Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Analytical Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trac

Microplastics in soils: Analytical methods, pollution characteristics

and ecological risks
Defu He a, b, *, Yongming Luo c, d, Shibo Lu a, Mengting Liu a, Yang Song a, Lili Lei a
a
School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
b
Shanghai Key Laboratory for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
c
Key Laboratory of Soil Environment and Pollution Remediation, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
d
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microplastics are emerging persistent contaminants of increasing concern. Although microplastics have
Available online 13 October 2018 been extensively detected in aquatic environments, their occurrence in soil ecosystems remains largely
unexplored. This review focused on recent progress in analytical methods, pollution characteristics and
Keywords: ecological effects of microplastics in soils. In spite of the presence of microplastics in soils, no stan-
Microplastics dardized methods are available for the quantification. Uniform protocols including microplastic extrac-
Soil
tion and identification are urgently needed to develop. In soil environments, main sources of
Analytical methods
microplastics include mulching film, sludge, wastewater irrigation and atmospheric deposition. The fate
Pollution characteristics
Ecological risks
of microplastics is closely related to soil physio-chemistry and biota. Existing evidence shows that
Terrestrial ecosystem microplastics can influence soil biota at different trophic levels, and even threaten human health through
food chains. Therefore, further research is needed to fully reveal the fate and ecological risks of micro-
plastics in soils; and necessary action is required to control microplastic pollution in terrestrial
ecosystems.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Microplastics (MPs) are mini-scale plastic fragments with size of

Plastic products are widely used in everyday life, mostly due
to the advantage of low cost, malleability and durability. In the
past 50 years, the global production of plastic is about 9.1 billion
tons, with an annual increasing rate of 8.7% [1]. Because of
enormous production and inefficiency management, the issue of
plastic waste is no doubt a critical environment challenge. The
majority of plastic include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),
polystyrene (PS), polyvinylchloride (PVC) and polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) [1]. Although the recycling rate of plastic
products is increasing, most of plastic are still released into the
environment. For instance, an estimated value of 250 million
tons plastics arrived in marine environments in 2015 [2]. In the
environments, plastic litter can be degraded by physical, chem-
ical and biological drivers (i.e. ultraviolet radiation, wind or
water erosion, etc), and become smaller plastic debris [2].
* Corresponding author. School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East
China Normal University, 500# DongChuan RD, Shanghai, 200241, China.
E-mail address: dfhe@des.ecnu.edu.cn (D. He).
smaller than 5 mm. The term of “microplastics” was first coined
by Thompson in 2004. In addition, microplastics can be directly
generated by manufacturing cosmetics for diverse purposes.
There are about 1 g microplastics in the usage of personal care
products in each American per year [3]. Currently, nanoplastics
(NPs) are referred to small microplastics in the size of smaller
than 0.1 mm.
In recent years, microplastics have been extensively detected in
sea, freshwater, land environment and organisms [4e7]. Micro-
plastics pollution is of increasing concerns, and has been listed as
the second important scientific issue in the field of environment
and ecology [5]. The number of publications on microplastic
pollution is fast increasing in recent years, especially after 2014
(Fig. 1). Of these, 38.3% papers have reported microplastics in sea.
According to Eriksen et al. [6], there are more than 5 trillion plastic
debris floating on the surface of global seas. More and more studies
show that microplastic pollution in freshwater environments is as
severe as that in the marine environments [5,7]. In addition,
microplastics can be taken up by a number of species including
small fish, invertebrates, shore crabs, filter feeding bivalves and so
on [2,5]. Microplastics have been reported to exist in seafood, salt,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.006
0165-9936/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
164 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
Fig. 1. The number of publications about microplastics pollution in different types of environment matrices. (a) Increasing number of publications about microplastics pollution
from 2004 to 2018; (b) The percentages of publications about microplastics pollution in sea, freshwater, biology and soil in the total publications. Data are counted in papers
published during January 2004 to June 2018 (basing on the database of Web of Science).
honey, sugar, beer and even drinking water [5,8,9]. Ingested
microplastics can transfer from primary trophic level (e.g. phyto-
plankton and zooplankton) to the food chain [10]. Increasing
studies have suggested that microplastics can induce negative ef-
fects on organisms, such as feeding disruption, reproductive
reduction, intestinal damages and disturbances in energy meta-
bolism, etc. [10e13].
Actually, the majority of plastic rubbish in the oceans stem from
terrestrial human activity involved in the usage of plastics. Micro-
plastics are considered as an emerging threat to terrestrial eco-
systems, where soils may represent a larger reservoir for plastics
than seas [14,15]. Scheurer and Bigalke showed that 90% of flood-
plain soils contain microplastics (up to 55.5 mg kg
1) in
Switzerland [16]. Zhou et al. showed the abundance of micro-
palstics in coastal beach soils (Shangdong, China) ranged from 1.3
to 14712.5 number kg
1 [17]. Our recent study showed microplastic
and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai,
China [4]. Microplastics entered in soil will be of storage, trans-
location, erosion, degradation and leach to groundwater, and thus
threaten organisms and further effect human health [14]. On the
other hand, soil biota can influence the accumulation and fate of
microplastics. For example, microplastics can be ingested by soil
fauna, and then become smaller MPs in their gizzard. Digging
mammals, such as gophers and moles, can incidentally contribute
to the further abrasion into nanoplastics and translocation of
microplastics [18]. Microplastic pollution can have negative impact
on organisms in soils. Many types of additives are used in plastics
production to improve the properties of plastics, including plasti-
cizers, stabilizers, flame retardants and monomers [19]. It has been
demonstrated that the additives can leach out during the life cycle
of the product, especially in the soil environment. At the same time,
plastics can absorb other toxicants including metals, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT, HCH) due to their
hydrophobic surface [5].
Up to now, knowledge of microplastics in soils is very limited.
It is still a big challenge to explore pollution characteristics and
ecological risk assessment of microplastics in soils [5,14,15].
Although several authors have reviewed the occurrence and dis-
tribution of microplastics in sea, freshwater and inland environ-
ments and its effects on biota, there are few review papers about
microplastics in soils [11,19,20]. In the present review, we provide
an overview of recent progresses in analytical methods, pollution
characteristics and ecological risks of microplastics in soils, and
also suggest the crucial challenges and prioritized researches in
the future.
2. Analytical methods for microplastics in soils
2.1. Overview of analytical methods
Although the pervasive presence of microplastics has been
demonstrated in marine and freshwater systems, analytical
methods were variable among different research groups [7,21].
Currently, there is a gap of knowledge on microplastics in the
terrestrial ecosystems presumably because no standardized
methods are available for plastic quantification in soils. Soil is a
mixture of solids (such as organic matter, clay, minerals, etc) and
liquids, which acts as a habitat for soil organisms. The high pro-
portion of organic matter derives from the remains of organisms
such as plants and animals in soils. These organic matters can
further be metabolized into relatively stable substances, i.e. humus.
Under these conditions, soil organic matters and other impurities
may embed microplastics. Hence, the composition of soils may
have impacts on the effectiveness of floatation and separation, and
interfere in the signal of infrared microscopy in the identification of
microplastics [22]. Therefore, it is urgent to develop an accurate and
effective analysis method for assaying microplastics in soil samples.
Generally, the process of microplastic analysis in soils is similar
with that in water column and sediments. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
diagram of analytical procedures for soil microplastics. First,
properly collecting soil samples is the most important step for
microplastics analysis. Topsoil or deep soils within different layers
were usually collected dependent on various types of soil utiliza-
tion patterns [4,17]. Sampling sites should be appropriately set in
order to reflect the overall or average level of (micro)plastic
pollution in fields, so that subsequent analyses and quantification
can accurately represent the status of soil microplastics. Second,
soil samples should be dried, sieved, floated, filtered, and separated
by density depending on the proportion of clay and organic matter.
Then, density extraction and digestion of organic matter are per-
formed. Finally, the potential microplastics need to be visually
identified under an optic microscope, followed by confirmation by
micro-Fourier transformed infrared (m-FT-IR) and Raman spec-
troscopy [4,23]. A few times of sieving and density separation
appear to be the most appropriate protocols to deal with the soil,
but still need standardizations.
2.2. Microplastic extraction
It is the initial process to sieve dry soil sample for analysis. There
are diverse sieving sizes in previous studies. For example, 5 mm size
sieve were used in sieving dry beach samples to remove large
 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram in analytical procedures for microplastics in soil samples.
macroscopic debris; and the disaggregated sediments were sieved
using stacked 5 mm and 0.3 mm sieves [24]. Different from water
column and sediment samples, soil samples were generally rec-
ommended to initially pass through a 2 mm sieve [25]. Then,
density separation was usually used to isolate microplastic parti-
cles. In this procedure, salt solutions of known densities were uti-
lized to float microplastic particles out from the host soil matrix.
When soil samples are decanted into high density solutions, plastic
particles float on the surface of the solution, but the more dense soil
materials remain at the bottom of the solution gradient. A recent
study has developed an extraction method for light density plastics
such as PE and PP from soils by distilled water, with advantages of
simple and cost-effective [26]. Early, saturated NaCl solutions
(density, 1.18 g cm
3) were used to extract microplastics in sedi-
ments; however, the method was suspected not to separate out
many high density plastics such as PET or PVC [24]. In a recent
study, we developed a methodology for separation of microplastics
in agriculture soil samples [4]. This includes adding the number of
extraction and ultrasonic treatment, prolonging the time of floa-
tation, and still using saturated NaCl solutions for extraction. In the
total of nine common types of microplastics spiked in soils, seven
types including PP, PE, polyamide (PA), polycarbonate (PC), acry-
lonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polymethyl methacrylate
(PMMA), and PS particles were successfully extracted from the soil
by using our method. Unfortunately, PET and PVC particles had not
been separated from soils; the method, hence, was developed for
PET and PVC exclusively [4]. Additionally, CaCl2 solutions have also
been used to extract microplastics in soils, with relatively high ef-
ficiency in comparison to NaCl solutions, but the divalent Ca2þ
could agglomerate the organic material and affect subsequent
identification experiments [16]. Van Cauwenberghe et al. [27]
suggested that the optimum solution density should be
1.6e1.8 g cm
3, which could be achieved to use ZnCl2 or NaI.
However, those solutions are relatively cost-expensive in compar-
ison with NaCl. Additionally, acid solutions were usually added in
order that ZnCl2 solution reached the maximum density. However,
acid solutions may alter the presence of microplastics in soil sam-
ples. Except for density flotation, other methods were used for the
separation of microplastics from soil matrixes. Crichton et al. [28]
provided the oil extraction protocol, utilizing the oleophilic prop-
erties of microplastics to achieve the separation of microplastics
165
from sediments; and the recycling efficiency of microplastics
exceeded 90% through this technology. Another study focused on
the electrostatic behavior of microplastics, which facilitated their
separation from multiple environments including water, sedi-
ments, and bleach sands; and the recovery was reported nearly up
to 100% for each type of plastic [29]. However, it is uncertain that
these methods can be suitable for large-scale separations of
microplastics from soils.
2.3. The removal of soil organic matters
In addition to separate microplastics from organic-rich soils,
simply density fractionations may not be enough, because the
densities of soil organic matters are usually between 1.0 and
1.4 g cm
3, which are similar to several plastic types like PET and
Nylon [15]. Hence, an additive step of organic matter removal is
required. For water, sediment, and biological samples, different
types of chemicals were utilized, including acidic, alkaline or
oxidizing treatments, and enzymatic digestions [30,31]. Actually,
those reagents had been tested for the remove effective of organic
matters from soils. Hurley et al. [32] have compared 10 M NaOH,
10% KOH, 30% H2O2 solution and Fenton's reagent for the removal of
organic material in soil microplastics analysis. This paper provides
key information for the remove efficiency of different reagents,
which suggest that suitability of Fenton's reagent in conjunction
with density separation is an effective method for microplastic
extraction. Another study revealed that most organic matter was
removed in a short time after digestion by HNO3 solution; however,
the morphology of some microparticles, such as ABS, PA, and PET,
was changed by action of HNO3 [16].
Up to now, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) was most widely used to
remove organic matters from environmental matrices through
oxidation [7,31]. Basing on previous literature, digestion or remove
effects can be compared among H2O2, acid and alkaline treatments.
For instance, acid treatment can digest plastic itself [30]; alkaline
treatment can cause the surface degradation of plastic [32]. The
shapes of PE and PP plastic can slightly change when in contact
with H2O2 [33]. However, a recent study confirmed that the ma-
jority of microplastics were unaffected by the H2O2 digestion (70 C)
[32]. Our recent study also demonstrated that H2O2 treatments
could successfully remove organic materials in agricultural soils [4].
166 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
2.4. Identification and characterization
Microplastics isolated from environmental samples need be
further identified and quantified using several techniques. The
common approaches include visual identification and chemical
classification such as Infrared or Raman spectroscopies and Pyrol-
ysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [22]. Visual identifi-
cation is an essential step, which can directly and quickly obtain the
surface texture and other characteristics of possible microplastics
[34]. Then microplastics can be classified by their characteristics
such as size, shape and color. Based on the longest dimension of
individuals, microplastics can be sorted into size groups. Five main
categories are usually included based on shapes: fiber, fragment,
bead, foam and film. Nonetheless, there are several limitations or
deficiency in visual identification. For instance, Erikssen et al. [35]
described the misidentification of approximately 20% of particles
initially identified as microplastics by visual observation, which
were subsequently identified as aluminium silicate from coal ash
using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In other works, 32% of
visually counted microplastic particles below 100 mm were not
confirmed as microplastics after micro-Raman application [36];
and up to 70% of particles was erroneously identified as micro-
plastics through FTIR analysis. Therefore, visual identification of
microplastics is some inaccurate, and should be combined with
other physical or chemical technologies. In addition, the SEM is also
used for identification of microplastics, and provides high-
magnification and clearer structural images of microplastics [17].
However, SEM detection takes a lot of time and is relatively
expensive [15]. In addition, SEM requires other coatings in the early
preparation, which may result in inaccuracies for identifying sur-
face texture and color of microplastics [34].
In general, infrared microscopy is one of the most widely
available techniques in chemical identification of microplastics.
Similar non-destructive vibrational techniques include m-FT-IR,
attenuated total reflectance (ATR), and (micro-)Raman spectrom-
etry. These have advantage of stand-alone instruments and auto-
mated scanning coupled with microspectrometry. There are
different spatial distinguishability between of m-FTIR and m-Raman
[15]. Assay size limit of m-Raman can reach as low as 1 mm, while m-
FTIR can only detect microplastics larger than 10e20 mm [37]. In
addition, both m-FTIR and m-Raman techniques must face the
question of rich-organic matters in soil samples, which may inter-
fere with the signal of spectrometer [22]. In the case of Raman
spectroscopy, the signal of organic matters can partly degrade
through a highly fluorescent background; however it may exceed
the magnitude of the polymer signal [38]. Although m-FTIR and m-
Raman can provide reliable identification information for micro-
plastics, the process will take a lot of time. Another technique,
macroscopic dimensioned near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopic anal-
ysis in combination with chemometrics can overcome the disad-
vantage of time-costing, and rapidly assesse chemical composition
of microplastics without any chemical pretreatment [39]. A recent
study showed that hyperspectral imaging technology was a po-
tential technique to determine and visualize the microplastics with
particle size from 0.5 to 5 mm on soil surface directly [40]. Another
study developed a method of thermal extraction desorption gas
chromatography mass spectrometry (TED-GC-MS) to performe
precise and efficient quantification of PE, PET, PP, and PS [41].
Overall, it is still a big challenge in analysis of microplastics in
soils, such complex and organic-rich solid environment substrates.
Current methods used to determine soil microplastics are in-
consistencies including reporting units, the patterns of spatial and
temporal variability, the influence of environmental factors,
contamination control and so on. It leads to incomparable data
among different studies, as well as concerns whether the results are
true levels of microplastic contaminations. It is necessary for the
scientific community to standardize methodological protocols for
effective monitoring and comparison.
3. Microplastic pollution in soils
3.1. Occurrence and characteristics of microplastics in soils
Although numerous studies reported the occurrence of micro-
plastics in aquatic ecosystems, microplastics in terrestrial ecosys-
tems have received relatively little attention. In the terrestrial
ecosystem, soil is an interface among lithosphere, hydrosphere,
atmosphere and biosphere. Once entry in the soil, microplastics
may persist, accumulate, and eventually reach high levels that can
affect organisms and biodiversity [19,20]. Additionally, micro-
plastics can also act as a vector for the transfer of pollutants, either
plastic additives or other toxicants absorbed from soil matrices, to
soil biota and thus pose a hazard. For example, Zhang et al. [42]
found the high concentration level of organophosphorus esters
and phthalic acid esters in microplastics collected from 28 coastal
beach soils in north China. In fact, the terrestrial environments are
the critical source of plastic rubbish in water column. Soils were
theoretically speculated to be the major storages for microplastics,
which is bigger store more than oceanic basins [43]. Another study
points out that the total value of microplastic contaminations on
land might be 4e23-fold larger than that in the ocean [5]. In recent
years, researchers are paying more attention on microplastic
pollution in the soils. Table 1 shows the detailed information of
microplastic studies on different types of soils.
Fuller and Gautam extracted and demonstrated the occurrence
of microplastics in industrial soils from Sydney, Australia, and
found that the concentrations of microplastics widely varied in the
range of 300e67,500 mg kg
1 [44]. Zhou and coworker separated
microplastics from soils in the coastal zone (Hebei, China) and
observed their surface features. They found the mean abundance of
microplastics was 317 n (500 g)
1 (dry weight), with granulate
accounting for 75% and fragments accounting for 20% in the total of
abundance [45]. Their other study showed the abundance of
micropalstics in coastal beach soils (Shangdong, China) ranged
from 1.3 to 14712.5 number kg
1 (dry weight) and approximately
60% of the observed microplastics had a size range < 1 mm [17]. In
another report, up to 55.5 mg kg
1 or 593 particles kg
1 of
microplastics were found in 26 floodplain soil samples in
Switzerland [16]. Li et al. [46] analyzed the abundances of micro-
plastics in 79 sewage sludge samples in China, and the results
showed that abundances ranges from 1.6e56.4  103 n kg
1 (dry
weight), which is obviously higher than abundances of micro-
plastics in floodplain or beach soils.
In farmland, microplastics pollution mostly originates from the
application of plastic in agricultural practice. Theoretically esti-
mation of microplastics may be the largest originate from the
application of plastic mulching and sewage sludge [43]. Recently,
our group has demonstrated that the occurrence of microplastics in
farmland soils from twenty vegetable fields around the suburbs of
Shanghai. The abundance of microplastics was 78.00 ± 12.91 and
62.50 ± 12.97 number kg
1 in shallow and deep soils. The majority
of microplastics are belonging to polypropylene (50.51%) and
polyethylene (43.43%), which indicates that microplastic contami-
nation may stem mostly from plastic mulching in farmland [4].
Additionally, Zhang et al. [25] found plastic particles (10e0.05 mm)
in all fifty samples from arable soils, with the abundances of plastic
particles in range of 7100 to 42,960 particles kg
1 (mean 18,760
particles kg
1). 95% of plastic particles are microplastic in the size of
1e0.05 mm. Despite of the complex characterization of soil
including pH values, organic matters and mineral substituents,
 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172 167

more and more researchers turn their attentions on microplastics

Scheurer and Bigalke, 2018 [16]

pollution in soils [15,20].

Fuller and Gautam, 2016 [44]

Zhang and Liu, 2018 [25]

3.2. Sources of microplastics in soils

Loess plateau, China Zhang et al., 2018 [26]

Zhou et al., 2016 [45]
Zhou et al., 2018 [17]

Liu et al., 2018 [4]

The sources of microplastics in soils include inputs from sludge
utilization, plastic mulching, wastewater irrigation, road runoff,
atmospheric deposition, etc [15]. Fig. 3 includes schematic dia-
grams about sources of microplastics in soils. The main source of
Study

microplastics is inputs from agricultural practices including the

utilization of sewage treatment plant sludge and plastic mulching.
Despite a high removal rate of microplastics in sewage treatment
Sydney, Australia

Shandong, China

PE (50.51%), PP (43.43%), Shanghai, China

Yunnan, China
systems, the most of microplastics still remain in sludge. For
Hebei, China

Switzerland

example, micro- and macro-plastics were widely detected in sludge

with the concentrations ranged from 1500 to 24,000 items kg
1
Location

[47]. Mahon et al. found up to 15,800 particles kg
1 of microplastics

in sludge, and showed that some approaches including lime sta-
bilization, anaerobic digestion, and thermal drying are insufficient
to remove microplastics from sludge [47]. These sludge containing
PE, PP, PS, polyether
PVC (>80%), PE, PS

microplastics are usually utilized as fertilizers in agriculture [48],

PE, PS, SBR, PVC

which produce substantial microplastics in farmland soils. Based on

Composition

PES (6.06%)

the total sludge production in China, the average amount of sludge-

urethane

based MPs entering into natural environment was estimated up to

1.56  1014 particles per year [46]. Another assessment showed a
PE
e

total yearly input of up to 430,000 and 300,000 tons microplastics

fragments, granules, fibers and films

to European and North American farmlands, respectively [43]. In

predominant form fibers, followed
foams, pellets, fragments, flakes,

addition, plastic mulching is another important source of micro-

plastics in agriculture. Mulching is a widespread technique to gain
harvest and improve crop quality. About 4270 km2 plastic mulching
fibers, films and sponges

by fragments and films

were covered agricultural surface in Europe in 2010 [49]. Actually,

Fiber, film, fragment

worldwide plastic mulching has fast increased in the recent years,

with annually growing rate of about 5e10%. Large amounts of
plastic film will remain and accumulate in the soil, and eventually
break down into microplastics, and even nanoplastics. Ramos et al.
Shape

[50] analyzed meso- and macroplastics of PE film residues from

e

88% in the size range of 125e500 mm e

e

plastic mulching in horticultural fields. Results showed a high

concentration of PE films, i.e. 3 g PE per m2 soil with a mean size of
28 cm2, found in 10% surface soil samples.
Second, untreated wastewater contains large amounts of
60% in size range of <1 mm

microplastics, derived from effluent of washing machines or care

products like shampoos or peelings. The direct use of the un-
treated wastewater for irrigation of agricultural fields presumably
1.56 ± 0.63 mm

also serves as source of microplastics for soils, and result in plastic

10e0.05 mm

0.03e16 mm

contaminants in farmland environments [15]. Assay results

Occurrence and characteristics of microplastics in different types of soils.

Size range

>100 mm

showed irrigation wastewater contained a large number of small

plastic particles with mean diameters between 164 and 327 mm
[51]. Microplastics were detected in household wastewater with
e

concentrations of up to 627,000 items m
3. Additionally, Majewsky

78.00 ± 12.91 62.50 ± 12.97 item kg
1
up to 55.5 mg kg
1 or 593 item kg
1

and his co-researchers found a total concentration, i.e. 80e260 mg

per m3, of PE and PP in wastewater [52]. These plastic items may
entry into field soils through irrigation with treated wastewater or
natural flood.
317 item/500 g (average)
1.3e14,712.5 item kg
1

Tree-planted soils 7100-42,960 item kg
1

Other sources for accumulating microplastics into surrounding

300-67,500 mg kg
1

soils include runoff from roads or urban areas, atmospheric trans-

Agricultural field <0.54 mg kg
1

port, and so on. Additionally, illegal dumping of waste near roads,

and tire abrasion (containing rubber, a mostly synthetic polymer)
Abundance

can also contribute to microplatic occurrences in soils. However,

there are no studies available that quantify the amount of micro-
plastics from illegal dumping of waste into soils. For tire abrasion, a
report showed the annual emission of about 10,000 t tire dust in
Floodplain soils
Industrial soils

Farmland soils

Sweden, and up to even 110,000 t in Germany [15]. Atmospheric

transport has the potential to move microplastics over long dis-
Beach soil
Beach soil
Soil type

-: no data.

tances and likely contributes a proportion of micro(nano)plastic in

Table 1

soils. Zhou et al. [53] have taken a detailed investigation on the

different shapes, deposition fluxes and seasonal variation in
168 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
Fig. 3. Sources and fate of soil microplastics in terrestrial environments. Red fibers and spheres indicate the potential microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem. Black or white
arrows show transport of microplastics. Four circular panels represent enlarged profile schematic diagrams in special soil environments: tire abrasion (a), the potential uptake by
plants (b), uptake and transport by soil animals (c), and trophic transfer in terrestrial food chain (d).
microplastics in the coastal urban atmospheric environment. It
indicates that atmospheric microplastics may be a key source of
microplastics in the coastal soil environment in China. Dris et al.
[54] analyzed atmospheric fallout of microplastics in an urban
environment near Paris, and showed a mean value of 29e280 items
m
2 day
1. Of these, fiber plastic account for up to 90%, and 50%
with size of >1000 mm. It is possible that microplastics carrying
other air pollutants may exchange within different areas through
atmospheric transports.
3.3. Accumulation and fate of microplastics in soil
Once accumulation of microplastics in soils, the topsoil provides
a potentially degradative environment, mostly due to the direct UV
radiation, increased oxygen availability, and relatively high tem-
perature [20]. Soil microbiotas and terrestrial organisms may
accelerate biodegradation of (micro)plastics. In addition, agricul-
tural processes such as tilling and crop rotation may turn fragment
plastic debris into microplastics. However, basing on both drivers of
natural and biological impacts on (micro-)plastics, degradation of
plastic in soil may be very slow. Analysis results showed only
0.1e0.4% weight loss of PE after 800 days in soil, and only 0.4%
weight loss of PP after one year of soil incubation, while no
degradation was found for PVC after 35 years in natural soil envi-
ronments [55].
Microplastics in the topsoil might be incorporated into deeper
topsoil by tillage, and even into the plough layer along large cracks
or by the turbation of soil biota. The typical physical process for
microplastics in soils is leaching. Leaching is an important process
driving contaminants with certain properties to groundwater. Mi-
cro- or nano-plastics have not yet been analyzed in groundwater
samples, but transport through biopores has been identified as a
possible mechanism for groundwater contaminations [18]. Multi-
ple small animals in soils can actively contribute to the movement
of microplastic particles. A study showed that microarthropods
(collembola) could move microplastic beads in laboratory soil
environments [56]. Similarly active, incidental and relatively small-
scale transport could spread microplastic particles horizontally,
which may facilitate their subsequent entry into the deep lay of
soils. Rillig et al. [18] observed vertical movement of PE microbeads
(in the size of 710e2800 mm) transported by earthworms (Lum-
bricus terrestris L.), with the speed of down to 10 cm within 21 days.
Microplastics can be ingested by different types of terrestrial
animals. Our studies showed that various types of microplastics
including PE, PP, PVC, PS and PA could be taken up and accumulated
in soil nematodes, C. elegans [12,13]. Rillig et al. [18] investigated the
transport of microplastics by earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. They
found that PE microplastics could transport middle and bottom
layers of soils after 21 days, with the smallest microplastics could
reach the deepest soil layer. The bio-transport might be due to the
ingestion/egestion, burrowing, adherence, and making casts of
earthworms. Lwanga et al. [57] assessed and analyzed micro- and
macro-plastics in soil, earthworm casts, chicken feces, crops and
gizzards. The data showed that micro- and macro-plastics were
capable of entering terrestrial food webs. After the ingestion of soil
biota, there is still a large amount of microplastic excretion, and
entry into soil environments. Therefore, the ingestion of soil biota is
an important factor to influence the accumulation of microplastics
in soil systems. Fig. 3 includes schematic diagrams about fate of
microplastics in soils.
4. Ecological risks of microplastics on soil organisms
4.1. Impacts of microplastics on soil animals
Some review papers pointed out the potential effects of wide-
spread microplastics and emphasized the adverse effects on biota
[5,19]. However, to date, knowledge of effects of microplastics on
soil organisms is largely limited. Soil organisms include various
types such as fauna, nematodes, collembolans, soil mammals, and
so on. According to currently published literature, the majority of
used soil animals include earthworm, collembolans, isopod and
 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
mite [20]. Earthworms are commonly found living in soils, feeding
organic matters. As the most important model organism in soil
system, the use of earthworms has some advantages such as easy to
identification and convenient to conduct experiments. In addition,
earthworms can directly ingest small-sized microplastics, generate
secondary plastics, and transport microplastics into soil through
their burrowing activities. Therefore, earthworms are usually
selected to explore various pollution and their effects within soil
ecosystems [58].
4.1.1. Earthworm
Gaylor et al. [59] observed combined effects of biosolids or
polyurethane foam microparticles and polybrominated diphenyl
ether (PBDE) on earthworm Eisenia fetida. Their results indicated
that chemicals derived from microplastics could accumulate in
earthworms, which may subsequently transfer their burdens to
predators or translocate them from the site of application. In
another study, Hodson et al. [60] conducted zinc and high density
polyethylene (HDPE) bags exposure to Lumbricus terrestris, and
found that microplastics could serve a pathway for bioavailable
metals in the soil ecosystem. However, they did not observe
significantly adverse effects on survival and body weight of the
earthworm. Lwanga et al. [61] exposed earthworm Lumbricus ter-
restris to low density polyethylene (LDPE) microplastics (<150 mm)
for 60 days. They found that microplastics could exert toxicity to
earthworms basing on observations on mortality, growth and
tunnel formation. In addition, earthworms can size-selectively
ingest microplastics, accumulate in the body of earthworms, and
further transport to other organisms in the soil ecosystem. In
another study [57], they demonstrated that L. terrestris moved
microplastics from the soil surface into their burrows in a size-
selective way, and that biogenic transport of microplastics within
soils could be a pollution source for groundwater and terrestrial
food web. Similarly, Rodriguez-Seijo et al. [62] used the OECD
artificial soil to investigate effects of PE MPs (size in 250e1000 mm)
on the survival, growth, reproduction, histopathology and immune
system as response in epigeic earthworms Eisenia andrei. They
observed no significant impacts on survival, numbers of juveniles
and the final weight of adult earthworms, but found obvious his-
topathological damages and immune system in earthworms.
4.1.2. Nematodes
Recently, our studies revealed that microplastics could be
availably ingested by nematodes Caenorhabditis elegans [12,13].
Microplastics exposure can have size-dependent impacts on nem-
atodes. The adverse effects included intestinal damages and
oxidative damages, which were proved by the reduction in the
intestinal calcium levels and increased expression of the oxidative
stress gene, gst-4, on C. elegans. We also observed the significantly
decrease of survival rate, body length and reproduction on nema-
todes. In another study, we found that both PS nanoplastics and
microplastics could induce size-dependent excitatory toxicity on
locomotor behaviors, and significantly down-regulated the
expression of unc-17 and unc-47, and resulted in obvious damages
in cholinergic and GABAergic neurons [13]. Zhao et al. [63]
demonstrated the transgenerational toxicity of nanopolystyrene
particles in concentration level of mg L
1 on nematodes. They
observed the transgenerational toxicity at the concentrations
higher than 100 mg L
1, and further explained the underlying
cellular mechanism of the transgenerational toxicity.
4.1.3. Collembolan
Two collembolan species, Folsomia candida and Proisotom min-
uta were proved to transport urea-formaldehyde microparticles
with two different sizes of <100 mm and 100e200 mm [56]. Basing
169
on videos, Maab et al. [56] observed the significant differences of
transport distance for microparticles between the two species, and
concluded that the transport of microparticles in soils may be
mostly dependent on type and size of particles and soil organisms.
Zhu et al. [10] selected soil collembolan Folsomia candida for
exposure of PVC (80e250 mm in diameter), and investigated
changes of gut microbiota, growth, reproduction and isotope
composition in the soil ecosystem. After 28e56 days exposure,
results showed that PVC microplastics had impacts on non-target
microbiota, and lead to enhancement of gut bacterial diversity,
reduction of collembolan growth and reproduction, and increase of
elemental values (15N and 13C) in the collembolan tissues.
4.1.4. Isopods
Kokalj et al. [64] exposed terrestrial isopod Procellio scaber to
polyethylene microplastics (mean size 183 ± 93 mm) derived from
plastic bag film for 14 days. They reported that microplastics had no
impacts on food ingestion rate, defecation rate, food assimilation
rate, body mass change, survival rates and energy reserves in
digestive gland of isopods under the given exposure conditions.
Prolonged exposure or other type microplastics exposure should be
further carried out to provide a realistic view of potential hazards of
microplastics on isopods.
4.1.5. Mite
In a recent study, Hypoaspis aculeifer was used to investigate the
transport of commercial polyvinyl chloride (PVC) microplastics in
soil environments [10]. H. aculeifer, as predator in soils, this study
compared the differences between the relationship of predator and
prey for microplastics. They found that transport of microplastics
was significantly improved when co-existing of predator and prey
than the single existing of predator or prey in soils. These results
suggest that movement of microplastics by soil animals may affect
the exposure of microplastics to other soil biota, and further change
the bio-physical property of soils.
4.2. Impacts of microplastics on soil microbiota
A recent study showed that fungus Zalerion maritimum could
utilize polyethylene in a special growth medium, and reduce both
mass and size of microplastics. It indicates that fungus may
actively contribute to the biodegradation of microplastics [15].
Nevertheless, the majority of microbiota in soils has a short life
and a relatively small size. It is still a big challenge to reveal
interaction of microplastics and microbiota in soil environments.
Some studies have shown the accumulation of microplastics in
yeasts and filamentous fungi [20], which indicates potential
accumulation or magnification of microplastics along the soil
detrital food web. In a recent study, Liu et al. [65] showed that
microplastic addition stimulated enzymatic activity, activated
pools of organic C, N, and P into soils. In addition, the toxicity of
nanoplastics on filamentous fungi Aspergillus oryzae and Asper-
gillus nidulans was proved different among microbiota species or
phenotypes of NPs [66]. Some studies revealed the potential of
microplastics to disturb vital relationships between soil and wa-
ter, as well as its consequences for soil structure and microbial
function, and suggested that microplastics were even relevant
long-term anthropogenic stressors and drivers of global change in
terrestrial ecosystems [67,68].
4.3. Uptake of microplacstics by plants
The impacts of microplastics in aquatic plant have been re-
ported. For instance, microplastics (1e5 mm) did not affect growth
rate of marine microalgae Tetraselmis chuii at concentration of up to
170 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
41.5 mg L
1. The concentrations ranged from 0.9 to 2.1 mg L
1
microplastics could significantly reduce the development of chlo-
rophyll [69]. However, data about the uptake of microplastics by
terrestrial plants is lacking up to now. Land plants have some
special structures or properties including root, xylem, transpira-
tion, water and lipid fractions, plasma membrane potential, tono-
plast potential, cytoplasm and vacuoles, which may benefit the
uptake of microplastics. In addition, plants cell wall is not available
for enter of microplastics due to the high molecular weight and
large size. Therefore, smaller-sized submicro- and/or nano-plastics
may be possible to be taken up by plants. However, there is no
publication about the whole plant taking up nanoplastics. There is a
large knowledge gap in this area; and further studies deserve to be
carried out.
4.4. Transfer along the food chain
Lwanga et al. [57] investigated trophic transfer of microplastics
in terrestrial food chain, based on assaying microplastics in home
garden soils, earthworm casts and chicken feces. The results
showed that chicken feces contained relatively high concentration
of microplastics, i.e. 129.8 ± 82.3 particles g
1. The result suggested
that microplastics could transfer via trophic pathway and poten-
tially entry into food of humans. Zhu et al. [10] used Hypoaspis
aculeifer and Folsomia candida to observe the transport of micro-
plastics. As previously described, microplastics have been detected
in seafood, salt, sugar, honey and beer [7,8]. Similarly, microplastics
could be transported via food chain in soil ecosystems, which
therefore may further threat human health to a certain extent.
5. Conclusions: key challenges and perspectives for future
research
This review summarizes research progresses in analytical
methods, pollution characteristics and ecological risks of micro-
plastics in soils, and provides an overview of recent advances in
microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems. It is clear that our under-
standing of microplastics in terrestrial environments is rapidly
promoting. However, there is still a great gap of knowledge on
microplastic pollution and its environmental impacts [5,20]. Many
questions still remain in multiple aspects including analytical
methodology, environmental concentrations, sources, fate, and
ecological consequence of microplastics in soils. In summary, the
most crucial challenges and prioritized researches are suggested as
follows:
 It is necessary to develop accurate, simple, efficient methods to
assay multiple types of microplastics in soils. To understand
various scenarios which can take place in real soil environments,
future research should strengthen developing simulation ex-
periments to obtain the realistic state of soil microplastics under
field conditions. Uniform methods for collecting, separating and
analyzing MPs in soil samples should be established and suit-
able for sorts of origins, compositions, sizes and shapes of
microplastics.
 It is largely lack of certain data about concentrations, volumes,
types and compositions of microplastics in soil environments.
Current data are too insufficient to analyze the total pollution
status of soil microplastics in the global or regional range. Future
research should strengthen assaying microplastics in different
types of soils and their use patterns in order to gain more
quantitative data.
 There is little information about source and fate of microplastics
in terrestrial ecosystems. In future research, it is urgent to
address distribution, transport, and degradation of microplastics
in terrestrial environments in order to reveal environmental
behaviors and effects. For example, microplastics in soils may be
transported horizontally by wind and water, and transported
vertically by water or soil biota; and even can be gradually
degraded by microbiology or physicochemical drivers. It is
important to explore the natural and anthropogenic processes
affecting microplastics fate in soil environments.
 As emerging persistent contaminants, microplastics can be
taken up by soil biota. Therefore, it is important to investigate
the potential toxicity of microplastics on soil organisms. In
addition, microplastics can be transferred through the food
chain, and pose a potential risk on human health. Apparently,
trophic transfer and transgenerational effects are also necessary
to be taken into account in future. It should include in-
vestigations on natural and urban ecosystems, including plants,
and natural microbial assemblages respond to microplastic
pollution in soils.
 At present, we have increasingly realized the adverse effects of
microplastics. Although we still need to deepen them, it is an
indisputable direction to reduce the use and emission of plastics
at the source, such as changing behaviors of manufacturers and
consumers. It is still the direction that government and citizens
should work together to reduce plastic littering, and to guide
people not to throw away plastic rubbish in the soil environ-
ment. Moreover, we need rely on legal means to stipulate pro-
ductions and guide people's daily habits in order to control
plastic pollution in soil.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (NO. 41877142), the National Key Research and
Development of China (NO. 2016YFC1402204) and National Science
and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and
Technology of China (NO. 2018ZX07208008).
References
[1] R. Geyer, J.R. Jambeck, K.L. Law, Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made, Sci. Adv. 3 (2017), e1700782.
[2] S.L. Wright, F.J. Kelly, Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ. Sci.
Technol. 51 (2017) 6634e6647.
[3] H. Bouwmeester, P.C. Hollman, R.J. Peters, Potential health impacts of envi-
ronmental released micro- and nanoplastics in the human food chain pro-
duction chain: experiences from nanotoxicity, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015)
8932e8947.
[4] M. Liu, S. Lu, Y. Song, L. Lei, J. Hu, W. Lv, W. Zhou, C. Cao, H. Shi, X. Yang, D. He,
Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of
Shanghai, China, Environ. Pollut. 242 (2018) 855e862.
[5] A.A. Horton, A. Walton, D.J. Spurgeon, E. Lahive, C. Svendsen, Microplastics in
freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current under-
standing to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities, Sci.
Total Environ. 586 (2017) 127e141.
[6] M. Eriksen, L.C.M. Lebreton, H.S. Carson, M. Thiel, C.J. Moore, J.C. Borerro,
F. Galgani, P.G. Ryan, J. Reisser, Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more
than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea, PloS One
9 (2014), e111913.
[7] K. Zhang, H. Shi, J. Peng, Y. Wang, X. Xiong, C. Wu, P.K.S. Lam, Microplastic
pollution in China's inland water systems: a review of findings, methods,
characteristics, effects, and management, Sci. Total Environ. 630 (2018)
1641e1653.
[8] D. Yang, H. Shi, L. Li, J. Li, K. Jabeen, P. Kolandhasamy, Microplastics pollution
in table salts from China, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 13622e13627.
[9] M. Pivokonsky, L. Cermakova, K. Novotna, P. Peer, T. Cajthaml, V. Janda,
Occurrence of microplastics in raw and treated drinking water, Sci. Total
Environ. 643 (2018) 1644e1651.
[10] D. Zhu, Q.F. Bi, Q. Xiang, Q.L. Chen, P. Christie, X. Ke, L.H. Wu, Y.G. Zhu, Trophic
predatoreprey relationships promote transport of microplastics compared
with the single Hypoaspis aculeifer and Folsomia candida, Environ. Pollut. 235
(2018) 150e154.
 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172
[11] S. Anbumani, P. Kakkar, Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics on biota: a
review, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018) 14373e14396.
[12] L. Lei, S. Wu, S. Lu, M. Liu, Y. Song, Z. Fu, H. Shi, M.R.S. Kathleen, D. He,
Microplastic particles cause intestinal damage and other adverse effects in
zebrafish Danio rerio and nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, Sci. Total Environ.
619e620 (2018) 1e8.
[13] L. Lei, M. Liu, Y. Song, S. Lu, J. Hu, C. Cao, B. Xie, H. Shi, D. He, Polystyrene
(nano)microplastics cause sizeedependent neurotoxicity, oxidative damages
and other adverse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans, Environ. Sci. Nano. 5
(2018) 2009e2020.
[14] R.R. Hurley, L. Nizzetto, Fate and occurrence of micro(nano)plastics in soils:
knowledge gaps and possible risks, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 1 (2018)
6e11.
[15] M. Bla €sing, W. Amelung, Plastics in soil: analytical methods and possible
sources, Sci. Total Environ. 612 (2018) 422e435.
[16] M. Scheurer, M. Bigalke, Microplastics in Swiss floodplain soils, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 52 (2018) 3591e3598.
[17] Q. Zhou, H. Zhang, C. Fu, Y. Zhou, Z. Dai, Y. Li, C. Tu, Y. Luo, The distribution and
morphology of microplastics in coastal soils adjacent to the Bohai Sea and the
Yellow Sea, Geoderma 322 (2018) 201e208.
[18] M.C. Rillig, L. Ziersch, S. Hempel, Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms,
Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 1362.
[19] A.A. de Souza Machado, W. Kloas, C. Zarfl, S. Hempel, M.C. Rillig, Microplastics
as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems, Global Change Biol. 24 (2018)
1405e1416.
[20] Y. Chae, Y.J. An, Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological
impacts on the soil ecosystem: a review, Environ. Pollut. 240 (2018) 387e395.
[21] L. Mai, L.J. Bao, L. Shi, C.S. Wong, E.Y. Zeng, A review of methods for measuring
microplastics in aquatic environments, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018)
11319e11332.
[22] C.V. Sperber, H. Lewandowski, F. Tamburini, S.M. Bernasconi, W. Amelung,
E. Frossard, Kinetics of enzymeecatalysed oxygen isotope exchange between
phosphateand water revealed by Raman spectroscopy, J. Raman Spectrosc. 48
(2016) 368e373.
[23] G. Peng, P. Xu, B. Zhu, M. Bai, D. Li, Microplastics in freshwater river sediments
in Shanghai, China: a case study of risk assessment in megaecities, Environ.
Pollut. 234 (2018) 448e456.
[24] NOAA, Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine
Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Synthetic Particles in Waters
and Sediments, 2015. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/
publications-files/noaa_microplastics_methods_manual.pdf. (Accessed 15
November 2015).
[25] G. Zhang, Y. Liu, The distribution of microplastics in soil aggregate fractions in
southwestern China, Sci. Total Environ. 642 (2018) 12e20.
[26] S. Zhang, X. Yang, H. Gertsen, P. Peters, T. Salanki, V. Geissen, A simple method
for the extraction and identification of light density microplastics from soil,
Sci. Total Environ. 616e617 (2018) 1056e1065.
[27] L.V. Cauwenberghe, L. Devriese, F. Galgani, J. Robbens, C.R. Janssen, Micro-
plastics in sediments: a review of techniques, occurrence and effects, Mar.
Environ. Res. 111 (2015) 5e17.
[28] E.M. Crichton, M. Noel, E.A. Gies, P.A. Ross, A novel, densityeindependent and
FTIRecompatible approach for the rapid extraction of microplastics from
aquatic sediments, Anal. Method 9 (2017) 1419e1428.
[29] S. Felsing, C. Kochleus, S. Buchinger, N. Brennholt, F. Stock, G. Reifferscheid,
A new approach in separating microplastics from environmental samples
based on their electrostatic behavior, Environ. Pollut. 234 (2018) 20e28.
[30] A. Dehaut, A.L. Cassone, L. Frere, L. Hermabessiere, C. Himber, E. Rinnert,
G. Riviere, C. Lambert, P. Soudant, A. Huvet, G. Duflos, I. PaulePont, Micro-
plastics in seafood: benchmark protocol for their extraction and character-
ization, Environ. Pollut. 215 (2016) 223e233.
[31] K. Jabeen, L. Su, J. Li, D. Yang, C. Tong, J. Mu, H. Shi, Microplastics and meso-
plastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China, Environ. Pollut. 221
(2017) 141e149.
[32] R.R. Hurley, A.L. Lusher, M. Olsen, L. Nizzetto, Validation of a method for
extracting microplastics from complex, organicerich, environmental
matrices, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 7409e7417.
[33] M.T. Nuelle, J.H. Dekiff, D. Remy, E. Fries, A new analytical approach for
monitoring microplastics in marine sediments, Environ. Pollut. 184 (2014)
161e169.
[34] W.J. Shim, S.H. Hong, S. Eo, Identification methods in microplastic analysis: a
review, Anal. Method 25 (2017) 1384e1391.
[35] M. Eriksen, S. Mason, S. Wilson, C. Box, A. Zellers, W. Edwards, H. Farley,
S. Amato, Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian great
Lakes, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (2013) 177e182.
[36] R. Lenz, K. Enders, C.A. Stedmon, D.M.A. Mackenzie, T.G. Nielsen, A critical
assessment of visual identification of marine microplastic using Raman
spectroscopy for analysis improvement, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100 (2015) 82e91.
[37] J. Cai, J. Wang, J. Peng, Z. Tan, Z. Zhan, X. Tan, Q. Chen, Characteristic of
microplastics in the atmospheric fallout from Dongguan city, China: pre-
liminary research and first evidence, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (2017)
24928e24935.
[38] A.B. Silva, A.S. Bastos, C.I.L. Justino, J.P.D. Costa, A.C. Duarte,
T.A.P. RochaeSantos, Microplastics in the environment: challenges in
analytical chemistry e a review, Anal. Chim. Acta 1017 (2018) 1e19.
171
[39] A. Paul, L. Wander, R. Becker, G. Goedecke, U. Braun, Highethroughput NIR
spectroscopic (NIRS) detection of microplastics in soil, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2180-2.
[40] J.J. Shan, J.B. Zhao, L.F. Liu, Y.T. Zhang, X. Wang, F.C. Wu, A novel way to rapidly
monitor microplastics in soil by hyperspectral imaging technology and che-
mometrics, Environ. Pollut. 238 (2018) 121e129.
[41] E. Duemichen, P. Eisentraut, C.G. Bannick, A.K. Barthel, R. Senz, U. Braun, Fast
identification of microplastics in complex environmental samples by a ther-
mal degradation method, Chemosphere 174 (2017) 572e584.
[42] H. Zhang, Q. Zhou, Z. Xie, Y. Zhou, C. Tu, C. Fu, W. Mi, R. Ebinghaus, P. Christie,
Y. Luo, Occurrences of organophosphorus esters and phthalates in the
microplastics from the coastal beaches in north China, Sci. Total Environ.
616e617 (2018) 1505e1512.
[43] L. Nizzetto, M. Futter, S. Langaas, Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics
of urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 10777e10779.
[44] S. Fuller, A.A. Gautam, Procedure for measuring microplastics using pressur-
ized fluid extraction, Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (2016) 5774e5780.
[45] Q. Zhou, H. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Li, Y. Xue, C. Fu, C. Tu, Y. Luo, Separation of
microplastics from a coastal soil and their surface microscopic features, Chin.
Sci. Bull. 61 (2016) 1604e1611.
[46] X. Li, L. Chen, Q. Mei, B. Dong, X. Dai, G. Ding, E. Zeng, Microplastics in sewage
sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China, Water Res. 142 (2018)
75e85.
[47] A.M. Mahon, B. O'Connell, M.G. Healy, I. O'Connor, R. Officer, R. Nash,
L. Morrison, Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 51 (2017) 810e818.
[48] A. Wille n, C. Junestedt, L. Rodhe, M. Pell, H. Jo € nsson, Sewage sludge as
fertilizer-environmental assessment of storage and land application options,
Water Sci. Technol. 75 (2017) 1034e1050.
[49] Z. Steinmetz, C. Wollmann, M. Schaefer, C. Buchmann, J. David, J. Tro € ger,
K. Mun ~ oz, O. Fro
€r, G.E. Schaumann, Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading
short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Sci. Total En-
viron. 550 (2016) 690e705.
[50] L. Ramos, G. Berenstein, E.A. Hughes, A. Zalts, J.M. Montserrat, Polyethylene
film incorporation into the horticultural soil of small periurban production
units in Argentina, Sci. Total Environ. 523 (2015) 74e81.
[51] N.L. Hartline, N.J. Bruce, S.N. Karba, E.O. Ruff, S.U. Sonar, P.A. Holden, Micro-
fiber masses recovered from conventional machine washing of new or aged
garments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 21 (2016) 11532e11538.
[52] M. Majewsky, H. Bitter, E. Eiche, H. Horn, Determination of microplastic
polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) in environmental samples using
thermal analysis (TGA-DSC), Sci. Total Environ. 568 (2016) 507e511.
[53] Q. Zhou, C. Tian, Y. Luo, Various forms and deposition fluxes of microplastics
identified in the coastal urban atmosphere, Chin. Sci. Bull. 62 (2017)
3902e3909.
[54] R. Dris, J. Gasperi, V. Rocher, M. Saad, N. Renault, B. Tassin, Microplastic
contamination in an urban areaea case study in greater Paris, Environ. Chem.
12 (2015) 592e599.
[55] M.I. Ali, S. Ahmed, G. Robson, I. Javed, N. Ali, N. Atiq, A. Hameed, Isolation and
molecular characterization of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic degrading
fungal isolates, J. Basic Microbiol. 54 (2014) 18e27.
[56] S. Maaß, D. Daphi, A. Lehmann, M.C. Rillig, Transport of microplastics by two
collembolan species, Environ. Pollut. 225 (2017) 456e459.
[57] E. Huerta Lwanga, J. Mendoza Vega, V. Ku Quej, J.L.A. Chi, L. Sanchez Del Cid,
C. Chi, G. Escalona Segura, H. Gertsen, T. Sala nki, M. van der Ploeg,
A.A. Koelmans, V. Geissen, Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a
terrestrial food chain, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 14071.
[58] E. Ng, E. Huerta Lwanga, S.M. Eldridge, P. Johnston, H. Hu, V. Geissen, D. Chen,
An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems, Sci.
Total Environ. 627 (2018) 1377e1388.
[59] M.O. Gaylor, E. Harvey, R.C. Hale, Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)
accumulation by earthworms (Eisenia fetida) exposed to biosolidse, poly-
urethane foam microparticlee, and PentaeBDEeamended soils, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 47 (2013) 13831e13839.
[60] M.E. Hodson, C.A. DuffuseHodson, A. Clark, M.T. PrendergasteMiller,
K.L. Thorpe, Plastic bag derivedemicroplastics as a vector for metal
exposure in terrestrial invertebrates, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (2017)
4714e4721.
[61] E. Huerta Lwanga, H. Gertsen, H. Gooren, P. Peters, T. Salanki, M. van der Ploeg,
E. Besseling, A.A. Koelmans, V. Geissen, Microplastics in the terrestrial
ecosystem: implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae),
Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 2685e2691.
[62] A. RodriguezeSeijo, J. Lourenço, T.A.P. RochaeSantos, J.D. Costa, A.C. Duarte,
H. Vala, R. Pereira, Histopathological and molecular effects of microplastics in
Eisenia Andrei Bouche , Environ. Pollut. 220 (2017) 495e503.
[63] L. Zhao, M. Qu, G. Wong, D. Wang, Transgenerational toxicity of nano-
polystyrene particles in the range of mg Le1 in the nematode Caenorhabditis
elegans, Environ. Sci. Nano. 4 (2017) 2356e2366.
[64] A.J. Kokalj, P. Horvat, T. Skalar, A. Krzan, Plastic bag and facial cleanser derived
microplastic do not affect feeding behaviour and energy reserves of terrestrial
isopods, Sci. Total Environ. 615 (2018) 761e766.
[65] H.F. Liu, X.M. Yang, G.B. Liu, C.T. Liang, S. Xue, H. Chen, C.J. Ritsema, V. Geissen,
Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese
loess soil, Chemosphere 185 (2017) 907e917.
172 D. He et al. / Trends in Analytical Chemistry 109 (2018) 163e172

[66] T. Nomura, S. Tani, M. Yamamoto, T. Nakagawa, S. Toyoda, E. Fujisawa,
Y. Konishi, Cytotoxicity and colloidal behavior of polystyrene latex nano-
particles toward filamentous fungi in isotonic solutions, Chemosphere 149
(2016) 84e90.
[67] A.A. de Souza Machado, C.W. Lau, J. Till, W. Kloas, A. Lehmann, R. Becker,
M.C. Rillig, Impacts of microplastics on the soil Biophysical environment,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 9656e9665.
[68] M.C. Rillig, Microplastic disguising as soil carbon storage, Environ. Sci. Tech-
nol. 52 (2018) 6079e6080.
[69] J.C. Prata, B.R.B.O. Lavorante, B.S.M. Montenegro, L. Guilhermino, Influence of
microplastics on the toxicity of the pharmaceuticals procainamide and
doxycycline on the marine microalgae Tetraselmis chuii, Aquat. Toxicol. 197
(2018) 143e152.