Use of an Extract from a Scenedesmaceae Microalgal Isolate in Polyurethane-Based Composite Films: A Preliminary Evaluation from Environmental and Public Health Perspectives

Abstract

Objective: Plastic production, use, and degradation are increasingly important public health concerns because of environmental pollution, microplastic formation, and human exposure. Healthcare packaging, personal protective equipment, and single-use products also contribute to plastic waste. This study investigated the use of a chloroform extract from a microalgal isolate morphologically consistent with Scenedesmaceae as a biological additive in a polyurethane (PU) matrix. Methods: Microalgae were isolated on BG11 agar and morphologically pre-identified by light microscopy according to cell shape, coenobial organization, and cell number. Dried biomass was extracted with chloroform, and the extract was incorporated into PU at 10%, 20%, and 40% on a dry-matter basis. Neat PU served as the control. Three independently prepared films per formulation were evaluated for physical properties, water absorption, and weight loss after 7, 15, and 30 days of soil burial. Results: Increasing extract content reduced flexibility and increased brittleness. Water absorption was 41.70±0.53%, 56.81±1.45%, 54.03±1.24%, and 104.66±1.81% in neat PU, 10%, 20%, and 40% Alg/PU films, respectively. After 30 days, weight loss was 16.23±0.45%, 19.86±0.45%, 21.30±0.47%, and 26.78±0.58%, respectively, showing a descriptive increasing trend with extract content. Conclusion: Microalgal extract incorporation increased water absorption and soil-burial weight loss, while high loading impaired film homogeneity, flexibility, and physical integrity. Among the tested formulations, the 10% Alg/PU film retained comparatively better flexibility and homogeneity. These findings support further mechanical, structural, barrier, and biodegradation studies of biologically modified PU composites.

Keywords

• biocompoiste film
• enviromental healt
• healt care waste
• microalgae
• polyurethane
• public health
• soil burial

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK 2209-A-2024-1

Project Number

1919B012419323

Ethical Statement

As this study did not involve human participants or experimental animals, ethics committee approval was not required.

Thanks

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK), 2209-A University Students Research Projects Support Program, 2024 First-Term Call, Project No: [1919B012419323].

Erzurum Sulak Alanlarından İzole Edilen Scenedesmaceae Üyesi Bir Mikroalg Ekstraktının Poliüretan Esaslı Kompozit Filmlerde Kullanımı: Çevre ve Halk Sağlığı Perspektifinden Bir Ön Değerlendirme

Abstract

Amaç: Plastiklerin üretimi, kullanımı ve bozunma süreçleri; çevre kirliliği, mikroplastik oluşumu ve insan maruziyeti nedeniyle önemli bir halk sağlığı sorunu oluşturmaktadır. Sağlık hizmetlerinde kullanılan ambalajlar, kişisel koruyucu ekipmanlar ve tek kullanımlık ürünler de plastik atık miktarını artırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Scenedesmaceae familyası ile uyumlu morfolojik özellikler gösteren bir mikroalg izolatından elde edilen kloroform ekstraktının poliüretan (PU) matrisinde biyolojik katkı maddesi olarak kullanılma potansiyeli araştırılmıştır. Yöntem: Mikroalgler BG11 agar besiyerinde izole edilmiş ve ışık mikroskobunda morfolojik olarak ön tanımlanmıştır. Kurutulmuş biyokütleden elde edilen kloroform ekstraktı, kuru madde esasına göre %10, %20 ve %40 oranlarında PU matrisine ilave edilmiştir. Katkısız PU kontrol grubu olarak kullanılmıştır. Her formülasyondan üç bağımsız film hazırlanmış ve fiziksel özellikler, su alma kapasitesi ile 7, 15 ve 30 günlük toprakta gömme sonrasındaki ağırlık kaybı değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Ekstrakt içeriğinin artması esnekliği azaltırken kırılganlığı artırmıştır. Su absorpsiyonu katkısız PU, %10, %20 ve %40 Alg/PU filmlerinde sırasıyla %41,70±0,53, %56,81±1,45, %54,03±1,24 ve %104,66±1,81 olarak belirlenmiştir. 30. günde ağırlık kaybı sırasıyla %16,23±0,45, %19,86±0,45, %21,30±0,47 ve %26,78±0,58 olup, ekstrakt içeriğiyle tanımlayıcı bir artış eğilimi göstermiştir. Sonuç: Mikroalg ekstraktının PU matrise ilave edilmesi, filmlerin su absorpsiyonunu ve toprakta gömme sonrasındaki ağırlık kaybını artırırken, yüksek ekstrakt oranları film homojenliğini, esnekliğini ve fiziksel bütünlüğünü olumsuz etkilemiştir. İncelenen formülasyonlar arasında %10 Alg/PU filmi, esneklik ve homojenliğini karşılaştırmalı olarak daha iyi korumuştur. Bu bulgular, biyolojik olarak modifiye edilmiş PU kompozitlerin çevreye duyarlı ve tehlikeli olmayan sağlık hizmetleriyle ilişkili ambalaj ve yardımcı malzemelerde kullanım potansiyelinin değerlendirilmesi için ileri mekanik, yapısal, bariyer ve biyobozunma çalışmalarının yapılmasını desteklemektedir.

Keywords

• biyokompozit film
• çevre sağlığı
• halk sağlığı
• mikroalg
• poliüretan
• sağlık hizmeti atıkları
• toprakta gömme

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK 2209-A-2024-1

Project Number

1919B012419323

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma insan katılımcı veya deney hayvanı içermediğinden etik kurul onayı gerekmemiştir.

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK) tarafından 2209-A Üniversite Öğrencileri Araştırma Projeleri Destekleme Programı 2024 Yılı 1. Dönem Çağrısı kapsamında desteklenmiştir (Proje No: 1919B012419323).

References

1. 1. Zaaba NF, Ismail H. Thermoplastic/natural filler composites: A short review. J Phys Sci. 2019; 30(Supp.1), 81-99. https://doi.org/10.21315/jps2019.30.s1.5
2. 2. Shanmugam V, Mensah RA, Försth M, et al. Circular economy in biocomposite development: State-of-the-art, challenges and emerging trends. Compos Part C Open Access. 2021; 5 100138, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100138
3. 3. Díaz S, Romero F, Suárez L, et al. Characterization of microalgae biomass-based composites obtained through rotational molding. Polymers (Basel). 2024; 16(13): 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16131807
4. 4. MacArthur E. Beyond plastic waste. Science. 2017; 358(6365), 843.
5. 5. Cui X, Honda T, Asoh TA, et al. Cellulose modified by citric acid reinforced polypropylene resin as fillers. Carbohydr Polym. 2020; 230: 115662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115662
6. 6. Nazrin A, Sapuan SM, Zuhri MYM, et al. Nanocellulose reinforced thermoplastic starch, polylactic acid, and polybutylene succinate for food packaging applications. Front Chem. 2020; 8: 523578. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2020.00213
7. 7. Rocha DB, de Souza AG, Szostak M, et al. Polylactic acid/lignocellulosic residue composites compatibilized through a starch coating. Polym Compos. 2020; 41(8): 3250-3259. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.25616
8. 8. Saha P, Aloui H, Yun JH, et al. Development of a novel composite film based on polyurethane and defatted Chlorella biomass: Physical and functional characterization. J Appl Polym Sci. 2021; 138(14): 50152. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.50152

9. 9. Yang JH, Hong JS, Lee JS, et al. Dispersion of unfractionated CO2-derived protein-rich microalgae (Chlorella sp. HS2) for ecofriendly polymer composite fabrication. Mater Today Commun. 2022; 31: 103769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103769
10. 10. Wijanarko A, Dianursanti, Sendjaya AY, et al. Enhanced Chlorella vulgaris Buitenzorg growth by photon flux density alteration in serial photobioreactors. Biotechnology Bioprocess Eng. 2008;13(4):476-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-008-0149-611.
11. 11. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017; 3(7): e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
12. 12. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science.2015; 347(6223): 768-771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
13. 13. World Health Organization. Dietary and Inhalation Exposure to Nano- and Microplastic Particles and Potential Implications for Human Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2022.
14. 14. World Health Organization. Health-care waste. Updated October 24, 2024. Accessed July 20, 2026. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste.
15. 15. World Health Organization. Plastics and Health Initiative. Accessed July 20, 2026. https://www.who.int/initiatives/plastics-and-health-initiative.
16. 16. Onen Cinar S, Chong ZK, Kucuker MA, et al. Bioplastic production from microalgae: A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(11): 3842. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113842
17. 17. Devadas VV, Khoo KS, Chia WY, et al. Algae biopolymer towards sustainable circular economy. Bioresour Technol. 2021; 325: 124702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124702
18. 18. Costa SS, Miranda AL, de Morais MG, et al. Microalgae as source of polyhydroxyalkanoates: A review. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019; 131: 536-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.03.099
19. 19. Kim JH, Yang JH, Hong JS, et al. CO2-derived microalgae as a biomass filler to fabricate green composite. Mater Today Sustain. 2023; 24: 100582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2023.100582
20. 20. Krienitz L, Bock C. Present state of the systematics of planktonic coccoid green algae of inland waters. Hydrobiologia. 2012; 698: 295-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1079-z
21. 21. Lürling M. Phenotypic plasticity in the green algae Desmodesmus and Scenedesmus with special reference to the induction of defensive morphology. Ann Limnol Int J Lim. 2003; 39(2): 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2003014
22. 22. Demura M. New species and species diversity of Desmodesmus (Chlorophyceae, Chlorophyta) in Saga City, Japan. Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1): 18980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69941-z
23. 23. Rocha CJL, Álvarez-Castillo E, Yáñez MRE, et al. Development of bioplastics from a microalgae consortium from wastewater. J Environ Manage. 2020; 263: 110353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110353
24. 24. Sankaranarayanan S, Hermosilla J, Acevedo F, et al. The influences of solvents on the electrospinning of whole Scenedesmus almeriensis and poly(ethylene oxide) for the preparation of composite nanofibers. Compos Commun. 2018; 10: 18-24. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.coco.2018.05.003
25. 25. Casado U, Marcovich NE, Aranguren MI, et al. High-strength composites based on tung oil polyurethane and wood flour: Effect of filler concentration on mechanical properties. Polym Eng Sci. 2009; 49(4): 713-721. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.21315
26. 26. Andersen RA, ed. Algal Culturing Techniques. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. ISBN: 0-12-088426-7
27. 27. Stanier RY, Kunisawa R, Mandel M, et al. Purification and properties of unicellular blue-green algae (order Chroococcales). Bacteriol Rev. 1971; 35(2): 171-205. https://doi.org/10.1128/br.35.2.171-205.1971
28. 28. Prescott GW. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area. Dubuque, IA: William C Brown Company Publishers; 1962; 29. ISBN: 0-697-04552-8
29. 29. Guiry MD. How many species of algae are there? J Phycol. 2012; 48(5): 1057-1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01222.x
30. 30. Abdo SM, Youssef M, El Nagar I, et al. Processing and characterization of antimicrobial bioplastic films based on green microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus extract-loaded polyurethane. Int J Biol Macromol. 2024; 257(Pt 2): 128711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128711
31. 31. ASTM International. ASTM D570-22: Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2022.
32. 32. Rumi SS, Liyanage S, Abidi N. Soil burial-induced degradation of cellulose films in a moisture-controlled environment. Sci Rep. 2024; 14: 6921. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57436-w
33. 33. Slezak R, Krzystek L, Puchalski M, et al. Degradation of bio-based film plastics in soil under natural conditions. Sci Total Environ. 2023; 866: 161401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161401
34. 34. Shafqat A, Al-Zaqri N, Tahir A, et al. Synthesis and characterization of starch-based bioplastics using varying plant-based ingredients, plasticizers and natural fillers. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021; 28(3): 1739-1749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.12.015
35. 35. Filiciotto L, Rothenberg G. Biodegradable plastics: Standards, policies, and impacts. ChemSusChem. 2021; 14(1): 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.202002044
36. 36. Narancic T, Cerrone F, Beagan N, et al. Recent advances in bioplastics: Application and biodegradation. Polymers (Basel). 2020; 12(4): 920. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12040920
37. 37. Sudhakar MP, Maurya R, Mehariya S, et al. Feasibility of bioplastic production using micro-and macroalgae: A review. Environ Res. 2024; 240: 117465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117465