Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the fitness of earthworms in an agricultural soil

Cao, Dongdong; Xiao, Wang; Luo, Xianxiang; Liu, Guocheng; Zheng, Hao

doi:10.1088/1755-1315/61/1/012148

Cited by 168 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, microplastic particles smaller than 50 µm were found in earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) casts. The mortality rate of the earthworms increased whereas growth rate was significantly reduced (Cao et al, 2017;Huerta Lwanga et al, 2016). Zhu et al (2018) showed, that microplastics altered gut microbiota, increases bacterial diversity of Folsomia candida and growth and reproduction rate of was inhibidet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of microplastic and microglass particles on soil microbial community structure in an arable soil (Chernozem)

Wiedner¹,

Polifka²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Since decades, microplastics and microglass enter aquatic and terrestrial environments. The complexity of the environmental impact is difficult to capture and consequences on ecosystem components e.g. such as soil microorganisms are virtually unknown. Addressing this issue, we performed an incubation experiment by adding 1 % of five different types of impurities (≤ 100 µm) to an agricultural used soil (Chernozem). Four microplastic types (polypropylene (PP), low density polyethylene (LD-PE), polystyrene (PS) and polyamide12 (PA12)) and microglass were used as treatment variants. After 80 days of incubation at 20 °C, we examined soil microbial community structure by using phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA) as markers for bacteria, fungi and protozoa. The results showed that soil microorganisms were not significantly affected by the presence of microplastic and microglass. However, PLFAs tend to increase in LD-PE (27 %), PP (18 %) and microglass (11 %) treated soil in comparison with untreated soil, whereas PLFAs in PA12 (32 %) and PS (11 %) treated soil decreased. Interestingly, the comparison of PLFA contents between microplastic types revealed significant differences of PA12 (−87 %) and PS (−42 %) compared to LD-PE. Furthermore, bacterial PLFAs showed a much higher variability after microplastic incubation whereby fungi seem to be more unaffected after 80 days of incubation. Same for protozoa, which were more or less unaffected by microplastic treatment showing only minor reduction of the PLFA contents compared to control. In contrast, microglass has obviously an inhibiting effect on protozoa because PLFAs were under the limit of determination. Our study provides hints, that microplastics have, depending on type, contrary effects on soil microbiology and microglass seems to be highly toxic for protozoa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The wide variance between the several types of plastic and just as the heterogeneity of different sources prevent a generalization of scientific results. For example Cao et al (2017) visualized polystyrene using SEM. The showed image of PS differs strongly from the plastic used in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of microplastic and microglass particles on soil microbial community structure in an arable soil (Chernozem)

Wiedner¹,

Polifka²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On comparing a 60-day treatment versus a 14-day treatment, their mortality was found to be much higher in the 60-day one. Similarly, Cao et al 64 found that MPs impacted the fitness of earthworms (Eisenia foetida) when the exposure concentration was lower than 0.5% (w/w). However, when the exposure concentration was increased to 1 and 2%, a significant inhibition effect was observed on their growth, with a significant increase in mortality.…”

Section: Ecological Risks Of Microplastics On Soil Organismsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Microplastics in soils: a review of possible sources, analytical methods and ecological impacts

Zhang

Yang

Chen

et al. 2020

J of Chemical Tech & Biotech

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastics are emerging persistent pollutants that have been extensively detected in aqueous environments. Yet, scientists have little knowledge of microplastic pollution in soils. This study reviewed over 60 articles, with the following objectives: (i) to discuss sources and the global distribution of microplastics in soils; (ii) to evaluate current extraction techniques and analytical methods for microplastics in soils; and (iii) to comprehensively assess their adverse impacts on soils and soil organisms. Moreover, this review highlights the lack of research into microplastic contamination in soils as a significant knowledge gap. Research into the fate, sources and analytical techniques of soil microplastics and the interactions between soil organisms, soils and microplastics is essential in order to underpin management decisions aimed at safeguarding the ecological integrity of our soils.

show abstract

“…In contrast, little is known about MP effects on soil fauna (Chae and An, 2018). Early studies on earthworms under MP exposure indicated that some biological functions could be inhibited (Huerta Lwanga et al, 2016;Cao et al, 2017). One study documented histopathological damage, including congestion fibrosis and inflammatory infiltrates in earthworms in response to MP exposure, although no biological functions were affected (Rodriguez-Seijo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microplastics Effects on Reproduction and Body Length of the Soil-Dwelling Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans

Schöpfer

Menzel

Schnepf

et al. 2020

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microplastics (MP) are pervasive in the environment. There is ample evidence of negative MP effects on biota in aquatic ecosystems, though little is known about MP effects in terrestrial ecosystems. Given numerous entry routes of MP into soils, soil organisms are likely to be exposed to MP. We compared potential toxicological effects of MP from (i) low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (mean diameter ± standard deviation: 57 ± 40 µm) and (ii) a blend of biodegradable polymers polylactide (PLA) and poly(butylene adipateco-terephthalate) (PBAT) (40 ± 31 µm) on the reproduction and body length of the soil-dwelling bacterivorous nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Feed suspensions without (control) or with MP (treatments) at concentrations of 1, 10, and 100 mg MP L −1 were prepared and nematodes were exposed to those suspensions on agar plates until completion of their reproductive phase (∼6 days). Using Nile red-stained PLA/PBAT MP particles and fluorescence microscopy, we demonstrated the ingestion of MP by C. elegans into pharynges and intestines. Under MP exposure, nematodes had fewer offspring (up to 22.9%) compared to nematodes in the control group. This decline was independent on the plastic type. We detected a tendency toward greater decreases in offspring at higher concentrations. Despite hints of negative effects on nematode body length under MP exposure, we could not derive a consistent pattern. We conclude that in MP-contaminated soils, the reproduction of nematodes, central actors in the soil food web, can be affected, with potentially negative implications for key soil functions, e.g., the regulation of soil biogeochemical cycles.

show abstract

Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the fitness of earthworms in an agricultural soil

Cited by 168 publications

References 8 publications

Effects of microplastic and microglass particles on soil microbial community structure in an arable soil (Chernozem)

Effects of microplastic and microglass particles on soil microbial community structure in an arable soil (Chernozem)

Microplastics in soils: a review of possible sources, analytical methods and ecological impacts

Microplastics Effects on Reproduction and Body Length of the Soil-Dwelling Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About