Search
2023 Volume 3
Article Contents
REVIEW   Open Access    

Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops

  • # These authors contributed equally: Lulu Sun, Xiaoyun Wang, Hanqing Zhao

More Information
  • The distribution of micro/nanoplastics in soil and water environments is a potential agricultural threat. Since micro/nanoplastics are a new and highly concerning contaminant, in recent years research on micro/nanoplastics has rapidly increased. Here, we review recent scientific papers on micro/nanoplastics in agricultural systems, including micro/nanoplastic sources, microplastic adsorption, nanoplastic absorption, micro/nanoplastic effects on crops, and micro/nanoplastic detection and removal methods. There is very little information available concerning nanoplastic transport in planta; therefore, more research is needed to gain a better understanding of how micro/nanoplastic particles are transported. We also discuss the accumulation of micro/nanoplastics in crops as a potential threat to food safety. Finally, we propose future micro/nanoplastic research directions.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Dioses-Salinas DC, Pizarro-Ortega CI, De-la-Torre GE. 2020. A methodological approach of the current literature on microplastic contamination in terrestrial environments: current knowledge and baseline considerations. Science of The Total Environment 730:139164

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139164

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Jusko TA, Oktapodas M, Palkovičová Murinová Lu, Babinská K, Babjaková J, et al. 2016. Demographic, reproductive, and dietary determinants of perfluorooctane sulfonic (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) concentrations in human colostrum. Environmental science & technology 50:7152−62

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00195

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Kim YN, Yoon JH, Kim KHJ. 2021. Microplastic contamination in soil environment – a review. Soil Science Annual 71:300−8

    doi: 10.37501/soilsa/131646

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Guo J, Huang X, Xiang L, Wang Y, Li Y, et al. 2020. Source, migration and toxicology of microplastics in soil. Environment International 137:105263

    doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105263

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Huang W, Song B, Liang J, Niu Q, Zeng G, et al. 2021. Microplastics and associated contaminants in the aquatic environment: a review on their ecotoxicological effects, trophic transfer, and potential impacts to human health. Journal of Hazardous Materials 405:124187

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124187

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Choong WS, Hadibarata T, Tang DKH. 2021. Abundance and distribution of microplastics in the water and riverbank sediment in Malaysia – a review. Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry 11:11700−12

    doi: 10.33263/briac114.1170011712

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Horton AA, Walton A, Spurgeon DJ, Lahive E, Svendsen C. 2017. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of The Total Environment 586:127−41

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Burn S, Hoang M, Zarzo D, Olewniak F, Campos E, et al. 2015. Desalination techniques — a review of the opportunities for desalination in agriculture. Desalination 364:2−16

    doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.041

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Lusher A, Hollman P, Mendoza-Hill J. 2017. Microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture. Status of knowledge on their occurrence and implications for aquatic organisms and food safety. FAOfisheries and aquaculture technical paper 615. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 147 pp. https://www.fao.org/3/i7677e/i7677e.pdf

    [10]

    Chen Y, Leng Y, Liu X, Wang J. 2020. Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of suburb Wuhan, central China. Environmental Pollution 257:113449

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113449

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Maity S, Guchhait R, Sarkar MB, Pramanick K. 2022. Occurrence and distribution of micro/nanoplastics in soils and their phytotoxic effects: a review. Plant, Cell & Environment 45:1011−28

    doi: 10.1111/pce.14248

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Dantas DV, Ribeiro CIR, de C. A. Frischknecht C, Machado R, Farias EGG. 2019. Ingestion of plastic fragments by the Guri sea catfish Genidens genidens (Cuvier, 1829) in a subtropical coastal estuarine system. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26:8344−51

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04244-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    de Sá LC, Oliveira M, Ribeiro F, Rocha TL, Futter MN. 2018. Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: what do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Science of the total environment 645:1029−39

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Galloway TS, Cole M, Lewis C. 2017. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:0116

    doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0116

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Guzzetti E, Sureda A, Tejada S, Faggio C. 2018. Microplastic in marine organism: environmental and toxicological effects. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 64:164−71

    doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2018.10.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Beieler RW. 2013. Pipelines for water conveyance and drainage. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 108 pp. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784412749

    [17]

    Katsumi N, Kusube T, Nagao S, Okochi H. 2021. Accumulation of microcapsules derived from coated fertilizer in paddy fields. Chemosphere 267:129185

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129185

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Lwanga EH, Beriot N, Corradini F, Silva V, Yang X, et al. 2022. Review of microplastic sources, transport pathways and correlations with other soil stressors: a journey from agricultural sites into the environment. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 9:20

    doi: 10.1186/s40538-021-00278-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Rillig MC. 2012. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil? Environmental Science & Technology 46:6453−54

    doi: 10.1021/es302011r

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Rillig MC, de Souza Machado AA, Lehmann A, Klümper U. 2018. Evolutionary implications of microplastics for soil biota. Environmental Chemistry 16:3−7

    doi: 10.1071/EN18118

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Zhou B, Wang J, Zhang H, Shi H, Fei Y, et al. 2020. Microplastics in agricultural soils on the coastal plain of Hangzhou Bay, east China: multiple sources other than plastic mulching film. Journal of Hazardous Materials 388:121814

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121814

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Corradini F, Meza P, Eguiluz R, Casado F, Huerta-Lwanga E, et al. 2019. Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Science of The Total Environment 671:411−20

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Zhang S, Han B, Sun Y, Wang F. 2020. Microplastics influence the adsorption and desorption characteristics of Cd in an agricultural soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials 388:121775

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121775

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Yang T, Luo J, Nowack B. 2021. Characterization of nanoplastics, fibrils, and microplastics released during washing and abrasion of polyester textiles. Environmental Science & Technology 55:15873−81

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04826

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Yang J, Li R, Zhou Q, Li L, Li Y, et al. 2021. Abundance and morphology of microplastics in an agricultural soil following long-term repeated application of pig manure. Environmental Pollution 272:116028

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116028

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    van den Berg P, Huerta-Lwanga E, Corradini F, Geissen V. 2020. Sewage sludge application as a vehicle for microplastics in eastern Spanish agricultural soils. Environmental Pollution 261:114198

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114198

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Zhang L, Xie Y, Liu J, Zhong S, Qian Y, et al. 2020. An overlooked entry pathway of microplastics into agricultural soils from application of sludge-based fertilizers. Environmental Science & Technology 54:4248−55

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07905

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Crossman J, Hurley RR, Futter M, Nizzetto L. 2020. Transfer and transport of microplastics from biosolids to agricultural soils and the wider environment. Science of The Total Environment 724:138334

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138334

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Shruti V, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. 2019. Bioplastics: missing link in the era of Microplastics. Science of the Total Environment 697:134139

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134139

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Mani T, Hauk A, Walter U, Burkhardt-Holm P. 2016. Microplastics profile along the Rhine River. Scientific Reports 5:17988

    doi: 10.1038/srep17988

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Zhang K, Gong W, Lv J, Xiong X, Wu C. 2015. Accumulation of floating microplastics behind the Three Gorges Dam. Environmental Pollution 204:117−23

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.023

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Leslie HA, Brandsma SH, van Velzen MJM, Vethaak AD. 2017. Microplastics en route: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Sea sediments and biota. Environment International 101:133−42

    doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.018

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Silva GC, Galleguillos Madrid FM, Hernández D, Pincheira G, Peralta AK, et al. 2021. Microplastics and their effect in horticultural crops: food safety and plant stress. Agronomy 11:1528

    doi: 10.3390/agronomy11081528

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Free CM, Jensen OP, Mason SA, Eriksen M, Williamson NJ, et al. 2014. High-levels of microplastic pollution in a large, remote, mountain lake. Marine Pollution Bulletin 85:156−63

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Su L, Xue Y, Li L, Yang D, Kolandhasamy P, et al. 2016. Microplastics in Taihu Lake, China. Environmental Pollution 216:711−19

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.036

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Enfrin M, Lee J, Le-Clech P, Dumée LF. 2020. Kinetic and mechanistic aspects of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by nano-and microplastics. Journal of Membrane Science 601:117890

    doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2020.117890

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Hidalgo-Ruz V, Gutow L, Thompson RC, Thiel M. 2012. Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environmental Science & Technology 46:3060−75

    doi: 10.1021/es2031505

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Hanvey JS, Lewis PJ, Lavers JL, Crosbie ND, Pozo K, et al. 2017. A review of analytical techniques for quantifying microplastics in sediments. Analytical Methods 9:1369−83

    doi: 10.1039/C6AY02707E

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Sarau G, Kling L, Oßmann BE, Unger AK, Vogler F, Christiansen SH. 2020. Correlative microscopy and spectroscopy workflow for microplastics. Applied Spectroscopy 74:1155−60

    doi: 10.1177/0003702820916250

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Wang Z, Wagner J, Ghosal S, Bedi G, Wall S. 2017. SEM/EDS and optical microscopy analyses of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish guts. Science of The Total Environment 603-604:616−26

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.047

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Sun W, Jin C, Bai Y, Ma R, Deng Y, et al. 2022. Blood uptake and urine excretion of nano- and micro-plastics after a single exposure. Science of The Total Environment 848:157639

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157639

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Lin J, Xu X, Yue B, Li Y, Zhou Q, et al. 2021. A novel thermoanalytical method for quantifying microplastics in marine sediments. Science of The Total Environment 760:144316

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144316

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Ly NH, Kim MK, Lee H, Lee C, Son SJ, et al. 2022. Advanced microplastic monitoring using Raman spectroscopy with a combination of nanostructure-based substrates. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry 12:865−88

    doi: 10.1007/s40097-022-00506-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Sarfo DK, Izake EL, O'Mullane AP, Ayoko GA. 2019. Fabrication of nanostructured SERS substrates on conductive solid platforms for environmental application. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49:1294−329

    doi: 10.1080/10643389.2019.1576468

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Brandt J, Mattsson K, Hassellöv M. 2021. Deep learning for reconstructing low-quality FTIR and Raman Spectra─a case study in microplastic analyses. Analytical Chemistry 93:16360−68

    doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c02618

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Paul A, Wander L, Becker R, Goedecke C, Braun U. 2019. High-throughput NIR spectroscopic (NIRS) detection of microplastics in soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 26:7364−74

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2180-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Vidal C, Pasquini C. 2021. A comprehensive and fast microplastics identification based on near-infrared hyperspectral imaging (HSI-NIR) and chemometrics. Environmental Pollution 285:117251

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117251

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Huang H, Sun Z, Zhang Z, Chen X, Di Y, et al. 2021. The identification of spherical engineered microplastics and microalgae by micro-hyperspectral imaging. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 107:764−69

    doi: 10.1007/s00128-021-03131-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Hermabessiere L, Himber C, Boricaud B, Kazour M, Amara R, et al. 2018. Optimization, performance, and application of a pyrolysis-GC/MS method for the identification of microplastics. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 410:6663−76

    doi: 10.1007/s00216-018-1279-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50]

    Vilakati B, Sivasankar V, Nyoni H, Mamba BB, Omine K, et al. 2021. The Py - GC-TOF-MS analysis and characterization of microplastics (MPs) in a wastewater treatment plant in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 222:112478

    doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112478

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Liu Y, Li R, Yu J, Ni F, Sheng Y, et al. 2021. Separation and identification of microplastics in marine organisms by TGA-FTIR-GC/MS: a case study of mussels from coastal China. Environmental Pollution 272:115946

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115946

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    Cutroneo L, Reboa A, Besio G, Borgogno F, Canesi L, et al. 2020. Microplastics in seawater: sampling strategies, laboratory methodologies, and identification techniques applied to port environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 27:8938−52

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-07783-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Shan J, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Liu L, Wu F, et al. 2019. Simple and rapid detection of microplastics in seawater using hyperspectral imaging technology. Analytica Chimica Acta 1050:161−68

    doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.11.008

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Fu Z, Chen G, Wang W, Wang J. 2020. Microplastic pollution research methodologies, abundance, characteristics and risk assessments for aquatic biota in China. Environmental Pollution 266:115098

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115098

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Kumar R, Sharma P, Bandyopadhyay S. 2021. Evidence of microplastics in wetlands: extraction and quantification in freshwater and coastal ecosystems. Journal of Water Process Engineering 40:101966

    doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.101966

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Sun J, Dai X, Wang Q, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ni B. 2019. Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Detection, occurrence and removal. Water Research 152:21−37

    doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.050

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Li Q, Wu J, Zhao X, Gu X, Ji R. 2019. Separation and identification of microplastics from soil and sewage sludge. Environmental Pollution 254:113076

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113076

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Castelvetro V, Corti A, Biale G, Ceccarini A, Degano I, et al. 2021. New methodologies for the detection, identification, and quantification of microplastics and their environmental degradation by-products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 28:46764−80

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12466-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Lv L, Yan X, Feng L, Jiang S, Lu Z, et al. 2021. Challenge for the detection of microplastics in the environment. Water Environment Research 93:5−15

    doi: 10.1002/wer.1281

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Deng Y, Zhang Y, Lemos B, Ren H. 2017. Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure. Scientific Reports 7:46687

    doi: 10.1038/srep46687

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Braun T, Ehrlich L, Henrich W, Koeppel S, Lomako I, et al. 2021. Detection of microplastic in human placenta and meconium in a clinical setting. Pharmaceutics 13:921

    doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13070921

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62]

    Syakti AD, Hidayati NV, Jaya YV, Siregar SH, Yude R, et al. 2018. Simultaneous grading of microplastic size sampling in the Small Islands of Bintan water, Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 137:593−600

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63]

    Baini M, Fossi MC, Galli M, Caliani I, Campani T, et al. 2018. Abundance and characterization of microplastics in the coastal waters of Tuscany (Italy): the application of the MSFD monitoring protocol in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133:543−52

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.06.016

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64]

    Pan Z, Guo H, Chen H, Wang S, Sun X, et al. 2019. Microplastics in the Northwestern Pacific: abundance, distribution, and characteristics. Science of The Total Environment 650:1913−22

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.244

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [65]

    Zobkov MB, Esiukova EE, Zyubin AY, Samusev IG. 2019. Microplastic content variation in water column: the observations employing a novel sampling tool in stratified Baltic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 138:193−205

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.047

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66]

    Bagaev A, Khatmullina L, Chubarenko I. 2018. Anthropogenic microlitter in the Baltic Sea water column. Marine Pollution Bulletin 129:918−23

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.049

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67]

    Cai M, He H, Liu M, Li S, Tang G, et al. 2018. Lost but can't be neglected: huge quantities of small microplastics hide in the South China Sea. Science of The Total Environment 633:1206−16

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.197

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68]

    Zhu J, Zhang Q, Li Y, Tan S, Kang Z, et al. 2019. Microplastic pollution in the Maowei Sea, a typical mariculture bay of China. Science of The Total Environment 658:62−68

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.192

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69]

    Saliu F, Montano S, Garavaglia MG, Lasagni M, Seveso D, et al. 2018. Microplastic and charred microplastic in the Faafu Atoll, Maldives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 136:464−71

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.023

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70]

    Li J, Yang D, Li L, Jabeen K, Shi H. 2015. Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China. Environmental Pollution 207:190−95

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.09.018

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71]

    Piehl S, Leibner A, Löder MGJ, Dris R, Bogner C, et al. 2018. Identification and quantification of macro- and microplastics on an agricultural farmland. Scientific Reports 8:17950

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36172-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72]

    Liu M, Lu S, Song Y, Lei L, Hu J, et al. 2018. Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environmental Pollution 242:855−62

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.051

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73]

    Azeem I, Adeel M, Ahmad MA, Shakoor N, Jiangcuo GD, et al. 2021. Uptake and accumulation of nano/microplastics in plants: a critical review. Nanomaterials 11:2935

    doi: 10.3390/nano11112935

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74]

    Li C, Gao Y, He S, Chi H, Li Z, et al. 2021. Quantification of nanoplastic uptake in cucumber plants by pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 8:633−38

    doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00369

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [75]

    Lozano YM, Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Onandia G, Maaß S, Zhao T, et al. 2021. Effects of microplastics and drought on soil ecosystem functions and multifunctionality. Journal of Applied Ecology 58:988−96

    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13839

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [76]

    Lozano YM, Lehnert T, Linck LT, Lehmann A, Rillig MC. 2021. Microplastic shape, polymer type, and concentration affect soil properties and plant biomass. Frontiers in Plant Science 12:616645

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.616645

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [77]

    Lian J, Wu J, Xiong H, Zeb A, Yang T, et al. 2020. Impact of polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Hazardous Materials 385:121620

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121620

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [78]

    Li L, Luo Y, Peijnenburg WJGM, Li R, Yang J, et al. 2020. Confocal measurement of microplastics uptake by plants. MethodsX 7:100750

    doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2019.11.023

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [79]

    Liu Y, Guo R, Zhang S, Sun Y, Wang F. 2022. Uptake and translocation of nano/microplastics by rice seedlings: evidence from a hydroponic experiment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 421:126700

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126700

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [80]

    Dong Y, Gao M, Song Z, Qiu W. 2020. Microplastic particles increase arsenic toxicity to rice seedlings. Environmental Pollution 259:113892

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113892

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [81]

    Li L, Zhou Q, Yin N, Tu C, Luo Y. 2019. Uptake and accumulation of microplastics in an edible plant. Chinese Science Bulletin 64:928−34

    doi: 10.1360/N972018-00845

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [82]

    Sun X, Yuan X, Jia Y, Feng L, Zhu F, et al. 2020. Differentially charged nanoplastics demonstrate distinct accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Nanotechnology 15:755−60

    doi: 10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [83]

    Li L, Luo Y, Li R, Zhou Q, Peijnenburg WJGM, et al. 2020. Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nature Sustainability 3:929−37

    doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0567-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [84]

    Luo Y, Li L, Feng Y, Li R, Yang J, et al. 2022. Quantitative tracing of uptake and transport of submicrometre plastics in crop plants using lanthanide chelates as a dual-functional tracer. Nature Nanotechnology 17:424−31

    doi: 10.1038/s41565-021-01063-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [85]

    Yin L, Wen X, Huang D, Du C, Deng R, et al. 2021. Interactions between microplastics/nanoplastics and vascular plants. Environmental Pollution 290:117999

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117999

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [86]

    Battisti C, Fanelli G, Filpa A, Cerfolli F. 2020. Giant Reed (Arundo donax) wrack as sink for plastic beach litter: first evidence and implication. Marine Pollution Bulletin 155:111179

    doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111179

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [87]

    Taylor SE, Pearce CI, Sanguinet KA, Hu D, Chrisler WB, et al. 2020. Polystyrene nano- and microplastic accumulation at Arabidopsis and wheat root cap cells, but no evidence for uptake into roots. Environmental Science: Nano 7:1942−53

    doi: 10.1039/D0EN00309C

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [88]

    Chen G, Feng Q, Wang J. 2020. Mini-review of microplastics in the atmosphere and their risks to humans. Science of the Total Environment 703:135504

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135504

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [89]

    Liu K, Wang X, Song Z, Wei N, Li D. 2020. Terrestrial plants as a potential temporary sink of atmospheric microplastics during transport. Science of The Total Environment 742:140523

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140523

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [90]

    Oliveri Conti G, Ferrante M, Banni M, Favara C, Nicolosi I, et al. 2020. Micro-and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population. Environmental Research 187:109677

    doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109677

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [91]

    Zhang F, Zhao Y, Wang D, Yan M, Zhang J, et al. 2021. Current technologies for plastic waste treatment: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 282:124523

    doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124523

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [92]

    Dovidat LC, Brinkmann BW, Vijver MG, Bosker T. 2020. Plastic particles adsorb to the roots of freshwater vascular plant Spirodela polyrhiza but do not impair growth. Limnology and Oceanography Letters 5:37−45

    doi: 10.1002/lol2.10118

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [93]

    Mateos-Cárdenas A, Scott DT, Seitmaganbetova G, van Pelt Frank FNAM, O'Halloran J, et al. 2019. Polyethylene microplastics adhere to Lemna minor (L.), yet have no effects on plant growth or feeding by Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.). Science of The Total Environment 689:413−21

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.359

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [94]

    Cózar A, Echevarría F, González-Gordillo JI, Irigoien X, Úbeda B, et al. 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:10239−44

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314705111

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [95]

    Jiang X, Chen H, Liao Y, Ye Z, Li M, et al. 2019. Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environmental Pollution 250:831−38

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.055

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [96]

    Zhou J, Gui H, Banfield CC, Wen Y, Zang H, et al. 2021. The microplastisphere: biodegradable microplastics addition alters soil microbial community structure and function. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 156:108211

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108211

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [97]

    Liu L, Xu K, Zhang B, Ye Y, Zhang Q, et al. 2021. Cellular internalization and release of polystyrene microplastics and nanoplastics. Science of The Total Environment 779:146523

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146523

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [98]

    Giorgetti L, Spanò C, Muccifora S, Bottega S, Barbieri F, et al. 2020. Exploring the interaction between polystyrene nanoplastics and Allium cepa during germination: Internalization in root cells, induction of toxicity and oxidative stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 149:170−77

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.02.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [99]

    Schreck E, Dappe V, Sarret G, Sobanska S, Nowak D, et al. 2014. Foliar or root exposures to smelter particles: consequences for lead compartmentalization and speciation in plant leaves. Science of The Total Environment 476–477:667−76

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.089

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [100]

    Bi M, He Q, Chen Y. 2020. What roles are terrestrial plants playing in global microplastic cycling? Environmental Science & Technology 54:5325−27

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c01009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [101]

    Lian J, Liu W, Meng L, Wu J, Chao L, et al. 2021. Foliar-applied polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) reduce the growth and nutritional quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Environmental Pollution 280:116978

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116978

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [102]

    Sun H, Lei C, Xu J, Li R. 2021. Foliar uptake and leaf-to-root translocation of nanoplastics with different coating charge in maize plants. Journal of Hazardous Materials 416:125854

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125854

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [103]

    Kalčíková G, Gotvajn AŽ, Kladnik A, Jemec A. 2017. Impact of polyethylene microbeads on the floating freshwater plant duckweed Lemna minor. Environmental Pollution 230:1108−15

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.050

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [104]

    van Weert S, Redondo-Hasselerharm PE, Diepens NJ, Koelmans AA. 2019. Effects of nanoplastics and microplastics on the growth of sediment-rooted macrophytes. Science of the Total Environment 654:1040−47

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.183

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [105]

    Yu H, Zhang X, Hu J, Peng J, Qu J. 2020. Ecotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics to submerged carnivorous Utricularia vulgaris plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 265:114830

    doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114830

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [106]

    Bosker T, Bouwman LJ, Brun NR, Behrens P, Vijver MG. 2019. Microplastics accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 226:774−81

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.163

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [107]

    de Souza Machado AA, Lau CW, Kloas W, Bergmann J, Bachelier JB, et al. 2019. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environmental Science & Technology 53:6044−52

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01339

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [108]

    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

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124482

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [109]

    Pignattelli S, Broccoli A, Renzi M. 2020. Physiological responses of garden cress (L. sativum) to different types of microplastics. Science of the Total Environment 727:138609

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138609

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [110]

    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 254:126791

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126791

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [111]

    Meng F, Yang X, Riksen M, Xu M, Geissen V. 2021. Response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) growth to soil contaminated with microplastics. Science of The Total Environment 755:142516

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142516

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [112]

    Qi Y, Yang X, Pelaez AM, Lwanga EH, Beriot N, et al. 2018. Macro- and micro- plastics in soil-plant system: effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth. Science of The Total Environment 645:1048−56

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [113]

    Li Z, Li Q, Li R, Zhou J, Wang G. 2021. The distribution and impact of polystyrene nanoplastics on cucumber plants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:16042−53

    doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11702-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [114]

    Lian J, Liu W, Sun Y, Men S, Wu J, et al. 2022. Nanotoxicological effects and transcriptome mechanisms of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under stress of polystyrene nanoplastics. Journal of Hazardous Materials 423:127241

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127241

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [115]

    Zhang Y, Yang X, Luo Z, Lai J, Li C, et al. 2022. Effects of polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on the physiology and molecular metabolism of corn (Zea mays L.) seedlings. Science of The Total Environment 806:150895

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150895

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [116]

    Wang J, Lu S, Bian H, Xu M, Zhu W, et al. 2022. Effects of individual and combined polystyrene nanoplastics and phenanthrene on the enzymology, physiology, and transcriptome parameters of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 304:135341

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135341

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [117]

    Wang J, Lu S, Guo L, Wang P, He C, et al. 2022. Effects of polystyrene nanoplastics with different functional groups on rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings: combined transcriptome, enzymology, and physiology. Science of The Total Environment 834:155092

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155092

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [118]

    Yu C, Zeng H, Wang Q, Chen W, Chen W, et al. 2022. Multi-omics analysis reveals the molecular responses of Torreya grandis shoots to nanoplastic pollutant. Journal of Hazardous Materials 436:129181

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129181

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [119]

    Zhou C, Lu C, Mai L, Bao L, Liu L, et al. 2021. Response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) roots to nanoplastic treatment at seedling stage. Journal of Hazardous Materials 401:123412

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123412

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [120]

    Maity S, Chatterjee A, Guchhait R, De S, Pramanick K. 2020. Cytogenotoxic potential of a hazardous material, polystyrene microparticles on Allium cepa L. Journal of Hazardous Materials 385:121560

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121560

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [121]

    Padervand M, Lichtfouse E, Robert D, Wang C. 2020. Removal of microplastics from the environment. A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 18:807−28

    doi: 10.1007/s10311-020-00983-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [122]

    Ahmed R, Hamid AK, Krebsbach SA, He J, Wang D. 2022. Critical review of microplastics removal from the environment. Chemosphere 293:1335577

    doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133557

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [123]

    Zhang Y, Liu S, Liu Q, Wang X, Jiang Z, et al. 2019. The role of debris cover in catchment runoff: a case study of the Hailuogou catchment, south-eastern Tibetan Plateau. Water 11:2601

    doi: 10.3390/w11122601

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [124]

    Fryczkowska B, Przywara L. 2021. Removal of microplastics from industrial wastewater utilizing an ultrafiltration composite membrane rGO/PAN application. Desalination and Water Treatment 214:252−62

    doi: 10.5004/dwt.2021.26665

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [125]

    Tang Y, Zhang S, Su Y, Wu D, Zhao Y, et al. 2021. Removal of microplastics from aqueous solutions by magnetic carbon nanotubes. Chemical Engineering Journal 406:126804

    doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126804

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [126]

    Chen Y, Chen Y, Miao C, Wang Y, Gao G, et al. 2020. Metal-organic framework-based foams for efficient microplastics removal. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 8:14644−52

    doi: 10.1039/D0TA04891G

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [127]

    Zandieh M, Liu JW. 2022. Removal and degradation of microplastics using the magnetic and nanozyme activities of bare iron oxide nanoaggregates. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 61:e202212013

    doi: 10.1002/anie.202212013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [128]

    Mishra SR, Ahmaruzzaman M. 2021. Cerium oxide and its nanocomposites: structure, synthesis, and wastewater treatment applications. Materials Today Communications 28:102562

    doi: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102562

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [129]

    Qiu X, Ma S, Zhang J, Fang L, Guo X, et al. 2022. Dissolved organic matter promotes the aging process of polystyrene microplastics under dark and ultraviolet light conditions: the crucial role of reactive oxygen species. Environmental Science & Technology 56:10149−60

    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c03309

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [130]

    Tian C, Lv J, Zhang W, Wang H, Chao J, et al. 2022. Accelerated degradation of microplastics at the liquid interface of ice crystals in frozen aqueous solutions. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 61:e202206947

    doi: 10.1002/anie.202206947

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [131]

    Othman AR, Hasan HA, Muhamad MH, Ismail N', Abdullah SR. 2021. Microbial degradation of microplastics by enzymatic processes: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters 19:3057−73

    doi: 10.1007/s10311-021-01197-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [132]

    Jeyakumar D, Chirsteen J, Doble M. 2013. Synergistic effects of pretreatment and blending on fungi mediated biodegradation of polypropylenes. Bioresource Technology 148:78−85

    doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.074

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [133]

    Yoshida S, Hiraga K, Takehana T, Taniguchi I, Yamaji H, et al. 2016. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351:1196−99

    doi: 10.1126/science.aad6359

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [134]

    Paço A, Duarte K, da Costa JP, Santos PSM, Pereira R, et al. 2017. Biodegradation of polyethylene microplastics by the marine fungus Zalerion maritimum. Science of The Total Environment 586:10−15

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [135]

    Yuan J, Cao J, Yu F, Ma J. 2022. Microbial degradation of polystyrene microplastics by a novel isolated bacterium in aquatic ecosystem. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy 30:100873

    doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2022.100873

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [136]

    Mishra SR, Ahmaruzzaman M. 2022. Microplastics: identification, toxicity and their remediation from aqueous streams. Separation & Purification Reviews1−22

    doi: 10.1080/15422119.2022.2096071

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [137]

    Nolte TM, Hartmann NB, Kleijn JM, Garnæs J, van de Meent D, et al. 2017. The toxicity of plastic nanoparticles to green algae as influenced by surface modification, medium hardness and cellular adsorption. Aquatic Toxicology 183:11−20

    doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.12.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [138]

    Sundbæk KB, Koch IDW, Villaro CG, Rasmussen NS, Holdt SL, et al. 2018. Sorption of fluorescent polystyrene microplastic particles to edible seaweed Fucus vesiculosus. Journal of Applied Phycology 30:2923−27

    doi: 10.1007/s10811-018-1472-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [139]

    Urso M, Pumera M. 2022. Nano/microplastics capture and degradation by autonomous nano/microrobots: a perspective. Advanced Functional Materials 32:2112120

    doi: 10.1002/adfm.202112120

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [140]

    Beladi-Mousavi SM, Hermanová S, Ying Y, Plutnar J, Pumera M. 2021. A maze in plastic wastes: autonomous motile photocatalytic microrobots against microplastics. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13:25102−10

    doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c04559

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [141]

    Zhou H, Mayorga-Martinez CC, Pumera M. 2021. Microplastic removal and degradation by mussel-inspired adhesive magnetic/enzymatic microrobots. Small Methods 5:2100230

    doi: 10.1002/smtd.202100230

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [142]

    Urso M, Ussia M, Novotný F, Pumera M. 2022. Trapping and detecting nanoplastics by MXene-derived oxide microrobots. Nature Communications 13:3573

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31161-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [143]

    Toussaint B, Raffael B, Angers-Loustau A, Gilliland D, Kestens V, et al. 2019. Review of micro- and nanoplastic contamination in the food chain. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 36:639−73

    doi: 10.1080/19440049.2019.1583381

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [144]

    Dessì C, Okoffo ED, O'Brien JW, Gallen M, Samanipour S, et al. 2021. Plastics contamination of store-bought rice. Journal of Hazardous Materials 416:125778

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125778

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [145]

    Rillig MC, Lehmann A, de Souza Machado AA, Yang G. 2019. Microplastic effects on plants. New Phytologist 223:1066−70

    doi: 10.1111/nph.15794

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [146]

    Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, et al. 2019. Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective case series. Annals of Internal Medicine 171:453−57

    doi: 10.7326/M19-0618

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [147]

    He D, Zhang Y, Gao W. 2021. Micro(nano)plastic contaminations from soils to plants: human food risks. Current Opinion in Food Science 41:116−21

    doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2021.04.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [148]

    Hirt N, Body-Malapel M. 2020. Immunotoxicity and intestinal effects of nano- and microplastics: a review of the literature. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 17:57

    doi: 10.1186/s12989-020-00387-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [149]

    Powell JJ, Faria N, Thomas-McKay E, Pele LC. 2010. Origin and fate of dietary nanoparticles and microparticles in the gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Autoimmunity 34:J226−J233

    doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2009.11.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [150]

    Prüst M, Meijer J, Westerink RH. 2020. The plastic brain: neurotoxicity of micro- and nanoplastics. Particle and fibre Toxicology 17:24

    doi: 10.1186/s12989-020-00358-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [151]

    Mamun AA, Prasetya TAE, Dewi IR, Ahmad M. 2023. Microplastics in human food chains: food becoming a threat to health safety. Science of The Total Environment 858:159834

    doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159834

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Sun L, Wang X, Zhao H, Wang Z, Zhao Y, et al. 2023. Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops. Vegetable Research 3:18 doi: 10.48130/VR-2023-0018
    Sun L, Wang X, Zhao H, Wang Z, Zhao Y, et al. 2023. Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops. Vegetable Research 3:18 doi: 10.48130/VR-2023-0018

Figures(4)  /  Tables(1)

Article Metrics

Article views(4259) PDF downloads(684)

REVIEW   Open Access    

Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops

Vegetable Research  3 Article number: 18  (2023)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: The distribution of micro/nanoplastics in soil and water environments is a potential agricultural threat. Since micro/nanoplastics are a new and highly concerning contaminant, in recent years research on micro/nanoplastics has rapidly increased. Here, we review recent scientific papers on micro/nanoplastics in agricultural systems, including micro/nanoplastic sources, microplastic adsorption, nanoplastic absorption, micro/nanoplastic effects on crops, and micro/nanoplastic detection and removal methods. There is very little information available concerning nanoplastic transport in planta; therefore, more research is needed to gain a better understanding of how micro/nanoplastic particles are transported. We also discuss the accumulation of micro/nanoplastics in crops as a potential threat to food safety. Finally, we propose future micro/nanoplastic research directions.

    • Plastics are being increasingly recognized as a massive environmental pollutant[1]. Plastic debris is widely found in air, ocean, soil, and surface water[2]. Plastic debris can be categorized as macroplastics (> 25 mm), mesoplastics (5−25 mm), large microplastics (1−5 mm), small microplastics (1 μm − 1 mm), and nanoplastics (< 1 μm)[3]. The common types of microplastics include ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (PEHD), polymethylpropenate (PMMA), polyethylene (PE) plastic microspheres, polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA), polyester (PES) fibers, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). There are two possible sources of micro/nanoplastics in the natural environment. Micro/nanoplastics can be released directly from manufactured products[4] or can be derived from different environmental processes, such as UV-mediated photooxidation, temperature-mediated thermal oxidation, mechanical forces, biodegradation and hydrolysis, which break down large plastic fragments into increasingly smaller micro/nanoplastics[5].

      Although micro/nanoplastics are ubiquitous in the natural environment[4], only a few studies have focused on their soil distributions. It is estimated that 8 million tons of plastic waste are released into the ocean each year, and this amount is expected to double by 2030[6]. Horton et al.[7] also reported that microplastic concentrations in terrestrial systems are 4−23 times higher than those in the ocean. Moreover, desalination technology is booming and is being used for high-value crop cultivation in Spain, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Qatar, the USA, and Israel. Countries such as Chile and China are now applying desalination technology in agricultural practice[8]. This technology can be further applied to remove nanoplastics from the ocean and bring them back to land.

      Various surveys have established that worldwide nanoplastic and microplastic levels are steadily increasing[9]. A recent study showed that vegetable farms in the suburban areas of Wuhan, China, are commonly contaminated with microplastics, and these plastic residues in vegetables are a potential threat[10]. However, micro/nanoplastic abundance in soil systems is poorly understood due to technical limitations in detecting small nanoparticles. In this review, we adequately summarize the current methods and tools used to detect microplastics in the environment and in organisms.

      The toxicological effects of micro/nanoplastics may be related to their small size, dose, chemical additive leaching and adsorption of other toxins. Micro/nanoplastics affect plant health through direct internalization and plant molecule interactions by altering soil physicochemical properties or by acting as carriers of persistent organic/inorganic pollutants[11]. Many studies have demonstrated microplastic bioaccumulation and toxic effects in fish and other aquatic organisms[5,1215]. However, to date, we know little about the adverse effects of micro/nanoplastics on plants. In this review, we will discuss this point in more detail.

    • Direct sources of micro/nanoplastics in agricultural production include mulching films, plastic greenhouses, small tunnels, nets, twine, protective nets, irrigation pipes, and coated fertilizers and pesticides, specifically the plastic polymers that the fertilizer industry uses as coating agents for slow-release fertilizers and pesticides[1618] (Fig. 1). Notably, the use of plastic mulch to improve crop productivity and environmental stress resistance[19,20] has become an essential part of agricultural production. Thus, mulch film and greenhouse film contribute most of the micro/nanoplastics in agricultural soil. During 2015, at least 1.5 million tons of plastic mulch covered more than 20 million hectares of arable land in China. At the end of production, the mulch cannot be completely removed from the soil[21]. Some small pieces of plastic are left in the soil, which is known as 'white pollution'. With the widespread promotion of protected land cultivation, large amounts of plastic-related materials are being applied in the production process, which aggravates the current undesirable agroecological situation.

      Figure 1. 

      Micro/nanoplastic sources in soils. The bold lines represent greater contributions of micro/nanoplastics.

      Indirect sources of plastics are often overlooked in agricultural production and mainly include sewage sludge[2224] and manure[25]. In many countries, sludge is used as a crop fertilizer, which inadvertently causes microplastics to be transported into agricultural fields, undoubtedly increasing agricultural safety risks. Various research teams in Chile, Spain and China have reported the presence of approximately 100−3,500 microplastic particles per kg in agricultural fields where sludge-based fertilizers are applied[22,26,27]. Crossman et al.[28] found that greater biosolid application resulted in higher microplastic accumulation in soil profiles.

    • Shruti & Kutralam-Muniasamy[29] compared the microplastic concentrations in different rivers around the world, finding the highest concentrations in the UK, Mexico and Germany, as well as in countries such as China, Canada and Portugal. Several studies have also reported the presence of microplastics in freshwater sources[3032]. It is worth noting that microplastics in freshwater sources are very small and invisible to the naked eye[33]. Zhou et al.[21] conducted a comprehensive assessment of agricultural soils in Hangzhou Bay, China, and observed that irrigation water introduces microplastics into agricultural soils. In addition, studies have reported that the average densities of plastic particles in Lake Kusugul in Mongolia and Lake Taihu in China are 2.0 × 104 and 0.01−6.8 × 106 elements/km2, respectively[34,35]. In general, water sources used for agricultural irrigation, including rivers, lakes and oceans, contain microplastic elements. Treated wastewater still contains microplastics because water treatment processes are designed to remove impurities in the water, such as clay, metals or wood, and do not consider the removal of micro/nanoplastic particles[36].

    • To date, researchers have investigated a large number of methods, such as visual inspection[37], optical microscopy[38], scanning electron microscopy (SEM)[39,40], confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM)[41], thermal analysis[42], Raman spectroscopy (RS)[43], surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS)[44], Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)[45], near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR)[46,47], hyperspectral imaging[48], pyrolysis coupled with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS)[49], or a combination of these methods[24,50,51], for detecting micro/nanoplastics in seawater[52,53], beaches[54], freshwater[55], sewage[56,57], sediments[58], aquatic organisms[51], environment[59], soil[57], humans and animals[41,60,61]. These methods are suitable for different detection ranges, and no method is perfect (Table 1). Visual and microscopic observation methods are suitable for samples with large-diameter microplastic particles and relatively clean backgrounds, while RS, SERS, FTIR, NIR, Py-GC/MS and other methods are suitable for detecting microplastics with smaller particle sizes or even nanoplastics, but these methods have high sample requirements and require expensive equipment.

      Table 1.  Several micro/nanoplastic detection technologies.

      TechnologyMicroplastic scaleAdvantage(s)Disadvantage(s)Quantitative
      (yes or no?)
      Used in crops
      Visual inspection1 − 5 mmeasy and quickonly suitable for large-scale microplasticsno
      Optical microscope observation100 μm − 1 mmeasy and quicklarge errorno
      CLSM> 5 μmvisual analysislimited applicabilitynowheat[54], Arabidopsis[55], lettuce[56], wheat[57], rice[58,59]
      SEM> 0.1 μmintuitive and clear imagesstrong background interference and expensive equipmentnolettuce[56,60], wheat[57]
      TEM< 100 nmintuitive and clear imagesTechnical difficultyNoArabidopsis[61]
      Thermal analysisno limitquickdestruction of microplastic structuresyes
      RS> 10 μmwide range of applications, unaffected by watereasily interfered with by fluorescent substancesyes
      SERS5 − 100 nmhigh sensitivitynarrow detection rangeyes
      FTIR10 − 300 µmfast and accuratesamples need to be driedyes
      Py-GC/MSno limitquicknot suitable for analyzing samples with complex matricesyescucumber[62]
      XPSno limitnondestructive testingexpensive and inconvenientyes
      ICP‒MS< 1 μmtrace detection and visualizationPS-Eu particles need to be labeledyeswheat[60], lettuce[60]

      Detection accuracy is closely related to the sample itself and the pretreatment method. Generally, nets (including a neuston net, plankton net, manta net, continuous net, and manual net) are used to detect microplastics in seawater, lake water, sewage and other water bodies[6264]. Pumping systems and discrete sampling devices are also used to sample water[6567]. Density centrifugation is often used for soils and sediments[57,58], and sometimes a combination of two methods is used[52]. Pretreatment is usually combined with chemical digestion[65,68] and enzymatic digestion[64,69] to remove organic matter in samples. Direct chemical digestion is usually used for the analysis of organisms[70]. However, in general, due to the interference of other substances in the sample, microplastic extraction is particularly difficult, which makes quantitative microplastic detection difficult.

      The agricultural field is mainly focused on microplastic detection in farmland soil. Usually, density centrifugation combined with chemical digestion is used for extraction, and Raman spectroscopy, FTIR or energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) is used to detect the microplastic content[23,71,72]. At present, the lack of effective methods makes it very difficult to extract nanoplastics from plants[73]. Recently, Li et al.[74] developed a Py-GC/MS analysis method to quantify nanoplastic uptake in cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Current research has mainly focused on the impact of microplastics on plant growth[7577]. Fluorescently labeled microplastic particles were applied to plant roots, and after a period of time, the microplastic distribution and accumulation in the plant shoots were observed by CLSM or SEM[78] to reveal the absorption and transfer mechanisms of plant microplastics. For example, several researchers used fluorescent labeling observation and SEM methods and inferred that the roots of rice[79,80], lettuce[81] and Arabidopsis[82] seedlings can absorb nanoplastics (< 100 nm) and submicrometer plastics (< 1 µm) and translocate them to the aerial parts of the plants. Although medium-sized microplastics cannot be directly absorbed by plants, they were shown to enter the endodermis through the damaged root gaps of lettuce and wheat[83] and then be transported to the aerial parts of plants by transpiration. These methods provide a reference for the visualization of microplastics in samples, but they cannot be used to quantitatively detect micro/nanoplastics in plants. A new method based on using lanthanide chelates as organic-complex fluorescence labels can solve this problem. PS particles were doped with the europium chelate Eu–β-diketonate (PS-Eu), which was used to quantify PS-Eu particle uptake by wheat and lettuce using ICP‒MS[84]. This method overcomes the disadvantages of traditional fluorescent labeling methods, such as background fluorescence interference, easy dye leakage, and difficulty in simultaneous accurate quantification. However, at present, no detection methods can be used to monitor micro/nanoplastic absorption in the natural states of plants.

      In general, there are still many problems with microplastic monitoring and detection technology, especially the extraction method and visual monitoring, that require further exploration.

    • Understanding microplastic fate and transport is important in pollution control[85]. However, there are few studies on the effects of plants on microplastic movement. An investigation revealed that giant reeds (Arundo donax) on the west coast of Italy act as sinks for plastic waste. Because of the ecological importance of the area where the reed grows, this plant cannot simply be removed[86]. A similar situation was found to occur in the Dongting Lake area of China, where sediment from reed farms contained significantly higher microplastic levels than that from other surrounding areas. Microplastics were also found to be adsorbed on the reed plant surface[85]. Plants are capable of intercepting and adsorbing microplastics in water. Moreover, this adsorption between negatively charged microplastics and root surfaces is very strong[87]. This raises concerns about whether aquatic vegetable crops may also cause contamination of their edible parts due to adsorption. Although there are no studies available, it is expected that this is inevitable.

      Plants can adsorb microplastics from the atmosphere (Fig. 2). For example, both Pittosporum tobira and Camellia japonica plants were found to have microplastics attached to their surfaces; the microplastic abundance on the leaves of these two plants ranged from 0.07 to 0.19 items/cm2. It was estimated that a total of 0.13 trillion microplastics are adsorbed by plant leaves in 11 countries[88,89]. Microplastics have even been found in various edible fruits in supermarkets[90]. To date, there is still no effective way to remove microplastics from the natural environment[91]. Therefore, microplastics will remain with humans for a long time and will become a long-term ecological threat.

      Figure 2. 

      Nanoplastic (pink particles) transport from roots to shoots in plants. Microplastics (blue gray particles) in soil are gradually degraded into nanoplastics by biotic and abiotic actions. Nanoplastics are absorbed by plant roots, enter vascular tissues and are transported to the shoot by transpiration (shown by white arrow). Plant leaves adsorb microplastics and absorb nanoplastics from the atmosphere (shown by black arrow). Airborne nanoplastics enter the plant through the stomata.

    • Studies have shown that micro/nanoplastics can be detected on the root surfaces of floating plants, such as Lemna minor and Spirodela polyrhiza. Microplastics do not seem to enter the root system[92,93]. However, larger microplastics can slowly degrade into nanoplastics[94], which are then absorbed into plants (Fig. 2). Recent studies have begun to address the root uptake of nanoplastics by terrestrial plants and nanoplastic transport pathways within plant tissues[1,82]. Nanoplastics can use the intercell-wall pathway (a lignified epidermis path) to enter plant tissues through the epidermal layer of roots[77]. Li et al.[78] reported that 2.0 and 0.2 μm PS particles can be absorbed by wheat and lettuce roots via crack entry at lateral root emergence sites (Fig. 3). However, the mechanism by which plastic passes through the cortex and casparian strip is not known[77].

      Figure 3. 

      Nanoplastic pathways in plant roots. Nanoplastics have been reported to enter plant root systems through two pathways, namely, the symplastic pathway and apoplastic pathway. Symplastic pathway: plants absorb nanoplastics around the root system through endocytosis or channels (e.g., aquaporins) in the cell membrane. This pathway is represented by the blue line. Apoplastic pathway: nanoplastics enter the root system and move through the intercellular space. This pathway is indicated by the orange line. Submicrometer plastics (green particles) are taken up by crop plants via a crack-entry mode that is indicated by the red line.

      Plant roots absorb nanoplastics from the surrounding medium into their bodies[78,81,95], and these nanoplastics are then transported to the vascular bundles[81] and finally driven by transpiration into the aboveground plant parts[78] (Fig. 2). Li et al.[83] demonstrated the transfer of nanoplastics from below ground to above ground in wheat and lettuce. Zhou et al.[96] reported that nanoplastics absorbed by rice root systems are distributed in intercellular spaces, suggesting that nanoplastics are potentially transported via the apoplastic pathway. Moreover, they suggested that aquaporins played an important role in nanoplastic uptake by rice roots. Another research team reported that plastic particles enter cells through endocytosis[97] (Fig. 3). Giorgetti et al.[98] also observed polystyrene nanoplastic (PSNP) internalization in the cellular compartments of Allium cepa using a transmission electron microscope. A review by Maity et al.[11] thoroughly discusses the possible transport pathways of nanoplastics once they enter plants. In this review, we will not discuss this topic further.

      Micro/nanoparticle foliar and root uptake are two well-known pathways that serve as entry points for plastics into the plant and thus into the food chain, threatening food safety and posing a risk to human health[99]. Plant leaves play an important role in intercepting some airborne microplastics due to their large and uneven surfaces and act as a major sink for microplastics[100]. According to a recent statistical study, plant foliage can indiscriminately retain large amounts of airborne microplastics[89]. Hence, some researchers have begun to shift the focus of nanoplastic uptake from the root to the shoot. Nanoplastics enter the leaf mainly through the stomata and then travel into the vascular system and down through the vascular bundle into the roots[101,102]. It is thus expected that the shoot-to-root nanoplastic transport mechanism must be different from the root-to-shoot nanoplastic transport mechanism. However, there is still a lack of research on these two mechanisms.

    • Studies have shown that micro/nanoplastics can affect the growth of plants, including phycophyta[103105], Arabidopsis[82], and crops[95,106111]. Microplastics are usually too large to enter plants, so microplastics can affect plant growth by altering the soil structure and water dynamics. For example, de Souza Machado et al.[107] demonstrated the effects of six different microplastics (PES fibers, PA beads, PE, PET, polypropylene (PP), and PS) on soil health and spring onion growth. In addition, microplastic chemical precipitates can also affect plant growth. Pignattelli et al.[109] showed that PVC was more toxic than PE and PP because PVC microplastics led to a 9-fold increase in H2O2 content and a more than 95% reduction in ascorbic acid levels in Lepidium sativum. In another study, biodegradable plastic residues showed stronger negative effects than PE[112]. These two examples show that it is not microplastics, but substances degraded or precipitated from microplastics that affect plant growth. Since microplastics affect crop growth, they must also have an impact on plant physiology. Gao et al.[108] reported that the photosynthesis-related parameters of lettuce decreased after application of PE microplastics to the roots. The contents of superoxide radicals and hydrogen peroxide in leaves and roots significantly increased.

    • Nanoplastics can enter plants and usually show toxic effects on plants. An excellent study was conducted using Arabidopsis thaliana to demonstrate that nanoplastics with different surface charges accumulated in plants. Both of the differently charged nanoplastics resulted in an approximately 50% reduction in fresh weight. Interestingly, positively charged nanoplastics (PS-NH2) were less likely to enter the root system but had a more pronounced inhibitory effect on plants. Compared to negatively charged nanoplastics (PS-SO3H), PS-NH2 led to a 20% reduction in plant height and a 20% − 70% reduction in root length. More PS-SO3H than positively charged nanoplastics entered the apoplast and xylem[82]. Moreover, we assume that there are other factors besides surface charge that influence nanoparticle entry into plants. However, current technological conditions limit our exploration in this area.

      In addition, foliar-applied polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) showed negative effects on lettuce, which led to the onset of oxidative stress and a decline in micronutrients and essential amino acids[101]. An experiment in Arabidopsis showed that root application of nanoplastics significantly reduced chlorophyll in silique[82]. Similarly, 0.5% low-density polyethylene microplastics (LDPE-MPs) led to significantly lower chlorophyll content in leaves of common bean[111]. Li et al.[113] showed that 300-nm PS nanoplastics increased the malondialdehyde (MDA) and proline contents of cucumber roots. Some scholars have compared the toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics under the same conditions. PS fluorescent nanoplastics with a size of 100 nm exhibited higher genotoxicity and oxidative damage to Vicia faba than 5 μm microplastics[95].

    • Current research at the plant molecular level has focused on the molecular responses of plants to exogenous nanoplastics. These studies involved very limited crops, such as wheat[114], corn[115], rice[116,117] and Torreya grandis[118]. Transcriptome analysis showed that PSNPs significantly affected carbon metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis and plant hormone signaling pathways in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)[114]. Similarly, a metabolomic study of corn exogenously treated with PSNPs demonstrated the enrichment of changed metabolites in the alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolic pathways[115]. Wang et al.[117] demonstrated that the effects of PSNPs with different functional groups were distinct through transcriptome analysis. PS mainly affects RNA metabolic processes, while PS-COOH affects ion transport and PS-NH2 affects macromolecular protein synthesis, suggesting that PS functional groups play a crucial role in the interactions between nanoplastics and plants. A multiomics analysis of Torreya grandis indicated that PSNPs regulate terpenoid and flavonoid biosynthetic pathways, the latter being in the phenylpropanoid pathway, by regulating small-RNA transcription and protein expression[118]. Moreover, rice partially reduced nanoplastic toxicity by regulating phenylpropane biosynthesis[117]. These studies suggest that the phenylpropanoid metabolic pathway may be involved in the interactions between nanoplastics and plants. In rice roots, carbon metabolism was activated, whereas jasmonic acid and lignin biosynthesis were inhibited by PSNP treatment[119]. In addition, 100 nm PSNPs induced cytogenotoxicity through the induction of ROS generation and inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase (cdc2) expression in Allium cepa L.[120].

    • Recently, microplastic degradation and removal technology has also become one of the most popular research topics because microplastics are special plastics originating from tiny particles that are highly difficult to further degrade in the environment. To address this issue and avoid persistent damage to agricultural production, researchers have suggested three main types of approaches: physical, chemical, and biological methods[121,122]. In addition, microplastics/nanoplastics removal techniques that rely on microrobots have been developed.

      Membrane technology is a commonly used physical method for removing micro/nanoplastics[122,123]. To remove polyacrylonitrile (PAN) from wastewater, researchers synthesized reduced graphene oxide (rGO)-doped PAN as a membrane, which showed a removal efficiency of 82% and reusability[124]. Magnetic carbon nanotubes (M−CNTs) have also been synthesized as adsorbates to remove microplastics. The results showed that microplastics (5 g/L) were completely removed by 5 g/L M−CNTs within 300 min[125]. A filtration system is also an effective method for removing micro/nanoplastics. Zirconium metal-organic framework-based foam materials were filled in a filter and prewetted, achieving an efficiency of up to 95.5 ± 1.2%[126].

      Because many common microplastics have polar groups, especially after oxidation and aging in the environment, chemical bonding is an effective method for removing microplastics. Hydrophilic bare Fe3O4 nanoaggregates can effectively remove the most common microplastics, including high-density PE, PP, PVC, PS and PE terephthalate, and hydrogen bonding is the main force in Fe3O4 adsorption[127]. In addition, CeO2 is an excellent adsorbent for removing abrasive microplastics by forming a complex with heavy metal ions[128]. Microplastics interact frequently with common dissolved organic matter (DOM) in the environment. Through analysis by electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy, high-performance liquid chromatography, FTIR and two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy analyses, DOM was found to promote electron transfer to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) and accelerate the microplastic aging process[129]. Interestingly, microplastics can be degraded abnormally quickly in freezing environments. For example, the PS degradation rate (± 20 °C) in ice is surprisingly competitive compared with that induced by most artificial technologies[130].

      In the environment, micro/nanoplastics are subject to biodegradation, which has also been a popular research topic in recent years. To date, microorganisms such as algae, fungi, and bacteria have attracted the attention of scientists as tools for microplastic treatment[131]. Some microorganisms produce specific enzymes that participate in micro/nanoplastic degradation. PP, pro-oxidant blended PP (MI-PP) and starch blended PPs (ST-PPs) can be degraded by two kinds of fungi, Phanerochaete chrysosporium NCIM 1170 (F1) and Engyodontium album MTP091 (F2), and the biodegradation inefficiency is accelerated by UV pretreatment[132]. Yoshida et al. isolated a novel bacterium named Ideonella sakaiensis 201-F6 that could use PET as a carbon source. When this bacterium grows on PET, it can produce two enzymes, PETase and MHETase, to hydrolyze PET into two environmentally benign monomers, terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol[133]. A naturally occurring fungus in the marine environment and present in Portuguese coastal waters, Zalerion maritimum, has the ability to degrade microplastics[134]. Recently, Yuan et al. isolated a kind of bacterium, Bacillus cereus CH6, from lake sediments and investigated its ability to degrade PS microplastics. Bacillus cereus CH6 has a short generation time, high activity, and fast substrate utilization. The microplastic weight loss was 10.7% after 50 d of Bacillus cereus CH6 incubation[135]. Furthermore, microalgae can be used as a potential biosolution to remove microplastics, as they easily interact and combine[136]. Researchers have shown that positively charged PS microplastics are more efficiently adsorbed on algae surfaces than are negatively charged microplastics[137]. The edible macroalga (seaweed) Fucus vesiculosus adsorbed fluorescent PS microplastics with a diameter of approximately 20 μm through an alginate compound released from the cell wall of its section area, and the algae exhibited a sorption efficiency of 94.6%[138].

      Currently, a number of microrobots to remove microplastics/nanoplastics have been developed by Pumera’s team. The self-propulsion of microrobots produces a local stirring effect in an energy-efficient manner, allowing them to encounter more contaminants per unit of time[139]. An active photocatalytic degradation process based on an intelligent visible light-driven microrobot capable of 'on-the-fly' capturing and degrading microplastics was introduced. Photocatalytic robots can effectively degrade different synthetic microplastics, especially polylactic acid and polycaprolactone[140]. The authors prepared adhesive polydopamine (PDA)@Fe3O4 magnetic microbots (MagRobots) by simulating the basic characteristics of adhesive chemistry in marine mussels. The synthetic MagRobots are externally triggered by a transverse rotating magnetic field and have the ability to remove targeted microplastics due to their strong adhesive properties[141]. Recently, MXene-derived oxide microrobots have also been designed for trapping and detecting nanoplastics[142].

    • Large amounts of plastics are used in agriculture, industry and other human activities. In the natural environment, plastics are degraded into microplastics and nanoplastics, both of which are widely distributed in the soil. Microplastics are absorbed by crops and contaminate our food, such as edible plant fruits, leaves, and stems[143], and a mean amount of 132,740 particles/g was detected in fruits and vegetables[90]. Li et al.[78] reported that polystyrene nanoplastics accumulated in the roots of cucumber and were sequentially transferred to the stems, leaves, flowers and fruits. Dessì et al.[144] investigated plastics in store-bought rice in Australia, and reported that Australians may consume 3.7 mg of plastics per serve (100 g) if not washed and 2.8 mg if washed. A recent review discussed the varying impact of different shapes and sizes of plastics on food safety in an agricultural context. And it was noted that nanoplastics particularly affect the food safety of edible plant underground organs[145].

      Recent studies reported small micro/nanoplastics in human feces[146]. He et al.[147] proposed a potential transfer pathway of micro/nanoplastics from soils to plants and human food. Several rodent tests have confirmed that microplastics can be absorbed by endocytosis[148150]. Moreover, nanoplastics can penetrate deep into organs such as the liver, spleen, lungs and brain. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified various types of plastics, derivatives and components as potential carcinogens, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS) and derivatives of phthalates[33]. And when microplastics entering to human body, it could disrupt immune function which might lead to autoimmune diseases or immunosuppression[151]. Therefore, people should be alert to the threat to food safety posed by microplastic enrichment through the food chain.

    • Due to the durability of plastic in the environment of hundreds of thousands of years, the impact of plastic pollution in the world is of increasing concern[151]. As micro/nanoplastics pose a potential risk to plants, animals and humans[147]. In the past few years, researchers have investigated the sources of micro/nanoplastics in agriculture and gained new insights into the effects of micro/nanoplastics on plants and plant responses to micro/nanoplastic stress (Fig. 4). Moreover, nanoplastic uptake by plants and their translocation in planta were initially studied. Micro/nanoplastics were absorb by plant roots from the surrounding medium (including soil and atmosphere), and then were transported to the vascular bundles and finally driven by transpiration into the aboveground plant parts (Fig. 2), which mean that our food chain was exposed to the dangers of micro/nanoplastics. In addition, methods for detection, degradation, and removal of micro/nanoplastics in the environment have been developed. In general, the key ways to degradation, and removal of micro/nanoplastics include physical, chemical, biological and microrobots methods. In the future, it is worthwhile to devote more effort to investigate the following aspects.

      Figure 4. 

      Main effects of micro/nanoplastics on plants. Green indicates a decrease, red indicates an increase, and yellow indicates that the effect is not yet clear.

      (1) Analyzing and blocking micro/nanoplastic sources in arable soils or developing plastic-free farming methods.

      (2) Understanding nanoplastic uptake and transport mechanisms in plants and developing methods to interrupt these processes.

      (3) Studying the response and tolerance mechanisms of plants to micro/nanoplastics.

      (4) Developing a quantification method for analyzing nanoplastic contents in cultivated soils and plants to avoid cultivation and food safety risks.

      (5) Developing effective methods for removing micro/nanoplastics from soil and water.

      (6) Answering the following questions: Does biodegradable mulch produce more micro/nanoplastics? Is biodegradable mulch bad for the environment and crops? What is the future research direction of biodegradable mulch?

      • This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFD1000803, 2019YFD1000300) and the Beijing Natural Science Foundation Project - Key Project of Science and Technology Plan of Beijing Education Commission (KZ202010020027).

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # These authors contributed equally: Lulu Sun, Xiaoyun Wang, Hanqing Zhao

      • Copyright: © 2023 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (4)  Table (1) References (151)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Sun L, Wang X, Zhao H, Wang Z, Zhao Y, et al. 2023. Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops. Vegetable Research 3:18 doi: 10.48130/VR-2023-0018
    Sun L, Wang X, Zhao H, Wang Z, Zhao Y, et al. 2023. Micro/nanoplastics: a potential threat to crops. Vegetable Research 3:18 doi: 10.48130/VR-2023-0018

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return