






“Biodegradable” has become one of the most reassuring words in modern packaging. It appears on coffee cups, shopping bags and food containers, implying a promise: this product is better for the environment because nature will eventually take care of it.
However, biodegradability is not a simple yes-or-no property. It exists in shades, which we can measure.
Biodegradation is a complex process. Microbes and molecules present in an environment such as soil attack a material and digest it, much like what happens to food in our gut.
A material is typically defined as biodegradable if it is digested “well” by the environment in which it is placed. The more mass the material loses during digestion, and the more carbon dioxide it produces, the more biodegradable it is.
Different environments digest materials in different ways. Temperature, sunlight, oxygen, moisture and microbial diversity all influence how quickly materials degrade.
Even the most rigorous testing cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world – but it can help guide our choices.
In the lab we can simulate environments such as landfill, home compost bins and industrial compost facilities. If we understand in which settings a material breaks down better, we can tell the consumer how to best dispose of it and prevent pollution and other issues.
A material that decomposes quickly in an industrial composting facility may persist for years in the ocean or landfill.
Industrial composting systems maintain elevated temperatures, controlled aeration and consistent moisture. Hot, moist and oxygen-rich conditions generally aid biodegradation but they are not easy to come by in a backyard compost bin.
Home compost systems are typically cooler and more variable. The result: a material certified for industrial composting may not break down effectively at home.
Take polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable material generally considered to be a greener alternative to common plastics (like PET). PLA can biodegrade effectively in an industrial composting system. With temperatures above 60°C and controlled moisture, oxygen and microbial activity, microbes can convert PLA into carbon dioxide, water and biomass in just a few days.
Outside these conditions, the story changes. If PLA ends up in landfill, decomposition can be slow because oxygen is limited. In rivers or marine environments, it may persist for years and act as a raft for “alien” species. In your compost bin or worm farm it might disappear in a few months.
There are many ways to measure biodegradability. One common series of tests, OECD 301 assesses “ready biodegradability” in different environments as a material’s ability to biodegrade around 60% within 28 days under controlled conditions.
Industrially compostable materials are tested under very specific conditions. Standards such as EN 13432, used in Europe, assess whether packaging can successfully break down in industrial composting facilities.
To meet the standard, at least 90% of the material must biodegrade into carbon dioxide, water and biomass within six months. These tests typically involve elevated temperatures, controlled aeration, and moisture.
Most biodegradable plastic materials do not disappear cleanly. Instead, they fragment into progressively smaller particles before fully breaking down. During this period, the fragments will continue interacting with organisms and ecosystems.
Biodegradability standards are helpful for consumers and waste regulators. Nevertheless, they are limited. They often do not test how much of any given material a specific disposal system can sustain at any one time.
This is an important parameter to take into account. Take food waste. When large quantities of food lie in landfill without oxygen, they generate methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide over short timescales.
Other biodegradable materials are no different and can throw out the balance of an ecosystem such as your compost bin, if added in excessive quantities.
Introducing certain materials to a compost bin might also cause certain microbes to thrive and others to suffer, sometimes with unintended consequences, such as making your compost bin smell bad.
In the future, biodegradability tests will likely be paired with ecotoxicity assessments, to help us understand whether a material breaks down safely and without generating harmful byproducts or microbial imbalances.
Few of us have an industrial composting facility nearby to take care of biodegradable materials. Industrially compostable products such as coffee cups often end up sent to landfill alongside conventional waste.
This does not mean individuals are powerless or that biodegradable materials are inherently bad.
You can start by checking local council guidance and choosing products certified for the systems available in your area, or your compost bin.
Ask yourself:
is this product home compostable or only industrially compostable?
is there infrastructure locally that can process it?
has it been independently certified?
As for industrially compostable coffee cups, check that you can return cups to participating cafes. They should not be placed in standard recycling bins or food and organics bins as they are considered contaminants. If unsure, place them in a bin destined for landfill.
Ultimately, the most sustainable option remains a reusable washable cup.
These may seem like small actions but they help push packaging design and waste systems toward greater transparency and accountability.
As consumers, we want to make educated choices about their purchases and how they can be disposed of.
For now, we have simple labels. In the future, we will hopefully have more complete information about how materials degrade in industrial composting facilities, home compost bins, soil, freshwater, sea water and landfill sites.
Biodegradable materials offer clear advantages over highly persistent materials, but the term “biodegradable” should not be mistaken for environmentally harmless.
Let’s just remember that a biodegradable material released in the wrong place, at the wrong scale, or under the wrong conditions may behave not very differently from a non-biodegradable material.
Understanding the shades of biodegradability moves the conversation beyond simplistic labels. Nature can break many things down, eventually. The more important question is whether it can do so without getting indigestion.![]()
Martin Zaki, Associate Research Fellow in Biomaterials, Deakin University and Alessandra Sutti, Associate Professor, Institute for Frontier Materials, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Landscapes along the Li River amid the South China Karst – credit, Sam Beasley via Unsplash



Wildlife trafficking is a global crisis impacting at least 4,000 species of plants and animals, including mammals, reptiles, birds, corals and rare plants.
A shocking case from 2025 involved the seizure of 3.7 tonnes of pangolin scales in Nigeria. These scales were believed to be sourced from more than 1,900 individual pangolins.
While this case was uncovered, many more remain undetected. These crimes aren’t just pushing species toward extinction, they’re also putting people at risk. Hunting, trafficking and handling wild animals creates opportunities for diseases to jump from animals to humans. Wildlife trafficking is therefore not just a conservation crisis, but a serious threat to public health.
In our recent paper published in Conservation Biology, we present a new method for tackling this global crime. It uses a tiny sample of air extracted from a shipping container – and the incredible power of a dogs’ nose.
People buy and sell a wide range of wild animals and their parts for many reasons, such as pangolin scales for traditional medicines, monkeys for exotic pets, or even porcupines for bushmeat.
Traffickers exploit global transport routes to move their products, with shipping containers in particular being ideal targets.
Containers carry up to 90% of the world’s cargo, meaning products can be easily concealed and blend into the high volume of container traffic moving through ports.
Despite this, on average only about 2% of containers are physically inspected due to resource limitations.
There are few wildlife specific detection tools, and wildlife crime is often considered a low priority. Combined, this means most trafficking slips through undetected.
To bridge this gap, we investigated air sampling as a way to screen containers for wildlife without opening them, damaging cargo, or disrupting port operations.
This work was part of a four-year project, undertaken in collaboration with the world’s third largest shipping company CMA CGM.
We designed a portable air extraction device that fits onto a standard container vent and draws air through a filter to collect a sample. The sample is then presented to a trained detection dog which can indicate whether the scent of specific wildlife products is present.
In our study, we concealed pelts from five big cat species – lion, tiger, leopard, snow leopard and cheetah – inside standard-sized shipping containers. The pelts were arranged to simulate smuggling scenarios, including being hidden inside cardboard boxes to increase concealment.
Our detection dog successfully detected the pelts with almost 98% accuracy when air was extracted from the shipping container. They did so even when the pelts were concealed, demonstrating that the scent can escape into the container airspace and be reliably captured.
Detection dogs are already widely used by customs and border agencies around the world, but their ability to screen sealed containers at scale is limited. Containers are often inaccessible, stacked high, or in environments that are unsafe for dogs.
Our approach brings the scent to the dog, allowing many more containers to be screened efficiently and safely.
While the study was conducted under controlled conditions, these early results are encouraging. Pairing detection dogs with air-sampling could dramatically improve the detection of illegally trafficked wildlife hidden inside shipping containers.
The air extraction device is low cost, portable and scalable, making it well suited for use in high-risk ports and border crossings worldwide. The method could also be readily adapted for detecting other forms of trafficking, such as drugs, increasing its appeal to border agencies.
Further trials are planned to validate the effectiveness of this approach in operational port environments across a broader range of wildlife products.
We are also exploring machine-based detectors to analyse samples and support the future development of this project.
However, initial findings show the dogs still outperform these technologies, which currently remain our most effective approach.
Our goal is to give frontline agencies practical tools to fight wildlife trafficking.
Through applying science-based research in the field, we can bridge enforcement gaps and detect trafficked wildlife faster, allowing us to better protect threatened species and disrupt the criminal networks behind this devastating trade.![]()
Georgia Moloney, Researcher, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Adelaide University and Anne-Lise Chaber, One Health Lecturer, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, Adelaide University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You pull on your rain jacket, step out into the storm, and within half an hour your undershirt is soaked. The jacket you purchased as “waterproof” seems to have stopped working, and all the marketing claims feel a bit suspect.
In reality, the jacket probably hasn’t failed overnight: a mix of how it’s built, the exact level of water protection it offers, and years of sweat, skin oil and dirt have all played a part.
But there are a few simple ways you can care for your rain jacket to ensure you stay dry, even when it’s pouring.
Most proper rain jackets are built around a waterproof “membrane” sandwiched inside the fabric. Gore-Tex is the most popular technology used which includes a very thin layer of chemicals known as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) or expanded PTFE (ePTFE) which are full of microscopic pores.
Those pores are much smaller than liquid water droplets. But they’re big enough for individual water vapour molecules, so rain on the outside can’t push through, but sweat vapour from your body can escape outwards.
Other fabrics use solid, non-porous membranes made from polyurethane or polyester that move water vapour by absorbing it and passing it through the material molecule by molecule rather than via tiny holes. This can make them a bit more tolerant of dirt.
The outer fabric is sometimes treated with a very thin chemical finish that makes water roll off the surface instead of soaking into the fibres – a bit like wax on a car. This finish is known as “Durable Water Repellent” and helps to reduce saturation of water in the exterior of the jacket.
In the past, many of these chemical finishes used “forever chemicals” (PFAS) that repelled both water and oil, but persist in the environment and build up in wildlife and people.
Because of this, brands and regulators have started using alternatives based on silicones or hydrocarbons. These still repel water but are generally less hazardous.
It’s also useful to understand the words you see on labels.
A waterproof jacket is built to stop rain coming through, even in heavy or prolonged downpours, and usually has a membrane, a chemical finish plus fully taped seams.
“Water resistant” means the fabric slows water down and copes with light showers but will eventually let water through. It often relies on a tight weave and a chemical finish but no true membrane.
“Water repellent” just describes that beading effect from the chemical finish. It can apply to both waterproof and non-waterproof fabrics.
Some brands also say rainproof or weatherproof as a friendlier way of saying “pretty much waterproof”, but there’s rarely a separate test behind that word.
When you realise your jacket isn’t waterproof anymore, the first thing that has usually gone wrong isn’t the membrane. It’s the chemical finish on the outside.
That ultra thin surface layer gets scuffed by backpack straps and seat belts, baked by sun, and contaminated by mud, smoke and city grime.
These coatings can gradually lose their water repellent properties through abrasion and washing if harsh detergents and washing cycles are used, and bits of them are shed into the environment over time.
Body oils, sunscreen and insect repellent also play a role, as they build up in the fabric over time. Outdoor gear care guides and lab work on waterproof fabrics both point out that these oily contaminants can damage the chemical finish and clog the pores of the membrane, making it harder both for rain to be repelled and for sweat vapour to escape.
Over many years, slow physical ageing also takes a toll. Constant flexing can cause a membrane to thin or develop tiny cracks and the finish to deteriorate. Seam tapes can also start to peel away, especially on shoulders where backpack straps press.
The single best thing you can do for both your comfort and the planet is to keep a good jacket working for as long as possible, because making new technical fabrics has a significant environmental footprint.
Gentle washing will help extend the life of your rain jacket, as it removes the build up of contamination such as dirt and body oils. Brands and care guides recommend closing zips and Velcro, then washing on a gentle cycle with a cleaner designed for waterproof fabrics or a very mild soap, avoiding normal detergents and softeners that leave residues.
Depending on the type of chemical finish, this coat can be re-applied through spray-on or wash-in products found commercially. Some finishes can be re-activated by exposure to low heat (low dryer heat or low ironing heat). Heat makes the water-repelling molecules stand back up after they have been “flattened” by use and contamination.
Although the above will help you to keep your jacket waterproof, it is best to follow the care instructions given by the manufacturer as they change according to the type of composition of the fabric.
In any case, it is important to avoid leaving the jacket wet and scrunched up for weeks, and be mindful of heavy sunscreens and repellents.![]()
Carolina Quintero Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer and Program Manager, Bachelor of Fashion (Enterprise) program, RMIT University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

South Korean scientists win award for wound powder – SWNS


When a grizzly bear attacked a group of fourth- and fifth-graders in western Canada in late November 2025, it sparked more than a rescue effort for the 11 people injured – four with severe injuries. Local authorities began trying to find the specific bear that was involved in order to relocate or euthanize it, depending on the results of their assessment.
The attack, in Bella Coola, British Columbia, was very unusual bear behavior and sparked an effort to figure out exactly what had happened and why. That meant finding the bear involved – which, based on witness statements, was a mother grizzly with two cubs.
Searchers combed the area on foot and by helicopter and trapped four bears. DNA comparisons to evidence from the attack cleared each of the trapped bears, and they were released back to the wild. After more than three weeks without finding the bear responsible for the attack, officials called off the search.
The case highlights the difficulty of identifying individual bears, which becomes important when one is exhibiting unusual behavior. Bears tend to look a lot alike to people, and untrained observers can have a very hard time telling them apart. DNA testing is excellent for telling individuals apart, but it is expensive and requires physical samples from bears. Being trapped and having other contact with humans is also stressful for them, and wildlife managers often seek to minimize trapping.
Recent advances in computer vision and other types of artificial intelligence offer a possible alternative: facial recognition for bears.
As a cultural anthropologist, I study how scientists produce knowledge and technologies, and how new technology is transforming ecological science and conservation practices. Some of my research has looked at the work of computer scientists and ecologists making facial recognition for animals. These tools, which reflect both technological advances and broader popular interest in wildlife, can reshape how scientists and the general public understand animals by getting to know formerly anonymous creatures as individuals.
A facial recognition tool for bears called BearID is under development by computer scientists Ed Miller and Mary Nguyen, working with Melanie Clapham, a behavioral ecologist working for the Nanwakolas Council of First Nations, conducting applied research on grizzly bears in British Columbia.
It uses deep learning, a subset of machine learning that makes use of artificial neural networks, to analyze images of bears and identify individual animals. The photos are drawn from a collection of images taken by naturalists at Knight Inlet, British Columbia, and by National Park Service staff and independent photographers at Brooks River in Katmai National Park, Alaska.
Bears’ bodies change dramatically from post-hibernation skinny in the spring to fat and ready for winter in the fall. However, the geometry of each bear’s face – the arrangement of key features like their eyes and nose – remains relatively stable over seasons and years.
BearID uses an algorithm to locate bear faces in pictures and make measurements between those key features. Each animal has a unique set of measurements, so a photograph of one taken yesterday can be matched with an image taken some time ago.
Miller has built a web tool to automatically detect bears in the webcams from Brooks River that originally inspired the project. The BearID team has also been working with Rebecca Zug, a professor and director of the carnivore lab at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito, to develop a bear identification model for Andean bears to use in bear ecology and conservation research in Ecuador.
Human facial recognition is extremely controversial. In 2021, Meta ended the use of its face recognition system, which automatically identified people in photographs and videos uploaded to Facebook. The company described it as a powerful technology that, while potentially beneficial, was currently not suitable for widespread use on its platform.
In the years following that announcement, Meta gradually reintroduced facial recognition technology, using it to detect scams involving public figures and to verify users’ identities after their accounts had been breached.
When used on humans, critics have called facial recognition technology the “plutonium of AI” and a dangerous tool with few legitimate uses. Even as facial recognition has become more widespread, researchers remain convinced of its dangers. Researchers at the American Civil Liberties Union highlight the continued threat to Americans’ constitutional rights posed by facial recognition and the harms caused by inaccurate identifications.
For wildlife, the ethical controversies are perhaps less pressing, although there is still potential for animals to be harmed by people who are using AI systems. And facial recognition could help wildlife managers identify and euthanize or relocate bears that are causing significant problems for people.
Wildlife ecologists sometimes find focusing on individual animals problematic. Naming animals may make them “seem less wild.” Names that carry cultural meaning can also frame people’s interpretations of animal behavior. As the Katmai rangers note, humans may interpret the behaviors of a bear named Killer differently than one named Fluffy.
Wildlife management decisions are meant to be made about groups of animals and areas of territory. When people become connected to individual animals, including by naming them, decisions become more complicated, whether in the wild or in captivity.
When people connect with particular animals, they may object to management decisions that harm individuals for the sake of the health of the population as a whole. For example, wildlife managers may need to move or euthanize animals for the health of the broader population or ecosystem.
But knowing and understanding bears as individual animals can also deepen the fascination and connections people already have with bears.
For example, Fat Bear Week, an annual competition hosted by explore.org and Katmai National Park, drew over a million votes in 2025 as people campaigned and voted for their favorite bear. The winner was Bear 32, also known as “Chunk.” Chunk was identified in photographs and videos the old-fashioned way, based on human observations of distinguishing characteristics – such as a large scar across his muzzle and a broken jaw.
In addition to identifying problematic animals, I believe algorithmic tools like facial recognition could help an even broader audience of humans deepen their understanding of bears as a whole by connecting with one or two specific animals.![]()
Emily Wanderer, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.