ISSN: 2155-6199

Journal of Bioremediation & Biodegradation
Open Access

Like us on:

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)
  • Review Article   
  • J Bioremediat Biodegrad, Vol 13(9)

Shifting Obstacles to Opportunities

Sameer Joshi*
Department of Biomedical, University of Michigan, United States
*Corresponding Author: Sameer Joshi, Department of Biomedical, University of Michigan, United States, Tel: +91 9370146290, Email: joshisameera@gmail.com

Received: 01-Sep-2022 / Manuscript No. JBRBD-22-002 / Editor assigned: 08-Sep-2022 / PreQC No. JBRBD-22-002(PQ) / Reviewed: 16-Sep-2022 / QC No. JBRBD-22-002 / Revised: 22-Sep-2022 / Manuscript No. JBRBD-22-002(R) / Accepted Date: 30-Sep-2022 / Published Date: 30-Sep-2022

Abstract

Postprandial While waste management, plastics production, and recycling sectors at first glance appear only tangentially some places linked, some places not linked to essential services, they are intimately connected to a thriving economy and critical public health roles [1]. The uncertainties associated with the pandemic have caused significant limitations on recycling and municipal waste services. Meanwhile, the likely decrease in plastic waste generation due to the global decline in economic activity, no collection and transportation or reduced collection rates and programs where inventory may not make it into the waste and recycling system until post-pandemic has been significantly muted by the needs associated with the pandemic [2]. As a result, more recyclables are being disposed of in the traditional waste processes-landfill and incineration [3]. The behavior is additionally supported by precipitous drop in oil prices that makes manufacturing of the recyclable commodities cheaper [4]. This challenges the goals of sustainability but also displays the deficiencies of short-term and product-based solutions to the plastics waste issue while stressing the need for a systems-level approach [5].

Keywords: Bioremediation; Biodegradation; Recycling

Introduction

The global demand for certain uses of plastics has increased due to the coronavirus [6]. The polymers polypropylene, used in lifesaving medical equipment such as N-95 masks and in takeout food packaging, polyethylene used in protective suits and PET in single-use plastic water bottles and medical face shields have all seen a rise in demand as the COVID-19 pandemic plays out [7]. With restaurants shifting to take- out, consumers stockpiling groceries and bottled water, and the medical community rapidly turning over personal protective equipment (PPE), there has subsequently been an uptick in plastic waste, municipal solid waste from residences, and hazardous waste generated from healthcare facilities, including quarantine sites, that are infected with COVID-19 [8]. However, overall plastic waste generation has likely decreased [9]. Due to the uncertainties around the risks associated with the transmission of COVID-19 to frontline solid waste workers and the survivability of the coronavirus on various surfaces, many municipalities, airlines, and other corporations have responded by shuttering their collection and recycling programs and taking protective measures on how solid waste is managed [10]. In an industry already overwhelmed with challenges, materials that would normally find its way to recyclers are being channelled directly as solid waste to landfills and incinerators out of an abundance of caution [11]. Things will mature and solutions will evolve [12]. One important thought is on packaging [13]. Packaging sizes will change [14]. It is generally accepted that the packaging industry needs to come up with more wideranging solutions to its many and varied sustainability challenges [15]. But there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, as we’re all very aware [16]. Gerald Rebitzer, Director Sustainability at global rigid, flexible and carton packaging producer Amcor, about the methods I proposes: has put forth a good concept of the Seven Pillars of Sustainability He said “From my experience talking to people from many different facets of the packaging supply chain, one thing I have become increasingly aware of is that, while everyone agrees that we need to be more sustainable as an industry and as a society, there is little agreement on what this actually means [17]. Some advocate passionately for recyclable plastics within a circular economy while others favour compostables; some extol the benefits of glass, some metal, and so on [18]. But what if nobody is ‘right’? What if it’s more a case of recognizing the uniqueness of each scenario and finding the best solution within that context? This, it seems, is what Amcor’s seven pillars are attempting to address [19].

“Our intent with focusing on seven sustainability options is to give brands a clear starting point for actions they might take to switch to more environmentally friendly packaging [20]. We then work together with our customers to tailor a solution for their specific product and market. “And options can of course be combined in order to produce the optimal packaging with a holistic life cycle perspective in mind for example, a bio-based PE pouch made from sugar cane that is also recyclable and has a lower carbon footprint than the product’s previous packaging [21].”

PCR (Post Consumed Recyclables)

Five Materials that have served their purpose (have been used by the consumer) and subsequently been recycled to produce a new product [22].

Bio Based Materials

Materials derived from renewable resources such as corn, sugar cane or trees [23].

Responsible Sourced Materials

Raw materials sourced from socially and environmentally responsible suppliers, as confirmed by certification agencies [24].

Lower Carbon Footprint

Packaging that has a lower life cycle carbon footprint than common alternatives, e.g. due to material selection, design or improved recycling performance [25].

Recyclable

Packaging that meets accepted design standards for recyclability, i.e. packaging with the right attributes for successful collection, sorting, and recycling in the real world.

Compostable

Materials that biodegrade in a commercially managed or home composting system according to the relevant industry standards.

Resusable

Packaging that is refilled or used again for its original purpose.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the patients who participated in the trial, the referring physicians and the local investigators who contributed to the trial, and the technicians who did the labelling and the scans.

Funding

The study was funded intramurally.

Competing Interests

All authors declare no competing interests

Author Contributions

All authors planned the study. MH screened control patients and performed mixed meal testing. KA and PW did PET/CT readings. MH, KA, and PW did the analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors critically proved data, edited and approved the manuscript. Data Availability

All data is available from the corresponding author on request.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Nordwest-und Zentralschweiz, Basel, Switzerland, EKBB 163/12).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

All authors approved the manuscript for submission

References

  1. Andrady AL, Neal MA (2009) Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 1977-1984.
  2. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M (2009) Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 1985-1998
  4. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  5. Gregory MR (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2013-2025
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Oehlmann J (2009) A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2047-2062.
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Park CH, Jeon HS, Park K (2007) PVC removal from mixed plastics by triboelectrostatic separation. J Hazard Mater 144: 470-476.
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Ryan PG, Moore CJ, van Franeker JA, Moloney CL (2009) Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 1999-2012.
  12. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  13. Haxson L (2009) Structuring policy problems for plastics, the environment and human health: reflections from the UK. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2141-2151.
  14. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  15. Soetaert W, Vandamme E (2006) The impact of industrial biotechnology. Biotechnol J 1: 756-769
  16. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  17. Song JH, Murphy RJ, Narayan R, Davies GBH (2009) Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2127-2139
  18. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  19. Teuten EL (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2027-2045
  20. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  21. Thompson RC, Swan SH, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS (2009) Our plastic age. Phil Trans R. Soc B 364: 1973-1976.
  22. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  23. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS, Swan SH (2009) Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Phil Trans R Soc B 364: 2153-2166.
  24. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  25. Klemes JJ, Fan YV, Tan RR, Jiang P (2020) Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew Sust Energ Rev 127: 109883.
  26. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  27. Ma Y, Lin X, Wu A, Huang Q, Li X, et al. (2020) Suggested guidelines for emergency treatment of medical waste during COVID-19: Chinese experience. WDSE.
  28. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  29. Mihai FC (2020) Assessment of COVID-19 waste flows during the emergency state in romania and related public health and environmental concerns. Int J Environ Res 17: 5439.
  30. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  31. Moreno SÁNchez RDELP, Maldonado JH (2006) Surviving from garbage: the role of informal waste-pickers in a dynamic model of solid-waste management in developing countries. Environ Dev Econ 11: 371-391.
  32. Crossref, Google Scholar

  33. Nkogwe C, Raletobana J, Stewart Johnson A, Suepaul S, Adesiyun A, et al. (2011) Frequency of detection of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Campylobacter spp. in the faeces of wild rats (Rattus spp.) in trinidad and tobago. Vet Med Int: 686923-686923.
  34. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  35. Nzediegwu C, Chang SX (2020) Improper solid waste management increases potential for COVID-19 spread in developing countries. Resources Conservation and Recycling 161:104947.
  36. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  37. Owusu PA, Asumadu SS (2020) Investigating the cases of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China using dynamic statistical techniques. Heliyon 6: e03747.
  38. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  39. Sarkodie SA, Owusu PA (2020) Global assessment of environment, health and economic impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) Environ Dev Sustain.
  40. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  41. Sharma HB, Vanapalli KR, Cheela VRS, Ranjan VP, Jaglan AK, et al. (2020) Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. RESOUR CONSERV RECY 162: 105052.
  42. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  43. Abu Rayash A, Dincer I (2020)  Analysis of the electricity demand trends amidst the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Energy Res Soc Sci 101682.
  44. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  45. Chakraborty I, Maity P (2020) COVID-19 outbreak: migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci Total Environ 728
  46. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  47. Chin A, Chu J, Perera M, Hui K, Yen HL, et al. (2020) (Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. The Lancet Mirobe 1: E10.
  48. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  49. Dente SMR, Hashimoto S (2020) COVID-19: A pandemic with positive and negative outcomes on resource and waste flows and stocks. Resour Conserv Recycl 161: 104979.
  50. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

Citation: Joshi S (2022) Shifting Obstacles to Opportunities. J Bioremediat Biodegrad, 13: 532.

Copyright: © 2022 Joshi S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Top