Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Mini Review

Frontiers in Synthetic Biology ·

Volume 4 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fsybi.2026.1895228

A comparative review of microplastic remediation strategies: constraints of physical and chemical approaches and opportunities for synthetic biology

  • Hening Guo1
  • Tsz Yam Liu2
  • Tianlin Wen2
  • Mingce Yang3
  • Yihong Zhang4
  • Boxuan Tu5*corresponding author
  1. 1Stanford Online High School, Redwood City, CA, United States
  2. 2BASIS International & Bilingual Schools China, Shenzhen, China
  3. 3Golden Apple Jincheng No. 1 Secondary School, Chengdu, China
  4. 4Kennedy Catholic High School, Burien, WA, United States
  5. 5Avant Academy, Shenzhen, China
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Microplastic pollution has emerged as a critical environmental challenge, yet existing remediation strategies remain limited in their ability to achieve more complete mineralization under environmentally relevant conditions. In this review, we examine different physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based methods of microplastic remediation in terms of degradation efficiency, environmental safety, and applicability. The physical techniques can be used to obtain efficient particle removal, but they often lead to shifting contaminants from one environmental matrix to another rather than eliminating them. Chemical approaches enable partial polymer degradation, but they often require energy-intensive processes and generate secondary products. In contrast, synthetic biology-based strategies offer opportunities for a more selective, programmable, and even sustainable breakdown of polymers under less harsh conditions. More precisely, genetically engineered microbes and biological systems can increase the selectivity of such processes while minimizing the impact of traditional techniques on the environment. This review examines the possibilities as well as the constraints of using synthetic biology for microplastic remediation, along with its complementation by physical and chemical treatment strategies.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Microplastics (MPs), polymers initially being observed in the Atlantic (Carpenter and Smith, 1972; Carpenter et al., 1972; Colton et al., 1974), are plastic particles smaller than 5 mm in size (Koelmans et al., 2015; Figure 1). Since then, an increasing trend of microplastic pollution in different water sources has been observed (Thompson et al., 2004), with documented presence in aquatic systems, agroecosystems, and biological organisms (Ng et al., 2018; Wanner, 2021). However, traditional management methods like landfilling and incineration often lack efficiency and may introduce additional environmental concerns.

Overview of physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based strategies for microplastic remediation, including their mechanisms, limitations, and future opportunities.
Figure 1. Overview of physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based strategies for microplastic remediation, including their mechanisms, limitations, and future opportunities.

Current remediation strategies primarily include physical and chemical approaches. Physical methods, such as filtration and flotation, focus on separating microplastics from environmental media; whereas chemical methods, including advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), aim to degrade microplastics by altering polymer chains. Yet both approaches remain constrained in their effectiveness.

As an alternative to conventional remediation strategies, synthetic biology offers a promising platform for enhancing biodegradation, where microorganisms and enzymes can break down plastic polymers into smaller molecules. Compared with traditional methods, including physical and chemical strategies, such approaches can target the pollutant while not producing secondary harm. However, biodegradation remains sensitive to environmental factors, as microbial activity and enzyme efficiency are highly dependent on surrounding conditions (Sathiaseelan et al., 2024). Yet, AI-driven tools may help optimize enzyme efficiency and identify microbial strains capable of degrading microplastics. By integrating bioinformatics, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence, researchers may be able to design novel degradation pathways that provide improved efficiency and minimal side effects or limitations. Together, these cutting-edge technologies create a promising route for an eco-friendly and effective solution for microplastic pollution.

To systematically compare current remediation strategies and further evaluate the emerging role of synthetic biology in microplastic remediation, this review examines the mechanisms, advantages, and limitations of physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based approaches for microplastic remediation.

2 Conventional microplastic remediation strategies

Despite continued advancements in conventional remediation technologies, significant challenges remain in achieving efficient and environmentally sustainable microplastic remediation under real-world conditions. To better understand the need for emerging biological approaches, it is important to first examine the mechanisms and limitations associated with existing physical and chemical remediation strategies. While the development of both physical and chemical approaches for microplastic degradation has risen, neither solution provides a fully effective or sustainable solution. Physical methods only relocate particles rather than destroying them; while chemical methods often require harsh conditions and can generate secondary pollutants. As a result, both techniques shift environmental risk rather than eliminate it.

2.1 Physical separation methods: mechanisms and transfer limitations

Physical methods are seen as a direct pathway to remove MPs from the media, like filtration. However, although such methods are widely applied, it primarily relies on separation based on particles’ properties. For instance, filtration separates by size, density separation happens by density, adsorption separates by surface affinity, and flotation and bubble-mediated aggregation separate by interfacial behavior. This results in a relocation of microplastics between media instead of eliminating them. Table 1 summarizes the major techniques, their mechanisms, observed results, and critical limitations.

TABLE 1. Comparison of physical methods: mechanisms and limitations.

MethodMechanismResultsLimitationsReferences
FiltrationUses physical barriers to trap microplastics based on size exclusionRemove 86.9%–99.9% particles depending on size; particles >100 μm reach ∼99.9% successLower efficiency (∼86.9%) for 10–20 μm particles; Suffers from fouling and incomplete capture of fine particles; requires frequent maintenance; generates concentrated waste streams containing microplasticsZhang et al. (2020), Jani et al. (2024)
FlotationUses air bubbles to attach to particles and float them for removalEffective under controlled laboratory conditions; performance varies by polymer typeEfficiency decreases in complex environmental matrices; inconsistent results across conditionsJia et al. (2024), Phengsaart et al. (2025)
Magnetic SeparationUses magnetic particles to bind and separate microplastics under a magnetic fieldHigh removal rates for certain plastic beadsIntroduces non-biodegradable magnetic nanoparticles; contributes to secondary pollutionDey et al. (2021)
Density separationSeparates particles based on density differences using chemical solutionsIsolate some plastics from sediments or mixturesLimited by similar densities of plastics and natural particles; increases reagent use; risk of contaminationSrivastava et al. (2025)
Bubble-Mediated aggregationUses bubbles to cluster microplastics for easier removalEnhances aggregation and separation efficiencyCan mechanically erode plastic surfaces; may increase release of micro and nano sized plasticsMogensen, 2026; Li et al. (2025)
AdsorptionBinds microplastics onto engineered materials or surfacesEffective in removing particles from specific mediaTransfers contaminants into secondary materials; requires regeneration and disposal; creates additional wasteDayal et al. (2024)

2.2 Chemical degradation methods: reactive mechanisms and environmental constraints

Chemical methods are often considered alternatives to physical techniques. These approaches use reactive species or energy inputs to chemically alter polymer chains. Table 2 summarizes the major chemical techniques, their mechanisms, outcomes, and limitations. For example, reactive oxygen species in advanced oxidation and photocatalysis, or thermal energy in pyrolysis. These methods can mineralize plastics under laboratory conditions. However, the requirements limit their feasibility in natural environments, while also generating harmful byproducts.

TABLE 2. Comparison of chemical methods: reaction and risks.

MethodMechanismResultsLimitationReferences
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs)Generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) to break polymer chains through oxidationCan partially degrade microplastics in controlled environmentsRequire high energy input, controlled pH, and catalysts; produce reactive intermediates that may be as harmful as original plasticsYang et al. (2024), Yeszhan et al. (2025)
PhotocatalysisUses light-activated catalysts to generate ROS for polymer degradationEffective under laboratory light and catalyst conditionsLimited efficiency in natural environments; depends on light intensity and catalyst stability; produces incomplete degradationYang et al. (2024), Zhou et al. (2024)
Thermal oxidation/PyrolysisUses high temperature to break down plastics into smaller moleculesCan significantly decompose plastic materialsProduces persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins, furans, and PAHs; high toxicity riskIbrahim et al. (2025)

Compared to Physical methods, Chemical methods can break down microplastic polymers more effectively. However, they are constrained in high reaction temperatures and often produce harmful pollutants. The complexity in the natural environment further reduces their efficiency outside of laboratory conditions. Additionally, the byproducts can contribute to pollution and disrupt biological systems across both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

3 Emerging synthetic biology-based remediation strategies

The limitations associated with conventional physical and chemical remediation methods have increased interest in biological approaches for microplastic management. Unlike traditional techniques that primarily separate, transfer, or partially degrade pollutants, biological systems offer the possibility of more selective and potentially sustainable remediation under relatively mild environmental conditions. In particular, advances in synthetic biology have expanded the capabilities of bioremediation by enabling the engineering of microorganisms, enzymes, and responsive biological systems with improved degradation specificity and environmental adaptability. These emerging strategies not only aim to enhance polymer degradation efficiency, but also introduce programmable sensing, metabolic pathway optimization, and controlled biological deployment as integrated approaches for microplastic remediation.

3.1 Bioremediation approaches for microplastic degradation

Bioremediation refers to the use of biological systems, including microorganisms, enzymes, and biologically active materials, to remove or degrade environmental pollutants under relatively mild conditions. In the context of microplastic remediation, biological approaches have gained increasing attention because they offer greater substrate specificity and potentially lower environmental impact compared with conventional physical or chemical treatments. Among current strategies, engineered microorganisms represent one of the most extensively studied approaches. For example, Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6, a naturally occurring bacterium, was reported to almost completely degrade a low-crystallinity polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film within 6 weeks under controlled laboratory conditions at 30 °C. It works through the combined activity of PETase and MHETase enzymes, providing the first demonstration of PET assimilation by a naturally occurring bacterium (Yoshida et al., 2016). Subsequent enzyme engineering studies further improved degradation efficiency and thermal stability of PET hydrolases under laboratory conditions (Tournier et al., 2020). In addition to whole-cell systems, isolated enzymes provide more controlled degradation pathways while reducing risks associated with microbial release into the environment. Biofilm-mediated degradation has also emerged as an important mechanism because microbial biofilms can improve surface colonization and increase contact between enzymes and hydrophobic polymer substrates (Sooriyakumar et al., 2022). Recent studies suggest that biofilm formation can significantly enhance plastic surface weathering and microbial attachment, both of which are critical for improving degradation efficiency in aquatic environments. Together, these approaches demonstrate how synthetic biology-based and bioremediation strategies are increasingly shifting from passive biodegradation toward engineered systems capable of improving degradation specificity, environmental adaptability, and long-term remediation potential.

Although PETase engineering has substantially improved PET hydrolysis, thermostability remains a mechanistically complex bottleneck rather than a simple parameter to maximize. PET depolymerization is favored near temperatures where PET chain mobility increases, but this must be balanced against enzyme denaturation and heat-induced polymer recrystallization, both of which can reduce hydrolysis efficiency. Moreover, mutations that stabilize PETase may also rigidify the substrate-binding cleft, lowering catalytic turnover. For example, engineering studies have shown that changes in substrate-binding cleft size and affinity can improve activity in some contexts but reduce specificity, affinity, or stability in others; in one reported case, the Y87E mutation increased melting temperature by 12 °C but produced almost no enzyme activity, suggesting that excessive rigidity can impair catalysis (Groseclose and Nguyen, 2025).

3.2 Synthetic biology strategies for different microplastic types

Building on the previously discussed limitations of physical and chemical remediation methods, synthetic biology approaches demonstrate strong polymer-dependent variability in degradation efficiency. This variability is primarily driven by differences in polymer bond structure, crystallinity, hydrophobicity, and surface accessibility, which determine whether enzymes can access and cleave polymer chains efficiently. For example, PET contains hydrolysable ester bonds and has established enzymatic degradation pathways involving PETase and MHETase systems, while highly crystalline PET still requires enzyme engineering or optimized reaction conditions to improve depolymerization efficiency (Yoshida et al., 2016; Tournier et al., 2020). However, PETase engineering remains constrained by a balance between thermostability, catalytic flexibility, and polymer accessibility: higher temperatures can improve PET chain mobility, but excessive heating may also promote recrystallization, reducing enzyme access to ester bonds (Groseclose and Nguyen, 2025). In contrast, polyurethane (PU) degradation is more variable because PU materials differ widely in chemical composition and may generate toxic intermediates during breakdown, whereas C–C backbone plastics such as PE, PP, PS, and PVC remain especially resistant due to their hydrophobicity, chemical inertness, and limited enzyme accessibility (Labow et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2024). To clarify these differences, Supplementary Table 1 summarizes and compares synthetic biology-based degradation strategies across major microplastic classes, including representative mechanisms, engineering approaches, and real-world experimental or proof-of-concept implementations.

Among the three categories, PET represents the most advanced system for enzymatic degradation, supported by both natural and engineered pathways. The discovery of I. sakaiensis demonstrated that PET can be enzymatically converted through PETase and MHETase activity into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, and later enzyme-engineering studies showed that PET depolymerization efficiency can be substantially improved under optimized conditions (Yoshida et al., 2016; Tournier et al., 2020). For example, (Tournier et al., 2020), reported at least 90% PET depolymerization within 10 h, but this performance was achieved under optimized reaction conditions rather than environmentally variable settings. Biofilm-mediated enzyme display may improve PET degradation by localizing catalytic activity at the plastic–water interface, but current evidence remains closer to controlled proof-of-concept than field-level validation. For instance, BIND-PETase, an engineered Escherichia coli curli-display system, degraded PET microplastics in secondary wastewater effluent and maintained activity comparable to buffer after 7 days. However, the experiment used filtered effluent adjusted to pH 9, defined PET microplastic loading, and controlled incubation at 30 °C. Therefore, while this study provides stronger environmental relevance than pure-buffer assays, it does not yet resolve whether engineered biofilm systems remain effective under fluctuating salinity, organic matter load, native microbial competition, and hydraulic shear in natural aquatic environments. Synthetic biology-based biosensors provide a complementary strategy for monitoring degradation rather than directly degrading plastics. For PET systems, terephthalic acid-responsive whole-cell biosensors have reported detection thresholds of 10 μM, with engineered deletion mutants reaching the nanomolar range, but these sensors detect soluble PET breakdown products rather than intact microplastic particles (Dierkes et al., 2022). This highlights the need to evaluate biosensor sensitivity, selectivity, and robustness in complex matrices containing salts, organic matter, mixed polymers, and biological contaminants. PU degradation remains constrained by chemical diversity and the risk of toxic intermediate formation, while C–C backbone plastics continue to represent the most significant barrier because their saturated carbon–carbon bonds are less accessible to enzymatic cleavage and often require prior oxidation or multi-step treatment before biological processing becomes feasible (Labow et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2024). Collectively, these comparisons indicate that future progress in synthetic biology-based remediation will depend on integrated strategies combining enzyme engineering, substrate activation, surface-binding enhancement, and multi-step degradation pathways rather than single-enzyme systems alone.

3.3 Challenges of synthetic biology-based remediation strategies

A major challenge in microplastic remediation and degradation is that the analytical target is not a single molecule, but a heterogeneous particle population composed of different polymer types, sizes, aging states, and additive profiles (Thompson et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2025). This heterogeneity complicates standardized detection because analytical outcomes depend strongly on particle size cutoffs and polymer-specific properties, and aging can further change surface chemistry and interaction behaviors (Ivleva, 2021; Gao et al., 2024). Therefore, direct biological particle sensing of microplastic particles remains difficult, especially at environmentally relevant concentrations where particles are dilute and mixed with natural organic matter and other interferents (Ivleva, 2021; Wu et al., 2025).

As a result, many synthetic biology strategies rely on proxy-based detection instead of direct particle recognition. These systems may detect proxies or downstream chemicals like polymer degradation products or monomers, additives or leachates released during aging, or indirect signals. This proxy-based approach is consistent with how biosensors are typically designed for environmental monitoring, because genetically encoded systems most reliably recognize defined chemical analytes rather than irregular solid particles. Supplementary Table 2 summarizes the major symbiotic techniques, their main advantages and limitations.

The iGEM projects included in the following sections of this review were selected as illustrative examples of synthetic biology design logic relevant to microplastic detection, degradation, and system-level engineering. Selection was based on thematic relevance to biosensing, enzymatic degradation, or computationally assisted biological system design. These projects are presented as conceptual prototypes developed in an educational and competition-based context. They are not treated as peer-reviewed experimental evidence and are therefore used to demonstrate design principles rather than validated environmental performance.

Within this context, iGEM Stockholm (2023) describes a bioluminescent biosensor concept for microplastic detection that emphasizes accessibility and a straightforward readout approach (iGEM Stockholm, 2023); iGEM Lund (2017) proposed an E. coli genetic circuit using an AND-gate logic design with multiple inputs, reflecting how teams attempt to improve specificity before generating a signal output (iGEM Lund, 2017); More recently, FSU - iGEM (2025) developed and engineered proteins and biomolecular systems to reduce the intestinal absorption of microplastics, presenting a preventative biomedical approach that shifts attention from environmental removal toward limiting microplastic uptake and potential health impacts within the human body (FSU - iGEM, 2025). Collectively, these examples are presented as design inspirations and conceptual implementations, rather than established remediation technologies.

3.4 Future and potential solutions of synthetic biology-based remediation strategies

Future synthetic biology-based remediation strategies are increasingly expanding beyond single-enzyme degradation systems toward more integrated and adaptive platforms for microplastic management. Current research focuses not only on improving degradation efficiency but also on developing biosensing systems, programmable “sense-and-respond” architectures, and computationally assisted protein engineering to enhance specificity, environmental adaptability, and practical applicability. Together, these approaches demonstrate how synthetic biology may support the development of more efficient and sustainable microplastic remediation systems in the future.

The closed-loop “sense-and-respond” system is often explored through modular input–output architectures that are designed to be combined later with environmental interfaces and accessible outputs (Green et al., 2025; Keskin Erdogan et al., 2025). Within this conceptual framework, the iGEM (2024a) project provides a relevant proof-of-concept example of this logic, as it integrates microplastic-related detection with AI-assisted interpretation and response-oriented system design. Rather than functioning as a standalone degradation method, this type of platform illustrates how synthetic biology can be combined with computational tools to support adaptive environmental monitoring and decision-making. iGEM (2024b) However, it is important to emphasize that this project represents an early-stage prototype and should be interpreted as a conceptual demonstration rather than an established remediation technology.

An additional emerging direction involves the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with synthetic biology-based remediation systems. iGEM (2024b) project demonstrated a proof-of-concept workflow in which AI-assisted protein engineering was used to predict and optimize potential mutation sites for microplastic-degrading enzymes (iGEM, 2024a). Using AlphaFold-based structural prediction together with computational screening, the system identified and simulated multiple candidate mutation points that could potentially improve protein stability, substrate binding, or catalytic efficiency prior to experimental validation. Rather than relying exclusively on traditional trial-and-error mutagenesis, this approach allows researchers to narrow large mutation libraries into a smaller set of high-probability candidates, significantly reducing experimental time and resource consumption.

4 Comparative analysis and future perspectives

4.1 Summary of key findings

As mentioned above, current physical and chemical remediation approaches remain insufficient for achieving complete microplastic mineralization under environmentally relevant conditions. Physical methods primarily relocate particles between phases without altering polymer structure, while chemical methods generate secondary pollutants and require extreme conditions, high energy input, strong oxidants, and extreme pH, that preclude scalable deployment. This reveals a critical gap: existing approaches redistribute environmental risk rather than eliminate it.

Synthetic biology offers a different strategy through proxy-based sensing and closed-loop “sense-and-respond” architectures. By detecting defined chemical analytes, monomers, degradation products, additives, rather than heterogeneous solid particles, these systems overcome microplastic heterogeneity. Such systems may report not only particle presence but depolymerization progress, enabling feedback-driven remediation that self-limits based on environmental conditions. Supplementary Table 3 summarizes the key differences between physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based approaches for microplastic remediation, including their mechanisms, efficiency, environmental impacts, and practical limitations. Each strategy demonstrates distinct characteristics that influence its effectiveness and sustainability under real-world environmental conditions.

4.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, this review evaluated current physical, chemical, and synthetic biology-based strategies for microplastic remediation and compared their mechanisms, degradation efficiency, environmental impact, and practical applicability. While physical methods remain effective for rapid particle removal and benefit from established infrastructure; however, these approaches mainly transfer contaminants rather than fully eliminating them (Arbabi et al., 2023; Dayal et al., 2024). Chemical degradation strategies can partially break down polymer structures, but their dependence on harsh reaction conditions, high energy input, and the generation of secondary pollutants limits their large-scale application (Yang et al., 2024; Ibrahim et al., 2025). Together, these limitations demonstrate that many conventional remediation methods reduce visible contamination while failing to achieve complete and sustainable microplastic remediation.

Compared with traditional approaches, synthetic biology introduces a more programmable and potentially selective framework for microplastic remediation. Strategies involving engineered microorganisms, proxy-based biosensing, biofilm-mediated degradation, and engineered living materials suggest that biological systems may improve degradation specificity under relatively mild conditions (Gui et al., 2017; Rodrigo-Navarro et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2023; Schneier et al., 2024). In addition, closed-loop “sense-and-respond” systems represent a shift from passive pollutant monitoring toward adaptive remediation strategies capable of responding dynamically to environmental signals (Bayer et al., 2022; Green et al., 2025). Nevertheless, several major challenges remain unresolved. The heterogeneous nature of microplastics, instability of biological systems in complex environmental matrices, biosafety concerns related to genetically modified organisms, and the lack of standardized environmental testing protocols continue to restrict large-scale deployment and practical implementation (Ivleva, 2021; Gao et al., 2024; Keskin Erdogan et al., 2025).

Future research should therefore focus on improving enzyme stability, expanding proxy-detection capabilities across diverse polymer types, and developing reliable biocontainment strategies for environmental applications. Hybrid remediation systems that combine physical pre-concentration with subsequent biological degradation may provide a more practical balance between scalability and degradation completeness. Overall, synthetic biology does not currently replace conventional remediation approaches, but it provides an emerging platform that may support the development of more sustainable, adaptive, and environmentally compatible strategies for long-term microplastic management.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Solely for proofreading and language polishing.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsybi.2026.1895228/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Dony Chacko Mathew, National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

Reviewed by: F. Albana Marchesini, INCAPE - Instituto de Investigaciones en Catálisis y Petroquímica, Argentina

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Author contributions

HG: Investigation, Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. TL: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. TW: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Visualization. MY: Investigation, Writing – original draft. YZ: Investigation, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration. BT: Writing – review and editing, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization.

Acknowledgements

As we reach the final chapter of this review, we find ourselves reflecting on the many moments and people that have shaped this journey. We would like to sincerely thank every member of Team BASIS-China iGEM 2024 for their constant support, collaboration, and inspiration throughout this process. We are also deeply grateful to Zixi Chen and He Yang for their guidance, encouragement, and valuable insights, which greatly contributed to the development of this review.

References

  1. Arbabi A., Gholami M., Farzadkia M., Djalalinia S. (2023). Microplastics removal technologies from aqueous environments: a systematic review. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 21 (2), 463 – 473. doi:10.1007/s40201-023-00872-z
  2. Bayer T., Pfaff L., Branson Y., Becker A., Wu S., Bornscheuer U. T. (2022). Biosensor and chemo-enzymatic one-pot cascade applications to detect and transform PET-derived terephthalic acid in living cells. iScience 25 (5), 104326. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104326
  3. Carpenter E. J., Smith K. L. (1972). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 175 (4027), 1240 – 1241. doi:10.1126/science.175.4027.1240
  4. Carpenter E. J., Anderson S. J., Harvey G. R., Miklas H. P., Peck B. B. (1972). Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178 (4062), 749 – 750. doi:10.1126/science.178.4062.749
  5. Choi J., Kim H., Ahn Y. R., Kim M., Yu S., Kim N. (2024). Recent advances in microbial and enzymatic engineering for the biodegradation of micro- and nanoplastics. RSC Adv. 14 (14), 9943 – 9966. doi:10.1039/D4RA00844H
  6. Colton J. B., Burns B. R., Knapp F. D. (1974). Plastic particles in surface waters of the northwestern Atlantic. Science 185 (4150), 491 – 497. doi:10.1126/science.185.4150.491
  7. Dayal L., Yadav K., Dey U., Das K., Kumari P., Raj D. (2024). Recent advancement in microplastic removal process from wastewater - a critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 16, 100460. doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2024.100460
  8. Dey T. K., Uddin Md.E., Jamal M. (2021). Detection and removal of microplastics in wastewater: evolution and impact. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (14), 16925 – 16947. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-12943-5
  9. Dierkes R. F., Wypych A., Pérez-García P., Danso D., Chow J., Streit W. R. (2022). An ultra-sensitive Comamonas thiooxidans biosensor for the rapid detection of enzymatic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) degradation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 89 (1), e01603 – e01622. doi:10.1128/aem.01603-22
  10. FSU - iGEM (2025). Engineering Success FSU - iGEM Available online at: (Accessed May 24, 2026).
  11. Gao Y., Gao W., Liu Y., Zou D., Li Y., Lin Y. (2024). A comprehensive review of microplastic aging: laboratory simulations, physicochemical properties, adsorption mechanisms, and environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 957, 177427. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177427
  12. Green T. P., Talley J. P., Bundy B. C. (2025). Recent advances in developing cell-free protein synthesis biosensors for medical diagnostics and environmental monitoring. Biosensors 15 (8), 499. doi:10.3390/bios15080499
  13. Groseclose T. M., Nguyen H. B. (2025). “ Recent advances in enzyme engineering for improved deconstruction of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) plastics,” Commun. Mater. Prepr. 6, 190, doi:10.1038/s43246-025-00919-8
  14. Gui Q., Lawson T., Shan S., Yan L., Liu Y. (2017). The application of whole cell-based biosensors for use in environmental analysis and in medical diagnostics. Sensors 17 (7), 1623. doi:10.3390/s17071623
  15. Huang C.-W., Lin C., Nguyen M. K., Hussain A., Bui X. T., Ngo H. H. (2023). A review of biosensor for environmental monitoring: principle, application, and corresponding achievement of sustainable development goals. Bioengineered 14 (1), 58 – 80. doi:10.1080/21655979.2022.2095089
  16. Ibrahim N., Rahman A. M. N. A. A., Shafiq M. D., Lockman Z., Jaafar M., Kameda Y. (2025). Microplastic pollution: sources, degradation mechanisms, analytical advances, and mitigation strategies for environmental sustainability. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 263 (1), 27. doi:10.1007/s44169-025-00098-0
  17. iGEM Lund Lund - iGEM 2017 (2017). Available online at: (Accessed March 30, 2026).
  18. iGEM Stockholm Stockholm - iGEM 2023 (2023). Available online at: (Accessed March 30, 2026).
  19. iGEM BASIS-China - iGEM 2024 (2024a). Available online at: (Accessed May 30, 2026).
  20. iGEM BASIS-China, iGEM 2024 (2024b). Available online at: (Accessed May 28, 2026).
  21. Ivleva N. P. (2021). Chemical analysis of microplastics and nanoplastics: challenges, advanced methods, and perspectives. Chem. Rev. 121 (19), 11886 – 11936. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00178
  22. Jani V., Wu S., Venkiteshwaran K. (2024). Advancements and regulatory situation in microplastics removal from wastewater and drinking water: a comprehensive review. Microplastics 3 (1), 98 – 123. doi:10.3390/microplastics3010007
  23. Jia M., Farid M. U., Ho Y. W., Ma X., Wong P. W., Nah T. (2024). Advanced nanobubble flotation for enhanced removal of sub-10 µm microplastics from wastewater. Nat. Commun. 15 (1), 9079. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53304-3
  24. Keskin Erdogan Z., Desai K., Baldwin G. S., Polizzi K. M. (2025). Coexistence and collaboration: engineering encapsulation for whole-cell biosensors. Trends In Biotechnol. Prepr. 44, 1576 – 1588. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2025.10.019
  25. Koelmans A. A., Besseling E., Shim W. J. (2015). “ Nanoplastics in the aquatic environment. Critical review,” in Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Editors Bergmann M., Gutow L., Klages M. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 325 – 340. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_12
  26. Labow R. S., Tang Y., McCloskey C. B., Santerre J. P. (2002). The effect of oxidation on the enzyme-catalyzed hydrolytic biodegradation of poly(urethane)s. J. Biomaterials Sci. Polym. Ed. 13 (6), 651 – 665. doi:10.1163/156856202320269148
  27. Li D., Bolikava V., Shi Y., Jin S., Unitt R., Sheerin E. D. (2025). Microbubble-induced erosion releases micro- and nanoplastics into water. Sci. Adv. 11 (51), eaea4729. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aea4729
  28. Mogensen J. F. (2026). Microbubbles’ help spread dangerous microplastics through our water, study finds. Sci. Am. Available online at: (Accessed February 10, 2026).
  29. Ng E.-L., Huerta Lwanga E., Eldridge S. M., Johnston P., Hu H. W., Geissen V. (2018). An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 1377 – 1388. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.341
  30. Phengsaart T., Srichonphaisarn P., Villacorte-Tabelin M., Silwamba M., Janjaroen D., Tabelin C. B. (2025). Microplastic removal by flotation: systematic review, meta-analysis, and research trends. Water 17 (23), 3394. doi:10.3390/w17233394
  31. Rodrigo-Navarro A., Sankaran S., Dalby M. J., del Campo A., Salmeron-Sanchez M. (2021). Engineered living biomaterials. Nat. Rev. Mater. 6 (12), 1175 – 1190. doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00350-8
  32. Sathiaseelan J. J., Afifah N. M. R., Abdullah A. A. A., Ramakrishna S., Vigneswari S., Bhubalan K. (2024). Exploring the advantages and limitations of degradation for various biodegradable micro-bioplastic in aquatic environments. J. Environ. Manag. 366, 121777. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121777
  33. Schneier A., Melaugh G., Sadler J. C. (2024). Engineered plastic-associated bacteria for biodegradation and bioremediation. Biotechnol. Environ. 1 (1), 7. doi:10.1186/s44314-024-00007-0
  34. Sooriyakumar P., Bolan N., Kumar M., Singh L., Yu Y., Li Y. (2022). Biofilm formation and its implications on the properties and fate of microplastics in aquatic environments: a review. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 6, 100077. doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100077
  35. Srivastava A., Devnani L., Gupta P. (2025). Magnetic separation and degradation approaches for effective microplastic removal from aquatic and terrestrial environments. Mater. Adv. 6, 3043 – 3057. doi:10.1039/D4MA01242A
  36. Thompson R. C., Olsen Y., Mitchell R. P., Davis A., Rowland S. J., John A. W. G. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science 304 (5672), 838. doi:10.1126/science.1094559
  37. Thompson R. C., Courtene-Jones W., Boucher J., Pahl S., Raubenheimer K., Koelmans A. A. (2024). Twenty years of microplastic pollution research-what have we learned? Science 386 (6720), eadl2746. doi:10.1126/science.adl2746
  38. Tournier V., Topham C. M., Gilles A., David B., Folgoas C., Moya-Leclair E. (2020). An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles. Nature 580 (7802), 216 – 219. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2149-4
  39. Wanner P. (2021). Plastic in agricultural soils – a global risk for groundwater systems and drinking water supplies? – a review. Chemosphere 264, 128453. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128453
  40. Wu B., Yu H., Lei P., He J., Yi J., Wu W. (2025). Microplastics in aquatic ecosystems: detection, source tracing, and sustainable management strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 291, 117883. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.117883
  41. Yang Z., Li Y., Zhang G. (2024). Degradation of microplastic in water by advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere 357, 141939. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141939
  42. Yeszhan Y., Bexeitova K., Yermekbayev S., Toktarbay Z., Lee J., Berndtsson R. (2025). Photocatalytic degradation of microplastics in aquatic environments: materials, mechanisms, practical challenges, and future perspectives. Water 17 (14), 2139. doi:10.3390/w17142139
  43. Yoshida S., Hiraga K., Takehana T., Taniguchi I., Yamaji H., Maeda Y. (2016). A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351 (6278), 1196 – 1199. doi:10.1126/science.aad6359
  44. Zhang Y., Diehl A., Lewandowski A., Gopalakrishnan K., Baker T. (2020). Removal efficiency of micro- and nanoplastics (180 nm–125 μm) during drinking water treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 720, 137383. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137383
  45. Zhang Y., Pedersen J. N., Eser B. E., Guo Z. (2022). Biodegradation of polyethylene and polystyrene: from microbial deterioration to enzyme discovery. Biotechnol. Adv. 60, 107991. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.107991
  46. Zhou T., Song S., Min R., Liu X., Zhang G. (2024). Advances in chemical removal and degradation technologies for microplastics in the aquatic environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 201, 116202. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116202

Citation

Guo, H., et al. (2026). A comparative review of microplastic remediation strategies: constraints of physical and chemical approaches and opportunities for synthetic biology. Frontiers in Synthetic Biology, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Guo, Liu, Wen, Yang, Zhang and Tu.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Boxuan Tu

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

EditorialEditorial: Harnessing synthetic biology for ecosystem sustainability and biodiversity conservationDavid B. LevinBrief Research ReportComputational design of orthogonal operators and synthetic repressors for transcriptional logic gatesNathaniel Howitz, Stephen N. Rondthaler, Lauren B. AndrewsReviewExploring the potential of Rhodosporidium toruloides in biomanufacturing: a comprehensive reviewShubhasish Goswami, Blake A. Simmons, Taek Soon Lee