中文   |   English   |   Email Alert
Fig/Tab
Advanced Search
image

Detection Methods, Pollution Characteristics, Environmental Behavior and Ecological Risk of Microplastics

Xujun Liang , Yujing Ren , Ling Ding , Xinran Qiu , Xuetao Guo , Lingyan Zhu

Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 16 -31.

PDF
Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 16-31 DOI: 10.7536/PC240711
research-article
Scan to read & Share
Detection Methods, Pollution Characteristics, Environmental Behavior and Ecological Risk of Microplastics
Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

As an emerging pollutant, microplastics (MPs) pollution has become a focal point of global environmental research. MPs are widely detected in various environmental matrices, including the atmosphere, soil, oceans, and inland waters. Once introduced into the environment, MPs undergo a series of transformation and transport processes across different environmental compartments and accumulate in biota, thereby posing significant threats to ecosystems and human health. This review aims to summarize the sampling and detection methods for MPs, followed by an assessment of their pollution levels in different matrices. The inter-compartmental transformation and transport of MPs, along with their ecological effects, are then reviewed and analyzed. Finally, the limitations in understanding the environmental geochemical behaviors and ecological risks of MPs, as well as prospects for future research, are outlined.

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Detection methods of microplastics (MPs) in the environment

2.1 Sampling and separation

2.2 Detection

3 Environmental occurrences of MPs

3.1 Oceans

3.2 Freshwater

3.3 Soil

3.4 Atmosphere

4 Environmental behaviors of MPs

4.1 Weathering

4.2 Migration

5 Ecological risks of MPs

5.1 Toxicological effects of MPs on microorganisms

5.2 Toxicological effects of MPs on plants

5.3 Toxicological effects of MPs on fauna

6 Conclusions and future prospects

Graphical abstract

Keywords

microplastics / analytical methods / occurrence characteristics / environmental behaviors / ecological risks

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Xujun Liang, Yujing Ren, Ling Ding, Xinran Qiu, Xuetao Guo, Lingyan Zhu. Detection Methods, Pollution Characteristics, Environmental Behavior and Ecological Risk of Microplastics. Progress in Chemistry, 2025, 37(1): 16-31 DOI:10.7536/PC240711

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

1 Introduction

Plastics are high molecular weight compounds formed by the polymerization of small molecule monomers through chemical reactions, widely used in people's production and daily life. Due to their excellent waterproof and insulating properties, as well as high plasticity and low cost, plastics are produced in large quantities to meet human needs for production, food, clothing, personal care products, and entertainment, playing a significant role in industrial and agricultural production[1⇓⇓-4]. Since the mid-20th century, the amount of plastic generated by human activities has increased dramatically. It is estimated that the global plastic production was about 1.5 million tons in 1950, which soared to 348 million tons in 2017, and is expected to reach an astonishing 600 million tons by 2025[5⇓-7]. With the annual sharp increase in plastic production, the problem of plastic pollution has become increasingly prominent, becoming a major environmental issue of global concern. Statistics show that China's cumulative production of plastic products exceeds 1.2 billion tons, with more than 90% potentially ending up as plastic waste. These accumulated plastic wastes in the environment gradually decompose under physical, chemical, and biological actions, producing smaller-sized microplastics (MPs). The term MPs was first proposed in Science in 2004, referring to plastic fragments and particles with a diameter less than 5 mm[8], and they have been widely detected in soil[9], water bodies[10], sediments[11], and even in the human body[12-13]. Compared to larger pieces of plastic, MPs, due to their small size and widespread distribution in the environment, are more easily ingested by organisms, posing potential threats to organisms and ecosystems[14-15]. In recent years, scholars worldwide have conducted a series of studies on the separation and identification, environmental occurrence, migration and transformation, and ecological effects of MPs, but there is a lack of systematic reviews of these related cutting-edge research areas, and there is a need to strengthen the analysis of current research hotspots and future trends. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the distribution, migration and transformation, and ecological effects of MPs in the environment is of great significance for the risk assessment and pollution control of MPs. Based on this, this review will systematically introduce the commonly used detection methods for MPs in existing studies, summarize the pollution characteristics of MPs in the environment, systematically explain the migration and transformation processes and mechanisms of MPs in the environment, summarize the ecological effects and toxic mechanisms of MPs in the environment, point out the shortcomings of current research, and look forward to future research trends, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for the risk assessment and management measures of MPs in the environment.

2 Detection Methods of MPs in the Environment

2.1 Sampling and Separation Methods

MPs are widely distributed in environments such as water bodies, atmosphere, and soil; therefore, different samplers are needed to collect MP samples from various environmental media (Figure 1). In aquatic environments, direct sampling and large-volume sampling methods are commonly used. The tools for direct sampling include stainless steel sieves, trawls, and plankton nets, aiming to directly collect plastic particles. However, the direct sampling method can easily lead to clogging of the net holes, unable to collect plastic particles smaller than the mesh size, causing bias in the estimation of MPs abundance[16]. Large-volume sampling refers to preserving the entire sample without separating the plastics on-site, which can be done using tools like metal drums, but this method is limited by the volume of samples that can be collected and is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Methods for collecting atmospheric MPs vary based on the research subject and objectives, divided into passive and active sampling[17]. Passive sampling involves collection through stainless steel or glass funnels, suitable for long-term and remote area deposition. Active sampling uses pump samplers to collect samples onto filters, with the intake flow rate of the pump adjustable to meet different research needs. Soil MP sampling, depending on the characteristics of the sampling area, can use simple random sampling, systematic grid sampling, or systematic random sampling[18], with tools such as shovels and metal spoons. Currently, increasing evidence shows that MPs in water, air, and soil can enter organisms, making it crucial to select appropriate sampling methods to understand the accumulation of MPs in biota. For aquatic organisms ranging from small phytoplankton to large fish, sampling usually employs trawls of different sizes; bivalves can be collected through manual capture; and benthic species can be captured using bottom trawls or sediment grabs. However, it is currently difficult to directly sample MPs from biota, typically requiring dissection or digestion to extract MPs from the collected organisms[19].
The main separation methods for MPs in samples include density flotation, sieving filtration, electrostatic separation, and magnetic extraction[20]. Among these, the density separation method is the most common and widely used due to its low cost, ease of operation, and good separation effect. Generally, high-density solvents such as sodium chloride (NaCl), calcium chloride (CaCl2), zinc chloride (ZnCl2), and sodium iodide (NaI) are chosen. In addition, organic matter in the sample can interfere with the determination of MPs, so it needs to be digested and removed using a digesting solution[21]. Common digestion methods include oxidative digestion, enzymatic digestion, and alkaline digestion. Common oxidative digesting agents include H2O2 and Fenton's reagent; enzymatic digestion includes protease K, lipase, and proteinase; and alkaline digesting agents include KOH and NaOH. The separation of MPs from the sample can remove other particulate materials (such as sand, soil, and organic matter) and thereby improve the accuracy and reliability of subsequent identification results. However, the separation process may damage the properties of MPs. Therefore, in experiments, the optimal separation method should be selected based on different samples to ensure that while removing impurities and not damaging the properties of MPs, the recovery rate of MPs is also guaranteed.

2.2 Identification Method

The identification and analysis of MPs require consideration of qualitative characteristics such as size, composition, morphology, and degree of aging, as well as quantitative characteristics such as content and abundance. Currently, the commonly used methods for identifying MPs mainly fall into three categories: visual inspection, spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry (Figure 1). Among these, visual inspection, which identifies MPs based on their shape, color, and particle size, has advantages such as simple operation, low cost, and no chemical hazards, making it the most commonly used detection method. Conventional optical microscopes or electron microscopes, such as field emission scanning electron microscopy (SEM), laser confocal microscopy (CLSM), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), can be used for MP identification[22]. Spectroscopy, based on characteristic spectral lines after molecular vibrations triggered by energy, is used for the analysis and identification of MPs, with the advantages of fast detection speed and high accuracy. Commonly used spectroscopic instruments include Raman spectroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), laser infrared imaging systems (LDIR), and terahertz spectroscopy (THz). Among these, FTIR and Raman are the two most widely used techniques, especially for smaller (less than 100 μm) MP particles[23-24]. In addition, various chromatography-mass spectrometry techniques, such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS), thermogravimetric analysis-mass spectrometry (TGA-MS), and thermal extraction-desorption-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (TED-GC/MS), have been used for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of MPs[25]. These mass spectrometry-based techniques can provide important information about the structure, molecular weight, polymerization degree, elemental composition, main functional groups, and end-group structures of MPs and their additives. They are generally not limited by the size of MPs and can provide information on the mass concentration of MPs, which is useful for precise quantification in samples. However, due to the complex structure and composition of MPs, there are still limitations when using different methods, and the lack of a unified identification method hinders the comparison of results between different studies. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a more rapid and accurate detection method to reflect the characteristics of MPs in the environment.

3 Environmental MPs Occurrence Characteristics

3.1 Ocean

MPs pollution has spread throughout global marine ecosystems. Outflows from rivers, ocean currents, drift, wind, ocean depth, and other factors can transport MPs particles to more distant locations[26]. From coastal areas to the open ocean, from the equator to the poles, and from the surface of the ocean to the deep sea, MPs are present everywhere[27]. MPs are found throughout the entire marine environment, varying in type, shape, color, and size[28]. The abundance of MPs in the ocean is influenced not only by the intensity of human activities but also by the speed of ocean currents, ocean depth, wind direction, distance from the coastline, and the density of the plastic itself[29]. Under the influence of these factors, the density of MPs in adjacent waters may vary by orders of magnitude. In Chinese waters, the abundance of MPs ranges from 0.00013 to 0.545 items/L, which is at a moderate level. Fibers are the predominant shape, with polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) being the main types. Most MPs are white or transparent, with sizes ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 mm[30]. However, in nearshore areas heavily disturbed by human activities, MPs pollution is more severe. In the coastal bathing area of Qingdao, the concentration of MPs detected by fluorescence microscopy ranged from 5.05 to 12.50 items/L, with an average concentration of 7.61 items/L[31]. In the coastal waters of Tianjin, the concentration of MPs was 0.21 to 1.17 items/L, and micro-infrared Raman spectroscopy revealed that PET, PP, and PE were the most common types[32]. Researchers have also conducted extensive surveys of MPs in other seas around the world. Desforges et al.[33] detected the presence of MPs in subsurface seawater in the northeastern Pacific, with abundances ranging from 0.008 to 9.180 items/L, predominantly fibers, and blue, red, black, and purple MPs being the most common, with the most abundant size range being 0.1 to 0.5 mm. In the Atlantic, the concentration of MPs detected was 0.013 to 0.501 items/L, with plastic particle sizes ranging from 0.007 to 0.407 mm. Fibers accounted for 40% of all identified MPs, and about half (48%) of the MPs were PE and PP, as analyzed by Raman microspectroscopy[34]. In 2020, Kanhai et al.[35] discovered the presence of MPs in seawater beneath Arctic ice, with concentrations ranging from 0 to 0.018 items/L, and the polymer types were mainly PE, PET, and PA, with sizes mostly below 2 mm, and blue (58%) and red (18%) being the predominant colors. Giuseppe et al.[36] collected 916 seawater samples from 617 sites across six ocean basins, including the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and Atlantic, for MPs detection. The results showed that fibers were the most important form of MPs, with concentrations ranging from 0.020 to 2.58 items/L. Globally, fibers are the most common shape of MPs in the marine environment[37], and PP, PE, and PVC are the most common types of MPs[38]. As a major producer and user of plastics, China's coastal MP pollution is more severe than in other regions. Additionally, as an important component of the global circulation system, the ocean is also a major hotspot for global pollution. As a significant sink, MPs have led to the destruction of marine ecological environments, which has become a focus of current research. An increasing number of studies have found high concentrations of floating plastic debris in remote oceanic regions, raising concerns about the accumulation of plastic waste on the ocean surface. However, current methods for identifying MPs in the ocean still have certain limitations, especially in effectively separating and identifying small-sized MPs. Therefore, developing rapid and automated analytical techniques to improve the efficiency of MPs analysis and monitoring, and scientifically exploring their impact on marine ecology, is one of the main trends in future marine MPs research. Moreover, the current methods for detecting MPs in the ocean vary, and there is a need to establish a unified standard system for assessing the risk of MPs pollution. By implementing standardized and regulated detection procedures, the accuracy of assessments can be ensured, providing scientific support for maintaining marine environmental and ecological safety.

3.2 Freshwater

Compared to the marine environment, research on the presence of MPs in freshwater is still limited. Existing studies have found varying degrees of MP pollution in inland waters, estuaries, and even in polar regions with minimal human activity[39], indicating that MPs are widely present in freshwater environments. Different levels of MP pollution have been detected in China's inland waters and estuarine areas. Our previous research showed that the concentration of MPs in the Chishui River, a tributary of the Yangtze River, ranged from 1.77 to 14.33 items/L[40], primarily in fiber form. Studies in lakes such as Poyang Lake also detected the presence of MPs, with concentrations ranging from 5 to 34 items/L, mainly in the form of fragments and fibers[41-42]. Research shows that MPs are widely distributed in aquatic environments globally. The concentration of MPs in the Humber River in Birmingham, UK, was 165 items/L[43], while in Germany's Rhine and Main rivers, the concentration ranged from 228 to 3,763 items/L[44]. In different sections of Portugal's Antua River, the detected MP concentrations were 0.058 to 1.265 items/L, with PP and PE being the main components, existing in foam and fiber forms[45]. In the Snake River and Lower Columbia River in the United States, the detected MP concentrations ranged from 0 to 5.405 items/L, and the polymer types identified by micro-Raman spectroscopy were PP, PE, and PET[46]. In the surface water of South Korea's Nakdong River, MP concentrations were 0.293 to 4.76 items/L, with sizes ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 mm, primarily in fiber form[47]. In Canada's Lake Ontario, the abundance of MPs was 0.8 to 15.4 items/L, existing as fragments and fibers, with the main components being PE, PS, PP, and PET[5]. There are significant differences in the levels of MP pollution in different freshwater environments globally, but the main components are commonly used plastics such as PP, PE, PET, and PS, mostly in the form of white, black, and transparent fibers, films, and fragments. Although the research methods and measurement data vary slightly across countries and regions, the overall trend indicates that the level of MP pollution in China's freshwater environments is relatively high. This may be related to China's large population base, rapid industrialization, and agricultural development. Wastewater treatment plants are the most important source of MPs in freshwater environments. In the effluent of the Violinmaking wastewater treatment plant in Finland, the detected MP abundance was 3.5 items/L[48]; in seven wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands, the average MP abundance in the effluent was 52 items/L[49]. It is estimated that the average discharge of microplastics from municipal wastewater treatment plants in the United States is 1.3×1010 items/day[50]. Therefore, improving the removal processes of MPs in wastewater treatment plants is crucial for reducing MP pollution in water environments. Research on freshwater MPs is increasing year by year, but the concentration units presented in some studies are quite different, and there are also differences in pretreatment methods and detection limits, making it difficult to compare MP pollution levels across different regions. To effectively obtain information on global freshwater MP pollution, standardized sampling and analytical methods need to be established and adopted to gain a deeper understanding of the distribution and impact of MPs in water bodies. Additionally, MPs in freshwater environments can easily become carriers of other pollutants (such as pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals), posing a greater threat to organisms[51]. Therefore, investigating the environmental behavior of MPs in coexistence with other pollutants is of great value for scientifically assessing the ecological risks of MPs.

3.3 Soil

An increasing body of evidence suggests that soil is the largest repository of MPs on Earth[52], with estimates indicating that the amount of plastic waste discharged to terrestrial environments is 4 to 23 times that of the oceans[53]. Since Rillig[54] first reported the presence of MPs in soil, the pollution of MPs in soil has received widespread attention. Ren et al.[55] analyzed data from 40 articles on the concentration and distribution of MPs in farmland across 28 provinces in China, showing that the concentration of MPs ranged from 1.6 to 6.2×105 items/kg, with an average concentration of 4,536.6 items/kg. The main components were PE, PP, polyethersulfone (PES), PS, and polyamide (PA). Our previous research found severe soil microplastic pollution in northwest China, with a microplastic concentration in typical farmland soils in Shaanxi Province ranging from 1,430 to 3,410 items/kg[56]. In the Mu Us Sandy Land region, the concentration of microplastics was 1,360 to 4,960 items/kg, with an average concentration of 2,696.5 items/kg[57]. MPs have also been widely detected in soil environments in other countries. Harms et al.[58] studied farmland soils in northern Germany, finding that the concentration of MPs ranged from 0 to 217.8 items/kg, with an average concentration of (3.7±11.9) items/kg. The predominant colors were black (63%) and white (18%), and the shapes were mainly foils (61%) and fragments (28%). The primary component was PE. Palazot et al.[59] analyzed 33 soil samples in France, finding that the overall plastic concentration was 6.7 to 80 items/kg, with the main components being PE (56%) and PP (30%). In Arizona, USA, the concentration of MPs in soil was 122 to 1,399 items/kg[60]. Katsumi et al.[61] found that the concentration of MPs in paddy soils in Japan was 16,745 items/kg, with the main components being PE (27%), ethylene-vinyl acetate (16%), polyurethane (15%), and PP (12%). In South Korea, researchers also found high concentrations of MPs in soil, with an average concentration of 700 items/kg as observed under a stereomicroscope. The main components were synthetic rubber (43%), PP (22%), and PE (20%). The predominant colors were black (65.5%) and white (12.3%), and the shapes were mainly fragments (66.1%) and films (19.2%). It can be seen that there are significant differences in the concentrations of MPs in soil across different regions, which may be related to local environmental conditions, the use of agricultural plastics, and local climate factors[62]. Currently, most of the global studies reporting MPs in soil come from China[63]. As a major food-producing country, the extensive production and use of agricultural plastics make soil MP pollution more prevalent and severe in China, with overall levels higher than in other countries and regions. Although an increasing number of studies have reported soil MP pollution, the data show that the number of studies on terrestrial ecosystems accounts for only about 5% of MP-related data[64], which is relatively insufficient. Moreover, most studies focus on the distribution characteristics of MPs (abundance, type, color, etc.), while there is a lack of ecological risk assessments related to MPs. Future research needs to focus more on the sources, distribution, and impacts of MPs on soil ecosystems, providing baseline data and valuable references for the ecological risk assessment and control of soil MP pollution.

3.4 Atmosphere

The atmosphere is an important pathway for the global spread of many pollutants, and MPs are also widely present in the atmospheric environment. Recent studies have detected MPs in the atmosphere over various regions globally, even above the sea and in remote areas, indicating that atmospheric transport is a crucial link in the global transmission and circulation of MPs. Zhu et al.[65] conducted a survey on atmospheric MPs in five major cities in China (Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, Shanghai, Hangzhou) and found that the average abundance of MPs was 282±127 items/m3, mainly in the form of fragments. The concentration levels of atmospheric MPs in North China were higher than those in South China, which is related to population density and economic development levels. Dris et al.[66] detected the concentration level of MPs in the air in Paris, France, to be 1~6 items/m3, with fibers being the predominant shape. Gaston et al.[67] tested both indoor and outdoor air in California and found that the level of MPs in outdoor air (0.620 items/m3) was lower than that in indoor air (1.590 items/m3). Fibers and fragments were the main forms, suggesting that indoor air, being more enclosed compared to outdoor air, may make it harder for MPs to disperse and reduce their concentration. Additionally, microplastics have also been detected in the air above the ocean. Researchers found a microplastic concentration of 0~1.37 items/m3 in the air over the western Pacific, with fibers being the main component[68]. Overall, although data from different regions and countries vary, the primary forms of MPs are fibers and fragments. The high level of MP pollution in the atmosphere in China may be related to regional economic development and population density[69]. To fully understand and effectively manage atmospheric MP pollution, there is a need to promote standardized sampling and analysis methods globally, as well as to study the pathways and life cycles of microplastics in the atmosphere, to better understand their global dispersion patterns and establish a more comprehensive pollution database and assessment system.

4 Environmental Behavior of MPs

4.1 Aging

MPs, after entering the environment, undergo continuous aging under the influence of various environmental factors, leading to changes in surface morphology, particle size, microstructure, and surface functional groups. After long-term aging, the functional groups of MPs change, generating oxygen-containing groups that increase the polarity, hydrophilicity, and charge of the MPs' surface[70]. Therefore, the degree of MP aging can be determined by characterizing and analyzing multiple aspects such as the microscopic morphology, specific surface area, and surface functional groups of aged MPs. In natural environments, MPs primarily age through abiotic and biotic processes. Once in the environment, MPs are subject to wear and aging from waves, tides, sand, stones, etc., resulting in surface cracks or even fragmentation into smaller particles[38,71]. Environmental MPs also age through processes such as photo-oxidation, thermal degradation, and Fenton reactions. MPs absorb solar ultraviolet radiation in the environment, leading to oxidative aging with the oxygen in the environment. The essence of MP photodegradation is a free radical chemical reaction triggered by sunlight, which can be divided into three steps: initiation, propagation, and termination[72]. First, photons need to be absorbed by chemical bonds, causing chain scission and the generation of free radicals[73]. For example, the relatively weak C—H bonds in MPs are prone to cleavage, forming stable free radicals that continue the photo-oxidation. During propagation, oxygen rapidly reacts to form peroxyl radicals (e.g., O2•-), which then abstract hydrogen from neighboring chains, forming hydroperoxide groups and new free radicals (e.g., ·OH and 1O2)[74]. The reaction terminates when the free radicals combine with MPs to form inactive/stable groups[75]. An increase in temperature, leading to heat release and accumulation, can also trigger MP aging, accelerating the effects of UV radiation on MP photodegradation. The mechanism of MP thermal aging mainly involves high temperatures favoring the dissociation energy of MPs, leading to random chain scission and branch detachment, generating alkyl radicals, and subsequently entering a self-oxidation cycle[76]. Fenton and persulfate treatments can also cause MP aging; the ·OH from Fenton reactions and the ·OH/SO4•- from persulfate treatments, due to their high redox potential, may enhance MP oxidation[77-78]. Additionally, other chemical reactions in the environment can directly lead to MP aging, such as nucleophilic substitution/addition reactions between sulfides and C=C bonds in polymers, and reactions between ozone and MPs[79]. The type and concentration of inorganic anions in water can also significantly impact MP transformation; for instance, the presence of halogen ions can halogenate MP particles, accelerating their aging[80]. Organic matter in the environment, including dissolved organic matter and particulate organic matter, can promote MP aging by generating free radicals and 3DOM*[81-82]. Moreover, microorganisms, which are ubiquitous and have the inherent ability to adapt to different environments and utilize various substances, often accelerate MP weathering through biodegradation[83]. Microorganisms can colonize MPs and promote biodegradation and biotransformation by adhering to the surface of MPs and forming biofilms. For example, in the degradation of polyurethane (PU), Cladosporium cladosporioides, Penicillium griseofulvum, and Mucor sp. all exhibit the ability to degrade PU, while lignin-degrading fungi and ectomycorrhizal fungi do not degrade PU, possibly depending on whether they possess multiple enzymes[84]. Microorganisms colonizing the surface of MPs tend to use MPs as a nutrient source, promoting their aging. For instance, Bacillus and Rhodococcus can use PP as a carbon source, thereby promoting its aging, and Deinococcus-thermus in high-temperature composting promotes PS aging and degradation through biological oxidation characteristics[85-86]. In addition to microorganisms, the ingestion of MPs by organisms also leads to their transformation. During animal feeding, MPs can break due to physical stress from chewing, then be ingested into the gastrointestinal tract. Under the action of specific biological enzymes within animals, MPs can also undergo chain scission, shortening, and oxidation[87-88]. These aging processes can cause MPs to develop cracks, leading to fragmentation and changes in properties, including size, surface morphology, crystallinity, and functional groups, and can also result in the leaching of additives.
There are many factors that influence the aging process of MPs. Temperature has a significant impact on both the abiotic and biotic aging processes of MPs. For abiotic processes, temperature can affect the kinetic energy of polymer molecular chains, thereby controlling the dynamics of various physical processes and chemical reactions. High temperatures promote the thermal dissociation of newly formed peroxides, generating free radicals, which ultimately lead to chain scission in MPs. In contrast, low temperatures make MPs more brittle and prone to breaking, and favor the formation of hydrogen peroxide during photo-oxidation, promoting plastic degradation[89-90]. For biotic processes, temperature also alters the structure and metabolic activity of microbial communities, thereby affecting the rate of biodegradation[91-92].Ions that are widely present in the environment, such as halide ions and inorganic anions, also have a significant impact on the transformation of MPs. The presence of halide ions can cause the halogenation of MP particles, accelerating their aging. For example, Br- can react with ·OH to form reactive bromine radicals, thus promoting the aging of MPs[80]. Inorganic anions, such as NO3−, can produce more reactive species under photoexcitation, thereby accelerating the photo-aging of MPs. HCO3−, on the other hand, can be converted into carbonate radicals in water, which typically only oxidize electron-rich compounds, such as nitrogen- or sulfur-containing compounds, and generally do not participate in the aging of MPs. Therefore, HCO3− usually inhibits the photo-aging of MPs[80,93 -94].Additionally, organic matter in the environment, including dissolved organic matter and particulate organic matter, can promote the aging of MPs by generating free radicals and 3DOM*[81-82]. An increase in salinity in the environment can lead to a higher refractive index of water and may result in the formation of attached salt crystals on the surface of MPs, thereby reducing the efficiency of light absorption and inhibiting the photo-aging of MPs[95-96].There are still some shortcomings in the research on the aging of MPs. First, artificial accelerated aging methods cannot well simulate the natural aging process. The aging of MPs in real environments is often influenced by multiple factors, so efforts should be made to narrow the gap between laboratory simulation methods and environmental natural aging processes through in-situ experiments or coupled experiments involving multiple factors. Second, the aging effects of MPs in artificial systems, such as landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and composting sites, should also be considered. Finally, the degree of aging of MPs cannot be uniformly characterized or quantified by one or several methods. Therefore, in subsequent research, qualitative/quantitative methods need to be developed to standardize the steps and extent of MP aging mechanisms.

4.2 Migration

The migration of MPs in the environment is an essential part of their environmental geochemical behavior. After entering the environment, the migration of MPs is mainly divided into two methods: horizontal and vertical migration. Atmospheric transport of MPs is considered an important carrier that may lead to the deposition of MPs into soil or aquatic environments. This migration strongly influences the source-sink dynamics of plastic pollution in different ecosystems[97]. In the atmospheric environment, MPs primarily undergo horizontal migration through the action of wind. MP particles are lifted by the wind, becoming atmospheric suspended particles, and can travel long distances. Studies have shown that MPs can be transported hundreds of kilometers through the atmosphere, even crossing continents and oceans. In water bodies, MPs migrate in surface waters through the effects of wind, waves, tides, and ocean currents. Particularly, ocean currents and tidal movements further promote the long-distance horizontal migration of MPs in the ocean. MPs not only migrate on the horizontal plane but also from the water body to sediments, and under the influence of water flow and biological activities, they can resuspend back into the water[98]. Biological transport is also a significant pathway for the horizontal migration of MPs in water bodies. Marine organisms (such as fish, seabirds, and plankton) after ingesting MPs, spread them to new environments through migration or predation relationships[98-99]. Additionally, the migration of MPs at the water-soil interface, influenced by rainfall and agricultural irrigation, washes MPs from the soil into surface water bodies, which then enter river, lake, and marine environments through runoff[100]. The vertical migration of MPs in soil mainly occurs through infiltration and biological activities. Surface runoff and groundwater flow are the main pathways for the vertical migration of microplastics. Rainfall and irrigation activities can accelerate the infiltration of microplastics in soil, allowing MP particles to penetrate deeper into the soil with water[101]. Furthermore, biological activities such as plant root absorption and burrowing by soil animals can promote the vertical distribution of microplastics in the soil[102]. In specific environments, such as arid and windy areas, wind can carry microplastic particles, affecting their distribution on the soil surface[103]. The vertical migration of microplastics in the environment may affect the activity of soil microorganisms, alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil, thereby impacting plant growth, and even transfer through the food chain to higher trophic level organisms, posing a potential threat to human health.
The migration process of MPs is influenced by a variety of factors, including environmental conditions (such as temperature, humidity, wind speed, and water flow rate) and the characteristics of the MPs themselves (such as density, shape, size, and surface properties). The intensity and direction of water flow are key factors affecting the horizontal migration of microplastics. In rivers, lakes, and oceans, microplastics move with the water flow, and under the influence of tides and waves, they can be carried to more distant places. The size and shape of microplastics affect their suspension ability and deposition rate in water. Smaller particles are more likely to remain suspended in water, while larger particles may deposit more quickly[104]. The density of microplastics determines their floating and sinking state in water. The chemical properties of microplastics, such as surface charge and hydrophilicity, affect their interaction with water molecules, thereby influencing their migration in the environment[105]. Wind waves and biological activities (such as feeding and excretion of plankton) can cause MPs to move from the surface to the middle and deeper layers of the water. Additionally, the size, structure, and composition of soil particles affect the penetration depth and rate of MPs. Fine-grained soils (such as clay) have low permeability, leading to slower vertical migration of MPs, whereas sandy soils have the opposite effect[106], and smaller-sized MPs have stronger migratory capabilities[107]. However, some researchers have found that the wet-dry cycles of soil not only increase the downward migration depth of MPs but also promote their upward migration through buoyancy[108]. The atmosphere is considered the "highway" for MPs, but there is currently a lack of sufficient research on the occurrence and migration of MPs in the atmosphere. Further studies using other techniques, such as isotope tracing and deep learning, are needed to establish reliable dynamic circulation models of MPs in air, terrestrial, and aquatic systems, to predict the migration of MPs in natural environments.

5 Mps Ecological Risk

The presence of MPs in the environment may have direct or indirect effects on plant growth and development, physiology, animal health and survival, microbial activity, and the composition and function of microbial communities[109], leading to ecosystem instability and potentially impacting human health and survival. However, these impacts still carry a certain degree of uncertainty and unknowns. As the ecotoxicological characteristics of MPs are multidimensional and complex, they may be related to various factors such as the type, content, and exposure time of MPs. Moreover, the concentration of MPs used in studies on their impact on plants, animals, and microorganisms is usually higher than the actual environmental concentrations[116]. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from these studies may differ from real-world conditions. Current research on the ecological risk assessment of microplastics is not yet mature, and there is a lack of analytical and detection methods for their presence and distribution in organisms. The underlying mechanisms of their effects are still poorly understood, necessitating more comprehensive, in-depth, and detailed integrated research and accurate assessments. At the same time, it is also necessary to develop and implement certain pollution control and remediation measures.

5.1 Mps Impact on Microorganisms

Microorganisms, as primary producers and decomposers in ecosystems, participate in the transformation and cycling of pollutants, which is crucial for maintaining the stability of ecosystems. However, due to the widespread presence of MPs, the microorganisms and microbial community structures and functions in the environment are inevitably affected, either directly or indirectly (Table 5).MPs can alter the diversity of microbial community structures and may further impact the biogeochemical cycles of coexisting substances. Seeley et al.[110]found that the presence of 0.5% (w/w) MPs altered the composition of microbial communities in sediments and the nitrogen cycle, with these effects varying according to the type of MPs. MPs can also influence the metabolic and ecological functions of microorganisms. Yu et al.[117]demonstrated that a 1% (w/w) treatment of MPs changed soil microbial diversity and metabolic functions, while significantly increasing the abundance of nitrogen cycle-related genes such as nifK, nirS, and AOB. Additionally, MPs might affect the diversity of environmental microorganisms by influencing the physical and chemical properties of the environmental medium. MPs can change the size of soil aggregates, porosity, water circulation, and oxygen flux, potentially affecting the activity of both anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms[118].During the aging process, MPs release various additives and dissolved organic matter (DOM), altering the chemical properties of the surrounding environment, thus impacting the growth and activity of microorganisms[119].Qiu et al.[120]observed that after adding PE and polylactic acid (PLA) to soil, the molecular diversity of soil DOM decreased due to the release of MP-DOM, and the involvement of microorganisms in the metabolism of MP-DOM led to changes in the microbial community composition.
MPs entering the environment can provide a new ecological habitat for microorganisms, and the microbial communities growing on MPs are referred to as the "plastisphere"[121], which exhibit significant differences in composition and function compared to the microbial communities in the surrounding environment. Huang et al.[122] found that the diversity, structure, and metabolic pathways of microbial communities on PE were significantly different from those in the control group and PE-added soil. At the same time, potential plastic-degrading bacteria and pathogens were enriched on PE. Additionally, environmental MPs have the ability to adsorb various organic pollutants and heavy metals, and the formation of the "plastisphere" enhances this adsorption capacity[123], which may affect the activity of microorganisms on the "plastisphere".
In summary, although there are many studies on the impact of MPs on environmental microorganisms, and it has been found that the presence of MPs can affect environmental microorganisms, alter microbial community diversity, and thus potentially impact the health and stability of ecosystems, most of these studies focus on non-degradable plastics. There is relatively less research on the effects of biodegradable plastics during the biodegradation process on microorganisms, and the findings are inconsistent. Therefore, it is recommended that future research should pay more attention to the impact of biodegradable MPs on environmental microorganisms and the underlying mechanisms. At the same time, there should be a greater emphasis on the study of microbial community assembly and interactions, and consideration should be given to reducing MPs through biodegradation technologies.

5.2 Mps Have Toxic Effects On Plants

As an essential part of the ecosystem, the growth of plants is inevitably affected directly or indirectly by soil MPs, especially in agricultural ecosystems, where MPs may affect the yield, quality, and biosecurity of crops[124]. Currently, research on the impact of MPs on the growth of various plants has been conducted at multiple levels, including pot experiments, hydroponics, and field trials, involving plants such as wheat[125], rice[126], corn[127], lettuce[128], and onions[129] (Table 6). Changes in the physicochemical properties of MPs, such as particle size, shape, type, concentration, and degree of aging, can all have a certain degree of impact on plants. Compared to high molecular weight or large-sized MPs, smaller-sized MPs are more easily absorbed by plants. Jiang et al.[130] found that 100 nm PS can accumulate in broad bean roots, blocking cell junctions or cell wall pores for nutrient transport, thus having higher genotoxicity and damage potential than 5 mm PS. Lozano et al.[131] showed in their study on arid soils that the addition of fibrous MPs promotes the formation of soil aggregates, indirectly enhancing soil water retention, alleviating drought, and increasing root diameter and tissue density. Lower concentrations of MPs may increase plant root length, surface area, volume, and diameter, but under high-concentration conditions, MPs may induce oxidative stress in plants, producing more reactive oxygen species, exacerbating tissue and cellular oxidative damage, and inhibiting root development[132]. Additionally, MPs in the environment undergo physical, chemical, and biological aging, which alters their physical properties, such as particle size and crystallinity, while increasing the number of oxygen-containing functional groups on the surface. As aging continues, additives contained within them are gradually released into the soil, inhibiting plant growth[133].
Due to the limitations of detection and characterization methods, research on the impact of MPs on plants and their potential mechanisms is still in its infancy. The mechanisms by which plants absorb, accumulate, and transport MPs are not yet clear. The possible mechanisms proposed by existing studies involve altering soil structure and affecting water and nutrient transport pathways[134]. Due to the size constraints of plant cell pores, the internalization of MPs by plants is highly selective, typically at the submicron scale. In addition, because the primary root tip structure is incomplete and the meristematic region has not formed a complete Casparian strip to prevent the entry of external substances, nano-sized plastics can disrupt the cell membrane structure of the root tip and enter the interior of root cells through passive transport, then enter the stele region of the roots via the apoplastic pathway[135]. Micron/submicron-sized MPs can enter the root system at the lateral root emergence sites and, under the influence of transpiration pull, enter the stele of the roots and then be transported to the above-ground parts[68]. On the other hand, due to the uneven surface of plant leaves, some small-sized MPs can be captured by the leaves during processes such as gravity, wind, and dry-wet deposition, and these may enter the mesophyll cells through stomata and cuticle layers[136-137]. MPs that enter the plant body may affect the expression of genes related to the synthesis and metabolism of stress-resistant substances, such as plant-pathogen interactions and MAPK signaling pathways[138]. Additionally, they may also affect the energy metabolism and amino acid metabolism pathways in crop leaves, reducing the efficiency of starch accumulation in plants[139]. In summary, plants can adsorb and internalize MPs, but the qualitative and quantitative analysis of MPs within plants is still immature. Indirect characterization methods, such as fluorescence labeling and noble metal doping, are limited in explaining the interaction between the two, making it difficult to further elucidate the potential mechanisms of their barrier crossing and migration. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a widely applicable, accurate, and effective method for the qualitative and quantitative visualization analysis of MPs in plants.

5.3 Mps Toxicity Effects on Animals

MPs accumulating in the aquatic environment can easily trigger complex ecological problems, causing various negative impacts on aquatic animals, including impaired reproduction and development, bioaccumulation and biomagnification, chemical toxicity and exposure, and disruptions in behavior and physiology. Many aquatic animals, such as fish, mollusks, and zooplankton, ingest MPs through filter feeding and intake, leading to a series of toxic effects such as metabolic obstruction and decreased vitality (Table 7). Lu et al. [143] found that after zebrafish were exposed to an environment containing MPs for 7 days, accumulation of MPs was observed in their gills, liver, and intestines, causing oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in the zebrafish. Moreover, smaller MPs (50-200 nm) can also penetrate biological barriers and accumulate in the gonads, reducing the fertility of female fish [144]. Additionally, zooplankton ingesting MPs experience altered feeding behavior and reduced energy reserves [145]. Martins et al. [146] discovered that populations of Daphnia magna Straus continuously exposed to high concentrations of MPs (0.1 mg/L) would go extinct within two generations, and the developmental and reproductive toxic effects caused by 21 days of exposure would require at least three generations to recover. Although there are currently studies on the toxic effects of MPs on aquatic animals, these mainly focus on the harm to individual species such as zooplankton, fish, and mollusks, with less attention paid to the impact of MPs on the entire food chain. Future research needs to pay more attention to the influence of MPs on the food chains within aquatic systems.
Compared to aquatic animals, research on the toxicological effects of MPs on terrestrial animals is quite limited. Soil animals are important consumers and decomposers in ecosystems. Currently, toxicological studies on the impact of MPs on soil animals mainly focus on invertebrates such as earthworms, nematodes, mites, and snails (Table 6). When earthworms or nematodes are exposed to MPs, various toxic effects occur, including reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and intestinal damage, which are primarily related to the concentration, type, and form of MPs in the soil. Moreover, MPs that have been aged by ultraviolet radiation may have more severe toxic effects on nematodes[147-148]. In addition, after springtails are exposed to artificial soil contaminated with PS-MPs for 28 days, changes in their gut microbiota composition and life history characteristics (such as reproduction and avoidance behavior) are observed[149]. For terrestrial snails exposed to PET, a decrease in average food intake and significant damage to the gastrointestinal wall of the snails are noted[150]. Studies using mice as a mammalian model also show that the toxic effects of MPs on mice manifest as intestinal barrier dysfunction, dysbiosis, and metabolic disorders, leading to neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and inflammation[151⇓⇓-154]. Current research generally focuses on the analysis of single-species toxic effects following exposure to MPs, lacking deeper studies (e.g., at the population, community, and ecosystem levels). Future research needs to pay more attention to the impacts of MPs on multiple species and ecosystems in terrestrial systems.

6 Conclusion and Prospects

MPs, as a new class of pollutants, are ubiquitous in the environment, and their presence is influenced by various factors such as human activities, environmental conditions, and the types of MPs. After entering the environment, MPs can be ingested by organisms at different trophic levels, posing potential risks to human health and ecosystems. In recent years, research on MPs has grown rapidly, but current studies mainly focus on the occurrence and distribution, environmental behavior, and toxic effects of MPs, with corresponding achievements. However, from the perspective of MP pollution prevention and control, there is still a lack of research on the technical systems for MP pollution prevention and control and the macro decision-making systems. In summary, future research on MPs should primarily focus on the following aspects.
(1) It is necessary to establish a standard system for the sampling and detection of MPs in the environment: Currently, research on MPs faces issues such as varying sampling methods and abundance units (items/m2, items/m3, items/kg), insufficient spatial resolution, cumbersome pretreatment processes, small sample volumes, and high analytical costs. These problems make it difficult to compare data on the distribution of MPs in the environment. Therefore, it is essential to unify the conversion relationships between different units and to establish standardized methods for quantifying MP pollution in various environmental media globally. The establishment of such standards would enhance the comparability of data, improve the reliability and reproducibility of results, and be of significant importance for assessing the ecological risks and remediation effectiveness of MP pollution.
(2) A global MPs pollution database needs to be established: Given the current difficulty in managing microplastic pollution, it is hard to completely remove microplastics from the environment in the short term. Long-term monitoring of the characteristics of environmental microplastic pollution should be carried out, and a global microplastic monitoring database should be established. This will clarify the dynamic patterns of global microplastic pollution loads at different times and spaces, and research the safety thresholds of microplastics that affect production and ensure ecological security and human health. This will facilitate effective monitoring and control of microplastic pollution in the environment.
(3) It is necessary to reveal the environmental behavior of MPs in real environments: Most existing studies on the environmental behavior of MPs are simulated in laboratories, focusing on the behavior of MPs under the influence of single factors such as physical, chemical, and biological ones. There is a lack of research on the impact of the coupled effects of multiple factors on the environmental behavior of MPs. Studies on the environmental behavior of MPs under the combined influences of widely present factors such as wet-dry cycles, freeze-thaw cycles, and biological actions are almost non-existent. This leads to results that do not truly reflect the migration and transformation of MPs in actual environments. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the comprehensive impact of multiple environmental factors on the environmental behavior of MPs, to narrow the gap between laboratory simulation methods and natural environmental processes.
(4) There is a need to strengthen research on the environmental risks of MPs: Current studies have demonstrated the potential toxic effects of MPs on organisms, but their impact on human health remains unclear. Additionally, in animal exposure and effect experiments conducted in laboratories, the levels of MP exposure are much higher than the actual environmental exposure concentrations, and the exposure conditions also differ from real-world environmental conditions. This leads to significant uncertainties in the current results of MP exposure and health risk assessments, potentially overestimating the toxic effects of MPs. Therefore, to assess the risks of MPs to human health, it is necessary to collect epidemiological and clinical data to fully validate their health effects. At the same time, it is essential to consider actual environmental concentrations and the entire life cycle of organisms to more accurately evaluate the toxic effects of MPs.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]

Chen H, Chen Y H, Xu Y B, Xiao C Q, Liu J C, Wu R R, Guo X T. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 852: 158581.
[2]

Lebreton L, Andrady A. Palgrave Commun., 2019, 5(1): 6.
[3]

Vandermeersch G, Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen C R, Marques A, Granby K, Fait G, Kotterman M J J, Diogène J, Bekaert K, Robbens J, Devriese L. Environ. Res., 2015, 143: 46.
[4]

Zhang M W, Ding L, Qiu X R, Liang X J, Huang Y, Shan X L, Chen Q, Guo X T. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(30): 13478-13489.
[5]

Ballent A, Corcoran P L, Madden O, Helm P A, Longstaffe F J. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2016, 110(1): 383.
[6]

Bigalke M, Filella M. Environ. Chem., 2019, 16(1): 1.
[7]

Chen G L, Fu Z L, Yang H R, Wang J. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2020, 130: 115981.
[8]

Thompson R C, Olsen Y, Mitchell R P, Davis A, Rowland S J, John A W G, McGonigle D, Russell A E. Science, 2004, 304(5672): 838.
[9]

Das Saha N, Kumari P, Das B, Sahoo R N, Kumar R, Golui D, Singh B, Jain N, Bhatia A, Chaudhary A, Chakrabarti B, Bhowmik A, Saha P, Islam S. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 927: 172088.
[10]

Luo S, Wu H N, Xu J F, Wang X J, He X D, Li T. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 465: 133115.
[11]

Tagg A S, Sperlea T, Hassenrück C, Kreikemeyer B, Fischer D, Labrenz M. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 926: 171863.
[12]

Dawson A L, Kawaguchi S, King C K, Townsend K A, King R, Huston W M, Bengtson Nash S M. Nat. Commun., 2018, 9: 1001.
[13]

Zhang N, Li Y B, He H R, Zhang J F, Ma G S. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 767: 144345.
[14]

Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C, Fulgenzi G, Graciotti L, Spadoni T, D’Onofrio N, Scisciola L, La Grotta R, Frigé C, Pellegrini V, Municinò M, Siniscalchi M, Spinetti F, Vigliotti G, Vecchione C, Carrizzo A, Accarino G, Squillante A, Spaziano G, Mirra D, Esposito R, Altieri S, Falco G, Fenti A, Galoppo S, Canzano S, Sasso F C, Matacchione G, Olivieri F, Ferraraccio F, Panarese I, Paolisso P, Barbato E, Lubritto C, Balestrieri M L, Mauro C, Caballero A E, Rajagopalan S, Ceriello A, D’Agostino B, Iovino P, Paolisso G. N Engl J. Med., 2024, 390(10): 900.
[15]

Zhou L, Abdelkrim Y, Jiang Z G, Yu Z Z, Qu J. Prog. Chem., 2022, 34(9): 1935.
[16]

(周丽, Yasmine Abdelkrim, 姜志国, 于中振, 曲晋. 化学进展, 2022, 34(9): 1935.)
[17]

Anderson Z T, Cundy A B, Croudace I W, Warwick P E, Celis-Hernandez O, Stead J L. Sci. Rep., 2018, 8: 9428.
[18]

Zhang Y L, Kang S C, Allen S, Allen D, Gao T G, Sillanpää M. Earth Sci. Rev., 2020, 203: 103118.
[19]

Möller J N, Löder M G J, Laforsch C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54(4): 2078.
[20]

Lai Y J, Dong L J, Li Q C, Li P, Liu J F. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2021, 145: 116461.
[21]

Wang W, Wang J. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem., 2018, 108: 195.
[22]

Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo C K, Romano N, Ho Y B, Salamatinia B. Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 578: 485.
[23]

He D F, Luo Y M, Lu S B, Liu M T, Song Y, Lei L L. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2018, 109: 163.
[24]

Tagg A S, Sapp M, Harrison J P, Ojeda J J. Anal. Chem., 2015, 87(12): 6032.
[25]

Sobhani Z, Al Amin M, Naidu R, Megharaj M, Fang C. Anal. Chim. Acta, 2019, 1077: 191.
[26]

Zhang J J, Fu D D, Feng H, Li Y, Zhang S Y, Peng C, Wang Y D, Sun H W, Wang L. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 170: 117472.
[27]

Huang D L, Chen H J, Shen M C, Tao J X, Chen S, Yin L S, Zhou W, Wang X Y, Xiao R H, Li R J. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 438: 129515.
[28]

Barnes D K A, Galgani F, Thompson R C, Barlaz M. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2009, 364(1526): 1985.
[29]

Narayanan M. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot., 2023, 177: 472.
[30]

Xing J C, He S N, Hong L Z, Liu C, Dong J, Zhu X M, Chen H Y, Wang K, Yu K, Sun G L, Zhang Z H. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci., 2023, 39(1): 277.
[31]

(邢锦城, 何苏南, 洪立洲, 刘冲, 董静, 朱小梅, 陈环宇, 王凯, 郁凯, 孙果丽, 张振华. 江苏农业学报, 2023, 39(1): 277.).
[32]

Jiang Y, Yang F, Hassan Kazmi S S U, Zhao Y N, Chen M, Wang J. Chemosphere, 2022, 286: 131677.
[33]

Luo Y D, Lin Q H, Jia F L, Xu G D, Li F M. Environ. Sci., 2019, 40(6): 2631.
[34]

(罗雅丹, 林千惠, 贾芳丽, 徐功娣, 李锋民. 环境科学, 2019, 40(6): 2631.)
[35]

Bai L, Liu X H, Chen Y Z, Tu J B, Chen H W. Environ. Chem., 2020, (5): 8.
[36]

(白璐, 刘宪华, 陈燕珍, 屠建波, 陈宏伟. 环境化学, 2020, (5): 8. )
[37]

Desforges J W, Galbraith M, Dangerfield N, Ross P S. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2014, 79(1-2): 94.
[38]

Enders K, Lenz R, Stedmon C A, Nielsen T G. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2015, 100(1): 70.
[39]

Kanhai L D K, Gardfeldt K, Krumpen T, Thompson R C, O’Connor I. Sci. Rep., 2020, 10: 5004.
[40]

Suaria G, Achtypi A, Perold V, Lee J R, Pierucci A, Bornman T G, Aliani S, Ryan P G. Sci. Adv., 2020, 6(23): eaay8493.
[41]

Wright S L, Thompson R C, Galloway T S. Environ. Pollut., 2013, 178: 483.
[42]

Andrady A L. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2011, 62(8): 1596.
[43]

Eerkes-Medrano D, Thompson R C, Aldridge D C. Water Res., 2015, 75: 63.
[44]

Li J L, Ouyang Z Z, Liu P, Zhao X N, Wu R R, Zhang C T, Lin C, Li Y Y, Guo X T. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 773: 145591.
[45]

Zhang K, Gong W, Lv J Z, Xiong X, Wu C X. Environ. Pollut., 2015, 204: 117.
[46]

Yuan W K, Liu X N, Wang W F, Di M X, Wang J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2019, 170: 180.
[47]

Tibbetts J, Krause S, Lynch I, Sambrook Smith G H. Water, 2018, 10(11): 1597.
[48]

Klein S, Worch E, Knepper T P. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49(10): 6070.
[49]

Rodrigues M O, Abrantes N, Gonçalves F J M, Nogueira H, Marques J C, Gonçalves A M M. Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 633: 1549.
[50]

Kapp K J, Yeatman E. Environ. Pollut., 2018, 241: 1082.
[51]

Eo S, Hong S H, Song Y K, Han G M, Shim W J. Water Res., 2019, 160: 228.
[52]

Talvitie J, Mikola A, Setälä O, Heinonen M, Koistinen A. Water Res., 2017, 109: 164.
[53]

Leslie H A, Brandsma S H, van Velzen M J M, Vethaak A D. Environ. Int., 2017, 101: 133.
[54]

Mason S A, Garneau D, Sutton R, Chu Y, Ehmann K, Barnes J, Fink P, Papazissimos D, Rogers D L. Environ. Pollut., 2016, 218: 1045.
[55]

Grbić J, Helm P, Athey S, Rochman C M. Water Res., 2020, 174: 115623.
[56]

Salam M, Zheng H L, Liu Y Y, Zaib A, Rehman S A U, Riaz N, Eliw M, Hayat F, Li H, Wang F Y. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 344: 118437.
[57]

Horton A A, Walton A, Spurgeon D J, Lahive E, Svendsen C. Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 586: 127.
[58]

Rillig M C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46(12): 6453.
[59]

Ren S Y, Wang K, Zhang J R, Li J J, Zhang H Y, Qi R M, Xu W, Yan C R, Liu X J, Zhang F S, Jones D L, Chadwick D R. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 54(7): 533.
[60]

Ding L, Zhang S Y, Wang X Y, Yang X M, Zhang C T, Qi Y B, Guo X T. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 720: 137525.
[61]

Scheurer M, Bigalke M. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52(6): 3591.
[62]

Harms I K, Diekötter T, Troegel S, Lenz M. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 758: 143615.
[63]

Palazot M, Soccalingame L, Froger C, Jolivet C, Bispo A, Kedzierski M, Bruzaud S. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 918: 170564.
[64]

Chandrakanthan K, Fraser M P, Herckes P. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 906: 167617.
[65]

Katsumi N, Nagao S, Okochi H. Chemosphere, 2022, 307: 135730.
[66]

Zhang Y L, Zhang X T, Li X Y, He D F. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 2022, 26: 100327.
[67]

Ding L, Huang D F, Ouyang Z Z, Guo X T. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 2022, 26: 100344.
[68]

Choi Y R, Kim Y N, Yoon J H, Dickinson N, Kim K H. J. Soils Sediments, 2021, 21(5): 1962.
[69]

Zhu X, Huang W, Fang M, Liao Z, Wang Y, Xu L, Mu Q, Shi C, Lu C, Deng H, Dahlgren R, Shang X. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55 (19): 12871.
[70]

Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Saad M, Renault N, Tassin B. Environ. Chem., 2015, 12(5): 592.
[71]

Gaston E, Woo M, Steele C, Sukumaran S, Anderson S. Appl. Spectrosc., 2020, 74(9): 1079.
[72]

Liu K, Wang X H, Fang T, Xu P, Zhu L X, Li D J. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 675: 462.
[73]

Prata J C, Castro J L, da Costa J P, Duarte A C, Rocha-Santos T, Cerqueira M. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2020, 159: 111522.
[74]

Xie S L, Zhou A G, Wei T L, Li S Y, Yang B, Xu G H, Zou J X. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 2021, 107(4): 640.
[75]

Song Y K, Hong S H, Jang M, Han G M, Jung S W, Shim W J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(8): 4368.
[76]

He D, Chen X J, Zhao W, Zhu Z Q, Qi X J, Zhou L F, Chen W, Wan C Y, Li D W, Zou X, Wu N. Environ. Res., 2021, 196: 110908.
[77]

Yousif E, Haddad R. SpringerPlus, 2013, 2(1): 398.
[78]

Ammala A, Bateman S, Dean K, Petinakis E, Sangwan P, Wong S, Yuan Q, Yu L, Patrick C, Leong K H. Prog. Polym. Sci., 2011, 36(8): 1015.
[79]

Shi X D, Chen Z J, Liu X Q, Wei W, Ni B J. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 846: 157498.
[80]

Ding J N, Huang Y J, Liu S J, Zhang S S, Zou H, Wang Z Y, Zhu W B, Geng J J. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 396: 122693.
[81]

Wang J C, Wang H. Sep. Purif. Technol., 2017, 187: 415.
[82]

Wang J C, Wang H, Huang L L, Wang C Q. Waste Manag., 2017, 67: 20.
[83]

Cai L Q, Wang J D, Peng J P, Wu Z Q, Tan X L. Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 628-629: 740.
[84]

Zhu K C, Sun Y J, Jiang W J, Zhang C, Dai Y C, Liu Z, Wang T C, Guo X T, Jia H Z. Water Res., 2022, 216: 118294.
[85]

Qiu X R, Ma S R, Zhang J X, Fang L C, Guo X T, Zhu L Y. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(14): 10149.
[86]

Qiu X R, Wang X X, Pan J R, Ding L, Liang X J, Guo X T. Water Res., 2024, 251: 121173.
[87]

Xu Y H, Ou Q, van der Hoek J P, Liu G, Lompe K M. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(2): 991.
[88]

Brunner I, Fischer M, Rüthi J, Stierli B, Frey B. PLoS One, 2018, 13(8): e0202047.
[89]

Auta H S, Emenike C U, Jayanthi B, Fauziah S H. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2018, 127: 15.
[90]

Chen Z, Zhao W Q, Xing R Z, Xie S J, Yang X G, Cui P, Lü J, Liao H P, Yu Z, Wang S H, Zhou S G. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 384: 121271.
[91]

Wu X W, Liu P, Zhao X L, Wang J Y, Teng M M, Gao S X. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 437: 13.
[92]

Chen K, Hu Y, Dong X Y, Sun Y. ACS Catal., 2021, 11(12): 7358.
[93]

Ariza-Tarazona M C, Villarreal-Chiu J F, Hernández-López J M, Rivera De la Rosa J, Barbieri V, Siligardi C, Cedillo-González E I. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 395: 122632.
[94]

François-Heude A, Richaud E, Desnoux E, Colin X. Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2014, 100: 10.
[95]

Abrusci C, Pablos J L, Corrales T, López-Marín J, Marín I, Catalina F. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad., 2011, 65(3): 451.
[96]

Hagerty S B, Groenigen K J V, Allison S D, Hungate B A, Schwartz E, Koch G W, Kolka R K, Dijkstra P. Nat. Clim. Change., 2014, 4: 903-906.
[97]

Hao Z Y, Ma J Z, Miao C Y, Song Y, Lian L S, Yan S W, Song W H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54(16): 10118.
[98]

Wu X W, Liu P, Wang H Y, Huang H, Shi Y Q, Yang C F, Gao S X. Water Res., 2021, 202: 117396.
[99]

Liu X G, Fang L P, Yan X L, Gardea-Torresdey J L, Gao Y, Zhou X X, Yan B. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 903: 166585.
[100]

Chen Q D, Wang Q, Zhang C, Zhang J W, Dong Z H, Xu Q Y. Water Res., 2021, 202: 117462.
[101]

Li J S, Shan E C, Zhao J M, Teng J, Wang Q. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 870: 161893.
[102]

Shu X H, Xu L Z, Yang M H, Qin Z Q, Zhang Q, Zhang L S. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 868: 161578.
[103]

Zhang S L, Wang W, Yan P K, Wang J Q, Yan S H, Liu X B, Aurangzeib M. J. Environ. Manag., 2023, 333: 117412.
[104]

Surendran U, Jayakumar M, Raja P, Gopinath G, Chellam P V. Chemosphere, 2023, 318: 137946.
[105]

Jiang W, Yan X Y, Lv Y. J. Environ. Sci., 2025, 154: 645.
[106]

Dong Y B, Qiao Y J, Lin H. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot., 2024, 189: 1450.
[107]

Xun F C, Zhou J J, Xiong J Q, Hu T P, Xia Q H. J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2024, 12(5): 113833.
[108]

Naqash N, Prakash S, Kapoor D, Singh R. Environ. Chem. Lett., 2020, 18(6): 1813.
[109]

Cey E E, Rudolph D L, Passmore J. J. Contam. Hydrol., 2009, 107(1-2): 45.
[110]

Helmberger M S, Tiemann L K, Grieshop M J. Funct. Ecol., 2020, 34(3): 550.
[111]

Alimi O S, Farner Budarz J, Hernandez L M, Tufenkji N. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52(4): 1704.
[112]

Li H X, Lu X Q, Wang S Y, Zheng B Y, Xu Y. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 278: 116833.
[113]

Li K, Xiu X J, Hao W Q. Chemosphere, 2024, 350: 141060.
[114]

Seeley M E, Song B, Passie R, Hale R C. Nat. Commun., 2020, 11: 2372.
[115]

Li H Z, Zhu D, Lindhardt J H, Lin S M, Ke X, Cui L. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(8): 4658.
[116]

Huang S C, Zhang B, Zhao Z W, Yang C, Zhang B, Cui F Y, Lens P N L, Shi W X. Water Res., 2023, 241: 120161.
[117]

Liu X H, Yang Y, Takizawa S, Graham N J D, Chen C, Pu J, Ng H Y. Water Res., 2024, 253: 121268.
[118]

Zhou Y F, He G, Bhagwat G, Palanisami T, Yang Y Y, Liu W Z, Zhang Q F. Glob. Change Biol., 2023, 29(14): 3895.
[119]

Ustabasi G S, Baysal A. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 703: 135024.
[120]

Lenz R, Enders K, Nielsen T G. PNAS, 2016, 113 (29): e4121.
[121]

Yu H W, Qi W X, Cao X F, Hu J W, Li Y, Peng J F, Hu C Z, Qu J H. Environ. Int., 2021, 156: 106708.
[122]

Wan Y, Wu C X, Xue Q, Hui X. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 654: 576.
[123]

Zhang X Y, Li Y, Ouyang D, Lei J J, Tan Q L, Xie L L, Li Z Q, Liu T, Xiao Y M, Farooq T H, Wu X H, Chen L, Yan W D. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 418: 126288.
[124]

Qiu X R, Ma S R, Pan J R, Cui Q, Zheng W, Ding L, Liang X J, Xu B L, Guo X T, Rillig M C. ISME J., 2024, 18(1): wrad017.
[125]

Zhang W H, Bhagwat G, Palanisami T, Liang S X, Wan W J, Yang Y Y. Water Res., 2024, 248: 120875.
[126]

Huang Y, Zhao Y R, Wang J, Zhang M J, Jia W Q, Qin X. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 254: 112983.
[127]

Qi K, Lu N, Zhang S Q, Wang W W, Wang Z R, Guan J N. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 411: 125115.
[128]

Rillig M C, Lehmann A, de Souza Machado A A, Yang G W. New Phytol., 2019, 223(3): 1066.
[129]

Li R J, Tu C, Li L Z, Wang X Y, Yang J, Feng Y D, Zhu X, Fan Q H, Luo Y M. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 456: 131675.
[130]

Zhang Q G, Zhao M S, Meng F S, Xiao Y L, Dai W, Luan Y N. Toxics, 2021, 9(8): 179.
[131]

Urbina M A, Correa F, Aburto F, Ferrio J P. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 741: 140216.
[132]

Hua Z D, Zhang T L, Luo J Q, Bai H D, Ma S R, Qiang H, Guo X T. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 462: 132710.
[133]

Giorgetti L, Spanò C, Muccifora S, Bottega S, Barbieri F, Bellani L, Ruffini Castiglione M. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2020, 149: 170.
[134]

Jiang X F, Chen H, Liao Y C, Ye Z Q, Li M, Klobučar G. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 250: 831.
[135]

Lozano Y M, Rillig M C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54(10): 6166.
[136]

Bosker T, Bouwman L J, Brun N R, Behrens P, Vijver M G. Chemosphere, 2019, 226: 774.
[137]

Pflugmacher S, Tallinen S, Kim Y J, Kim S, Esterhuizen M. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 790: 148166.
[138]

Mintenig S M, Löder M G J, Primpke S, Gerdts G. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 648: 631.
[139]

Liu Y Y, Guo R, Zhang S W, Sun Y H, Wang F Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 421: 126700.
[140]

Bi M H, He Q, Chen Y. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54(9): 5325.
[141]

Avellan A, Yun J, Morais B P, Clement E T, Rodrigues S M, Lowry G V. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(20): 13417.
[142]

Wang Y, Xiang L L, Wang F, Wang Z Q, Bian Y R, Gu C G, Wen X, Kengara F O, Schäffer A, Jiang X, Xing B S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(23): 16907.
[143]

Lian J P, Liu W T, Sun Y B, Men S Z, Wu J N, Zeb A, Yang T Z, Ma L Q, Zhou Q X. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 423: 127241.
[144]

Wu X, Liu Y, Yin S S, Xiao K K, Xiong Q, Bian S J, Liang S, Hou H J, Hu J P, Yang J K. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 266: 115159.
[145]

Sun X D, Yuan X Z, Jia Y B, Feng L J, Zhu F P, Dong S S, Liu J J, Kong X P, Tian H Y, Duan J L, Ding Z J, Wang S G, Xing B S. Nat. Nanotechnol., 2020, 15(9): 755.
[146]

Zhu J H, Wang J, Chen R N, Feng Q R, Zhan X H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(10): 6436.
[147]

Lu Y, Zhang Y, Deng Y, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Geng J, Ding L, Ren H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50 (7): 4054.
[148]

Wang J, Li Y J, Lu L, Zheng M Y, Zhang X N, Tian H, Wang W, Ru S G. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 254: 113024.
[149]

Cole M, Lindeque P, Fileman E, Halsband C, Goodhead R, Moger J, Galloway T S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47(12): 6646.
[150]

Martins A, Guilhermino L. Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 631: 421.
[151]

Shao Y T, Hua X, Li Y H, Wang D Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 466: 133545.
[152]

Chen H B, Hua X, Yang Y, Wang C, Jin L D, Dong C Y, Chang Z F, Ding P, Xiang M D, Li H, Yu Y J. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 419: 126482.
[153]

Ju H, Zhu D, Qiao M. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 247: 890.
[154]

Song Y, Cao C J, Qiu R, Hu J N, Liu M T, Lu S B, Shi H H, Raley-Susman K M, He D F. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 250: 447.
[155]

Xu R, Cao J W, Lv H L, Geng Y, Guo M Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 917: 170518.
[156]

Wang J, Yang Y, Shi Y P, Wei L, Gao L, Liu M X. Environ. Int., 2024, 185: 108523.
[157]

Xie X M, Deng T, Duan J F, Xie J, Yuan J L, Chen M Q. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2020, 190: 110133.
[158]

Gao D J, Zhang C X, Guo H Q, Xu H, Liu H, Wang Z, Xu B, Gang W. Environ. Pollut., 2024, 346: 123567.
[159]

Chen J J, Rao C Y, Yuan R J, Sun D D, Guo S Q, Li L L, Yang S, Qian D D, Lu R H, Cao X L. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 814: 152681.
[160]

Sun Y F, Xu W J, Gu Q J, Chen Y T, Zhou Q M, Zhang L, Gu L, Huang Y, Lyu K, Yang Z. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53(15): 9241.
[161]

Heindler F M, Alajmi F, Huerlimann R, Zeng C S, Newman S J, Vamvounis G, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2017, 141: 298.
[162]

Jeyavani J, Sibiya A, Bhavaniramya S, Mahboob S, Al-Ghanim K A, Nisa Z U, Riaz M N, Nicoletti M, Govindarajan M, Vaseeharan B. Chemosphere, 2022, 296: 133990.
[163]

Browne M A, Dissanayake A, Galloway T S, Lowe D M, Thompson R C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42(13): 5026.
[164]

Rodriguez-Seijo A, Lourenço J, Rocha-Santos T A P, da Costa J, Duarte A C, Vala H, Pereira R. Environ. Pollut., 2017, 220: 495.
[165]

Yu Y J, Chen H B, Hua X, Dang Y, Han Y J, Yu Z L, Chen X C, Ding P, Li H. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 726: 138679.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China(42377233)

PDF (2436KB)

590

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail
Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉

Address of Editorial Office: No. 33 Beisihuan Xilu, Zhongguancun , Beijing 100190, China
Tel: +86 10 8262 7757
Fax: +86 10 8262 7757
E-mail: progchem@mail.las.ac.cn
http://www.progchem.ac.cn
    • 　
    Copyright © Editorial Office of Progress in Chemistry