Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com Current Opinion in
ScienceDirect
Interaction of microplastics and soil animals in agricultural
ecosystems
Yalin Zhang1,2, Xiaoting Zhang1,2, Xinyu Li1,2 and Defu He1,2
Abstract
Microplastics (MPs) are emerging contaminants which have
been widely detected in agricultural ecosystems. Soil fauna
plays an important role in maintaining soil health and biodi-
versity, yet relationship of soil animals and MPs has not been
systematically analyzed until now. MPs can be ingested by soil
animals, and induce fake satiety, weak nutrition supply,
oxidative stress, intestinal damages and other adverse effects.
In turn, activity of soil animals can transport, fragment, and
even degrade (micro)plastics, and further influence the fate of
MPs in soil. Our current opinion is that MPs can mutually act
with soil animals in agricultural ecosystems. The ecological
and health risks of MPs associated with soil ecosystems need
serious considerations and further research in the future.
Addresses
1
School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Shanghai Key
Laboratory for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration, East
China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, China
2
Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Biotransformation of
Organic Solid Waste, East China Normal University, Shanghai,
200241, China
Corresponding author: He, Defu (dfhe@des.ecnu.edu.cn)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022,
26:100327
This review comes from a themed issue on Environmental Pollution
2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
Edited by Haibo Zhang and Ajit Sarmah
For complete overview of the section, please refer to the article collection -
Environmental Pollution 2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100327
2468-5844/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Microplastics, Soil, Soil animals, Interaction, Agricultural ecosystem.
Introduction
Plastic has become a ubiquitous part of daily life. Ac-
cording to statistics, more than 8300 million tons of
plastic have been globally produced in the last half
century [1,2]. A large number of plastic wastes were
discharged into terrestrial and marine environments,
and cause serious pollution of plastics [2]. Plastic wastes
could disintegrate into macroplastics, mesoplastics,
microplastics, and even nanoplastics through action of
weathering, ultraviolet radiation, microbes [3].
www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental Science & Health
Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) are
respectively referred to fine plastic in the size of <5 mm
and <100 nm. MPs have been extensively detected in
water, soil, atmosphere, and become emerging contam-
inates of growing concern [4]. Furthermore, MPs have
features of small size, large surface, high abundance and
excellent hydrophobicity, and may become vehicles of
other contaminants such as heavy metals and other
organic pollutants, which generates latent risks to eco-
systems [5e8].
The issue of MPs emerged from the marine environ-
ment, but the terrestrial soil environment is considered
as one of big sinks of MPs. In recent years, MPs have
been detected in various types of soil including coastal,
floodplain, industrial, and agricultural soils. Agricultural
soil is the largest use of land on the planet, and provides
base guarantee of human food supply. It is important to
explore environmental impacts of MPs in agricultural
ecosystems. Previous studies have demonstrated that
MPs can influence soil physicochemical properties and
soil biota [9,10,11]. Despite a small fraction of soil
biomass, soil fauna plays a significant role in keeping soil
structure, accelerating nutrient cycling, and maintaining
soil biodiversity. Occurrence of MPs can change the
living environment of soil fauna, such as earthworms,
collembolas, nematodes, and land snails, and further
induce adverse effects including mortality, endocrine
disorder, oxidative stress, reproductive toxicity, and so
on [12,13]. On other hand, soil animals could affect
degradation and migration of MPs within soil. These
indicate the interaction between MPs and soil fauna,
and further affect soil health, however, it has not been
systematically analyzed until now. In this paper, we
explore MPs in agricultural soil and their impacts on soil
fauna, and highlight the opinion of their interaction in
the agricultural ecosystem.
MPs in agriculture soil
Agricultural soil covers about one third of the global land
surface, and is a big nutrition library for maintaining
human. In fact, a large number of plastic wasters come
from agriculture, such as sludge, fertilizers, and plastic
bottles containing pesticides, which can produce MPs
after fragmentation. Other sources of MPs include
rainwater runoff, atmospheric deposition, agricultural
mulching, sewage irrigation, sludge utilization, field
composting and so on [14,15]. Application of agricultural
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
2 Environmental Pollution 2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
mulching is considered as a main source of MPs in
agricultural soil, which was supported by a comparative
survey among four soil types with different-degree
plastic agriculture [16]. Biosolids are often used as soil
modifiers or organic fertilizers, but can bring abundant
MPs into agricultural soil. In addition, rural domestic
waste compost is now widely used in agriculture, and
researchers observed a high MP abundance of up to
2400  358 items/kg (DW) in soil after application of
compost [15].
Figure1
The average (or median) abundance of MPs detected in agricultural soils globally (a) and specially in China (b). Detailed information is shown in Table S1.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
Numerous studies have shown the occurrence of MPs in
agriculture soil, however their abundance varied among
different regions. As summarized in Figure 1, totally
reported abundance of MPs globally was in the range
from 0.36 to 160,000 items/kg. Of them, major research
reports come from China. Liu et al. [17] first showed the
abundance of MPs was in the range of 62.5e78 items/kg
in the top soil (0e6 cm depth) of suburban agricultural
soil in Shanghai. Ding et al. [18] collected agricultural
soil samples from Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi to
www.sciencedirect.com
 Interaction of microplastics and soil animals Zhang et al. 3

Table 1

Adverse effects of MPs on soil animals.

Animal Type and shape Sizes of MPs Exposure Effects References

species of MPs concentration

Collembola PE beads ＜ 50–500 mm 0.005%–1% (w/w) Obvious avoidance behavior [28]

PVC particles 80–300 mm 1 g/kg A significant decrease of [34]
reproduction and growth
PS, PE beads 0.47–200 mm 4–1000 mg/kg Movement inhibited [35]
PE fragments 2–66 mm 10 mg/120 mL Movement inhibited [36]
Earthworm HDPE, PP particles 13–25 mm 0.25% (w/w) Ingested MPs, but did not [6]
induce gut microbiota
dysbiosis
PE 30 and 100 mm 0.1%–10% (w/w) Increased the bioavailability of [7]
metals (Cu and Ni)
PE 300 mm 0%–30% (w/w) Changes in enzyme activity, [13]
histopathological changes,
and DNA damages
PE particles 100–200 mm 0- 200,000 particles/kg Changed AChE [29]
LDPE particles 400 mm 0.1–1.5 g/kg Inhibited AChE activity, [30]
neurotoxicity, skin damages,
mortality and reduced growth
PE pieces 550–1000 mm 0.25% (w/w) Combined oxidative stress [32]
effects with atrazine
MPs 40–50 mm 300 and 3000 mg/kg Strong bioaccumulation of [33]
dufulin, significantly changed
three metabolic pathways
PE spheres 180–300 mm 1000 mg/kg Damages of reproductive [37]
organs
PS 0.1–100 mm 10 mg/kg Facilitated the accumulation of [38 ]
phenanthrene
PP, PS, PET, LDPE 250 mm 2.5%–7% (w/w) Induced physical lesions on the [39]
particles mucus membranes
EPS ＜ 2000 mm 0.25% (w/w) Accumulated HBCDDs [40]
Nylon, PVC particles 13-18 and 90–150 mm 2–12% (w/w) Greater hazard of smaller MPs [41]
HDPE,PLA 0.48–316 mm 0.1% (w/w) Reduced body weight [42]
PVC / 2000 mg/kg Significantly decreased the [43]
accumulation of As (V)
PE, PS particles ＜ 300 mm 1%–20% (w/w) Not act as a carrier to enhance [44]
contaminant uptake (PAHs,
PCBs)
Nematode PS 1.002 ± 0.005 mm 0.1–100 mg/L Induced transgenerational [23 ]
neurotoxicity and oxidative
stress
PA, PE, PP, 0.1–70 mm 0.5–10.0 mg/m2 Inhibited reproduction and [26]
PVC and PS oxidative stress
PS particles 0.1–5 mm 1 mg/L Size-dependent toxicity on [31]
locomotor
PS beads 1.0 and 6.0 mm 5 × 10−7-5 × 10−8 Significantly inhibited food [45]
beads/mL uptake
HDPE 0–68 mm 2.21 × 105 –16.9 × 105 Affected transforming growth [46]
particles/mL factor-beta (TGF-b) signaling
pathway
PS 1 and 5 mm 107-1010 particles/m2 Time-dependent accumulation [47]
of PS
LDPE, PLA/PBAT 57 and 40 mm 1–100 mg/L Inhibited reproduction [48]
PS beads 0.1–10 mm 0.04–12.5 mg/L Inhibited food uptake [49  ]
PS particles 42 and 530 nm 0.01–100 mg/kg Significant toxicity of larger [50]
particles
PS particles 1 mm 0.1–100 mg/L Oxidative stress, lipofuscin [51]
accumulation, a
hyperpermeable state of the
intestinal barrier
Porcellio PET fibers 12–2870 mm 0.05%–1.5% (w/w) a reduced bioavailability of [5]
scaber chlorpyrifos (AChE activity,
haemocyte viability)
(continued on next page)

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327

4 Environmental Pollution 2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
Table 1 (continued )
Animal Type and shape Sizes of MPs
species of MPs
LDPE 39.8 and 205 mm
PET fibers 12 mm-2.87 mm
and 4–24 mm
Snail PET 1257.8 and 76.3 mm
PET particles 12.6–1065 mm
EPS 1.343 ± 0.625 mm
the central Guanzhong Plain, and the mountains in
southern Shaanxi, and found abundance of MPs in these
soils ranged in 1430e3410 items/kg. In farmlands near
Dianchi Lake area, plastic particles were detected in all
soil samples, and 95% were MPs in the size of
0.05e1 mm [19]. In addition, an average MP abundance
of 310e5698 items/kg was reported in agricultural soil of
different depth in Shouguang, China, and deep soil
contained relatively high abundance [20]. According to
available data (Table S1), the abundance of MPs can be
divided into four orders of magnitude, i.e. <100,
100w1000, 1000w10,000, and >10,000 items/kg
(Figure 1). In addition, a small number of studies have
been conducted in other countries. Beriot et al. [21]
reported the average abundance of MPs was
2116  1024 items/kg in cereal farmland soils in Murcia,
Spain. In Northern Germany, 379 items of MPs were
identified in a total of 84 kg of dry weight, showing
relatively low abundance [22]. The variance of MP
abundance among different regions may be related to
local environment, application of agriculture plastics,
local climate and other factors.
Effects of MPs on soil animals
Soil fauna is an important reservoir of biodiversity, and
plays an essential role in soil ecosystems. The presence
of MPs has direct and indirect impacts on soil fauna,
which has been demonstrated in previous studies
(Table 1). For example, MPs could block soil holes in
soil, thus cause abnormal movement of soil animals and
even change oviposition sites, which indirectly influence
reproduction of soil fauna. The lack of energy supply is a
key reason for the abnormal growth and development of
soil animals. Numerous studies have shown that MPs
can be ingested by soil animals including snails,
springtails and nematodes [23,24,25], which caused
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
Exposure Effects References
concentration
0.2–15 g/kg Different sublethal responses [52]
upon exposure to recycled
compared to virgin LDPE
0.02%–1.5% (w/w) Ingested and Concentration- [53  ]
dependent rate of ingestion
0.01–0.71 g/kg Reduced food intake and [24 ]
excretion of snails, and
induced significant villi
damage in the
gastrointestinal walls
1% and 10% (w/w) Significant changes in their [54]
growth trajectories
/ Biodegradation of MPs [55 ]
animals to feel fake satiety, and thus reduced their food
intake. Researchers have shown variability of uptake
values of MPs among soil animals, and MP sizes and
number ingested was generally controlled by the size
ratio of MPs to animal mouths.
MPs can cause intestinal damages of soil animals, largely
due to blockage and physical action of MPs with the
inner surface of the digestive tract. The damage effects
included cracking of villi and splitting of enterocytes,
and the impact was closely dependent on the size and
surface characteristics of MPs, rather than their
composition [26]. In addition, MPs could influence the
gut microbiota and alter digestive function [27]. A
recent study showed that MPs exposure can reduce the
intestinal microbiota in springtails, and probably
because MPs might act as vectors of carrying biofilm-
related bacterial pathogens and antibiotic resistance
genes. Despite of opposite conclusion from other
studies [28], the potential effects of MPs on the gut
microbiome are extensively considered by researchers.
Another key issue on MPs toxicity is whether ingested
MPs can penetrate through intestinal walls, and entry
into the circulatory system. According to available data,
the potential penetrating process may be largely
dependent on sizes of MPs. MPs have been found in the
muscle tissue of marine fish, which indicates that MPs
may enter the circulatory system through the intestinal
walls. Pathological, biochemical, and molecular impacts
have been demonstrated in previous publications [7,13].
For example, PS MPs could significantly change the
levels of glutathione. The activities of catalase and
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) in earthworms were
increased 2.03 and 1.60 times, resulting in significant
oxidative stress [29,30]. Another study showed obvious
www.sciencedirect.com

Figure 2
The fate of soil MPs and the impact by soil animals.
neurotoxicity induced by PS micro (nano)plastics,
including abnormal movement and neurodegeneration
of special neurons in Caenorhabditis elegans [31]. More-
over, MPs can become as carriers of other pollutants
such as POPs, antibiotics and heavy metals, and change
bioavailability of these pollutants to soil ani-
mals [7,13,32,33].
Effects of soil animals on the fate of MPs
The activity of soil animals, in turn, can influence the
distribution and fate of MPs in soil (Figure 2). In fact,
migration of MPs in soil can be driven by several factors
including rainwater runoff, human cultivation, and ac-
tivity of soil biota [1,56]. According to previous studies,
soil animals play a significant role in facilitating the
migration of MPs in soil. Mites (Hypoaspis aculeifer) and
Collembola (Folsomia candida and Proisotoma minuta)
could promote migration and distribution of MPs within
soil through scraping or chewing. Another study
demonstrated that moles transported soil MPs using
similar approaches [57]. In a laboratory experiment,
Collembola (F. candida and P. minuta) could transport
both urea-formaldehyde resin particles and PET fibers
through different soil layers [58].
Movement of soil animals can cause vertical or hori-
zontal migration of MPs within soil. For example, viscous
fluid layer on the body surface of earthworms could
www.sciencedirect.com
Interaction of microplastics and soil animals Zhang et al. 5
adhere for MPs, and soil pores formed by earthworm
activity also can facilitate downward migration of MPs
within soil. Lwanga et al. [59] observed that MPs par-
ticles highly likely sticked to earthworms, and incorpo-
rated into burrow walls in soil. In addition, ingestion and
excretion are alternative ways to transfer MPs in soil,
which has been proved by previous studies [6,21].
In addition, MPs could be fragmented or degraded by
some kind of soil animals. PET microfibers were found
to ingest by land snails (Achatina fulica), and presented
susceptible deterioration characteristics on the surface
of microfibers after excreted into feces [24]. Similarly,
after LDPE-MPs fed to earthworms for sixty days, sizes
of MPs were significantly decreased within both the gut
and feces of animals. The degradation ability of soil
animals might be largely due to special enzymes or
microbiota action in the digestive tract. Researchers
found some MPs could be degraded by Actinobacteria and
Firmicum in intestines of earthworms, resulting in a
reduction of MP sizes. Using high-throughput
sequencing analysis, Song et al. [55] revealed a signifi-
cant shift in the gut microbiota after ingestion of PS by
A. fulica, with an increase of family Enterobacteriaceae,
Sphingobacteriaceae, and Aeromonadaceae, suggesting
that gut microorganisms were associated with biodeg-
radation of PS. In addition, a recent study showed that
relatively high concentration of small-sized MPs were
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
6 Environmental Pollution 2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
Figure 3
The overview of interaction between MPs and soil animals.
found in the feces of earthworms (Eisenia fetida), which
indicated secondary decomposition of MPs in soil ani-
mals and further discharged into soil [60].
Conclusion
Microplastics have been globally found in terrestrial soil
environment. MPs can be ingested by soil animals, and
further induce a variety of adverse effects including false
satiety and further insufficient nutritional supply, and
intestinal damages. Other physiological responses, such
as oxidative stress, gut microflora changes, neurotoxicity,
even lethality, were also demonstrated in soil fauna
(green arrows in Figure 3). On the other hand, soil fauna
can influence the fate of MPs in soil, through trans-
portation, fragmentation, and degradation (blue arrows
in Figure 3). The action of intestinal microflora may play
crucial roles in the degradation of (micro)plastics. We
suggest the mutual action of (micro)plastics and soil
fauna; however, the toxicity mechanism of MPs and the
potential ecological risks need further research in
the future.
Furthermore, the interaction between MPs and soil
animals could facilitate MPs migration into the food
chain of human. For example, MPs might contaminate
crops and edible animals. For example, Lu et al. [61]
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
reported that MPs were contained within animal-based
traditional medicinal materials, majorly terrestrial soil
animals. In addition, some plant-based daily necessities
and cosmetics also contain MPs, which may be absor-
bed through the skin and gradually accumulated in the
body, causing risks to human health. Plastic additives or
other pollutants can be released or absorbed on MPs,
and have possibility to transfer into human food chains
[62]. The health risks of MPs associated with soil
ecosystems need be seriously considered and in-
depth researched.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. U19A2095), the National Key Research and Development of
China (No. 2018YFC1901004).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100327.
www.sciencedirect.com

References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. Guo JJ, Huang XP, Xiang L, Wang YZ, Li YW, Li H, Cai QY,
Mo CH, Wong MH: Source, migration and toxicology of
microplastics in soil. Environ Int 2020, 137:105263.
2. Koutnik VS, Leonard J, Alkidim S, DePrima FJ, Ravi S,
Hoek EMV, Mohanty SK: Distribution of microplastics in soil
and freshwater environments: global analysis and framework
for transport modeling. Environ Pollut 2021, 274:116552.
3. Mao YF, Li H, Huangfu XL, Liu Y, He Q: Nanoplastics display
strong stability in aqueous environments: insights from ag-
gregation behaviour and theoretical calculations. Environ
Pollut 2020, 258:113760.
4. He D, Luo Y. Microplastics in terrestrial environments emerging
contaminants and major challenges: emerging contaminants and
major challenges. Switzerland AG: Springer Nature Press; 2020.
5. Dolar A, Selonen S, van Gestel CAM, Perc V, Drobne D,
Kokalj AJ: Microplastics, chlorpyrifos and their mixtures
modulate immune processes in the terrestrial crustacean
Porcellio scaber. Sci Total Environ 2021, 772:144900.
6. Cheng YL, Song WH, Tian HM, Zhang KH, Li B, Du ZK, Zhang W,
Wang JH, Wang J, Zhu LS: The effects of high-density poly-
ethylene and polypropylene microplastics on the soil and
earthworm Metaphire guillelmi gut microbiota. Chemosphere
2021, 267:129219.
7. Li M, Liu Y, Xu GH, Wang Y, Yu Y: Impacts of polyethylene
microplastics on bioavailability and toxicity of metals in soil.
Sci Total Environ 2021, 760:144037.
8. Rochman CM, Brookson C, Bikker J, Djuric N, Earn A, Bucci K,
Athey S, Huntington A, McIlwraith H, Munno K, et al.: Rethinking
microplastics as a diverse contaminant suite. Environ Toxicol
Chem 2019, 38:703–711.
9. Hou JH, Xu XJ, Yu H, Xi BD, Tan WB: Comparing the long-term
 responses of soil microbial structures and diversities to
polyethylene microplastics in different aggregate fractions.
Environ Int 2021, 149:106398.
This study used long-term soil incubation experiments and soil frac-
tionation, and found that soil aggregations of different sizes could
stabilize microbial members and enhance community interaction, and
they could also change community function and microbial behavior
through spatial restriction.
10. Qi YL, Beriot N, Gort G, Lwanga EH, Gooren H, Yang XM,
Geissen V: Impact of plastic mulch film debris on soil physi-
cochemical and hydrological properties. Environ Pollut 2020,
266:115097.
11. Li LZ, Luo YM, Li RJ, Zhou Q, Peijnenburg WJGM, Yin N, Yang J,
Tu C, Zhang YC: Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics
by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nat Sustain 2020, 3:
929–937.
12. Zhou YJ, Wang JX, Zou MM, Jia ZY, Zhou SL, Li Y: Micro-
plastics in soils: a review of methods, occurrence, fate,
transport, ecological and environmental risks. Sci Total En-
viron 2020, 748:141368.
13. Huang CD, Ge Y, Yue SZ, Zhao L, Qiao YH: Microplastics
aggravate the joint toxicity to earthworm Eisenia fetida with
cadmium by altering its availability. Sci Total Environ 2021,
753:142042.
14. Zhang LS, Liu JY, Xie YS, Zhong S, Gao P: Occurrence and
removal of microplastics from wastewater treatment plants
in a typical tourist city in China. J Clean Prod 2021, 291:
125968.
15. Gui JX, Sun Y, Wang JL, Chen X, Zhang SC, Wu DL: Micro-
plastics in composting of rural domestic waste: abundance,
characteristics, and release from the surface of macro-
plastics. Environ Pollut 2021, 274:116553.
www.sciencedirect.com
Interaction of microplastics and soil animals Zhang et al. 7
16. Kim SK, Kim JS, Lee H, Lee HJ: Abundance and characteris-
tics of microplastics in soils with different agricultural prac-
tices: importance of sources with internal origin and
environmental fate. J Hazard Mater 2021, 403:123997.
17. Liu MT, Lu SB, Song Y, Lei LL, Hu JN, Lv WW, Zhou WZ, Cao CJ,
Shi HH, He DF: Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in
farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ Pollut
2018, 242:855–862.
18. Ding L, Zhang SY, Wang XY, Yang XM, Zhang CT, Qi YB,
Guo XT: The occurrence and distribution characteristics of
microplastics in the agricultural soils of Shaanxi Province, in
north-western China. Sci Total Environ 2020, 720:123982.
19. Zhang GS, Liu YF: The distribution of microplastics in soil
aggregate fractions in southwestern China. Sci Total Environ
2018, 642:12–20.
20. Yu L, Zhang JD, Liu Y, Chen LY, Tao S, Liu WX: Distribution
characteristics of microplastics in agricultural soils from the
largest vegetable production base in China. Sci Total Environ
2021, 756:143860.
21. Beriot N, Peek J, Zornoza R, Geissen V, Lwanga EH: Low
density-microplastics detected in sheep faeces and soil: a
case study from the intensive vegetable farming in Southeast
Spain. Sci Total Environ 2021, 755:142653.
22. Harms IK, Diekotter T, Troegel S, Lenz M: Amount, distribution
and composition of large microplastics in typical agricultural
soils in Northern Germany. Sci Total Environ 2021, 758:143615.
23. Chen HB, Hua X, Li H, Wang C, Dang Y, Ding P, Yu YJ:
 Transgenerational neurotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics
induced by oxidative stress in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Chemosphere 2021, 272:129642.
This study found transgenerational effect of neurotoxicity induced by
PS MPs. After parental nematodes exposed to PS-MPs, the offspring
showed oxidative stress and changes in the expression of related
genes, which revealed the toxic stress played a critical role in trans-
generational neurotoxicity.
24. Song Y, Cao CJ, Qiu R, Hu JN, Liu MT, Lu SB, Shi HH, Raley-
 Susman KM, He DF: Uptake and adverse effects of poly-
ethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial
snails (Achatina fulica) after soil exposure. Environ Pollut
2019, 250:447–455.
This study demonstrated the uptake of appreciable burdens of PET
microfibers and depuration through the digestive tract in snails Acha-
tina fulica, and further found the appearance of cracks and deteriora-
tion on microplastic surfaces.
25. Bergami E, Rota E, Caruso T, Birarda G, Vaccari L, Corsi I:
Plastics everywhere: first evidence of polystyrene fragments
inside the common Antarctic collembolan Cryptopygus
antarcticus. Biol Lett 2020, 16.
26. Lei LL, Wu SY, Lu SB, Liu MT, Song Y, Fu ZH, Shi HH, Raley-
Susman KM, He DF: Microplastic particles cause intestinal
damage and other adverse effects in zebrafish Danio rerio
and nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci Total Environ 2018,
619:1–8.
27. Fackelmann G, Sommer S: Microplastics and the gut micro-
biome: how chronically exposed species may suffer from gut
dysbiosis. Mar Pollut Bull 2019, 143:193–203.
28. Ju H, Zhu D, Qiao M: Effects of polyethylene microplastics on
the gut microbial community, reproduction and avoidance
behaviors of the soil springtail, Folsomia candida. Environ
Pollut 2019, 247:890–897.
29. Zhong HY, Yang S, Zhu L, Liu C, Zhang Y, Zhang YZ: Effect of
microplastics in sludge impacts on the vermicomposting.
Bioresour Technol 2021, 326:124777.
30. Chen YL, Liu XN, Leng YF, Wang J: Defense responses in
earthworms (Eisenia fetida) exposed to low-density poly-
ethylene microplastics in soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2020,
187:109788.
31. Le LL, Liu MT, Song Y, Lu SB, Hu JN, Cao CJ, Xie B, Shi HH,
He DF: Polystyrene (nano)microplastics cause size-
dependent neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and other
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
8 Environmental Pollution 2022: Microplastics in agroecosystems
adverse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ Sci Nano
2018, 5:2009–2020.
32. Cheng YL, Zhu LS, Song WH, Jiang CY, Li B, Du ZK, Wang JH,
Wang J, Li DT, Zhang KH: Combined effects of mulch film-
derived microplastics and atrazine on oxidative stress and
gene expression in earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Sci Total En-
viron 2020, 746:141280.
33. Sun W, Meng ZY, Li RS, Zhang RK, Jia M, Yan S, Tian SN,
Zhou ZQ, Zhu WT: Joint effects of microplastic and dufulin on
bioaccumulation, oxidative stress and metabolic profile of the
earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Chemosphere 2021, 263:128171.
34. Zhu D, Chen QL, An XL, Yang XR, Christie P, Ke X, Wu LH,
Zhu YG: Exposure of soil collembolans to microplastics
perturbs their gut microbiota and alters their isotopic
composition. Soil Biol Biochem 2018, 116:302–310.
35. Kim SW, An YJ: Soil microplastics inhibit the movement of
springtail species. Environ Int 2019, 126:699–706.
36. Kim SW, An YJ: Edible size of polyethylene microplastics and
their effects on springtail behavior. Environ Pollut 2020, 266:
115255.
37. Kwak JI, An YJ: Microplastic digestion generates fragmented
nanoplastics in soils and damages earthworm spermatogen-
esis and coelomocyte viability. J Hazard Mater 2021, 402:124034.
38. Xu GH, Liu Y, Song X, Li M, Yu Y: Size effects of microplastics
 on accumulation and elimination of phenanthrene in earth-
worms. J Hazard Mater 2021, 403:123966.
This study showed that microplastics could promote the accumulation
of phenanthrene in earthworms through damaging the skin. Nano-
plastics could inhibit the clearance of phenanthrene in earthworms by
affecting intestinal microorganisms. It revealed size-dependent toxic
effects of micro(nano)plastics.
39. Baeza C, Cifuentes C, Gonzalez P, Araneda A, Barra R: Exper-
imental exposure of Lumbricus terrestris to microplastics.
Water, Air, Soil Pollut 2020, 231:308.
40. Li B, Lan ZH, Wang L, Sun HW, Yao YM, Zhang K, Zhu LS: The
release and earthworm bioaccumulation of endogenous
hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) from expanded poly-
styrene foam microparticles. Environ Pollut 2019, 255:113163.
41. Lahive E, Walton A, Horton AA, Spurgeon DJ, Svendsen C:
Microplastic particles reduce reproduction in the terrestrial
worm Enchytraeus crypticus in a soil exposure. Environ Pollut
2019, 255:113174.
42. Boots B, Russell CW, Green DS: Effects of microplastics in soil
ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ Sci Technol
2019, 53:11496–11506.
43. Wang HT, Ding J, Xiong C, Zhu D, Li G, Jia XY, Zhu YG, Xue XM:
Exposure to microplastics lowers arsenic accumulation and
alters gut bacterial communities of earthworm Metaphire
californica. Environ Pollut 2019, 251:110–116.
44. Wang J, Coffin S, Sun CL, Schlenk D, Gan J: Negligible effects
of microplastics on animal fitness and HOC bioaccumulation
in earthworm Eisenia fetida in soil. Environ Pollut 2019, 249:
776–784.
45. Rauchschwalbe MT, Fueser H, Traunspurger W, Hoss S: Bac-
terial consumption by nematodes is disturbed by the pres-
ence of polystyrene beads: the roles of food dilution and
pharyngeal pumping. Environ Pollut 2021, 273:116471.
46. Kim Y, Jeong J, Lee S, Choi I, Choi J: Identification of adverse
outcome pathway related to high-density polyethylene
microplastics exposure: Caenorhabditis elegans transcrip-
tion factor RNAi screening and zebrafish study. J Hazard
Mater 2020, 388:121725.
47. Xu S, Lu JW, C. Feng C, Ying YM, He YC, Fang S, Lin Y,
Dahlgren R, Ju JJ: Microplastic (1 and 5mm) exposure disturbs
lifespan and intestine function in the nematode Caeno-
rhabditis elegans. Sci Total Environ 2019, 705:135837.
48. Schopfer L, Menzel R, Schnepf U, Ruess L, Marhan S,
Brummer F, Pagel H, Kandeler E: Microplastics effects on
reproduction and body length of the soil-dwelling Nematode
Caenorhabditis elegans. Front Env Sci-Switz 2020, 8:41.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2022, 26:100327
49. Mueller MT, Fueser H, Trac LN, Mayer P, Traunspurger W,
 Hoss S: Surface-related toxicity of polystyrene beads to
Nematodes and the role of food availability. Environ Sci
Technol 2020, 54:1790–1798.
This study observed reproduction related toxicity of the nematode
Caenorhabditis elegans induced by PS beads, and correlated well with
the total surface area of the beads per volume.
50. Kim SW, Kim D, Jeong SW: An YJ: size-dependent effects of
polystyrene plastic particles on the nematode Caeno-
rhabditis elegans as related to soil physicochemical proper-
ties. Environ Pollut 2020, 258:113740.
51. Yu YJ, Chen HB, Hua X, Dang Y, Han YJ, Yu ZL, Chen XC,
Ding P, Li H: Polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs) toxicity
induced oxidative stress and intestinal injury in nematode
Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci Total Environ
2020, 726:138679.
52. Kokalj AJ, Dolar A, Titova J, Visnapuu M, Skrlep L, Drobne D,
Vija H, Kisand V, Heinlaan M: Long term exposure to virgin and
recycled LDPE microplastics induced minor effects in the
freshwater and terrestrial crustaceans Daphnia magna and
Porcellio scaber. Polymers-Basel 2021, 13:771.
53. Selonen S, Dolar A, Kokalj AJ, Skalar T, Dolcet LP, Hurley R, van
 Gestel CAM: Exploring the impacts of plastics in soil - the
effects of polyester textile fibers on soil invertebrates. Sci
Total Environ 2020, 700:134451.
Based on five model organisms exposed to different lengths of soil
microfibers, this study revealed the importance of exposure time, and the
negative effects of fibers on soil animals were mainly physical damages.
54. De Felice B, Ambrosini R, Bacchetta R, Ortenzi MA, Parolini M:
Dietary exposure to polyethylene terephthalate microplastics
(PET-MPs) induces faster growth but not oxidative stress in
the giant snail Achatina reticulata. Chemosphere 2021, 270:
129430.
55. Song Y, Qiu R, Hu JN, Li XY, Zhang XT, Chen YX, Wu WM,
 He DF: Biodegradation and disintegration of expanded poly-
styrene by land snails Achatina fulica. Sci Total Environ 2020,
746:141289.
This study revealed that land snails Achatina fulica had the capacity to
depolymerize and biodegrade polystyrene. At same time, A. fulica
snails ingested EPS and generated numerous microplastics through
excretion, and further adapted to the occurrence of microplastics in soil
environments.
56. O’Connor D, Pan SZ, Shen ZT, Song YA, Jin YL, Wu WM,
Hou DY: Microplastics undergo accelerated vertical migration
in sand soil due to small size and wet-dry cycles. Environ
Pollut 2019, 249:527–534.
57. Maass S, Daphi D, Lehmann A, Rillig MC: Transport of micro-
plastics by two collembolan species. Environ Pollut 2017, 225:
456–459.
58. Leonov VD, Tiunov AV: Interaction of invertebrates and syn-
thetic polymers in soil: a review. Russ J Ecol 2020, 51:
503–517.
59. Lwanga EH, Gertsen H, Gooren H, Peters P, Salanki T, van der
Ploeg M, Besseling E, Koelmans AA, Geissen V: Incorporation
of microplastics from litter into burrows of Lumbricus
terrestris. Environ Pollut 2017, 220:523–531.
60. Chen YL, Liu XN, Leng YF, Wang J: Defense responses in
earthworms (Eisenia fetida) exposed to low-density poly-
ethylene microplastics in soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2020,
187:109788.
61. Lu SB, Qiu R, Hu JN, Li XY, Chen YX, Zhang XT, Cao CJ,
 Shi HH, Xie B, Wu WM, He DF: Prevalence of microplastics in
animal-based traditional medicinal materials: widespread
pollution in terrestrial environments. Sci Total Environ 2020,
709:136214.
This study revealed the widespread contamination of microplastics in both
animal-based medicinal materials and corresponding fresh animals.
Microfiberous PETand Rayon were major types in the medicinal materials
or fresh animals, and there were significant positive correlations of MPs
characteristics between medicinal materials and fresh animals.
62. He D, Zhang YL, Gao W: Micro(nano)plastic contaminations
from soils to plants: human food risks. Curr Opin Food Sci
2021, 41:116–121.
www.sciencedirect.com