Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Pollution
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol

Review

Microplastics could be a threat to plants in terrestrial systems directly

or indirectly*
Noreen Khalid a, *, Muhammad Aqeel b, Ali Noman c
a
Department of Botany, Government College Women University, Sialkot, Pakistan
b
State Key Laboratory of Grassland and Agro-ecosystems, School of Life Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, PR China
c
Department of Botany, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

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

Article history: Microplastics (MPs) are an emerging threat to ecosystem functioning and biota. The major sources of
Received 27 May 2020 MPs are terrestrial and agricultural lands. But their fate, concentration in the terrestrial environment, and
Received in revised form effects on soil and biota are poorly understood. There is a growing body of concern about the adverse
15 August 2020
effects of MPs on soil-dwelling organisms such as microbes in mycorrhizae and earthworms that mediate
Accepted 12 September 2020
Available online 16 September 2020
essential ecosystem services. Environmental concentrations and effects of MPs are considered to increase
with increasing trend of its global production. MPs in the soil could directly impact plants through
blocking the seed pore, limiting the uptake of water and nutrient through roots, aggregation, and
Keywords:
Sorbed chemicals
accumulation in the root, shoot, and leaves. However, MPs can also indirectly impact plants by affecting
Microplastic uptake soil physicochemical characteristics, soil-dwelling microbes, and fauna. An affected soil could impact
Phytotoxicity plant community structure and perhaps primary production. In this article, we have assessed the po-
Emerging pollutant tential direct and indirect impacts of MPs on plants. We have discussed both the positive and negative
impacts of MPs on plants in terrestrial systems based on currently available limited literature on this
topic and our hypothetical understandings. We have summarized the most current progress in this re-
gard highlighting the future directions on microplastic research in terrestrial systems.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In landfills, plastic items can take up to 1000 years to decom-
pose. Isn’t it scary? Among all the anthropogenic changes to the
surface of our earth, microplastic pollution is perhaps the most
long-lasting. Oceans have been discovered to be the sinks of
microplastic particles after about a decade of research. MPs are now
ubiquitous in the oceans and cause potential adverse effects on
marine organisms (Galloway et al., 2017). But where these plastic
pollutants are coming from? It is estimated that in oceans, 80% of
microplastic pollution is coming from land (Li et al., 2016). Re-
searchers have now recently extended their research on MPs to
terrestrial environments. But until now only a handful of studies
have been reported on MPs in terrestrial habitats.
MPs particles are smaller than 5 mm in size (Alimi et al., 2018).
*
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Baoshan Xing.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: noreenbasra@gmail.com, noreen.khalid@gcwus.edu.pk (N. Khalid).
They are divided into two main types based on their origin, for
example, MPs produced through grinding are known as primary
MPs. Abrasives in consumer products such as creams, showering
gels, shampoos, cleansers, and tooth pastes all have adequate
quantities of primary microplastics (Browne, 2015). On the other
hand, secondary microplastics are produced through physical,
biological or chemical degradation of larger plastic items (Cooper
and Corcoran, 2010). Secondary MPs can be formed with the help
of microbial, UV, or mechanical degradation in the soil. MPs can
also have varying shapes such as beads, films, granules, and fibers
based on their sources.
Soils have been a long term and probably major sinks of MPs in
terrestrial ecosystems (David et al., 2018; Hodson et al., 2017;
Horton and Dixon, 2018). Only arable soils may have more MPs than
the world’s oceans (de Souza Machado et al., 2018). Sewage sludge
has been found to contain large quantities of fragments and mi-
crofibrils of MPs (De Falco et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Sun et al.,
2019). The application of sewage sludge in agricultural fields is
considered as a cheap fertilizer and is a common practice on large
scales in developing countries (Corradini et al., 2019; Mai et al.,
2018). Primary MPs are produced intentionally in various

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115653
0269-7491/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
industrial and cosmetics products (Napper et al., 2015). However,
the large scale sources of MPs are secondary MPs that are produced
by the weathering and degradation/disintegration of larger plastic
products such as plastic bags, sheets, and bottles (Rillig, 2012). Road
traffic dust, littering, diffused atmospheric deposition, industrial
products, laundry effluents, and sedimentation from irrigation
waters are some of the important sources of MPs in the environ-
ment (Duis and Coors, 2016). The average microplastic particles
concentration in an established riparian forest is 18,760 particles
kg
1 in southwestern China (Zhang and Liu, 2018), 78 particles kg
1
in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai (Liu et al., 2018),
420e1290 MP items/kg soil in agriculture surface soils (Li et al.,
2019), 320 to 12,560 items/kg DW in vegetable farmlands in
Wuhan (Chen et al., 2020a), 20.6 to 529.3 items/kg in rural and
urban roadside dust in Victoria, Australia (Su et al., 2020), 88 to
605 MPs per 30 g dry dust in street dust in Tehran, Iran (Dehghani
et al., 2017), and 90% of Swiss floodplain soils are found to be
contaminated with MPs (Scheurer and Bigalke, 2018). The current
estimation is that MPs are present everywhere in terrestrial eco-
systems but data on microplastic studies in soils is limited. Field
studies are suggested to better understand the effects, sources, and
fate of MPs in the terrestrial environments.
The persistence, ubiquity, variety, and abundance of MPs are a
serious environmental risk to the soil. In the oceans
where fate,
chemistry, and toxicity of MPs is well documented
MPs affect
physicochemical processes of the surrounding environment with
adverse effects on marine biota. MPs come in different sizes,
shapes, structures, additives, and surface topographies such as
microfibrils, beads, pellets, granules, films, foams, and fragments
(Fig. 2a). These different types of MPs may influence soil physical
structures, for example, soil bulk density, aeration, and water
holding capacity, etc. Besides affecting the physical structure of the
soil, MPs may potentially impact soil biogeochemistry in various
ways. Chemical additives used in the manufacturing of MPs could
be toxic to soil-dwelling microflora and fauna (Rillig and
Bonkowski, 2018). Additionally, MPs can sorb toxic organic and
inorganic compounds from the surrounding environment making
them contaminated surfaces in the soil (Hüffer et al., 2019; Zhou
et al., 2019). Any change in physicochemical characteristics of soil
could be translated to linked biota. Initially, some studies have
demonstrated the toxic effects of MPs on earthworms, microbes,
and plants (Qi et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Seijo et al., 2018; Wang et al.,
2019a, 2020; Yi et al., 2020). The tiny microplastic particles in the
soil have the potential to impact plant community structure and
ecosystem functioning (Lozano and Rillig, 2020). But the potential
impacts of MPs on plants remain largely unexplored and there is
not much information on this perspective. We assume that there
are several possible ways by which MPs can directly and indirectly
impact plants, and crops. Because MPs are persistent and they will
remain in the environment for a long period, so there is an urgent
need to uncover their potential impacts on plants. The aim of
writing this article is to identify the areas, opinions, and facts in the
research gap where MPs research on plants can be pushed forward.
1.1. Alteration in soil structure: impacts on root growth
MPs can be transported inside the soil (Rillig et al., 2017). The
texture of the soil and size of the MPs govern the mobility of MPs in
the soil (O’Connor et al., 2019). The transport of MPs mainly occurs
through bioturbation, preferential flow, cracks in soils, and because
of various agricultural practices like plowing, ditching, tilling, etc
(Lwanga et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2019; Rillig, 2018; Rillig et al.,
2017; Zhu et al., 2018c). However, this transport will probably not
be significant in fine-grained homogeneous clayey soils. Since MPs
are of different types having specific densities, they behave
2
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
differently in the soil. Generally MPs have lower densities than the
soil particles of their size. Therefore, they tend to lower soil bulk
density. De Souza Machado and co (de Souza Machado et al., 2018)
reported a reduction in soil bulk density with contamination with
microplastic microfibers. This can substantially increase the soil
aeration which may help in root penetration into the soil. On the
other hand, microfibers can also entangle the juvenile roots and
could be a hindrance to the growth of seedlings. Increased soil
aeration may also enhance aridity at the soil surface which can also
adversely affect growth and development of seedlings (Wan et al.,
2019). Microplastic thin films can create water channels making
rapid percolation of water to deeper soil layers. Besides, these films
also induce the formation of desiccation cracks in the surface soil
(Wan et al., 2019) (Fig. 1).
MPs might alter the physical properties of the soil, for instance,
by reducing or boosting up the cohesion between aggregate
-forming soil particles. The contribution of microfibers in the pro-
cess of aggregates formation is the most important in this regard.
According to Zhang and Liu (2018), 72% of MPs in soil take part in
aggregates formation. In a recent investigation, Lozano and Rillig
(2020) revealed a change in plant community structure in micro-
fiber contaminated soil. They revealed that MPs could affect plant
species dominance as Calamagrostis (European invasive species),
and Hieracium (allelopathic species) became dominant in microfi-
ber rich soil. However, plant species such as Holcus can facilitate a
healthy plant community structure decreased in biomass. These
effects in the plant community level could be due to secondary
effects caused by microfibers such as drought.
Polyester fibers (PFs) also induce aggregation of soil particles by
holding them through heaping (de Souza Machado et al., 2018;
Zhang et al., 2019). However PFs do not take part in aggregate
formation in sandy soils (Lehmann et al., 2019). PFs also increase
the water holding capacity of the soil because of aggregates for-
mation. However, the other microplastic particles such as beads,
fragments, or polyacrylic fibers do not influence the soil aggrega-
tion nor water holding capacity. The addition of PLA and HDPE
directly affects the binding mechanism of soil particles by forming
stable soil aggregates (Boots et al., 2019). The formation of soil
aggregates substantially increases soil aeration and porosity. We
hypothesize that this kind of soil physical structure would be an
ideal environment for the growth and development of plant roots
since it also holds moisture efficiently. But Boots et al. (2019), found
a reduction in root growth of Lolium perenne on exposure to LDPE
MPs. However, this remains unclear whether this alteration in root
growth is due to change in soil physical structure or due to some
other toxic chemical properties of MPs? Further research is needed
to understand the effects of MPs on soil-plant systems.
1.2. Microplastic uptake: direct toxicity to plants
Plants grown in agricultural soils are directly exposed to MPs
when plastic mulching, sewage sludge as fertilizer, and organic
manures are applied (Watteau et al., 2018). Recently, a few studies
have reported the direct impacts of MPs on plants that have been
summarized in Table 1. Root growth and seed germination are
important factors while evaluating the direct effect of MPs on
plants. Microplastic particles of bigger size (100 nm-5mm) can be
indirectly harmful to plants through modifying and/or disrupting
the soil structure. But it can also affect directly through clogging the
seed pores (Bosker et al., 2019). It can slow down or completely
inhibit the uptake of water by adhering to the surface of seed pores.
Bosker et al. (2019) reported a 78% reduction in seed germination
process after 8 h of exposure to three different sized plastic parti-
cles (50, 500, and 4800 nm) at a concentration of 103e107 particles
ml
1. This reduction in the rate of germination was due to the
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Fig. 1. MPs effects on physicochemical characteristics of the soil that affect growth of plants.
physical blockage of the seed pores by MPs. This was demonstrated
with the use of fluorescent dyes and confocal microscopy. They also
saw accumulations of MPs on root hairs later.
MPs after degradation convert into even smaller sized plastics
known as nanoplastics. Could these smaller nanoplastics be
absorbed by the plants with water from the soil? This was not
known until recently a few studies have demonstrated the uptake
of MPs by terrestrial plants. Accumulation of MPs (100 nm) in roots
of broad bean (Vicia faba) was seen with laser confocal scanning
microscopy (Jiang et al., 2019). In this experiment, MPs might have
blocked cell wall pores or cell connections for the transport of water
and nutrients. Because the plant significantly showed increased
antioxidant enzyme activities and decreased growth as a result of
microplastic accumulation. Li et al. (2020) demonstrated the
localization of fluorescently labelled MPs within the whole plant
tissues in wheat (Triticum aestivum). The PS microplastic microbe-
ads were seen in the root, shoot, and leaves by using a confocal laser
scanning microscope in this study. In another study, uptake, dis-
tribution, and migration of fluorescent polystyrene microbeads
(0.2 mm) in lettuce were investigated (Li et al., 2019). It was reported
that microbeads were trapped in the root cap extracellularly, visible
as a dark green tip to the naked eye. Confocal microscopy revealed
the localization of microbeads in cell wall tissue of the root and
vascular system indicating the intercellular space passage of
microbeads through apoplastic transport. Microbeads also moved
through the vascular system following the transpiration stream. In
3
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
both of these locations, microbeads adhered to each other making
chains and bunch like structures. However in the leaf, they found to
be uniformly dispersed. In all of the above studies, broad bean,
wheat, and lettuce plants were exposed to MPs microbeads in
aqueous solutions i.e. either in the form of hydroponics (lettuce,
wheat) or aqueous solution was applied with soaked cotton/filter
papers (broad beans). None of these studies grew the plants in true
soil conditions. If these crop plants showed the uptake of MPs
through aqueous solutions, what would be the results if they were
grown in soil contaminated with MPs? Chae and An (2020) directly
exposed the mung bean (Vigna radiata) to nano plastic contami-
nated soil and observed an 83.3% reduction in the root growth at a
concentration of 100 mg kg
1 nano plastics in the soil. They also
reported the accumulation of nano plastic particles in the leaves of
mung bean. The contaminated mung bean plant then badly
impacted the growth rate of the African giant snail (Achatina fulica)
which was fed on it. Hence, MPs are likely to be ingested by the
herbivores with their plant food, whether absorbed in the plant or
adsorbed on the surface. There is a dire need to understand the
in vivo effects of microplastics for a wide range of food crop plants
especially the root edible crops.
1.3. Effect on soil microbial activity: potential reduced fertility
Microplastic contamination of soils could affect properties of
soil (as described previously), change biophysical and geochemical
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Fig. 2. a. Different types of MPs; b. interaction of inorganic and organic pollutants with MPs impact plants and soil-dwelling organisms. HMs (heavy metals), POPs (persistent
organic pollutants), As (arsenic), Cd (cadmium), Zn (zinc), DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), CPF (chlorpyrifos), PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl), U-for (urea-formaldehyde).
environments. This can substantially influence the functional and
structural diversity of soil microbial communities causing serious
potential soil environmental problems (Rillig and Bonkowski, 2018;
Rillig et al., 2019). This includes the functional diversity of soil en-
zymes and microbiota (Awet et al., 2018). This change in soil
structure and composition may also affect the fertility of the soil by
reducing the growth of microbial communities in the rhizosphere
(Qi et al., 2020). The rhizosphere is an important interface where
plants interact with beneficial and harmful microbial communities
in the soil. The interaction of soil microorganisms with MPs in the
rhizosphere largely remains unexplored. Different sized MPs affect
interactions between plants and microbial communities differently
though. This behaviour occurs due to variations in surface to vol-
ume ratios of microplastic particles (Brodhagen et al., 2017).
However, there is only a little information available on general
microbial activity in soil influenced by MPs.
MPs affect the microbial communities in their vicinity in the soil.
Like aquatic environments, MPs generally have been found to
decrease microbial activity in the soil (Rillig, 2018; Yang et al.,
2018). HDPE (high-density polyethylene) contamination of soil
decreases soil pH which could impact microbial growth (Bandow
et al., 2017; Boots et al., 2019). However, other recent studies
have reported an increase in soil pH and reduction in soil EC in, PE
(polyethylene), PLA (polylactic acid), and LDPE (low-density poly-
ethylene) contaminated soils (Qi et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020).
Changes in soil pH are highly likely to cause alterations in microbial
communities of the rhizosphere and those present in the bulk soil,
by interfering with the composition and diversity of soil microor-
ganisms (Rousk et al., 2009). But the mechanism by which MPs
change the pH of the soil is unknown. Further study to understand
this change in pH under the influence of MPs is highly
4
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
recommended.
Studies have revealed the adverse effects of PFs (0.05e0.4%),
polyacrylic (0.05e0.4%), and PS (polystyrene) (1 mg kg
1) micro-
plastic particles on microbial communities in the soil (Awet et al.,
2018; de Souza Machado et al., 2018). However, PP (poly-
propylene) (7% and 28%) found to be positively impacting bacterial
growth in the soil (Liu et al., 2017). Changes in microbial activity in
these studies have been proposed to be because of modified soil
structure. However, the data on MPs and microbial communities in
the soil is extremely limited. Further investigations are strongly
recommended to understand the effects and linkage of MPs with
microbial communities in the soil.
Microbial communities in the soil such as arbuscular mycor-
rhizal fungi, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria have a direct impact on
plant growth. Reduced microbial activity by MPs could directly
impact plant and crop growth (Powell and Rillig, 2018). MPs affect
the relative abundance and community structure of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi in the soil (Wang et al., 2020). Interactions be-
tween constituent microbial species in the soil also found to be
impacted by PLA MPs (Chen et al., 2020a). This could affect mi-
crobial assisted mineral absorption and nitrogen fixation rates.
Additionally, MPs adversely affect soil enzymes such as urease,
glucosidase, and phosphatase (Yang et al., 2018). Fei et al. (2020), on
the other hand, found a positive impact of PE (polyethylene) and
PVC (polyvinyl chloride) MPs on acid phosphatase and urease ac-
tivities in the soil.
MPs have a great ability to host unique bacterial species than the
surrounding soil particles. Bacterial communities dwelling on MPs
are structurally different from surrounding MPs, plant litter, and
soil particles. Surfaces of microplastic particles like flakes and pits
suggest as active hydrolysis sites where various microbes colonize.
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653

Table 1
Studies on impacts of MPs on terrestrial plants.

Plant species Plastic type Concentration Exposure Effects Reference

Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) Biodegradable PLA (density of 0.1% w/w and 30 days Reduction in shoot height and biomass, fewer Boots et al.
1.2e1.3 g cm
3), virgin HDPE 0.001% w/w seeds germinated (2019)
(density of 0.95 g cm
3)
microplastic clothing fibers
Garden cress (Lepidium sativum) 4800 nm MP 103 to 107 particles 8 and Accumulated on the root hairs, Bosker
mL
1 24 h germination rate was significantly reduced, et al.
physical blockage of the pores in the seed (2019)
capsule
Oat (Avena sativa), radish (Raphanus sativus) PEIs including PEtOx as an N- 100, 250, 500, 750, 6 Nitrogen released from the tested PEIs and LPEI Rychter
acyl-substituted PEI, LPEI and and 1000 mg kg
1 of months but no harmful effect, harmful to plants only at et al.
BPEI soil dry weight high concentrations (2019)
Broad bean (Vicia faba) PS (5 mm, 100 nm) 10, 50 and 48 h Genotoxic and oxidative damage, decreased Jiang et al.
100 mgL
1 biomass and catalase (CAT) enzymes activity, (2019)
increased activities of superoxide dismutase
(SOD) and peroxidase (POD) enzymes, blocked
cell connections or cell wall pores for transport
of nutrients in roots
Mung bean (Phaseolus radiates), lettuce Macro EPS 60 EPS particles for 28 days Low levels of interaction with the crop- Kim et al.
(Lactuca sativa), and rice (Oryza sativa) 8.3 ± 0.5 mm þ adsorbed Cd each treatment, dependent water absorption rate, did not (2019)
5.313 ± 0.445 Cd induce adverse effects on the crop
mgL
1 in DW
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) LDPE and starch-based 1% (w/w) 2 and 4 Vegetative and reproductive growth affected Qi et al.
biodegradable plastic months (2018)
Grasses (Festuca brevipila, Calamagrostis PFs, length 1.28 ± 0.03 mm and 12 g of microfibers 2 Species dominance seen, Calamagrostis and Lozano
epigejos, and Holcus lanatus) and herbs diameter ~30 mm into 3 kg of soil months Hieracium became dominant, while, Holcus and Rillig
(Achillea millefolium, Plantago lanceolata, decreased in biomass (2020)
Hieracium pilosella, and Potentilla argentea)
Maize (Zea mays L.) PE, PLA 0.1%, 1% and 10% (w/ 1 month PLA decreased maize biomass and chlorophyll Wang
w) content in leaves, PE and PLA caused increase in et al.
pH and DTPA-extractable Cd concentrations in (2020)
soil, altered AMF community structure and
diversity, PLA caused stronger phytotoxicity
Garden cress (Lepidium sativum) PP, PE, PVC 0.02% (w/w) 21 days Occurrence of oxidative burst, PVC proved the Pignattelli
most toxic et al.
(2020)
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., Rosa) PS microbeads (0.2 and 1.0 mm) 50 mg L
1 14 days Adherence, uptake, accumulation, and Li et al.
translocation of MPs in the vascular tissue (2019)
Onion (Allium fistulosum) PA beads 15e20 mm, PFs PFs 0.2% of soil fresh ~2 Significant changes in plant biomass, root traits, de Souza
5000 mm long and 8 mm weight. All the other months tissue elemental composition, soil microbial Machado
diameter, PEHD and PP virgin MPs at 2.0% of soil activity et al.
pellets 2e3 mm spheres fresh weight (2018)

PEIs (polyethylenimines), PEtOx (poly 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), LPEI (linear polyethylenimine) and BPEI (branched polyethylenimine), EPS (expanded polystyrene), LDPE (low-
density polyethylene), PE (polyethylene) and PLA (polylactic acid), AMF (Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi), PP (polypropylene), PE (polyethylene), PVC (polyvinylchloride), PA
(polyamide), PEHD (polyethylene high density), PP (polypropylene), PS (polystyrene).

Thus MPs provide distinct ecological niches for soil bacteria (Chai
et al., 2020). Zhang et al. (2019) investigated the bacterial com-
munity composition on MPs in farmland soils and found Chloroflexi,
Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Gemmatimonadetes bacteria
actively colonizing microplastic particles. According to Zhang et al.
(2019), these bacteria are known as “KeyStone Species” among
bacterial communities and MPs serve as “special microbial accu-
mulators”. Similarly, Huang et al. (2019) also revealed that MPs
provide unique habitats for special microbial communities such as
pathogens and plastic-degrading bacteria which can alter the
ecological functioning of the soil ecosystem and play role in MPs
degradation. Arthrobacter, Streptomyces, Nocardia, Aeromicrobium,
Janibacter, and Mycobacterium were also found to be more prone to
inhabit surfaces of MPs in soil (Yi et al., 2020).
1.4. Chemically rich particles: is that a risk?
Ecotoxicological concerns about MPs have been raised because
they act as both sources and sinks of toxic chemicals in the envi-
ronment. This includes the potential toxicity caused by plastic ad-
ditives and various organic and inorganic chemicals they sorb from
their surroundings (Xu et al., 2019). These potential risks of MPs
toxicity have been a discussion of scientific debate for about a
decade.
To modify the properties of plastics such as color, ultraviolet
resistance, flame retardancy, and flexibility, various organic and
inorganic additives are added to the plastic during its
manufacturing (Cole et al., 2011; Kwon et al., 2017). These additives
may include flame retardant polybrominated diphenyl ether
polymers, acid scavengers, lubricants, light and heat stabilizers,
pigments, slip compounds, antistatic agents, antioxidants, and
plasticizers (Hahladakis et al., 2018). It means plastics already
contain a variety of chemical contaminants before they enter into
the natural environment. Additionally, MPs are considered as car-
riers or vectors of many organic and inorganic chemical contami-
nants in the environment (Bakir et al., 2016; Browne et al., 2007;
Wang et al., 2019c). Few studies have determined the presence of
toxic heavy metals on MPs in the aquatic environments (Brennecke
et al., 2016; Hodson et al., 2017), where they have proved to pose a
threat to aquatic biota (Table 3). Various heavy metals such as Pb,
Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg, Ag, Fe, Sb, and Mn have also been found on MPs in
highly significant concentrations in a variety of habitats (Zhou et al.,
2019). Kim et al. (2019) performed a pot experiment to study the
impact of Cd adsorbed on expanded PS MPs on mung bean, lettuce,
and rice crops. They didn’t find any significant adverse effects on
these crops but the effect on water absorption by roots was mainly

5
 N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Table 2
Studies on impacts of MPs on soil biota.

Organism Plastic type Concentration Exposure Effects References

Redworm (Eisenia andrei) PE 62.5, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 mg kg
1 soil DW 28 days Damages gut and immune system Rodriguez-Seijo
et al. (2017)
Collembolan species (Folsomia PET fibers and urea-formaldehyde particles 5 mg of the 100e200 mm fraction and 2.5 mg 7 days Cause bioturbation in soil, could bioaccumulate these Maaß et al.
candida and Proisotoma minuta) of the <100 mm fraction microplastics pollutants in food web (2017)
Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) PE, 300 mm, and PS  250 mm 1, 5, 10, and 20% DW 14 days Increased activity of peroxidase, catalase, and the level of Wang et al.
lipid peroxidation (2019b)
Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) LDPE 62, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 mg MP kg
1 soil 28 days Oxidative stress Rodríguez-Seijo
DW et al. (2018)
Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) LDPE (5 mm and 0.25 mme1 mm) and CPF 180e200 MPs particles of 5 mm and CPF 9.9 14 days no evidence of MPs or CPF uptake, Rodríguez-Seijo
e50 mg kg
1 soil DW but inhibition of TBARs and AChE et al. (2019)
Earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) PE < 150 mm 7, 28, 45, and 60% soil DW 60 days Growth rate was significantly reduced, mortality increased Lwanga et al.
(2017)
Earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) Microfibres 1.0% w/w 35 days Burrowing and feeding behaviour modulated Prendergast-
Miller et al.
(2019)
Common PVC particles 80 and 250 mm in diameter 1 g microplastics kg
1 soil 56 days Collembolan growth and reproduction were significantly Zhu et al.
soil collembolan (Folsomia inhibited (2018b)
candida)
Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) PS 100 nm and 1300 nm fluorescent particles 100 and 1000 mg of microplastics per kg of 14 days Induced DNA damage in earthworms Jiang et al. (2020)
artificial soil
6

Earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) LDPE 7% by weight Mobilised microplastic transport from the surface into the Yu et al. (2019)
soil

1
Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) LDPE < 400 nm 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 g kg soil DW 28 days Catalase activity and malondialdehyde content increased, Chen et al.
acetylcholine esterase was significantly stimulated (2020b)
Terrestrial snails (Achatina fulica) PET microplastic fibers 0.01e0.71 g kg
1 soil DW 28 days Reduced glutathione peroxidase and total antioxidant Song et al. (2019)
capacity, but elevated malondialdehyde
Soil oligochaete (Enchytraeus PS (0.05e0.1 mm particle size) 10% 7 days Significant reduction in relative abundance of Rhizobiaceae, Zhu et al. (2018a)
crypticus) Isosphaeraceae and Xanthobacteraceae families

1 € pfer et al.
Bacterivorous LDPE (diameter ± standard deviation: 1, 10, and 100 mg MP L ~6 days Reproduction affected Scho
nematode (Caenorhabditis 57 ± 40 mm), PLA and PBAT (40 ± 31 mm) (2020)
elegans)
Soil enzymes (Urease, catalase, and LDPE 2000 fragments kg
1 soil 15 days Urease and catalase activities significantly increased, no Huang et al.
invertase) alteration of invertase activities (2019)
Soil enzymes (urease, membranous PE, fibrous PP and microsphere Microsphere PP were 2 mg g
1, other 2 were e Significantly altered microbial community structure Yi et al. (2020)
dehydrogenase, and alkaline PP 20 mg g
1
phosphatase)
Springtails (Lobella sokamensis) PS microbeads of three different sizes (0.47 8 mgkg
1 2 weeks Disrupts the movement and behaviour of springtails Kim and An

Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653

e0.53 mm, 27e32 mm, and 250e300 mm) (2019)
Springtail (Folsomia candida) PE < 500 mm 0.5% and 1% microplastics (w/w in dry soil) 28 days Change in gut microbial community, inhibited the Ju et al. (2019)
reproduction
Terrestrial worm (Enchytraeus PA (13e18 and 90e150 mm), PVC particles PA 20, 50, 90 and 120 g kg
1, PVC 90 g kg
1 21 days Reproduction was reduced by PA Lahive et al.
crypticus) (106e150 mm) (2019)

PE (Polyethylene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), CPF (chlorpyrifos), AChE (Acetylcholinesterase), TBARS (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances), PLA (polylactide), PBAT (poly butylene
adipate-co-terephthalate), PP (polypropylene), PA (polyamide).
 N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Table 3
Impact of MPs and sorbed organic and inorganic chemicals on terrestrial organisms and plants.

Chemical Plastic type Organism Concentration Exposure Effects References

1
As(V) PVC Earthworm (Metaphire As 40 mg kg dry soil, MPs 28 days Microplastics alleviated the effect of arsenic on the gut microbiota possibly through Wang et al.
As(III) californica) 2000 mg MP kg
1 dry soil binding As(V) and lowering bioavailability of arsenic (2019a)
As (III) PS, PTFE Rice (Oryza sativa) 1.6, 3.2, or 4.0 mg L
1) of As(III), PS 17 days Inhibited growth of rice seedlings, inhibited biomass accumulation by inhibiting root Dong et al.
and PTFE sizeof 10 micro m at 0.04, activity and RuBisCO activity, inhibited photosynthesis (2020)
0.1, or 0.2 g L
1
Cd PP Earthworm (Eisenia foetida) MP 300, 3000, 6000, and 14, 28, Combined exposure to MPs and Cd posed higher negative effect Zhou et al.
9000 mg kg
1 dry soil, 8 mg kg
1 Cd and 42 (2020)
days
Cd Macro EPS Mung bean (Phaseolus radiates), 60 EPS particles for each treatment, 28 days Low levels of interaction with the crop-dependent water absorption rate, did not induce Kim et al.

1
8.3 ± 0.5 mm lettuce (Lactuca sativa), and rice 5.313 ± 0.445 Cd mgL in DW adverse effects on the crop (2019)
(Oryza sativa)
7

Cd PE and PLA Maize (Zea mays L.) 0.1%, 1% and 10% (w/w) MP, 5 mg Cd/ 1 month PLA decreased maize biomass and chlorophyll content in leaves, PE and PLA caused Wang et al.
kg soil increase in soil pH and DTPA-extractable Cd concentrations, altered AMF community (2020)
structure and diversity, PLA produced stronger phytotoxicity
Zn HDPE Earth worm (Lumbricus 0.35% of Zn-bearing microplastic 28 days Increased metal exposure in earthworms, non-significant risk Hodson
terrestris) (236e4505 mg kg
1) et al.
(2017)
CPF LDPE (5 mm Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) 180e200 MPs particles of 5 mm and 14 days No evidence of MPs or CPF uptake, Rodríguez-
and 0.25 mm CPF 9.9e50 mg kg
1 soil DW but inhibition of TBARs and AChE Seijo et al.
e1 mm) (2019)
Sewage sludge HDPE, PET, Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) 10% w/w of plastic, 1% w/w organic 3 or 9 No significant effect on earthworm growth, mortality Judy et al.
organic PVC sludge months (2019)
contaminants

Zn (Zinc), As (Arsenic), Cd (Cadmium), CPF (Chlorpyrifos), PE (Polyethylene), EPS (Expanded Polyethylene), PS (Polystyrene), PP (Polypropylene, HDPE (High Density Polyethylene), PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride), PET (Polyethylene
Tetra Phthalate), PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), PE (Polyethylene), PLA (Polylactic Acid), AMF (Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi).

Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653

N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Fig. 3. MPs in the soil affect plant growth directly or indirectly by impacting the growth of soil-dwelling organisms.
crop dependent. Wang et al. (2020), on the other hand, found se-
vere phytotoxicity in maize caused by Cd spiked PE and PLA MPs in
the soil. However, further research is required to understand the
desorption rate of other heavy metals on a wide range of terrestrial
plants.
Organic chemicals in the soil have a special affinity for MPs
because both of these compounds are hydrophobic. Organic com-
pounds such as antibiotics, DDTs (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-
ethane), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), PAHs (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons), HCHs (hexachlorocyclohexane), PFASs
(poly-fluoroalkyl substances), ethers, and fuel aromatics have been
reported to be found on MPs in aquatic environments (Hüffer et al.,
2018; Wang and Wang, 2018; Zhan et al., 2016). A recent report has
shown that tetracycline antibiotics can make a complex with MPs
in the soil and can develop antibiotic resistance in microbial com-
munities (Ma et al., 2020). But further study is required to under-
stand the occurrence and behaviour of heavy metals and organic
pollutants on MPs.
MPs may increase the exposure of chemicals to soil-dwelling
organisms, microbes, and plants. These organic and inorganic
compounds may adversely impact the growth of earthworms and
other biotas in the soil (Fig. 2b, Table 2). Microorganisms and
earthworms both play a crucial role in enhancing the fertility of the
soil. Besides adding organic matter to the soil, earthworm’s
8
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
activities also increase soil porosity thus plant roots are facilitated
with better gas exchange. Hence, the growth of plants may be
decreased by the reduction in the number and activity of these soil
organisms (Lwanga et al., 2017). However, Rodríguez-Seijo et al.
(2019) reported no evidence of microplastic uptake or accumula-
tion of pesticide in earthworm (Eisenia fetida) in a controlled
experiment. Similarly, it is also possible that MPs could keep all the
toxic contaminants from the plant roots by sorbing them. This can
exert a positive impact on the growth of plants growing in
contaminated soil. But presently our knowledge about this point is
limited. Further research is required to prove whether MPs and
sorbed chemicals are harmful to soil biota and plants or not?
1.5. Effects on nutrient cycling
Plant growth and root development significantly depend upon
the activity of microorganisms in the soil. Microorganisms play a
pivotal role in the cycling of major nutrients through the decom-
position of organic matter. Shifts in major functional processes in
the environment can affect microbial activities (Fig. 3, Table 2). MPs
are largely composed of carbon. Whether it is biodegradable or not,
it will eventually release substantial amounts of carbon in the
environment (Rillig, 2018). The excess carbon can increase the
growth of microbes through the build-up of new cells. But microbes
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
also require other essential nutrients for their rising populations.
Hence, they may quench all those nutrients from the surrounding
soil leaving a little bit or no nutrients for the plants. This could
negatively affect plant growth as a consequence of nutrient
immobilization. Alterations in carbon to nitrogen ratios in the soil
could also be possible (Qi et al., 2020), the results of which could
affect the whole plant community. Zhu et al. (2018b) reported a
significant reduction in the relative abundance of microbial families
Isosphaeraceae, Xanthobacteraceae, and Rhizobiaceae in the poly-
styrene contaminated soil. These are key microbe families involved
in organic matter decomposition and nitrogen cycling. Reproduc-
tion of key characters in the soil food web i.e. nematode (Caeno-
rhabditis elegans) is also found to be severely affected by MPs that
could impact the regulation of soil biogeochemical cycles (Scho € pfer
et al., 2020).
Earthworms play an important role in the mineralization of
nutrients through the active incorporation of detritus into the
mineral soils (Marinissen and De Ruiter, 1993). They significantly
add high concentrations of nutrients such as P, N, K, and Ca to the
soil that is assimilated by plants easily. MPs adversely impact ac-
tivities of earthworms in the soil. A handful of studies have revealed
the adverse effects of MPs on earthworms (Table 2). To better un-
derstand the effects of MPs on soil, biogeochemical processes
should be taken into consideration because MPs are being entered
into the environment at an accelerated rate.
1.6. Thermal properties of microplastics: climate change below the
ground
MPs can increase the temperature of the soil by absorbing solar
radiation. Plastics interact with solar radiation because of their
absorptivity, reflectivity, and transmittance. Because of these
properties, MPs can directly influence the microclimate of the crops
in the root zone in the soil that can affect crop growth and yield.
Higher soil temperatures increase activity and populations of soil
microorganisms, nutrient availability and uptake by roots, and
speedup seedling germination and growth (Farias-Larios et al.,
1996). However, this would be beneficial only in cooler areas. The
heating properties of MPs may also cause severe problems for the
crop plants. Increased temperature in the microclimate in soil may
promote evaporation and water loss. Researchers have already re-
ported that high-zone temperature conditions in the soil created by
plastics could be deleterious to the growth and yield of vegetables
and highly dependent upon the plastic-type, crop species, time of
the year, and geographic location (Díaz-Pe rez and Batal, 2002;
Ibarra-Jimenez and Zermeno-Gonzalez, 2008; Lamont, 2005).
2. Conclusion and future recommendations
MPs are considered as emerging contaminants of concern.
Currently microplastic research has been focused on aquatic habi-
tats for almost a decade, however, terrestrial systems must be the
main reservoirs of MPs because they first receive MPs from main
sources on land. Nevertheless, the impacts of MPs distribution in
terrestrial systems remain largely unexplored. This review dis-
cusses various possibilities by which MPs could impact plants and
soil ecosystems. Only a limited number of studies conducted on
MPs and soils indicate that MPs have the potential to alter physi-
cochemical characteristics of the soil. Which could impact plant
growth and soil biota. Soil biota plays a tremendous role in regu-
lating the fertility of the soil but there is the uncertainty of
knowledge of the interaction between soil biota and MPs. MPs
could also pose an additional threat to plants and soil biota by
releasing toxic contaminants to the environment. Changes in plant
growth and development caused by MPs are species-specific
9
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
(Lozano and Rillig, 2020) and could be big enough to be trans-
lated to plant community composition. These effects on plant
performance could have consequences for primary production and
terrestrial ecosystem functioning. To achieve a more accurate
assessment of the effects of MPs on terrestrial systems and plants,
research priorities and future directions are proposed in the
following:
1. Monitoring programs are urgently required to assess the direct
toxicity of microplastic pollutants in plants in various land set-
tings. Furthermore, the mechanism of uptake, biological effects,
and ecological risk assessment of MPs could be focused in future
research. The increasing concentration of these anthropogenic
particles could shift the baselines of physiological and
ecosystem processes. These anthropogenic stressors may
already be imposing evolutionary pressure on some plant spe-
cies. Therefore there is an urgent need to deal with this topic on
a priority basis, and to provide sound information on the toxicity
of microplastic pollutants on plants.
2. The effect of MPs on soil physicochemical properties further
needed to be studied. Only a few studies have investigated the
physical effects of MPs on the soil. This topic should be
expanded further taking into consideration a broad range of
MPs in different soil types. Biological impacts of soil aggregates
formation by MPs and the effects of MPs have itself on microbial
communities by being enclosed in the soil aggregates should be
taken into consideration. Additionally, it is known though that
MPs affect soil pH and EC, the mechanism of how this change
takes place, and the effects of altered soil pH and EC needed to
be addressed. Because any change in these properties of soil
could directly impact the growth of crop plants.
3. MPs act as vectors and sinks of toxic organic and inorganic
pollutants in their surroundings. Chemicals released by them
could be hazardous to soil-dwelling organisms and plants. Only
a few studies have determined the effects of MPs on soil biota in
the laboratory and controlled conditions. There is a tremendous
lack of knowledge on the effects of MPs on soil biota in the
natural environment. To better understand the role of MPs in
the soil, their detailed effects on soil biota and plants are ur-
gently needed to be studied. This includes their sorption and
desorption mechanisms on MPs of different types and at varying
levels of spatial and temporal scales in the soil. The role of MPs
under the influence of these factors could be a topic for further
research.
4. Microorganisms play a vital role in biogeochemical cycling in
the rhizosphere. Roots of crops contain unique microfloral
communities and their interactions are crucial for crop growth
and yield. The impact of MPs on microbial communities in the
root zone needed to be unveiled. As MPs are recognized to host
unique microorganisms on their surfaces different from the
surrounding environment in aquatic settings. But their role in
the community development of certain microorganisms in the
soil remains unexplored. Also, the effect of MPs in the cycling of
various nutrients needed to be addressed.
5. The thermal properties of MPs in the root zone also needed to be
emphasized. Various crop plants should be studied to explore
the heating effect of different MPs types under various sets of
environmental conditions to unravel the full extent of change in
terrestrial environments triggered by these pollutants.
CRedit author statement
Noreen Khalid: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft.
Muhammad Aqeel: Visualization, Writing - Review & Editing. Ali
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
Noman: Writing - Review & Editing.
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.
References
Alimi, O.S., Farner Budarz, J., Hernandez, L.M., Tufenkji, N., 2018. Microplastics and
nanoplastics in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, and enhanced
contaminant transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1704e1724.
Awet, T., Kohl, Y., Meier, F., Straskraba, S., Grün, A.-L., Ruf, T., et al., 2018. Effects of
polystyrene nanoparticles on the microbiota and functional diversity of en-
zymes in soil. Environ. Sci. Eur. 30, 1e10.
Bakir, A., O’Connor, I.A., Rowland, S.J., Hendriks, A.J., Thompson, R.C., 2016. Relative
importance of microplastics as a pathway for the transfer of hydrophobic
organic chemicals to marine life. Environ. Pollut. 219, 56e65.
Bandow, N., Will, V., Wachtendorf, V., Simon, F.-G., 2017. Contaminant release from
aged microplastic. Environ. Chem. 14, 394e405.
Boots, B., Russell, C.W., Green, D.S., 2019. Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems:
above and below ground. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 11496e11506.
Bosker, T., Bouwman, L.J., Brun, N.R., Behrens, P., Vijver, M.G., 2019. Microplastics
accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of
the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 226, 774e781.
Brennecke, D., Duarte, B., Paiva, F., Caçador, I., Canning-Clode, J., 2016. Microplastics
as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuar.
Coast Shelf Sci. 178, 189e195.
Brodhagen, M., Goldberger, J.R., Hayes, D.G., Inglis, D.A., Marsh, T.L., Miles, C., 2017.
Policy considerations for limiting unintended residual plastic in agricultural
soils. Environ. Sci. Pol. 69, 81e84.
Browne, M.A., 2015. Sources and Pathways of Microplastics to Habitats, Marine
Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham, pp. 229e244.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T., Thompson, R., 2007. Microplastic-an emerging
contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 3,
559e561.
Chae, Y., An, Y.J., 2020. Nanoplastic ingestion induces behavioral disorders in
terrestrial snails: trophic transfer effects via vascular plants. Environ. Sci. J.
Integr. Environ. Res.: Nano 7 (3), 975e983.
Chai, B., Li, X., Liu, H., Lu, G., Dang, Z., Yin, H., 2020. Bacterial communities on soil
microplastic at Guiyu, an E-Waste dismantling zone of China. Ecotoxicol. En-
viron. Saf. 195, 110521.
Chen, H., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Peng, Y., Xiao, L., 2020a. Mixing effect of polylactic acid
microplastic and straw residue on soil property and ecological function. Che-
mosphere 243, 125271.
Chen, Y., Liu, X., Leng, Y., Wang, J., 2020b. Defense responses in earthworms (Eisenia
fetida) exposed to low-density polyethylene microplastics in soils. Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 187, 109788.
Cooper, D.A., Corcoran, P.L., 2010. Effects of mechanical and chemical processes on
the degradation of plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai. Hawaii. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 60, 650e654.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., 2011. Microplastics as contami-
nants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 2588e2597.
Corradini, F., Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E., Geissen, V., 2019.
Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge
disposal. Sci. Total Environ. 671, 411e420.
David, J., Steinmetz, Z., Kucerik, J.I., Schaumann, G.E., 2018. Quantitative analysis of
poly (ethylene terephthalate) microplastics in soil via thermogravimetryemass
spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 90, 8793e8799.
De Falco, F., Gullo, M.P., Gentile, G., Di Pace, E., Cocca, M., Gelabert, L., et al., 2018.
Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of syn-
thetic fabrics. Environ. Pollut. 236, 916e925.
de Souza Machado, A.A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., Rillig, M.C., 2018. Micro-
plastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol. 24,
1405e1416.
Dehghani, S., Moore, F., Akhbarizadeh, R., 2017. Microplastic pollution in deposited
urban dust, Tehran metropolis. Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 20360e20371.
Díaz-Pe rez, J.C., Batal, K.D., 2002. Colored plastic film mulches affect tomato growth
and yield via changes in root-zone temperature. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 127,
127e135.
Dong, Y., Gao, M., Song, Z., Qiu, W., 2020. Microplastic particles increase arsenic
toxicity to rice seedlings. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113892.
Duis, K., Coors, A., 2016. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment:
sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. En-
viron. Sci. Eur. 28, 2.
Farias-Larios, J., Orozco, M., Guzman, S., Perez, J., 1996. Effect of plastic mulch,
floating Rowcovers, and microtunnels on insect populations and yield of
muskmelon. Hortscience 31, 677b-677.
Fei, Y., Huang, S., Zhang, H., Tong, Y., Wen, D., Xia, X., et al., 2020. Response of soil
enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of micro-
plastics in an acid cropped soil. Sci. Total Environ. 707, 135634.
̌ ́
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C., 2017. Interactions of microplastic debris
throughout the marine ecosystem. Nat. Eco. Evol. 1, 1e8.
Hahladakis, J.N., Velis, C.A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., Purnell, P., 2018. An overview of
chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and environ-
mental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard Mater. 344,
179e199.
Hodson, M.E., Duffus-Hodson, C.A., Clark, A., Prendergast-Miller, M.T., Thorpe, K.L.,
2017. Plastic bag derived-microplastics as a vector for metal exposure in
terrestrial invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 4714e4721.
Horton, A.A., Dixon, S.J., 2018. Microplastics: an introduction to environmental
transport processes. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 5, e1268.
Huang, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, M., Jia, W., Qin, X., 2019. LDPE microplastic films
alter microbial community composition and enzymatic activities in soil. Envi-
ron. Pollut. 254, 112983.
Hüffer, T., Metzelder, F., Sigmund, G., Slawek, S., Schmidt, T.C., Hofmann, T., 2019.
Polyethylene microplastics influence the transport of organic contaminants in
soil. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 242e247.
Hüffer, T., Weniger, A.-K., Hofmann, T., 2018. Sorption of organic compounds by
aged polystyrene microplastic particles. Environ. Pollut. 236, 218e225.
Ibarra-Jimenez, L., Zermeno-Gonzalez, A., 2008. Lozano-Del Rio J, Cedeno-Rubalcava
B, Ortega-Ortiz H. Changes in soil temperature, yield and photosynthetic
response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under coloured plastic mulch.
Agrochimica 52, 263e272.
Jiang, X., Chang, Y., Zhang, T., Qiao, Y., Klobu car, G., Li, M., 2020. Toxicological effects
of polystyrene microplastics on earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environ. Pollut.
259, 113896.
Jiang, X., Chen, H., Liao, Y., Ye, Z., Li, M., Klobu car, G., 2019. Ecotoxicity and geno-
toxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ. Pollut.
250, 831e838.
Ju, H., Zhu, D., Qiao, M., 2019. Effects of polyethylene microplastics on the gut mi-
crobial community, reproduction and avoidance behaviors of the soil springtail,
Folsomia candida. Environ. Pollut. 247, 890e897.
Judy, J.D., Williams, M., Gregg, A., Oliver, D., Kumar, A., Kookana, R., et al., 2019.
Microplastics in municipal mixed-waste organic outputs induce minimal short
to long-term toxicity in key terrestrial biota. Environ. Pollut. 252, 522e531.
Kim, S.W., An, Y.-J., 2019. Soil microplastics inhibit the movement of springtail
species. Environ. Int. 126, 699e706.
Kim, S.W., Kim, D., Chae, Y., Kim, D., An, Y.-J., 2019. Crop-dependent changes in
water absorption of expanded polystyrene in soil environments. Chemosphere
219, 345e350.
Kwon, J.H., Chang, S., Hong, S.H., Shim, W.J., 2017. Microplastics as a vector of hy-
drophobic contaminants: importance of hydrophobic additives. Integrated En-
viron. Assess. Manag. 13, 494e499.
Lahive, E., Walton, A., Horton, A.A., Spurgeon, D.J., Svendsen, C., 2019. Microplastic
particles reduce reproduction in the terrestrial worm Enchytraeus crypticus in a
soil exposure. Environ. Pollut. 255, 113174.
Lamont, W.J., 2005. Plastics: modifying the microclimate for the production of
vegetable crops. HortTechnology 15, 477e481.
Lehmann, A., Fitschen, K., Rillig, M.C., 2019. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the
effect of microplastic on soil aggregation. Soil Systems 3, 21.
Li, L., Luo, Y., Peijnenburg, W.J., Li, R., Yang, J., Zhou, Q., 2020. Confocal measurement
of microplastics uptake by plants. Methods (Orlando) 7, 100750.
Li, L., Zhou, Q., Yin, N., Tu, C., Luo, Y., 2019. Uptake and accumulation of microplastics
in an edible plant. Chin. Sci. Bull. 64, 928e934.
Li, W.C., Tse, H., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of
sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 333e349.
Li, X., Chen, L., Mei, Q., Dong, B., Dai, X., Ding, G., et al., 2018. Microplastics in sewage
sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Res. 142, 75e85.
Liu, H., Yang, X., Liu, G., Liang, C., Xue, S., Chen, H., et al., 2017. Response of soil
dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess soil. Che-
mosphere 185, 907e917.
Liu, M., Lu, S., Song, Y., Lei, L., Hu, J., Lv, W., et al., 2018. Microplastic and mesoplastic
pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut 242,
855e862.
Lozano, Y.M., Rillig, M.C., 2020. Effects of microplastic fibers and drought on plant
communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (10), 6166e6173. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.0c01051.
Lwanga, E.H., Gertsen, H., Gooren, H., Peters, P., Sala nki, T., van der Ploeg, M., et al.,
2017. Incorporation of microplastics from litter into burrows of Lumbricus ter-
restris. Environ. Pollut. 220, 523e531.
Ma, J., Sheng, G.D., O’Connor, P., 2020. Microplastics combined with tetracycline in
soils facilitate the formation of antibiotic resistance in the Enchytraeus crypticus
microbiome. Environ. Pollut. 114689.
Maaß, S., Daphi, D., Lehmann, A., Rillig, M.C., 2017. Transport of microplastics by two
collembolan species. Environ. Pollut. 225, 456e459.
Mai, L., Bao, L.-J., Wong, C.S., Zeng, E.Y., 2018. Microplastics in the Terrestrial
Environment. Microplastic Contamination in Aquatic Environments. Elsevier,
pp. 365e378.
Marinissen, J., De Ruiter, P., 1993. Contribution of earthworms to carbon and ni-
trogen cycling in agro-ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 47, 59e74.
Napper, I.E., Bakir, A., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., 2015. Characterisation, quantity
and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 99, 178e185.
O’Connor, D., Pan, S., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Jin, Y., Wu, W.-M., et al., 2019. Microplastics
undergo accelerated vertical migration in sand soil due to small size and wet-
10
N. Khalid, M. Aqeel and A. Noman
dry cycles. Environ. Pollut. 249, 527e534.
Pignattelli, S., Broccoli, A., Renzi, M., 2020. Physiological responses of garden cress
(L. sativum) to different types of microplastics. Sci. Total Environ 138609.
Powell, J.R., Rillig, M.C., 2018. Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and
ecosystem function. New Phytol. 220, 1059e1075.
Prendergast-Miller, M.T., Katsiamides, A., Abbass, M., Sturzenbaum, S.R.,
Thorpe, K.L., Hodson, M.E., 2019. Polyester-derived microfibre impacts on the
soil-dwelling earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. 251, 453e459.
Qi, Y., Ossowicki, A., Yang, X., Lwanga, E.H., Dini-Andreote, F., Geissen, V., et al., 2020.
Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat rhizosphere and soil properties.
J. Hazard Mater. 387, 121711.
Qi, Y., Yang, X., Pelaez, A.M., Lwanga, E.H., Beriot, N., Gertsen, H., 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, 1048e1056.
Rillig, M.C., 2012. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environ. Sci.
Tchnol. 46 (12), 6453e6454.
Rillig, M.C., 2018. Microplastic disguising as soil carbon storage. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 52 (11), 6079e6080.
Rillig, M.C., Bonkowski, M., 2018. Microplastic and soil protists: a call for research.
Environ. Pollut. 241, 1128e1131.
Rillig, M.C., Ryo, M., Lehmann, A., Aguilar-Trigueros, C.A., Buchert, S., Wulf, A., et al.,
2019. The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and
microbial biodiversity. Science 366, 886e890.
Rillig, M.C., Ziersch, L., Hempel, S., 2017. Microplastic transport in soil by earth-
worms. Sci. For. Rep. 7.
Rodríguez-Seijo, A., da Costa, J.P., Rocha-Santos, T., Duarte, A.C., Pereira, R., 2018.
Oxidative stress, energy metabolism and molecular responses of earthworms
(Eisenia fetida) exposed to low-density polyethylene microplastics. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 25, 33599e33610.
Rodriguez-Seijo, A., Lourenço, J., Rocha-Santos, T., Da Costa, J., Duarte, A., Vala, H.,
et al., 2017. Histopathological and molecular effects of microplastics in Eisenia
andrei Bouche . Environ. Pollut. 220, 495e503.
Rodríguez-Seijo, A., Santos, B., da Silva, E.F., Cachada, A., Pereira, R., 2019. Low-
density polyethylene microplastics as a source and carriers of agrochemicals to
soil and earthworms. Environ. Chem. 16, 8e17.
Rousk, J., Brookes, P.C., Bååth, E., 2009. Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and
bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 75, 1589e1596.
Rychter, P., Christova, D., Lewicka, K., Rogacz, D., 2019. Ecotoxicological impact of
selected polyethylenimines toward their potential application as nitrogen fer-
tilizers with prolonged activity. Chemosphere 226, 800e808.
Scheurer, M., Bigalke, M., 2018. Microplastics in Swiss floodplain soils. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 52 (6), 3591e3598.
Scho€ pfer, L., Menzel, R., Schnepf, U., Ruess, L., Marhan, S., Brümmer, F., et al., 2020.
Microplastics effects on reproduction and body length of the soil-dwelling
nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Front. Envrion. Sci. 8, 41.
Song, Y., Cao, C., Qiu, R., Hu, J., Liu, M., Lu, S., et al., 2019. Uptake and adverse effects
of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial snails (Achatina
fulica) after soil exposure. Environ. Pollut. 250, 447e455.
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C., Ni, B.-J., 2019. Microplastics in
wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and removal. Water Res.
152, 21e37.
Su, L., Nan, B., Craig, N.J., Pettigrove, V., 2020. Temporal and spatial variations of
microplastics in roadside dust from rural and urban Victoria, Australia: impli-
cations for diffuse pollution. Chemosphere 126567.
11
Environmental Pollution 267 (2020) 115653
Wan, Y., Wu, C., Xue, Q., Hui, X., 2019. Effects of plastic contamination on water
evaporation and desiccation cracking in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 654, 576e582.
Wang, F., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, S., Sun, Y., 2020. Interactions of microplastics
and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities
in an agricultural soil. Chemosphere 126791.
Wang, H.-T., Ding, J., Xiong, C., Zhu, D., Li, G., Jia, X.-Y., et al., 2019a. Exposure to
microplastics lowers arsenic accumulation and alters gut bacterial communities
of earthworm Metaphire californica. Environ. Pollut. 251, 110e116.
Wang, J., Coffin, S., Sun, C., Schlenk, D., Gan, J., 2019b. Negligible effects of micro-
plastics on animal fitness and HOC bioaccumulation in earthworm Eisenia fetida
in soil. Environ. Pollut. 249, 776e784.
Wang, J., Liu, X., Li, Y., Powell, T., Wang, X., Wang, G., Zhang, P., 2019c. Microplastics
as contaminants in the soil environment: a mini-review. Sci. Total Environ. 691,
848e857.
Wang, W., Wang, J., 2018. Comparative evaluation of sorption kinetics and iso-
therms of pyrene onto microplastics. Chemosphere 193, 567e573.
Watteau, F., Dignac, M.-F., Bouchard, A., Revallier, A., Houot, S., 2018. Microplastic
detection in soil amended with municipal solid waste composts as revealed by
transmission electronic microscopy and pyrolysis/GC/MS. Front. Sustain. Food
Syst 2, 81.
Xu, B., Liu, F., Cryder, Z., Huang, D., Lu, Z., He, Y., Wang, H., Lu, Z., Brookes, P.C.,
Tang, C., Gan, J., 2019. Microplastics in the soil environment: occurrence, risks,
interactions and fateeA review. Critical Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1e48.
Yang, X., Bento, C.P., Chen, H., Zhang, H., Xue, S., Lwanga, E.H., et al., 2018. Influence
of microplastic addition on glyphosate decay and soil microbial activities in
Chinese loess soil. Environ. Pollut. 242, 338e347.
Yi, M., Zhou, S., Zhang, L., Ding, S., 2020. The effects of three different microplastics
on enzyme activities and microbial communities in soil. Water Environ. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1327.
Yu, M., Van Der Ploeg, M., Lwanga, E.H., Yang, X., Zhang, S., Ma, X., et al., 2019.
Leaching of microplastics by preferential flow in earthworm (Lumbricus ter-
restris) burrows. Environ. Chem. 16, 31e40.
Zhan, Z., Wang, J., Peng, J., Xie, Q., Huang, Y., Gao, Y., 2016. Sorption of 3, 30 , 4, 40 -
tetrachlorobiphenyl by microplastics: a case study of polypropylene. Mar. Pol-
lut. Bull. 110, 559e563.
Zhang, G., Liu, Y., 2018. The distribution of microplastics in soil aggregate fractions
in southwestern. China. Sci. Total Environ 642, 12e20.
Zhang, M., Zhao, Y., Qin, X., Jia, W., Chai, L., Huang, M., et al., 2019. Microplastics
from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. Sci. Total
Environ. 688, 470e478.
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2019. Characterization of microplastics and the association
of heavy metals with microplastics in suburban soil of central. China. Sci. Total
Environ 694, 133798.
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2020. Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics and cad-
mium on the earthworm Eisenia foetida. J. Hazard Mater. 392, 122273.
Zhu, B.-K., Fang, Y.-M., Zhu, D., Christie, P., Ke, X., Zhu, Y.-G., 2018a. Exposure to
nanoplastics disturbs the gut microbiome in the soil oligochaete Enchytraeus
crypticus. Environ. Pollut. 239, 408e415.
Zhu, D., Bi, Q.-F., Xiang, Q., Chen, Q.-L., Christie, P., Ke, X., et al., 2018b. Trophic
predator-prey relationships promote transport of microplastics compared with
the single Hypoaspis aculeifer and Folsomia candida. Environ. Pollut. 235,
150e154.
Zhu, D., Chen, Q.-L., An, X.-L., Yang, X.-R., Christie, P., Ke, X., et al., 2018c. Exposure of
soil collembolans to microplastics perturbs their gut microbiota and alters their
isotopic composition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 116, 302e310.