Slashdot Mirror


Teen Discovers Plastic-Decomposing Bacteria

ganelo writes to tell us that 16-year-old Waterloo Collegiate Institute student Danel Burd has made quite a stir with his plastic-eating bacteria discovery. For his efforts Burd won top prize at a Canada-wide science fair claiming a $10,000 prize and a $20,000 scholarship. "Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first."

22 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Well, Ma'am.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now when people come back into my store and complain about their shopping bags breaking, I can tell them why!

  2. hey I know by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know what would be cool is instead of just saying ooh I wonder if it eats plastic too and finding out it does, though that's definitely stll amazing...put some bacteria that are at least close to maybe being able to eat X substance and put it on the surface of that substance and blast them with regular, mild radiation every day until some mutate until a colony mutates and starts eating the rubber/plastic/whatever. I've heard very little about forcing mutations randomly to try and get a given result but it seems like a good idea to me. I mean if this kid had found that the bacteria couldn't eat plastic, I doubt anyone would have given him the funding and stuff to try and alter them so they do. And yes, before anyone posts it, keep the test area damn well sealed too so supergerms don't get out (duh!).

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:hey I know by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      a similar technique to what you describe has already been used to generate a strain of bacteria capable of cleaning coal of various hydrocarbons. the basic idea is that you can breed bacteria and put a selective pressure on them while slowly changing the chemical environment they live in. in the case of coal, you start with oil digesting bacteria and slowly acclimate them to larger quantities of hydrocarbons typically found in the presence of coal while lowering the concentration of the original "oil" hydrocarbons. it is my understanding that the process I am referring to has been patented although I do not believe that radiation/mutagens were used in the breeding process. so in principle your idea, though not new, would/does work and is being used to some extent.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:hey I know by skirmish666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This reminds me of that episode of sliders where a bacteria created to eat plastic waste escapes and eats the worlds petrochemical supply.

      --
      Sigger than your average
    3. Re:hey I know by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, bacteria mutate fairly quickly as it is. First of all, they don't have nearly the same level of DNA repair ability that eukaryotes (that's all multi-celled creatures and some single-celled) do. Second of all, their sheer numbers are enormous. In a small container, populations many orders of magnitude larger than the human population, can be grown. So out of the huge populations alone, you can expect a much larger overall mutation count.

      Finally, different species of bacteria can share genetic material (DNA plasmids) through a type of "mating" called conjugation, allowing species to trade traits with other species.

      Any mutations that makes them more efficient reproducers and better able to create energy from their environment is likely to ensure survival and ability to out-reproduce their peers.

      Through these various methods, you should get a fairly high rate of mutation. Adding radiation may actually be detrimental to the overall success of the intent. Mutations tend to be detrimental, so if you increase the rate too much, you end up killing them off too fast. You also increase the risk of killing off the small populations with the new positive mutations you want, before they have a chance to spread.

      It wouldn't surprise me if you went digging through a bunch of dumps that have been covered up years ago, to find bacteria that have evolved to eat some of that garbage. I suspect that the time required for our garbage to decompose is actually lower than we predict since we don't really factor in the possibility of bacterial mutations which can make them good consumers of the garbage. I suspect these mutations will happen in far less time than the natural decomposition period of the materials in question.

  3. in related news by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    a top secret death squad under the auspices of the upper corporate echelon at ikea have been dispatched from stockholm to deal with this potentially profit decimating threat

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. The mishap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, the bacteria was introduced after the teen discovered the cure for cancer in a plastic dish; however, before the cure could be analyzed in order to replicate it, the bacteria ate the dish and the cure. The Associated Press quoted the boy saying "God damnnit!"

  5. Absolutely Beautiful by Walter+Wart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It was kitchen table science done by himself with no budget, no grant and no assistants. You aren't supposed to be able to do Real Science(tm) like that anymore. So how did the kid do it?
    1. He thought a of a simple problem that hadn't been solved
    2. He investigated the obvious avenues first
    3. He used the resources at his disposal instead of trying
    4. He chose something where success and failure would both be easy to demonstrate
    This was really good science. If he keeps it up look for his name with the words "Full Professor" in front and a list of patents afterwards some time soon.
    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
    1. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      5. Got lucky.

    2. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Chance favours the prepared mind" - Louis Pasteur.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The harder I work, the luckier I get" - Samuel Goldwyn (apparently).

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  6. But is it a good thing? by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    right now we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere that we're taking out - largely by digging it up out of the ground and burning it. Plastic bags are largely made from fossil carbon - surely we're better off sequestering this carbon (by dropping it in a landfill, or down an old oil well, or coal mine) than we are breaking it down presumeably to CO2 which is released into the atmosphere

    1. Re:But is it a good thing? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is global warming myths 101.

      The above is true, and rise in temperatures caused from CO2 are ALSO true.

      That is why once you start increasing CO2 levels, it gets warmer FASTER because it triggers even more CO2 to be created, and all of it causes more warming.

      Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

    2. Re:But is it a good thing? by Nullav · · Score: 4, Informative

      Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before. You know, there's a reason for the term 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Hint: That extra CO2 released by the increased heat doesn't help cool anything.
      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    3. Re:But is it a good thing? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *sigh* It's called a positive feedback loop. Increased temperatures do result in increased CO2 levels. Increased CO2 levels then result in increased temperatures. And thus the cycle continues upwards until something causes it to stop. The real big giveaway is that the temperature increase always accelerates as CO2 concentrations goes up.

      This is a simple laboratory experiment that anyone can do. Heck, they did it on MythBusters.

      And yes, it's true that natural processes put out a lot more CO2 than humans do. That's not the point. Natural processes are more or less balanced; what nature puts out, nature absorbs. What we are doing is upsetting the balance so that there isn't enough capacity. One of Dicken's characters said "Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 six, result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery." - his point was that all you need to do is live just a little beyond your means to cause big problems.

      Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  7. Ah, this story by Haoie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first came across it, I thought that it was an idea that needs some serious development. Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

    That and recycling plastics, obviously.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
  8. That's pretty neat, kiddo... by syd02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...you came up with an answer to 29 million tons of non-biodegradeable plastic being added to landfills each year, so here's 10 grand. Yep, 10 big ones. Oh, and go get yourself a bit of education."

    1. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But doesn't he own the process? Unless the rules stated that any experiments become the property of the organization running the fair, he is going to make $30K on top of whatever money he will be pulling out of this discovery in the future. If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.

  9. Unintended consequences by Starvingboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing.

  10. Re:Doubtful by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the US patent process certainly hasn't stopped anyone from patenting the human genome.

  11. Re:Proof of evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet another hammer in the coffin for the nuts who want to deny reality.
    You are hereby sentence to listen to Simon and Garfunkel's El Condor Pasa while donating your time to Habitat for Humanity till you learn the difference between a hammer and a nail.
  12. Re:No cigar.. by arodland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury.... Dur, because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of? Half the distance from the sun that Earth is, a twentieth the mass, and tidally locked into three rotations for every two revolutions? Not exactly the ideal candidate for climate study... and Venus? You realize Venus has an atmosphere that not only is more than 95% CO2, compared to 0.04% on Earth, but is also nearly a hundred times denser? To what degree do you think that observing the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm, or the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 3% CO2 @ ~0 atm will give you insight on the difference between 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm vs. 0.045% CO2 @ 1 atm?