Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Biomaterials Science Can Offer a Valuable Second Opinion on Nature’s Plastic Malady
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Free to Read
Viewpoint

Biomaterials Science Can Offer a Valuable Second Opinion on Nature’s Plastic Malady
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDF

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 3, 1475–1477
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07569
Published January 7, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society

Microplastics are an emerging pollutant with many fundamental questions still left unresolved. Are they toxic? How do they change over time? How long do they persist? Environmental scientists are asking many of these questions about the fate and effects of plastics in the natural environment, while biomaterials scientists have been asking the same questions for years in another environment: the human body. The field of biomaterials encompasses all materials used in biomedical devices and therapies. (Biomaterials are not to be confused with bio-materials or biological materials, which are largely considered a class of materials with some natural origin.) Prior to the 1960s, the field of biomaterials relied on commercial plastics. Classic examples include the precursors of modern-day contact lenses and vascular grafts. (1)

Originally, there was an overly simplistic view of the interaction between biological systems and materials. Early contact lenses were made of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA; a.k.a. Plexiglas) because the material met the requirements for mass production, optical clarity, machinability, etc. However, hard contact lenses also irritated patient’s eyes because they lacked hydration and oxygen permeability. (2) In a comparable manner, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE; a.k.a. Goretex) or woven polyethylene terephthalate (PET; a.k.a. Dacron) were used to make vascular grafts. Despite their nonstick characteristics in other domains, in the body they promote clotting because they did not have good hemocompatibility on their own. Today, enhancements such as modifying the surface with anticoagulant/antithrombotic agents have been used, but issues related to unwanted clotting persist for small diameter grafts. (3) Slowly, it has been recognized that there is more to consider than just the chemical and physical properties of a material. In these two examples, it became clear that the biological properties─the host response and cell-material interactions─are also important. Engineered plastics were used in new environments for which they were not designed and in which they had never been tested. Biomaterial scientists and engineers soon learned an important lesson: biology matters.

The same can be said about plastic pollution. The processes impacting the persistence and toxicity of plastics depend on where they reside. One example of this concerns the biodegradability of polylactic acid (PLA). In industrial composting conditions, PLA has a relatively short lifetime (months), but in the soil or the ocean it can persist significantly longer (years). (4) This gives us the environmental scientist’s corollary to the above rule: the environment matters.

In the field of biomaterials, the issues described above catalyzed the concept of biocompatibility. In its most basic terms, biocompatibility is “the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host response in a specific application”. (5) It couples material to application. PMMA as a contact lens material did not give an “appropriate host response” because it caused irritated, dry eyes. New materials were investigated and developed; now, contact lenses are soft and made from hydrogel silicones or from poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (pHEMA). (2) These biomaterials support hydration and oxygen diffusion to the underlying eye tissue, which greatly improve patient comfort. Next-generation vascular grafts look to use more hemocompatible materials such as biodegradable poly(1,8-octanediol-co-citrate) elastomers (POC). (3,6) Both of these changes relied on new biomaterials.

Biomaterials science as a field progressed once it became accepted wisdom that materials should be designed from the ground up with the body and human health in mind. To do this required greater mechanistic studies of human physiology and its interaction with materials. (1) Environmental scientists are starting to do the same type of basic research to uncover the interactions between plastics and nature. A prime example has been revisiting the environmental lifetimes of plastic. (7) Once thought to be thousands of years, it is now understood to be more likely hundreds of years, exemplified by fundamental research on the photodegradation of polystyrene. (8) Biomaterials science can offer environmental science a “second opinion” on plastic pollution because the plastics of interest for both fields greatly overlap (Figure 1) and so offer the potential for insight from both fields to be applied to questions regarding the use of a particular plastic in either context. Already it has been suggested that organ-on-a-chip models can be used for evaluating environmental nanoparticle toxicity and that the body’s response to polymeric wear particles from prostheses can inform our understanding of the body’s response to microplastics. (9−11) Still, there is more room for exchange.

Figure 1

Figure 1. A comparison of common polymers used and investigated in the biomedical and environmental sciences. Notably, the plastics most abundantly found in nature (PE, PP, PS, PET, PVC) are shared between the two fields. (1,17) Additionally, many of the properties and processes of interest are the same and simply differ only on the basis of favorability, for example, in the biomedical field the release of small molecules can be favorable for drug delivery, whereas in the environmental field the release of small molecules can be unfavorable in the form of leachates. Created with BioRender.com.

The most common industrial plastics have been or are of interest to both fields and the environmental conditions that plastics are subjected to in the body and in nature are very similar. Both environments are aqueous, consist of a collection of biomacromolecules, salts, and small molecules, and are biologically active. The major exception is that the environment often includes photochemical processes, where the body does not. However, the reactive oxygen species generated by sunlight in nature are similarly present in the body and are used by cells to attack pathogens and foreign materials. (1,8)

Another crossover is in the release and absorption of small molecules. The processes governing this are the same in the body and the environment and simply differ by a matter of perspective: One plastic’s leachate is another plastic’s released drug. (12) The collection of biomacromolecules that adsorb to plastics has been dubbed its eco-corona; (13) the same phenomenon also occurs on the surfaces of biomaterials in the form of a “bio-corona,” notably by serum proteins. (14)

Of interest to environmental health scientists is the potential for microplastics to act as vectors of disease-causing microbes. (15) In principle, the interactions investigated by biomaterial scientists in terms of microbiome–material interactions and biofilm–material interactions should aid in this effort. (1,15,16)

Much like in biomaterials science, environmental science would benefit from defining a term parallel to biocompatibility to describe the interaction of materials in the environment. In that sense, the ecocompatibility of a material can be thought of as the ability of a material to not disrupt the healthy functioning of the natural environment in which it exists. Pairing material and environmental context can provide a framework that is aligned with the concepts of green chemistry for both understanding and designing a material with the natural environment in mind and to recognize that the same plastic may behave differently in different environments. The framework can come full circle when considering the toxicity of environmentally derived microplastics in the body as their presence transitions from being an issue of ecocompatibility to one of biocompatibility. It should be noted that the plastics being investigated as biodegradable or eco-friendly have been used in the body for the past few decades. (1) This exchange can be a bridge for biomaterials scientists, environmental scientists, and polymer scientists to start interacting more with one another.

It stands to reason that the interests and concerns of environmental science for plastic pollution align with those held by biomaterials science. Thus, there is much to share between the two fields to tackle the challenges of plastic pollution in the environment and its impact on wildlife and human health. It would be wise for researchers investigating plastics in the environment to communicate with their peers investigating plastics in the body and vice versa. In medicine, one doctor’s opinion is good, but two are better.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding

    Preparation of this commentary was supported by the Postdoctoral Scholar Program at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, with funding provided by the Weston Howland Jr. Postdoctoral Scholarship (B.D.J.); the Gerstner Family Foundation (M.E.H. and C.M.R.); the March Marine Initiative, a program of March Limited, Bermuda (M.E.H.); and Woods Hole Sea Grant (M.E.H.).

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We thank Ken Kostel (WHOI) for valued discussion of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

ePTFE

expanded polytetrafluorethylene

pHEMA

poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)

PA

polyamide

PEG

polyethylene glycol

PCL

polycaprolactone

PDMS

polydimethylsiloxane

POC

poly(1,8-octanediol-co-citrate)

PE

polyethylene

PP

polypropylene

PHA

polyhydroxyalkanoates

PTFE

polytetrafluoroethylene

PVC

polyvinyl chloride

PLA

polylactic acid

PET

polyethylene terephthalate

PS

polystyrene

PMMA

poly(methyl methacrylate)

ABS

acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

PC

polycarbonate

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 17 other publications.

  1. 1
    Biomaterials Science, 4th ed.; Wagner, W. R., Sakiyama-Elbert, S. E., Zhang, G., Yaszemski, M. J., Eds.; Elsevier, 2020.  DOI: 10.1016/C2017-0-02323-6 .
  2. 2
    McMahon, T. T.; Zadnik, K. Twenty-Five Years of Contact Lenses. Cornea 2000, 19 (5), 730740,  DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200009000-00018
  3. 3
    Hoshi, R. A.; van Lith, R.; Jen, M. C.; Allen, J. B.; Lapidos, K. A.; Ameer, G. The Blood and Vascular Cell Compatibility of Heparin-Modified EPTFE Vascular Grafts. Biomaterials 2013, 34 (1), 3041,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.09.046
  4. 4
    Karamanlioglu, M.; Robson, G. D. The Influence of Biotic and Abiotic Factors on the Rate of Degradation of Poly(Lactic) Acid (PLA) Coupons Buried in Compost and Soil. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98 (10), 20632071,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.07.004
  5. 5
    Crawford, L.; Wyatt, M.; Bryers, J.; Ratner, B. Biocompatibility Evolves: Phenomenology to Toxicology to Regeneration. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10 (11), 2002153,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202002153
  6. 6
    Motlagh, D.; Allen, J.; Hoshi, R.; Yang, J.; Lui, K.; Ameer, G. Hemocompatibility Evaluation of Poly(Diol Citrate)in Vitro for Vascular Tissue Engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 2007, 82A (4), 907916,  DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31211
  7. 7
    Ward, C. P.; Reddy, C. M. Opinion: We Need Better Data about the Environmental Persistence of Plastic Goods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117 (26), 1461814621,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2008009117
  8. 8
    Ward, C. P.; Armstrong, C. J.; Walsh, A. N.; Jackson, J. H.; Reddy, C. M. Sunlight Converts Polystyrene to Carbon Dioxide and Dissolved Organic Carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6 (11), 669674,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00532
  9. 9
    Lu, R. X. Z.; Radisic, M. Organ-on-a-Chip Platforms for Evaluation of Environmental Nanoparticle Toxicity. Bioactive Materials 2021, 6 (9), 28012819,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.01.021
  10. 10
    Lehner, R.; Weder, C.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Emergence of Nanoplastic in the Environment and Possible Impact on Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (4), 17481765,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05512
  11. 11
    Wright, S. L.; Kelly, F. J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 66346647,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00423
  12. 12
    Qian, J.; Berkland, C. Drug Release Kinetics from Nondegradable Hydrophobic Polymers Can Be Modulated and Predicted by the Glass Transition Temperature. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2100015,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202100015
  13. 13
    Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of Microplastic Debris throughout the Marine Ecosystem. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2017, 1 (5), 0116,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
  14. 14
    Fasoli, E. Protein Corona: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of Nanomedicine. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2020, bab.2035,  DOI: 10.1002/bab.2035
  15. 15
    Amaral-Zettler, L. A.; Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J. Ecology of the Plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18 (3), 139151,  DOI: 10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0
  16. 16
    Arnold, J. W.; Roach, J.; Azcarate-Peril, M. A. Emerging Technologies for Gut Microbiome Research. Trends Microbiol. 2016, 24 (11), 887901,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2016.06.008
  17. 17
    Stubbins, A.; Law, K. L.; Muñoz, S. E.; Bianchi, T. S.; Zhu, L. Plastics in the Earth System. Science 2021, 373 (6550), 5155,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abb0354

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 4 publications.

  1. Bryan D. James, Alexander V. Medvedev, Sergei S. Makarov, Robert K. Nelson, Christopher M. Reddy, Mark E. Hahn. Moldable Plastics (Polycaprolactone) can be Acutely Toxic to Developing Zebrafish and Activate Nuclear Receptors in Mammalian Cells. ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering 2024, 10 (8) , 5237-5251. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c00693
  2. Bryan D. James, Collin P. Ward, Mark E. Hahn, Steven J. Thorpe, Christopher M. Reddy. Minimizing the Environmental Impacts of Plastic Pollution through Ecodesign of Products with Low Environmental Persistence. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12 (3) , 1185-1194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05534
  3. Bryan D. James, Sibel I. Karchner, Anna N. Walsh, Neelakanteswar Aluru, Diana G. Franks, Kallen R. Sullivan, Christopher M. Reddy, Collin P. Ward, Mark E. Hahn. Formulation Controls the Potential Neuromuscular Toxicity of Polyethylene Photoproducts in Developing Zebrafish. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (21) , 7966-7977. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c01932
  4. Bryan D. James, Asha de Vos, Lihini I. Aluwihare, Sarah Youngs, Collin P. Ward, Robert K. Nelson, Anna P. M. Michel, Mark E. Hahn, Christopher M. Reddy. Divergent Forms of Pyroplastic: Lessons Learned from the M/V X-Press Pearl Ship Fire. ACS Environmental Au 2022, 2 (5) , 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00020
Open PDF

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 3, 1475–1477
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07569
Published January 7, 2022

Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

4083

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. A comparison of common polymers used and investigated in the biomedical and environmental sciences. Notably, the plastics most abundantly found in nature (PE, PP, PS, PET, PVC) are shared between the two fields. (1,17) Additionally, many of the properties and processes of interest are the same and simply differ only on the basis of favorability, for example, in the biomedical field the release of small molecules can be favorable for drug delivery, whereas in the environmental field the release of small molecules can be unfavorable in the form of leachates. Created with BioRender.com.

  • References


    This article references 17 other publications.

    1. 1
      Biomaterials Science, 4th ed.; Wagner, W. R., Sakiyama-Elbert, S. E., Zhang, G., Yaszemski, M. J., Eds.; Elsevier, 2020.  DOI: 10.1016/C2017-0-02323-6 .
    2. 2
      McMahon, T. T.; Zadnik, K. Twenty-Five Years of Contact Lenses. Cornea 2000, 19 (5), 730740,  DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200009000-00018
    3. 3
      Hoshi, R. A.; van Lith, R.; Jen, M. C.; Allen, J. B.; Lapidos, K. A.; Ameer, G. The Blood and Vascular Cell Compatibility of Heparin-Modified EPTFE Vascular Grafts. Biomaterials 2013, 34 (1), 3041,  DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.09.046
    4. 4
      Karamanlioglu, M.; Robson, G. D. The Influence of Biotic and Abiotic Factors on the Rate of Degradation of Poly(Lactic) Acid (PLA) Coupons Buried in Compost and Soil. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2013, 98 (10), 20632071,  DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.07.004
    5. 5
      Crawford, L.; Wyatt, M.; Bryers, J.; Ratner, B. Biocompatibility Evolves: Phenomenology to Toxicology to Regeneration. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10 (11), 2002153,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202002153
    6. 6
      Motlagh, D.; Allen, J.; Hoshi, R.; Yang, J.; Lui, K.; Ameer, G. Hemocompatibility Evaluation of Poly(Diol Citrate)in Vitro for Vascular Tissue Engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 2007, 82A (4), 907916,  DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31211
    7. 7
      Ward, C. P.; Reddy, C. M. Opinion: We Need Better Data about the Environmental Persistence of Plastic Goods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117 (26), 1461814621,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2008009117
    8. 8
      Ward, C. P.; Armstrong, C. J.; Walsh, A. N.; Jackson, J. H.; Reddy, C. M. Sunlight Converts Polystyrene to Carbon Dioxide and Dissolved Organic Carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6 (11), 669674,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00532
    9. 9
      Lu, R. X. Z.; Radisic, M. Organ-on-a-Chip Platforms for Evaluation of Environmental Nanoparticle Toxicity. Bioactive Materials 2021, 6 (9), 28012819,  DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.01.021
    10. 10
      Lehner, R.; Weder, C.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Emergence of Nanoplastic in the Environment and Possible Impact on Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (4), 17481765,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05512
    11. 11
      Wright, S. L.; Kelly, F. J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (12), 66346647,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00423
    12. 12
      Qian, J.; Berkland, C. Drug Release Kinetics from Nondegradable Hydrophobic Polymers Can Be Modulated and Predicted by the Glass Transition Temperature. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2021, 10, 2100015,  DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202100015
    13. 13
      Galloway, T. S.; Cole, M.; Lewis, C. Interactions of Microplastic Debris throughout the Marine Ecosystem. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2017, 1 (5), 0116,  DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116
    14. 14
      Fasoli, E. Protein Corona: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of Nanomedicine. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2020, bab.2035,  DOI: 10.1002/bab.2035
    15. 15
      Amaral-Zettler, L. A.; Zettler, E. R.; Mincer, T. J. Ecology of the Plastisphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18 (3), 139151,  DOI: 10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0
    16. 16
      Arnold, J. W.; Roach, J.; Azcarate-Peril, M. A. Emerging Technologies for Gut Microbiome Research. Trends Microbiol. 2016, 24 (11), 887901,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2016.06.008
    17. 17
      Stubbins, A.; Law, K. L.; Muñoz, S. E.; Bianchi, T. S.; Zhu, L. Plastics in the Earth System. Science 2021, 373 (6550), 5155,  DOI: 10.1126/science.abb0354