ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Comparison of the behaviour of pro-oxidant additive containing plastic degradation in the unmanaged natural environment and in the laboratory.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of the behaviour of pro-oxidant additive containing plastic degradation in the unmanaged natural environment and in the laboratory.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pro-oxidant additive containing (PAC) plastics are designed to degrade in the unmanaged natural environment through oxidation and biological processes. In 2020, the British Standard Institution published the PAS 9017:2020 standard designed to ensure that PAC plastic tested under a specific set of protocols would successfully biodegrade in the environment. In this article, we compare the outcomes of laboratory tests carried out according to PAS 9017:2020 with field tests in an open unmanaged environment in the UK over 24 months. We report that the PAC cups were intact after 24 months and did not undergo significant abiotic degradation nor biodegradation during field tests. The PAC cups did undergo rapid abiotic degradation during accelerated UV laboratory tests, however the carbonyl index never reached 1.0. The molecular weight of the PAC cups decreased throughout the field trials and during the laboratory tests but neither satisfied the requirements stated in PAS 9017:2020. Earthworm avoidance tests and earthworm reproduction tests carried out in artificial soil showed no significant adverse effects or impact on the microbial community. We conclude that PAS 9017:2020 does not predict the real-world behaviour of the PAC plastics we tested in the open unmanaged environment in the temperate climate of the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.