Next Article in Journal
Exogenous Salicylic Acid Alleviates NO2 Damage by Maintaining Cell Stability and Physiological Metabolism in Bougainvillea × buttiana ‘Miss Manila’ Seedlings
Previous Article in Journal
Evolutionary Dynamics of FLC-like MADS-Box Genes in Brassicaceae
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 18
10.3390/plants12183282
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Impacts of Plastics on Plant Development: Recent Advances and Future Research Directions

by
Enikő Mészáros
1,†,
Attila Bodor
2,3,†,
Etelka Kovács
2,
Sarolta Papp
1,
Kamilla Kovács
1,
Katalin Perei
2 and
Gábor Feigl
1,*
1
Department of Plant Biology, University of Szeged, Közép fasor 52, H6726 Szeged, Hungary
2
Department of Biotechnology, University of Szeged, Közép fasor 52, H6726 Szeged, Hungary
3
Institute of Biophysics, Biological Research Centre, Temesvári krt. 62, H6726 Szeged, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2023, 12(18), 3282; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183282
Submission received: 28 July 2023 / Revised: 11 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 15 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Physiology and Metabolism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plastics have inundated the world, with microplastics (MPs) being small particles, less than 5 mm in size, originating from various sources. They pervade ecosystems such as freshwater and marine environments, soils, and the atmosphere. MPs, due to their small size and strong adsorption capacity, pose a threat to plants by inhibiting seed germination, root elongation, and nutrient absorption. The accumulation of MPs induces oxidative stress, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity in plants, which also impacts plant development, mineral nutrition, photosynthesis, toxic accumulation, and metabolite production in plant tissues. Furthermore, roots can absorb nanoplastics (NPs), which are then distributed to stems, leaves, and fruits. As MPs and NPs harm organisms and ecosystems, they raise concerns about physical damage and toxic effects on animals, and the potential impact on human health via food webs. Understanding the environmental fate and effects of MPs is essential, along with strategies to reduce their release and mitigate consequences. However, a full understanding of the effects of different plastics, whether traditional or biodegradable, on plant development is yet to be achieved. This review offers an up-to-date overview of the latest known effects of plastics on plants.

1. Introduction

The planet boundary concept defines the limits that humanity must not exceed in order to not endanger the favorable conditions in which it has been able to develop and live sustainably in a safe ecosystem [1]. In 2009, nine specific boundaries were established, including climate change, the loss of biosphere integrity, the disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus biogeochemical cycles, land use changes, ocean acidification, freshwater consumption, stratospheric ozone depletion, increasing aerosols in the atmosphere, and chemical pollution [2]. The last one encompasses the release of novel entities such as synthetic organic pollutants, heavy metal compounds, and plastic pollution into the environment [2].
After a temporary halt due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, global plastic production rose to 390.7 million tons in 2022 [3], with projections indicating that its usage will reach 1231 million tons by 2060 [4]. Fossil-based plastics accounted for 90.2% of the world’s production in 2021, while bio-based/bio-attributed plastics and post-consumer recycled plastics comprised 8.3% and 1.5% of global plastic production, respectively [4]. In China, the total production of plastic products exceeded one billion tons by the end of 2019, establishing itself as the world’s largest producer and consumer of plastic [5]. In 2021, China was responsible for almost one third of the world’s plastic production (32%), followed by North America with 18%, then the rest of Asia with 17%, Europe with 15%, and Africa and the Middle East with 8% [4].
Plastics are artificially produced and polymerized from various monomers [6]. The most commonly found plastics in the environment are polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polystyrene (PS) [7]. These materials have a wide range of applications, including, but not limited to, smartphones, food packaging, and 3D printing, which stems from its design adaptability, affordability, ability to be shaped, lightweight nature, and biologically inert properties [8]. Consequently, plastic has the advantage of replacing traditional materials, such as paper, wood, or metal.
Once released into the environment, plastics pose a significant threat, due to their slow decomposition, which can take hundreds of years. The primary sources of plastic pollution are the fragmentation of larger plastic items, such as bags, bottles, and packaging materials. Over time, these items break down into smaller pieces, eventually becoming macroplastics (>2.5 cm), microplastics (<5 mm, MPs), or even nanoplastics (<100 nm or <1000 nm) [9,10]. MPs have two main sources: primary and secondary. The primary sources include drugs, paints, cosmetics, biomedical equipment, and other items, while the secondary sources refer to the mechanical, thermal, and biological degradation of macroplastics [11]. Other sources of MP pollution include the use of synthetic textiles, such as polyester and nylon, which shed microfibers during washing, and the use of cosmetics or personal care products that contain microbeads. Additionally, MPs can be released into the environment through the disposal of electronic waste, such as mobile phones and computers [12]. MPs can interact with other chemicals, leading to the accumulation of organic and inorganic pollutants on their surfaces [13]. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), antibiotics, and other chemicals pose a significant concern when they attach to MPs [13]. Consequently, MPs are categorized as emerging persistent pollutants that occur widely in various ecosystems.
Most plastic becomes waste shortly after use, and, therefore, a significant amount of plastic is constantly released into the environment. According to estimations, about 12.7 million tons of plastic has ended up in the marine environment so far [14], and MPs have been detected in the air [15] and in animals, where they can accumulate in various tissues, posing a long-term threat. Moreover, MPs can be transferred through the trophic food chain, reaching final consumers, including predators and humans [16]. Importantly, recent research has revealed the presence of MPs in human blood, with a measured total amount of 1.6 µg/L. The main compounds found were PET, PE, and PS. These results show that these particles are bioavailable and can be absorbed into the bloodstream of humans [17].
Considering the persistence and widespread distribution of MPs in the soil, it is necessary to recognize their potential impacts on terrestrial plants. Based on estimations, approximately 32% of all plastic produced ends up in the soil [18]; therefore, soils can be a much larger sink for plastics than salt water and freshwater [19]. Consequently, the presence of plastics in soil ecosystems will have an impact on the organisms that live there, including plants.
Exploring the relationship between plants and plastics is currently becoming a hot research topic; however, despite the growing body of published results, it is still challenging to draw definitive conclusions. After reviewing the available literature, it seems to be evident that the impacts of MPs on higher plants depend on various factors, such as the properties of the MPs, the specific plant species involved, and the surrounding environmental conditions. Under certain experimental conditions, MPs have induced no effects, or even positive effects, on higher plants. However, a larger body of evidence demonstrates that MPs can directly and indirectly impede the growth of higher plants. As a recently published paper [20] has already compiled the known effects of plastics on plants, this article aims to summarize the most recent experimental data, with a primary focus on the effects of plastics on the rhizosphere, particularly on plants.

2. Impact of Plastics on Soil, Plants, and Ecosystems

Soil, as the uppermost loose, fertile layer of the Earth’s surface, is essential for sustaining life. It provides plants (and thus animals and humans) with nutrients and water, while also storing and transforming materials [21]. To safeguard the healthy status of soil, models show that the concentration of MPs should not exceed the range of 2128–14,435 mg for each kg soil in order to keep up with half of the currently present soil biota or soil properties [19]. However, agricultural soil serves as a larger sink for MPs compared to water [22]. MPs can enter soils through various pathways, including sewage and sludge irrigation and residual mulching film decomposition [23,24]. An increased amount of MPs in the soil can directly alter the soil physicochemical properties, leading to reduced soil aeration, increased erosion, altered soil pH, and reduced nutrient availability for plants, and, hence, lower crop yields [25,26]. Additionally, the presence of MPs may alter the composition of soil microbial communities, reducing the diversity and abundance of beneficial microorganisms, which play essential roles in soil fertility and plant growth. Furthermore, MPs can act as carriers of other chemical contaminants in the soil, causing damage to plant and human health, when they reach the food chain [13,18,19].
Once in the soil, some MPs can be transported by external factors and enter surface water and groundwater via horizontal and vertical migration, while others are absorbed or accumulated by plants and soil-dwelling organisms [27]. In addition to the adverse effects of MPs on soil properties [12], several studies have also confirmed the extensive negative impact of MP accumulation on soil biology [28]. For example, MPs can disrupt the functional and structural diversity of soil microbial communities [29] and harm soil-dwelling animals, plants, and microorganisms by damaging DNA, inducing oxidative stress, and impairing metabolic processes [30,31]. However, these effects are often contradictory, and vary depending on factors such as MP shape and size, polymer type, degradability, or the presence of additives and impurities [28].
When it comes to MP contamination in soil, invertebrates, particularly earthworms, have received significant attention in studies, as they are vital components of the soil food chain and can be used to assess the toxicity of contaminants such as MPs in soil [19]. Earthworms have the ability to ingest MPs and reduce their size, easing their decomposition [32]. Reduced growth rates [33], immunological stress responses [34], damaged intestinal cells and DNA [35], and increased mortality [36] are among the negative outcomes caused by exposure to MPs. In a recently published study investigating on the potential harm of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) to earthworms (Eisenia fetida), Mondal et al. [37] found that, during the 28-day exposure period, no mortality or weight loss relative to the controls was observed. However, they noticed damage to the surfaces of the earthworms’ skin caused by exposure to the LDPE MPs. The induced skin surface damage and MP uptake can adversely affect the growth and reproduction of E. fetida after long-term MP exposure.
Under the influence of environmental factors, MPs can be broken down into nanoplastics (NPs), which are plastic particles smaller than a micron in size [38]. Similar to MPs, NPs also come from a variety of sources, including the decomposition of plastic products in the environment and the influx of microbeads and raw materials used in industry [39]. Significant amounts of NPs are present in our daily lives, derived, for example, from tire wear, washing textiles, and using personal hygiene products [40,41,42]. The increasing abundance of NPs poses potential environmental hazards, adding to the global problem of environmental pollution. Living organisms can absorb NPs from the environment, triggering various stress responses. Since plants play an important role in ecosystems, the bioaccumulation of NPs can be an entry point for plastics into the food chain [43]; therefore, it is of utmost importance to study and explore the interactions and mechanisms between NPs and plant [38]. NPs can enter plants through various pathways, such as root or foliar uptake. The root uptake pathway can be significant for terrestrial plants, such as crops grown in agricultural fields, since they rely on soil water for their survival [10]. Foliar uptake occurs when plastic particles are present in the air, and the plant leaves absorb them through atmospheric deposition. This pathway can be significant for plants growing in urban environments or near industrial areas with elevated air pollution [44].
Plants are essential for our ecosystem, providing food, oxygen, and numerous other benefits, which can be jeopardized by anthropogenic stressors. In recent years, the issue of plastic pollution has emerged as a growing concern [45,46]. While plastic waste is known to harm marine life [47], scientists have only recently begun to realize the impact of MP pollution on terrestrial ecosystems [48] and its effect on plants [49]. The potential impacts of MPs and NPs on plants and the issue of food safety concerns for crops have been discussed recently [49], and subsequent studies have confirmed that NPs can be absorbed by plant roots and translocated to the aboveground aerial tissues [50]. These studies have demonstrated that MPs and NPs can induce physiological changes in plants, such as a reduction in growth, photosynthesis, and antioxidant activity, as well as alterations in gene expression and root exudate profiles [49,51].
Currently, most research focuses on the distribution and potential toxicity of MPs/NPs in aquatic ecosystems and their transmission to human food sources. However, there is also an urgent need to investigate the potential harmful effects of MPs/NPs on terrestrial plants and crop production. Although some recent studies, such as those by Zhou et al. [52], Yin et al. [53], Okeke et al. [54], and Yadav et al. [55], have explored the impacts of MPs on agroecosystems, vascular plants, food chains, and plant growth, these studies offer only a superficial analysis, and there is a lack of explanation regarding the underlying causes (such as the antagonistic effect of MPs/NPs on plants) that contribute to the dysfunction of the food chain. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct an in-depth analysis of the potential issues related to the entry of plastic particles into plants, the subsequent weakening of plant defense mechanisms, the putative factors determining the toxicity of MPs/NPs, and their interference with food quality and quantity. Moreover, as research in this area is still in its early stages, there is limited information on how to mitigate the adverse effects of MPs/NPs in plants.

3. Effects of Plastics on Plant Development

Studies have shown that plastics generally have a negative effect on plant development, which might manifest in alterations in both germination and root or shoot growth. These changes, however, depend on several factors, including the environmental conditions, plant species, and plastic concentration. Several types of plastics have been tested, including PS, PE, PVC, and biodegradable plastics, which are summarized below.

3.1. Effects of Polystyrene on Plant Development

PS is a widely used synthetic polymer derived from aromatic hydrocarbons called styrene monomers. With an annual production volume of several million tons, it ranks among the most commonly utilized plastics. Although PS is naturally transparent, it can be dyed for various applications. These applications include protective packaging containers, lids, bottles, trays, cups, and disposable cutlery [56].
The relationship between PS and plants has been studied in a range of applied concentrations and experimental systems, the vast majority of which have demonstrated growth inhibition. The studies dealing with the effects of polystyrene mentioned in the text are summarized in Table 1.
In realistic field conditions, as stressors are seldom found in isolation within the environment, MPs and NPs can coexist with arsenic (As) in the soil, potentially causing toxic effects on plant growth and escalating the accumulation of arsenic in plants throughout the food chain. Two studies centered on the impact of PS plastic fragments on rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants, along with the absorption of As. The studies aimed to explore how MPs influence the overall As uptake in rice seedlings and the subsequent accumulation of As within the rice tissues. The growth responses were found to be dependent on the size of the NP/MP particles. Interestingly, the exposure of rice seedlings to MPs slightly mitigated the adverse effects of As on plant leaf growth and reduced root activity when compared to rice seedlings that were exposed to arsenic alone [57]. An additional study conducted by Xu et al. [58] revealed a noteworthy decline (p < 0.001) in aboveground tissue biomass due to As treatment, as compared to the control group. This effect was more pronounced when both MP and As stresses were combined. However, the root biomass exhibited only minor alterations. These results indicate that the combined effect of MPs and As on plants differs from the individual effects of MPs or As alone. Furthermore, other studies reported root and shoot inhibition in the presence of PS MPs on rice [59], which is consistent with earlier findings [60].
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) is a major food source grown worldwide. Wang et al. [61] observed the effects of PS plastic on lettuce growth and found that PS MPs can disturb the antioxidant system, change the gene expression in roots, and influence the root exudate profiles. MP stress increased the expression of genes involved in different antioxidant systems at different times in the roots and leaves (ascorbic acid, terpenoids, flavonoids, and sphingolipids). The solutions with higher MP concentrations further inhibited lettuce growth compared to the controls, and the fresh leaf weight, plant height, and number of leaves were significantly reduced in all of the plants grown in the presence of MPs (p < 0.05) [61].
The response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) plants to PS was investigated in plants grown in a hydroponic medium. Shi et al. [62] conducted an experiment with 13 treatment groups, including PS concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 1 mg/L, with tomato seedlings for 14 days. The results showed that PS MPs inhibit tomato plant growth and cause severe oxidative stress. Several treatments reduced the length of the shoot and root of the tomatoes and also affected some important metabolic pathways, including the tricarboxylic acid cycle and glutathione metabolism [62].
There are also some studies with mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) plants in pot conditions. These studies have demonstrated that PS had a more negative effect on root growth in mung beans compared to onions. Biba et al. [63] reported that there were no significant changes in onion root growth after exposure to any of the tested PS MP concentrations, compared to the control, although the highest concentration (1 g/L) caused a slight decrease in length. On the other hand, Chen et al. [64] found that any applied concentration of PS MPs significantly reduced the growth characteristics of mung bean plants, including the shoot and root growth. PS also had a negative effect on the root and shoot growth of water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica Forssk.) and dandelion (Taraxacum asiaticum Dahlst) plants in hydroponic conditions but had no significant effect on their seed germination [65,66].
On the other hand, PS did not significantly reduce any root or shoot growth parameters in corn (Zea mays L.) plants [67], and no negative effects were detected in soybean (Glycine max L.) plants either [68]. Conversely, when watermilfoil (Myriophyllum verticillatum L.) was tested, PS MPs had a negative effect on shoot growth [69]. Interestingly, a recently conducted study showed that the root and shoot growth of corn plants were inhibited by PS [70]. Another experiment showed that PS had a negative effect on root growth in soybean plants, while no changes were observed in shoot growth [71]. However, a recent study found a slight effect on seed germination and sprout growth in soybean plants [68].
Table 1. The effect of polystyrene-based plastics on the development of plants. “−” represents inhibition, “0” marks no change, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Table 1. The effect of polystyrene-based plastics on the development of plants. “−” represents inhibition, “0” marks no change, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
SpeciesConcentrationParticle SizeMedium UsedEffect onNotesReference
GerminationRoot GrowthShoot Growth
Oryza sativa L.50 mg/L NPs/MPs and 250 μg/L As(III)/As (V)82 and 200 nmHydroponicn.d.−n.d.NPs/MPs may coexist with As in soil and induce potentially toxic effects on the crop’s growth.[57]
O. sativa5 mg/mL139 nmPot experimentn.d.−−Growth inhibition.[58]
O. sativa0, 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 mg/L10 ± 0.37 μmHydroponicn.d.−−Decline in growth, nutrient profile, perturbed gas exchange attributes, and enhanced oxidative damage.[60]
Lactuca sativa L.10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 mg/L0.2 μmHydroponicn.d.−−Disturbing the antioxidant system and changing gene expression of the roots.[61]
Lycopersicon esculentum L.0.1 and 1 mg/L5.23–17.21 μmHydroponicn.d.−−MPs caused severe oxidative stress.[62]
Allium cepa L.25, 50, and 100 μg/mLn.d.Pot experimentn.d.0n.d.The activation of antioxidant enzyme machinery of root cells successfully decomposed ROS and prevented oxidative damage.[63]
Vigna radiata L.2–4 mg/kg5 µmPot experimentn.d.−−Perturbed rubisco activity and changed amino acid concentration in the plant tissues.[64]
Taraxacum asiaticum Dahlst1, 5, and 10 mg/L80 nmHydroponicn.d.−−Inhibited the activities of rubisco and DHA by destroying the tertiary structure of the enzymes.[65]
Ipomoea aquatica Forsk0.5–10 mg/L80 nmHydroponicn.d.−−The migration of PS NPs in roots, stems, and leaves was tracked.[66]
Zea mays L.10 mg/L0.2–1.0 μm and 2.0 and 0.5 μmHydroponicn.d.00The smaller-sized PS beads were absorbed by the roots.[67]
Glycine max L.80 μg/mL20 nm and 1 µmHydroponic00n.d.PS nanoparticles were distributed in the roots of bean sprouts more than in the stems and cotyledons.[68]
Myriophyllum verticillatum L.5 g/L100 nmHydroponicn.d.n.d.−Induced changes in SOD activity, ROS production rate, and osmotic regulator content.[69]
Z. mays10 and 100 mg/L25 nmPot experimentn.d.−−Polystyrene nanoplastics and Cd entered the root system through the stomatal pathway.[70]
G. max0, 12.5, 25, and 50 mg/L20–30 nmPetri dish experimentsn.d.−0PS NPs affected growth and absorption of elements and the production of ROS and lipid peroxidation in the roots and leaves.[71]

3.2. Effects of Polyethylene Plastics on Plant Development

PE is the most widely used plastic, mainly by the packaging industry. It has several types, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), medium-density polyethylene (MDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE/PEX) [72].
The impact of PE on plant development has been explored in several recent studies under different conditions (Table 2). Numerous studies have shown that PE negatively affects both the root and shoot growth of corn plants [73,74,75]. Additionally, a significant reduction in root and shoot growth has been observed in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and water moss (Salvinia auriculata Aubl.) plants in hydroponic experiments [76,77]. An experiment with lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) plants demonstrated that their germination was inhibited by PE [78]. Moreover, a study found that PE significantly increased the shoot growth of lettuce, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), cucumber, and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants [50,79]. Conversely, according to another study, root development was reduced by PE in cucumber and tomato plants [79].
The effect of HDPE on plants has also been researched. For instance, barley, sand couch-grass (Thinopyrum junceum L.), and ice plant (Carpobrotus sp.) plants are sensitive to HDPE MPs stress, as it inhibits their root and shoot growth [80,81].

3.3. Effects of Polyvinyl Chloride Plastics on Plant Development

PVC is a chemically inert material that can exist in both flexible and rigid forms. Rigid PVC is easily machinable, thermoformable, weldable, and can even be bonded using solvents. PVC can also be machined using standard metalworking tools and is less difficult to machine to tight tolerances and finishes. PVC resins are commonly blended with other additives, such as impact modifiers and stabilizers, to create a wide range of PVC-based materials [82].
Several recent studies have demonstrated the negative effects of PVC MPs on plant development in different growing media, which are presented in Table 3. PVC has been found to inhibit the growth of corn and plumed cockscomb (Celosia argentea L.) roots and shoots [83,84]. However, there was no significant effect observed in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) plants [85]. In duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza L.) plants, PVC MPs were found to have a greater impact on root extension than shoot growth [86,87]. Moreover, Song et al. [88] examined the effects of PVC plastic fragments on rice and found a negative effect on root growth but no significant impact on shoot development.

3.4. Effects of Biodegradable Plastics on Plant Development

Bioplastics are materials or products derived from biomass that are driving the evolution of plastics. These bio-based plastic products are typically derived from sources such as corn, sugarcane, or cellulose. They offer two main advantages over conventional products. Firstly, using biomass as a raw material saves fossil resources, as it is renewable and has the unique potential to be CO2 neutral. Additionally, certain types of bioplastics exhibit biodegradability as an additional property [89].
The effect of bio-based plastics on plant development has been examined in several studies recently (Table 4). Corn appears to be a particularly sensitive species to biodegradable plastics such as polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and polylactic acid (PLA), as indicated by reduced root and shoot growth [73,74]. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) PHBV, a microbial biopolymer with excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability, has been shown to negatively impact corn root and shoot growth in soil [90]. Furthermore, pot experiments with basil (Ocimum basilicum L.), sand couch-grass, and ice plant plants have demonstrated that biodegradable plastics such as corn-starch-based bioplastic and starch-based polymers inhibited root and shoot growth [81,91]. In the case of sorghum (Sorghum saccharatum L.), garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.), and white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) plants, Liwarska-Bizukojc et al. [92] studied the effect of bio-based plastics such as PLA and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB). The results indicated a significant reduction in both root and shoot growth. However, there were no statistically significant differences in germination efficiency between tests conducted with and without plastic particles in the soil. Interestingly, in red cherry tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and lettuce plants, plastic particles such as PBAT and PLA inhibited germination and shoot growth as well [93]. Additionally, PLA inhibited the root and shoot development of cucumber and barley plants [76,80].

4. Conclusions

In summary, the effects of plastics on plant development are increasingly being investigated, and it is evident that different types of plastic can have varying impacts on plants. Consistent with previous reviews [20,59,94,95], the plant responses to plastics remain predominantly uniform. Most recent studies demonstrate growth inhibition, while only a handful of species exhibit a positive growth response, particularly in the presence of PE (Figure 1). These additions include barley [79], cucumber, tomato, and lettuce plants [50], adding to previously identified species such as Allium fistulosum, T. aestivum, L. sativum, Calamagrostis epigejos, and Hieracium pilosella (reviewed in [20]).
However, the aggregated results indicate that plastics, including PS, PE, PVC, and biodegradable variants, have predominantly detrimental effects on plant growth, particularly in relation to root and shoot development.
PS has consistently emerged as an inhibitor of plant growth, as evidenced by studies revealing diminished root and shoot expansion across various plant species. Likewise, PE exhibits inhibitory traits affecting crops such as maize, cucumber, and water moss, leading to compromised root and shoot proliferation. PVC’s negative impact on plant development is also evident, as demonstrated by reduced root growth in rice and plumed cockscomb plants. Despite their touted environmental friendliness, biodegradable plastics also manifest deleterious consequences for plant growth. Corn, basil, sand couch-grass, and ice plant display suppressed root and shoot development in the presence of such plastics. Moreover, PBAT and PLA hinder the germination and shoot growth of red cherry tomatoes and lettuce plants.
As previously summarized [20,59,94,95], the mechanisms through which microplastics affect the performance of higher plants are both diverse and intricate (Figure 2). One of the predominant outcomes triggered by MPs in plants is oxidative stress, as evidenced by the increased generation of reactive oxygen species and heightened activity of antioxidant enzymes (as reviewed by [59,94,95]). Similarly, a common feature of the results presented in the reviewed papers is the disruption of oxidative homeostasis. This alteration implies its potential involvement in shaping the plant growth responses to plastics, similar to what has been documented for numerous other abiotic stressors. Furthermore, nutrient uptake and metabolism have often been cited as plausible explanations for growth reduction (see [59,94,95]), and the most recent evidence collected in this paper also support this possibility. In addition, the effect of plastic on photosynthetic activity is well-documented [as reviewed in [59,95]], a fact confirmed by several of the recent studies collected in this paper.
However, it is crucial to recognize that the precise processes, triggers, and outcomes of these phenomena remain unclear, highlighting the need for further research. It is also important to note that the effects of plastics on plant development may vary depending on factors such as plastic type, concentration, plant species, and environmental conditions. Nevertheless, the overall findings highlight the potential harm that plastic pollution, both conventional and biodegradable, can have on plant growth and ecosystem health.
Further research is needed in order to better understand the mechanisms underlying the negative effects of plastics on plants and to develop mitigation strategies. Most importantly, efforts should be made to reduce plastic pollution and promote the use of sustainable alternatives in order to ensure the health and sustainability of our ecosystems and ensure the continued provision of essential ecosystem services by plants. Overall, addressing plastic pollution and its impact on plant development is critical for the conservation of biodiversity, food security, and the overall well-being of our planet.

5. Future Directions

Future research directions in this field involve the study of the following aspects:
  • Interactions with different stressors: The interactions between plastics and other stressors, such as heavy metals or chemicals (which can be adsorbed in MPs), need to be explored further. Understanding how plastics interact with other environmental factors can provide insights into their combined effects on plant growth and development.
  • Mechanisms of action: Studying the mechanisms through which plastics exert their negative effects on plants is crucial. This includes investigating how plastics are taken up by plants, their impact on cellular processes, and the disruption of plant physiology. Elucidating these mechanisms will help in designing targeted mitigation strategies.
  • Species-specific responses: Different plant species may exhibit varying sensitivities to plastics. Further research should focus on a wide range of plant species in order to better understand the species-specific responses to different types of plastics and concentrations.
  • Long-term effects: Most of the studies conducted so far have focused on short-term effects. It is important to investigate the long-term consequences of plastic exposure on plant growth, reproduction, and overall ecosystem health. Long-term studies can provide valuable insights into the persistence and cumulative effects of plastics on plants.
  • Field studies: While many studies have been conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, field studies are necessary to assess the real-world impacts of plastics on plant development. Field experiments can consider the complex interactions of plants with their natural environment, including soil composition, nutrient availability, and microbial communities.
  • Biodegradable plastics: Further research is needed to evaluate the environmental fate and potential ecological impacts of biodegradable plastics. Understanding their decomposition rates, byproducts, and effects on plant growth will help us to determine their suitability as alternatives to conventional plastics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., E.K. and G.F.; investigation, E.M., A.B., E.K., S.P., K.K., K.P. and G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.; writing—review and editing, A.B., E.K., S.P., K.K., K.P. and G.F.; supervision, G.F.; funding acquisition, G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH FK 142475) and by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Grant no. BO/00181/21/4). G.F. was supported by the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities (UNKP-22-5-SZTE-532).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude toward Erika Pál for the excellent administrative support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Plastics—The facts 2022. Plastics Europe. 2022. Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/ (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  4. OECD Publications. Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/publications/global-plastics-outlook-aa1edf33-en.htm (accessed on 10 September 2023).
  5. Larue, C.; Sarret, G.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Pradas del Real, A.E. A critical review on the impacts of nanoplastics and microplastics on aquatic and terrestrial photosynthetic organisms. Small 2021, 17, 2005834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bucknall, D.G. Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2020, 378, 20190268. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rochman, C.M.; Hoh, E.; Hentschel, B.T.; Kaye, S. Long-term field measurement of sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1646–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nielsen, T.D.; Hasselbalch, J.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. Politics and the plastic crisis: A review throughout the plastic life cycle. WIREs Energy Environ. 2019, 9, e360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gigault, J.; ter Halle, A.; Baudrimont, M.; Pascal, P.-Y.; Gauffre, F.; Phi, T.-L.; El Hadri, H.; Grassl, B.; Reynaud, S. Current opinion: What is a nanoplastic? Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ng, E.-L.; Huerta Lwanga, E.; 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]
  11. Gangadoo, S.; Owen, S.; Rajapaksha, P.; Plaisted, K.; Cheeseman, S.; Haddara, H.; Truong, V.K.; Ngo, S.T.; Vu, V.V.; Cozzolino, D.; et al. Nano-plastics and their analytical characterisation and fate in the marine environment: From source TO SEA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 138792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, C.; Zhang, B.; Gu, C.; Shen, C.; Yin, S.; Aamir, M.; Li, F. Are we underestimating the sources of microplastic pollution in terrestrial environment? J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 123228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, H. Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the Ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. O’Brien, S.; Rauert, C.; Ribeiro, F.; Okoffo, E.D.; Burrows, S.D.; O’Brien, J.W.; Wang, X.; Wright, S.L.; Thomas, K.V. There’s something in the air: A review of sources, prevalence and behaviour of microplastics in the atmosphere. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 874, 162193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Huerta Lwanga, E.; Mendoza Vega, J.; Ku Quej, V.; de Chi, J.; Sanchez del Cid, L.; Chi, C.; Escalona Segura, G.; Gertsen, H.; Salánki, T.; van der Ploeg, M.; et al. Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a terrestrial food chain. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Leslie, H.A.; van Velzen, M.J.M.; Brandsma, S.H.; Vethaak, A.D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J.J.; Lamoree, M.H. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. de Souza Machado, A.A.; Lau, C.W.; Till, J.; Kloas, W.; Lehmann, A.; Becker, R.; Rillig, M.C. Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 9656–9665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Joos, L.; De Tender, C. Soil under stress: The importance of soil life and how it is influenced by (micro)plastic pollution. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 1554–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, J.; Yu, S.; Yu, Y.; Xu, M. Effects of microplastics on higher plants: A Review. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2022, 109, 241–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Orgiazzi, A.; Ballabio, C.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Fernández-Ugalde, O. Lucas soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: A Review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 69, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zeb, A.; Liu, W.; Shi, R.; Lian, Y.; Wang, Q.; Tang, J.; Lin, D. Evaluating the knowledge structure of micro- and nanoplastics in terrestrial environment through Scientometric assessment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 177, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Heinze, W.M.; Mitrano, D.M.; Lahive, E.; Koestel, J.; Cornelis, G. Nanoplastic transport in soil via bioturbation by Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 16423–16433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Jia, X.; O’Connor, D.; Hou, D.; Jin, Y.; Li, G.; Zheng, C.; Ok, Y.S.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Luo, J. Groundwater Depletion and Contamination: Spatial Distribution of Groundwater Resources Sustainability in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 672, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chia, R.W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jang, J.; Kim, H.; Kwon, K.D. Soil Health and Microplastics: A review of the impacts of microplastic contamination on soil properties. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 22, 2690–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jiang, X.J.; Liu, W.; Wang, E.; Zhou, T.; Xin, P. Residual plastic mulch fragments effects on soil physical properties and water flow behavior in the Minqin Oasis, Northwestern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 166, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, W.; Jiang, J.; Mo, A.; He, D. Size/shape-dependent migration of microplastics in agricultural soil under simulative and natural rainfall. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 815, 152507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Q.; Adams, C.A.; Wang, F.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, S. Interactions between microplastics and Soil Fauna: A Critical Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 52, 3211–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, H.; Wang, Y.; Sun, X.; Peng, Y.; Xiao, L. Mixing effect of polylactic acid microplastic and straw residue on soil property and ecological function. Chemosphere 2020, 243, 125271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boughattas, I.; Hattab, S.; Zitouni, N.; Mkhinini, M.; Missawi, O.; Bousserrhine, N.; Banni, M. Assessing the presence of microplastic particles in Tunisian agriculture soils and their potential toxicity effects using Eisenia andrei as bioindicator. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 796, 148959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qi, Y.; Ossowicki, A.; Yang, X.; Huerta Lwanga, E.; Dini-Andreote, F.; Geissen, V.; Garbeva, P. Effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat rhizosphere and soil properties. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 387, 121711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kwak, J.I.; An, Y.-J. Post covid-19 pandemic: Biofragmentation and soil ecotoxicological effects of microplastics derived from face masks. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huerta Lwanga, E.; Gertsen, H.; Gooren, H.; Peters, P.; Salánki, T.; van der Ploeg, M.; Besseling, E.; Koelmans, A.A.; Geissen, V. Incorporation of microplastics from litter into burrows of Lumbricus terrestris. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rodriguez-Seijo, A.; Lourenço, J.; Rocha-Santos, T.A.P.; da Costa, J.; Duarte, A.C.; Vala, H.; Pereira, R. Histopathological and molecular effects of microplastics in Eisenia andrei Bouché. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, X.; Chang, Y.; Zhang, T.; Qiao, Y.; Klobučar, G.; Li, M. Toxicological effects of polystyrene microplastics on earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environ. Pollut. 2020, 259, 113896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Cao, D.; Wang, X.; Luo, X.; Liu, G.; Zheng, H. Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the fitness of earthworms in an agricultural soil. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 61, 012148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mondal, T.; Jho, E.H.; Hwang, S.K.; Hyeon, Y.; Park, C. Responses of earthworms exposed to low-density polyethylene microplastic fragments. Chemosphere 2023, 333, 138945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. 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]
  39. Atugoda, T.; Vithanage, M.; Wijesekara, H.; Bolan, N.; Sarmah, A.K.; Bank, M.S.; You, S.; Ok, Y.S. Interactions between microplastics, pharmaceuticals and personal care products: Implications for vector transport. Environ. Int. 2021, 149, 106367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Falco, F.; Cocca, M.; Guarino, V.; Gentile, G.; Ambrogi, V.; Ambrosio, L.; Avella, M. Novel finishing treatments of Polyamide fabrics by electrofluidodynamic process to reduce microplastic release during washings. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019, 165, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: Effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 112, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Praveena, S.M.; Shaifuddin, S.N.; Akizuki, S. Exploration of microplastics from personal care and cosmetic products and its estimated emissions to marine environment: An evidence from Malaysia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 136, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sutherland, W.J.; Clout, M.; Côté, I.M.; Daszak, P.; Depledge, M.H.; Fellman, L.; Fleishman, E.; Garthwaite, R.; Gibbons, D.W.; De Lurio, J.; et al. A horizon scan of Global Conservation Issues for 2010. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bianco, A.; Passananti, M. Atmospheric Micro and Nanoplastics: An enormous microscopic problem. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kurniawan, S.B.; Said, N.S.; Imron, M.F.; Abdullah, S.R. Microplastic pollution in the environment: Insights into emerging sources and potential threats. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bank, M.S.; Mitrano, D.M.; Rillig, M.C.; Sze Ki Lin, C.; Ok, Y.S. Embrace complexity to understand microplastic pollution. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 736–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Peng, L.; Fu, D.; Qi, H.; Lan, C.Q.; Yu, H.; Ge, C. Micro- and nano-plastics in marine environment: Source, distribution and threats—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rillig, M.C.; Lehmann, A. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 2020, 368, 1430–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rillig, M.C.; Lehmann, A.; de Souza Machado, A.A.; Yang, G. Microplastic effects on plants. New Phytol. 2019, 223, 1066–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, L.; Liu, Z.; Wei, H.; Zhang, J. Unraveling consequences of the co-exposure of polyethylene microplastics and acid rain on plant-microbe-soil system. Chemosphere 2022, 307, 135941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chang, X.; Fang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, F.; Shang, L.; Zhong, R. Microplastic pollution in soils, plants, and animals: A review of distributions, effects and potential mechanisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 850, 157857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhou, J.; Wen, Y.; Marshall, M.R.; Zhao, J.; Gui, H.; Yang, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Jones, D.L.; Zang, H. Microplastics as an emerging threat to plant and soil health in Agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Huang, D.; Du, C.; Deng, R.; Zhou, Z.; Tao, J.; Li, R.; Zhou, W.; Wang, Z.; et al. Interactions between microplastics/nanoplastics and Vascular plants. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 290, 117999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Okeke, E.S.; Okoye, C.O.; Atakpa, E.O.; Ita, R.E.; Nyaruaba, R.; Mgbechidinma, C.L.; Akan, O.D. Microplastics in agroecosystems-impacts on ecosystem functions and food chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 177, 105961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yadav, S.; Gupta, E.; Patel, A.; Srivastava, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Singh, P.C.; Srivastava, P.K.; Barik, S.K. Unravelling the emerging threats of microplastics to Agroecosystems. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2022, 21, 771–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Maafa, I. Pyrolysis of polystyrene waste: A Review. Polymers 2021, 13, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mamathaxim, N.; Song, W.; Wang, Y.; Habibul, N. Effects of microplastics on arsenic uptake and distribution in rice seedlings. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 862, 160837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, C.; Wang, H.; Zhou, L.; Yan, B. Phenotypic and transcriptomic shifts in roots and leaves of rice under the joint stress from microplastic and Arsenic. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 447, 130770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, W.; Yuan, W.; Xu, E.G.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Y. Uptake, translocation, and biological impacts of micro(nano)plastics in terrestrial plants: Progress and prospects. Environ. Res. 2022, 203, 111867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ma, J.; Aqeel, M.; Khalid, N.; Nazir, A.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; Al-Mushhin, A.A.M.; 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]
  61. Wang, Y.; Xiang, L.; Wang, F.; Redmile-Gordon, M.; Bian, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gu, C.; Jiang, X.; Schäffer, A.; Xing, B. Transcriptomic and metabolomic changes in lettuce triggered by microplastics-stress. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 320, 121081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. 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]
  63. Biba, R.; Cvjetko, P.; Jakopčić, M.; Komazec, B.; Tkalec, M.; Dimitrov, N.; Begović, T.; Balen, B. Phytotoxic effects of polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics on Allium cepa roots. Plants 2023, 12, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, F.; Aqeel, M.; Khalid, N.; Nazir, A.; Irshad, M.K.; Akbar, M.U.; Alzuaibr, F.M.; Ma, J.; Noman, A. Interactive effects of polystyrene microplastics and Pb on growth and phytochemicals in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 449, 130966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Song, Z.; Zhao, X.; Dong, Y.; Bai, L.; Wang, S.; Gao, M. Effects of polystyrene nanoplastics with different functional groups on the accumulation and toxicity of Pb on dandelion. Chemosphere 2023, 310, 136874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gao, D.; Liao, H.; Junaid, M.; Chen, X.; Kong, C.; Wang, Q.; Pan, T.; Chen, G.; Wang, X.; Wang, J. Polystyrene nanoplastics’ accumulation in roots induces adverse physiological and molecular effects in water spinach Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 872, 162278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, H.; Chang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhong, R.; Wang, L.; Wei, J.; Wang, Y. Uptake and distribution of microplastics of different particle sizes in maize (Zea mays) seedling roots. Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, Y.; Jin, T.; Wang, L.; Tang, J. Polystyrene micro and nanoplastics attenuated the bioavailability and toxic effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on soybean (Glycine max) sprouts. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 448, 130911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Li, J.; Liu, W.; Lian, Y.; Shi, R.; Wang, Q.; Zeb, A. Single and combined toxicity of polystyrene nanoplastics and arsenic on Submerged Plant Myriophyllum verticillatum L. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 194, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wang, L.; Lin, B.; Wu, L.; Pan, P.; Liu, B.; Li, R. Antagonistic effect of polystyrene nanoplastics on cadmium toxicity to maize (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 2022, 307, 135714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Surgun-Acar, Y. Response of soybean (Glycine max L.) seedlings to polystyrene nanoplastics: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular perspectives. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 314, 120262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Achilias, D.S.; Roupakias, C.; Megalokonomos, P.; Lappas, A.A.; Antonakou, Ε.V. Chemical recycling of Plastic Wastes made from polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE) and polypropylene (PP). J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 149, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sun, H.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, P.; Long, G.; Li, C.; Wang, J.; Qiu, D.; Lu, C.; Ding, Y.; Liu, L.; et al. Effects of polyethylene and biodegradable microplastics on photosynthesis, antioxidant defense systems, and arsenic accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings grown in arsenic-contaminated soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 868, 161557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Uzamurera, A.G.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Wang, P.-Y.; Wei, Y.-X.; Mo, F.; Zhou, R.; Wang, W.-L.; Ullah, F.; Khan, A.; Xiong, X.-B.; et al. Thickness effects of polyethylene and biodegradable film residuals on soil properties and dryland maize productivity. Chemosphere 2023, 329, 138602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Martín, C.; Pirredda, M.; Fajardo, C.; Costa, G.; Sánchez-Fortún, S.; Nande, M.; Mengs, G.; Martín, M. Transcriptomic and physiological effects of polyethylene microplastics on Zea mays seedlings and their role as a vector for organic pollutants. Chemosphere 2023, 322, 138167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhang, Q.; Gong, K.; Shao, X.; Liang, W.; Zhang, W.; Peng, C. Effect of polyethylene, polyamide, and polylactic acid micro-plastics on CR accumulation and toxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) in hydroponics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 450, 131022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gomes, A.R.; Freitas, Í.N.; Luz, T.M.; Guimarães, A.T.; Araújo, A.P.; Kamaraj, C.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, A.R.; Arias, A.H.; Silva, F.B.; et al. Multiple endpoints of polyethylene microplastics toxicity in vascular plants of freshwater ecosystems: A study involving Salvinia auriculata (Salviniaceae). J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 450, 131069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Silva, Y.S.; Rajagopalan, U.M.; Kadono, H.; Li, D. Effects of microplastics on lentil (Lens culinaris) seed germination and seedling growth. Chemosphere 2022, 303, 135162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. 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]
  80. Reay, M.K.; Greenfield, L.M.; Graf, M.; Lloyd, C.E.M.; Evershed, R.P.; Chadwick, D.R.; Jones, D.L. LDPE and biodegradable PLA-pbat plastics differentially affect plant-soil nitrogen partitioning and dynamics in a Hordeum vulgare mesocosm. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 447, 130825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Menicagli, V.; Balestri, E.; Fulignati, S.; Raspolli Galletti, A.M.; Lardicci, C. Plastic litter in coastal sand dunes: Degradation behavior and impact on native and non-native invasive plants. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 316, 120738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Akovali, G. Plastic Materials: Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). In Toxicity of Building Materials; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 23–53. [Google Scholar]
  83. 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]
  84. Ikhajiagbe, B.; Omoregie, G.O.; Adama, S.O.; Esheya, K.U. Growth responses of Celosia argentea L. in soils polluted with microplastics. bioRxiv 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Khan, M.A.; Kumar, S.; Wang, Q.; Wang, M.; Fahad, S.; Nizamani, M.M.; Chang, K.; Khan, S.; Huang, Q.; Zhu, G. Influence of polyvinyl chloride microplastic on chromium uptake and toxicity in sweet potato. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 251, 114526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Wang, Y.; Bai, J.; Wen, L.; Wang, W.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Liu, H. Phytotoxicity of microplastics to the Floating Plant Spirodela polyrhiza (L.): Plant functional traits and Metabolomics. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 322, 121199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chai, M.; Li, R.; Li, B.; Wu, H.; Yu, L. Responses of mangrove (Kandelia obovata) growth, photosynthesis, and rhizosphere soil properties to microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 189, 114827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Song, B.; Shang, S.; Cai, F.M.; Liu, Z.; Fang, J.; Li, N.; Adams, J.M.; Razavi, B.S. Microbial resistance in rhizosphere hotspots under biodegradable and conventional microplastic amendment: Community and functional sensitivity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 180, 108989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Steinbüchel, A. Biodegradable plastics. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 1992, 3, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Brown, R.W.; Chadwick, D.R.; Zang, H.; Graf, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, K.; Greenfield, L.M.; Jones, D.L. Bioplastic (PHBV) addition to soil alters microbial community structure and negatively affects plant-microbial metabolic functioning in maize. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 441, 129959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Celletti, S.; Fedeli, R.; Ghorbani, M.; Loppi, S. Impact of starch-based bioplastic on growth and biochemical parameters of Basil Plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liwarska-Bizukojc, E. Effect of innovative bio-based plastics on early growth of higher plants. Polymers 2023, 15, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Serrano-Ruiz, H.; Martin-Closas, L.; Pelacho, A.M. Impact of buried debris from agricultural biodegradable plastic mulches on two horticultural crop plants: Tomato and lettuce. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wu, X.; Lu, J.; Du, M.; Xu, X.; Beiyuan, J.; Sarkar, B.; Bolan, N.; Xu, W.; Xu, S.; Chen, X.; et al. Particulate plastics-plant interaction in soil and its implications: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 792, 148337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Chen, G.; Li, Y.; Liu, S.; Junaid, M.; Wang, J. Effects of micro(nano)plastics on higher plants and the rhizosphere environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 12 03282 g001
Figure 1. Plant growth responses to polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl-chloride, and biodegradable plastics.
Figure 1. Plant growth responses to polystyrene, polyethylene, polyvinyl-chloride, and biodegradable plastics.
Plants 12 03282 g001
Plants 12 03282 g002
Figure 2. Mechanisms through which microplastics affect the growth and development of plants.
Figure 2. Mechanisms through which microplastics affect the growth and development of plants.
Plants 12 03282 g002
Table 2. The effect of polyethylene-based plastics on the development of plants. “+” indicates growth induction, “0” means no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Table 2. The effect of polyethylene-based plastics on the development of plants. “+” indicates growth induction, “0” means no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Effect on
MP TypesSpeciesConcentrationParticle SizeMedium UsedGerminationRoot GrowthShoot GrowthNotesReference
Polyethylene (PE)Zea mays L.0.1, 1, and 10% (w/w)n.d.Pot experimentsn.d.n.d.−Inhibition of chlorophyll synthesis and photosynthetic rates in maize seedling leaves.[73]
Z. maysn.d.4 cm2Pot experimentn.d.−−PE residual films had no noticeable effect on the abovementioned soil parameters.[74]
Z. mays0.4
mg m/L		236 ± 7.4 μm and 281 ± 14 μmIn vitro experimentn.d.−−MPs may act as pollutant carriers, affecting plant physiology and transcriptomic pathways.[75]
Cucumis sativus L.200 mg/L13, 48, and 500 μmHydroponicn.d.−−Inhibited the photosynthesis of seedlings and caused lipid peroxidation.[76]
Salvinia auriculata Aubl.1 × 1012 particles/m335.46 µm ± 18.17 µmHydroponicn.d.−−Effects on oxidative and nitrosative stress and changes in membrane permeability.[77]
Lens culinaris Medik10, 50, and 100 mg/L740–4990 nmOptical coherence tomography (bOCT)−n.d.n.d.The inhibition of germination and seedling growth.[78]
Hordeum vulgare L.0, 10, 100, and 1000 mg/L790 nm–4999 nmPetri dish experiments0++No significant impact of PE MPs on seed germination of barley, cucumber, or tomato plants.[79]
C. sativus0−+
Solanum lycopersicum L.−−+
Lactuca sativa L.1, 5, and 10% PE MPs2–4 mmPot experimentn.d.+n.d.Resulted in changes in the structure and function of the soil microbial community.[50]
High-density polyethylene (HDPE)H. vulgare2% (w/w)1 cm × 1 cmGlass mesocosmsn.d.0−No effect on root growth but showed shoot growth inhibition.[80]
Thinopyrum junceum L.n.d.20 cm × 20 cmPot experimentsn.d.−−Growth inhibition was observed.[81]
Carpobrotus sp.n.d.−−
Table 3. The effect of polyvinyl-chloride-based plastics on the development of plants. “0” means no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Table 3. The effect of polyvinyl-chloride-based plastics on the development of plants. “0” means no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Effect on
SpeciesConcentrationParticle SizeMedium UsedGerminationRoot GrowthShoot GrowthNotesReference
Zea mays L.0, 0.1, 1, and 10%, w/w15 µmPot experimentn.d.−−SOD and CAT in leaves increased to alleviate the stress.[83]
Celosia argentea L.n.d.0.7, 1.7, and 2.4 mmPot experimentn.d.−−The presence of the microplastics in the soil affected the growth of the plant significantly, some plastics affected it positively, some others negatively.[84]
Ipomoea batatas L.100–200 mg/L6.5 µmHydroponicn.d.00PVC MPs enhanced Cr(VI) accumulation and toxicity.[85]
Spirodela polyrhiza L.0, 10, 100, and 1000 mg/L3.87 ± 3.14 μmOpen glass containersn.d.−n.d.Inhibited morphological traits, reproductive traits, and nutrient accumulation as well.[86]
Spirodela polyrhiza L.0, 10, 100, and 1000 mg/L600 μm, 150 μm, and 13 μmExposure experimentsn.d.−n.d.The responses of rhizosphere soil properties were reduced soil bulk density and improved soil porosity, caused by MPs.[87]
Oryza sativa L.10% (w/w)155–180 μmSoil incubationn.d.−0No effect on shoot growth but displayed root growth inhibition.[88]
Table 4. The effect of bio-based plastics on the development of plants. “0” indicates no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
Table 4. The effect of bio-based plastics on the development of plants. “0” indicates no change, “−” represents inhibition, while “n.d.” marks parameters not determined.
MP TypesSpeciesConcentrationParticle SizeMedium UsedEffect onNotesReferences
GerminationRoot GrowthShoot Growth
Bio-Based PlasticsZea mays L.0.1%, 1%, and 10% (w/w)-Pot experimentn.d.n.d.−Inhibition of chlorophyll synthesis and photosynthetic rates in maize seedling leaves.[73]
Z. maysn.d.4 cm2Pot experimentn.d.−−Soil water content, aggregate stability, inorganic nitrogen, and maize crop productivity were all influenced by BIO film residues, due to their high degradability.[74]
Thinopyrum junceum L.n.d.20 × 20 cmPot experimentn.d.−−Reduced the performance of the native species.[81]
Carpobrotus sp.n.d.−−Favored the spread of the invasive species.
Ocimum basilicum L3.75 g of corn starch powder5 mmPot experimentn.d.−−Oxidative stress was induced in the aerial part of basil plants.[91]
Sorghum saccharatum L.0.02, 0.095, 0.48, 2.38, and 11.9% (w/w)2.5 mmSoil incubation0−−No effect on germination, but growth inhibition was observed.[92]
Lepidium sativum L.0−−
Sinapis alba L.0−−
Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.100 and 1000 mg/kg of NPs1 cm2Pot experiment−n.d.−Tomato was more susceptible to specific BDM.[93]
Lactuca sativa L.−n.d.−Lettuce is a reliable species to identify potential BDM ecotoxicity.
Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate (PHBV)Z. mays0.01, 0.1, 1, or 10% Pot experimentn.d.−−Significant changes in the soil metabolome and microbial community, likely associated with changing function, were observed.[90]
Polylactic acid (PLA)Hordeum vulgare L.n.d.1 × 1 cmGlass mesocosmsn.d.0−No effect on root growth but shoot growth inhibition was observed.[84]
Cucumis sativus L.200 mg/L13, 48, and 500 μmHydroponicn.d.−−Inhibited the photosynthesis of seedlings and caused lipid peroxidation.[76]
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

Mészáros, E.; Bodor, A.; Kovács, E.; Papp, S.; Kovács, K.; Perei, K.; Feigl, G. Impacts of Plastics on Plant Development: Recent Advances and Future Research Directions. Plants 2023, 12, 3282. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183282

AMA Style

Mészáros E, Bodor A, Kovács E, Papp S, Kovács K, Perei K, Feigl G. Impacts of Plastics on Plant Development: Recent Advances and Future Research Directions. Plants. 2023; 12(18):3282. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183282

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mészáros, Enikő, Attila Bodor, Etelka Kovács, Sarolta Papp, Kamilla Kovács, Katalin Perei, and Gábor Feigl. 2023. "Impacts of Plastics on Plant Development: Recent Advances and Future Research Directions" Plants 12, no. 18: 3282. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183282

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