Next Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence and Exploratory-Data-Analysis-Based Initial Public Offering Gain Prediction for Public Investors
Next Article in Special Issue
Scientific Knowledge Mapping and Thematic Evolution for Tire Wear Particles
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Power Dispatch of DGs in Radial and Mesh AC Grids: A Hybrid Solution Methodology between the Salps Swarm Algorithm and Successive Approximation Power Flow Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013405
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microplastic Pollution in the Soil Environment: Characteristics, Influencing Factors, and Risks

by
Chunhui Wang
1,*,
Junhong Tang
1,
Haixia Yu
2,
Yiyi Wang
2,
Huanxuan Li
1,
Shaodan Xu
1,
Gang Li
3,4 and
Qian Zhou
5
1
College of Materials and Environmental Engineering, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
Hangzhou Ecological and Environment Monitoring Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310007, China
3
Key Laboratory of Urban Environment and Health, Ningbo Urban Environment Observation and Research Station, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
4
Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Urban Environmental Processes and Pollution Control, CAS Haixi Industrial Technology Innovation Center in Beilun, Ningbo 315830, China
5
Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology for Industrial Pollution Control of Zhejiang Province, College of Environment, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310032, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13405; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013405
Submission received: 13 September 2022 / Revised: 13 October 2022 / Accepted: 17 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microplastics in the Soil: Pollution and Sustainable Solutions)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As plastic products are widely used in all walks of life, plastic waste is also accumulating in the environment. Today, microplastic pollution in the soil environment has become an environmental issue of global concern. Compared with the water environment, the research on microplastics in the soil environment is relatively lacking. Based on the above situation, this paper systematically reviews the distribution characteristics, influencing factors, and environmental and ecological risks of microplastics in the soil environment. The abundance, distribution characteristics, and impacts of microplastics in soils globally in recent years are reviewed in detail. Our review suggests that most scholars only focus on the surface soil, and the determination of the accumulation of microplastics in the soil as a whole is still lacking, and there is still no uniform standard for sampling techniques, extraction methods, analytical procedures, and even expression units for soil microplastics. The distribution of microplastics in soil is affected by human factors, natural factors, and the physical and chemical properties of the plastics themselves. We also focused on the analysis of the environmental risks arising from the accumulation of microplastics in soil interacting with metals and organic pollutants, and found that large research gaps exist in the interaction between microplastics and pollutants in the soil and the mechanism of compound pollution. The impact and ecological risks of microplastics on animals, microorganisms, and plants in the soil are explained. Moreover, key suggestions for future research are presented based on the current research status, and we call for more efforts focusing on the occurrence and fate of microplastics in the soil environment.

1. Introduction

Plastics are widely used in all walks of life because of their low price, durability, light weight, and good ductility [1]. It is estimated that plastic production will reach 33 billion tons by 2050 [2]. However, due to the poor natural degradability of plastics, the low recycling rate, and the existence of possible health and ecological risks, the environmental problems caused by its accumulation in terrestrial and marine environments have attracted extensive attention around the world [3,4,5,6]. Moreover, the current levels of plastic production, usage/disposal patterns, recycling rates, and demographics all point to an increasing amount of plastic waste [7,8,9]. Plastics accumulated in different environmental media will be degraded under the action of a series of physical, chemical, or biological processes, thereby gradually reducing their particle size [10,11]. They are generally excreted directly or indirectly into the environment [12]. The degradation cycle of plastic waste can cause serious environmental problems as surface embrittled plastics are microcracked due to weathering including ultraviolet light and hydrolysis, and then progressively broken down into the small fragments or particles known as microplastics [13,14]. In 2014, marine ecologist Richard Thompson first reported on the distribution of microplastics in the ocean in a groundbreaking study [15,16]. Since then, environmental microplastics have been widely reported around the world.
Microplastics are any synthetic solid plastic particle or polymeric matrix, their size ranges from 1 µm to 5 mm [17], and they are an emerging pollution of concern in the global environment because of their widespread and potential risks. Microplastics can be divided into primary microplastics and secondary microplastics according to their sources [12]. Primary microplastics are the direct production of tiny-sized plastic particles due to industrial needs such as cosmetics, toothpaste, detergents, and some polishing agents with abrasive functions, all of which contain a certain amount of plastic particles, while secondary microplastics are plastic wastes that break into smaller pieces due to the mechanical wear of wind and water and the chemical and biological degradation of light, heat, and microorganisms after plastic waste enters the environment [18,19]. Numerous studies have reported the detection of different types of microplastics in the environment as well as in food and drinking water and even in humans [20,21,22]. At present, most of the research on microplastics focuses on the aquatic environment. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that microplastics are also present in terrestrial ecosystems, and that ~80% of global plastic waste is accumulated in landfills, meaning that soil is likely a large microplastics sink. Although more and more scholars have begun to pay attention to the terrestrial environment in recent years, the research on microplastics in soil is still limited and needs more attention.
Soil is a loose surface layer on the Earth’s surface that can grow plants. It plays an irreplaceable role in ensuring environmental and energy security as well as protecting biodiversity. However, soil is also an important reservoir for microplastics in the terrestrial environment [23,24]. It has been reported that nearly 90% of the plastic waste on land enters the soil environment directly or indirectly [25]. Many previous studies have indicated that large amounts of microplastic fibers or debris are present in sewage sludge and compost [26,27,28]. Since sewage sludge is used in agricultural production activities, a large amount of microplastics enters the soil environment [29]. In addition, the weathering and decomposition of mulch film in farmland, crushing of plastic waste in landfills, and atmospheric deposition are all important ways for microplastics to enter the soil environment [30,31,32]. The main sources of soil microplastics are shown in Figure 1. Once in the soil environment, microplastics will persist and accumulate for a long time, eventually affecting soil organisms [33]. Moreover, since microplastics can act as carriers of various toxic contaminants, if these contaminants are transferred into the soil environment, they may also cause damage to the soil ecosystem [34,35], which will have detrimental effects on soil health and function. However, most of the current research on environmental microplastics focuses on the water environment, while the research on microplastics in soil, especially their spatial distribution patterns and influencing factors, is very limited. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the recent progress in order to serve future research on this issue.
Currently, more and more evidence has shown that microplastics are ubiquitous in soil, and some reviews have focused on the microplastics in a soil environment [24,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. These reviews mainly focused on the detection methods of microplastics in soil as well as their occurrence and effects on soil ecosystems. However, our current understanding of microplastics in soil is still fragmented [51]. Moreover, the research on microplastics is changing with each passing day, the number of publications is increasing exponentially every year, new research discoveries are constantly emerging, and new cognitions are constantly iterating. Therefore, it is necessary to constantly summarize the latest research progress. In this review, we collected and screened the recent available literature from the database of ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com) (accessed on 15 August 2022) and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com) (accessed on 15 August 2022) by using the keywords “microplastics” or “plastic debris” or “plastic”, and the articles were grouped with different categories including “soil”, “terrestrial”, or “land” to summarize the research on (1) the distribution characteristics of microplastics; (2) the influencing factors of microplastic distribution in the soil environment; and (3) the environmental and ecological risks from the distribution of microplastics in polluted soil. In addition, current existing problems, knowledge gaps, and proposed suggestions for future research are included.

2. Distribution Characteristics of Microplastic in the Soil Environment

In recent years, more scholars have begun to pay attention to microplastics in the soil environment. However, since there is no corresponding analytical test standard, many scholars have mainly focused on the extraction, identification, and distribution of microplastics [52,53,54,55,56,57,58], mostly located in farmland soils. As shown in Table 1, there were large differences in the abundance of soil microplastics in various locations. For example, the average abundance of microplastics in traditional farmland soil in southeastern Germany was only 0.34 ind·kg−1 [53], while the microplastics in the soil of a traditional home garden in southeastern Mexico were as high as 870 ind·kg−1 [59]; the average abundance difference between the two locations was about 2500 times. Even within the same city, the abundance of soil microplastics in different land types varies greatly [60,61]. In addition, the estuarine intertidal zone is located in the transition area between land and ocean and is susceptible to microplastic pollution; thus, the tidal flat soil of the coastal zone has become one of the first areas of concern [62,63]. These studies have confirmed the prevalence and overall abundance of microplastics and showed a trend of increasing with the decrease in particle size; the proportion of microplastics with a small particle size (<1 mm) was higher. In Wuhan, China, the abundance of microplastics even reached 2.2 × 104~6.9 × 105 ind·kg−1 [61], which was significantly higher than in other regions, which might be strongly related to human activities in the study area. Film plastic is widely used in farmland because it can improve the ground temperature, maintain soil moisture, and promote seed germination and the rapid growth of seedlings. Therefore, film-covered farmland is also a key area of focus for research on soil microplastics [51,64]. These studies have shown that the longer the farmland was covered with film, the higher the abundance of microplastics in the soil, which was related to the fact that the plastic film does not easily degrade and accumulates over time. In addition, a higher abundance of microplastics has also been found in some farmland or non-agricultural soils in other regions [52,56,65,66]. The abundance of microplastics in soils reported by countries varies considerably. This is not only related to different land use patterns, but also to the nonuniform methods used for the extraction, isolation, and analysis of microplastics in the soil. It is worth noting that in the current research on soil microplastics, most scholars have only focused on the surface soil, and the determination of the accumulation of microplastics in the soil as a whole is still lacking. In the future, unified and comparable research methods need to be established to standardize the expression of microplastic abundance.

3. Influencing Factors of Microplastic Distribution in the Soil Environment

Soil is a complex organic–inorganic complex consisting of minerals, organic matter, moisture, and air [77]. The distribution of microplastics in soil is affected by human factors (exogenous input), natural factors (soil properties), and the physical and chemical properties of the plastics themselves.

3.1. Human Activities

There are various sources of microplastics in soil including agricultural film residues, sludge reuse, sewage irrigation, and fertilizer use, etc. [50]. The exogenous input caused by human activities is an important factor affecting the distribution of microplastics in the soil, and thus the distribution of microplastics from different sources in the soil environment is often dominated by specific external environmental factors. For example, the length of film mulching time significantly affected the abundance of microplastics in the soil of film-covered farmland. Zhou et al. [64] found that the abundance of microplastics in the soil of mulched farmland near Hangzhou Bay was higher than that of unmulched farmland. In the long-term film-covered cotton fields in Shihezi, Xinjiang, the mean abundance of microplastics in the soil of the cotton fields covered with film for 5 years was 80.3 ind·kg−1, the mean abundance of microplastics in the soil of a cotton field covered with film for 15 years was 308 ind·kg−1, and the mean abundance of microplastics in the soil of cotton fields covered for 24 years was as high as 1075.6 ind·kg−1 [51]. The longer the farmland was covered with film, the higher the abundance of microplastics in the soil, which also showed that the residue of agricultural film was an important method for the accumulation of microplastics in the soil.
The sludge reuse also brings a large amount of microplastics into the soil environment. It is estimated that 0.63 to 4.30 and 0.44 to 3.00 million tons of microplastics enter the soil through sludge application in Europe and North America, respectively [78]. In China, up to 1.56 × 1014 microplastics enter the environment through sludge each year [26]. Therefore, the amount of sludge used greatly affects the accumulation of microplastics in the soil. The long-term use of farmland organic fertilizer is also one of the important exogenous inputs of microplastics into the soil. One study found that the abundance of plastic debris with a particle size greater than 1 mm in organic fertilizers reached 14 to 895 ind·kg–1 [79]. In sewage irrigation areas, the irrigation water is filtered, and the removal efficiency of microplastic particles during processing may determine the abundance of microplastics discharged into farmland soil. For instance, even if the wastewater from a sewage treatment plant in Vancouver, Canada is treated, about 30 billion microplastics are released into the environment through sewage every year. In coastal tidal flat soils, high-intensity human activities such as mariculture, tourism, and port construction are the main factors affecting the composition and distribution of microplastics in the intertidal zone [63].

3.2. Soil and Plastic Physicochemical Properties

After microplastics enter the soil environment, soil factors significantly affect the distribution of microplastics such as the pH, texture, organic matter, and soil animals [46,80,81,82,83]. The soil pH affects the soil adsorption capacity through H+ competition, changing the soil surface potential, and specific adsorption sites; a recent study indicated that the abundance of microplastics in acidic soil was significantly lower than that in neutral soil [81]. Soil texture affects the distribution of microplastics through the ease with which they move through the soil layers [49,84]. Microplastics are more likely to move to deeper layers in sandy soils, while the stickiness of the clay particles may prevent microplastics from moving into the deeper layer of clay soils [81]. A recent study also found that the abundance of microplastics in sandy loam soils was significantly higher than in other textures of soil [80]. Guo et al. [84] indicated that soil texture is an important factor determining how microplastics affect the soil hydraulic characteristics, and found adverse effects of microplastics on the infiltration properties of the three studied soils (loam, clay, and sand) were influenced by particle size, with larger particles having the weakest effect. Soil fauna can also affect the distribution of microplastics in the soil layers by ingesting or excreting microplastics, and their movement or disturbance may also cause microplastics to migrate back and forth between different soil layers [85,86]. Yu et al. [87] found that earthworms can ingest topsoil microplastics and transport them to deeper soil layers. Zhu et al. [88] also found that small soil fauna (e.g., collembolans and mites) could also facilitate the migration of microplastics in soil through surface attachment, grasping and pushing. Collembola accelerated the migration of MPs in soil, but there were also significant differences in the migratory ability between different collembola, the mode of action was that microplastics can attach to the cuticle of these micro-arthropods, and then with additional movement, be transported further [89]. In addition to the above factors, the physical and chemical properties of different microplastic types will also affect their distribution in the soil environment. For example, polyethylene is a long-chain polymer composed of thousands of ethylene (–CH2–) monomers, and the high molecular weight and hydrophobicity of this polymer make it particularly difficult to degrade [90,91]. Polyethylene terephthalate is also not easily degradable due to its chemical inertness, so the mass production and use of this material has also led to its massive accumulation in the soil environment [92]. In addition, other factors such as ultraviolet rays, temperature, and microfauna communities will also affect the distribution of soil microplastics [10,93]. However, due to the refractory properties of each polymer, its impact may not be significant in a short period of time.

4. Environmental and Ecological Risk Research on the Distribution of Microplastics in Polluted Soil

4.1. Release of Additives and Adsorption of Toxic Pollutants

Plastics usually have chemical additives (e.g., bisphenol A, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) [94,95,96]. Therefore, when microplastics accumulate in the soil environment, these chemical additives may be released into the soil under the influence of external factors [97,98], thereby threatening the soil ecosystem and affecting the quality and safety of the soil in the long-term. Zhang et al. [99] found that organophosphates (OPEs) and phthalates (PAEs) were prevalent in microplastics in the Bohai Sea and Yellow River beaches. Another study showed that microplastics can release phthalates, which can affect the diversity of soil microorganisms [100]. In addition, the surface of microplastics can adsorb hydrophobic organic pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [101,102,103], polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) [104,105,106], and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) [102,107]. When hydrophobic organic pollutants are adsorbed by microplastics, different adsorption sequences may occur, which may lead to competitive adsorption [108]. Lee et al. [109] conducted adsorption experiments on 14 different hydrophobic organic pollutants using polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene microplastics, and showed that there was a significant correlation between the adsorption capacity of microplastics and their hydrophobicity. In addition, microplastic surfaces can also adsorb Cd, Zn, Ni, Pb, and other heavy metals [41,110,111,112]. Zhou et al. [61] found that microplastic particles in the soil environment contained different levels of heavy metals including Cd, Cr, Pb, Ag, Cu, Sb, Hg, Fe, and Mn. However, due to the different chemical and physical properties (e.g., the specific surface area and molecular polarity) of each plastic, the adsorption rate of various heavy metals on microplastics may also vary greatly [113]. It is worth noting that their adsorption capacity for heavy metals and organic pollutants may further increase as microplastics age, thereby increasing their environmental risk [41]. For example, Ding et al. (2020) indicated that the adsorption capacities of polystyrene were enhanced with the increase in the aging degree [66]. Since microplastics enter the soil, they will interact with other pollutants. Under certain conditions, the slow degradation process of microplastics may also diffuse or release these adsorbed toxic chemicals into the surrounding environment or even into the underlying soil adjacent to groundwater [114,115]. Therefore, microplastics with attached pollutants have a greater environmental risk.

4.2. Ecological Risk

The accumulation of microplastics in the soil will not only affect the physicochemical properties of soil but also harm the development and reproduction of fauna, affect the plant growth, and even change the microbial community and enzyme activity [116,117,118]. Microplastics attached to the outer surface of some soil organisms (e.g., earthworms and springtails) may directly hinder their free movement in the soil layer [119]. In addition, incidental ingestion of microplastics can also cause mechanical damage to the esophagus of soil animals (e.g., earthworms, snails, and mice), intestinal obstruction, decreased fecundity, and biochemical reactions (e.g., decreased immune response and metabolic disturbance) [35,120,121]. It can also cause soil animals to produce false satiety, thereby reducing the carbon biomass intake, further leading to energy consumption, and ultimately resulting in reduced growth and even death [122]. In addition to particle toxicity, the impact of microplastics on soil organisms also includes the toxic effects of the various environmental pollutants attached to their surface, as discussed above [123,124]. At present, the research on the impact of microplastic distribution on soil microbial ecology mainly focuses on the assessment of changes in soil enzyme activities [45]. Previous studies have indicated that changes in the soil microbial activity were mainly dependent on the particle characteristics of microplastics, exposure concentrations, enzyme types, and the presence of plants [125,126]. The presence of microplastics may also affect the migration and sedimentation of bacteria in the soil as well as the loss of antibiotic resistance genes [38,127]. A recent study found that the distribution of microplastics significantly affected the community structure of soil microorganisms, which may also have an impact on the global carbon and nitrogen cycle [128]. However, there is still a lack of systematic research on the environmental and ecological risks caused by the distribution of soil microplastics.
The accumulation of microplastics in soil can also affect plant growth. A study found that the accumulation of plastic film residues in the soil led to a decrease in the fertilizer use efficiency of crops such as wheat and corn, a decrease in yield and the inhibition of root growth [129]. In addition, microplastics can also affect the photosynthesis and antioxidant defense systems of lettuce, thereby inhibiting its growth [130]; they can block cress seed pores and inhibit water absorption, thus delaying germination and root growth [131]. A study indicated that microplastics and synthetic fibers made from high-density polyethylene and polylactic acid affect ryegrass development, Rhodiola health, and soil properties, and may have further impacts on soil ecosystem function [132]. The high dose of polylactic acid produced stronger phytotoxicity than polyethylene [133]. In addition, microplastics of different sizes have different effects on plants, and generally, microplastics with small particle sizes are more toxic. A study found that 100 nm microplastics (100 mg·L−1) had an inhibitory effect on the growth of faba bean, and its genotoxicity was stronger than that of 5 μm microplastics [134]. Another study showed that 100 nm polystyrene microplastics could enter the roots of the legume plant, faba bean, blocking cell wall stomata and intercellular connections and affecting nutrient transport [134].

5. Conclusions and Future Research on Microplastics in the Soil Environment

To summarize, there are various sources of environmental microplastics. At present, the research on soil microplastics has mainly focused on their abundance, types, or testing and analysis methods. Microplastic pollution is a relatively new research topic in soil science, and there is still no uniform standard for sampling techniques, extraction methods, analytical procedures, and even expression units for soil microplastics. The following research should be strengthened in the future:
(i)
Establish a unified standard method for rapid extraction, convenient identification, and efficient monitoring of microplastics in soil, since there is still no unified standard for the testing and analysis methods of soil microplastics, which will inevitably reduce the comparability of data between different studies. At present, the separation methods of soil microplastics mainly include density separation, froth flotation, magnetic extraction, electrostatic separation, oil separation, and solvent extraction separation. However, these methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the froth flotation method is low-cost, green, and non-polluting, but it is not effective for extraction, and the floatation results vary considerably between polymers. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a fast, convenient, and standard quantitative analysis method for soil microplastics, especially detection technology that can meet the needs of the content, size, and type of nanoscale plastics.
(ii)
Systematically explore the influencing factors of the distribution of microplastics in soil, and introduce a new method to screen these factors to achieve an ideal quantitative characterization of the spatial distribution of soil microplastics. At present, there is no report on the quantitative characterization of soil distribution of microplastics. Previous studies on the quantification or prediction of the spatial distribution of soil pollutants have mostly used mathematical statistics and geostatistics. The application of geostatistical methods (e.g., Kriging interpolation) can predict the number of pollutants in a certain spatial range from the obtained data, hence, the “hot spots” of pollution can be visually observed. Mathematical statistical methods (e.g., correlation analysis and principal component analysis) extract the required information through the pollutant data or the analysis of relevant factors and are widely used in the field of soil science. However, these methods lack quantitative analysis of the driving ability of the spatial distribution of pollutants and cannot evaluate the influence of multi-factor interactions. In addition, the socio-economic factors in high-intensity human activity areas may have problems such as multi-source and variety of data, and traditional statistical methods have difficulty meeting the needs of large-scale data analysis or factor screening. Therefore, the introduction of a new method to screen the influencing factors and then to achieve an ideal quantitative characterization of the spatial distribution of soil microplastics is an important path to break through the above-mentioned defects.
(iii)
Assess the releasability of chemical additives in microplastics in the soil environment to prevent environmental risks and study the interaction between microplastics and pollutants in soil and the mechanism of compound pollution to evaluate the dose-biological effects and health risks of microplastics as well as to lay a foundation for the risk assessment of microplastics in soil. In addition, since the adsorption and desorption between microplastics and pollutants is affected by many factors such as hydrophobicity (Kow), molecular weight, and the three-dimensional geometry of the molecule, it is particularly necessary to clarify the long-term effects of microplastics on pollutants in the future, and to reveal their intrinsic driving forces from the mechanism.
(iv)
When analyzing the potential risks of microplastics, future studies should consider differences in the microplastic particle size, shape, and type in addition to the microplastic dosage. Current research on the impact of microplastics on the soil ecosystems often uses higher doses of microplastics to carry out ecological effects studies. However, microplastic doses at real concentrations in the soil environment tend to be lower compared to the experimental value, so future studies should be conducted using microplastic doses that are closer to their real concentrations in the environment, thus more accurately reflecting their in situ ecological effects. Moreover, nanoplastics are more harmful to soil organisms, so the ecological effects of nanoplastics accumulated in the soil should be considered in the future.

Author Contributions

C.W.: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft preparation, Formal analysis. J.T.: Writing—review & editing. Y.W.: Writing—review & editing. H.Y.: Writing—review & editing. H.L.: Writing—review & editing. S.X.: Writing—review & editing. G.L.: Writing—review & editing. Q.Z.: Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41801066, U2003101), the Hangzhou Science and Technology Development Program Project (20201203B146), and the Scientific Research Foundation of Hangzhou Dianzi University (KYS205619041).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kawecki, D.; Scheeder, P.R.; Nowack, B. Probabilistic material flow analysis of seven commodity plastics in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 9874–9888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sharma, M.D.; Elanjickal, A.I.; Mankar, J.S.; Krupadam, R.J. Assessment of cancer risk of microplastics enriched with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 398, 122994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kawecki, D.; Nowack, B. Polymer-specific modeling of the environmental emissions of seven commodity plastics as macro-and microplastics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 9664–9676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lebreton, L.; Van Der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.-W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rochman, C.M.; Browne, M.A.; Halpern, B.S.; Hentschel, B.T.; Hoh, E.; Karapanagioti, H.K.; Rios-Mendoza, L.M.; Takada, H.; Teh, S.; Thompson, R.C. Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 2013, 494, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dahlbo, H.; Poliakova, V.; Mylläri, V.; Sahimaa, O.; Anderson, R. Recycling potential of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in Finland. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 1394–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Van Velzen, E.T.; Brouwer, M.; Feil, A. Collection behaviour of lightweight packaging waste by individual households and implications for the analysis of collection schemes. Waste Manag. 2019, 89, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xi, B.; Wang, B.; Chen, M.; Lee, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Yu, Z.; Wu, P. Environmental behaviors and degradation methods of microplastics in different environmental media. Chemosphere 2022, 299, 134354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guo, X.; Wang, J. The chemical behaviors of microplastics in marine environment: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Boucher, J.; Friot, D. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources; Iucn: Gland, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  13. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Auta, H.S.; Emenike, C.; Fauziah, S. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 2017, 102, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Law, K.L.; Thompson, R.C. Microplastics in the seas. Science 2014, 345, 144–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wilcox, C.; Hardesty, B.D.; Law, K.L. Abundance of floating plastic particles is increasing in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Frias, J.P.; Nash, R. Microplastics: Finding a consensus on the definition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yurtsever, M. Glitters as a source of primary microplastics: An approach to environmental responsibility and ethics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2019, 32, 459–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Laskar, N.; Kumar, U. Plastics and microplastics: A threat to environment. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 14, 100352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Andrady, A.L. The plastic in microplastics: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 119, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vethaak, A.D.; Legler, J. Microplastics and human health. Science 2021, 371, 672–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ragusa, A.; Svelato, A.; Santacroce, C.; Catalano, P.; Notarstefano, V.; Carnevali, O.; Papa, F.; Rongioletti, M.C.A.; Baiocco, F.; Draghi, S. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rillig, M.C. Microplastic in Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Soil? ACS Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, C. Microplastics in soil: A review on methods, occurrence, sources, and potential risk. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. PlasticsEurope, E. Plastics—The Facts 2019. An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. Available online: https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/1804-plastics-facts-2019 (accessed on 15 August 2022).
  26. Li, X.; Chen, L.; Mei, Q.; Dong, B.; Dai, X.; Ding, G.; Zeng, E.Y. Microplastics in sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Res. 2018, 142, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mahon, A.M.; O’Connell, B.; Healy, M.G.; O’Connor, I.; Officer, R.; Nash, R.; Morrison, L. Microplastics in sewage sludge: Effects of treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 810–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zhang, L.; Xie, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhong, S.; Qian, Y.; Gao, P. An overlooked entry pathway of microplastics into agricultural soils from application of sludge-based fertilizers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 4248–4255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nizzetto, L.; Futter, M.; Langaas, S. Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin? ACS Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Shen, M.; Xiong, W.; Song, B.; Zhou, C.; Almatrafi, E.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, Y. Microplastics in landfill and leachate: Occurrence, environmental behavior and removal strategies. Chemosphere 2022, 305, 135325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, M.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, X.; Jia, W.; Chai, L.; Huang, M.; Huang, Y. Microplastics from mulching film is a distinct habitat for bacteria in farmland soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rochman, C.M. Microplastics research—from sink to source. Science 2018, 360, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chae, Y.; An, Y.-J. Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological impacts on the soil ecosystem: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 240, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, Y.; Wang, J.; Zou, M.; Jia, Z.; Zhou, S.; Li, Y. Microplastics in soils: A review of methods, occurrence, fate, transport, ecological and environmental risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guo, J.-J.; Huang, X.-P.; Xiang, L.; Wang, Y.-Z.; Li, Y.-W.; Li, H.; Cai, Q.-Y.; Mo, C.-H.; Wong, M.-H. Source, migration and toxicology of microplastics in soil. Environ. Int. 2020, 137, 105263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Qi, R.; Jones, D.L.; Li, Z.; Liu, Q.; Yan, C. Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Xu, B.; Liu, F.; Cryder, Z.; Huang, D.; Lu, Z.; He, Y.; Wang, H.; Lu, Z.; Brookes, P.C.; Tang, C. Microplastics in the soil environment: Occurrence, risks, interactions and fate–a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 50, 2175–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. He, D.; Luo, Y.; Lu, S.; Liu, M.; Song, Y.; Lei, L. Microplastics in soils: Analytical methods, pollution characteristics and ecological risks. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 109, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhu, F.; Zhu, C.; Wang, C.; Gu, C. Occurrence and ecological impacts of microplastics in soil systems: A review. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 102, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chia, R.W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Kim, H.; Jang, J. Microplastic pollution in soil and groundwater: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 4211–4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Li, Y.; Powell, T.; Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Zhang, P. Microplastics as contaminants in the soil environment: A mini-review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 848–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Helmberger, M.S.; Tiemann, L.K.; Grieshop, M.J. Towards an ecology of soil microplastics. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Möller, J.N.; Löder, M.G.; Laforsch, C. Finding microplastics in soils: A review of analytical methods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 2078–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, J.; Song, Y.; Cai, Y. Focus topics on microplastics in soil: Analytical methods, occurrence, transport, and ecological risks. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 257, 113570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, W.; Ge, J.; Yu, X.; Li, H. Environmental fate and impacts of microplastics in soil ecosystems: Progress and perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 134841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chia, R.W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jang, J.; Kim, H.; Kwon, K.D. Soil health and microplastics: A review of the impacts of microplastic contamination on soil properties. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, Y.-N.; Yoon, J.-H.; Kim, K.-H.J. Microplastic contamination in soil environment—A review. Soil Sci. Annu. 2021, 71, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Ouyang, D.; Lei, J.; Tan, Q.; Xie, L.; Li, Z.; Liu, T.; Xiao, Y.; Farooq, T.H. Systematical review of interactions between microplastics and microorganisms in the soil environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Thomas, D.; Schütze, B.; Heinze, W.M.; Steinmetz, Z. Sample preparation techniques for the analysis of microplastics in soil—a review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, B.; Yang, X.; Chen, L.; Chao, J.; Teng, J.; Wang, Q. Microplastics in soils: A review of possible sources, analytical methods and ecological impacts. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2020, 95, 2052–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Jia, W.; Yan, C.; Wang, J. Agricultural plastic mulching as a source of microplastics in the terrestrial environment. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 260, 114096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fuller, S.; Gautam, A. A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5774–5780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Piehl, S.; Leibner, A.; Löder, M.G.; Dris, R.; Bogner, C.; Laforsch, C. Identification and quantification of macro-and microplas-tics on an agricultural farmland. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Scheurer, M.; Bigalke, M. Microplastics in Swiss floodplain soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 3591–3598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Weber, C.J.; Opp, C. Spatial patterns of mesoplastics and coarse microplastics in floodplain soils as resulting from land use and fluvial processes. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Corradini, F.; Meza, P.; Eguiluz, R.; Casado, F.; Huerta-Lwanga, E.; Geissen, V. Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Huerta Lwanga, E.; Gertsen, H.; Gooren, H.; Peters, P.; Salánki, T.; Van Der Ploeg, M.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A.A.; Geissen, V. Microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem: Implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2685–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Van den Berg, P.; Huerta-Lwanga, E.; Corradini, F.; Geissen, V. Sewage sludge application as a vehicle for microplastics in eastern Spanish agricultural soils. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 261, 114198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huerta Lwanga, E.; Mendoza Vega, J.; Ku Quej, V.; Chi, J.D.L.A.; Sanchez del Cid, L.; Chi, C.; Escalona Segura, G.; Gertsen, H.; Salánki, T.; van der Ploeg, M. Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a terrestrial food chain. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Chen, Y.; Leng, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of suburb Wuhan, central China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 257, 113449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, J. Characterization of microplastics and the association of heavy metals with microplastics in suburban soil of central China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Qian, Z.; ZHANG, H.; Yang, Z.; Yuan, L.; Yong, X.; ChuanCheng, F.; Chen, T.; YongMing, L. Separation of microplastics from a coastal soil and their surface microscopic features. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2016, 61, 1604–1611. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhou, Q.; Zhang, H.; Fu, C.; Zhou, Y.; Dai, Z.; Li, Y.; Tu, C.; Luo, Y. The distribution and morphology of microplastics in coastal soils adjacent to the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea. Geoderma 2018, 322, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhou, B.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Shi, H.; Fei, Y.; Huang, S.; Tong, Y.; Wen, D.; Luo, Y.; Barceló, D. Microplastics in agricultural soils on the coastal plain of Hangzhou Bay, east China: Multiple sources other than plastic mulching film. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 388, 121814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, G.; Liu, Y. The distribution of microplastics in soil aggregate fractions in southwestern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ding, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, C.; Qi, Y.; Guo, X. The occurrence and distribution characteristics of microplastics in the agricultural soils of Shaanxi Province, in north-western China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Li, Q.; Wu, J.; Zhao, X.; Gu, X.; Ji, R. Separation and identification of microplastics from soil and sewage sludge. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lv, W.; Zhou, W.; Lu, S.; Huang, W.; Yuan, Q.; Tian, M.; Lv, W.; He, D. Microplastic pollution in rice-fish co-culture system: A report of three farmland stations in Shanghai, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, S.; Yang, X.; Gertsen, H.; Peters, P.; Salánki, T.; Geissen, V. A simple method for the extraction and identification of light density microplastics from soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616, 1056–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Huang, B.; Sun, L.; Liu, M.; Huang, H.; He, H.; Han, F.; Wang, X.; Xu, Z.; Li, B.; Pan, X. Abundance and distribution characteristics of microplastic in plateau cultivated land of Yunnan Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1675–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, S.; Ding, F.; Flury, M.; Wang, Z.; Xu, L.; Li, S.; Jones, D.L.; Wang, J. Macro-and microplastic accumulation in soil after 32 years of plastic film mulching. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 300, 118945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liu, M.; Lu, S.; Song, Y.; Lei, L.; Hu, J.; Lv, W.; Zhou, W.; Cao, C.; Shi, H.; Yang, X. Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Xu, G.; Yang, L.; Xu, L.; Yang, J. Soil microplastic pollution under different land uses in tropics, southwestern China. Chemosphere 2022, 289, 133176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhou, Q.; Tu, C.; Fu, C.; Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Xiong, K.; Zhao, X.; Li, L.; Waniek, J.J.; Luo, Y. Characteristics and distribution of microplastics in the coastal mangrove sediments of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Han, X.; Lu, X.; Vogt, R.D. An optimized density-based approach for extracting microplastics from soil and sediment samples. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Yang, L.; Kang, S.; Wang, Z.; Luo, X.; Guo, J.; Gao, T.; Chen, P.; Yang, C.; Zhang, Y. Microplastic characteristic in the soil across the Tibetan Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 828, 154518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Monreal, C.M.; Sultan, Y.; Schnitzer, M. Soil organic matter in nano-scale structures of a cultivated Black Chernozem. Geoderma 2010, 159, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ng, E.-L.; Lwanga, E.H.; Eldridge, S.M.; Johnston, P.; Hu, H.-W.; Geissen, V.; Chen, D. An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1377–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Weithmann, N.; Möller, J.N.; Löder, M.G.; Piehl, S.; Laforsch, C.; Freitag, R. Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaap8060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Yu, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, L.; Tao, S.; Liu, W. Distribution characteristics of microplastics in agricultural soils from the largest vegetable production base in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cao, L.; Wu, D.; Liu, P.; Hu, W.; Xu, L.; Sun, Y.; Wu, Q.; Tian, K.; Huang, B.; Yoon, S.J. Occurrence, distribution and affecting factors of microplastics in agricultural soils along the lower reaches of Yangtze River, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 794, 148694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, C.; Zhao, J.; Xing, B. Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 407, 124357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, F.; Wang, Q.; Adams, C.A.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, S. Effects of microplastics on soil properties: Current knowledge and future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Guo, Z.; Li, P.; Yang, X.; Wang, Z.; Lu, B.; Chen, W.; Wu, Y.; Li, G.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, G. Soil texture is an important factor determining how microplastics affect soil hydraulic characteristics. Environ. Int. 2022, 165, 107293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, X.; He, D. Interaction of microplastics and soil animals in agricultural ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2022, 52, 100327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kumar, M.; Xiong, X.; He, M.; Tsang, D.C.; Gupta, J.; Khan, E.; Harrad, S.; Hou, D.; Ok, Y.S.; Bolan, N.S. Microplastics as pollutants in agricultural soils. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Yu, M.; Van Der Ploeg, M.; Lwanga, E.H.; Yang, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, X.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Leaching of microplastics by preferential flow in earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) burrows. Environ. Chem. 2019, 16, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhu, D.; Bi, Q.-F.; Xiang, Q.; Chen, Q.-L.; Christie, P.; Ke, X.; Wu, L.-H.; Zhu, Y.-G. Trophic predator-prey relationships promote transport of microplastics compared with the single Hypoaspis aculeifer and Folsomia candida. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Maaß, S.; Daphi, D.; Lehmann, A.; Rillig, M.C. Transport of microplastics by two collembolan species. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 225, 456–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chiellini, E.; Corti, A.; Swift, G. Biodegradation of thermally-oxidized, fragmented low-density polyethylenes. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2003, 81, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nanda, S.; Sahu, S.S. Biodegradability of polyethylene by Brevibacillus, Pseudomonas, and Rhodococcus spp. N. Y. Sci. J. 2010, 3, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  92. Yoshida, S.; Hiraga, K.; Takehana, T.; Taniguchi, I.; Yamaji, H.; Maeda, Y.; Toyohara, K.; Miyamoto, K.; Kimura, Y.; Oda, K. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly (ethylene terephthalate). Science 2016, 351, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lin, Z.; Jin, T.; Zou, T.; Xu, L.; Xi, B.; Xu, D.; He, J.; Xiong, L.; Tang, C.; Peng, J. Current progress on plastic/microplastic degradation: Fact influences and mechanism. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 304, 119159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hahladakis, J.N.; Velis, C.A.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cañadas, R.; Gamarro, E.G.; Martínez, R.G.; González, G.P.; Hernando, P.F. Occurrence of common plastic additives and contaminants in mussel samples: Validation of analytical method based on matrix solid-phase dispersion. Food Chem. 2021, 349, 129169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Fasano, E.; Bono-Blay, F.; Cirillo, T.; Montuori, P.; Lacorte, S. Migration of phthalates, alkylphenols, bisphenol A and di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate from food packaging. Food Control 2012, 27, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Campanale, C.; Massarelli, C.; Savino, I.; Locaputo, V.; Uricchio, V.F. A detailed review study on potential effects of microplastics and additives of concern on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Yan, Y.; Zhu, F.; Zhu, C.; Chen, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Gu, C. Dibutyl phthalate release from polyvinyl chloride microplastics: Influence of plastic properties and environmental factors. Water Res. 2021, 204, 117597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Zhang, H.; Zhou, Q.; Xie, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Tu, C.; Fu, C.; Mi, W.; Ebinghaus, R.; Christie, P.; Luo, Y. Occurrences of organophosphorus esters and phthalates in the microplastics from the coastal beaches in north China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616, 1505–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. You, Y.; Wang, Z.; Xu, W.; Wang, C.; Zhao, X.; Su, Y. Phthalic acid esters disturbed the genetic information processing and improved the carbon metabolism in black soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Sørensen, L.; Rogers, E.; Altin, D.; Salaberria, I.; Booth, A.M. Sorption of PAHs to microplastic and their bioavailability and toxicity to marine copepods under co-exposure conditions. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jiménez-Skrzypek, G.; Hernández-Sánchez, C.; Ortega-Zamora, C.; González-Sálamo, J.; González-Curbelo, M.Á.; Hernández-Borges, J. Microplastic-adsorbed organic contaminants: Analytical methods and occurrence. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 136, 116186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fu, L.; Li, J.; Wang, G.; Luan, Y.; Dai, W. Adsorption behavior of organic pollutants on microplastics. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 217, 112207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Velzeboer, I.; Kwadijk, C.; Koelmans, A. Strong sorption of PCBs to nanoplastics, microplastics, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 4869–4876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Yeo, B.G.; Takada, H.; Yamashita, R.; Okazaki, Y.; Uchida, K.; Tokai, T.; Tanaka, K.; Trenholm, N. PCBs and PBDEs in microplastic particles and zooplankton in open water in the Pacific Ocean and around the coast of Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 151, 110806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Fraser, M.A.; Chen, L.; Ashar, M.; Huang, W.; Zeng, J.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, D. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics and polychlorinated biphenyls in sediments from the Qiantang River and Hangzhou Bay, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 196, 110536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Zhang, C.; Lei, Y.; Qian, J.; Qiao, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, S.; Dai, L.; Sun, K.; Guo, H.; Sui, G. Sorption of organochlorine pesticides on polyethylene microplastics in soil suspension. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 223, 112591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Bakir, A.; Rowland, S.J.; Thompson, R.C. Competitive sorption of persistent organic pollutants onto microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 2782–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lee, H.; Shim, W.J.; Kwon, J.-H. Sorption capacity of plastic debris for hydrophobic organic chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 470, 1545–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tang, S.; Lin, L.; Wang, X.; Feng, A.; Yu, A. Pb (II) uptake onto nylon microplastics: Interaction mechanism and adsorption performance. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 386, 121960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Brennecke, D.; Duarte, B.; Paiva, F.; Caçador, I.; Canning-Clode, J. Microplastics as vector for heavy metal contamination from the marine environment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 178, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Cao, Y.; Zhao, M.; Ma, X.; Song, Y.; Zuo, S.; Li, H.; Deng, W. A critical review on the interactions of microplastics with heavy metals: Mechanism and their combined effect on organisms and humans. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Massos, A.; Turner, A. Cadmium, lead and bromine in beached microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 227, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ren, Z.; Gui, X.; Xu, X.; Zhao, L.; Qiu, H.; Cao, X. Microplastics in the soil-groundwater environment: Aging, migration, and co-transport of contaminants–a critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Viaroli, S.; Lancia, M.; Re, V. Microplastics contamination of groundwater: Current evidence and future perspectives. A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 824, 153851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Da Costa, J.P.; Paço, A.; Santos, P.S.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Microplastics in soils: Assessment, analytics and risks. Environ. Chem. 2018, 16, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Ya, H.; Jiang, B.; Xing, Y.; Zhang, T.; Lv, M.; Wang, X. Recent advances on ecological effects of microplastics on soil environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Ding, L.; Huang, D.; Ouyang, Z.; Guo, X. The effects of microplastics on soil ecosystem: A review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2022, 26, 100344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kim, S.W.; An, Y.-J. Soil microplastics inhibit the movement of springtail species. Environ. Int. 2019, 126, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rodriguez-Seijo, A.; Lourenço, J.; Rocha-Santos, T.; Da Costa, J.; Duarte, A.; Vala, H.; Pereira, R. Histopathological and molecular effects of microplastics in Eisenia andrei Bouché. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Song, Y.; Cao, C.; Qiu, R.; Hu, J.; Liu, M.; Lu, S.; Shi, H.; Raley-Susman, K.M.; He, D. Uptake and adverse effects of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial snails (Achatina fulica) after soil exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 250, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Da Costa, J.P.; Santos, P.S.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. (Nano) plastics in the environment–sources, fates and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Groh, K.J.; Backhaus, T.; Carney-Almroth, B.; Geueke, B.; Inostroza, P.A.; Lennquist, A.; Leslie, H.A.; Maffini, M.; Slunge, D.; Trasande, L. Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3253–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Rodríguez-Seijo, A.; Santos, B.; da Silva, E.F.; Cachada, A.; Pereira, R. Low-density polyethylene microplastics as a source and carriers of agrochemicals to soil and earthworms. Environ. Chem. 2018, 16, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. De Souza Machado, A.A.; Kloas, W.; Zarfl, C.; Hempel, S.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1405–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Liu, H.; Yang, X.; Liu, G.; Liang, C.; Xue, S.; Chen, H.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess soil. Chemosphere 2017, 185, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Sun, M.; Ye, M.; Jiao, W.; Feng, Y.; Yu, P.; Liu, M.; Jiao, J.; He, X.; Liu, K.; Zhao, Y. Changes in tetracycline partitioning and bacteria/phage-comediated ARGs in microplastic-contaminated greenhouse soil facilitated by sophorolipid. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 345, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Gao, B.; Yao, H.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y. Microplastic addition alters the microbial community structure and stimulates soil carbon dioxide emissions in vegetable-growing soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40, 352–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Yan, C.; Mei, X.; He, W.; Zheng, S. Present situation of residue pollution of mulching plastic film and controlling measures. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2006, 22, 269–272. [Google Scholar]
  130. Gao, M.; Liu, Y.; Song, Z. Effects of polyethylene microplastic on the phytotoxicity of di-n-butyl phthalate in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. ramosa Hort). Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bosker, T.; Bouwman, L.J.; Brun, N.R.; Behrens, P.; Vijver, M.G. Microplastics accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 2019, 226, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Boots, B.; Russell, C.W.; Green, D.S. Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: Above and below ground. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11496–11506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wang, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, S.; Sun, Y. Interactions of microplastics and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in an agricultural soil. Chemosphere 2020, 254, 126791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Jiang, X.; Chen, H.; Liao, Y.; Ye, Z.; Li, M.; Klobučar, G. Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 250, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13405 g001 550
Figure 1. Main sources of soil microplastics.
Figure 1. Main sources of soil microplastics.
Sustainability 14 13405 g001
Table
Table 1. Occurrence of microplastics detected in the soil compartment.
Table 1. Occurrence of microplastics detected in the soil compartment.
Region Soil Type/DepthSize (mm)Polymer ShapePolymer CompositionAbundance
(Ind·kg−1 Dry Soil)		Reference
OceaniaSydney, AustraliaIndustrial soil<1---PE, PS, PVC300 to 67,500 (mg·kg−1)[52]
AmericaMellipilla, ChileAgricultural soil/0–25 cm<10 Fibers (97%), fragments, films, pelletsAC, LDPE, nylon, PVC, PES600 to 10,400[56]
Pucnachen, MexicoHome garden soil/0–10 cm, 10–20 cm<5---PE, fiber, PS870[59]
EuropeFloodplain areas, Lahn River, GermanAgricultural/grassland soil/2 m2 to 5---LDPE, PMMA, POM, PP, PS, PET, HDPE, PDMS, Nylon-61.88[55]
Franconia, GermanyAgricultural soil/0–5 cm1 to 5Fragments (43.75%), film (43.75%), fibers (12.5%)PS, PET, PMMA, PVC, PP, PE0.34[53]
Valencia, SpainAgricultural soil/0–10 cm, 10–30 cm0.05 to 5Fragments, fibers, films---280 (light density), 430 (heavy density)[58]
SwissFloodplain soil<5---PE, PA, natural latex, PS, PVC, SBR, PP0 to 593[54]
AsiaDian Lake, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–5 cm, 5–10 cm0.03 to 10Fibers (92%), fragments, films---7100 to 42,960[65]
Jiangsu province, ChinaAgricultural soil/surface soils1 to 5Bulks, fibers, fragmentsPE, PP, PET, PAN, CL420 to 1290[67]
Shanghai, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–10 cm0.02 to 5Fibers, fragments, films, pelletsPE (61.4%), PP (35.1%), PVC (3.5%)10.3[68]
Wuhan, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–5 cm0.02 to 5Fibers, pellets, fragments, foamsPA, PP, PS, PVC, PE320 to 12,560[60]
Hangzhou Bay, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–10 cm0.05 to 5Films, fragments, fibersPE, PP, PES, RY, AC, PA571.2 (with films), 262.7 (without films) [64]
North-western ChinaAgricultural, orchard, greenhouse soil<5---PE, PP40 to 320[69]
Shannxi, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–10 cm<5 mmFibers, fragments, films, pelletsPE, PP, PS, PVC1430 to 3410[66]
Shihezi, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–40 cm<5 mmFilmsPE80.3 (with films 5 years), 308 (with films 15 years),
1075 (with films 24 years)		[51]
Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–30 cm<5 mmFragments (80.6%), fibers (19.4%)---900 to 40,800[70]
Shenyang Agricultural University, ChinaAgricultural soil/0–100 cm<5 mmFilms, fibers, granulesPE3,700,000 (fertilized plot), 2,200,000 (non-fertilized plots), 8885 (topsoil), 2899 (deep subsoil) [71]
Shanghai, ChinaFarmland soil/0–3 cm, 3–6 cm0.02 to 5Shallow: fibers (53.33%), fragments (37.58%); deep: films (6.67%), particles (2.12%)PP (50.5%), PE (43.43%), PET (6.1%)78 (shallow), 62.5 (deep)[72]
Southwestern, ChinaForest and plantation soil/0–10 cm<5 mmFragments, fibersPE (59.6%), RY (12%), PP (10.9%)10,975 (banana plantations), 1112.5 (rubber plantations), 612.5 (forests)[73]
Guilin, ChinaCitrus orchard soil/0–5 cm, 5–15 cm, 15–25 cm<5 mmFragments (85.9%), fibers (12.5%), films (1.6%) (A)
Films (50.3%), fibers (31.2%), fragments (18.5%) (B)
Fibers (71%), fragments (29%) 		PP (59%), PP/PE, PET, PE545.9 (A), 87.6(B), 5.0 (C)[28]
Wuhan, Chinavacant land, woodland, vegetable soil/0–5 cm0.01 to 5Fragments (52%), pellets (14%), fibers (13.8)PE, PA, PP, PS, PVC22,000 to 690,000[61]
Tangshan, ChinaTidal soil/0–2 cm0.12 to 4.67Pellets (76.3%), fragments (20.5%), fibers (2.2%), filaments (1%)---634[62]
Shandong province, ChinaCoastal soil/0–2 cm<5Flakes (69%), foams (27.8%), fragments and fibers (2.1%)PE, PP, PS, PUR1.3 to 14,712.5[63]
Southeast coastal area, ChinaMangrove soil/0–2 cm<5 mmFoams (74.6%), fibers (14%)PS (75.2%), PP (11.7%), rayon, PES8.3 to 5738.3[74]
Tianjin, ChinaCampus soil0.1 to 3.2FragmentsPP75 to 95[75]
Tibetan Plateau, ChinaPrimary soil<5 mmFibers (43.54%), fragments (32.2%), films (23.78%)PVC, PE, PP, PS47.12[76]
Note: PET = polyethylene terephthalate, HDPE = high-density polyethylene, LDPE = low-density polyethylene, PA = polyamide, PP = polypropylene, PS = polystyrene, PUR = polyurethane, PAN = polyacrylonitrile, PES = polyester, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, RY = rayon, CL = cellophane, AC = acrylic, SBR = styrene butadiene, PMMA = polymethyl methacrylate.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, C.; Tang, J.; Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Xu, S.; Li, G.; Zhou, Q. Microplastic Pollution in the Soil Environment: Characteristics, Influencing Factors, and Risks. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013405

AMA Style

Wang C, Tang J, Yu H, Wang Y, Li H, Xu S, Li G, Zhou Q. Microplastic Pollution in the Soil Environment: Characteristics, Influencing Factors, and Risks. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013405

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Chunhui, Junhong Tang, Haixia Yu, Yiyi Wang, Huanxuan Li, Shaodan Xu, Gang Li, and Qian Zhou. 2022. "Microplastic Pollution in the Soil Environment: Characteristics, Influencing Factors, and Risks" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013405

APA Style

Wang, C., Tang, J., Yu, H., Wang, Y., Li, H., Xu, S., Li, G., & Zhou, Q. (2022). Microplastic Pollution in the Soil Environment: Characteristics, Influencing Factors, and Risks. Sustainability, 14(20), 13405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013405

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop