, fates and effects', Science Of The Total Environment, 566-567, p. 15-26.
  5. [5] Svenskt Vatten (2016) ‘ Mikroplaster – källor och uppströmsarbete samt möjligheter till rening vid kommunala reningsverk’. [online] [Accessed 20 oct. 2017].
  6. [6] Bakir, A, Rowland, S, & Thompson, R., (2014), 'Transport of persistent organic pollutants by microplastics in estuarine conditions', Estuarine, Coastal And Shelf Science, 140, pp. 14-21.
  7. [7] Tanaka, K. and Takada, H. (2016). ‘Microplastic fragments and microbeads in digestive tracts of planktivorous fish from urban coastal waters.’ Scientific Reports, 6(1).