Next Article in Journal
The Vascular Flora of Italian Volcanic Lake Calderas: A Comprehensive Floristic Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Synthesis of Environmental Policies and Identification of Critical Gaps in Critical Zones of South and East Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing Microplastic Contamination and Depuration Effectiveness in Farmed Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/environments12090328
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Tomato Crops: A Critical Review

by
Laura Hernández-Sánchez
1,
Vianii Cruz-López
1,
Rosario Herrera-Rivera
2,
Francisco Solis-Pomar
2,
José Navarro-Antonio
3 and
Heriberto Cruz-Martínez
1,*
1
Tecnológico Nacional de México/IT del Valle de Etla, Abasolo S/N, Barrio del Agua Buena, Santiago Suchilquitongo, Oaxaca 68230, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo León 66451, Mexico
3
Centro Interdisciplinario de investigación Para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Oaxaca 71230, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(9), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12090328
Submission received: 24 June 2025 / Revised: 9 September 2025 / Accepted: 10 September 2025 / Published: 16 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Editorial Board Members’ Collection Series: Plastic Contamination)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The growing prevalence of plastic pollution has raised significant environmental concerns, particularly regarding microplastics and nanoplastics that persist in various ecosystems. As these particles accumulate in terrestrial environments, their potential impact on crop health and growth has become a growing area of focus. Ongoing studies show that microplastics and nanoplastics can disrupt various stages of crop development. Therefore, several studies are currently being conducted on the impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on the germination, growth, and productivity of various crops, highlighting the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) crop. Although several studies have explored the effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato crops, a comprehensive review of their impacts is still lacking. Therefore, this manuscript presents a detailed review regarding the influence of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato cultivation. This review revealed that most studies have primarily focused on assessing the effects of microplastics on tomato crop germination, physiological growth, yield, and fruit quality. Therefore, it is essential to conduct further research addressing the impact of nanoplastics on these same aspects.

1. Introduction

The presence of microplastics (particles smaller than 5 mm) and nanoplastics (even smaller, at the nanometer scale) in agriculture is an increasing concern due to their potential to contaminate soils and compromise crop quality [1,2,3,4,5]. These plastics mainly derive from the degradation of plastic materials such as containers for agricultural inputs or plastic mulching films used for crops [6,7,8,9,10]. The impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on crops is an emerging concern, drawing attention from both scientists and farmers due to the potential consequences for agricultural ecosystems and food security [11,12,13,14,15]. Microplastics can alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil, which affects crop growth and development (Figure 1) [16,17]. Furthermore, the absorption of microplastics and nanoplastics by plants represents a potential risk to human health due to their accumulation in crop fruits [18,19]. Although the precise effects of these plastics on plant nutrition and their transfer through the food chain remain unclear, recent studies suggest that microplastics may disrupt crop growth, reduce crop quality, lower yields, and, over time, threaten agricultural biodiversity [20,21]. While nanoplastics can penetrate plant cells more easily and may have even more significant effects on plant physiology, this area of research is still in its early stages [22,23,24].
Several studies are currently being conducted on the impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on the germination, growth, and productivity of various crops [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. In particular, tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cultivation stands out due to its role as a vital component of the daily diet, providing a rich source of carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, and polyphenols, which contribute to its high nutritional value and numerous health benefits [35,36]. Tomatoes are therefore considered the second most important vegetable in the world after potatoes [37,38]. Although several studies have explored the effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato crops, a comprehensive and systematic review of their impacts is still lacking. Understanding the influence of these pollutants is crucial due to their increasing presence in agricultural soils and potential implications for plant growth, development, and fruit quality. Therefore, this manuscript presents a detailed review that examines the influence of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato crops.

2. Impacts of Microplastics

2.1. Impacts of Microplastics on Seed Germination

Microplastics are emerging as significant contaminants in agricultural soils, as they could affect seed germination [25,26]. These microparticles can alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil, disrupting key processes essential for seed germination [25,26]. It has been reported that microplastics can decrease the ability of soils to retain water, a critical condition for seed hydration [39]. In addition, these microplastics may create physical barriers around seeds, limiting gas exchange and causing the initiation of root growth and shoot development to be delayed or even inhibited entirely [40]. Some microplastics release toxic additives or absorb environmental contaminants, which can interfere with the development of seedlings. The characteristics of microplastics—such as size, shape, polymer type, and chemical composition—can significantly determine the magnitude of these alterations in the germination process [25]. In this direction, due to the potential impact of microplastics on tomato seed germination, several studies have been conducted to evaluate their effects [41,42,43,44,45,46]. To date, these studies have mainly focused on determining the impact of microplastic concentration on seed germination (Table 1) [41,42,43,44,45,46]. While some studies reported no significant effect on germination [41,45], others observed changes in parameters such as average root diameter, biomass, and root length, indicating either positive or negative impacts [41]. Similar results were obtained in other studies, where microplastics did not inhibit seed germination but caused a temporal delay [43,44]. Other adverse effects reported include inhibition of germination percentage and a reduction in the germination index [42,46]. These adverse effects can be attributed to microplastics obstructing water and nutrient uptake, creating physical barriers, and releasing potentially toxic leachates. Such impacts often delay germination and hinder seedling development [25]. Although these studies provide evidence of the role that microplastic concentration has on seed germination, there is still no consensus on the specific concentration at which microplastics can affect tomato seed germination (Table 1).
The severity of these effects is influenced not only by microplastic concentration but also by their specific characteristics, including size, shape, and polymer type. In this direction, several studies have assessed the effects of microplastic type and size on seed germination [42,46]. For instance, the impacts of two sizes of polystyrene (52.48 ± 20.93 and 368.13 ± 127.11 µm), polyethylene (75.37 ± 17.55 and 241.97 ± 81.55 µm), and polypropylene (88.11 ± 28.53 and 273.52 ± 111.69 µm) microplastics with different concentrations (0, 10, 100, 500, and 1000 mg L−1) were evaluated on tomato seed germination [42]. In this study, the three types of microplastics exhibited inhibitory effects on seed germination at concentrations of 500 mg L−1 or lower, with inhibition rates ranging from 10.1% to 23.6% [42]. In small microplastic treatments, polyethylene and polypropylene showed a more pronounced inhibitory effect on seed germination than polystyrene [42]. For larger microplastics, polypropylene exhibited potent inhibition at 10 mg L−1, whereas polystyrene significantly reduced germination at 100 and 500 mg L−1 [42]. Similarly, polyethylene consistently demonstrated a high level of inhibition, particularly at 500 mg L−1 [42]. In another study, the effects of polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and nylon microplastics with different concentrations (1, 5, and 10% of microplastic in ratio to the soil (w/w)) were studied on tomato seed germination [46]. The polyethylene terephthalate and nylon reduced the germination index in all concentrations, while polystyrene microplastics at 1 and 5% reduced the germination index, but at a 10% concentration, there was no difference to the control [46]. These studies demonstrate that the size and type of microplastics can influence seed germination [42,46]. However, detailed investigations on their specific effects on tomato seed germination are still needed, as factors such as shape, size, type, morphology, and surface charge may affect the germination process.

2.2. Impacts of Microplastics on Plant Growth

During the growth stage, crops can be susceptible to the harmful effects of microplastics present in the soil [25]. Microplastics in soil can negatively impact plant growth through physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms [47,48,49]. Physically, they can alter soil structure, porosity, and water retention, creating barriers that impede seed water and nutrient absorption, which may delay germination and reduce early seedling vigor [47]. Chemically, microplastics can leach additives, monomers, plasticizers, and heavy metals, inducing toxicity and oxidative stress in plants and interfering with essential enzymatic processes, ultimately impairing root development and overall growth [48,49]. Microplastics also disrupt nutrient availability and uptake, leading to stunted growth and reduced biomass accumulation. Additionally, they can affect the soil microbiome, compromising beneficial microorganisms such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which are vital for nutrient cycling and plant health [48,49]. The severity of these effects depends on microplastic properties, including size, shape, polymer type, and concentration [47,48,49]. Due to these reasons, several studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of microplastics on tomato growth parameters [46,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Similarly to seed germination, all studies developed to date have focused on the impact of different concentrations of microplastics on tomato growth parameters [46,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. The majority reported that growth parameters are affected due to the presence of microparticles (Table 2). However, studies considering only two or three concentrations limit a detailed assessment of the concentration–response relationship [46,51,52,55,57]. In contrast, some studies evaluated a wider range of concentrations [50,54], showing that as the concentration increased, the growth parameters were affected. These effects can be attributed to changes in soil structure, water and nutrient availability, and the release of toxic chemicals [47,48]. They also interfere with beneficial soil microbiota and can physically hinder root development, reducing plant growth [49].
In addition to concentration, it is well-established that the type of microplastics can influence tomato crop growth. In this direction, multiple studies examined the effect of microplastic types on tomato plant growth [46,50,51,52,53,55]. For instance, the impact of polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and nylon microplastics with different concentrations (1, 5, and 10% of microplastic in ratio to the soil (w/w)) was studied on tomato growth [46]. In the case of polystyrene microplastics, all concentrations reduced root and shoot length compared to the control treatment. While the leaf area index increased in all concentrations [46]. With polyethylene terephthalate microplastics, the root length was reduced at 5 and 10%, while shoot length decreased in all concentrations, and leaf area index increased at 1 and 5%. Finally, for nylon microplastics, all concentrations reduced root length and leaf area index compared with the control, and remarkably, at 1% concentration, shoot length increased. More recently, the effects of polyhydroxyalkanoate, polylactic acid, poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate), and poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) at different concentrations (0.1 and 1% of microplastic in ratio to the soil (w/w)) were investigated on tomato plant growth [55]. Most treatments did not significantly alter shoot biomass compared to the control, except for polylactic acid microplastic at 0.1% concentration. Most treatments did not show a significant change in tomato height compared to the control. Only the polylactic acid microplastic at 1% concentration significantly reduced this parameter. These studies reveal that the microplastic type plays a determinant role in tomato growth [46,50,51,52,53,55]. However, it is essential to conduct detailed studies on the role that the size of these microplastics plays in tomato growth.

2.3. Impacts of Microplastics on Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is fundamental for plant growth but also for enhancing fruit quality, including size, flavor, color, and nutritional content, which are relevant attributes for tomato crops [58]. Moreover, efficient photosynthesis increases the plant’s resistance to diseases and environmental stress [58]. However, microplastics in soil can affect photosynthesis [17,59,60]. Microplastics can significantly disrupt crop photosynthesis through multiple interconnected pathways [59,60]. In the soil, they modify structure, porosity, and water-holding capacity, limiting root access to water and nutrients essential for photosynthetic processes [59,60]. Chemically, microplastics may leach toxic additives, monomers, and heavy metals that accumulate in plant tissues, causing oxidative stress and impairing key enzymes involved in photosynthesis [59,60]. Physically, particles deposited on leaf surfaces can block stomata, reducing CO2 uptake and restricting gas exchange, while internally, oxidative stress damages chloroplast membranes and photosystems, lowering chlorophyll content and the efficiency of light energy capture [59,60]. Together, these alterations decrease photosynthetic rate, limit plant growth, and ultimately reduce crop biomass and yield [59,60]. Therefore, it is essential to have a detailed understanding of the impact that microplastics can have on tomato crops. In this sense, several studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of microplastics on tomato plant photosynthesis [44,46,53,54,55,56,61,62]. All studies developed to date have explored the effects of different microplastic concentrations on tomato photosynthesis [44,46,53,54,55,56,61,62]. Most studies indicate that photosynthesis is affected due to the presence of microparticles (Table 3). However, studies that only consider one or two concentrations do not provide a deep explanation of the role played by concentration [53,55,56,61,62]. While studies assessing a wider range of concentrations consistently show that as the concentration increased, the photosynthesis parameters were affected [44,46,54]. This effect can be attributed to the damage caused by lipid peroxidation to chloroplasts exposed to microplastics [44,46,54].
In addition to the concentration, the size and type of microplastics can also play a critical role in tomato crop photosynthesis. In this regard, several studies explored the effects of size and type of microplastics on tomato photosynthesis [46,53,55,61,62]. For example, the effects of polyhydroxyalkanoate, polylactic acid, poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate), and poly(butylene-adipate-coterephthalate) at different concentrations (0.1 and 1% of microplastic in ratio to the soil (w/w)) were investigated on tomato photosynthesis [55]. Chlorophyll content varied among the treatments, but all led to a significant reduction in chlorophyll content compared to the control group. Notably, the polylactic acid microplastic at a 0.1 concentration significantly decreased the chlorophyll a/b ratio, whereas the same microplastic at a 1% concentration significantly increased it. Other treatments had no significant effect on the chlorophyll a/b ratio [55]. Another study evaluated the effect of polystyrene (5.23 ± 1.07 and 63.06 ± 17.36 μm), polyethylene (11.15 ± 3.32 and 59.84 ± 24.88 μm), and polypropylene (10.29 ± 3.87 and 57.86 ± 17.21 μm) microplastics at different concentrations (0.1 and 1.0 mg L−1) on tomato crop photosynthesis under hydroponic conditions [61]. The net photosynthetic rate of tomato plants was not significantly affected. While the transpiration rate exposed to small polyethylene at a 1.0 mg L−1 concentration significantly decreased by 46.74%, and the stomatal conductance of tomato plants significantly reduced for small polyethylene (0.1 and 1.0 mg L−1) and polypropylene (1.0 mg L−1), which shows the effect that the type and size of microplastics has on the photosynthetic activity of tomato plants because this influences how microplastics interact with plant tissues and the environment. Large microplastics can obstruct stomata and reduce gas exchange, while smaller microplastics penetrate roots and leaves, generating oxidative stress and cellular damage [25]. Furthermore, the type of polymer and its chemical additives release toxic compounds that affect chlorophyll synthesis, the function of photosynthetic enzymes, and nutrient absorption [25]. Nevertheless, further studies are required to clarify the role of microplastic size in tomato photosynthetic processes.

2.4. Impacts of Microplastics on the Oxidative Stress

Microplastics in the soil can induce oxidative stress in tomato crops, disrupting cellular homeostasis and impacting their growth and development [63,64]. Once microplastics are taken up by roots or deposited on plant surfaces, they may release toxic additives, plasticizers, monomers, and heavy metals, which act as stressors at the cellular level [63]. These compounds can trigger an overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as hydrogen peroxide, superoxide radicals, and hydroxyl radicals. Excess ROS cause oxidative damage by attacking lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids, leading to lipid peroxidation, enzyme inactivation, and DNA fragmentation [63]. This impairs vital physiological processes, including photosynthesis and respiration. In response, plants activate their antioxidant defense system, involving enzymatic antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidases, as well as non-enzymatic antioxidants like ascorbate, glutathione, and phenolic compounds [63,64]. However, this protective response requires additional energy, diverting resources from vital processes such as growth, photosynthesis, and fruit production [64]. Furthermore, when ROS production exceeds the detoxification capacity, oxidative stress persists, resulting in chlorosis, stunted growth, and reduced yields. Additionally, microplastics can alter the soil microbiome, reducing the availability of essential nutrients that help alleviate oxidative stress, since when nutrients are limited, metabolic imbalances occur, leading to inefficient energy use and excessive production of ROS [65].
Interestingly, several studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of microplastics on oxidative stress in tomato plants (Table 4) [42,44,51,52,54,61,62]. All studies developed to date have explored the impact of different microplastic concentrations on tomato oxidative stress [42,44,51,52,54,61,62]. Most studies indicate that oxidative stress is modified due to the presence of microparticles (Table 4). However, studies that consider one and two concentrations do not allow an effective analysis of the impact of concentrations on oxidative stress [51,52,61,62]. Fortunately, there are studies that analyze the impact of various microplastic concentrations on oxidative stress [42,44,54], demonstrating that oxidative stress parameters are related to the microplastic concentrations.
In addition to the concentrations, there are studies that have explored the impact of the size and type of microplastics on oxidative stress. For instance, the impacts of two sizes of polystyrene (52.48 ± 20.93 and 368.13 ± 127.11 µm), polyethylene (75.37 ± 17.55 and 241.97 ± 81.55 µm), and polypropylene (88.11 ± 28.53 and 273.52 ± 111.69 µm) microplastics with different concentrations (0, 10, 100, 500, and 1000 mg L−1) were evaluated under hydroponic conditions on tomato oxidative stress [42]. The study confirmed that microplastics generate oxidative stress in tomato plants and that polypropylene was relatively less toxic to antioxidant enzymes than polystyrene and polyethylene. In another study, the effects of polystyrene (5.23 ± 1.07 and 63.06 ± 17.36 μm), polyethylene (11.15 ± 3.32 and 59.84 ± 24.88 μm), and polypropylene (10.29 ± 3.87 and 57.86 ± 17.21 μm) microplastics at different concentrations (0.1 and 1.0 mg L−1) on the tomato oxidative stress were investigated under hydroponic conditions. The results showed that the content of malondialdehyde, a marker of cell membrane damage caused by lipid peroxidation, increased significantly in tomato leaves and roots due to the presence of polystyrene and polyethylene, particularly at high concentrations. In contrast, polypropylene did not cause significant increases in malondialdehyde levels. Interestingly, hydrogen peroxide levels decreased significantly under polypropylene treatment, especially with large particles at a 1.0 mg L−1 concentration. Superoxide dismutase activity decreased in the roots under most microplastic treatments, whereas peroxidase activity remained essentially unchanged. [61].

2.5. Impact of Microplastics on Fruit Quality

Tomato fruit quality is a crucial factor influencing consumer preference, market value, and the overall success of tomato production. High-quality tomatoes exhibit desirable traits, such as firmness, uniform coloration, balanced sugar and acid levels, rich flavor, and extended shelf life. These attributes enhance consumer sensory experience and improve post-harvest performance, minimizing losses during storage and transportation [66]. However, microplastics in agricultural soils pose a growing threat to the quality of tomato fruits [55]. These contaminants can disrupt critical physiological processes, directly impacting fruit development, ripening, and nutritional composition [55]. Interestingly, some studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of microplastics on tomato fruit quality [56]. For instance, the effects of mixed polyethylene, polystyrene, and polypropene microplastics (particle sizes ranging from 1 to 5 mm) at a 1% concentration (microplastic in ratio to the soil (w/w)) were studied on tomato fruit quality [56]. The biochemical analysis of tomato fruits indicated a significant decrease in carotenoid, total flavonoid, and sugar contents. In contrast, total protein, total ascorbate, and peroxidase activity were significantly elevated relative to the control. Likewise, the levels of nutrients such as N, Ca, K, Mg, P, and Na were slightly higher than in the control group [56]. This study shows the impact of microplastics on the tomato fruit quality. However, more studies of this type are needed.

3. Impacts of Nanoplastics

3.1. Impacts of Nanoplastics on Seed Germination

Nanoplastics can significantly affect seed germination through physical, chemical, and biological pathways. Due to their extremely small size, they can easily penetrate seed coats and block pores, reducing the absorption of water and oxygen essential for germination [67]. In the soil, nanoplastics can alter structure and porosity, limiting water availability and creating barriers to nutrient absorption [68]. Chemically, they can leach additives, plasticizers, and adsorbed pollutants such as heavy metals and pesticides. These compounds often induce oxidative stress, generating reactive oxygen species that damage lipids, proteins, and DNA, ultimately delaying germination and reducing seed vigor. From a biological perspective, nanoplastics can alter soil microbial communities, modifying the nutrient cycle and reducing the production of metabolites that stimulate growth and are necessary for early development [69]. The severity of these impacts depends on the size, shape, polymer type, concentration, and surface load of microplastics.
In this direction, some studies evaluated the impacts of nanoplastics on tomato seed germination [70,71]. The impacts of polystyrene nanoplastics (particle sizes ranging from 149.5 to 235.5 nm) at a 5 mg L−1 concentration were studied on seed germination. The results of both studies revealed that seeds exposed to polystyrene nanoparticles had a low germination rate (63–65.8%) compared to the control treatment (100%), which shows a negative impact of nanoplastics on seed germination [70,71]. However, further studies of this type are necessary to understand the nanoplastic effects on tomato seed germination, since the studies carried out to date are insufficient to understand in detail the effect of nanoplastics on the germination of tomato seeds.

3.2. Impacts of Nanoplastics on Plant Growth, Photosynthesis, and Oxidative Stress

Nanoplastics can have adverse effects on crop growth and overall plant health. When these tiny plastic particles accumulate in the soil, they can come into direct contact with plant roots, interfering with their natural functions. Nanoplastics can adhere to the root surfaces or even be absorbed by the root tissues, which causes the blockage of microscopic pores responsible for water and essential nutrient uptake [72]. This blockage reduces the efficiency of nutrient and water absorption, causing stress to the plants. As a result, plants exhibit a noticeable reduction in root length and biomass, which limits their ability to anchor in the soil [73]. This diminished root system weakens the plant and hinders its capacity to access vital resources required for growth and development. In this sense, several studies explored the impact of various nanoplastics on tomato growth [74,75]. Recent studies demonstrate that nanoplastics, specifically polystyrene [74] and polyethylene [75], exert significant adverse effects on the growth and development of tomato plants, affecting the vegetative and reproductive stages. For example, tomato plants were grown in soil amended with polystyrene nanoplastics of 30 nm at concentrations of 150, 250, and 500 mg kg−1. After three months, the fresh weight of shoots and roots was significantly reduced, compared to the control group, with a dose-dependent response, suggesting interference with nutrient or water uptake or a direct alteration of cellular metabolism [74]. In another study, tomato plants were exposed to polyethylene (20–40 nm) nanoplastics applied at concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1% (w/w), where the effects were even more extensive. In the vegetative stage, a reduction in the fresh weight of roots and shoots was observed, as well as a decrease in leaf and internode length compared to the control group. However, a particularly relevant finding was the impact of this nanoplastic on the reproductive phase. Floral anomalies were recorded, such as variations in the number of sepals and petals (ranging from 4, 6, 7, up to 10), in contrast to the typical morphology of five sepals and five petals observed in the control group [75].
Regarding the adverse effects at the physiological and biochemical level, different studies reported a decrease in the total chlorophyll content in plants exposed to fluorescent polystyrene nanoplastics (235.5 nm) and non-fluorescent polystyrene (149.5 nm), with reductions of up to 22% compared to the control groups [67,68]. In all polystyrene treatments, regardless of the particle size (30 to 235.5 nm), exposure resulted in an increase in reactive oxygen species, as well as in the activation of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, and, in some cases, peroxidase [72,73,76,77,78]. However, at high concentrations or prolonged treatment times (e.g., polystyrene ~60 nm at 50 mg L−1 for 14 days, or polystyrene 30 nm up to 500 mg kg−1 for 3 months), an increase in hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde levels was also observed, indicating the occurrence of oxidative damage in cell membranes [74,76].

3.3. Impacts of Nanoplastics on the Fruit Quality

Nanoplastics can have significant effects on fruit quality by altering various physiological and biochemical processes in plants [17,25]. Their accumulation in plant tissues may lead to disrupted nutrient uptake and water balance and induce oxidative stress, all of which can negatively influence fruit size, color, taste, and nutritional value [17,25]. Furthermore, nanoplastics can interact with plant hormones, potentially affecting fruit ripening and shelf life [9,11]. Long-term exposure may also result in the accumulation of these particles within edible tissues, raising concerns about food safety and human health [9,11]. Understanding the mechanisms by which nanoplastics affect fruit quality is essential for developing strategies to mitigate their impact and ensure sustainable and safe agricultural practices. In this sense, some studies evaluated the impact of microplastics on the tomato fruit quality [75,76,77]. For instance, tomato plants exposed to polyethylene nanoplastics (20–40 nm) for 50 days at concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1% nanoplastics/soil (w/w) had a significant impact on various physicochemical characteristics of the fruit, indicating that this type of contaminant not only affects vegetative growth, as previously reported, but also the quality and composition of the reproductive organs [75]. Although a decrease in fruit fresh weight was observed, suggesting a possible alteration in biomass accumulation or water and carbohydrate metabolism, this reduction was accompanied by a considerable increase in fruit firmness, particularly in plants exposed to higher concentrations of polystyrene nanoplastics (0.1 and 1%) [76]. Furthermore, treated fruits showed higher levels of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), lycopene, and flavonoids, compounds associated with fruit nutritional quality and antioxidant capacity [77]. This increase may be related to an activation of secondary metabolism in response to oxidative stress induced by nanoplastics. This phenomenon has been documented in other plant species under abiotic stress conditions [78].

3.4. Impacts of Nanoplastics on the Genetics

Nanoplastics, extremely small plastic particles (<100 nm), can interact with plant systems at the cellular and molecular levels, potentially altering genetic stability and expression in crops [68,79]. These particles can penetrate plant tissues through roots or stomata, reaching the cytoplasm and even the nucleus. Once internalized, nanoplastics may generate oxidative stress, producing ROS that can damage DNA. Such stress can lead to altered regulation of genes involved in growth, stress response, and fruit development [68,79]. Additionally, nanoplastics may carry adsorbed pollutants or heavy metals, further enhancing genotoxic effects [68]. Consequently, chronic exposure could impact traits such as fruit yield, resistance to pathogens, and nutritional quality [68]. Understanding these genetic impacts is crucial, as they can have long-term implications for crop performance, breeding programs, and food safety. In this direction, recent studies have revealed that exposure to nanoplastics triggers complex molecular responses in tomato plants, including alterations at the transcriptomic and epigenetic levels. In particular, the observation of fluorescent polystyrene nanoplastics (30 nm) in tomato leaves confirms their ability to translocate from the root to aerial organs [74]. This mobility indicates effective penetration through the root system and systemic transport, which increases the risk of affecting fundamental physiological and molecular processes. Transcriptomic analysis identified 790 differentially expressed genes (457 upregulated and 333 downregulated) compared to the control [74]. In contrast, exposure to larger polystyrene particles (50 μm) generated a smaller number of affected genes (439 differentially expressed genes), indicating that the size of the plastics is a critical factor in the magnitude of the molecular response [76]. This difference in expression pattern suggests that smaller nanoplastics interact more directly or efficiently with cellular components. Also, tomato plants exposed to polyethylene nanoplastics (20–40 nm) exhibit a more complex effect, progressive demethylation as the concentration increased, with an increase in methylation at an intermediate dose (0.1%) but significant hypomethylation at the highest concentration (1%) [75], suggesting a possible depletion of epigenetic regulatory capacity under severe exposure conditions. Furthermore, polyethylene nanoplastics induced overexpression of the HDA3 (histone deacetylase) gene, related to chromatin remodeling, and the R2R3MYB gene, associated with plant defense responses, while the AP2a gene, involved in floral development and fruit ripening, was repressed [75]. These changes point to a general activation of stress pathways and possible interference with developmental processes, especially in reproductive organs. The results suggest that nanoplastics act as physical or chemical stressors and generate profound modifications in plant gene and epigenetic regulation, which could have lasting implications for their physiology, phenotype, and epigenetic inheritance [74,75,76].

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

Microplastics and nanoplastics are emerging environmental pollutants in agricultural soils. These contaminants can directly affect crop germination, growth, and yield. Given their potential negative impacts on crops, this manuscript presented a comprehensive review of studies investigating the effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato crops. Based on this analysis, we outline key conclusions and suggest future research directions:
(1)
The effects of various microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato crop germination, growth, and productivity have been studied, but most studies have primarily focused on microplastics. Consequently, there is a critical need for more comprehensive investigations on the impacts of nanoplastics on tomato cultivation, as they pose greater risks due to their extremely small size, which allows them to penetrate and move within plant tissues. Nanoplastics can enter roots and stomata, accumulate in leaves and fruits, and disrupt vital physiological processes. In addition, accumulation in fruits compromises both quality and safety, increasing the risk of transfer through the food chain and potential impacts on human health.
(2)
Although various studies have investigated the effects of microplastics on tomato crops, most experiments have been conducted under controlled conditions that may not accurately reflect real agricultural environments. Consequently, there is a pressing need to evaluate the impact of microplastics under more realistic conditions, including field settings with natural soil compositions, fluctuating environmental factors, and interactions with other biotic and abiotic stresses. Studying microplastic effects in such realistic contexts will provide a more accurate understanding of their influence on germination, growth, productivity, and fruit quality, ultimately informing strategies to mitigate their risks in sustainable tomato cultivation.
(3)
To thoroughly assess the impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on tomato cultivation, long-term field studies are particularly important to capture realistic environmental conditions, seasonal variations, and cumulative effects of plastic particles in soil and plant systems. Also, the development and implementation of standardized protocols for exposure concentrations, particle characterization (size, shape, and polymer type), and evaluation metrics (germination, growth, yield, and fruit quality) are crucial. Such approaches will ensure reproducibility, comparability, and reliability of results, providing a robust foundation for risk assessment and mitigation strategies in tomato production.
(4)
The impacts of various microplastics at different concentrations have been investigated in relation to germination, growth, and overall production of tomato crops. However, research addressing the effects of microplastics on fruit development and quality remains limited. Therefore, comprehensive studies focusing on fruits are essential to better understand how microplastics influence yield, nutritional value, and safety, which are critical for both agricultural productivity and human health.
(5)
The impact of microplastics at different concentrations has been widely evaluated in tomato cultivation. While most studies report negative effects on plant growth, development, and productivity, some research has highlighted positive effects under certain conditions, suggesting that microplastics may influence plant physiology in complex ways. These findings indicate that the response of tomato plants to microplastics likely depends on multiple factors, including particle type, size, concentration, and even environmental conditions such as soil type and nutrient availability. Consequently, there is a critical need to conduct more detailed and systematic studies that examine the specific characteristics of microplastics—such as their chemical composition, morphology, and surface properties—as these factors may strongly influence their interactions with plant roots, nutrient uptake, stress responses, and ultimately crop growth and fruit quality. Expanding research in this direction will help clarify the mechanisms underlying these effects and provide guidance for sustainable agricultural management in environments increasingly contaminated by microplastics.
(6)
This review examines the effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on multiple stages of tomato cultivation, including seed germination, vegetative growth, fruit development, and harvest. The widespread application of plastic-derived materials in agriculture—such as mulch films, irrigation infrastructure, and packaging—has raised increasing concerns regarding their persistence, accumulation, and potential ecological and food safety risks. Evidence suggests that these particles can alter soil physicochemical properties, disrupt plant physiological processes, and contribute to the transfer of contaminants into the food chain. Consequently, the implementation of stricter regulations and standardized protocols for the use, management, and disposal of plastic materials in agricultural systems is imperative to ensure crop yield, environmental integrity, and long-term sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.H.-S., V.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; formal analysis, R.H.-R., F.S.-P. and J.N.-A.; investigation, L.H.-S., V.C.-L., R.H.-R., F.S.-P. and J.N.-A.; data curation, L.H.-S., V.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H.-S., V.C.-L. and H.C.-M.; writing—review and editing, V.C.-L. and H.C.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Tecnológico Nacional de México.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ng, E.L.; Lwanga, E.H.; Eldridge, S.M.; Johnston, P.; Hu, H.W.; Geissen, V.; Chen, D. An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic pollution in agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1377–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. He, D.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, W. Micro (nano) plastic contaminations from soils to plants: Human food risks. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 41, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sajjad, M.; Huang, Q.; Khan, S.; Khan, M.A.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Lian, F.; Wang, Q.; Guo, G. Microplastics in the soil environment: A critical review. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 27, 102408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ya, H.; Jiang, B.; Xing, Y.; Zhang, T.; Lv, M.; Wang, X. Recent advances on ecological effects of microplastics on soil environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xu, B.; Liu, F.; Cryder, Z.; Huang, D.; Lu, Z.; He, Y.; Wang, H.; Lu, Z.; Brookes, P.C.; Tang, C.; et al. Microplastics in the soil environment: Occurrence, risks, interactions and fate–a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 50, 2175–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, S.; Ding, F.; Flury, M.; Wang, Z.; Xu, L.; Li, S.; Jones, D.L.; Wang, J. Macro-and microplastic accumulation in soil after 32 years of plastic film mulching. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 300, 118945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tong, H.; Zhong, X.; Duan, Z.; Yi, X.; Cheng, F.; Xu, W.; Yang, X. Micro-and nanoplastics released from biodegradable and conventional plastics during degradation: Formation, aging factors, and toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 833, 155275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mandal, M.; Roy, A.; Popek, R.; Sarkar, A. Micro-and nano-plastic degradation by bacterial enzymes: A solution to ‘white pollution’. Microbe 2024, 3, 100072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moeck, C.; Davies, G.; Krause, S.; Schneidewind, U. Microplastics and nanoplastics in agriculture—A potential source of soil and groundwater contamination? Grundwasser 2023, 28, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rana, M.M.; Haque, M.R.; Tasnim, S.S.; Rahman, M.M. The potential contribution of microplastic pollution by organic fertilizers in agricultural soils of Bangladesh: Quantification, characterization, and risk appraisals. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1205603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Galahitigama, H.; Sandamali, P.; Jayapra, T.; Abesinghe, N.; Senavirathna, M.D.H.J.; Diola, M.B.L.; Tanchuling, M.A. Assessing the impact of micro and nanoplastics on the productivity of vegetable crops in terrestrial horticulture: A comprehensive review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025, 197, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De-la-Torre, G.E. Microplastics: An emerging threat to food security and human health. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 1601–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Okeke, E.S.; Chukwudozie, K.I.; Addey, C.I.; Okoro, J.O.; Ezeorba, T.P.C.; Atakpa, E.O.; Okoye, C.O.; Nwuche, C.O. Micro and nanoplastics ravaging our agroecosystem: A review of occurrence, fate, ecological impacts, detection, remediation, and prospects. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, L.; Wang, X.; Zhao, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, H.; Yang, R.; Wang, S.; Zhao, W. Micro/nanoplastics: A potential threat to crops. Veg. Res. 2023, 3, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sheng, D.; Jing, S.; He, X.; Klein, A.M.; Köhler, H.R.; Wanger, T.C. Plastic pollution in agricultural landscapes: An overlooked threat to pollination, biocontrol and food security. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhao, T.; Lozano, Y.M.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics Increase Soil pH and Decrease Microbial Activities as a Function of Microplastic Shape, Polymer Type, and Exposure Time. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 675803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, X.; Wang, R.; Dai, W.; Luan, Y.; Li, J. Impacts of micro (nano) plastics on terrestrial plants: Germination, growth, and litter. Plants 2023, 12, 3554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, L.; Luo, Y.; Li, R.; Zhou, Q.; Peijnenburg, W.J.; Yin, N.; Yang, J.; Tu, C.; Zhang, Y. Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rist, S.; Almroth, B.C.; Hartmann, N.B.; Karlsson, T.M. A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 720–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Souza Machado, A.A.; Lau, C.W.; Kloas, W.; Bergmann, J.; Bachelier, J.B.; Faltin, E.; Becker, R.; Görlich, A.S.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 6044–6052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qi, Y.; Yang, X.; Pelaez, A.M.; Lwanga, E.H.; Beriot, N.; Gertsen, H.; Garbeva, P.; Geissen, V. Macro-and micro-plastics in soil-plant system: Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yu, Z.; Xu, X.; Guo, L.; Jin, R.; Lu, Y. Uptake and transport of micro/nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: Detection, mechanisms, and influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 907, 168155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ekner-Grzyb, A.; Duka, A.; Grzyb, T.; Lopes, I.; Chmielowska-Bąk, J. Plants oxidative response to nanoplastic. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1027608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shi, R.; Liu, W.; Lian, Y.; Wang, X.; Men, S.; Zeb, A.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Zheng, Z.; et al. Toxicity mechanisms of nanoplastics on crop growth, interference of phyllosphere microbes, and evidence for foliar penetration and translocation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 58, 1010–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, G.; Chen, M.; Wang, W.; Liu, W.; Liao, H.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. The direct effects of micro-and nanoplastics on rice and wheat. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2024, 180, 117976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Y.; Hao, S.; Li, P.; Du, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, G.; Liang, Z.; Dou, M. Effects of Different Microplastics on Wheat’s (Triticum aestivum L.) Growth Characteristics and Rhizosphere Soil Environment. Plants 2024, 13, 3483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, H.; Ingraffia, R.; Schloter, M.; Brüggemann, N.; Rillig, M.C. Effects of multiple microplastic types on growth of winter wheat and soil properties vary in different agricultural soils. Plants People Planet 2025, 7, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lian, J.; Wu, J.; Xiong, H.; Zeb, A.; Yang, T.; Su, X.; Su, L.; Liu, W. Impact of polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 385, 121620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhuang, M.; Qiao, C.; Han, L.; Bi, Y.; Cao, M.; Wang, S.; Guo, L.; Pang, R.; Xie, H. Multi-omics analyses reveal the responses of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rhizosphere bacterial community to nano (micro) plastics stress. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2024, 22, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhang, K.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, K.; Ma, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Y. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings performance mainly affected by soil nitrate nitrogen under the stress of polyvinyl chloride microplastics. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 4962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, J.; Aqeel, M.; Khalid, N.; Nazir, A.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; Al-Mushhin, A.A.; Hakami, O.; Iqbal, M.F.; Chen, F.; Alamri, S.; et al. Effects of microplastics on growth and metabolism of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 2022, 307, 135749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, K.; Gao, N.; Li, Y.; Dou, S.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Ma, C.; Zhang, H. Responses of maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings growth and physiological traits triggered by polyvinyl chloride microplastics is dominated by soil available nitrogen. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 252, 114618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Adamczyk, S.; Zantis, L.J.; van Loon, S.; van Gestel, C.A.; Bosker, T.; Hurley, R.; Nizzetto, L.; Adamczyk, B.; Velmala, S. Biodegradable microplastics induce profound changes in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) defense mechanisms and to some extent deteriorate growth traits. Environ. Pollut. 2024, 363, 125307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Q.; Gong, K.; Shao, X.; Liang, W.; Zhang, W.; Peng, C. Effect of polyethylene, polyamide, and polylactic acid microplastics on Cr accumulation and toxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) in hydroponics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 450, 131022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Frusciante, L.; Carli, P.; Ercolano, M.R.; Pernice, R.; Di Matteo, A.; Fogliano, V.; Pellegrini, N. Antioxidant nutritional quality of tomato. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2007, 51, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, J.; Liu, F.; Wu, Y.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, D.; Lyu, J.; Khan, K.S.; Xiao, X.; Yu, J. Evaluation of nutritional composition, biochemical, and quality attributes of different varieties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 132, 106384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Govindasamy, R.; Ceylan, R.F.; Özkan, B. Global Tomato Production: Price Sensitivity and Policy Impact in Mexico, Türkiye, and the United States. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Echeverría-Pérez, E.G.; Cruz-López, V.; Herrera-Rivera, R.; Romellón-Cerino, M.J.; Rosas-Diaz, J.; Cruz-Martínez, H. Recent Developments of Nanomaterials in Crop Growth and Production: The Case of the Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Agronomy 2025, 15, 1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lozano, Y.M.; Caesaria, P.U.; Rillig, M.C. Microplastics of different shapes increase seed germination synchrony while only films and fibers affect seed germination velocity. Front. environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1017349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khalid, N.; Aqeel, M.; Noman, A. Microplastics Could Be a Threat to Plants in Terrestrial Systems Directly or Indirectly. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bouaicha, O.; Tiziani, R.; Maver, M.; Lucini, L.; Miras-Moreno, B.; Zhang, L.; Trevisan, M.; Cesco, S.; Borruso, L.; Mimmo, T. Plant species-specific impact of polyethylene microspheres on seedling growth and the metabolome. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 840, 156678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shi, R.; Liu, W.; Lian, Y.; Wang, Q.; Zeb, A.; Tang, J. Phytotoxicity of polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 317, 115441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sahasa, R.G.K.; Dhevagi, P.; Poornima, R.; Ramya, A.; Moorthy, P.S.; Alagirisamy, B.; Karthikeyan, S. Effect of polyethylene microplastics on seed germination of Blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environ. Adv. 2023, 11, 100349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dhevagi, P.; Sahasa, R.G.K.; Poornima, R.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Ramya, A.; Priyatharshini, S. Gradient dependent chronic toxicity of polyethylene microplastics (PE-MPs) on tomato. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2024, 18, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shorobi, F.M.; Vyavahare, G.D.; Seok, Y.J.; Park, J.H. Effect of polypropylene microplastics on seed germination and nutrient uptake of tomato and cherry tomato plants. Chemosphere 2023, 329, 138679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saha, A.; Baruah, P.; Handique, S. Assessment of microplastic pollution on soil health and crop responses: Insights from dose-dependent pot experiments. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024, 203, 105648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. En-Nejmy, K.; El Hayany, B.; Al-Alawi, M.; Jemo, M.; Hafidi, M.; El Fels, L. Microplastics in Soil: A Comprehensive Review of Occurrence, Sources, Fate, Analytical Techniques and Potential Impacts. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 288, 117332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hanif, M.N.; Aijaz, N.; Azam, K.; Akhtar, M.; Laftah, W.A.; Babur, M.; Abbood, N.K.; Benitez, I.B. Impact of Microplastics on Soil (Physical and Chemical) Properties, Soil Biological Properties/Soil Biota, and Response of Plants to It: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 10277–10318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gao, B.; Yao, H.; Li, Y.; Zhu, Y. Microplastic Addition Alters the Microbial Community Structure and Stimulates Soil Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Vegetable-Growing Soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 40, 352–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weerasinghe, W.M.T.M.; Madawala, H.M.S.P. Potential impacts of two types of microplastics on Solanum lycopersicum L. and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ceylon J. Sci. 2022, 51, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shi, R.; Liu, W.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Zeb, A.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Sun, Y. Earthworms Enhance Crop Resistance to Insects Under Microplastic Stress by Mobilizing Physical and Chemical Defenses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 16282–16290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Das, E.J.; Alam, A.R. Effects of microplastics polluted soil on the growth of Solanum lycopersicum L. Environ. Syst. Res. 2024, 13, 36. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dainelli, M.; Pignattelli, S.; Bazihizina, N.; Falsini, S.; Papini, A.; Baccelli, I.; Mancuso, S.; Coppi, A.; Castellani, M.B.; Colzi, I.; et al. Can microplastics threaten plant productivity and fruit quality? Insights from Micro-Tom and Micro-PET/PVC. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 895, 165119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Changmai, U.; Sahana, S.K.; Kumar, N.; Borah, B.; Chikkaputtaiah, C.; Saikia, R.; Phukan, T. Impact of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) microplastic on growth, photosynthesis and nutrient uptake of Solanum lycopersicum L. (Tomato). Environ. Pollut. 2024, 349, 123994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fan, H.; Hong, X.; Wang, H.; Gao, F.; Su, Z.; Yao, H. Biodegradable Microplastics Affect Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) Growth by Interfering Rhizosphere Key Phylotypes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 487, 137208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Emenike, C.; Adelugba, A.; MacDonald, M.; Asiedu, S.K.; Ofoe, R.; Abbey, L. A Combined Effect of Mixed Multi-Microplastic Types on Growth and Yield of Tomato. Microplastics 2025, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kanold, E.; Buchanan, S.W.; Dunfield, K.; Antunes, P.M. Microplastic additions modulate intraspecific variability in root traits and mycorrhizal responses across root-life history strategies. Funct. Ecol. 2024, 38, 2369–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dong, H.; Li, F.; Xuan, X.; Ahiakpa, J.K.; Tao, J.; Zhang, X.; Ge, P.; Wang, Y.; Gai, W.; Zhang, Y. The genetic basis and improvement of photosynthesis in tomato. Hortic. Plant J. 2025, 11, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jia, L.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Tanveer, M.; Huang, L. Microplastic stress in plants: Effects on plant growth and their remediations. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1226484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ren, X.; Tang, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, Q. Microplastics in soil-plant system: Effects of nano/microplastics on plant photosynthesis, rhizosphere microbes and soil properties in soil with different residues. Plant Soil 2021, 462, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shi, R.; Liu, W.; Lian, Y.; Zeb, A.; Wang, Q. Type-dependent effects of microplastics on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.): Focus on root exudates and metabolic reprogramming. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 859, 160025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shi, R.; Liu, W.; Liu, J.; Zeb, A.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Li, J.; Yu, M.; Ali, N.; An, J. Earthworms improve the rhizosphere micro-environment to mitigate the toxicity of microplastics to tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 472, 134578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kadac-Czapska, K.; Ośko, J.; Knez, E.; Grembecka, M. Microplastics and Oxidative Stress—Current Problems and Prospects. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.H.M.; Zulfiqar, F.; Raza, A.; Mohsin, S.; Mahmud, J.; Fujita, M.; Fotopoulos, V. Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Defense in Plants under Abiotic Stress: Revisiting the Crucial Role of a Universal Defense Regulator. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhao, L.B.; Tang, Z.X.; Zhai, H.F.; Lai, H.Y.; Li, H.Y.; Liu, S.; Liao, X.D.; Xing, S.C. Organic Fertilizer Mitigated the Oxidative Stress of Tomato Induced by Nanoplastics through Affecting Rhizosphere Soil Microorganisms and Bacteriophage Functions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 492, 138301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Causse, M.; Buret, M.; Robini, K.; Verschave, P. Inheritance of nutritional and sensory quality traits in fresh market tomato and relation to consumer preferences. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 2342–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pérez-Reverón, R.; Álvarez-Méndez, S.J.; González-Sálamo, J.; Socas-Hernández, C.; Díaz-Peña, F.J.; Hernández-Sánchez, C.; Hernández-Borges, J. Nanoplastics in the Soil Environment: Analytical Methods, Occurrence, Fate and Ecological Implications. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 317, 120788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, H.; Ciric, L.; Bhatti, M. Effects of Nanoplastics and Compound Pollutants Containing Nanoplastics on Plants, Microorganisms and Rhizosphere Systems: A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 294, 118084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hui, D.; Hayat, F.; Salam, M.; Illukpitiya, P. Impacts of Micro- and Nano-Plastics on Soil Properties and Plant Production in Agroecosystems: A Mini-Review. Agric. Sci. 2024, 15, 1089–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lakshmikanthan, D.; Chandrasekaran, N. The effect of humic acid and polystyrene fluorescence nanoplastics on Solanum lycopersicum environmental behavior and phytotoxicity. Plants 2022, 11, 3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lakshmikanthan, D.; Chandrasekaran, N. Humic Acid Alleviates the Toxicity of Nanoplastics towards Solanum lycopersicum. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hua, Z.; Ma, S.; Ouyang, Z.; Liu, P.; Qiang, H.; Guo, X. The review of nanoplastics in plants: Detection, analysis, uptake, migration and risk. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 158, 116889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bosker, T.; Bouwman, L.J.; Brun, N.R.; Behrens, P.; Vijver, M.G. Microplastics accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 2019, 226, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Cao, X.; Wang, C.; Luo, X.; Yue, L.; White, J.C.; Wang, Z.; Xing, B. Nano-and microplastics increase the occurrence of bacterial wilt in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). ACS Nano 2024, 18, 18071–18084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Nazari, M.; Iranbakhsh, A.; Ebadi, M.; Ardebili, Z.O. Polyethylene nanoplastics affected morphological, physiological, and molecular indices in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2025, 220, 109523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gao, M.; Wang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, T. Brassinosteroids alleviate nanoplastic toxicity in edible plants by activating antioxidant defense systems and suppressing nanoplastic uptake. Environ. Int. 2023, 174, 107901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Beecher, G.R. Nutrient content of tomatoes and tomato products. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1998, 218, 98–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lian, J.; Liu, W.; Meng, L.; Wu, J.; Chao, L.; Zeb, A.; Sun, Y. Foliar-applied polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) reduce the growth and nutritional quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Environ. pollut. 2021, 280, 116978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hu, M.; Huang, Y.; Liu, L.; Ren, L.; Li, C.; Yang, R.; Zhang, Y. The effects of Micro/Nano-plastics exposure on plants and their toxic mechanisms: A review from multi-omics perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 465, 133279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Environments 12 00328 g001
Figure 1. Effects of micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) on seed germination: (A) MNPs affect external ecological conditions of the seed. (B) MNPs affect the internal physiological conditions of the seed. (C) Plants take up MNPs with the roots or root hairs or leaves as the main entry points to obtain MNPs into plant tissues. Note: the red arrow indicates that the indicator goes up or down; the red circles represent local magnification [17].
Figure 1. Effects of micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) on seed germination: (A) MNPs affect external ecological conditions of the seed. (B) MNPs affect the internal physiological conditions of the seed. (C) Plants take up MNPs with the roots or root hairs or leaves as the main entry points to obtain MNPs into plant tissues. Note: the red arrow indicates that the indicator goes up or down; the red circles represent local magnification [17].
Environments 12 00328 g001
Table 1. Impacts of type, size, and concentrations of microplastics on seed germination.
Table 1. Impacts of type, size, and concentrations of microplastics on seed germination.
TypeSize
(μm)		Concentrations (mg L−1)ImpactsRef.
Polyethylene0.79–4.99910, 100, and 1000Microplastics did not affect the germination percentage of tomato seeds in any concentration.[41]
Polyethylene75.37 ± 17.5510, 100, 500, and 1000At concentrations of 10 and 500 mg L−1, the germination percentage of tomato seeds was significantly lower compared to the control treatment. There was no significant difference in the other two treatments.[42]
Polyethylene241.97 ± 81.5510, 100, 500, and 1000At concentrations of 10, 100, and 500 mg L−1 significantly inhibited germination percentage and at 1000 mg L−1, it showed no significant difference.[42]
Polyethylene60–600 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 *Microplastics do not inhibit germination, although they do delay it, since between 4 and 6 days of exposure, the inhibition rate in germination varied between the different concentrations of microplastics; however, after 7 days of exposure, the germination rate was uniform in all treatments. The germination index during 10 days of exposure was reduced by 3, 15, 18, and 19% at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1% of microplastics, respectively.[43]
Polyethylene600.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 *The germination rate was significantly reduced between 4 and 7 days after being exposed to exposure to microplastics. However, after 8 days, no significant difference was observed. The germination rate 10 days after sowing was greater than 90% in all treatments.[44]
Polypropylene88.11 ± 28.5310, 100, 500, and 1000Seeds exposed to treatment with microplastics at a concentration of 10 mg L−1 had the lowest germination percentage (71.67%). In the other treatments, there were no significant differences.[42]
Polypropylene273.52 ± 111.6910, 100, 500, and 1000At 10, 100, and 500 mg L−1, the germination percentages were low; however, at 1000 mg L−1, there was no significant impact.[42]
Polypropylene<500100Microplastics did not significantly affect seed germination over the control group.[45]
Polystyrene52.48 ± 20.9310, 100, 500, and 1000Microplastics at concentrations of 100 and 500 mg L−1 significantly inhibited germination percentage compared to the control treatment. At 10 and 1000 mg L−1, no significant differences were found.[42]
Polystyrene368.13 ± 127.1110, 100, 500, and 1000In all treatments, the germination percentage was lower compared to the control treatment. However, there was no significant statistical difference.[42]
Polystyrene751, 5, and 10 *Microplastics at 1 and 5% reduced the germination index by 20% while at 10% there was no difference with the control.[46]
Polyethylene terephthalate751, 5, and 10 *Microplastics at 1 and 5% reduced the germination index by 30% while at 10% the reduction is 20%.[46]
Nylon751, 5, and 10 *Microplastics reduced the germination index in all treatments, in particular at 1% it showed a 40% reduction.[46]
* % of microplastics in the ratio to the soil (w/w).
Table 2. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on plant growth.
Table 2. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on plant growth.
TypeSize
(μm)		Concentrations (% of Microplastic in Ratio to the Soil (w/w))Exposure Time (Days)ImpactsRef.
Polyethylene<50000.4, 2.4, 4.4, 6.4, and 8.491Compared to the control, weekly height increments and dry weights (g per pot) of shoot and root after 13 weeks demonstrated a concentration-dependent growth decline.[50]
Polyethylene50–2000.02 and 0.221Shoot and root biomass were significantly reduced with both microplastic concentrations in relation to the control group.[51]
Polypropylene50–2000.02 and 0.221Compared to the control group, shoot biomass was significantly reduced with both microplastic concentrations. Root biomass was reduced by only 0.2%.[51]
Polypropylene40000.4, 1.0, and 2.045Plant height, number of leaves, and girth diameter were significantly affected at 1 and 2%. With 0.4% there was no difference with the control except in lower leaf numbers and higher biomass.[52]
Polystyrene751, 5, and 1042All treatments reduced root and shoot length compared to the control treatment. While the leaf area index increased in all concentrations.[46]
Polyvinyl chloride40–500.5105Microplastics had a significant effect on the fresh weight of shoots, which was lower in relation to the control treatment.[53]
Polyvinyl chloride1–1502.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.030It was observed that as the concentration of microplastics increased, shoot length decreased significantly compared to the control treatment; at the 10% concentration, it was reduced by 57%. The same was true for the variables of leaf area and plant fresh and dry weight. High doses of microplastics increased calcium, manganese, and iron concentrations in leaves and stems; however, significant reductions in other essential nutrients, such as magnesium and zinc, were present, especially in the roots.[54]
Polyethylene terephthalate<50000.4, 2.4, 4.4, 6.4, and 8.491Compared to the control, weekly average height increments and dry weights (g per pot) of shoot and root after 13 weeks demonstrated a concentration-dependent growth decline. At the same time, the root/shoot ratio after 13 weeks showed a significant increase, at 0.4 and 2.4% of microplastics.[50]
Polyethylene terephthalate40–500.5105There were no significant differences in leaf area with respect to the control treatment.[53]
Polyethylene terephthalate751, 5, and 1042Shoot length was reduced in all concentrations. The root length was reduced at 5 and 10% concentrations. While the leaf area was reduced at a 10% concentration.[46]
Nylon751, 5, and 1042Compared with the control treatment, all treatments reduced root length and leaf area index. The shoot length only was reduced at a 10% concentration.[46]
Polyhydroxyalkanoate~1000.1 and 160Seedlings exposed to 1% concentration did not survive. At 0.1% concentration, there was no significant difference in shoot biomass and plant height with respect to the control treatment.[55]
Polylactic acid~1000.1 and 160Seedlings exposed to 1% concentration showed a significant reduction in shoot biomass and plant height compared with the control. At 0.1% there was no significant difference.[55]
Poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate)~1000.1 and 160Seedlings exposed to microplastic treatment at both concentrations did not show significant changes in shoot biomass and height compared to the control.[55]
Poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate)~1000.1 and 1 60There was no significant difference for the variables shoot biomass and plant height in the treatments with microplastics, compared to the control.[55]
Polypropylene + Polyethylene + Polystyrene1000–5000150When comparing the control treatment with the various concentrations of microplastics, no significant differences were obtained in the variables evaluated (plant height, number of leaves, number of fruits, root length, root surface area, and root volume).[56]
Polypropylene + Polyester + Polyamide40000.4, 1.0, and 2.045The number of leaves showed a notable reduction in cultures with 2% mixed microplastics, while at 0.4%, biomass and leaf area were higher than control.[52]
Polypropylene + Polyethylene + Polyethylene
terephthalate + Polystyrene + Polyamide +
acrylic + Polyurethane		<50000.1 and 180Treatments with high additions of microplastics significantly increased the total biomass (aboveground and belowground) compared to the control group; however, colonization of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi decreased.[57]
Table 3. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on photosynthesis.
Table 3. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on photosynthesis.
TypeSize
(μm)		Concentrations (mg L−1)Exposure Time (Days)ImpactsRef.
Polyethylene11.15 ± 3.320.1 and 1.014The transpiration rate of plants exposed to 1.0 mg L−1 of microplastic significantly decreased by 46.74% compared with the control. The stomatal conductance significantly reduced for both concentrations.[61]
Polyethylene59.84 ± 24.880.1 and 1.014The net photosynthetic rate of plants was not significantly affected by microplastics.[61]
Polyethylene600.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 *10Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance significantly declined while concentration increased, regardless of the crop growth stages. The maximum reduction was observed during the fruiting stage. During the vegetative, flowering, fruiting, and harvest stages, a maximum reduction in chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’, total chlorophyll content, and carotenoid was observed at 1% concentration.[44]
Polyethylene1500.02 and 0.2 *7Exposure to microplastics significantly reduces chlorophyll content.[62]
Polypropylene10.29 ± 3.870.1 and 1.014The stomatal conductance of plants was significantly reduced by 44.84% for the concentration of 1.0 mg L−1[61]
Polypropylene57.86 ± 17.210.1 and 1.014Exposure to microplastics had no significant effect on the photosynthetic rate at both concentrations.[61]
Polypropylene1500.02 and 0.2 *7Exposure to microplastics significantly reduces chlorophyll content.[62]
Polystyrene5.23 ± 1.070.1 and 1.014Microplastic exposure increased stomatal conductance and stimulated leaf transpiration.[61]
Polystyrene63.06 ± 17.360.1 and 1.014Exposure to microplastics had no significant effect on the photosynthetic rate or stomatal conductance at both concentrations[61]
Polystyrene751, 5 and 10 *.42Compared to the control treatment, all treatments reduced Chlorophyll, particularly at 1 and 10%.[46]
Polyvinyl chloride40–500.5 *105Plants treated with microplastics showed lower chlorophyll contents compared to the control group, only in weeks 4, 6, and 8.[53]
Polyvinyl chloride1–1502.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 *30Microplastics caused a significant decrease in light-harvesting pigments, chlorophylls, and carotenoids. For example, the content of chlorophyll a significantly decreased by 24% at 10% concentration.[54]
Polyethylene terephthalate40–500.5 *105Plants treated with microplastics showed lower chlorophyll contents throughout the experiment compared to the control group.[53]
Polyethylene terephthalate751, 5, and 10 *.42Total chlorophyll decreased compared to the control treatment, impacting poor plant growth.[46]
Nylon751, 5, and 10 *42Total chlorophyll content decreased at 5 and 10% concentrations.[46]
Polyhydroxyalkanoate~1000.1 and 1 *60Seedlings exposed to microplastics at a concentration of 1.0% did not survive, while those exposed to a concentration of 0.1% showed a significant reduction in chlorophyll content and composition. Element content analysis in tomato leaves showed that the content of total carbon, total nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and calcium was lower compared to the control.[55]
Polylactic acid~1000.1 and 1 *60Treatment with 1% concentration significantly reduced the chlorophyll content, while the composition significantly increased. The content of total carbon, total nitrogen, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and calcium decreased at the concentration of 0.1%; however, the content of phosphorus increased significantly.[55]
Poly(butylene succinate-co-butylene adipate) ~1000.1 and 1 *60Microplastics at both concentrations significantly decreased chlorophyll content with respect to the control; however, composition increased considerably. The phosphorus content decreased significantly at 0.1% concentration; on the contrary, at 1% concentration, it increased significantly.[55]
Poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate)~1000.1 and 1 *60A 1% concentration significantly decreased the chlorophyll content with respect to the control. The phosphorus and potassium content increased in the 0.1% concentration exposure, while in the 1% treatment, the phosphorus content decreased significantly.[55]
Polypropylene + Polyethylene + Polystyrene1000–50001 *50Physiological parameters such as chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and photosynthetic rate were slightly higher than those of the control group. However, they were not significant.[56]
* % of microplastics in the ratio to the soil (w/w).
Table 4. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on the oxidative stress.
Table 4. Impacts of type, size, concentrations, and exposure time of microplastics on the oxidative stress.
TypeSize
(μm)		Concentrations (mg L−1)Exposure Time (Days)ImpactsRef.
Polyethylene75.37 ± 17.5510, 100, 500, and 10007Superoxide dismutase activity had no significant effect. Catalase and peroxidase activities decreased significantly in the 500 and 1000 mg L−1 treatments, while malondialdehyde content increased significantly at these same concentrations.[42]
Polyethylene241.97 ± 81.5510, 100, 500, and 10007Superoxide dismutase activity had no significant effect. Catalase and peroxidase activities decreased as microplastic concentration increased. Malondialdehyde content increased proportionally to microplastic concentrations.[42]
Polyethylene11.15 ± 3.320.1 and 1.0 *14Malondialdehyde and peroxidase contents increased significantly with high concentrations of microplastics; superoxide dismutase activity was significantly reduced, while catalase activity increased considerably in relation to the control group.[61]
Polyethylene59.84 ± 24.880.1 and 1.0 *14Both concentrations reduced the superoxide dismutase activity of roots compared with the control, while no significant changes in peroxidase activity were observed.[61]
Polyethylene600.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 *10Microplastics considerably escalated the superoxide dismutase, ascorbic acid, Malondialdehyde, and proline activity at all growth stages. Exposure to 1.00% microplastics showed an increase in peroxidase and catalase activities.[44]
Polyethylene1500.02 and 0.2 *7Exposure to high concentrations of microplastics significantly increased peroxidase activity and decreased acid phosphatase and acid protease activities.[52]
Polyethylene50–2000.02 and 0.2 *21No significant differences were observed in the activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, peroxidase, or ascorbate peroxidase when compared to the control group.[51]
Polypropylene88.11 ± 28.5310, 100, 500, and 10007At concentrations of 500 and 1000 mg L−1, catalase activity was significantly decreased. There was no significant effect on superoxide dismutase, peroxidase activities, or malondialdehyde content.[42]
Polypropylene273.52 ± 111.6910, 100, 500, and 10007Concentrations of 500 and 1000 mg L−1 had a significant effect on catalase activity, compared to the control group. Malondialdehyde content increased significantly at concentrations of 500 and 1000 mg L−1.[42]
Polypropylene10.29 ± 3.870.1 and 1.014Treatments had no significant effect on malondialdehyde content in tomato roots and leaves, compared to the control group; however, they reduced the superoxide dismutase activity of roots, while no significant changes in peroxidase activity were observed.[61]
Polypropylene57.86 ± 17.210.1 and 1.014The contents of hydrogen peroxide in tomato leaves and roots treated decreased significantly at 0.1 mg L−1.[61]
Polypropylene1500.02 and 0.2 *7Exposure to high concentrations of microplastics significantly increased peroxidase activity and decreased acid phosphatase and acid protease activities in relation to the control group.[62]
Polypropylene50–2000.02 and 0.2 *21No significant differences were observed in the activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, peroxidase, or ascorbate peroxidase when compared to the control group.[51]
Polystyrene52.48 ± 20.9310, 100, 500, and 10007Microplastics significantly reduced the activities of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase with respect to control, while the malonaldehyde content increased.[42]
Polystyrene368.13 ± 127.1110, 100, 500, and 10007Compared to the control group, the activities of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase decreased significantly, while malondialdehyde levels showed a marked increase.[42]
Polystyrene5.23 ± 1.070.1 and 1.014Exposure to a concentration of 1 mg L−1 increased the contents of malondialdehyde and hydrogen peroxide. Superoxide dismutase activity decreased, while catalase activity increased, and peroxidase showed no changes.[61]
Polystyrene63.06 ± 17.360.1 and 1.014Hydrogen peroxide content in the root decreased significantly at the low concentration. Superoxide dismutase activity decreased at the highest microplastic concentration.[61]
Polyvinyl chloride1–1502.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 *30Exposure at a 10% concentration resulted in a significant increase in reactive oxygen species levels (up to 36%) and lipid peroxidation (up to 52%) relative to the control group.[54]
* % of microplastics in the ratio to the soil (w/w).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hernández-Sánchez, L.; Cruz-López, V.; Herrera-Rivera, R.; Solis-Pomar, F.; Navarro-Antonio, J.; Cruz-Martínez, H. Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Tomato Crops: A Critical Review. Environments 2025, 12, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12090328

AMA Style

Hernández-Sánchez L, Cruz-López V, Herrera-Rivera R, Solis-Pomar F, Navarro-Antonio J, Cruz-Martínez H. Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Tomato Crops: A Critical Review. Environments. 2025; 12(9):328. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12090328

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hernández-Sánchez, Laura, Vianii Cruz-López, Rosario Herrera-Rivera, Francisco Solis-Pomar, José Navarro-Antonio, and Heriberto Cruz-Martínez. 2025. "Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Tomato Crops: A Critical Review" Environments 12, no. 9: 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12090328

APA Style

Hernández-Sánchez, L., Cruz-López, V., Herrera-Rivera, R., Solis-Pomar, F., Navarro-Antonio, J., & Cruz-Martínez, H. (2025). Impacts of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Tomato Crops: A Critical Review. Environments, 12(9), 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12090328

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop