Preface
This survey is based on 32 valid responses, focusing on public awareness and acceptance of technologies that use rumen-inspired microbial systems to decompose biomass waste and produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Respondents were mainly aged 25–34 (34.4%), with 81.3% holding a bachelor’s degree or above, covering 12 professional fields such as biological sciences (21.9%) and environmental engineering (15.6%).
Findings show that 84.4% of participants are highly concerned about the environmental risks of traditional biomass treatment methods, but only 28.1% clearly recognize the energy value of VFAs, highlighting the need for science communication. While 76% believe that agricultural and forestry waste utilization is an urgent issue and 62.5% agree with the feasibility of bionic systems at the laboratory level, concerns remain regarding the biosafety of genetically modified microorganisms (average score 3.8/5) and industrialization costs (51.6%). Agricultural straw treatment (68.8%) and environmental benefits (73.3%) were commonly viewed as core application scenarios and prerequisites for acceptance, providing important references for R&D focus.
1 25–34 age group accounted for the highest proportion.
This age group, representing 50%, held an absolute dominant position, significantly higher than other age groups, reflecting that young and middle-aged adults were the main participants in this survey.
*This conclusion is derived from Q1: Your age group.
2 High school and undergraduate groups constituted the main body of respondents.
High school graduates (31.25%) and undergraduate degree holders (34.38%) together accounted for 65.63% of respondents, indicating that these two groups constituted the predominant educational background within the sample, as illustrated in the chart.
*This conclusion is derived from Q2: Education level.
3 Students and respondents from the business, management, and policy sector emerged as the dominant occupational groups in the sample.
Students (31.25%) and respondents from the business/management/policy sector (31.25%) jointly constituted the largest respondent groups, suggesting that the survey achieved substantial representation across both academic and professional domains. For the sake of longitudinal consistency, it is advisable that future research maintains comparable proportions of these groups within the sample.
*This conclusion is derived from Q3: Occupation / Field of study.
4 Nearly half of the respondents possessed only a basic background in biology or medical courses.
A total of 46.88% of respondents reported having taken basic courses, constituting the largest knowledge background group. This indicates that while the majority possess entry-level understanding, they lack in-depth professional experience. It is therefore recommended that future surveys design tiered questions targeting this group to better differentiate levels of knowledge acquisition.
*This conclusion is derived from Q4: Do you have biology/medical background?
5 The majority of participants demonstrated a certain level of awareness regarding the environmental issues associated with agricultural waste treatment.
A total of 65.63% of respondents selected scores of 4 (40.63%) and 5 (25%), indicating that more than sixty percent of the population demonstrated above-average awareness of the relevant environmental issues. However, 34.37% exhibited low or neutral levels of awareness. It is therefore recommended that science communication efforts be targeted toward the low-score group (scores 1–2), while case-based approaches could be employed to further deepen the understanding of those in the high-score group.
*This conclusion is derived from Q5: Before participating in this survey, were you aware that common agricultural or plant waste treatment methods (such as composting, incineration, or landfilling) may pose environmental or health concerns? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
6 The level of concern exhibited a polarized distribution.
High concern (scores 4–5) accounted for 40.63%, in clear contrast to low concern (scores 1–2) at 28.13%, while the neutral group (score 3) comprised 31.25%. It is recommended to strengthen environmental education for the low-concern group, while simultaneously reinforcing pro-environmental behaviors among the high-concern group.
*This conclusion is derived from Q6: How concerned are you about the potential environmental or health impacts of traditional biomass waste treatment methods (such as incineration, landfilling, or chemical treatment)? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
7 More than half of the respondents demonstrated a very low level of awareness regarding VFAs.
A total of 53.13% of respondents explicitly indicated that they were completely unfamiliar with the use of VFAs as bio-based chemicals or energy sources, reflecting a significant gap in public science communication in this field. It is therefore recommended to strengthen the dissemination of fundamental concepts through channels such as industry white papers and popular science articles.
*This conclusion is derived from Q7: Have you heard of or are you aware that volatile fatty acids (VFAs) can be used as bio-based chemicals or energy sources? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not aware at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very aware).
8 Respondents generally expressed strong agreement that the resource utilization of agricultural and forestry waste is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed.
Over 85% of respondents assigned scores of 4 or above, with 62.5% selecting the highest score of 5, indicating a strong consensus. This highly concentrated distribution of responses demonstrates that the issue holds pronounced urgency in public perception. It is therefore recommended to prioritize the formulation of relevant resource utilization policies and to strengthen complementary communication efforts in order to sustain public attention.
*This conclusion is derived from Q8: Do you believe that the resource utilization of agricultural and forestry waste is a pressing issue that requires urgent attention? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
9 The majority of respondents held a positive attitude toward waste treatment solutions based on microorganisms or bionic ecological systems.
After combining the high-attention options (scores 4–5), the proportion reached 53.13%, with more than half of the respondents explicitly expressing concern. It is recommended to prioritize technology promotion among this group, while simultaneously expanding the audience base by converting the neutral group (31.25%).
*This conclusion is derived from Q9: Are you concerned about the use of microorganisms or bionic ecosystem approaches for waste treatment? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
10 The vast majority of respondents strongly expected such technologies to simultaneously reduce environmental burdens and generate economic value.
As many as 78.13% of respondents assigned the highest score (5), and when combined with the second-highest score (4) at 18.75%, this indicates that over 96% of respondents hold positive expectations toward such technologies. This highly concentrated distribution suggests that technological development should prioritize pathways for achieving dual benefits.
*This conclusion is derived from Q10: Do you hope that such technologies can both alleviate environmental burdens and generate economic benefits? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not hopeful at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very hopeful).
11 Nearly half of the respondents (43.75%) adopted a neutral stance
A total of 43.75% of respondents adopted a neutral stance regarding the feasibility of laboratory-based rumen-inspired microbial ecosystems, suggesting the existence of substantial cognitive blind spots or perceived implementation challenges. It is therefore recommended to strengthen feasibility justification through case demonstrations or technical white papers, with particular emphasis on providing visualized explanations of technological pathways for the research community.
*This conclusion is derived from Q11: To you, does replicating the rumen micro-ecosystem of ruminant animals at a laboratory scale sound feasible? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not feasible at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very feasible).
12 More than 80% of respondents acknowledged the potential of the proposed solution.
When combining scores of 4 (50%) and 5 (31.25%), positive evaluations reached 81.25%, significantly exceeding the combined share of neutral (12.5%) and negative (6.25%) responses. This indicates broad recognition of the technology’s feasibility.
*This conclusion is derived from Q12: If proven safe and controllable, do you believe this approach holds potential for pilot-scale or industrial application? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not promising at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very promising).
13 The majority of respondents expressed considerable concern regarding biosafety.
Respondents selecting scores of 4 and 5 together accounted for 50.01%, exceeding half of the sample. This suggests that the biosafety of genetically modified/engineered microorganisms is a central focus of public concern. It is therefore recommended to strengthen risk communication and enhance regulatory transparency.
*This conclusion is derived from Q13: Do you have concerns about the biosafety of genetically modified/engineered microorganisms? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
14 Biosafety and ecological impacts emerged as the core areas of concern.
Biological leakage (65.63%) and ecological impacts (65.63%) jointly represented the highest proportions, indicating strong public concern regarding the biosafety and environmental sustainability of the technology’s application. It is therefore recommended that risk communication efforts prioritize the demonstration of control measures addressing these two categories of risk.
*This conclusion is derived from Q14: What risks concern you the most? (Select all that apply).
15 There is relatively high recognition of downstream industry demand for VFAs.
A total of 46.88% of respondents fell within the high-recognition group (scores 4–5), and when combined with the 37.5% who remained neutral, the findings indicate a potential market foundation. However, further application validation is required. It is therefore recommended to strengthen confidence among the neutral group through the use of industry collaboration case studies.
*This conclusion is derived from Q15: Do you believe there is a practical demand for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in downstream industries (e.g., materials, fuels, animal feed)? (1–5 scale, 1 = Strongly disagree/Not concerned at all, 5 = Strongly agree/Very concerned).
16 More than 70% of respondents acknowledged the high efficiency and value of the new approach.
Respondents selecting scores of 4 and 5 together accounted for 71.88%, significantly exceeding the neutral group (28.13%), indicating that the solution is perceived by the majority as having a clear advantage. It is therefore recommended that promotional efforts emphasize empirical data on efficiency improvements compared to traditional treatment methods.
*This conclusion is derived from Q16: Compared to incineration or composting for treating agricultural and forestry waste, do you believe this approach could be more efficient or valuable? (1–5 scale, 1=Strongly disagree/Not promising at all, 5=Strongly agree/Very promising)
17 The agricultural straw and forestry residue treatment scenario received overwhelming recognition.
With an absolute majority of 84.38%, this scenario emerged as the top choice, reflecting its significant advantages in terms of feasibility, environmental benefits, and policy support. It is therefore recommended to position this scenario as a core direction for strategic planning.
*This conclusion is draw from Q17: What do you consider the most suitable application scenarios? (Select all that apply)
18 Safety and controllability are the most critical influencing factors.
90.63% of respondents regarded safety and controllability as the primary consideration, significantly surpassing other factors, indicating that technological reliability constitutes the fundamental threshold for public acceptance.
*This conclusion is draw from Q18: In your opinion, which are the key factors influencing your acceptance or support of this technology? (Select all that apply)
19 The majority of respondents favored acquiring more information and supporting pilot projects
A total of 84.38% opted for “seeking more information,” while 75% chose “supporting pilot implementation,” indicating that the core public demand for technological transparency lies in access to information and initial practice-based validation. It is therefore recommended to prioritize the establishment of a technology information-sharing platform and to expand the scope of pilot projects.
*This conclusion is draw from Q19：If this technology passes third-party safety assessments and makes its data public, would you be willing to: (e.g., support its development, invest, etc. - options would typically be listed here)
20 The vast majority of respondents supported the pilot straw conversion scheme.
With a support rate as high as 96.88%, the findings indicate that the scheme enjoys broad public endorsement, which may be attributed to its perceived environmental benefits, resource reutilization potential, and value for industrial synergy.
*This conclusion is derived from Q20: Scenario – If your local area produces a large amount of crop straw annually, and this solution can convert it into VFAs for use by local materials enterprises, would you support a pilot project?
21 What three aspects would you most want the research team to prioritize resolving? (e.g., Safety, Cost, Energy Consumption, Odor, Regulations, Public Education)[open-ended questions]
Distribution of Core Perspectives
1.Safety: Identified as the top priority by all respondents, encompassing laboratory operations, technological applications, and environmental management.
2.Cost: Ranked equally high with safety, covering aspects such as R&D investment, equipment maintenance, and resource allocation.
3.Energy consumption: Frequently associated with cost and safety, pointing to issues of technological efficiency and sustainable development.
4.Odor: Highlighted as a salient issue in certain contexts (e.g., laboratory settings), with implications for environmental quality and human health.
5.Regulations: Viewed as essential for ensuring safety and enabling the implementation of technology.
6.Science communication: Mentioned less frequently, yet implicitly reflecting a need for public engagement and knowledge translation.
Summary of Current Status
1.Safety as a core consensus: All respondents prioritized safety, reflecting concerns about potential hazards or requirements in highly sensitive contexts.
2.Tensions between cost and energy consumption: Under technological and resource constraints, economic viability and sustainability remain difficult to balance.
3.Localized prominence of odor issues: In specific scenarios (e.g., chemical laboratories), odor poses environmental and health risks.
4.Regulatory implementation gaps: Compliance management may lag behind technological advances.
5.Marginalized demand for science communication: Public engagement and dissemination of research outcomes have not yet emerged as common priorities.
Practical Recommendations
The survey findings suggest a range of targeted measures to address public concerns and enhance the viability of rumen-inspired microbial systems for biomass waste treatment. In the domain of safety, the establishment of standardized operating procedures, regular risk assessments, and the integration of intelligent monitoring and emergency response systems are recommended to ensure reliability and public trust. With regard to cost, optimizing resource allocation, investing in energy-saving technology development, and adopting circular economy models are considered crucial for reducing long-term expenditures.
In terms of energy consumption, upgrading to high-efficiency equipment, expanding renewable energy applications, and implementing dynamic monitoring and early warning mechanisms can improve both efficiency and sustainability. Addressing odor issues requires the deployment of air purification devices, the development of low-volatility alternative materials, and the formulation of graded odor control standards to mitigate environmental and health risks in specific contexts.
For regulatory compliance, it is essential to establish dedicated compliance review committees, actively participate in the development of industry standards, and implement systems for continuous policy tracking and internal training, thereby aligning technological progress with regulatory frameworks. Finally, science communication plays a pivotal role in public acceptance. Producing diverse forms of educational content, organizing public open days, and constructing collaborative platforms that connect industry, academia, and research institutions can strengthen public engagement and facilitate knowledge translation.
Comprehensive Recommendations
1. Prioritized and Phased Advancement
In the short term, emphasis should be placed on optimizing safety systems—such as employing digital twin technology for risk simulation—and pursuing coordinated solutions to cost and energy challenges through AI-driven energy efficiency management.
In the medium term, priority should shift toward securing patents for odor-control technologies and conducting anticipatory regulatory studies, such as early adaptation to EU CLP standards.
In the long term, efforts should focus on building science communication intellectual property—for example, developing virtual laboratories—to strengthen societal support.
2. Cross-Sector Collaborative Innovation
It is recommended to construct a triangular evaluation model linking safety, cost, and energy, thereby quantifying the integrated value of technological solutions. In addition, collaboration with environmental authorities to pilot odor-control technologies should be undertaken in parallel with the development of relevant industry standards.
3. Dynamic Feedback Mechanisms
Quarterly reassessments of priority needs should be carried out, with adjustments made in accordance with technological progress. Furthermore, the establishment of cross-departmental rapid response teams is advised to prepare contingency plans for emergent issues, such as newly introduced regulations.
4. Value Extension and Expansion
Outcomes from safety-related technological innovations should be translated into commercial services, such as corporate safety consulting. At the same time, leveraging science communication content to reinforce brand development can attract both policy support and capital investment.
Note: It is advisable to initially select two to three strongly interconnected domains—such as safety, energy, and regulation—to develop flagship cases, thereby creating replicable solution models.
22 Do you have any other suggestions or concerns? (Open-ended question)
Current Status
1.Insufficient efficiency and economic viability in technology transfer: Scale-up processes face controllability bottlenecks, and laboratory achievements have not yet been translated into large-scale industrial applications. This leads to public doubts about cost-effectiveness, compounded by a lack of transparency in intermediate waste treatment processes.
2.Gaps in environmental risk awareness: Mechanisms for chemical pollution prevention remain insufficiently disclosed, and technical pathways for waste treatment are not clearly articulated, raising concerns about environmental safety. More than half of the responses focused on pollution prevention, highlighting a significant trust deficit in this domain.
3.Weakness in science communication: Explanations of technical principles are overly specialized, lacking translation into formats accessible to the public. This information asymmetry intensifies barriers to societal acceptance.
Recommended Measures
1.Technological optimization: Establish a three-tier validation system spanning “laboratory–pilot–industrial scale,” develop online monitoring and feedback control systems to improve process stability, implement a clean production certification scheme, and construct a life-cycle pollution prevention database.
2.Public communication: Create interdisciplinary science communication teams, develop VR simulations and dynamic flow diagrams as visualization tools, and organize regular public open days. For pollution-related concerns, a dual communication platform (“issue list–solution”) should be introduced to foster two-way dialogue.
3.Institutional safeguards: Formulate dedicated support policies for the industrialization of biotechnology, establish an environmental risk compensation fund, and construct demonstration projects in ecologically sensitive areas. Real-time disclosure of environmental monitoring data should be employed to enhance oversight.
Integrated Recommendation
A three-dimensional advancement mechanism combining technological breakthroughs, innovative communication, and institutional safeguards is essential. Priority should be given to breakthroughs in continuous production and waste valorization technologies, alongside the development of a tiered science communication framework and complementary environmental risk early-warning and compensation mechanisms. Special emphasis should be placed on cultivating independent third-party certification agencies to provide authoritative validation, thereby reducing public skepticism and achieving synergy between technological innovation and societal acceptance.
Sentiment Analysis (AI-assisted)
Overall orientation: Slightly positive (0.27)
Negative perspective (n=1): [Current status] Efficiency and controllability of scale-up processes
Neutral perspectives (n=3): [Current status] Transition from laboratory to industrial scale; cost-effectiveness; efficiency
Positive perspectives (n=4): [Measures] Benefit to society; early pilot implementation; strengthening science communication; prevention of chemical pollution
Summary
Conclusions of the Survey Report
This survey reveals public perceptions, attitudes, and core concerns regarding the use of rumen-inspired microbial systems for biomass waste treatment. The findings indicate that more than 85% of respondents strongly recognize the urgency of agricultural and forestry waste utilization, while 96% expect the technology to achieve both environmental benefits and economic value, reflecting a strong societal demand for sustainable solutions. In terms of technical feasibility, 81% of respondents acknowledged the potential of this approach for pilot- or industrial-scale application; however, 50% expressed significant concerns about the biosafety of genetically modified microorganisms, with 65% of these concerns centered on biological leakage and ecological impacts, underscoring that risk management constitutes a critical threshold for technological implementation.
Key Findings
1.Dual-benefit driver: The 96% support rate confirms that the synergy between environmental governance and economic benefits has become a public consensus. Technological development should establish a full life-cycle value assessment framework, with a particular focus on breakthroughs in product purification and integration into industrial value chains.
2.Knowledge gap to be addressed: 53% of respondents were completely unaware of the application value of VFAs, while 84% indicated willingness to support pilot projects once transparency is ensured. This suggests the need for a tiered science communication mechanism—using dynamic flow diagrams to deconstruct technical principles and industry cases to illustrate economic transformation pathways.
3.Building safety trust: Ninety percent of respondents identified “safety and controllability” as the foremost condition for acceptance. It is recommended to adopt a three-tier biosafety certification system spanning laboratory, pilot, and industrial scales, and to introduce blockchain technology for real-time traceability and disclosure of risk data.
Strategic Recommendations:
1.Technical priorities: Priority should be given to optimizing microbial community stability in agricultural straw treatment scenarios (identified as the top priority by 84% of respondents) and developing modular reactor units to reduce energy consumption. In parallel, closed-system validation of gene-edited microorganisms should be conducted, with ecological risks simulated through microfluidic chip technology.
2.Risk communication strategies: For the 65% of respondents concerned about ecological risks, virtual reality (VR)–based demonstration systems of risk prevention and control should be developed, and community supervisory committees should be established to participate in the interpretation of environmental monitoring data from pilot projects.
3.Institutional innovation pathways: It is recommended to promote the establishment of a “green credit–environmental insurance” linkage mechanism, provide tax incentives for projects certified under ISO 21789, and form a closed-loop policy framework of “technology validation–financial support–market access.”
This study reveals the coexistence of both innovation opportunities and risk challenges: when 78% of expectations confront 50% of biosafety concerns, the construction of a new paradigm of transparent R&D and participatory governance will be critical to breaking the impasse. Moving forward, priority should be given to cultivating third-party technology assessment institutions and fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, thereby transforming bionic technologies from laboratory innovations into trustworthy industrial solutions.