Mealworms can eat and biodegrade styrofoam
news.stanford.edu
news.stanford.edu
Use Google Translate if you don't read traditional Chinese. [2]
[1]: http://archive.is/27Jb [2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&p...
I would be surprised if those award winning high schoolers had no assistance from professors to teach them how to do research and write papers.
1. The primary author(s) were not distinctly aware of the discovery.
2. If nothing was published in the 2009 Intel International Engineering Science Fair, then there is little to reference. Referencing a news article in a journal is not often considered good practice, and in many cases can be considered unacceptable.
This is a case where I would say "do not attribute to malice...", as I don't see any direct benefit to the researchers for excluding this reference in their paper. Their study focuses on long-term results, not merely "mealworms can eat styrofoam, news at eleven."
EDIT: Formatting
I would be very surprised that Intel IESF awarded prize to research projects without a paper! Also, from the links referenced above, I clearly saw the high schooler was presenting in a whiteboard with her research paper with diagrams.
Granted, I am unsure if the paper was published in any established academic journals/magazines etc. or gone through any peer reviews. But considering she was a 16-year-old at the time, with only more than a year of research into this subject matter and with a fairly accurate conclusion.
* Mealworm science project could help environment [4]
I have no access to the Stanford paper - paywalled so I am not sure if paper have credited this 16-year-old girl's discovery at the time.
[3]: https://member.societyforscience.org/document.doc?id=74
"Recently, we reported that waxworms (the larvae of the Indian mealmoth or Plodia interpunctella) were capable of chewing and eating PE films, and two bacterial strains capable of degrading PE were isolated from the gut of the worms, i.e., Enterobacter asburiae YT1 and Bacillus sp. YP1. During the same research period, we found that mealworms, the larvae of the mealworm beetle or Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus (a species of darkling beetle), which are much larger in size than waxworms (typically approximately 25 versus 12 mm in length), can eat Styrofoam as their sole diet."
They seem to have duplicated the 2009 highschool student's work. Here is the highschool student's abstract:
"The observation that mealworms might be able to feed on styrofoam sparked a curiosity to answer whether mealworms could digest styrofoam, and if so, how could they remain alive. First of all, these mealworms were fed in different kinds of food to insure the mealworms can digest styrofoam. The results showed that mealworms can indeed feed on styrofoam only. The hypothesis of this study is that microbes inside the digestive tracts of mealworms are responsible for the decomposition of styrofoam. To further test this hypothesis, microbes from the digestive tracts of mealworms were cultured at 37 C in LB medium under anaerobic conditions. There were many kinds of microbes isolated. From those microbes, a kind of bacteria forming red colonies was confirmed responsible for decomposing styrofoam. The growth conditions and strain characteristics of the bacteria forming red colonies were further examined. These results imply that the red bacteria isolated from the digestive tracts of mealworms may shed light on solving the serious environmental pollution caused by styrofoam."
https://apps2.societyforscience.org/abstracts/project.cfm?PI...
The new study, however, is a controlled one that raises mealworms strictly on styrofoam and compares their health to a control generation. It's more about the fact that they can digest styrofoam continuously and with no ill effects than that they can do it at all. After all, worms that die of plastic toxicity or something after a couple days (perhaps bc the bacteria wear themselves out) aren't a very effective solution.
Also, there are so many Intel ISEF awarded research projects each year. But most of them seem to have gone nowhere. Rarely, some of them turned out to be very good ideas many years later. I wonder what the disconnect is.
I wish I had access to the full paper, though - it may be that they referenced the 2009 study but Stanford didn't think it necessary to include that in the press release - which is, after all, a press release.
Incidentally, I presume that was merely a slip of the tongue, but since it so often causes confusion, I should point out that mealworms aren't 'worms' (annelids), but insects (coleopterans--i.e. beetle larvae).
Microorganisms in the worms' guts biodegrade the plastic in the process
The question is whether we can harness these bacteria to break down plastics in landfills.
[1] http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/fundamentals/biology_anaer...
Though I swear they were well coordinated...
Admittedly, that is being a bit pedantic, the question would still seem to hold if you were talking about traditional waste dumps, I have no idea about the environmental makeup of those. Although my understanding is that the number of dumps, in the U.S. at least, has dramatically decreased of the last few decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene#Biodegradation "... rates of styrene degradation ranged from 0.14 to 0.4 a−1. This is an order of magnitude faster than the most rapid rate of polystyrene degradation identified... Pseudomonas putida is capable of converting styrene oil into the biodegradable plastic PHA. This may be of use in the effective recycling of Polystyrene foam, otherwise thought to be non-biodegradable."
One of the main reasons we use plastics is because they are great barriers against bacteria and other grossness. We wrap food in plastic, put dirty diapers and dog poop in plastic, put garbage in plastic, wrap raw meat in plastic, use plastic for medical equipment. All because it reliably keeps out (or in) the bad stuff.
What happens if there are plastic-eating bacteria all over the world? Imagine what it would feel like if everywhere we currently used plastic we were using uncoated paper instead? What kind of sanitization problems would we be experiencing?
Also, there are plenty of other things to hold food that can be used instead of plastic. I doubt sanitation would be the main problem.
To quote Aristotle: "Nature abhors a vacuum"
So I quit driving and I avoid styrofoam, etc. My hypothesis is that people with CF get these infections because we hang onto petrochemical residues greater than average. I want as little as possible to do with them. I have gradually gotten healthier.
Based on that, my guess is that if you do not have CF and do not have an inordinately high level of plastics/petrochemicals in your system, you are probably not at risk from microorganisms that biodegrade such things. For most humans, these microogarnisms are not dangerous. In fact, some of the infections that kill people with CF are incredibly common -- literally as common as dirt and found in dirt -- and are generally deemed harmless to normal humans.
However, do realize that common wisdom in alternative medicine groups (and South American tribal medicine men, etc) is that first the bad stuff has to come out. Kind of like with drug withdrawal, if this helps, it will get worse before it gets better. Much like drug withdrawal, that interim transition stage can be hellish.
I do consume sodas sold in 2 liter bottles. So I don't completely avoid all plastics. But I try like hell to avoid styrofoam and other soft plastics. When offered a choice at the deli, I ask for the hard plastic container instead of the styrofoam one.
/unsolicited advice
No, that's a very bad way to test your hypothesis. Assuming your goal is to really get to the root of a problem, you really shouldn't be allowing/asking individuals to test their ideas on themselves.
Have you spoken to doctors about your issues with plastics? It could very well be that your problem is to do with something else, but you're masking it by making premature assumptions based on what you think might be the cause. Perhaps even on faulty causal links that could do with some domain-knowledge, rather than guessing.
>"I have a form of cystic fibrosis. People with cystic fibrosis sometimes die from infections that normal people simply do not get. I looked up some of these infections, and some of them are used by scientists to biodegrade petrochemical spills because they eat petrochemicals. Plastics come from petrochemicals."
You self-diagnosed based on what appears to be a rather shaky link. And it appeared like you were suggesting to the other person to do the same for their condition because of an argument that appears to look like this:
P1. "People with cystic fibrosis sometimes die from infections a,b,c" P2. "Some of the a,b,c 'infections' are used by scientist to biodegrade petrochemical spills" P3. "Plastics come from petrochemicals" P4. "People with CF hang on to petrochemicals (why? because of their condition?)" C1. Therefore plastics make cystic fibrosis worse. or C2. Avoiding plastics makes cystic fibrosis symptoms better.
Either way, shaky links means assumptions are being made. Rather seek medical attention, or at the very least read the literature regarding any causal links between these things.
Then someone with psoriasis said they think plastics may be an issue for them. Suggesting someone reduce their exposure to a thing they think they are reacting negatively to is the most conservative suggestion you can make. It is a basic first step that does not require consulting a physician first to make that decision for yourself. Such a suggestion does not preclude them also seeking medical attention. Nor does it preclude them from reading up further.
You are making an issue out of absolutely nothing. You are also butting into my choices about how I take care of myself and asking me to justify them to you, which is incredibly inappropriate. I don't owe you an explanation or justification and commenting on my anecdotal experience related to the topic of styrofoam and microbes was in no way an invitation for people to insert themselves into my life in that manner.
So, I am done here. I would appreciate it if you would let it go.
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. I'll just leave it.
Or I should say lignin was once like plastic. Nothing could break it down, and huge coal formations were formed because of it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mushroom-evolution...
But, nothing lasts forever. There will come a day when plastics can be broken down much more easily than they are now.
Probably what it feels like now when people predominantly use paper bags and paper wrap. Plastic is great, material-wise, but it's hardly our single defense against health problems.
Instead of uncoated paper, what about waxed paper? It's impermeable on a reasonably long timescale, and is fully biodegradable too.
Personally, the inertness of plastics really suggests recycling and reusing; it's somewhat sad that we've invented materials that can last almost forever, and yet so many people are treating them as disposable and creating waste in the process.
Also, don't forget what the clearcoat is.
Less nasty crap in our landfills, and less plastics in our food and hot drinks, too.
http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/09/new-york-judge-overturns-p...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/08/19/dunkin-donuts...
I don't know if there are effective, inexpensive substitutes for those uses.
For others, like food containers, it's almost purely for cost reasons when other solutions exist.
Using styrofoam in helmets, car bumpers and refrigerators is a completely legitimate use case as it solves more problems than it creates, but using styrofoam in cups is just such a complete waste that only gives someone a tiny bit of convenience.
Lots of folks have been discussing, playing with (exploiting?), and researching [ASMR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_re...) over the last few years. However, I've yet to see any discussion about the possibility of a connection between ASMR and [misophonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misophonia). I experience both (your comment caused me to shudder) and have a hunch that they form a duality or, if the distinction isn't that clear, are related.
"An ordinance passed last year requires all food and beverages prepared for dine-in or take-out to be placed in reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging.
That includes plates, serving boats and to-go containers -- cups and bowls have until April 22, 2017 to continue using non-recyclable plastic-lined paper.
The ordinance includes all restaurants, food trucks, grocery store delis and other mobile or seasonal vendors."
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2015/04/22/minneapoli...
It seems like companies have the processes in place to not use styrofoam if compelled to.
Styrofoam provides much more insulation.
If your hand is big enough and the cup is light enough you can support bottom of it with your pinky and the top of it with your thumb while horizontally balancing it with the rest of your fingers, you have three-finger redundancy if your coffee is too hot. The problem with the latter approach that little finger supports most of the weight of the cup and I can't hold more than a medium coffee.
Back home in Portland, the trash cans are overflowing with other things.
Everything is cardboard and paper wrappers.
You can still by styrofoam disposable cups at the supermarket though, so maybe it's just a consumer based thing - consumers associate styrofoam packaging with cheap/nasty food.
1. http://news.discovery.com/earth/mealworms-beat-beef-as-susta...
I'm certainly not a chemist, but given that polystyrene is equal parts carbon and hydrogen (C8H8) and that carbon is roughly 12 times heavier than hydrogen I'd say that if the worms managed to convert only half of the polystyrene (by weight) into CO2 that looks much better than burning it, which -if done properly- would have converted all of the carbon into CO2.
However, I don't know how much energy can be harvested from burning it, and how to take that into account in order to decide whether it's better to burn it or to degrade it with the worms.
"The worms converted about half of the Styrofoam into carbon dioxide, as they would with any food source."
So they produce CO2 as well as a byproduct.
Oh, no problem for that we brought in Malaysian bats.
But what about all the bats?
Oh we have a plan: we have Indonesian tree boas that love to eat Malaysian bats.
And the boas?
That is the best part, come winter, they are not used to the cold and will all die off...
Worms produce CO2 and fertilizer.
"Trypophobia is a claimed pathological fear of holes, particularly irregular patterns of holes. ... Shapes that elicit a reaction were said to include clustered holes in innocuous contexts such as fruit and bubbles, and in contexts associated with danger, such as holes made by insects and holes in wounds and diseased tissue."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypophobia, which contains a picture of a lotus seed head.
Some housing insulation is also polystyrene, so probably.
I do not think that we should regard any of this as good news.