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

Environmental Processes and Ecological Effects of Micro- and Nano- Plastics in Soil-Plant Systems

Jie Yang , Chen Tu , Xianzheng Yuan , Yongming Luo

Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 89 -102.

PDF
Progress in Chemistry ›› 2025, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (1) : 89-102 DOI: 10.7536/PC240801
research-article
Scan to read & Share
Environmental Processes and Ecological Effects of Micro- and Nano- Plastics in Soil-Plant Systems
Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

Micro- and nano-plastic pollution is impacting global terrestrial ecosystems. The environmental processes and ecological effects of micro- and nano-plastics in soil-plant systems are gaining increasing attention. This study focuses on elucidating processes such as accumulation and transport, weathering and degradation, additive release and transformation, pollutant interaction, biofilm colonization, heterogeneous agglomeration, and the uptake and transport of micro- and nano-plastics in flora and fauna. It systematically examines the impacts on the physico-chemical properties, plants, invertebrates, microbial community composition and diversity and carbon/nitrogen cycling in soil, as well as the potential risks of agricultural product accumulation and food chain transfer. Future research directions in this field are proposed to advance understanding of the hazards posed by micro- and nano-plastics pollution in terrestrial ecosystems and to support the scientific development of prevention and control strategies.

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Environmental processes of micro- and nano- plastics in soil-plant systems

2.1 Accumulation and transport processes of micro- and nano-plastics in soil

2.2 Weathering, fragmentation, and biodegradation of micro- and nano-plastics in soil

2.3 Additive release and transformation of micro- and nano-plastics in soil

2.4 Pollutant interactions with micro- and nano-plastics in soil

2.5 Biofilm formation through microbial colonization of micro- and nano-plastics in soil

2.6 Uptake and transport of micro- and nano-plastics in soil by plants and animals

3 Ecological effects of micro- and nano-plastics in soil-plant systems

3.1 Effects of micro- and nano-plastics on soil physicochemical properties

3.2 Effects of micro- and nano-plastics on carbon/ nitrogen cycle

3.3 Effects of micro- and nano-plastics on plants

3.4 Effects of micro- and nano-plastics on soil invertebrates

3.5 Effects of micro- and nano-plastics on soil microbial community and enzyme activity

4 Potential risks of micro- and nano-plastics on agricultural product safety and food chain transfer

4.1 Accumulation and risks of micro- and nano- plastics in agricultural products

4.2 Food chain transfer and its potential health risks of micro- and nano-plastics

5 Future research prospects

Graphical abstract

Keywords

microplastics / nanoplastics / terrestrial ecosystem / soil-plant system / environmental process / ecological effect

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Jie Yang, Chen Tu, Xianzheng Yuan, Yongming Luo. Environmental Processes and Ecological Effects of Micro- and Nano- Plastics in Soil-Plant Systems. Progress in Chemistry, 2025, 37(1): 89-102 DOI:10.7536/PC240801

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

1 Introduction

Plastics have become one of the chemicals most closely related to people's daily lives, with global plastic production reaching 4.00 billion tons in 2022[1]. Due to the widespread use of plastic products and inadequate recycling and management, a large amount of plastic waste has entered terrestrial and marine environments. It is estimated that by 2060, the annual generation of global plastic waste will reach 155 to 265 million tons[2]. Plastic waste accumulating in the environment continuously weathers or degrades into microplastics (≤5 mm) and even nanoplastics (< 1 μm) under physical, chemical, and biological actions[3]. Micro/nanoplastics, due to their small particle size, easily form composite pollution with other pollutants, posing risks to ecosystems, food safety, and human health. The environmental pollution and hazards caused by them have received increasing attention from countries around the world. In 2022, at the resumed fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, representatives from 175 countries adopted a historic resolution on "Ending Plastic Pollution." The Chinese government places great importance on the issue of microplastic pollution, clearly stating in the 2022 Action Plan for New Pollutant Control that it is necessary to strengthen research on the environmental and health risks of new pollutants such as microplastics.
Micro/nano plastic pollution is a widespread issue in terrestrial ecosystems. Micro/nano plastics can enter the soil through various pathways, including the use of agricultural materials, atmospheric deposition, runoff and irrigation, as well as wear and tear from transportation or daily consumer products (such as tires and textiles)[4]. Soils under different land use types have been contaminated to varying degrees by micro/nano plastics, including agricultural soils, industrial soils, urban soils, and wetland soils[5⇓-7]. Agricultural soils account for approximately 38% of the total terrestrial land area and are the most extensively used type of land on Earth[8]. In agricultural activities, residues from agricultural films, wastewater irrigation, and the application of fertilizers can all lead to significant amounts of microplastics entering farmland.
Higher plants are a crucial component of terrestrial ecosystems and are often the starting point for bioaccumulation. Li et al.[9] revealed the mechanisms by which plants absorb and transport micro/nanoplastics, marking an important milestone in the study of plastics in terrestrial environments[10]. Various vascular vegetables and grass crops can absorb and transport micro/nanoplastics through their roots and leaves[11,12]. When exposed to certain amounts of micro/nanoplastics, plants' morphological functions, such as plant height and total biomass, as well as their physiological functions, oxidative stress responses, and genotoxicity, can be affected. This impact is influenced by various factors, including the type of plant, the diversity of micro/nanoplastics (particle size, shape, type, and concentration), and the complexity of the soil environment[13].
Micro/nanoplastics in soil-plant systems undergo environmental processes such as accumulation, migration, and degradation. Under the influence of physical, chemical, and microbial actions, their surfaces release additives, becoming carriers of pollutants, pathogens, and antibiotic resistance genes, forming unique microbial communities, and affecting physicochemical properties such as soil structure, soil porosity, soil bulk density, soil moisture content, pH, and soil organic matter content[14]. Additionally, micro/nanoplastics can alter the oxidative stress response of soil invertebrates, causing tissue damage, DNA damage, genotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and metabolic disorders[15]. Micro/nanoplastics can be ingested by animals or transferred through the food chain to accumulate in various tissues of living organisms, posing a potential threat to human health[16].
This paper reviews the latest progress in research on micro/nano plastics in the soil environment both at home and abroad, focusing on the environmental processes and ecological effects of micro/nano plastics in the soil-plant system. It mainly includes the accumulation and migration, weathering and degradation, release and transformation of additives, adsorption and desorption of pollutants, microbial colonization and biofilm formation, absorption and transport, and other environmental processes of micro/nano plastics in the soil-plant system. The ecological effects of micro/nano plastics on the physical and chemical properties of soil, growth of animals/plants, composition and diversity of microbial communities, and carbon/nitrogen cycles in soil, as well as the potential risks to food safety and human health, are also discussed. The aim is to provide a reference for pollution prevention and risk management of micro/nano plastics in the soil-plant system.

2 Environmental Processes Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil-Plant Systems

Micro/nanoplastics from various sources can accumulate in the surface soil over the long term and migrate under the influence of factors such as rainwater erosion, surface runoff, root growth, and animal activities. They can also weather and fragment or degrade into smaller micro/nanoplastics due to abiotic effects like light and heat, and biotic actions. At the same time, micro/nanoplastics not only release harmful additives (such as phthalates) but can also serve as carriers for environmental pollutants (heavy metals, organic pollutants, etc.) and pathogenic microorganisms, leading to complex soil pollution (as shown in Figure 1).

2.1 The Accumulation And Migration Process Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

2.1.1 Distribution And Accumulation Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

From a nationwide survey, the average abundance of microplastics in Chinese farmland is 4536.6 per kg-1 (ranging from 1.6 to 6.2×105 per kg-1). The regions with the highest to lowest average abundances are Southern China, Northern China, Northwestern China, and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[17]. The most common types of microplastics in soil are polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyester (polyester fibers and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)), which are widely used in plastic materials and textiles[18⇓-20]. In most farmlands, the predominant shapes of microplastics are fibers and fragments[18,21]. Due to the influence of different sources of microplastics, there are variations in the distribution characteristics of microplastics in the soil. For example, film microplastics are the most prevalent in agricultural soils[22], while foam microplastics are more common in coastal soils[23]. These distribution differences may be related to the history of plastic use and regional economic activities, such as the use of plastic mulch in agricultural soils and foam plastics in coastal aquaculture.
Microplastics from different sources accumulate in the topsoil after entering the soil, influenced by soil components (minerals and organic matter) and soil organisms. Agricultural activities such as mulching, application of sewage sludge, and manure are significant sources of microplastic accumulation in the soil. Yang et al. revealed the accumulation of microplastics in farmland soils under long-term mulching (4 years and 10 years), long-term application of sewage sludge (9 years), and long-term application of pig manure organic fertilizer (22 years). The results showed that the annual accumulation of film-type microplastics introduced into the tillage layer by long-term mulching would reach 14,040,000 to 18,090,000 ha-1; the annual accumulation of microplastics in the soil caused by the application of sewage sludge could reach 7,680,000 to 29,040,000 ha-1; and the annual accumulation of microplastics in the soil due to the application of pig manure reached 3,500,000 ha-1[22,24,25]. Another study found that the total accumulation of microplastics in the soil over 11 years, due to continuous application of pig manure compost and cattle manure compost, reached 203 to 579 million ha-1 and 173 to 722 million ha-1, respectively[26]. Runoff, irrigation, and atmospheric deposition are also direct sources of microplastics in the soil. Chen et al.[27] surveyed 477 farmland soil samples from 109 cities in mainland China and found that the theoretical contribution rates of agricultural films, livestock and poultry manure, irrigation water, and atmospheric deposition to microplastics in the soil were 17.1%, 4.0%, 7.6%, and 5.9%, respectively. Further analysis showed that the total contribution rates of these three sources (livestock and poultry manure, irrigation water, and atmospheric deposition) to microplastics in the farmland of food crops, cash crops, vegetables, fruits, and mixed crops were (31.2±24.5)%, (29.3±18.4)%, (19.9±20.8)%, (13.6±13)%, and (28.9±23.9)%, respectively[28]. Compared with agricultural films, the contribution of these three sources to microplastics in farmland soil is relatively smaller.

2.1.2 Aggregation Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

Micro/nanoplastics in soil can undergo homogenous aggregation and form heteroaggregates with natural colloids or other particles in the soil environment. Micro/nanoplastics can physically adhere to these substances through embedding, electrostatic interactions, and intermolecular forces, form complexes through chemical bond interactions, or aggregate under the adhesion of extracellular polymeric substances secreted by microorganisms and root exudates from plants[29⇓-31]. For example, in the case of electrostatic adsorption, positively charged sites exist at the edges of clay minerals with a permanent negative charge, providing favorable deposition sites for negatively charged nanoplastics, making it easy to form heteroaggregates and affect the migration of microplastics[32]. Under the long-term influence of climate change, microplastics can bind with inorganic minerals in the soil through chemical bonds and form complexes[30]. The aggregation of micro/nanoplastics in soil is influenced by their surface properties (such as electrostatic interactions, particle size, hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity, and concentration) and environmental conditions[33]. Research has found that aging of microplastics can increase the negative charge on their surfaces, thereby hindering homogenous aggregation[34], and making them more likely to bind with positively charged iron-aluminum oxides through electrostatic interactions or ligand exchange, forming heteroaggregates[29]. The presence of humic acid in the environment increases electrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance, as well as competes for reaction sites on mineral surfaces, increasing the energy barrier for reactions between minerals and micro/nanoplastic particles, thus reducing aggregation[29]. Another study pointed out that 20 nm nanoplastics can enter the interlayer structure of montmorillonite, while 80 nm nanoplastics adsorb on its surface[35]. Currently, related research is still limited, and the aggregation behavior of micro/nanoplastics in complex soil environments needs further investigation.

2.1.3 Migration Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

Micro/nano plastics that accumulate in the soil over a long period can undergo horizontal and vertical migration under the influence of various environmental factors (abiotic factors: soil pores, leaching, runoff, and wind action; biotic factors: soil animals, microorganisms, and plant roots)[36]. Hydraulic erosion can cause micro/nano plastics to move from farmland and other soils into river systems. Research shows that due to soil erosion, approximately 22,700 tons of micro/nano plastics entered river systems in 2020[37]. Wind erosion also affects the horizontal migration of microplastics on the surface soil. According to estimates, after 25 years of using mulch films, the annual release of plastic waste due to wind erosion is 6.91 to 38.11 kg·ha-1. Within a month, about 6.14 pieces/m2 of microplastics settle in areas 690 kilometers away from the pollution source[38]. Agricultural activities such as plowing, harvesting, and drip irrigation can cause micro/nano plastics to move from the surface soil to deeper layers. By fitting the analysis of drip irrigation volume and migration depth, it was found that microplastics in sandy and loamy tillage layers (0-30 cm) can migrate to a 1 m soil layer with 9.34 and 6.56 years of drip irrigation, respectively[39]. Bioperturbation is a key factor in the migration of micro/nano plastics in soil. For example, compared to the coarse roots of corn, the fine roots of ryegrass are more likely to capture microplastics within their root network, preventing their migration and keeping them in the surface soil[40]; film-like microplastics are more easily captured by plant roots in the soil than granular microplastics, making their migration more difficult[40-41]. The activity of soil invertebrates such as earthworms and springtails can drive the deeper migration of microplastics in the soil; as the density of earthworms increases, so does the proportion of migration[42].
Column migration experiments are an important method for investigating the transport patterns and migration mechanisms of micro/nanoplastics in media such as soil and groundwater. Research through column experiments has found that microplastics can migrate with pore water flow and can also move on the surface of the medium through sliding, hopping, and rolling[43]. The properties of micro/nanoplastics (size, type, shape, and surface characteristics) influence their migration[40]. Compared to PVC, PLA has a stronger migration capability, and the hydrophilicity of weathered and degraded microplastics increases, while the Zeta potential decreases, promoting their migration in the medium[44]. Organic matter and minerals in the soil significantly affect the migration of micro/nanoplastics. For example, dissolved organic matter promotes the migration of PS microplastics due to electrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance[45]. Heteroaggregates formed by montmorillonite and diatomaceous earth with PS nanoplastics (80 nm) in the soil restrict the migration of nanoplastics, and heteroaggregates formed with montmorillonite, which has a larger specific surface area, show weaker migration compared to those formed with diatomaceous earth[35]. Additionally, the presence of pollutants also affects the migration of micro/nanoplastics. Rong et al.[46] found that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) inhibits the migration of PS microplastics with a negatively charged surface but promotes the migration of those with a positively charged surface.

2.2 Weathering Fragmentation And Biodegradation Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

2.2.1 Weathering And Fragmentation Of Micro/Nanoplastics

When micro/nanoplastics accumulate in the soil environment, they undergo weathering fragmentation and biodegradation processes. Weathering fragmentation is primarily caused by mechanical wear, photo-oxidation, and changes in humidity and temperature (high temperatures and freeze-thaw cycles), which alter the physical and chemical properties of the micro/nanoplastics. Agricultural activities can cause mechanical collisions and wear between micro/nanoplastics and mineral particles in the soil. Indoor simulation experiments have confirmed that the abundance of microplastics produced from the mechanical wear of PE agricultural films in the soil increases exponentially[47]. During the photo-oxidation process, highly reactive free radicals and reactive oxygen species involved in free radical reactions are first generated on the surface of micro/nanoplastics. As oxygen-containing functional groups are formed and surface properties change, weathering degradation gradually progresses from the surface to the interior, leading to the cracking and fragmentation of micro/nanoplastics, a decrease in elasticity, and the release of soluble organic carbon and additives[31]. When the heat absorbed by micro/nanoplastics from the environment exceeds the dissociation energy of the chemical bonds between molecular chains, thermal degradation occurs, with random breakage at weak points; the degradation rate increases with rising temperature[48]. PS microplastics, under freeze-thaw conditions at -20 ℃, experience accelerated degradation due to the squeezing and grinding effects in confined spaces, producing 1O2, with a degradation rate that can be more than 60 times higher than in aqueous solutions[49]. Additionally, minerals, organic matter, soil pH, disturbances by soil animals, and chewing also affect the weathering and fragmentation of micro/nanoplastics[50-51]. For example, clay minerals (kaolinite and montmorillonite) that are widely present in the soil not only form heterogeneous aggregates with microplastics but also promote the generation of free radicals, thereby increasing the weathering and fragmentation of microplastics[50].

2.2.2 Biodegradation Of Micro/Nanoplastics

As mentioned earlier, there are microorganisms in soil and various animals (such as earthworms, yellow mealworms, waxworms, etc.) that can degrade micro/nano plastics, using them as a carbon source. Microorganisms play a crucial role in the biodegradation of micro/nano plastics. Several types of bacteria and fungi capable of degrading micro/nano plastics in soil have been discovered, but the degradation cycle is relatively long[52]. For example, after 3 months of co-cultivation with PE, Paenibacillus isolated from landfill soil caused a weight loss of about 5.7% in PE[53]; Raoultella sp. DY2415 strain, isolated from oil-contaminated soil, resulted in an 8% weight reduction when co-cultivated with UV-aged PE for 60 days[54]. Soil type drives changes in microbial communities, thereby affecting the potential for the degradation of micro/nano plastics. Previous studies have found that microorganisms cultured in loess soil from the northwest region have a stronger capacity to degrade PBAT microplastics compared to red soil from southern regions, alluvial soil from northern China, and black soil from northeastern China. Further metagenomic analysis revealed that the specific microbial groups enriched on the surface of PBAT and the abundance of PBAT hydrolase genes are key factors driving the differences in PBAT degradation performance in different types of soil[55]. The core process of microbial degradation of micro/nano plastics involves the secretion of various functional enzymes, such as esterases, lipases, cutinases, and other hydrolytic enzymes, as well as alkane monooxygenases, laccases, and other oxidative enzymes, which have the potential to degrade plastics. Enhancing the expression activity of these microbial enzymes can improve their ability to degrade specific plastics in soil[56]. Under the action of various enzymes, micro/nano plastics break down into monomers and small molecular products, and are ultimately degraded into CO2 and H2O[57].

2.2.3 Changes In Surface Morphology And Properties Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

Micro/nano plastics undergo significant changes in surface morphology and physicochemical properties during the process of weathering and degradation. For example: cracks and pores appear on the surface, roughness increases, specific surface area enlarges, oxygen-containing functional groups such as carbonyls increase, hydrophobicity decreases, and smaller micro/nano plastics are formed[22,47,58]. Wen et al.[59] found through indoor aging simulation experiments that PS nano-plastics (331.9 ± 10.3 nm) after UV and ozone aging exhibited wrinkles on their surfaces, decreased particle size, reduced stability, and increased hydrophilicity. Yang et al.[22] discovered in soils with long-term mulch film coverage that, compared to the original plastic mulch films, the weathered and degraded film microplastics had increased roughness, decreased hydrophobicity, and more oxygen-containing functional groups. By using fluorescent dyes to stain live bacteria, dead bacteria, and extracellular polymeric substances on the surface of microplastics and combining this with laser confocal microscopy, it was observed that PE microplastics exposed to the upper air environment of the supratidal zone for three months would have a large number of live bacteria distributed on their surfaces[60]. Zhang Chenjie et al.[61] found through field burial experiments that the main bacteria adhering to the surface of PE film microplastics in coastal environments were cocci, bacilli, and filamentous bacteria.

2.3 Release And Transformation Of Additives From Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

Plastic products incorporate various functional additives (such as plasticizers, flame retardants, stabilizers, and antioxidants) to meet specific needs. Plasticizers and flame retardants are the two most concerning types of additives, such as phthalate esters (PAEs) and organic phosphates (OPEs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)[62]. The amount of additives added varies according to different purposes and uses; the content of plasticizers generally ranges from 10% to 70%, with some PVC products containing up to 80% plasticizers, while the content of flame retardants is typically between 12% and 18%[63]. Vincoff et al.[64] listed 2,712 known plastic additives through a literature search, finding that more than 150 of these additives are carcinogenic, and approximately 90% lack data on carcinogenic endpoints. The binding between plastic additives and plastic polymers mainly occurs through non-covalent bonds (such as van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds), leading to the dynamic release of additives during the weathering and degradation of plastics into micro/nano-plastics[65]. The problem of plastic additive pollution is widespread in agricultural soils. For example, Zhang et al.[66] found that the use of agricultural plastic films in China in 2017 was 2.5286 million tons, estimating that a total of 91.5 tons of PAEs were released over the lifecycle of these films. Most of the PAEs released from mulch films were degraded, while those from greenhouse films accumulated in vegetables. Xu et al.[67] analyzed the content of microplastics and PAEs in typical agricultural production areas, finding a significant positive correlation between microplastics and PAEs in soil, confirming that they have the same sources. By measuring the content of PAEs in the soil, the degree of microplastic pollution can be indirectly reflected.

2.4 The Interaction Between Micro/Nanoplastics and Pollutants in Soil

Micro/nanoplastics, due to their large specific surface area, strong chemical inertness, and easy migration, can easily adsorb heavy metals and organic pollutants in the soil, further affecting the migration and distribution of these pollutants in the soil environment. The adsorption of heavy metals and organic pollutants by micro/nanoplastics mainly occurs through hydrophobic interactions, surface complexation, electrostatic interactions, and intermolecular forces (including π-π interactions, van der Waals forces, and hydrogen bonds). Electrostatic interactions, surface complexation, and hydrophobic interactions dominate the adsorption of heavy metals by micro/nanoplastics, while the adsorption of organic pollutants is primarily through hydrophobic interactions. In addition, intermolecular forces and electrostatic interactions also influence the adsorption of organic pollutants by micro/nanoplastics[68]. The interaction between micro/nanoplastics and heavy metals and organic pollutants is affected by the properties of the micro/nanoplastics (type, particle size, concentration, degree of aging, specific surface area, crystallinity, etc.), the properties of the pollutants (chemical form and concentration, etc.), and environmental conditions (pH, organic matter content, salinity, etc.). Yang et al.[69] explored the effects of different soil environmental factors on the adsorption of Cu2+ by microplastics and compared the differences in the adsorption of Cu2+ by different microplastics. The results showed that polyamide (PA) had a much greater adsorption capacity for Cu2+ than PE, PS, and PET, which was related to its polar functional groups. Citric acid significantly reduced the adsorption of Cu2+ by PA, followed by oxalic acid; small molecular organic acids competed with Cu for adsorption sites on the surface of microplastics, thereby reducing the adsorption of Cu2+. PE microplastics adsorbed more Zn2+ in forest soils, which are rich in organic matter, than in farmland soils[70]. Yang Jie et al.[71] compared the effects of different pH levels, concentrations of cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+), and fulvic acid on the adsorption of tetracycline by microplastics. The adsorption capacity for tetracycline, from highest to lowest, was PE, PS, and PA; the presence of fulvic acid and cations hindered the adsorption of tetracycline by PE microplastics, and the effect became more pronounced with increasing concentration. Microplastics that have adsorbed pollutants are susceptible to desorption and release under the influence of environmental factors, especially in acidic environments such as the human gastrointestinal tract. Zhang et al.[72] found that in simulated acidic gastrointestinal fluids, the desorption of Cu2+ from PS that had adsorbed Cu2+ was higher than in simulated seawater and pure water systems. At the same time, an increase in temperature enhanced the desorption of Cu2+ from the surface of PS. Wang et al.[73] also found that the desorption of thiacloprid (THI) from microplastics in simulated intestinal fluid was 1.30 to 1.36 times that in pure water. Bakir et al.[74] found that the desorption intensity of persistent organic pollutants from the surfaces of PE and PVC in simulated intestinal conditions was 30 times that in seawater, and that intestinal surfactants, low pH, and high temperatures could promote the desorption of pollutants from microplastics. These studies indicate that the carrier role of microplastics makes it easier for pollutants to transfer into animals and humans, posing potential hazards.

2.5 Microbial Colonization And Biofilm Characteristics Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil

In soil, the surfaces of micro/nanoplastics are enveloped by bioactive molecules such as soluble organic matter, proteins, metabolites, and extracellular polymeric substances, forming an "eco-corona"[75]. The adhesion of these biomolecules on the surface creates conditions for the formation of a biofilm. The surface of micro/nanoplastics provides attachment sites for microorganisms, allowing them to survive for extended periods and form microbial communities that are distinctly different from those in the surrounding soil. Over time, the natural succession process leads to the encapsulation of the micro/nanoplastic surfaces with a biofilm, ultimately creating a unique microenvironment known as the "plastisphere"[76-77]. Due to the preferential enrichment of certain microorganisms, the diversity of the microbial community in the biofilm on the surface of micro/nanoplastics is lower than that in the surrounding soil. Additionally, the selective enrichment of microorganisms results in the biofilm exhibiting distinct functional characteristics, such as higher levels of genes for organic matter degradation, nitrogen fixation, and the enrichment of microorganisms capable of degrading micro/nanoplastics, potential pathogens, viruses, and antibiotic resistance genes[77-78]. Sun et al.[79] compared the bacterial "plastisphere" on polyethylene microplastics from 99 regions in China with the microbial communities in adjacent soils. They found that, compared to the soil bacterial communities, the "plastisphere" had a higher abundance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes, while the abundances of Pseudomonadota, Acidobacteria, Bacilli, and Bacteroidetes were lower. The "plastisphere" may play a significant role in the degradation of micro/nanoplastics, the transmission of potential pathogens, and the spread of antibiotic resistance genes. However, research in this area is still in its early stages, and more attention needs to be paid to the dynamic changes of the "plastisphere" on the surfaces of micro/nanoplastics in soil.

2.6 Uptake And Transport Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil By Plants And Animals

2.6.1 Uptake And Transport Of Micro/Nanoplastics By Plants From Soil

Higher plants are an essential component of terrestrial ecosystems and also the starting point for bioaccumulation. Micro/nanoplastics, which continuously accumulate in farmland, inevitably interact with crops. It has been successively confirmed that micro/nanoplastics can be absorbed by vegetables (such as broad beans (Vicia faba), carrots (Daucus carota L.), cucumbers (Cucumis sativus L.), watercress (Lepidium sativum), lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.), onions (Allium cepa), etc.), cereals (such as rice (Oryza sativa L.), corn (Zea mays L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum), etc.), and fruits (such as strawberries (Fragaria ananassa))[4,80]. Other terrestrial plants, such as Arabidopsis thaliana and dandelions (Taraxacum asiaticum), can also absorb and transport micro/nanoplastics[81-82]. Transpiration is the primary driving force for the transport of micro/nanoplastics within plants[9]. The absorption of micro/nanoplastics by terrestrial plants is influenced by the characteristics of the micro/nanoplastics (particle size, morphology, surface charge, etc.), environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, and light), growth medium, exposure concentration, and plant species, among other factors[4]. Sun et al.[81] found that nanoplastics with a negative surface charge are more easily absorbed by plant roots compared to those with a positive surface charge. Li Ruijie et al.[83] investigated the absorption of PS nanoplastics (200 nm) by wheat under different temperature and humidity conditions. They found that high-temperature, low-humidity environments (30 °C, 55% relative humidity) were more conducive to the absorption of nanoplastics by wheat compared to low-temperature, high-humidity environments (10 °C, 85% relative humidity). Additionally, the accumulation of PS nanoplastics in wheat increased significantly with increasing exposure concentration. Under the same soil exposure time (14 days) and concentration (10 mg·kg-1), the concentrations of PS nanoplastics in the roots of wheat and lettuce were 5.2 and 15.2 μg·g-1, respectively[12].
Micro/nanoplastics must cross several physiological barriers, such as the cuticle, epidermis, cortex, endodermis, and Casparian strip, to reach the vascular tissue and be transported to the stem. Particle size is an important factor affecting the entry of micro/nanoplastics into plants. For example, 25 nm PS nanoplastics can enter root (onion) cells via endocytosis and be detected in the nucleus[84], 200 nm PS nanoplastics can be absorbed by the cracks in the root tips and newly formed lateral roots of crops[9,12], while 2 μm PS microplastics can enter crops through the cracks at the junctions of lateral roots[9]. The discontinuous areas of the Casparian strip in plant roots (root tips and lateral root cracks) are important pathways for micro/nanoplastics to enter the root vascular system. Foliar uptake is another route for micro/nanoplastics to enter plants. Studies have shown that PS nanoplastics with a particle size range of 22-200 nm can enter crops through stomata[11,85]. Micro/nanoplastics that enter wheat eventually make their way into edible parts such as grains and vegetable leaves[86-87].
The quantification and transformation of micro/nano plastics within plants are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the transport processes and mechanisms of micro/nano plastics, serving as an important basis for assessing the ecological and food chain transmission risks of micro/nano plastics. Li et al.[88] performed tissue alkaline hydrolysis on cucumbers exposed to 50 nm PS nanoplastics, extracting them through centrifugation and ultrasonic separation, and analyzed the nanoplastics using pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) to obtain the content of nanoplastics in each tissue. Luo et al.[12] used lanthanide complexes doped with PS nanoplastics (200 nm) that have time-resolved fluorescence characteristics, overcoming the interference from plant autofluorescence. By detecting the rare earth Eu content in the plants and converting it to the content of nanoplastics, they achieved accurate visual tracing of nanoplastics within crops. Hao et al.[89] synthesized zinc gallate nanoparticles doped with continuously fluorescent Cr3+ into PS nanoplastics, making them traceable under UV light, and used the contained gallium (Ga) element for quantitative studies on the absorption of PS nanoplastics by Arabidopsis. Currently, most studies focus only on the absorption of micro/nano plastics by seedling crops. Investigating the transport, distribution, and surface characteristic changes of micro/nano plastics in plants at different growth stages is key to accurately assessing their food safety issues and food chain transmission risks. Therefore, future research needs to delve deeper into the dynamic transport and accumulation processes of micro/nano plastics within plants.

2.6.2 Uptake And Transport Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Soil By Soil Invertebrates

Micro/nano plastics are easily ingested by soil invertebrates. Taking earthworms as an example, Meng et al.[90] explored the ingestion of microplastics (PE, PLA, PBAT (polybutylene adipate terephthalate)) with different particle sizes (20~648 µm) through dissection. The results showed that the ingestion of microplastics by earthworms was not related to their particle size, but there were differences in the excretion. The proportion of small-sized (20~113 µm) microplastics in the earthworm gut significantly increased compared to other sizes (from 8.4% to 18.8%)[90]. Ingested 10 μm microplastics are more likely to accumulate in the earthworm's body, while 1 μm microplastics are more easily excreted by earthworms[91]. Biobased biodegradable PLA microplastics are more prone to fragmentation and decomposition in the earthworm digestive tract compared to petroleum-based PET microplastics, with half-lives for excretion being 45 h and 9.3 h, respectively[92]. After being ingested by invertebrates, most of the micro/nano plastics are excreted, and those retained in the body mainly accumulate in the digestive system[93,94]. Microorganisms in the gut of soil invertebrates can degrade larger plastics, producing nano plastics that can penetrate the intestinal wall. Accumulated PS microplastics in the gut of mealworms may further decompose into smaller nano plastics and eventually degrade gradually in the glands[95].

3 The Ecological Effects of Micro/Nanoplastics in Soil-Plant Systems

The soil-plant system is a complex, diverse, and dynamic terrestrial ecosystem. It exhibits heterogeneity, and compared to aquatic ecosystems such as the ocean, there has been relatively less research on the impact of micro/nanoplastics on the soil-plant system. Micro/nanoplastics of different sizes and types have a series of effects on the soil-plant system. For example, they can alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil, change the carbon/nitrogen cycle and greenhouse gas emissions, affect plant growth and the development of soil invertebrates, and promote the succession of microbial communities in the soil (Figure 2).

3.1 The Impact Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Soil Physicochemical Properties

The accumulation of micro/nano plastics in soil can alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil, affecting the stability of soil aggregates, soil bulk density, soil porosity, soil aeration, and changing the soil's pH, soil organic matter (especially dissolved organic matter (DOM)), and the availability of soil nutrients[14]. The impact of different types of micro/nano plastics on the stability of soil aggregates varies significantly. Polyester fiber (PES) microplastics can significantly reduce the content of water-stable soil aggregates, while the effect of polyethylene (PE) fragment microplastics is not significant[96]. Additionally, PES promotes the formation of large soil aggregates (> 1 mm) and enhances the soil's water-holding capacity, maintaining a high level of water saturation over a long period[96]. Soil porosity is greatly influenced by the concentration of microplastics. By increasing the aeration and porosity of the soil, various types of foamed and fragmented microplastics increase the soil's pH value[97]. However, some scholars have proposed opposing views. Dong et al.[98] found that soil pH decreases with an increase in the concentration of PS and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) microplastics, and smaller-sized microplastics have a greater impact than larger ones. The reasons for these differing effects may be related to the shape and type of polymer of the microplastics. Furthermore, the degree of impact of micro/nano plastics on different types of soils varies. Research has found that PE and PVC microplastics affect parameters such as soil moisture content, specific gravity, liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, optimal moisture content, and maximum dry density. Among these, sandy soils are most affected by microplastic pollution, followed by clayey soils, with silty soils being the least affected. This difference might be related to the varying forces exerted due to the different particle compositions in different types of soils[99].

3.2 The Impact Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Soil Carbon/Nitrogen Cycles

The polymer backbone of micro/nanoplastics is rich in carbon, making them a potential contributor to soil carbon content[100]. The carbon/nitrogen cycle in soil is closely related to greenhouse gases, and the impact of micro/nanoplastics on the soil carbon/nitrogen cycle is receiving increasing attention. Studies have shown that exposure to microplastics significantly increases soil carbon storage, alters the composition of the soil nitrogen pool, and increases emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O[101-102]. When microplastics coexist with biochar, the emission of greenhouse gases increases. Compared to the application of PS microplastics alone, the co-application of sugarcane bagasse biochar and PS increases CO2 emissions. Sugarcane bagasse biochar can provide nutrients to the soil or create a more suitable habitat for relevant microorganisms by altering soil physicochemical properties, such as releasing DOC into the soil[103]. In paddy soils, the co-application of PE microplastics (0.5%) with hydrothermal carbon increased cumulative CH4 emissions by 32.6% to 83.5% compared to control and hydrothermal carbon treatments alone[104]. Microplastics increase the populations of genes related to carbon degradation (such as abfA, sga, and manB). The increase in methanogenic bacteria (41.1%; mcrA) was slightly higher than that of methanotrophic bacteria (37.9%; pmoA, mmoX, and mxaF), and the increase in CH₄ emissions in paddy fields was more significant than in upland soils[102]. Microplastics increase the abundance of functional genes encoding nitrite reductase (nirS), which may be a key microbial mechanism driving the significant increase in N2O emissions from soil[101]. Micro/nanoplastics regulate processes such as soil carbon and nitrogen sequestration, organic matter decomposition, nitrification, denitrification, and greenhouse gas emissions by altering soil physicochemical properties, specific microbial community structures, and related enzyme activities, thereby affecting the soil carbon/nitrogen cycle[74,105].

3.3 The Impact Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Plants

The impact of micro/nanoplastics on cereals and vegetables in soil-plant systems has attracted considerable attention[4]. Different types and concentrations of micro/nanoplastics have effects on plant growth. For example, in the case of wheat (Triticum aestivum), PE has a higher inhibitory effect on seed germination than PLA and PP, while PLA has a greater inhibitory effect on seedling growth compared to PE and PP[106]. Additionally, lower concentrations (≤5 mg·L−1) of nanoplastics increased root hydraulic conductivity by 80.6% to 117.0%; whereas a concentration of 200 mg·L−1 of PS treatment significantly reduced chlorophyll a and b in wheat, decreasing them by 14.8% and 19.9%, respectively. This also decreased root hydraulic conductivity by 50.7%, reduced catalase activity in roots by 17.7%, and decreased catalase activity in the aboveground parts by 36.8%[107]. Environmental conditions also affect the physiological impacts of micro/nanoplastics on wheat. In high-temperature and low-humidity environments (30 ℃, relative humidity 55%), PS nanoplastics inhibit root growth and catalase activity in wheat stems and leaves. High concentrations (200 mg·L-1) of PS nanoplastics significantly reduce chlorophyll b content and significantly increase superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and malondialdehyde content in wheat roots. In contrast, in low-temperature and high-humidity environments (10 ℃, relative humidity 85%), high concentrations of PS nanoplastics significantly increase malondialdehyde content in wheat stems and leaves but have no significant effect on chlorophyll content and antioxidant enzyme activity[83]. The influence of polymer type is related to its functional groups; polyethylene terephthalate, which contains phenyl groups, has a more significant impact on fresh weight, chlorophyll a and b, and H2O2 content[108]. Overall, compared to nanoplastics, microplastics have a stronger inhibitory effect on the physiological, photosynthetic pigments, and biochemical indicators of most plants[108].
It is noteworthy that in laboratory studies, the concentrations of micro/nanoplastics used in hydroponic and pot experiments (in the range of mg·L-1 or mg·kg-1) are much higher than those found in real environmental conditions. Currently, most research focuses on the impact of microplastics on the apparent morphology and physiology of individual organisms. Growth, nutritional components, photosynthesis, and antioxidant enzyme activity are some of the most closely monitored indicators[80,107]. Recent studies have begun to focus on the effects of micro/nanoplastics at the molecular scale (omics)[109], as well as the combined pollution effects of micro/nanoplastics and other contaminants on plants[110-111]. Studies have reported that when wheat is simultaneously exposed to polyethylene and oxytetracycline, there is a significant increase in carotenoid content and peroxidase activity in the leaves, along with alterations in the levels of various metabolites, including organic acids and sugars[112]. When subjected to micro/nanoplastic stress, plants can rapidly respond at the molecular, cellular, organ, and physiological levels, by regulating stress response genes and protein expression through a series of signaling molecules, thereby altering their own morphological and physiological characteristics to respond to and adapt to the stress[113]. The current understanding of the toxic mechanisms of plants under micro/nanoplastic stress is still limited, and the comprehensive use of multi-omics technologies to reveal the toxic mechanisms of plant responses to micro/nanoplastic stress may be a key focus for future research on the toxicity of micro/nanoplastics to plants.

3.4 The Impact Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Soil Invertebrates

The attachment or ingestion of micro/nanoplastics by soil invertebrates has been shown to cause a variety of adverse reactions, including effects on growth, behavior, and physiological responses (oxidative stress, tissue inflammation, neural damage, gene expression, and gut microbiota, etc.)[114]. Most studies choose earthworms and nematodes as model organisms to investigate the toxic effects of micro/nanoplastics on soil invertebrates[115]. The size and concentration of micro/nanoplastics are the most frequently studied influencing factors. For example, in the case of earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris), larger-sized microplastics may have a greater toxic impact on earthworms[116-117]. Studies have shown that when earthworms are exposed to 10 mg·kg-1 (soil) of polystyrene (PS) micro/nanoplastics of different sizes (100 nm, 1 μm, 10 μm, and 100 μm), microplastics cause more severe DNA damage to coelomocytes than nanoplastics[117]. Meta-analysis results indicate that concentrations of micro/nanoplastics in soil higher than 1 g·kg-1 reduce the growth and survival rates of earthworms[115]. Additionally, the shape and polymer type of micro/nanoplastics are also important factors affecting the bio-toxicity to earthworms; the impact of microplastic particles is greater than that of microplastic fibers, and micro/nanoplastics with chlorine and phenyl groups in their chemical structures are more toxic[115]. Other soil invertebrates are also affected by micro/nanoplastics. Yang et al.[118] found that exposure to 100 nm PS nanoplastics (≥1 μg·L-1) induced severe lipid accumulation in Caenorhabditis elegans and increased the expression of two lipid metabolism sensors, mdt-15 and sbp-1. When the concentration of PE microplastics in soil was 1 g·kg-1 (soil), the reproduction of springtails (Folsomia candida) was inhibited; at 5 g·kg-1, PE significantly altered the gut microbiota of springtails, reducing bacterial diversity; and at 10 g·kg-1, PE significantly reduced the reproduction rate of springtails (a 70.2% decrease compared to the control)[119]. However, the impact of micro/nanoplastics on soil invertebrates is not solely due to the ingestion of micro/nanoplastics by invertebrates, but may also be because micro/nanoplastics alter the surrounding environment or adhere to the surface of soil invertebrates, causing physical harm to the organisms[120-121].

3.5 The Impact Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Soil Microbial Community Composition And Enzyme Activity

Micro/nanoplastics serve as a specific carbon source, creating conditions for microbial growth. Micro/nanoplastics can promote the growth of soil microbial communities capable of degrading and utilizing these polymers, while also inhibiting the community abundance of certain sensitive microbial groups through the release of toxic and harmful additives such as plasticizers, flame retardants, and antioxidants, thereby altering the composition of soil microbial communities[105]. Microplastics impact the composition of soil rhizosphere microbial communities, disrupting beneficial plant-microbe interaction systems[122]. Zhu et al.[123] found that Proteobacteria (51.3%) and Actinobacteria (30.1%) were dominant in the plastic-associated microbial community. Different types of microplastic polymers have varying effects on bacterial diversity and community structure. At the same particle size (200 μm) and concentration (2%, w/w), PE caused more damage to the richness and diversity of wheat rhizosphere bacteria than PS or PVC (2%, w/w)[124]. Compared to PET, PLA (2%, w/w) rapidly produced metabolites and released additives, causing significant changes in the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community composition[125]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can immobilize PS nanoplastics, mitigating the direct harm of PS nanoplastics to lettuce roots and reducing the content of PS nanoplastics in the edible parts of lettuce[126].
Soil enzyme activity reflects the biochemical characteristics of the soil. The presence of micro/nanoplastics alters the physicochemical properties of the soil, releasing harmful additives, which in turn affects soil enzyme activity. For example, PE and PVC microplastics can inhibit the activity of soil fluorescein diacetate hydrolase but increase the activity of urease and acid phosphatase in the soil[127], while PS nanoplastics significantly reduce the activity of dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and cellobiose hydrolase in alkaline soils[128]. The effect of micro/nanoplastics on soil enzyme activity is influenced by multiple factors, including the properties of the micro/nanoplastics (type, particle size, concentration, etc.) and the soil environment. Liu et al.[129] found through a meta-analysis of 51 articles that PP micro/nanoplastics can promote soil enzyme activity, while PET, PE, and PS all inhibit soil enzyme activity. Low-dose (less than 10%) exposure to micro/nanoplastics can promote soil enzyme activity, and the presence of micro/nanoplastics in acidic soils and soils with plants can significantly increase soil enzyme activity.

4 The Potential Health Risks Of Micro/Nanoplastics On Agricultural Product Safety And Food Chain Transmission

The main pathways for human exposure to micro/nano plastics include skin contact, inhalation, and ingestion. Ingesting food contaminated with micro/nano plastics is an important route for these particles to enter the human body[130-131]. Agricultural products are one of the primary sources of food for humans, and contamination of agricultural products with micro/nano plastics will affect their safety. Micro/nano plastics can be transferred into the human body through the food chain and food web, potentially causing health risks (Figure 3).

4.1 Accumulation And Risks Of Micro/Nanoplastics In Agricultural Products

An increasing body of evidence indicates that micro/nanoplastics are present in agricultural products such as crops, fruits, livestock and poultry meat, aquatic products, dairy products, and sideline food products[80,86,132⇓⇓ -135]. In addition, some studies have also detected microplastics in other foods, such as drinking water, salt, and beer[136-137]. Shi et al.[135] conducted a survey on the contamination of microplastics in 12 categories of food, including agricultural products. The results showed that PP and PA microplastics were present in most samples, such as potatoes, vegetables, dairy products, and egg products. Based on the per capita consumption of lettuce in China and the content of microplastics accumulated in the aboveground parts of lettuce, it is estimated that the daily intake of microplastics through the consumption of lettuce in China is 115 μg[138]. Zhao and You[139] used extensive data collection and analysis to estimate the microplastic intake in 109 countries globally, and the results indicated that Southeast Asia is the region with the highest global microplastic intake.

4.2 Food Chain Transfer Of Micro/Nanoplastics And Their Potential Health Risks

Micro/nanoplastics enter the food chain and food web through plant uptake and soil invertebrate feeding. Lwanga et al.[140] reported the accumulation of microplastics in a terrestrial food chain of "soil-earthworm-chicken," finding that the abundance of microplastics in soil, earthworm feces, and chicken feces was 0.87 ± 1.9, 14.8 ± 28.8, and 129.8 ± 82.3 items·g-1, respectively. This study also found the presence of microplastics in chicken gizzards, suggesting that consuming chicken gizzards could lead to human intake of micro/nanoplastics. Monikh et al.[16] used gadolinium (Gd)-doped labeled polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) nanoplastics (250 nm) to investigate the trophic transfer of nanoplastics in a "plant-insect-fish" food chain. They found that microplastics would accumulate on the leaves of lettuce and then transfer to the mouth and viscera of insects, with nanoplastics ultimately accumulating mainly in fish livers. However, no biomagnification effect of either type of nanoplastic was detected in the fish. Li et al.[141] used Py-GC-MS to study the trophic transfer of PS nanoplastics in a "lettuce-snail" food chain. The results showed that nanoplastics could transfer from lettuce to snails, with most being excreted into feces (> 75%). After exposing snails to hydroponically grown lettuce at concentrations up to 1000 mg·L-1, only 28 ng·g-1 of nanoplastics were detected in the soft tissues of the snails. Although the content of nanoplastics decreases when transferred to higher trophic level species, they still significantly inhibited the growth of snails. Recently, micro/nanoplastics have been successively discovered in human carotid arteries, thrombi, placentas, testes, and bone marrow, indicating that environmental micro/nanoplastic pollution is widespread[142⇓⇓⇓-146]. Liu et al.[147] revealed through in vitro studies that nanoplastics may enter the brain and promote the aggregation of α-synuclein associated with Parkinson's disease. These studies suggest that the potential health risks of micro/nanoplastic trophic transfer to higher trophic level species cannot be ignored.

5 Conclusions and Prospects

Micro/nanoplastics of various sizes, shapes, and polymer types are widely present in agricultural soils. Micro/nanoplastics can accumulate, migrate, and undergo weathering and degradation in the soil, forming an "eco-corona" and biofilms on their surfaces, and creating a complex "plastisphere" with contaminants and pathogenic microorganisms. The "plastisphere" formed by micro/nanoplastics poses direct and indirect risks to soil and biological health, potentially further impacting human health. The processes and risks of micro/nanoplastics in soil-plant systems require more attention. Future research should focus on the following six areas to enhance scientific understanding, promote technological innovation, and continuously improve the capacity to address and manage micro/nanoplastic pollution in soil-plant systems.
(1) Develop standardized methods for the separation and analysis of the abundance or mass of micro/nanoplastics in soil and organisms (especially those below 20 μm), and establish a system for the identification, separation, and source apportionment of plastics at the micro, sub-micro, and even nano scales, to ensure the comparability of data from different research studies.
(2) Conduct a multi-scale, comprehensive, and systematic study on the distribution, migration, transport, and flux of micro/nano plastics in soil environments. Investigate the composite pollution and biogeochemical processes of micro/nano plastics in the soil-plant system. Comprehensively evaluate, characterize, and predict the long-term impacts of micro/nano plastics on water and air quality, ecosystem safety, and climate change.
(3) Elucidate the microscale processes of the uptake, transport, and food chain transfer of micro/nanoplastics in soil, including the genotypic differences and physiological mechanisms of micro/nanoplastic absorption by animals and plants, as well as the dynamic tracing and precise quantification of micro/nanoplastics within animals and plants.
(4) Explore the soil ecotoxicology and ecological risks of micro/nanoplastics and their methodologies, including the soil microbiome and biodiversity, soil microbe-animal networks, soil food webs, and long-term ecological risk assessments of micro/nanoplastics at environmental concentrations and field scales.
(5) Investigate the pathways and fluxes of exposure, intake, and transfer of micro/nanoplastics in the food chain, and accurately assess the potential health risks of micro/nanoplastics to agricultural product safety and food chain transmission.
(6) Develop monitoring, control, and degradation technologies for micro/nanoplastics in farmland soil and food. Based on the characteristics of farmland soil and the distribution features of micro/nanoplastics in different regions of China, propose regulatory measures and control strategies for different types of micro/nanoplastics. Establish a big data analysis and intelligent information management system for the regional soil-crop system concerning microplastics. Promote the formulation of relevant standards and laws and regulations to ensure soil health, agricultural product safety, and green sustainable development in agriculture.

References

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

PlasticEurope. Plastics the Facts. An analysis of European plastic production, demand, and waste data. 2023. [2024-08-01]. https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2023/
[2]

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

Feng Y D, Tu C, Li R J, Wu D, Yang J, Xia Y K, Peijnenburg W J G M, Luo Y M. Eco Environ. Health, 2023, 2(4): 195.
[4]

Yang J, Tu C, Li L Z, Li R J, Feng Y D, Luo Y M. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health, 2023, 32: 100438.
[5]

Zhou Y J, Wang J X, Zou M M, Yin Q Q, Qiu Y F, Li C Q, Ye B, Guo T W, Jia Z Y, Li Y, Wang C H, Zhou S L. Chemosphere, 2022, 303: 134999.
[6]

Bi D, Wang B B, Li Z, Zhang Y B, Ke X, Huang C W, Liu W X, Luo Y M, Christie P, Wu L H. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 855: 159023.
[7]

Wang R, Wang H Y, Zhan L, Xu Z J. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 916: 170306.
[8]

He D F, Zhang Y L, Gao W. Curr. Opin. Food Sci., 2021, 41: 116.
[9]

Li L Z, Luo Y M, Li R J, Zhou Q X, Peijnenburg W, Yin N, Yang J, Tu C, Zhang Y C. Nat. Sustain., 2020, 3: 929.
[10]

Rillig M C. Nat. Sustain., 2020, 3(11): 887.
[11]

Sun H F, Lei C L, Xu J H, Li R L. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 416: 125854.
[12]

Luo Y M, Li L Z, Feng Y D, Li R J, Yang J, Peijnenburg W, Tu C. Nat. Nanotechnol., 2022, 17: 424.
[13]

Dang F, Wang Q Y, Yan X L, Zhang Y Y, Yan J C, Zhong H, Zhou D M, Luo Y M, Zhu Y G, Xing B S, Wang Y J. ACS Nano, 2022, 16(10): 17157.
[14]

Wang F Y, Wang Q L, Adams C A, Sun Y H, Zhang S W. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 424: 127531.
[15]

Wang Q L, Adams C A, Wang F Y, Sun Y H, Zhang S W. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 52(18): 3211.
[16]

Abdolahpur Monikh F, Holm S, Kortet R, Bandekar M, Kekäläinen J, Koistinen A, Leskinen J T T, Akkanen J, Huuskonen H, Valtonen A, Dupuis L, Peijnenburg W, Lynch I, Valsami-Jones E, Kukkonen J V K. Nano Today, 2022, 46: 101611.
[17]

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., 2023, 54: 533.
[18]

Hu J N, He D F, Zhang X T, Li X Y, Chen Y X, Wei G, Zhang Y L, Ok Y S, Luo Y M. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 424: 127283.
[19]

Xiao C Q, Lang M F, Wu R R, Zhang Z M, Guo X T. Reviews Env.Contamination, 2023, 261: 3.
[20]

Zhang Z M, Zhang F D, Yang X Y, Zhang J C. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 906: 167651.
[21]

Zhou B Y, Wang J Q, Zhang H B, Shi H H, Fei Y F, Huang S Y, Tong Y Z, Wen D S, Luo Y M, Barceló D. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 388: 121814.
[22]

Yang J, Song K F, Tu C, Li L Z, Feng Y D, Li R J, Xu H, Luo Y M. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 858: 159774.
[23]

Zhou Q, Zhang H B, Fu C C, Zhou Y, Dai Z F, Li Y, Tu C, Luo Y M. Geoderma, 2018, 322: 201.
[24]

Yang J, Li R J, Zhou Q, Li L Z, Li Y, Tu C, Zhao X Y, Xiong K X, Christie P, Luo Y M. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 272: 116028.
[25]

Yang J, Li L Z, Li R J, Xu L, Shen Y C, Li S M, Tu C, Wu L H, Christie P, Luo Y M. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 289: 117943.
[26]

Zhang J J, Li Z S, Zhou X L, Ding W C, Wang X X, Zhao M, Li H J, Zou G Y, Chen Y H. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 866: 161123.
[27]

Chen L Y, Yu L, Li Y J, Han B J, Zhang J D, Tao S, Liu W X. Environ. Sci. \& Technol., 2022, 56 (23): 16964.
[28]

Chen L Y, Yu L, Li Y J, Han B J, Zhang J D, Tao S, Liu W X. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 897: 165331.
[29]

Nie X, Xing X H, Xie R Y, Wang J X, Yang S G, Wan Q, Zeng E Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 446: 130649.
[30]

Wang L W, Bank M S, Rinklebe J, Hou D Y. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2023, 57(17): 7009.
[31]

Xu Y H, Ou Q, van der Hoek J P, Liu G, Lompe K M. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(2): 991.
[32]

Ye X Y, Cheng Z, Wu M, Hao Y R, Lu G P, Hu B X, Mo C H, Li Q S, Wu J F, Wu J C. Water Res., 2022, 223: 118978.
[33]

Al Harraq A, Bharti B. ACS Environ. Au, 2022, 2(1): 3.
[34]

Liu Y J, Hu Y B, Yang C, Chen C Y, Huang W L, Dang Z. Water Res., 2019, 163: 114870.
[35]

Yang X R, Xu N, Wang X L, Yang L, Sun S Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 465: 133056.
[36]

Zhang J R, Ren S Y, Xu W, Liang C, Li J J, Zhang H Y, Li Y N, Liu X J, Jones D L, Chadwick D R, Zhang F S, Wang K. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 435: 129065.
[37]

Wang Y T, Jing S Y, Hou P Y, Ni R, Niu L L, Wanger T C, Liu W P, Liu K. Water Res., 2024, 256: 121597.
[38]

Yang Z, Lü F, Zhang H, Wang W, Xu X Y, Shao L M, Che Z X, Lu B L, Ye J F, He P J. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 807: 150982.
[39]

Liu M Y. Master’s Thesis,Shihezi University,China, 2023.
[40]

(刘明宇. 石河子大学硕士学位论文, 2023.).
[41]

Li H X, Lu X Q, Wang S Y, Zheng B Y, Xu Y. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 278: 116833.
[42]

O’Connor D, Pan S Z, Shen Z T, Song Y N, Jin Y L, Wu W M, Hou D Y. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 249: 527.
[43]

Xiang L, Yang J, Tu C, Zhang D Y. J. Ecol. Rural. Environ., 2023, 39(5): 599.
[44]

(向黎, 杨杰, 涂晨, 张道勇. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(5): 599.).
[45]

Dong S N, Zhou M Z, Su X T, Xia J H, Wang L, Wu H Y, Suakollie E B, Wang D J. Water Res., 2022, 214: 118195.
[46]

Fei J, Xie H Y, Zhao Y F, Zhou X R, Sun H M, Wang N, Wang J, Yin X Q. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 851: 158099.
[47]

Tan M M, Feng L J, Bian S Z, Duan J L, Li X H, Sun X D, Sun Y C, Wang S G, Yuan X Z. ACS EST Eng., 2024, 4(5): 1230.
[48]

Rong H F, Qin J M, He L, Tong M P. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 331: 121862.
[49]

Ouyang D, Peng Y F, Li B C, Shao F L, Li K N, Cai Y M, Guo T, Zhang H B. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 893: 164821.
[50]

Miao L Z, Deng X Y, Yang Z, Li W Y, Hou J. China Environ. Sci., 2023, 43(11): 6156
[51]

(苗令占, 邓肖雅, 杨铮, 李婉逸, 侯俊. 中国环境科学, 2023, 43(11): 6156. ).
[52]

Tian C, Lv J X, Zhang W C, Wang H, Chao J, Chai L Y, Lin Z. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2022, 61(31): e202206947.
[53]

Ding L, Ouyang Z Z, Liu P, Wang T C, Jia H Z, Guo X T. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 802: 149840.
[54]

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.
[55]

Yuan J H, Ma J, Sun Y R, Zhou T, Zhao Y C, Yu F. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 715: 136968.
[56]

Maroof L, Khan I, Hassan H, Azam S, Khan W. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2022, 38(11): 197.
[57]

Yuan Y B, Liu P, Zheng Y, Li Q B, Bian J L, Liang Q F, Su T Y, Dian L Y, Qi Q S. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2023, 263: 115232.
[58]

Han Y J, Teng Y, Wang X, Ren W J, Wang X M, Luo Y M, Zhang H M, Christie P. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(8): 4648.
[59]

Hu X J, Gu H D, Sun X X, Wang Y B, Liu J J, Yu Z H, Li Y S, Jin J, Wang G H. Chemosphere, 2024, 348: 140762.
[60]

Yang N, Zuo J, Zhang Y, Men C. Environ. Sci., 2024, (2024.06-02).DOI:10.13227/j.hjkx.202404048.
[61]

(杨妮娜, 左剑恶, 张艳艳, 门聪. 环境科学, 2024, (2024.06-02). DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202404048.).
[62]

Qin Q Y, Yang Y D, Yang C F, Zhang L, Yin H Y, Yu F, Ma J. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 842: 156775.
[63]

Wen J, Sun H, Liu Z X, Zhu X Y, Qin Z M, Song E Q, Song Y. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2022, 9(11): 962.
[64]

Zhou Q. Doctor’s Dissertation,University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, 2020
[65]

周倩. 中国科学院大学博士学位论文, 2020.).
[66]

Zhang C, Tu C, Zhou Q, Li L Z, Li Y, Fu C C, Pan X L, Luo Y M. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2021, 58 (2): 456.
[67]

(张晨捷, 涂晨, 周倩, 李连祯, 李远, 付传城, 潘响亮, 骆永明. 土壤学报, 2021, 58 (02) : 456.).
[68]

Dissanayake P D, Kim S, Sarkar B, Oleszczuk P, Sang M K, Haque M N, Ahn J H, Bank M S, Ok Y S. Environ. Res., 2022, 209: 112734.
[69]

Cao X M, Liang Y Q, Jiang J, Mo A Y, He D F. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2023, 166: 117212.
[70]

Vincoff S, Schleupner B, Santos J, Morrison M, Zhang N, Dunphy-Daly M M, Eward W C, Armstrong A J, Diana Z, Somarelli J A. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(24): 10445.
[71]

Hua Y D, Xu Y P, Zhao G F, Rao K F. Asian J. Ecotoxicol., 2024, 19(2): 93.
[72]

(华英迪, 许宜平, 赵高峰, 饶凯锋. 生态毒理学报, 2024, 19(2): 93.)
[73]

Zhang Q Q, Ma Z R, Cai Y Y, Li H R, Ying G G. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(18): 12459.
[74]

Xu Y W, Jia W Q, Hu A L, Wang J, Huang Y, Xu J M, He Y, Lu Z J. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 852: 158384.
[75]

Luo H W, Tu C L, He D Q, Zhang A P, Sun J Q, Li J, Xu J, Pan X L. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 899: 165615.
[76]

Yang J, Cang L, Sun Q, Dong G, Ata-Ul-Karim S T, Zhou D M. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2019, 26(22): 23027.
[77]

Hodson M E, Duffus-Hodson C A, Clark A, Prendergast-Miller M T, Thorpe K L. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(8): 4714.
[78]

Yang J, Cang L, Qiu W, Yang J L, Zhou D M. J. Agro-Environ. Sci., 2019, 38 (11): 2503.
[79]

(杨杰, 仓龙, 邱炜, 杨江俐, 周东美. 农业环境科学学报. 2019, 38 (11): 2503.).
[80]

Zhang R X, Li Z Y, Gao X, Chang S L, Yan B, Li G B. Water Air Soil Pollut., 2023, 234(3): 198.
[81]

Wang K, Li C, Li H F, Liu Q, Khan K, Li F, Chen W, Xu L. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 947: 174512.
[82]

Bakir A, Rowland S J, Thompson R C. Environ. Pollut., 2014, 185: 16.
[83]

Yao S, Li X N, Wang T, Jiang X, Song Y, Arp H P H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2023, 57(21): 8139.
[84]

Zettler E R, Mincer T J, Amaral-Zettler L A. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47(13): 7137.
[85]

Rillig M C, Kim S W, Zhu Y G. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2024, 22(2): 64.
[86]

Li K, Xu L B, Bai X Y, Zhang G B, Zhang M J, Huang Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 465: 133428.
[87]

Sun Y Z, Wu M C, Xie S Y, Zang J X, Wang X, Yang Y Y, Li C C, Wang J. ISME Commun., 2024, 4(1): ycad012.
[88]

Zhang C, Yue N, Li X H, Shao H, Wang J, An L H, Jin F. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 449: 131019.
[89]

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.
[90]

Gao M L, Bai L S, Li X T, Wang S L, Song Z G. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 306: 119349.
[91]

Li R J, Tu C, Yang J, Feng Y D. J. Ecol. Rural. Environ., 2023, 39(5): 608
[92]

(李瑞杰, 涂晨, 杨杰, 冯裕栋. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(5): 608.)
[93]

Giorgetti L, Spanò C, Muccifora S, Bottega S, Barbieri F, Bellani L, Ruffini Castiglione M. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2020, 149: 170.
[94]

Guo S, Wang J, Sun H F, Wu J, Xu J H, Sun J Q. Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2023, 10(4): 1126.
[95]

Li L, Zhou Q, Yin N, Tu C, Luo Y M. Chin. Sci. Bull., 2019, 64 (9): 928.
[96]

(李连祯, 周倩, 尹娜, 涂晨, 骆永明. 科学通报, 2019, 64 (9): 928.)
[97]

Jiang M, Wang B Q, Ye R, Yu N, Xie Z M, Hua Y J, Zhou R H, Tian B, Dai S. Adv. Sci., 2022, 9(33): 2202336.
[98]

Li C J, Gao Y, He S, Chi H Y, Li Z C, Zhou X X, Yan B. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 2021, 8(8): 633.
[99]

Hao F, Yan Z Y, Wang Z Y, Yan X P. Anal. Chem., 2024, 96(26): 10662.
[100]

Meng K, Lwanga E H, van der Zee M, Munhoz D R, Geissen V. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 447: 130765.
[101]

Xiao X, He E K, Jiang X F, Li X, Yang W J, Ruan J J, Zhao C M, Qiu R L, Tang Y T. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 306: 119436.
[102]

Wang L, Peng Y W, Xu Y L, Zhang J J, Liu C G, Tang X J, Lu Y, Sun H W. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(8): 5020.
[103]

Li Y P, Wang J, Shao M A, Jia H Z. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 459: 132121.
[104]

Tang R G, Zhu D, Luo Y M, He D F, Zhang H B, El-Naggar A, Palansooriya K N, Chen K Y, Yan Y, Lu X H, Ying M S, Sun T, Cao Y T, Diao Z H, Zhang Y X, Lian Y C, Chang S X, Cai Y J. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 442: 130034.
[105]

Peng B Y, Xu Y Z, Zhou X F, Wu W M, Zhang Y L. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(23): 10368.
[106]

de Souza Machado A A, Lau C W, Till J, Kloas W, Lehmann A, Becker R, Rillig M C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52(17): 9656.
[107]

Zhao T T, Lozano Y M, Rillig M C. Front. Environ. Sci., 2021, 9: 675803.
[108]

Dong Y M, Gao M L, Qiu W W, Song Z G. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2021, 211: 111899.
[109]

Dike S, Apte S D. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 946: 174161.
[110]

Rillig M C. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2018, 52(11): 6079.
[111]

Yu Y X, Li X, Feng Z Y, Xiao M L, Ge T D, Li Y Y, Yao H Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 432: 128721.
[112]

Su P J, Bu N S, Liu X Y, Sun Q Q, Wang J L, Zhang X J, Xiang T T, Chu K, Zhang Z X, Cao X X, Li Z L. Soil Biol. Biochem., 2024, 194: 109425.
[113]

Rassaei F. Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy, 2023, 43 (1): e14217.
[114]

Han L F, Zhang B, Li D T, Chen L Y, Feng Y Y, Xue L, He J H, Feng Y F. J. Clean. Prod., 2022, 337: 130504.
[115]

Wei J, Tu C, Yang J, Liu Y. J. Ecol. Rural. Environ., 2023, 39(5): 644.
[116]

(韦婧, 涂晨, 杨杰, 刘颖. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39(5): 644.)
[117]

Zhang Y, Dou M, Zou L, Li P, Liang Z J. China Environ. Sci., 2021, 41 (08): 3867.
[118]

(张彦, 窦明, 邹磊, 李平, 梁志杰, 李桂秋. 中国环境科学, 2021, 41 (08): 3867.)
[119]

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.
[120]

Wang C C, Luo Q, Zhang J L, Zhang X Y, Yang N, Feng L S. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 337: 122593
[121]

Iqbal B, Zhao X X, Khan K Y, Javed Q, Nazar M, Khan I, Zhao X, Li G L, Du D L. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 906: 167756.
[122]

Zhao M, Li Y F, Li C P, Wang X X, Cao B, Zhang J J, Wang J C, Zou G Y, Chen Y H. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 473: 134726.
[123]

Zhang Z K, Zhao L, Jin Q W, Luo Q, He H H. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 473: 134618.
[124]

Guo A Y, Pan C R, Su X M, Zhou X, Bao Y Y. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 302: 119046.
[125]

Hu M G, Huang Y X, Liu L, Ren L, Li C Y, Yang R C, Zhang Y Q. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 465: 133279.
[126]

Cui W Z, Gao P P, Zhang M Y, Wang L, Sun H W, Liu C G. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 850: 158041.
[127]

Ji Z Y, Huang Y, Feng Y, Johansen A, Xue J M, Tremblay L A, Li Z J. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 788: 147784.
[128]

Jiang X F, Chang Y Q, Zhang T, Qiao Y, Klobučar G, Li M. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 259: 113896.
[129]

Xu G H, Liu Y, Song X, Li M, Yu Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 403: 123966.
[130]

Yang Y H, Shao H M, Wu Q L, Wang D Y. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 256: 113439.
[131]

Ju H, Zhu D, Qiao M. Environ. Pollut., 2019, 247: 890.
[132]

Chen Y L, Liu X N, Leng Y F, Wang J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2020, 187: 109788.
[133]

Selonen S, Dolar A, Jemec Kokalj A, Skalar T, Parramon Dolcet L, Hurley R, van Gestel C A M. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 700: 134451.
[134]

Qi Y L, Ossowicki A, Yang X M, Huerta Lwanga E, Dini-Andreote F, Geissen V, Garbeva P. J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, 387: 121711.
[135]

Zhu D, Ma J, Li G, Rillig M C, Zhu Y G. ISME J., 2022, 16(2): 521.
[136]

Zhu J H, Liu S Q, Wang H Q, Wang D R, Zhu Y T, Wang J W, He Y, Zheng Q P, Zhan X H. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 436: 129176.
[137]

Liu Y Y, Cui W Z, Li W G, Xu S, Sun Y H, Xu G J, Wang F Y. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 442: 130102.
[138]

Li H H, Chen X W, Zhai F H, Li Y T, Zhao H M, Mo C H, Luo Y M, Xing B S, Li H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(14): 6258.
[139]

Fei Y F, Huang S Y, Zhang H B, Tong Y Z, Wen D S, Xia X Y, Wang H, Luo Y M, Barceló D. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 707: 135634.
[140]

Awet T T, Kohl Y, Meier F, Straskraba S, Grün A L, Ruf T, Jost C, Drexel R, Tunc E, Emmerling C. Environ. Sci. Eur., 2018, 30: 11.
[141]

Liu X H, Li Y Y, Yu Y X, Yao H Y. Appl. Soil Ecol., 2023, 184: 104770.
[142]

Wu P F, Lin S Y, Cao G D, Wu J B, Jin H B, Wang C, Wong M H, Yang Z, Cai Z W. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 437: 129361.
[143]

Sewwandi M, Wijesekara H, Rajapaksha A U, Soysa S, Vithanage M. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 317: 120747.
[144]

Li B W, Liang W, Liu Q X, Fu S J, Ma C Z, Chen Q Q, Su L, Craig N J, Shi H H. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 55(15): 10471.
[145]

Liu Q R, Chen Z, Chen Y L, Yang F W, Yao W R, Xie Y F. Food Chem., 2022, 397: 133771.
[146]

Chen J H, Chen G H, Peng H Q, Qi L, Zhang D L, Nie Q H, Zhang X Q, Luo W. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 882: 163305.
[147]

Shi Y Z, Miao H J, Zhou S, Leng X J, Wu Y N, Huang Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 945: 174166.
[148]

Tahir A, Taba P, Samawi M, Werorilangi S. Microplastics in water, sediment and salts from traditional salt producing ponds. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag., 2019, 5: 431.
[149]

Diaz-Basantes M F, Conesa J A, Fullana A. Sustainability, 2020, 12(14): 5514.
[150]

Feng Y D, Yang J, Tu C, Li L Z, Li R J, Pan X L, Luo Y M. J. Ecol. Rural Environ., 2023, 39 (5): 661.
[151]

(冯裕栋, 杨杰, 涂晨, 李连祯, 李瑞杰, 潘响亮, 骆永明. 生态与农村环境学报, 2023, 39 (5) : 661.)
[152]

Zhao X, You F Q. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2024, 58(20): 8709.
[153]

Huerta Lwanga E, Mendoza Vega J, Ku Quej V, de los Angeles Chi J, Sanchez del Cid L, Chi C, Escalona Segura G, Gertsen H, Salánki T, van der Ploeg M, Koelmans A A, Geissen V. Sci. Rep., 2017, 7: 14071.
[154]

Li Y J, Lin X L, Wang J, Xu G H, Yu Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 897: 165383.
[155]

Wu D, Feng Y D, Wang R, Jiang J, Guan Q Q, Yang X, Wei H C, Xia Y K, Luo Y M. J. Adv. Res., 2023, 49: 141.
[156]

Garcia M A, Liu R, Nihart A, El Hayek E, Castillo E, Barrozo E R, Suter M A, Bleske B, Scott J, Forsythe K, Gonzalez-Estrella J, Aagaard K M, Campen M J. Toxicol. Sci., 2024, 199(1): 81.
[157]

Guo X L, Wang L, Wang X Y, Li D B, Wang H, Xu H F, Liu Y, Kang R H, Chen Q, Zheng L Y, Wu S Y, Guo Z, Zhang S K. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 477: 135266.
[158]

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.
[159]

Hu C J, Garcia M A, Nihart A, Liu R, Yin L, Adolphi N, Gallego D F, Kang H N, Campen M J, Yu X Z. Toxicol. Sci., 2024, 200(2): 235.
[160]

Liu Z Y, Sokratian A, Duda A M, Xu E Q, Stanhope C, Fu A, Strader S, Li H Z, Yuan Y, Bobay B G, Sipe J, Bai K, Lundgaard I, Liu N, Hernandez B, Rickman C B, Miller S E, West A. Sci. Adv., 2023, 9 (46): eadi8716

Funding

National Science Foundation of China(41991335)

National Science Foundation of China(42177039)

National Science Foundation of China(22241602)

Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF(GZC20232783)

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(2024M753328)

PDF (2479KB)

395

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