Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39802937›Full record

ArticleMetabolic engineering communications2025

Co-consumption for plastics upcycling: A perspective.

Michael Weldon, Sanniv Ganguly, Christian Euler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolic engineering communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. EngineeringiScience · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael WeldonDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Sanniv GangulyDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Christian EulerDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing plastics end-of-life crisis threatens ecosystems and human health globally. Microbial plastic degradation and upcycling have emerged as potential solutions to this complex challenge, but their industrial feasibility and limitations thereon have not been fully characterized. In this perspective paper, we review literature describing both plastic degradation and transformation of plastic monomers into value-added products by microbes. We aim to understand the current feasibility of combining these into a single, closed-loop process. Our analysis shows that microbial plastic degradation is currently the rate-limiting step to "closing the loop", with reported rates that are orders of magnitude lower than those of pathways to upcycle plastic degradation products. We further find that neither degradation nor upcycling have been demonstrated at rates sufficiently high to justify industrialization at present. As a potential way to address these limitations, we suggest more investigation into mixotrophic approaches, showing that those which leverage the unique properties of plastic degradation products such as ethylene glycol might improve rates sufficiently to motivate industrial process development.

Indexed as

Carbon co-consumptionPlastic upcyclingPolyethylene terephthalate

Identifiers

PMID39802937
PMCPMC11717657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.