See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361553608

Effects of Microplastics on Higher Plants: A Review

Article in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · August 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s00128-022-03566-8

CITATIONS READS

41 2,346

4 authors, including:

Jia Li
Yangzhou University
30 PUBLICATIONS 1,644 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jia Li on 27 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-022-03566-8

FOCUSED REVIEW

Effects of Microplastics on Higher Plants: A Review

Jia Li1 · Songguo Yu1 · Yufei Yu1 · Meiling Xu1

Received: 25 November 2021 / Accepted: 4 June 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Microplastics pose great risks to terrestrial systems owing to their large quantity and strong persistence. Higher plants, an
irreplaceable part of the terrestrial ecosystem, are inevitably exposed to microplastics. This review highlights the effects of
microplastics on higher plant growth and performance. The tested microplastics, plant species, and cultural methods used
in existing studies were summarized. We discussed the reasons why these microplastics, plants, and methods were selected.
The various responses of higher plants to microplastics in both soils and waters were critically reviewed. We also highlighted
the influencing mechanisms of microplastics on higher plants. Conclusively, more than 13 types of common microplastics
and more than 30 species of higher plants have been selected and studied by the published literatures. Soil culture tests and
hydroponic experiments are almost equally divided. The effects of microplastics on higher plants varied among microplastic
properties, plant species, and environmental factors. Microplastics had no or positive effects on higher plants under certain
experimental conditions. However, more studies showed that microplastics can inhibit higher plant growth and performance.
We reduced the inhibitory mechanisms into direct and indirect mechanisms. The direct mechanisms include blocking pores
or light, causing mechanical damage to roots, hindering genes expression, and releasing additives. The indirect mechanisms
contain changing soil properties, affecting soil microbes or soil animals, and affecting bioavailability of other pollutants.
This review improves the understanding of effects and influencing mechanisms of microplastics on higher plants.

Keywords Microplastics · Higher plants · Toxicity · Influencing mechanism

Microplastics are generally defined as plastic pollutants with
particle size less than 5 mm, including fiber, film, particle,
irregular debris, and other morphologies (Zhu et al. 2019;
Lindeque et al. 2020). They are widely distributed in aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems, even off the beaten track (Zhang
et al. 2016; Peng et al. 2018; Rachman 2018; Rillig and
Lehmann 2020). Due to their large quantity, strong persis-
tence, and long-distance transmission, microplastics pose
great potential risks to organisms and have received increas-
ing attention.
Microplastics could be easily ingested by aquatic and
terrestrial animals with different trophic levels, thereby
causing harmful effects to the health of these organisms
(Wright et al. 2013; Jovanovic 2017; Lusher et al. 2017;
Rillig et al. 2017; Rodriguez-Seijo et al. 2018; Song et al.
2019; Sun et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2022). Additives in the
* Jia Li
lijia3611@yzu.edu.cn
1
College of Environmental Science and Engineering,
Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
microplastics and environmental contaminants adhered
on the surface of microplastics are prone to release in the
intestinal environment (Bakir et al. 2014; Koelmans et al.
2014; Razanajatovo et al. 2018), and further cause damage
to organisms. Furthermore, microplastics can affect animal
behavior through physical exposure (Kim and An 2019). The
abundances of microplastics in the soils of China, Australia,
Swiss, Spain, Chile, etc. have been investigated (Bueks and
Kaupenjohann 2020), with the highest concentration being
67.5 g/kg (Fuller and Gautam 2016), posing great threats to
soil ecosystems (Li et al. 2020a). Given the crucial role of
higher plants in producing oxygen, sequestering carbon, fix-
ing sand, conserving water, and providing food and feed, it
is necessary to evaluate the effects of microplastics on them,
which attracts the attention of scholars in the last 3 years
(i.e., 2019–2021). Recent studies showed that submicron
(i.e., 0.2 μm) microplastics could enter the stele of plants
using the crack-entry mode at sites of lateral root emergence
(Li et al. 2020b), which provides microplastics a new path-
way to enter the food web and/or human body. These submi-
cron microplastics in the plants may be degraded and then

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

release toxic compounds (e.g., benzene), thereby inhibiting
the normal metabolism of plants (Li et al. 2020c). Although
microplastics with a relatively large particle size cannot be
ingested by plant roots, they may affect the survival and
growth of the targeted plants through multiple mechanisms
such as shading sunlight, damaging root tissue, blocking cell
wall pores, and altering physicochemical properties of soils
(Jiang et al. 2019; Machado et al. 2019; Ge et al. 2021; Lian
et al. 2021a, b; Rozman et al. 2021).
The objectives of this review are (1) to summarize the
microplastics effects on plants; (2) to discuss the influencing
mechanisms of microplastics on plants and (3) to propose
the possible perspectives for future studies.
Methodology
This paper reviews a range of key studies concerning the
effects of microplastics on plants. The keywords “micro-
plastic” and “plant” and “effects” and “growth” were used to
search the publications in the Web of Science database from
1950 to May 2022. A total of 209 records were found, of
Fig. 1  Statistical data of the
tested microplastics (a type,
b shape, c particle size) and
plant species (d)
13
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
which 56 were reviewed in this paper. Papers with research
target other than higher plants were excluded.
The Tested Microplastics and Plants
As is well known, microplastics are polymers with various
chemical constitutions. The commonly detected microplas-
tics in the environment include polyethylene (PE), polypro-
pylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polyamide (PA), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Zhu
et al. 2019). The effects of these microplastics on plants have
been studied. Among them, PS is the most often selected
as the tested microplastics (Fig. 1a). A possible reason is
that the primary PS spheres have small (i.e., ≤ 1 μm) and
homogeneous particle size. Similarly, the impacts of PE
are also investigated frequently (Fig. 1a), because PE has a
large-scale application and is a persistent polymer found in
the terrestrial ecosystem (Machado et al. 2018). The shapes
of the tested microplastics were sphere, fragment, and fiber,
among which sphere and fragment were mostly studied
(Fig. 1b). Because the two shapes of microplastics are easy
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
to prepare. As shown in Fig. 1c, half of the published studies
selected microplastics with a particle size ≤ 10 μm. Almost
all the studies focused on unaged microplastics. In theory,
the physicochemical properties (e.g., shape, size, surface
morphology, specific surface area, and functional group) of
the aged microplastics were very different from the primary
microplastics (Halle et al. 2016), and aging of microplastics
accelerated the release of additives (Luo et al. 2020). There-
fore, aged microplastics may have entirely different impacts
on plants. The only study on the effect of aging microplas-
tics on plant suggested that all adverse effects observed in
Lepidium sativum decreased with increased polycarbonate
(PC) ageing time.
Lozano and Rillig (2020) recently reported that micro-
fibers could affect plant species dominance and plant com-
munity structure. This indicated that different plant species
have various responses to the same microplastics exposure.
Up to now, more than 30 species of higher plants including
Triticum aestivum L., Oryza sativa L., Zea mays L., Lac-
tuca sativa L., Lemna minor L., Cucumis sativus L., etc.
have been selected to study their responses to microplastics
(Table 1). By contrast, the most widely studied species are
wheat and rice (Fig. 1d). These model species usually have
the following properties: (1) have a high survival rate and
a fast-growing speed, (2) worldwide cultivated, or (3) high
commercial importance (Jiang et al. 2019; Pignattelli et al.
2020; Colzi et al. 2022).
The Cultural Methods
Plant culture can be divided into hydroponics and soil cul-
ture. About half of the existing studies investigated the
effects of microplastics on higher plants using hydroponic
methods (Fig. 1). One reason is that aquatic plants (e.g.,
Utricularia vulgaris L.) must be cultivated by hydropon-
ics (Zhou et al. 2020; Yu et al. 2020). Another reason is
due to the fact that microplastics are more uniformly dis-
persed and more mobile in the water environment, thereby
promoting the contact of microplastics and plants. Conse-
quently, the effects of microplastics on plants under hydro-
ponics were stronger than that under soil culture condi-
tions (Liao et al. 2019). To ensure uniform dispersion of
microplastics in water, the microplastics used in hydroponic
experiments were usually those with particle sizes less than
10 μm (Table 1). Furthermore, almost all the exposure time
of microplastics in hydroponic tests are no more than 21
days. Among them, about half tests with the exposure time
of microplastics are no more than 7 days. The short-term
experiments allow to access the acute toxicity of microplas-
tics on plants, however, they are impossible to evaluate the
impact of microplastics on plant yields.
Considering that the vast majority of higher plants are
terrestrial plants and soil is a key sink for microplastics, it
is necessary to carry out soil culture experiments to reveal
the effects of microplastics on plants. The tested microplas-
tics were usually added to soils in most soil culture experi-
ments. Besides, Sun et al. (2021) and Lian et al. (2021a, b)
studied the physiological effects of higher plants after foliar
exposure to microplastics. Different from the hydroponic
experiments, the particle size of microplastics studied in soil
culture experiments is usually large (i.e., micron or even mil-
limeter scale). Meanwhile, most of these soil culture studies
were performed in controlled conditions (e.g., light incu-
bator) that greatly differ from realistic environment, which
are more complex and constantly changing. As shown in
Table 1, the exposure time of microplastics in soil culture
tests is generally more than 28 days.
Effects of Microplastics on Higher Plants
Microplastics Have No Effects on Higher Plants
Certain types of microplastics were less toxic to plants.
For example, many studies showed that PE in soils had no
significant effect on the growth of plants (Qi et al. 2018;
Wang et al. 2020a; Colzi et al. 2022; Guo et al. 2022a).
This may be owing to the following reasons: (1) the minor
effect that PE has on soil structure (Machado et al. 2019),
and (2) PE can surprisingly improve the soil microenviron-
ment (Tao et al. 2012) and even soil fertility (Zhang et al.
2015). Several hydroponic studies suggested that seed ger-
mination (Lian et al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2020; Zhang et al.
2021) and plant growth (Senavirathn et al. 2022) were not
affected by PS microplastics. Generally, pollutants with low
concentrations have little or no significant impacts on plants.
The same is true for microplastics. For instance, Colzi et al.
(2022) showed that PE, PP, PVC, and PET cannot reduce
the fresh weight of Cucurbita pepo L. at their low concen-
trations (0.02%, w/w). Urbina et al. (2020) reported that
0.0125 mg/L PE microplastics had no significant effect on
the biomass, stem to root ratio, and height growth rate of
maize. However, Zong et al. (2021) found that PE had no
significant effects on growth, photosynthesis and reactive
oxygen species (ROS) content of wheat even at high con-
centration (100 mg/L). Meng et al. (2021) also showed that
higher concentrations (1%–2.5%, w/w) of PE had no signifi-
cant effect on chlorophyll content of Phaseolus vulgaris L.
These seemed to suggest that high concentrations of PE are
safe for plants. Nevertheless, there are also studies reported
an opposite result. For example, Urbina et al. (2020) reported
that 100 mg/L PE microplastics significantly reduced the
plant height and biomass of maize, and decreased the nitro-
gen content of root and stem. This suggests that the effects of
13
 Table 1  Effects different type, size, shape, and concentration of microplastics on higher plants
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS, PTFE 10 μm Fragment 0.04, 0.1, 0.2 g/L Oryza sativa L. Hydroponics 10 days Microplastics with Dong et al. (2020)
high concentra-
tion reduced
rice biomass,
chlorophyll
content and net
photosynthetic
rate. Microplas-
tics induced an
oxidative burst in
rice tissues
PE, PLA 100–154 μm Fragment 0.1%, 1%, 10% Zea mays L. var. Soil culture 30 days PE showed no Wang et al. (2020a)
(w/w) Wannuoyihao phytotoxicity,
but 10% PLA
produced severe
phytotoxicity
and reduced corn
biomass
PE 23 μm Fragment 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 g/L Lactuca sativa L. Hydroponics 14, 28 days The growth Gao et al. (2019)
var. ramosa Hort parameters,
photosynthetic
parameters, chlo-
rophyll content,
and oxygenase
activity of lettuce
were inhibited
after exposure to
microplastics
PS 0.1, 5 μm Sphere 10, 50, 100 mg/L Vicia faba Hydroponics 2 days PS affected Jiang et al. (2019)
transpiration
and stomata by
inhibiting rice
root activity,
thereby reducing
rice biomass
PE 10–45 μm Fragment 50,000 Particles/L Lemna minor Hydroponics 7 days PE strongly Mateos-Cárdenas
adsorbed to L. et al. (2019)
minor, but had no
effect on L. minor
photosynthesis
and growth
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

LDPE, biodegrad- 50–1000 μm Fragment 1% (w/w) Triticum aestivum Soil culture 139 days Biodegradable Qi et al. (2018)
able plastic L. plastic showed
stronger negative
effects on wheat
growth than PE
PE 4–12 μm Fragment 0, 10, 50, 100 mg/L Lemna minor Hydroponics 7 days PE had no inhibi- Kalcíkova et al.
tory effect on (2017)
chlorophyll, but
inhibited the
root length and
destroyed the
integrity of root
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

tissue cells
PES, PA, PP, < 5 mm or < 5 ­mm2 Fiber, film, foam, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, Daucus carota Soil culture 28 days All shapes of Lozano et al. (2021)
LDPE, PET, PU, and 0.4% (w/w) microplastics
PS, PC fragment increased plant
biomass
PS 100 nm Sphere 0.01, 0.1, 1, Triticum aestivum Hydroponics 21 days PS had no effect on Lian et al. (2020)
10 mg/L L. seed germination
rate but increased
wheat seedling
growth, chloro-
phyll content.
PS reduced the
shoot to root
biomass ratio and
micronutrients
contents
PES 1.28 ± 0.03 mm Fiber 0.4% (w/w) Festuca brevipila, Soil culture 60 days PES microfibers Lozano and Rillig
Holcus lanatus, affected plant (2020)
Calamagrostis community
epigejos, Achil- structure
lea millefolium,
Hieracium pilo-
sella, Plantago
lanceolata, and
Potentilla argentea

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 100 nm Sphere 25, 50, 100, 200, Allium cepa L. Hydroponics 3 days PS significantly Maity et al. (2020)
400 mg/L reduced root
length, and
induced cytoge-
netic toxicity by
increasing the
production of
ROS and inhibit-
ing the expres-
sion of cdc2
PS 0.5 μm Fragment 100 mg/L Triticum aestivum Hydroponics 8 days PS had no sig- Zong et al. (2021)
L. nificant effect on
wheat seedlings
growth, photo-
synthesis, and
ROS content, but
had a mitigat-
ing effect on the
toxicity of heavy
metals
PA, PES, HDPE, 8–5000 μm Fiber, fragment PES 0.2%, others Allium fistulosum Soil culture 30 days Microplastics Machado et al.
PP, PS, PET 2.0% (w/w) changed plant (2019)
biomass, tissue
elemental com-
position, and root
traits
PS 100, 300, 500, Sphere 50 mg/L Cucumis sativus L. Hydroponics 65 days PS (300 nm) Li et al. (2021c)
700 nm increased root
activity and
malondialdehyde
(MDA) and
proline content
of the cucumber
roots. Soluble
protein content
in cucumber
fruits increased,
and the levels of
Mg, Ca, and Fe
were significantly
decreased by PS
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

HDPE, PLA 102.6 μm Fragment 0.001%, 0.1% Lolium perenne Soil culture 30 days PLA reduced the Boots et al. (2019)
(w/w) germination rate
of seeds and
shoot height
PE, PVC, PP 0–0.125 mm Fragment 0.02% (w/w) Lepidium sativum Soil culture 6 days, 21 days Microplastics are Pignattelli et al.
able to produce (2020)
oxidative burst in
L. sativum. PVC
resulted the most
toxic than PE
and PP
PS 1, 2, 5 μm Sphere 15, 70, 140 mg/L Utricularia vul- Hydroponics 7 days PS with high Yu et al. (2020)
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

garis concentration
changed the com-
position of pig-
ment and protein,
and induced high
ecotoxicity and
oxidative damage
to U. vulgaris
PS 100, 300, 500, Sphere 50 mg/L Cucumis sativus L. Hydroponics 21 days PS can be trans- Li et al. (2020c)
700 nm ferred to the
aboveground
part through the
stem of cucum-
ber, where PS
degradation may
release benzene,
thereby affecting
chlorophyll and
sugar metabolism
PE 3 μm Sphere 0.0125, 100 mg/L Zea mays L. var. Hydroponics 10, 15 days PE caused a sig- Urbina et al. (2020)
Jubilee nificant decrease
in transpiration,
nitrogen content,
and growth of
maize

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

Polymer 50, 500, 4800 nm Sphere 106– Lepidium sativum Hydroponics 3 days Germination rate Bosker et al. (2019)
1010 Particles/L L. was significantly
decreased after
8 h of exposure,
with increased
adverse effect
with increasing
plastic sizes
PS 1 μm Fragment 3, 15, 75 mg/L Salvinia cucullata Hydroponics 7 days High concentration Yu et al. (2021)
of PS reduced the
relative growth
rate and root
activity of plants.
PS microplastics
caused excessive
accumulation and
activation of ROS
in plant
PS, PMMA PS Sphere 2 g/mL Hordeum vulgare Hydroponics 14 days PMMA micro- Li et al. (2021b)
(5.64 ± 0.07 μm), L. plastics were
PMMA absorbed and
(96.75 ± 0.58 nm) accumulated in
barley, thereby
limiting the
development
of rootlets. PS
increased ROS
content and
changed activities
of ROS metabo-
lism enzymes in
leaves and roots
PS 40 nm, 1 μm Sphere 0.029 g/L Arabidopsis Hydroponics 5, 12 days PS accumulated on Taylor et al. (2020)
thaliana, Triticum the root surface,
aestivum L. especially in the
root tip. But there
was no evi-
dence of plastic
particles in the
internal root
structure
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

PVC 100 nm–18 μm, Fragment 0.5%, 1%, 2% Lactuca sativa L. Soil culture 21 days PVC with small Li et al. (2020a)
18–150 μm (w/w) particle size was
absorbed and
transported to
the leaves, which
increased the
physiological
toxicity to lettuce
PE 200 μm Fragment 800 mg/L Triticum aestivum Hydroponics 5 days PE increased root Bao et al. (2022)
L. length of wheat
PP, PE, PVC, PET 40–50 μm Fragment 0.02%, 0.1%, 0.2% Cucurbita pepo L. Soil culture 28 days All the microplas- Colzi et al. (2022)
(w/w) tics impaired root
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

and, especially,
shoot growth.
Specific and
concentration-
dependant effects
of the different
microplastics
were found,
including reduc-
tion in leaf size,
chlorophyll
content and
photosynthetic
efficiency, as
well as changes
in the micro- and
macro-elemental
profile
PS, PTFE 0.1–1 μm, Fragment 0%, 0.25%, 0.5% Oryza sativa L. Soil culture NA PS and PTFE Dong et al. (2022)
10–100 μm (w/w) reduced rice yield
owing to physi-
ological toxicity
and inhibition
of root activity.
PS and PTFE
can decrease the
uptake of As by
rice

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 0.1–1 μm, 5 μm Sphere 10, 20 mg/L Kurodagosun Hydroponics 7 days 1 μm PS micro- Dong et al. (2021)
plastics can enter
carrot roots and
accumulate in
intercellular
layer. Arsenic
causes more PS
to enter the carrot
tissue and results
in greater health
risks
PP, HDPE, PS, 4 mm Fragment 20% (w/w) Nelumbo nucifera Soil culture 7 days The germination Esterhuizen and Kim
PVC, PET, PUR rate is reduced. (2021)
PUR and PVC
inhibited seed
germination and
seedling growth
most significantly
PS 0.1–1 μm, > 10 μm Sphere 0.25, 0.5, 1 mg/mL‎ Lactuca sativa L. Hydroponics 28 days PS adhered on Gao et al. (2021)
var. ramosa Hort root surfaces
and caused the
physical blockage
of root pores.
PS aggravated
DBP-induced
phototoxicity.
PS dramatically
reduced DBP and
MBP enrichment
in lettuce leaves
and roots
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 100 nm, 5 μm Sphere 1, 10 mg/L Italian lettuce, rad- Hydroponics 7 days The root growth Gong et al. (2021)
ish, wheat, and (root dry weight,
corn root/shoot ratio
and root length)
of Italian lettuce
and corn was
significantly
inhibited by the
exposure treat-
ment, whereas
that of radish and
wheat was hardly
affected
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

PE 200 μm Fragment 0.2% (w/w) Triticum aestivum Soil culture 43 days PE had no sig- Guo et al. (2022a)
L. nificant effect on
wheat growth
PS 2 μm, 80 nm Fragment 0, 10, 50, 100, Trifolium repens, Hydroponics 7 days The germination Guo et al. (2022b)
500 mg/L Orychophrag- rates and germi-
mus violaceus, nation potentials
and Impatiens of these plants
balsamina decreased
significantly as
PS concentration
increased
PE 293 μm Fragment 0.001%, 0.01%, Brassica napus L. Soil culture 60 days PE reduced the Jia et al. (2022)
0.1% (w/w) total chloro-
phyll content in
Chinese cabbage
and affected the
sugar synthesis.
PE enhanced the
accumulation
of heavy metals
(Pb) and reduced
the nutritional
components in
rape plants

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

Shoe sole frag- 57–229 μm Fragment 0%, 0.1%, 1% Vigna radiata Soil culture 14 days The microplastic Lee et al. (2022)
ments (w/w) fragments and
leachates directly
affected plant
growth and
photosynthetic
activities
PCF 3.79 ± 0.60 mm Fragment 0%, 0.01%, 0.1%, Zea mays L. Soil culture 42 days Adding 1% MP Lian et al. (2021a)
1% (w/w) significantly
increased the
contents of
chlorophyll a,
chlorophyll b
and carotenoids.
There was no sig-
nificant effect on
root parameters
PS 93.6 nm Sphere 0, 0.1, 1 mg/L Lactuca sativa L. Soil culture 30 days The dry weight, Lian et al. (2021b)
height, leaf area
and plant pig-
ment content of
lettuce decreased
significantly.
The significant
decrease of
micronutrients
and essential
amino acids
indicated that
the nutritional
quality of lettuce
declined
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 100 nm, 5 μm Sphere Hydroponics: (0, Triticum aestivum Soil culture and Hydroponics: 6 In the hydroponics Liao et al. (2019)
10, 20, 50, 100, L. hydroponics days, soil culture: test, the elonga-
200 mg/L); soil 10 days tion of wheat
culture: (0, 1, 10, roots and stems
50, 100 mg/kg) was significantly
inhibited at
high concentra-
tion. Under the
condition of
soil culture, the
photosynthetic
system of wheat
leaves was dam-
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

aged and the syn-

thesis of protein
was hindered
PE 250 μm Fragment 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%, Triticum aesti- Soil culture 15 days PE increased Liu et al. (2021)
8% (w/w) vum L. the elongation
of wheat root
system, but did
not increase the
aboveground bio-
mass of wheat.
PE < 1 mm Sphere 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, Brassica olera- hydroponics 12 days PE causes oxida- Lopez et al. (2022)
100, 1000, cea L. var. italica, tive stress in
10,000 mg/L Raphanus sati- broccoli and rad-
vus cv. sparkler ish buds, which
leads to the
increase of ROS.
Medium and
low doses of PE
will hinder the
nutrient absorp-
tion of seedlings
and increase
the anthocyanin
content
LDPE, PLA, PBAT 250 – 1000 μm fragment 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, Phaseolus vulgaris soil culture 105 days The biomass of Meng et al. (2021)
2.0%, 2.5% (w/w) L. root and bud bio-
mass was signifi-
cantly inhibited
by microplastics

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PC 3 mm Fragment 2% (w/w) Lepidium sativum Soil culture 7 days New and short- Pflugmacher et al.
term aged PC (2021)
cause Lepidium
sativum sprout-
ing and growth
inhibition. New
and short-term
aged PC granules
reduced chlo-
rophyll a and b
concentrations
PS 3.0 μm Sphere 0.05, 0.25, 1.25, sp. Roraima Hydroponics 7 days PS can be adsorbed Senavirathn et al.
6 mg/L by watermilfoil (2022)
tissue, but it
has no effect
on watermilfoil
growth
PS 22.0 ± 1.5 nm, Sphere 100 mg/L Zea mays L. Soil culture (spray 7 days Compared with Sun et al. (2021)
24.0 ± 2.2 nm on leaves) PS-COOH,
PS-NH2 has
higher inhibition
on photosynthe-
sis and stronger
stimulation
on the activity
of antioxidant
system
PS 50–190 nm, Fragment Myriophyllum Myriophyllum Soil culture 21 days Shoot length of van Weert et al.
20–500 μm spicatum: 0.03%, spicatum, Elodea M. spicatum was (2019)
0.1%, 0.3%, 1%, sp. reduced with
3% (w/w) Elodea increasing PS
sp.: 0.1%, 0.3%, concentration.
1%, 3%, 10% Nanoplastic
(w/w) reduced the shoot
to root biomass
ratio for both
studied species
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 100 nm, 1 μm Sphere 0, 0.1, 1, 10 mg/L Oryza sativa Hydroponics 14 days PS can induce oxi- Wu et al. (2021)
dative stress and
change amino
acid metabolism
characteristics,
resulting in the
reduction of pri-
mary root length
and nutrient
absorption
PS 100 nm, 1 μm, Sphere 1 mg/kg Glycine max L. Soil culture 30 days PS decreased Xu et al. (2021)
10 μm, 100 μm Merrill the uptake of
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

phenanthrene in
soybean. Micron-
sized PS caused
more oxidative
damage and
affected the gene
expression of
soybean roots
HDPE, GPPS < 25, 25–48, Fragment 2.5, 5, 10, 20 g/kg Brassica chinen- Soil culture 30 days GPPS reduced the Yang et al. (2021)
48–150, sis L. fresh weight of
150–850 μm Chinese cabbage,
but the addition
of HDPE had
no remarkable
effects on the
fresh weight
regarding of its
application rates
or sizes. Micro-
plastics changed
the leaf soluble
sugar concentra-
tion, starch con-
centration, and
leaf chlorophyll

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 8.5–30.7 μm Fragment Hydroponics: 50, Oryza sativa L. Hydroponics 21 days Shoot biomass and Wu et al. (2020)
250, 500 mg/L soil culture 142 days antioxidative
Soil culture: 50, enzyme activities
250 mg/kg of rice decreased
after exposure to
high doses of PS
under hydro-
ponic conditions.
Biomass of rice
decreased after
exposure to high
doses of PS in
soils
PS 135.9–530 μm Fragment 0.01%, 0.5% (w/w) Oryza sativa L. Soil culture 142 days PS exposure Wu et al. (2022)
affected metabo-
lite accumula-
tion and energy
expenditure of
rice
PMFs 2.55 mm Fiber 0.1%, 0.2% (w/w) Lactuca sativa Soil culture 59 days PMFs adversely Zeb et al. (2022)
disturbed the
plant shoot
length, photo-
synthetic, and
chlorophyll con-
tent. But PMFs
increased the root
length of lettuce.
PMFs altered
nitrogen and
carbohydrates
related metabolic
pathways
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 200 nm Sphere 0.1, 10, 1000 mg/L Oryza sativa L. Hydroponics 14 days PS had no signifi- Zhang et al. (2021)
cant effect on the
germination of
rice seeds. But
PS significantly
increased root
length, and sig-
nificantly reduced
antioxidant
enzyme activity
PE 212–300 μm Sphere 0.1% (w/w) Zea mays L. Soil culture 28 days PE negatively Fajardo et al. (2022)
affect maize and
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

the soil bacterial

community. The
expression of the
antioxidant genes
was also affected
by PE
PS ∼ 20 nm Sphere 0, 10, 50, 100 mg/L Oryza sativa L. Hydroponics 16 days PS can affect the Zhou et al. (2021)
primary metabo-
lism of rice
roots. Carbon
metabolism was
activated (e.g.,
increased carbon
and soluble
sugar contents)
whereas jasmonic
acid and lignin
biosynthesis were
inhibited

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Microplastic Plant species Cultural method Exposure time Toxic effect References

13
Type Size Shape Concentration

PS 55 ± 7 nm, Sphere 0.3, 1.0 g/kg Arabidopsis thali- Soil culture 49 days Both positively Sun et al. (2020)
71 ± 6 nm ana and negatively
charged PS can
accumulate in
Arabidopsis
thaliana and
PS significantly
reduced fresh
weight of Arabi-
dopsis thaliana.
PS can modify
the gene expres-
sions of Arabi-
dopsis thaliana
PVC, PE 5 μm Sphere 50 mg/L Uttricularia Hydroponics 10 days PVC had a sig- Zhou et al. (2020)
aurea Lour nificant negative
effect on the
length, chloro-
phyll content and
fluorescence of
macrophytes,
while PE has no
significant effect

ROS reactive oxygen species, PP polypropylene, PS polystyrene, PE polyethylene, PVC polyvinyl chloride, PA polyamide, PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene, PLA polylactic acid, LDPE low-den-
sity polyethylene plastics, HDPE high-density polyethylene plastics, PES polyether sulfone, PET polyethylene terephthalate, PU and PUR polyurethane, PC polycarbonate, PMMA polymethyl
methacrylate, PCF plastic clad fiber, PBAT polybutyleneadipate-co-terephthalate, PMFs polyester microfibers, NA not available
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
microplastics on plants varied among microplastic properties
(e.g., type, particle size, shape) and plant species.
Microplastics Have Significant Effects on Higher
Plants
Stimulating Effect
Although microplastics were defined as pollutants, they
stimulated the growth of higher plants. As a type of organic
polymer, certain plastics contain nutrient elements such as
nitrogen which is the main component of protein. Nitrogen
may leach into the soil causing effects analogous to fertili-
zation. As reported by Machado et al. (2019), PA, a nitrog-
enous plastic, increased leaf nitrogen content and total bio-
mass of Allium fistulosum. They hypothesized that the effects
are explained by PA releasing nitrogen to soils. Other nonni-
trogenous plastic polymers can also stimulate plant growth.
For example, PS has a positive effect on photosynthetic
pigment content in plant leaf (Liao et al. 2019; Pignattelli
et al. 2020; Lian et al. 2020) reported that growth param-
eters and chlorophyll content of wheat were significantly
increased under PS exposure (0.01–1 mg/L). They specu-
lated that PS positively induce the activity of α-amylase to
accelerate the hydrolysis of starch granules, thereby produc-
ing more availability of soluble sugars or more energy for
wheat seedling growth. Lozano and Rillig (2020) reported
that polyester (PES) microfibers (0.4%, w/w) increased shoot
mass of Calamagrostis by ∼ 66% under well-watered condi-
tions and of Hieracium by ∼ 85% under drought conditions.
They attributed this to reduced soil bulk density, improved
aeration, and better penetration of roots caused by microfib-
ers. Machado et al. (2019) found that PES with an average
length of 5 mm significantly increased the colonization of A.
fistulosum roots by soil microbes. Mycorrhizal associations
can promote nutrient absorption, which may increase plant
biomass. In addition to the fibrous PES, filmy PE, foamy
polyurethane (PU), and fragmented PET in soils can also
increase the biomass of D. carota (Lozano et al. 2021).
Inhibitory Effect
As shown in Table 1, most of the published studies showed
that microplastics caused inhibitory effects on higher plants.
The inhibitory effects include reducing seed germination
rate (Boots et al. 2019; Bosker et al. 2019; Esterhuizen and
Kim 2021; Guo et al. 2022b), inhibiting root activity and
root growth (Kalcikova et al. 2017; Qi et al. 2018; Gao et al.
2019; Machado et al. 2019; Dong et al. 2020; Maity et al.
2020; Gong et al. 2021; Li et al. 2021b; Meng et al. 2021;
Yu et al. 2021), causing oxidative stress (Maity et al. 2020;
Li et al. 2021b; Yu et al. 2021; Lopez et al. 2022), disturb-
ing antioxidant enzyme activity (Jiang et al. 2019; Wu et al.
2020; Sun et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2021), affecting pho-
tosynthetic efficiency (Gao et al. 2019; Liao et al. 2019;
Dong et al. 2020; Lee et al. 2022; Zeb et al. 2022), inhibiting
gene expression (Maity et al. 2020; Xu et al. 2021; Wu et al.
2022), affecting normal metabolism (Li et al. 2020b, 2021b;
Wu et al. 2020, 2021; Zhou et al. 2020, 2021), changing tis-
sue elemental composition (Machado et al. 2019; Li et al.
2021c; Colzi et al. 2022), and reducing biomass (Qi et al.
2018; Boots et al. 2019; van Weert et al. 2019; Lozano and
Rillig 2020; Pignattelli et al. 2020; Urbina et al. 2020; Wang
et al. 2020a; Meng et al. 2021; Colzi et al. 2022; Fajardo
et al. 2022), etc. Moreover, microplastics can also debase the
quality of crops. For example, PS microplastics significantly
reduce the micronutrients and essential amino acids in L.
sativa L. (Lian et al. 2020, 2021b). PE (< 48 μm) caused
a significant reduction of soluble sugar concentration and
starch concentration in Brassica chinensis L. leaf. (Yang
et al. 2021). Furthermore, the synthesis of protein in wheat
leaf and rice grain can also be hindered after exposure to
microplastics (Liao et al. 2019; Wu et al. 2022).
How Do Microplastics Inhibit Higher Plant
Growth and Performance?
The pathways of microplastics inhibit higher plant perfor-
mance are diverse and complex. Based on the existing find-
ings, we reduced the potential mechanisms into direct and
indirect mechanisms (Fig. 2).
Direct Toxicity to Higher Plants
By Blocking Pores or Light
Recent studies have indicated that PS with particle size less
than 3.0 μm could be uptake by higher plant roots (Li et al.
2020b, 2021c; Lian et al. 2020; Senavirathna et al. 2022).
The microplastic particle aggregation in the leaf vessels can
block cell junctions or cell wall pores (Sun et al. 2021), thus
the uptake of nutrients and water by plants were impeded
(Jiang et al. 2019; Urbina et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2021; Xu
et al. 2021; Li et al. 2020c) found that PS may affect the
uptake and transport of mineral elements (e.g., K and Fe)
by roots, or influence the distribution and reuse of mineral
elements in plants. Owing to the lack of nutrients and water,
the growths of higher plants are bound to be inhibited after
exposure to microplastics. Apart from accumulating on
the surface of roots, microplastics can also accumulate on
pores in seed capsule (Bosker et al. 2019). Clogging of the
pores with microplastics may inhibit water uptake and thus
reduce germination rate of plant seeds (Zhang et al. 2021).
Recently, Lian et al. (2021a, b) reported an interesting result
that the foliar exposure to PS directly impaired lettuce yield
13

Fig. 2  Inhibitory mechanisms
of microplastics on plants. The
solid arrows refer to the direct
influencing mechanism; the dot-
ted arrows refer to the indirect
influencing mechanism
by inhibiting photosynthetic reactions. They speculate about
the likely mechanism is that the PS attached to the leaf sur-
face can block light and therefore affect photosynthesis.
By Causing Mechanical Damage to Roots
Although the large microplastics cannot be uptake by plant
roots, they may accumulate on plant roots. As a result,
microplastics, especially those with rough surface and sharp
edges, may mechanically damage the plant roots, thereby
inhibiting root activity and hindering the growth of roots
(Kalcikova et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2021; Rozman et al. 2021).
Dong et al. (2020) suggested that PS and polytetrafluoroeth-
ylene (PTFE) microplastics cause mechanical damage of rice
roots to produce ROS. The large content of ROS exceeds
cell tolerance and the expression of antioxidant enzymes are
inhibited. However, the inhibitory effects of microplastics on
plant roots may recede when soil amendment (e.g., biochar)
are present. Wang et al. (2020b) carried out leaching column
tests and found that the biochar filters provide significant
capacity (above 95%) for the removal and immobilisation
of 10 μm diameter microplastics.
By Hindering Gene Expression
Microplastics could exert cytotoxic effects by affecting the
expression of certain genes. For instance, PS reduced plant
(i.e., Arabidopsis thaliana) disease resistance by downregu-
lating the disease resistance genes (Sun et al. 2020; Maity
et al. 2020) reported that the cdc2 gene expression in PS
13
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
microplastics treated samples were significantly decreased
in a dose-dependent manner compared to the control. The
inhibited expression of cdc2 caused by PS hinders the mito-
sis of plant cells because cdc2 plays a great role at G2/M
transition. Zhang et al. (2021) found that PS significantly
reduced antioxidant enzyme activity in rice roots. They
ascribe this result to that genes involved in the stimulation
of antioxidant enzyme activity were downregulated by PS.
Likewise, Li et al. (2020c) reported that the relative expres-
sion of the CAT gene was hindered after exposure to PS par-
ticles of a specific size (i.e., 500, 700 nm). Wu et al. (2022)
carried out the transcriptomic analyses and found that the
expression of genes encoding proteins involved in the tricar-
boxylic acid cycle in the rice (O. sativa L. II You 900) grains
was inhibited by PS microplastics. Yu et al. (2020) observed
a significant reduction of soluble protein content in the U.
vulgaris after exposure to PS. The plausible reason is that
PS microplastics affect gene expression related to protein
synthesis. PS can inhibit the synthesis of jasmonic acid and
lignin by modify the gene expressions of O. sativa L. (Zhou
et al. 2021). Furthermore, Lian et al. (2020) suggested that
the uptake and translocation of metal elements were selec-
tively inhibited as PS could discriminatively regulate the
expression of genes involved in metal ion transport.
By Releasing Additives
In order to improve the performance of plastic materials,
various additives such as plasticizers, flame retardants, anti-
oxidants, acid scavengers, lubricants, pigments, antistatic
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
agents and thermal stabilizers were usually added into the
basic polymer (Hahladakis et al. 2018). Due to the weak
bond between the additives and the basic polymers, the addi-
tives were easily leached and discharged, then causing toxic
effects to plants (Rozman et al. 2021; Boots et al. 2019) sug-
gested that it is lactic acid, the degradation products of poly-
lactic acid (PLA), caused adverse effect on L. perenne shoot
length. Lee et al. (2022) found that the leachate from shoe
sole fragments inhibited photosynthesis of Vigna radiata.
Pflugmacher et al. (2021) reported that exposure to the new
polycarbonate (PC) granulate in the soil reduced the germi-
nation percentage of the L. sativum seeds by 60% compared
to control. They attributed the effects to compounds leached
from the PC granules. Furthermore, PS microspheres can
be transferred from roots to leaves, where PS degradation
may release benzene, thereby affecting chlorophyll and sugar
metabolism (Li et al. 2020c).
Indirect Toxicity to Higher Plants
By Changing Soil Properties
Owing to the growth of higher plant are influenced by soil
properties, microplastics may indirectly affect plant growth
by changing soil properties. Recent studies indicated that
microplastics can change the physical properties (e.g., soil
structure, porosity, water retention, water conductivity) of
soils (Machado et al. 2018; Lozano et al. 2021). For instance,
Zhang et al. (2019) showed that ultrafine PES microfibers
(d < 5 μm) significantly reduced volumes of < 30 μm pores
and water holding capacity of soils. Boots et al. (2019) found
that microfibers and microplastic particles could signifi-
cantly reduce the content of macro-aggregates (> 2000 μm)
but significantly increase the micro-aggregates (250–63 μm).
Yan et al. (2010) reported that film residue decreases soil
porosity and air circulation, changes microbial communities
and may lead to low soil fertility, with consequent effects on
crop seed germination and seedling growth.
By Affecting Soil Microbes or Soil Animals
It is well known that the function of soil microbes is strongly
affected by soil properties. As mentioned above, micro-
plastics can alter soil properties. Soil microbe structure
as well as metabolism may also be changed accordingly,
thereby influencing plant growth. Therefore, the effect of
microplastics on soil microbial structure is another indirect
mechanism for affecting plant performance. Boots et al.
(2019) concluded that high-density PE (HDPE) microplas-
tics changed soil pH, and then affected the rhizosphere and
bulk microbial communities. Lozano et al. (2021) showed
that microplastics of different shapes (fibers, films, foams,
and fragments), polymer types (PP, PES, PA, LDPE, PET,
PU, PS, and PC), and concentration levels (0.1%, 0.2%,
0.3%, and 0.4%, w/w) decreased soil aggregation by ~ 25%.
The decline in soil aggregation may has negative effects
on soil biota, thereby affecting plant growth. Additionally,
microplastics can affect soil microbes directly. For exam-
ple, micron-size microplastics inhibited relative abundance
of Proteobacteria in rhizosphere soil (Xu et al. 2021). PE
microplastics negatively affect the soil bacterial community
(Fajardo et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2020) found that intake of
PVC microplastics through bladders is likely responsible
for inducing toxic effects to the growth and physiological
parameters of U. aurea. They suggested that intake of PVC
may modulate the community and function of microorgan-
isms inside the bladder and disturb normal plant–microbe
interactions, thereby causing inhibitory effect to U. aurea
growth. Furthermore, PET clearly reduced soil bacterial
diversity, while this inhibitory effect disappeared after add-
ing biochar to the soil (Han et al. 2022). This indicates that
biochar, a commonly used soil amendment, has a mitigating
effect on the phytotoxicity of microplastics.
Earthworms can enhance plant growth through improv-
ing soil environment such as improving soil permeability,
enhancing soil enzyme activity, and increasing available
nutrient (especially available phosphorus) contents (Scheu
2003; Eisenhauer et al. 2009; Mudrak and Frouz 2018).
Nevertheless, many studies have proven that microplastics
have adverse effects on survival, growth rate, cast produc-
tion, burrowing and feeding behavior of earthworms (Huerta
Lwanga et al. 2016; Prendergast-Miller et al. 2019; Wang
et al. 2019). Thus, microplastics may also indirectly affect
plants growth by influencing soil animal (i.e., earthworm).
Boots et al. (2019) investigated the above and below ground
responses to microplastic pollution of soil ecosystems.
They found that the biomass of earthworm in soil contain-
ing HDPE microplastics decreased significantly, and the
germination rate and shoot growth of L. perenne reduced
accordingly, whilst root biomass increased. These findings
indicated that the mechanism of microplastics affecting plant
via soil animal was complex. More studies should be con-
ducted to reveal this process.
By Affecting Bioavailability of Other Pollutants
Due to the small particle size, large specific surface area,
and strong hydrophobicity, microplastics are considered
as the effective vectors for environmental pollutants (e.g.,
heavy metal, hydrophobic organic contaminants, phar-
maceuticals and personal care products) (Hartmann et al.
2017). Therefore, microplastics may affect the transport and
bioavailability of environmental pollutants, then indirectly
influence plants. However, the effects of microplastics on
bioavailability of contaminants depended on environmen-
tal medium. In the aquatic environment, microplastics can
13

adsorb pollutants, resulting in the decrease of bioavailability.
Zong et al. (2021) concluded that the accumulation of Cu
and cadmium (Cd) in wheat seedlings reduced by the pres-
ence of PS microplastics, and PS could relieve the toxicity
of heavy metals. Dong et al. (2020) conducted hydroponic
experiments and found that PTFE and PS microplastics
reduced the uptake of arsenic (As)(III) in rice seedlings.
They attributed this phenomenon to three reasons: micro-
plastics competed with As for sorption sites on the root
surface; microplastics directly adsorbed As; and microplas-
tics inhibited root activity. However, the hydroponic stud-
ies about co-exposure of oxytetracycline and microplastics
indicated that the presence of microplastics enhanced the
toxic effects of oxytetracycline on wheat and rice (Bao et al.
2022; Guo et al. 2022a). In contrast, microplastics may
enhance the bioavailability of soil pollutants because the
sorption capacity of microplastics is not as good as that of
soil (Li et al. 2021a; Zhang et al. 2020) studied the effects
of microplastics on soil adsorbing Cd. Their results showed
that adding microplastics reduced soil adsorption capacity
for Cd, but increased Cd desorption. They suggested that the
bioavailability of Cd in microplastics polluted soils may be
enhanced and Cd become more toxic to plants. Abbasi et al.
(2020) reported that PET microplastics can adsorb heavy
metals and then transfer them to the rhizosphere zone for
release. Moreover, Jia et al. (2022) found that 0.1% (w/w)
PE microplastics increased the metals (i.e., Cu and Pb) accu-
mulation of rape and therefore enhanced toxic effects of the
heavy metals to rape. Xu et al. (2021) showed that PS micro-
plastics increased the accumulation of phenanthrene (Phe)
in soybean stems, which enhanced the toxicity of Phe to
soybean plants. Recently, Dong et al. (2021) provided some
new perspectives about the combined effects of microplas-
tics and other pollutants on plants. They demonstrated that
As could cause more PS microplastics to enter the carrot
tissue by increasing the negatively charged area of PS and
causing cell walls to distort and deform, then resulting in
greater health risks.
Conclusion and Further Research Prospects
The results of existing studies suggest that the effects of
microplastics on higher plants are hinge on microplastics
properties, plant species, and environmental factors. Micro-
plastics had no or positive effects on higher plants under
some certain experimental conditions. However, more
studies proved that microplastics can directly and indirectly
inhibit higher plant growth. The inhibitory mechanisms
include blocking pores or light, causing mechanical dam-
age to roots, hindering genes expression, releasing addi-
tives, changing soil properties, affecting soil microbes or
soil animals, and affecting bioavailability of other pollutants.
13
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
According to this review, we found that there are still some
gapes in this topic and many questions still remain unclear.
Thus, future studies on microplastics affecting plants
research still need focus on the following aspects:
(1) The effects of aged microplastics on plants should be
stressed. Currently, only few studies focused on the
effects of aged microplastics on plants, and the con-
clusions were inconsistent. Contrastly, Pflugmacher
et al. (2021) suggested that the adverse impacts of
polycarbonate microplastics on L. sativum decreased
with increased aging time. Most studies have focused
on primary microplastics and little attention has been
paid to the microplastics aging, further studies about
the effects of aged microplastics on different plants are
warranted.
(2) Soil culture experiments, especially field experiments
should be designed and conducted. Compared to the
aquatic ecosystem, soil is a more complex medium. The
transport and bioavailability of microplastics in soil dif-
fer from that in water. Meanwhile, microplastics can
indirectly affect plant performance by influencing soil
microbes and animals, altering soil properties, react-
ing with soil pollutants. Although current studies have
made some progress in this research area, due to the
wide variety of microplastics and their different proper-
ties, much more studies should focus on the effects of
microplastics on plants in soil environments. Addition-
ally, the influence of environmental factors on experi-
mental results should be noticed. For instance, plants
responded differentially to microplastics under drought
conditions and humid conditions. It should be noted
that pot experiments cannot fully reflect the actual
condition of farmland. Zhang et al. (2019) proved that
PES microfibers increased soil aggregation in the pot
experiment but not in the field experiment. Thus, fur-
ther field studied are needed to assess the impacts of
microplastics on plants.
(3) Try to quantify the contribution of different influenc-
ing mechanisms. Based on existing research conclu-
sions, microplastics have beneficial and adverse effects
on plants through different mechanisms. We need to
comprehensively evaluate these different influencing
mechanisms, in order to find the key control mecha-
nism.
(4) Strengthen long-term exposure research. Many of the
existing studies are short-term exposures, such as the
influence of microplastics on plant seedlings. This
makes it impossible to assess the impact of micro-
plastics on plant yields. Meanwhile, the effects of
microplastics on plants under successive cropping as
well as rotation remain unknown, which needs to be
explained by long-term exposure experiments. Finally,
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
the impacts of microplastics on crop nutrients such as
protein, sugar, vitamins should also be concerned.
(5) It is necessary to focus on the influence of soil amend-
ment (e.g., biochar) on the phytotoxicity of microplas-
tics. Recently, Wang et al. (2020b) found that biochar
is effective in removing microplastics. It is therefore
hypothesized that biochar has a mitigating effect on the
phytotoxicity of microplastics. This assumption should
be verified in future studies.
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the
National Science Foundation of China (42007108).
References
Abbasi S, Moore F, Keshavarzi B et al (2020) PET-microplastics as a
vector for heavy metals in a simulated plant rhizosphere zone. Sci
Total Environ 744:140984
Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC (2014) Enhanced desorption of
persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated
physiological conditions. Environ Pollut 185:16–23
Bao Y, Pan C, Li D et al (2022) Stress response to oxytetracycline and
microplastic-polyethylene in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during
seed germination and seedling growth stages. Sci Total Environ
806:150553
Boots B, Russell CW, Green DS (2019) Effects of microplastics in
soil ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ Sci Technol
53:11496–11506
Bosker T, Bouwman LJ, Brun NR et al (2019) Microplastics accu-
mulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root
growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chem-
osphere 226:774–781
Bueks F, Kaupenjohann M (2020) Global concentrations of microplas-
tics in soils—a review. Soil 6:649–662
Colzi I, Renna L, Bianchi E et al (2022) Impact of microplastics on
growth, photosynthesis and essential elements in Cucurbita pepo
L. J Hazard Mater 423:127238
de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Till J et al (2018) Impacts of micro-
plastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ Sci Technol
52:9656–9665
de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Kloas W et al (2019) Microplastics
can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ
Sci Technol 53:6044–6052
Dong Y, Gao M, Song Z et al (2020) Microplastic particles increase
arsenic toxicity to rice seedlings. Environ Pollut 259:113892
Dong Y, Gao M, Qiu W et al (2021) Uptake of microplastics by carrots
in presence of As(III): combined toxic effects. J Hazard Mater
411:125055
Dong Y, Bao Q, Gao M et al (2022) A novel mechanism study of
microplastic and As co-contamination on indica rice (Oryza sativa
L.). J Hazard Mater 421:126694
Eisenhauer N, Milcu A, Sabais ACW et al (2009) Earthworms enhance
plant regrowth in a grassland plant diversity gradient. Eur J Soil
Biol 45:455–458
Esterhuizen M, Kim YJ (2021) Effects of polypropylene, polyvinyl
chloride, polyethylene terephthalate, polyurethane, high-density
polyethylene, and polystyrene microplastic on Nelumbo nucifera
(Lotus) in water and sediment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:17033
Fajardo C, Martín C, Costa G et al (2022) Assessing the role of
polyethylene microplastics as a vector for organic pollutants in
soil: ecotoxicological and molecular approaches. Chemosphere
288:132460
Fuller S, Gautam A (2016) A procedure for measuring microplas-
tics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ Sci Technol
50:5774–5780
Gao M, Liu Y, Song Z (2019) Effects of polyethylene microplastic on
the phytotoxicity of di-n-butyl phthalate in lettuce (Lactuca sativa
L. var. ramosa Hort). Chemosphere 237:124482
Gao M, Xu Y, Liu Y et al (2021) Effect of polystyrene on di-butyl
phthalate (DBP) bioavailability and DBP-induced phytotoxicity
in lettuce. Environ Pollut 268:115870
Ge J, Li H, Liu P et al (2021) Review of the toxic effect of microplastics
on terrestrial and aquatic plants. Sci Total Environ 791:148333
Gong W, Zhang W, Jiang M et al (2021) Species-dependent response
of food crops to polystyrene nanoplastics and microplastics. Sci
Total Environ 796:148750
Guo A, Pan C, Su X et al (2022a) Combined effects of oxytetracycline
and microplastic on wheat seedling growth and associated rhizos-
phere bacterial communities and soil metabolite profiles. Environ
Pollut 302:119046
Guo M, Zhao F, Tian L et al (2022b) Effects of polystyrene microplas-
tics on the seed germination of herbaceous ornamental plants. Sci
Total Environ 809:151100
Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R et al (2018) An overview of chemi-
cal additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and envi-
ronmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J Haz-
ard Mater 344:179–199
Halle AT, Ladirat L, Gendre X et al (2016) Understanding the frag-
mentation pattern of marine plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol
50:5668–5675
Han LF, Chen LY, Li DT et al (2022) Influence of polyethylene tereph-
thalate microplastic and biochar co-existence on paddy soil bacte-
rial community structure and greenhouse gas emission. Environ
Pollut 292:118386
Hartmann NB, Rist S, Bodin J et al (2017) Microplastics as vectors for
environmental contaminants: exploring sorption, desorption, and
transfer to biota. Integr Environ Assess 13:488–493
Huang JN, Wen B, Xu L et al (2022) Micro/nano-plastics cause neu-
robehavioral toxicity in discus fish (Symphysodon aequifascia-
tus): Insight from brain-gut-microbiota axis. J Hazard Mater
421:126830
Huerta Lwanga E, Gertsen H, Gooren H et al (2016) Microplastics
in the terrestrial ecosystem: Implications for lumbricus terrestris
(Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ Sci Technol 50:2685–2691
Jia H, Wu D, Yu Y et al (2022) Impact of microplastics on bioaccumu-
lation of heavy metals in rape (Brassica napus L.). Chemosphere
288:132576
Jiang X, Chen H, Liao Y et al (2019) Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity
of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ
Pollut 250:831–838
Jovanovic B (2017) Ingestion of microplastics by fish and its potential
consequences from a physical perspective. Integr Environ Assess
13:510–515
Kalcíkova G, Gotvajn AZ, Kladnik A et al (2017) Impact of polyethyl-
ene microbeads on the floating freshwater plant duckweed Lemna
minor. Environ Pollut 230:1108–1115
Kim SW, An YJ (2019) Soil microplastics inhibit the movement of
springtail species. Environ Int 126:699–706
Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Foekema EM (2014) Leaching of plastic
additives to marine organisms. Environ Pollut 187:49–54
Lee TY, Kim L, Kim D et al (2022) Microplastics from shoe sole frag-
ments cause oxidative stress in a plant (Vigna radiata) and impair
soil environment. J Hazard Mater 429:128306
Li J, Song Y, Cai Y (2020a) Focus topics on microplastics in soil:
analytical methods, occurrence, transport, and ecological risks.
Environ Pollut 257:113570
13

Li L, Luo Y, Li R et al (2020b) Effective uptake of submicrome-
tre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nat Sustain
3:929–937
Li Z, Li R, Li Q et al (2020c) Physiological response of cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.) leaves to polystyrene nanoplastics pollu-
tion. Chemosphere 255:127041
Li J, Guo K, Cao YS et al (2021a) Enhance in mobility of oxytetra-
cycline in a sandy loamy soil caused by the presence of micro-
plastics. Environ Pollut 269:116151
Li S, Wang T, Guo J et al (2021b) Polystyrene microplastics disturb
the redox homeostasis, carbohydrate metabolism and phytohor-
mone regulatory network in barley. J Hazard Mater 415:125614
Li Z, Li Q, Li R et al (2021c) The distribution and impact of poly-
styrene nanoplastics on cucumber plants. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 28:16042–16053
Lian JP, Wu J, Xiong H et al (2020) Impact of polystyrene nanoplas-
tics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.). J Hazard Mater 385:121620
Lian JP, Liu WT, Meng LZ et al (2021a) Effects of microplastics
derived from polymer-coated fertilizer on maize growth, rhizo-
sphere, and soil properties. J Clean Prod 318:128571
Lian JP, Liu WT, Meng LZ et al (2021b) Foliar-applied polystyrene
nanoplastics (PSNPs) reduce the growth and nutritional quality
of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Environ Pollut 280:116978
Liao YC, Nazygul J, Li M et al (2019) Effects of microplastics on the
growth, physiological and biochemical characteristics of wheat
(Triticum aestivum). Environ Sci 40:4661–4667 (in Chinese)
Lindeque PK, Cole M, Coppock RL et al (2020) Are we underesti-
mating microplastic abundance in the marine environment? A
comparison of microplastic capture with nets of different mesh-
size. Environ Pollut 265:114721
Lopez MD, Toro MT, Riveros GM et al (2022) Brassica sprouts
exposed to microplastics: effects on phytochemical constituents.
Sci Total Environ 823:153796
Lozano YM, Rillig MC (2020) Effects of microplastic fibers
and drought on plant communities. Environ Sci Technol
54:6166–6173
Lozano YM, Lehnert T, Linck LT et al (2021) Microplastic shape,
polymer type, and concentration affect soil properties and plant
biomass. Front Plant Sci 12:616645
Luo H, Li Y, Zhao Y et al (2020) Effects of accelerated aging on char-
acteristics, leaching, and toxicity of commercial lead chromate
pigmented microplastics. Environ Pollut 257:113475
Lusher AL, Welden NA, Sobral P et al (2017) Sampling, isolating and
identifying microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates. Anal
Methods UK 9:1346–1360
Maity S, Chatterjee A, Guchhait R et al (2020) Cytogenotoxic potential
of a hazardous material, polystyrene microparticle on Allium cepa
L. J Hazard Mater 385:121560
Mateos-Cárdenas A, Scott DT, Seitmaganbetova G et al (2019) Poly-
ethylene microplastics adhere to Lemna minor (L.), yet have no
effects on plant growth or feeding by Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.).
Sci Total Environ 689:413–421
Meng F, Yang X, Riksen M et al (2021) Response of common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) growth to soil contaminated with micro-
plastics. Sci Total Environ 755:142516
Mudrak O, Frouz J (2018) Earthworms increase plant biomass more
in soil with no earthworm legacy than in earthworm-mediated
soil, and favour late successional species in competition. Funct
Ecol 32:626–635
Peng X, Chen M, Chen S et al (2018) Microplastics contaminate the
deepest part of the world’s ocean. Geochem Perspect Lett 9:1–5
Pflugmacher S, Tallinen S, Kim YJ et al (2021) Ageing affects micro-
plastic toxicity over time: effects of aged polycarbonate on ger-
mination, growth, and oxidative stress of Lepidium sativum. Sci
Total Environ 790:148166
13
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Pignattelli S, Broccoli A, Renzi M (2020) Physiological responses of
garden cress (L. sativum) to different types of microplastics. Sci
Total Environ 727:138609
Prendergast-Miller MT, Katsiamides A, Abbass M et al (2019) Poly-
ester-derived microfibre impacts on the soil-dwelling earthworm
Lumbricus terrestris. Environ Pollut 251:453–459
Qi Y, Yang X, Mejia Pelaez A et al (2018) Macro- and micro-plastics in
soil–plant system: effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat
(Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci Total Environ 645:1048–1056
Rachman CM (2018) Microplastics research—from sink to source.
Science 360:28–29
Razanajatovo RM, Ding JN, Zhang SS et al (2018) Sorption and des-
orption of selected pharmaceuticals by polyethylene microplastics.
Mar Pollut Bull 136:516–523
Rillig MC, Lehmann A (2020) Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems.
Science 368(6498):1430–1431
Rillig MC, Ziersch L, Hempel S (2017) Microplastic transport in soil
by earthworms. Sci Rep 7:1362
Rodriguez-Seijo A, da Costa JP, Rocha-Santos T et al (2018) Oxidative
stress, energy metabolism and molecular responses of earthworms
(Eisenia fetida) exposed to low-density polyethylene microplas-
tics. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25:33599–33610
Rozman U, Turk T, Skalar T et al (2021) An extensive characteriza-
tion of various environmentally relevant microplastics—material
properties, leaching and ecotoxicity testing. Sci Total Environ
773:145576
Scheu S (2003) Effects of earthworms on plant growth: patterns and
perspectives. Pedobiologia 47:846–856
Senavirathna MDHJ, Zhaozhi L, Fujino T (2022) Short-duration expo-
sure of 3-m polystyrene microplastics affected morphology and
physiology of watermilfoil (sp. roraima). Environ Sci Pollut Res
Int 22:18642
Song Y, Cao C, Qiu R et al (2019) Uptake and adverse effects of poly-
ethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial snails
(Achatina fulica) after soil exposure. Environ Pollut 250:447–455
Sun X, Li Q, Shi Y et al (2019) Characteristics and retention of micro-
plastics in the digestive tracts of fish from the Yellow Sea. Environ
Pollut 249:878–885
Sun XD, Yuan XZ, Jia YB et al (2020) Differentially charged nanoplas-
tics demonstrate distinct accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Nat Nanotechnol 15:755–760
Sun H, Lei C, Xu J et al (2021) Foliar uptake and leaf-to-root transloca-
tion of nanoplastics with different coating charge in maize plants.
J Hazard Mater 416:125854
Tao Z, Cao X, Luo X et al (2012) Responses of three enzyme activi-
ties to lower molecular weight polyethylene added in pot-cultured
horse bean soil. Chin J Soil Sci 43:1104–1110
Taylor SE, Pearce CI, Sanguinet KA et al (2020) Polystyrene nano-
and microplastic accumulation at Arabidopsis and wheat root cap
cells, but no evidence for uptake into roots. Environ Sci Nano
7:1942–1953
Urbina MA, Correa F, Aburto F et al (2020) Adsorption of polyethyl-
ene microbeads and physiological effects on hydroponic maize.
Sci Total Environ 741:140216
van Weert S, Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, Diepens NJ et al (2019)
Effects of nanoplastics and microplastics on the growth of sedi-
ment-rooted macrophytes. Sci Total Environ 654:1040–1047
Wang J, Coffin S, Sun C et al (2019) Negligible effects of microplastics
on animal fitness and HOC bioaccumulation in earthworm Eisenia
fetida in soil. Environ Pollut 249:776–784
Wang F, Zhang X, Zhang S et al (2020a) Interactions of microplastics
and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal
communities in an agricultural soil. Environ Pollut 254:126791
Wang ZH, Sedighi M, Lea-Langton A (2020b) Filtration of micro-
plastic spheres by biochar: removal efficiency and immobilisation
mechanisms. Water Res 184:116165
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Wright SL, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) The physical impacts
of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ Pollut
178:483–492
Wu X, Liu Y, Yin S et al (2020) Metabolomics revealing the response
of rice (Oryza sativa L.) exposed to polystyrene microplastics.
Environ Pollut 266:115159
Wu J, Liu W, Zeb A et al (2021) Polystyrene microplastic interaction
with Oryza sativa: toxicity and metabolic mechanism. Environ
Sci Nano 8:3699–3710
Wu X, Hou H, Liu Y et al (2022) Microplastics affect rice (Oryza sativa
L.) quality by interfering metabolite accumulation and energy
expenditure pathways: a field study. J Hazard Mater 422:126834
Xu G, Liu Y, Yu Y (2021) Effects of polystyrene microplastics on
uptake and toxicity of phenanthrene in soybean. Sci Total Environ
783:147016
Yan CR, He WQ, Mei XR (2010) Agricultural application of plastic
film and its residue pollution prevention. Beijing Science Press,
Beijing, pp 76–86
Yang M, Huang DY, Tian YB et al (2021) Influences of different source
microplastics with different particle sizes and application rates on
soil properties and growth of Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis
L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 222:112480
Yu H, Zhang X, Hu J et al (2020) Ecotoxicity of polystyrene micro-
plastics to submerged carnivorous Utricularia vulgaris plants in
freshwater ecosystems. Environ Pollut 265:114830
Yu H, Peng J, Cao X et al (2021) Effects of microplastics and glypho-
sate on growth rate, morphological plasticity, photosynthesis, and
oxidative stress in the aquatic species Salvinia cucullata. Environ
Pollut 279:116900
Zeb A, Liu W, Meng L et al (2022) Effects of polyester microfib-
ers (PMFs) and cadmium on lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and the
rhizospheric microbial communities: a study involving physio-
biochemical properties and metabolomic profiles. J Hazard Mater
424:127405
View publication stats
Zhang Z, Luo X, Fan Y et al (2015) Cumulative effects of powders
of degraded PE mulching-films on chemical properties of soil.
Environ Sci Technol 38:115–119
Zhang K, Su J, Xiong X et al (2016) Microplastic pollution of lake-
shore sediments from remote lakes in Tibet Plateau, China. Envi-
ron Pollut 219:450–455
Zhang GS, Zhang FX, Li XT (2019) Effects of polyester microfibers on
soil physical properties: perception from a field and a pot experi-
ment. Sci Total Environ 670:1–7
Zhang S, Han B, Sun Y et al (2020) Microplastics influence the adsorp-
tion and desorption characteristics of Cd in an agricultural soil. J
Hazard Mater 388:121775
Zhang Q, Zhao M, Meng F et al (2021) Effect of polystyrene micro-
plastics on rice seed germination and antioxidant enzyme activity.
Toxics 9:179
Zhou J, Cao Y, Liu X et al (2020) Bladder entrance of microplastic
likely induces toxic effects in carnivorous macrophyte Utricularia
aurea&nbsp;Lour. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:32124–32131
Zhou J, Gui H, Banfield CC et al (2021) The microplastic sphere: bio-
degradable microplastics addition alters soil microbial community
structure and function. Soil Biol Biochem 156:108211
Zhu F, Zhu C, Wang C et al (2019) Occurrence and ecological impacts
of microplastics in soil systems: a review. Bull Environ Contam
Toxicol 102:741–749
Zong X, Zhang J, Zhu J et al (2021) Effects of polystyrene microplas-
tic on uptake and toxicity of copper and cadmium in hydroponic
wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
217:112217
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13