Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Review

Frontiers in Environmental Chemistry ·

Volume 7 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvc.2026.1908849

Micro- and nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: uptake, accumulation, and impacts on growth and physiology

  • Arlinda Cakaj1*corresponding author
  • Pierre Sicard2,3
  • Arnon Setsungnern4,5
  • Yordkhuan Tachapermpon4,5
  • Alessandra De Marco2,6
  • Elena Paoletti7,8
  • Chairat Treesubsuntorn4,5
  1. 1Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Albania
  2. 2Institutul Național de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Silvicultură “Marin Drăcea”, Voluntari, Romania
  3. 3ACRI-ST, Biot, France
  4. 4Pilot Plant Development and Training Institute, School of Bioresources and Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
  5. 5King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand
  6. 6National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), CR Casaccia, Rome, Italy
  7. 7Institute of Research on Terrestrial Ecosystems (IRET), National Research Council of Italy (CNR), Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
  8. 8National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), Palermo, Italy
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) are increasingly recognized as serious environmental pollutants, especially in soils, water, and air. These tiny plastic particles result from the degradation of larger plastic waste, often due to inadequate waste management. Although many studies have focused on their effects in aquatic ecosystems, the impacts of MPs and NPs on terrestrial plants and ecosystems remain less understood. This review summarizes current knowledge on the uptake, translocation and accumulation of MPs and NPs by plants and their associated microorganisms. The review discusses how these plastic particles enter plants through roots, leaves, and other pathways, their movement within plant tissues, and their accumulation. It also shows how plants may limit the mobility of these particles and how plant-microbial interactions can support phytoremediation processes. The effects of MPs and NPs on plant health are examined, including changes in seed germination, root development, and biomass production. At the molecular level, impacts on photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, reactive oxygen species generation, oxidative stress, and nutrient uptake pathways are also considered. Understanding these interactions is essential for assessing the risks posed by plastic pollution to agriculture and natural ecosystems and for developing strategies to mitigate their negative effects on plant growth and productivity.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Plastic is a material globally valued for its versatility (Eberhard et al., 2024). However, once released into the environment, it undergoes fragmentation, breaking down into smaller particles through physical, chemical, and biological processes (Andrady and Koongolla, 2022). These fragments are classified by size: microplastics (MP) measuring less than 5 mm, and nanoplastics (NP) are generally considered plastic particles smaller than 1000 nm (1 µm), although their exact size definition remains under debate and varies among regulatory and scientific organizations (Eberhard et al., 2024; Romphophak et al., 2024). However, we use the abbreviation MNPs to collectively refer to Micro- and Nano-plastics (MNPs) in this paper (Bhardwaj et al., 2025). MNPs are ubiquitous in the environment due to the increasing use and improper end-of-life strategies of plastics (Zantis et al., 2023).

Based on the classification of MNPs into primary and secondary types, these pollutants can enter the environment through different routes (Rossatto et al., 2023). Primary MNPs are intentionally manufactured and released directly into the environment as small particles (<5 mm) originating from sources such as personal care products, synthetic textiles, cleaning agents, abrasives, and industrial processes (Garcia-Muñoz et al., 2023).

Secondary MNPs are created by the decomposition of larger plastic elements through weathering, UV rays, and mechanical abrasion (Kuka et al., 2024). These two sources contribute to the presence of MNPs in various shapes, sizes, polymers, and concentrations in agricultural soils, natural plant habitats, and other ecosystems (Surendran et al., 2023; Jia et al., 2023; Adetuyi et al., 2024). MNPs can accumulate significantly and persistently within terrestrial ecosystems (Wang et al., 2022). The increasing interest in MNPs is driven by their unique physicochemical properties, including their ability to translocate through biological barriers while maintaining a large surface-to-mass ratio. These characteristics enhance their interaction with biological systems and their ability to bioaccumulate in organisms at higher trophic levels through the food chain (Prinz and Korez, 2020; Prokić, 2019). MPs have also been detected in diverse environments, including air (O’Brien et al., 2023) and animal tissues (Dong et al., 2023), where they pose long-term ecological and health threats.

The potential health risks associated with MNPs are a growing concern, as these pollutants can enter the environment through the use of plastic-based fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation systems, and from the degradation of mulch and packaging materials (Lwanga et al., 2022; Adetuyi et al., 2024). Atmospheric deposition and runoff can contribute to the spread of MNPs in agricultural lands, allowing these particles to penetrate the ecosystems and cause pollution (Tian et al., 2022). This process occurs when wind blows over the land surface, lifting and spreading fine soil particles with any MNPs present (Jahandari, 2023; Cakaj et al., 2023). It is especially common in dry and arid regions, where the lack of vegetation makes it difficult to stabilize the soils. In addition, agricultural practices such as tillage, plowing, and harvesting also contribute to the MNPs dispersion (Bank, 2022; Yang et al., 2023). In the soils, MNPs can affect soil structure, nutrient cycling, and disrupt water retention, which negatively affects plant growth and agricultural productivity (Hoang et al., 2024; Aralappanavar et al., 2024). For example, increasing concentrations of MNPs in soils alter its physicochemical properties, leading to changes in enzymatic activity and microbial biodiversity (De Souza Machado et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2020). While MNPs continue to accumulate in the air (Le et al., 2023) and soils at levels of concern (Makhdoumi et al., 2023), it is important to investigate its impact on plants (Jia et al., 2023). In plants, MNPs exposure has been shown to induce oxidative stress, inhibit nutrient uptake, and alter growth patterns, which can lead to reduced biomass and reproductive success. MNPs stress also impairs plant growth and development by disrupting several key physiological processes, including ion homeostasis, redox regulation, and photosynthesis (Maity et al., 2022; Jia et al., 2023; Qiu et al., 2024).

However, the negative effects of MNPs on plant growth are influenced by the type and concentration of MNPs, with changes in impact being dose-dependent (Jiang et al., 2019; Rillig et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020a; Ge et al., 2021). In plants, MNPs stress interacts directly with roots, as MNPs can be absorbed into root hairs, disrupting water and nutrient uptake and inhibiting root growth (Liu J. et al., 2022; Jia et al., 2023). In leaves, MNPs stress is likely to induce oxidative stress, reducing leaf growth and photosynthesis (Colzi et al., 2022; Jia et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2024). So, the presence of MNPs in the soil poses several risks to plant health and ecosystem stability (Zhou C. Q. et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Zeb et al., 2024). The potential for long-term consequences on plant physiological processes, soil quality, and overall ecosystem productivity indicates the urgency of addressing this group of pollutants.

Unlike previous reviews focusing separately on plant physiological responses (Wang C. et al., 2023), soil and ecosystem-level impacts (Li X. et al., 2023), or meta-analytical synthesis of molecular mechanisms (Ren et al., 2024), this review integrates plant uptake pathways, internal translocation processes, and downstream physiological stress responses into a single mechanistic framework. In particular, it connects (i) soil-driven bioavailability processes, (ii) root and foliar uptake routes, (iii) internal transport mechanisms, and (iv) stress physiology and productivity outcomes. This cross-scale integration allows identification of feedback links between exposure pathways and plant functional responses that are not explicitly synthesized in previous reviews. This information could serve as a basis for future research aimed at reducing the ecological risks posed by MNPs.

2 Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to summarize current knowledge regarding the uptake, accumulation, transport mechanisms, and physiological effects of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in terrestrial plants. Peer-reviewed articles were identified through four major scientific databases: Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search period covered publications from 1 January 2010 to 1 May 2025, reflecting the rapid development of research on terrestrial MNP contamination during the last decade. The literature identification and screening procedure was guided by the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework to improve transparency and reproducibility.

The search strategy combined relevant keywords using Boolean operators (AND/OR), including “microplastics”, “nanoplastics”, “plastic particles”, “microbeads”, “microfibers”, “plastic debris”, “plastic fragments”, “plants”, “crops”, “vegetables”, “agricultural plants”, “plant growth”, “uptake”, “translocation”, “accumulation”, “phytotoxicity”, “bioaccumulation”, and “soil pollution”. The initial database search identified 647 records. After removal of duplicate publications, 189 unique records remained and were screened based on titles and abstracts according to their relevance to terrestrial plant–MNP interactions.

The 189 screened records represent studies retrieved through the predefined search strategy and selection process and do not correspond to the total number of references cited in this review. During manuscript development, additional publications were incorporated through backward and forward citation tracking, including methodological studies, broader environmental reviews, analytical approaches, and recent advances related to MNP occurrence, characterization, transport, and ecological effects. These additional sources were not included within the primary screening dataset but were used to provide scientific context and support specific sections of the review. The complete literature identification and selection procedure is presented in Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process.

3 Uptake, transport, accumulation, and phytoremediation of micro- and nanoplastics in plants

MPs generally cannot penetrate plant tissues directly because their larger size prevents them from crossing plant cell walls (Teuten et al., 2009). Therefore, this section focuses primarily on the uptake, translocation, and accumulation of nanoplastics (NPs), which are more mobile and biologically active in plant systems. NPs occur in soils in various forms, and their bioavailability depends on multiple soil properties (Yu et al., 2021), including particle size (Law and Thompson, 2014), particle density (Wen et al., 2022), abundance or co-occurrence (Kajal and Thakur, 2024), and chemical characteristics (Wen et al., 2022). Soil physicochemical factors such as pH, redox potential, and heavy metal interactions further regulate NP mobility and uptake (Yu et al., 2021). Due to their small size and colloidal stability, NPs persist in soil environments and influence water dynamics and plant nutrient availability (Li J. et al., 2023). In addition, plastic particles often carry surface charges that enhance electrostatic interactions with plant roots, potentially affecting nutrient uptake and physiological processes such as photosynthesis (Lian et al., 2020a; b).

NPs can enter plants through two main pathways: root uptake and foliar uptake. In roots, NPs move from epidermal tissues toward the endodermis through apoplastic pathways driven by osmotic pressure and capillary forces (Deng et al., 2014). In Triticum aestivum, nanoplastics can travel through cell wall gaps and reach the xylem, enabling upward transport (Sun et al., 2020). Similarly, foliar-applied NPs can enter through stomata and migrate systemically through vascular tissues (Lv et al., 2019). Once inside plants, NPs can be transported bidirectionally via xylem and phloem, depending on transpiration and nutrient flow dynamics (Gao et al., 2023).

3.1 Root uptake and internal transport of NPs

In soil systems, MNPs are mainly encountered by plant roots. MPs, such as polystyrene particles, are generally hydrophobic and tend to adhere strongly to root surfaces (Nel et al., 2009). Although MPs rarely penetrate intact tissues, they accumulate on roots and seeds and may block cell wall pores, disrupting water and nutrient transport (Li C. et al., 2020). MP accumulation has been reported in species such as Lepidium sativum (Bosker et al., 2019) and Vicia faba (Jiang et al., 2019). In seeds, MPs can obstruct micropyles, reducing germination by limiting water uptake (Roy et al., 2023).

In contrast, NPs are small enough to penetrate plant tissues. They can enter root tips through intercellular spaces in the epidermis and cortex (Zhang et al., 2019), including regions where the Casparian strip is not fully developed. Studies have shown that polystyrene NPs (50–150 nm) can move from roots to shoots in Daucus carota and Arabidopsis thaliana (Dong et al., 2021a; b; Sun et al., 2020). NPs may also enter through lateral root junctions and crack-entry points, reaching the stele and vascular system (Li C. et al., 2020). Endocytosis has also been identified as a key uptake mechanism, particularly for 100 nm polystyrene particles in rice roots (Wu et al., 2021).

Once inside the plant, NPs are translocated through xylem driven by transpiration flow, with higher transpiration rates enhancing movement to shoots (Li C. et al., 2020). Fluorescent labeling studies have confirmed NP localization in vascular tissues of wheat and lettuce within hours of exposure. At higher concentrations, NPs can also induce cytoplasmic alterations such as electron-dense body formation, suggesting cellular stress responses (Giorgetti et al., 2020).

3.2 Foliar uptake and systemic transport

NPs can also enter plants through stomatal openings (Lv et al., 2019). Once deposited on leaf surfaces, they are absorbed and transported through apoplastic pathways to internal tissues (Zhao et al., 2017). Studies in Lactuca sativa show that polystyrene NPs accumulate around stomata and are subsequently transported to roots via vascular tissues (Lv et al., 2019). Similar observations in wheat and lettuce confirm systemic distribution of NPs across xylem and cortex tissues (Luo et al., 2022).

In addition to xylem transport, NPs may also move through phloem, enabling redistribution of particles from leaves to other plant parts (Gao et al., 2023). This dual transport system highlights the complexity of NP mobility within plants and indicates that foliar exposure can result in whole-plant contamination. Examples of reported uptake pathways, plant species, particle characteristics, and internal translocation patterns are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Summary of uptake and translocation of micro- and nanoplastics in terrestrial plants.

Plant speciesPolymer typeParticle sizeExposure systemUptake routeInternal translocationMain findingsReferences
Arabidopsis thalianaPolystyrene (PS)50 nmHydroponicRootRoot → Shoot (xylem)Nanoplastics penetrated root tissues and were transported to aerial organs through the vascular systemSun et al. (2020)
Daucus carotaPolystyrene (PS)50–150 nmHydroponicRootRoot → ShootSmaller particles showed greater translocation efficiency than larger particlesDong et al. (2021a), b
Triticum aestivumPolystyrene (PS)100 nmHydroponicRootXylem transportUptake occurred through epidermal tissues followed by vascular transport to shootsWu et al. (2021)
Triticum aestivumNanoplasticsVariableHydroponicRootRoot → ShootNanoplastics accumulated in vascular tissues and induced cellular ultrastructural changesGiorgetti et al. (2020)
Lactuca sativaPolystyrene (PS)100 nmFoliarLeafLeaf → RootNanoplastics entered through stomata and were redistributed via vascular tissuesLv et al. (2019)
Lactuca sativaPolystyrene (PS)VariableHydroponicRootRoot → ShootFluorescent nanoplastics were detected throughout vascular tissues after uptakeLuo et al. (2022)
Zea maysNanoplasticsVariableSoilRootRoot → ShootUptake efficiency depended on particle size, concentration, and soil propertiesSun et al. (2021)
Oryza sativaPolystyrene (PS)100 nmHydroponicRoot (endocytosis)Root tissuesEndocytosis was identified as a major uptake mechanismWu et al. (2021)
Lepidium sativumMicroplastics>1 μmSoilRoot surfaceLimitedMicroplastics adhered to root surfaces with minimal internal transportBosker et al. (2019)
Vicia fabaMicroplasticsVariableSoilRoot surfaceLimitedRoot surface accumulation reduced water and nutrient uptakeJiang et al. (2019)
Arabidopsis thalianaNanoplasticsVariableHydroponicRootRoot → ShootUptake occurred primarily where the Casparian strip was not fullyNdevelopedZhang et al. (2019)
Multiple crop speciesNanoplasticsVariableSoilRootRoot → ShootParticle size, surface charge and soil properties governed uptake and translocationYu et al. (2021), Judy et al. (2019), Li et al. (2025)

3.3 Additional uptake mechanisms

Beyond root and foliar uptake, NPs may enter plant cells through interactions with membrane proteins, ion channels, and aquaporins (Tripathi et al., 2017). Aquaporins in rice roots have been identified as key facilitators of NP internalization and transport across cell membranes (Zhou C. Q. et al., 2021). Endocytosis, including clathrin-independent pathways, has also been confirmed in tobacco cells (Bandmann et al., 2012).

Surface chemistry strongly influences NP uptake. Mucilage and root exudates, which are generally negatively charged, can inhibit the uptake of positively charged nanoparticles by affecting electrostatic interactions at the root surface (Avellan et al., 2017). However, the precise molecular mechanisms governing NP transport remain only partially understood.

3.4 Accumulation and bioaccumulation in plants

NPs in soil can undergo horizontal and vertical transport, eventually reaching groundwater or surface water systems (Mahdi et al., 2018; Yusuf et al., 2024). Simultaneously, they can be absorbed by plants and soil organisms, leading to bioaccumulation with potential ecological consequences (Zhang et al., 2022).

Root exudates enhance NP capture and retention in the rhizosphere, increasing particle adhesion to root surfaces and potentially causing cellular damage (Avellan et al., 2017; Liu L. et al., 2022). NP uptake and translocation are strongly influenced by particle size, surface charge, and chemical properties (Judy et al., 2019; Li et al., 2025).

Very small nanoparticles may enter intracellular compartments. However, evidence from plastic nanoparticles remains limited, and findings from other nanoparticle types should be interpreted cautiously because surface chemistry differs. (Lei et al., 2018; De Souza Machado et al., 2018). Symplastic transport through plasmodesmata is possible for very small particles (15–40 nm), although most NPs are primarily detected in apoplastic regions (Zhai et al., 2014).

NP accumulation has been reported in multiple crops, including Zea mays, Lactuca sativa, T. aestivum, and A. thaliana, where internalization can affect physiological processes such as nutrient transport and growth regulation (Sun et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2023; Ilyas et al., 2024). Overall, plant uptake of NPs may contribute to their transfer into food chains, raising concerns about ecological and human health impacts.

3.5 Phytoremediation potential of plants for MNP removal

Plants may influence MNP distribution through surface retention, accumulation, and rhizosphere interactions; however, their capacity for actual degradation or removal of MNPs remains poorly demonstrated (Mateos-Cárdenas et al., 2019). Studies show that up to 20% of MPs may become fixed on plant surfaces such as duckweed (Rozman et al., 2022).

Phytoremediation efficiency depends on particle type, size, shape, and environmental conditions. NP mobility in soil is controlled by aggregation, surface charge neutralization, adsorption to soil minerals, and physical straining in soil pores (Brewer et al., 2020). These processes reduce NP transport and enhance retention, which can facilitate plant-mediated immobilization. Importantly, plant–microbe interactions in the rhizosphere can further influence MNP behavior. MPs alter microbial communities, enzyme activity, and soil nutrient cycling (Cheng et al., 2024; Kumar et al., 2023). These changes affect soil structure, dissolved organic matter, and nutrient availability, indirectly influencing NP mobility and plant uptake processes (Ren et al., 2022; Rillig and Bonkowski, 2018). Overall, these plant–soil–microbe interactions suggest a complex but potentially useful role of vegetation in mitigating MNP contamination.

4 Plant stress under MNPs exposure

Exposure to micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) can induce a cascade of physiological and molecular responses in terrestrial plants, affecting processes from early developmental stages to overall plant productivity. These responses are interconnected, as interactions between MNPs and plant tissues can alter nutrient acquisition, redox balance, photosynthetic performance, and cellular regulation. The severity of MNP-induced stress depends on several factors, including polymer type, particle size, surface characteristics, concentration, exposure duration, and plant species. This section summarizes the current understanding of MNP-induced stress responses, including effects on seed germination, root development, plant growth, photosynthesis, oxidative stress, molecular regulation, and ion homeostasis.

Li J. et al. (2023) identified four major mechanisms associated with reduced plant growth under microplastic (MP) stress: excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, alterations in leaf and root ion composition, disruption of hormonal regulation, and reductions in chlorophyll content and photosynthetic activity. These mechanisms interact to influence multiple physiological processes essential for plant growth and development. For example, MNP exposure can interfere with ion regulation, resulting in nutrient imbalances that affect metabolic processes (Guo et al., 2022; Maity et al., 2022). In parallel, disruption of redox homeostasis can promote oxidative stress, leading to cellular damage and reduced physiological performance (Li J. et al., 2023).

At the root level, MNPs attached to root surfaces may interfere with water and nutrient exchange, potentially reducing root elongation and nutrient uptake efficiency (Bosker et al., 2019). In addition, physical damage caused by environmental stress, mechanical injury, or tissue disruption may create localized entry points that facilitate MNP penetration into plant tissues. For example, polystyrene nanoplastics (PS-NPs) have been detected in damaged leaf tissues, suggesting that tissue integrity may influence particle uptake pathways (Lian et al., 2021a; Lian et al., 2021b). In leaves, MNP-induced stress is frequently associated with oxidative imbalance and reduced photosynthetic performance, which can ultimately affect biomass production and plant development (Lian et al., 2021b; Colzi et al., 2022).

The magnitude of MNP-induced physiological stress varies according to particle characteristics and exposure conditions. Smaller particles and higher exposure concentrations often result in stronger biological responses because of their greater surface area and increased interaction with plant tissues (Jiang et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b; Ge et al., 2021). One of the most consistently reported responses to MNP exposure is oxidative stress, characterized by excessive ROS accumulation, including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which can trigger lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and DNA damage (Sharma et al., 2019; Ekner-Grzyb et al., 2022). Increased levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) are commonly used indicators of membrane lipid damage caused by ROS accumulation.

To counteract oxidative damage, plants activate antioxidant defense systems involving enzymatic antioxidants, such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidases (POX), as well as non-enzymatic antioxidants, including ascorbic acid (ASC) and glutathione (GSH). However, the effectiveness of these defense mechanisms depends on particle properties, exposure conditions, and plant species. Smaller and positively charged nanoparticles generally induce stronger oxidative responses due to enhanced interactions with cellular components (Ekner-Grzyb et al., 2022).

Experimental evidence supports the role of particle characteristics and exposure concentration in regulating oxidative responses. Giorgetti et al. (2020) reported that onion seedlings exposed to polystyrene nanoplastics (PS-NPs) at 1000 mg L-1 for 72 h exhibited increased hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) accumulation in root tissues, whereas lower concentrations (10 and 50 mg L-1) did not produce significant effects. Similarly, studies in dandelion and duckweed demonstrated that both positively and negatively charged PS-NPs could stimulate ROS production, although responses were stronger for positively charged PS-NH2 particles (Gao et al., 2022; Xiao et al., 2022). Collectively, these findings indicate that MNP-induced oxidative stress is governed not only by exposure concentration but also by particle surface chemistry, size, and plant-specific defense mechanisms (Figure 2).

Plant stress under micro- and nanoplastics exposure.
Figure 2. Plant stress under micro- and nanoplastics exposure.

5 Changing in seed germination under MNPs exposure

Seed germination, the foundational phase of plant growth, is sensitive to various stress conditions, including MP-induced stress (Wang J. et al, 2023). Early studies revealed that MP stress impairs germination by clogging seed pores, reducing water uptake and the imbibition process, which consequently lowers germination rates (Bosker et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). For instance, the germination rates of herbaceous ornamental plants such as Trifolium repens, Orychophragmus violaceus, and Impatiens balsamina were reduced under PS MPs stress (Guo et al., 2022). Similarly, co-exposure to polymethyl methacrylate MPs and arsenate [As (V)] led to a decline in germination index, root length, and sprout length in rapeseed (Brassica campestris L.) (Dong R. et al., 2022). Particle size emerged as a critical factor, with smaller MPs causing more severe germination disruptions. For example, 100-nm PS MPs significantly inhibited tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) germination compared to 5-μm PS MPs, indicating that smaller particles are more detrimental (Liao et al., 2019). MP degradation leachates were also found to negatively affect germination. Oxo-degradable PP leachates reduced sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) germination (Schiavo et al., 2020), while polycarbonate (PC) leachates impacted garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) (Pflugmacher et al., 2020). Building on these early insights, researchers in subsequent years explored the mechanisms behind MP-induced germination inhibition. De Silva et al. (2022) used biospeckle optical coherence tomography (BOCT) technology to link MP-induced germination reductions to physical blockage of seed pores (Zhang et al., 2021), cytotoxic effects during germination (Bao et al., 2022), and the harmful presence of plasticizers (Balestri et al., 2019). These effects were further identified as dose-dependent, species-specific, and influenced by exposure time (Sahasa et al., 2023). Contrary to these inhibitory effects, some studies observed MPs-induced stimulatory responses. For example, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germination was enhanced under high MPs concentrations, though low to moderate levels showed inhibitory effects (Lian et al., 2019). These findings suggest that factors such as MP particle size, aggregation, and charge may alter plant responses under MP stress (Weber et al., 2018; Ge et al., 2021).

5.1 Effects of MNPs exposure on root

Roots are particularly vulnerable to MPs stress, suffering mechanical damage and physiological disruptions. MPs reduce root elongation, activity, and both fresh and dry biomass, have been reported (Boots et al., 2019; Maity et al., 2022; Wang J. et al., 2023). LDPE MPs Impacted Wheat root (Qi et al., 2018) while PS MPs reduce broad bean (Vicia faba L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) root (Jiang et al., 2019; Lian J. et al., 2022). Normally, PS MPs adhere to the root surface, blocking root pores and disrupting water and nutrient uptake (Gao et al., 2021). MPs block cell wall pores, altering the uptake of essential ions and water (Xu et al., 2022). Hydrophobic MPs, such as PS MPs, reduce nutrient uptake by forming hetero aggregates with opposite charges (Nel et al., 2009). Functional groups on MPs (e.g., -NH2, -SO3H) influence nutrient uptake. -NH2 (positive charge) can binds to cell walls, reducing cationic element adsorption (e.g., K+, Ca2+, Pb2+) (Li W. et al., 2020; Song et al., 2023) when, SO3H (negative charge) combines with cell membrane phospholipids, causing cytotoxic effects (Feng et al., 2019). Zeta potential and surface charge influence MP adsorption and translocation from soil to roots (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, Smaller MPs from fragmentation have higher specific surface areas, increasing their adsorption potential on root surfaces (Wu et al., 2021). Sharp-edged MPs physically damage roots, inducing oxidative stress (Dong et al., 2020). MP exposure induces oxidative stress, reducing root biomass and root-branch ratios (Qi et al., 2018).

MPs can change plant root structure. MPs cause cell wall thickening (lignification), reducing root flexibility and activity (Rui et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2019). Increased cell atrophy and lignification impair root function (Xu et al., 2022). Interestingly, differential effects, based on MP type and shape, have been reported. PE MPs reduce root weight, while PS MPs more significantly reduce root length (Shi et al., 2022). Elliptical-shaped PE MPs are less damaging than sharp-edged PLA MPs (Lian Y. et al., 2022). Moreover, PS MPs influence root growth by altering gene expression in Arabidopsis (Sun et al., 2020). Upregulation of organic metabolic pathways affects MP mobility and absorption through electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions with root exudates (Xu et al., 2022). In summary, MP stress compromises root growth and function through mechanical damage, oxidative stress, and disruptions to nutrient uptake and gene expression. These effects vary based on MP material, size, shape, and surface charge, underscoring the need for further research to mitigate MP-induced damage in plants.

5.2 Effects of MNPs exposure on plant growth and yield

MPs stress significantly impairs plant growth and development by disrupting essential physiological processes such as ionic homeostasis, redox regulation, and photosynthesis (Guo et al., 2022; Maity et al., 2022). The extent of these adverse effects, however, depends on the type and concentration of MPs to which the plants are exposed (Jiang et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b; Ge et al., 2021). In particular, MPs directly interact with plant roots, often becoming adsorbed onto root hairs, thereby negatively impacting root growth (Bosker et al., 2019). In contrast, MP stress in leaves is more likely to induce oxidative stress, which impairs photosynthesis and leaf expansion (Lian et al., 2021b; Colzi et al., 2022). The reduction in root growth due to MP stress has been observed across several crops. For instance, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) MPs reduced root growth in wheat (Qi et al., 2018), while polystyrene MPs inhibited root growth in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) and onion (A. cepa L.) (Jiang et al., 2019; Lian Y. et al., 2022). Similarly, bio-based MPs negatively affected broad bean growth (Meng et al., 2022). Following fragmentation, MNPs can penetrate roots through cracks in newly developed root tissues and access vascular systems such as xylem and phloem (Li L. et al., 2020). These MNPs are transported to the shoot via xylem vessels driven by transpiration pull, where they subsequently accumulate in leaf tissues (Xu et al., 2022). Furthermore, MPs that accumulate in roots may migrate to the stems and leaves through the apoplastic pathway, thereby disrupting overall plant vascular function (Li et al., 2019).

5.2.1 Effect of MNPs exposure on blocking plant nutrient uptake

Under MNPs stress, plants transport MNPs through the apoplastic pathway, leading to the accumulation of significant quantities in the intercellular regions of roots. This movement occurs due to osmotic pressure and capillary action, ultimately causing MNPs to reach the endodermis (Yoon et al., 2012). The interaction between MNPs and natural organic matter frequently generates charges, neutralizing some of the negative charges in the soil (Thompson et al., 2021). Additionally, the hydroxyl groups on MNP surfaces undergo deprotonation, reducing soil OH− levels, which in turn lowers the total amount of conductive substances, thus affecting soil electrical conductivity (Dong et al., 2021c). The addition of MNPs also increases soil particle contact angles, leading to hydrophobicity and reducing soil permeability as MNPs fill soil pores. This phenomenon decreases the soil’s water infiltration capacity and moisture retention, as MNPs are inherently hydrophobic. These changes reduce the availability of water and nutrients to plant roots, hindering nutrient uptake through mass flow and diffusion while also limiting the release of nutrient ions from solid soil particles into the liquid phase (Lian et al., 2021b).

Residual plastic films in agricultural fields exacerbate these issues. For example, studies have shown that increased residual plastics in cotton fields disrupt soil quality by reducing moisture and nutrient transport, thereby affecting nutrient concentrations available to plants (Lian et al., 2021b). Moreover, MNPs adhering to plant roots can block ion channels and cell wall gaps, disrupt root cell integrity through heteroaggregation of oppositely charged particles, and inhibit micronutrient uptake, such as iron, manganese, zinc, and copper. This nutrient deficiency weakens the plant’s disease resistance and disrupts nitrogen cycling, ultimately impairing plant growth (Li J. et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). PS MNPs, for instance, physically block root pores, especially when sharp-edged particles are involved, causing root damage, oxidative stress, reduced root biomass, and altered water and nutrient uptake (Gao et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2020; Qi et al., 2018). These effects are associated with decreased root respiration, nitrogen content, and transpiration rates (Liu et al., 2020; Urbina et al., 2020; Spano et al., 2022).

MNPs can also accumulate in plant roots via endocytosis, with smaller particles resulting from fragmentation having higher specific surface areas that increase adsorption potential (Wu et al., 2021). The hydrophobic nature of PS MNPs allows them to readily adsorb onto root surfaces, further hindering root growth (Nel et al., 2009). Functional surface groups of MNPs, such as -NH2 and -SO3H, exacerbate these effects. The positively charged -NH2 group occupies binding sites and blocks the adsorption of essential cations like K+, Ca2+, and Pb2+, while the hydrophilic -SO3H group interacts with phospholipids in the cell membrane, causing cytotoxicity (Li L. et al., 2020; Song et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2019). Zeta potential, surface area, and charge properties of MNPs further influence their adsorption and translocation in the soil-plant system, reducing the availability of essential elements to roots. Groups such as -OH, -COOH, -SO3H, and -NH2 can block elemental uptake by repelling similarly charged ions, aggregating with oppositely charged particles, or obstructing extracellular adsorption pathways, all of which hinder nutrient absorption and exacerbate nutrient stress in plants (Abbasi et al., 2020; Li C. et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2022; Xia et al., 2021).

5.2.2 Effect of MNPs exposure on biomass reduction

Exposure to MNPs has been shown to significantly reduce biomass in several plant species, although responses can vary depending on plant type and MNP characteristics. For instance, plants such as onions and lettuce exhibit a notable reduction in both belowground (root biomass) and aboveground biomass when exposed to MNP, whereas ryegrass shows a contrasting stimulation of belowground biomass growth under similar conditions (Gao et al., 2021; Giorgetti et al., 2020; Boots et al., 2019). Different plant organs also exhibit tissue-specific responses to MNP stress. In tomatoes, exposure to MNP reduces both root length and fresh weight, with polystyrene (PS) MPs having a more pronounced impact on root length and PE MPs more significantly affecting root weight, highlighting the variable effects of MNP types on root systems (Boots et al., 2019). Root exudates further contribute to the accumulation and uptake of MNPs, as they can capture nanoparticles and absorb MNPs dispersed in water, adsorbed on soil particles, or present in sediments (Avellan et al., 2017). Additionally, MNPs in soil may act as an alternative carbon or nutrient source, stimulating microbial activity and intensifying competition between plants and microbes for nutrients, ultimately affecting plant biomass (Lozano and Rillig, 2020).

Leaf biomass is similarly affected under MNP stress, as observed in PS MPs exposure, which reduced leaf fresh weight, surface area, number of leaves per plant, SPAD value, and overall plant height in a dose-dependent manner (Wang Y. et al., 2023). Tissue-specific responses were further supported by Liu et al. (2021), who found that PE MPs significantly decreased shoot weight and height at high concentrations but paradoxically stimulated root elongation. MNP exposure also impacts crop yields. In rice, PE MPs stress did not affect grain yield in common cultivars but significantly reduced the number of grains per panicle (13%) and grain yield (23%) in hybrid rice. This reduction was linked to MNP-induced destruction of hemoglobin’s tertiary structure, which inhibited root activity (Yi et al., 2023; Dong Y. et al., 2022). Similarly, the combined application of PS MPs and lead reduced 100-seed weight and seed yield per plant, attributed to declines in root weight, surface area, total amino acids, Rubisco activity, and disrupted hormonal regulation (Chen et al., 2022).

Interestingly, some studies have reported positive effects of MNPs on biomass and yield. For example, the exposure of rice to PET, polyacrylonitrile (PAN), and PE MPs increased rice yield and nitrogen content in grains, demonstrating that the impact of MNPs may depend on specific plastic types and their interactions with plant physiology (Chen et al., 2022). Thus, the effects of MNPs on plant biomass are complex, influenced by plant species, tissue specificity, MNPs type, and environmental interactions.

5.3 Effects of MNPs exposure on plants in the molecular level

5.3.1 Effects of MNPs on photosynthesis and chlorophyll content in plants

MNPs can adversely affect plant photosynthesis by disrupting carbon assimilation, chlorophyll biosynthesis, nutrient transport, and the photosynthetic electron transport chain. Current evidence indicates that these effects reduce photosynthetic efficiency and ultimately impair plant growth, although their severity varies depending on particle size, polymer type, exposure concentration, and plant species. For example, polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs; 100–700 nm) have been shown to translocate from carrot stems to leaves, flowers, and fruits, potentially affecting photosynthetic processes throughout the plant (Dong et al., 2021c). Similarly, MNP exposure reduces carbon assimilation and alters the transport of nutrients and essential trace elements, contributing to slower leaf growth and increased photoinhibition (Liu Y. et al., 2022; Colzi et al., 2022). Reductions in chlorophyll and carotenoid contents have been consistently reported following MNP exposure. In lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), PS-MPs decreased chlorophyll a and b by 9.1% and 8.7%, respectively, together with carotenoid content, resulting in reduced shoot biomass, plant height, and leaf area (Lian et al., 2021b). In addition, combined exposure to PAN and PE microplastics further decreased chlorophyll content, demonstrating a dose-dependent reduction in photosynthetic performance (Liu et al., 2021). Phenanthrene (PHE), a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that can adsorb onto microplastic surfaces in the environment, has also been reported to reduce chlorophyll content in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) (Ahammed et al., 2012). However, because this study evaluated PHE independently rather than in combination with MNPs, these findings should be interpreted as evidence of potential co-contaminant effects rather than direct MNP toxicity.

Research also indicates variability in the impact of different MP types. For instance, PVC and PE MPs significantly reduced chlorophyll and photosynthesis rates in pumpkins (Cucurbita pepo L.), while in mangrove (Kandelia obovata L.), the reduction in carotenoids and chlorophyll a content, along with decreased efficiency of the electron transport chain (ETC.), accounted for photosynthetic inhibition (Chai et al., 2023; Colzi et al., 2022). Furthermore, positively charged MNPs have a more pronounced inhibitory effect on photosynthesis compared to their negatively charged counterparts (Sun et al., 2021). These findings show the widespread detrimental impacts of MNP pollution on plant photosynthesis, chlorophyll integrity, and overall growth. Overall, current evidence consistently demonstrates that photosynthesis is one of the primary physiological processes affected by MNP exposure. Although reductions in chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency are commonly reported, the severity of these effects depends on particle size, polymer type, surface charge, exposure concentration, and plant species. Differences among studies also highlight the need for standardized experimental conditions to improve comparisons across species and exposure scenarios.

5.3.2 Effects of MNPs on reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress in plants

MNPs significantly affect plant physiology by inducing oxidative stress, primarily through the excessive production of ROS. MPs interfere with photosynthetic electron transport, increasing ROS production and disrupting photochemical reactions, leading to oxidative damage in thylakoid membranes and chloroplast structures (Ullah et al., 2023; Lian et al., 2021b). High concentrations of polystyrene and PP MPs suppress antioxidant enzyme activities in plants like tomatoes, resulting in elevated ROS levels and reduced photosynthetic efficiency (Shi et al., 2022). Similar effects have been reported in rice seedlings, where MNP-induced H2O2 imbalance leads to localized membrane damage and the degradation of cell walls and membranes (Spano et al., 2022).

ROS-induced oxidative stress varies with MP type and concentration. For instance, onion roots exposed to PS MPs exhibit higher superoxide anion (O2 −) production compared to polymethyl methacrylate MPs, highlighting material-specific ROS responses (Biba et al., 2023). Additionally, MPs elevate H2O2 production, a critical ROS contributing to oxidative stress, which disrupts the stroma’s electron balance, intensifying photosynthesis inhibition in both C3 and C4 plants (Pignattelli et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2023a; Zhang et al., 2023b). Cytotoxic effects further exacerbate oxidative damage, as indicated by the reduced mitotic index in onion cells and structural damage to plant cell walls and membranes caused by variations in MNP zeta potential (Mondal et al., 2022; Radic et al., 2022). This stress compromises photosynthetic efficiency, structural integrity, and overall plant health, presenting a growing ecological concern for both agricultural and natural ecosystems.

5.3.3 Molecular effects of MNPs on plants

MNPs induce profound molecular-level changes in plants, primarily by disrupting gene expression and signaling pathways. MPs interact with plant roots via electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions, altering mobility and absorption through upregulation of organic metabolic pathways influenced by root exudates (Xu et al., 2022). Under MNP stress, plants activate stress-responsive gene expression and adaptive signaling cascades across growth stages. For instance, during the vegetative stage, MNPs suppress genes encoding nitrate transporters and photosynthetic machinery, while during the reproductive stage, ammonium and nitrate transporter genes are upregulated (Movahedi et al., 2022).

MNPs also lead to genetic toxicity and chromosomal abnormalities. In watercress, genes related to photosynthetic pigments, such as psbA and rbcL, are overexpressed, indicating genetic stress (Liu et al., 2023). Onion root tip cells exposed to MNPs exhibit chromosomal abnormalities, including micronucleated cells, chromatin stickiness, and fragmentation, leading to irreversible changes in chromosome constitution (Kaur et al., 2022; Mondal et al., 2022). These abnormalities reflect cytotoxic effects and highlight the potential for long-term genomic instability.

In model plants like Arabidopsis thaliana and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), MPs significantly downregulate critical photosynthesis-related genes. For example, PBAT MPs reduce the expression of light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b binding (LHCAB) proteins, impacting redox homeostasis and stomatal sensitivity to abscisic acid (ABA), thereby altering photosynthetic efficiency (Liu Y. et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2023). Similarly, PE MPs downregulate over 80% of differentially expressed genes associated with, ETC., components, PSI, and PSII in tobacco (Tang et al., 2022). Notably, intra-species responses in rice cultivars under PS MP stress demonstrate metabolic reprogramming, with variations in transcript levels and metabolite accumulation linked to tolerance mechanisms (Wu S. et al., 2022; Wu X. et al., 2022). These findings emphasize the disruptive influence of MNPs on plant molecular pathways, particularly those involved in photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, and genomic integrity, posing significant ecological and agricultural challenges.

5.3.4 Effects of MNPs on ion homeostasis and nutrient pathways in plants

MNPs significantly disrupt plant ionic balance and nutrient pathways, leading to adverse physiological outcomes. Under Polystyrene and Polyvinyl Chloride MP stress, reductions in photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and soil plant analysis development values are correlated with decreased concentrations of essential nutrients such as calcium (Ca), potassium (K), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) in shoots and leaves (Ma et al., 2022). Additionally, MPs such as PE and PVC increase nickel (Ni) concentrations in aerial parts of plants, while PP and PET MPs reduce Ni accumulation (Colzi et al., 2022). Imbalances in Ni concentration—whether excess or deficiency—can negatively affect photosynthesis by inducing ROS production or disrupting nitrogen metabolism and iron (Fe) uptake, respectively (Shahzad et al., 2018).

Maintaining ionic homeostasis is crucial for osmotic adjustment, nutrient uptake, and overall plant growth. PS MP exposure in lettuce downregulates genes responsible for ionic homeostasis, including those involved in the transport of transition metals, cellular metal ions, and manganese (Mn), leading to hypertonic injury in root cells (Wang Y. et al., 2023). Foliar application of PS MPs significantly reduces the accumulation of vital nutrients like Fe, Mn, and copper (Cu) in roots, correlating with impaired root growth under MP stress (Lian et al., 2021b). Given the essential roles of these elements in plant enzymatic activity and metabolic processes, such disruptions impair nutrient acquisition and utilization. Deficiencies in elements like Ni, zinc (Zn), or Fe further hinder antioxidant activity and the biosynthesis of amino acids and specific proteins essential for plant stress responses (Shahzad et al., 2018; Colzi et al., 2022).

6 Future directions

Despite significant advances in understanding the interactions between micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) and terrestrial plants, several important knowledge gaps remain (Gigault and Davranche, 2025). Most available studies have been conducted under controlled laboratory conditions using single polymer types and relatively high exposure concentrations, which may not accurately represent natural environments. Future research should therefore prioritize long-term studies under environmentally realistic conditions, including field experiments with mixed plastic pollutants, to improve the understanding of their environmental fate and biological effects (Azeem et al., 2021).

Another important challenge is the lack of standardized methods for the detection and quantification of nanoplastics in environmental and biological samples. Their small size, diverse polymer composition, and interactions with organic matter continue to limit accurate identification and comparison among studies (Ducoli et al., 2025; Hayder et al., 2025). Future research should also investigate how plant species, root architecture, root exudates, and physiological characteristics influence MNP uptake, translocation, accumulation, and toxicity. Such studies would improve our understanding of species-specific responses and strengthen environmental risk assessments.

Although biodegradable plastics have been proposed as a potential alternative to conventional plastics (Kim et al., 2023), their environmental safety requires further evaluation. Recent studies indicate that degradation products of biodegradable plastics may also affect plant metabolism and soil microbial communities (Brown et al., 2023). In addition, sustainable agricultural practices, including crop rotation and organic farming, may help reduce plastic accumulation in agricultural soils, although their effectiveness under different environmental conditions requires further investigation (Waghamare and Kodag, 2025).

Recent regulatory initiatives, including European Union Regulation 2023/2055, represent important steps toward reducing intentionally added microplastics in consumer products (Arif et al., 2024). However, greater attention should also be given to agricultural sources of plastic pollution, such as mulching films, fertilizers, irrigation materials, and other plastic-based farming products, which remain important contributors to soil MNP contamination. Future studies should also examine the role of MNPs as potential carriers of microorganisms, including plant pathogens, and their implications for plant health, soil microbial communities, and food safety. Overall, future research should focus on standardized methodologies, long-term field studies, environmentally realistic exposure scenarios, and integrated molecular approaches to improve understanding of plant–MNP interactions and support more reliable environmental risk assessments.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Anabela Cachada, Universidade do Porto GreenUPorto Centro de Investigacao em Producao Agroalimentar Sustentavel, Portugal

Reviewed by: Agata Leszczuk, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Mohamed Syazwan Osman, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Statements

Conflict of interest

Author PS was employed by ACRI-ST.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Author contributions

AC: Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. PS: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. AS: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. YT: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. ADM: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. EP: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. CT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Resources.

Acknowledgements

This work was made in the framework of the Research Group 8.04.00 “Air Pollution and Climate Change” of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO).

References

  1. Abbasi S., Moore F., Keshavarzi B., Hopke P. K., Naidu R., Rahman M. M. (2020). PET-microplastics as a vector for heavy metals in a simulated plant rhizosphere zone. Sci. Total Environ. 744, 140984. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140984
  2. Adetuyi B. O., Mathew J. T., Inobeme A., Falana Y. O., Adetunji C. O., Olaniyan O. T. (2024). “ Tyres, bitumen wear and plastic bottles, other single-use plastic as major sources of microplastic,” in Microplastic Pollution (Singapore: Springer Nature), 141 – 160. doi:10.1007/978-981-99-8357-5_9
  3. Ahammed G. J., Wang M.-M., Zhou Y.-H., Xia X.-J., Mao W.-H., Shi K. (2012). The growth, photosynthesis and antioxidant defense responses of five vegetable crops to phenanthrene stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 80, 132 – 139. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.02.015
  4. Andrady A. L., Koongolla B. (2022). “ Degradation and fragmentation of microplastics,” in Plastics and the Ocean: Origin, Characterization, Fate, and Impacts (Cham: Springer), 227 – 268. doi:10.1002/9781119768432.ch8
  5. Aralappanavar V. K., Mukhopadhyay R., Yu Y., Liu J., Bhatnagar A., Praveena S. M. (2024). Effects of microplastics on soil microorganisms and microbial functions in nutrients and carbon cycling – a review. Sci. Total Environ. 924, 171435. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171435
  6. Arif Y., Mir A. R., Zieliński P., Hayat S., Bajguz A. (2024). Microplastics and nanoplastics: source, behavior, remediation, and multi-level environmental impact. J. Environ. Manag. 356, 120618. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120618
  7. Avellan A., Schwab F., Masion A., Chaurand P., Borschneck D., Vidal V. (2017). Nanoparticle uptake in plants: gold nanomaterial localized in roots of Arabidopsis thaliana by X-ray computed nanotomography and hyperspectral imaging. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 8682 – 8691. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b01133
  8. Azeem I., Adeel M., Ahmad M. A., Shakoor N., Jiangcuo G. D., Azeem K. (2021). Uptake and accumulation of nano/microplastics in plants: a critical review. Nanomaterials 11, 2935. doi:10.3390/nano11112935
  9. Balestri E., Menicagli V., Ligorini V., Fulignati S., Galletti A. M. R., Lardicci C. (2019). Phytotoxicity assessment of conventional and biodegradable plastic bags using seed germination test. Ecol. Indic. 102, 569 – 580. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.005
  10. Bandmann V., Müller J. D., Köhler T., Homann U. (2012). Uptake of fluorescent nanobeads into BY2 cells involves clathrin-dependent and clathrin-independent endocytosis. FEBS Lett. 586, 3626 – 3632. doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2012.08.008
  11. Bank M. S. (2022). Microplastic in the Environment: Pattern and Process. Berlin: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78627-4
  12. Bao Y., Pan C., Li D., Guo A., Dai F. (2022). Stress response to oxytetracycline and microplastic-polyethylene in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during seed germination and seedling growth stages. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 150553. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150553
  13. Bhardwaj L. K., Rath P., Rehman F., Yadav P., Massahi T., Ghazanfari J. (2025). “ Status of micro/nano-plastic (MNP) pollution in the aquatic system,” in Societal and Environmental Ramifications of Plastic Pollution (Hershey: IGI Global), 43 – 62.
  14. Biba R., Cvjetko P., Jakopčić M., Komazec B., Tkalec M., Dimitrov N. (2023). Phytotoxic effects of polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics on Allium cepa roots. Plants 12, 747. doi:10.3390/plants12040747
  15. Boots B., Russell C. W., Green D. S. (2019). Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 11496 – 11506. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
  16. Bosker T., Bouwman L. J., Brun N. R., Behrens P., Vijver M. G. (2019). Microplastics accumulate on pores in seed capsule and delay germination and root growth of the terrestrial vascular plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 226, 774 – 781. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.163
  17. Brewer A., Dror I., Berkowitz B. (2020). The mobility of plastic nanoparticles in aqueous and soil environments: a critical review. ACS Est. Water 1, 48 – 57. doi:10.1021/acsestwater.0c00130
  18. Brown R. W., Chadwick D. R., Zang H., Graf M., Liu X., Wang K. (2023). Bioplastic (PHBV) addition to soil alters microbial community structure and negatively affects plant–microbial metabolic functioning in maize. J. Hazard. Mat. 441, 129959. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129959
  19. Cakaj A., Lisiak-Zielińska M., Drzewiecka K., Budka A., Borowiak K., Drapikowska M. (2023). Potential impact of urban land use on microplastic atmospheric deposition: a case study in Pristina city, Kosovo. Sustainability 15, 16464. doi:10.3390/su152316464
  20. Chai M., Li R., Li B., Wu H., Yu L. (2023). Responses of mangrove (Kandelia obovata L.) growth, photosynthesis, and rhizosphere soil properties to microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 189, 114827. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114827
  21. Chen S., Feng Y., Han L., Li D., Feng Y., Jeyakumar P. (2022). Responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plant growth, grain yield and quality, and soil properties to the microplastic occurrence in paddy soil. J. Soils Sediments 22, 2174 – 2183. doi:10.1007/s11368-022-03232-w
  22. Chen F., Aqeel M., Khalid N., Nazir A., Irshad M. K., Akbar M. U. (2023). Interactive effects of polystyrene microplastics and Pb on growth and phytochemicals in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). J. Hazard. Mat. 449, 130966. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130966
  23. Cheng Y., Wang F., Huang W., Liu Y. (2024). Response of soil biochemical properties and ecosystem function to microplastics pollution. Sci. Rep. 14, 28328. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-80124-8
  24. Colzi I., Renna L., Bianchi E., Castellani M. B., Coppi A., Pignattelli S. (2022). Impact of microplastics on growth, photosynthesis and essential elements in Cucurbita pepo L. J. Hazard. Mat. 423, 127238. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127238
  25. De Silva Y. S. K., Rajagopalan U. M., Kadono H., Li D. (2022). Effects of microplastics on lentil (Lens culinaris) seed germination and seedling growth. Chemosphere 303, 135162. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135162
  26. De Souza Machado A. A., Kloas W., Zarfl C., Hempel S., Rillig M. C. (2018). Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1405 – 1416. doi:10.1111/gcb.14020
  27. De Souza Machado A. A., Lau C. W., Kloas W., Bergmann J., Bachelier J. B., Faltin E. (2019). Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6044 – 6052. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b01339
  28. Deng T. H. B., Cloquet C., Tang Y. T., Sterckeman T., Echevarria G., Estrade N. (2014). Nickel and zinc isotope fractionation in hyperaccumulating and non-accumulating plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 11926 – 11933. doi:10.1021/es5020955
  29. Dong Y., Gao M., Song Z., Qiu W. (2020). Microplastic particles increase arsenic toxicity to rice seedlings. Environ. Pollut. 259, 113892. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113892
  30. Dong Y., Gao M., Qiu W., Song Z. (2021a). Uptake of microplastics by carrots in presence of As(III): combined toxic effects. J. Hazard. Mat. 411, 125055. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125055
  31. Dong Y., Song Z., Liu Y., Gao M. (2021b). Polystyrene particles combined with di-butyl phthalate cause significant decrease in photosynthesis and red lettuce quality. Environ. Pollut. 278, 116871. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116871
  32. Dong Y., Gao M., Qiu W., Song Z. (2021c). Effect of microplastics and arsenic on nutrients and microorganisms in rice rhizosphere soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 211, 111899. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.111899
  33. Dong R., Liu R., Xu Y., Liu W., Wang L., Liang X. (2022). Single and joint toxicity of polymethyl methacrylate microplastics and As(V) on rapeseed (Brassica campestris L.). Chemosphere 291, 133066. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133066
  34. Dong Y., Bao Q., Gao M., Qiu W., Song Z. (2022). A novel mechanism study of microplastic and as co-contamination on indica rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Hazard. Mat. 421, 126694. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126694
  35. Dong X., Liu X., Hou Q., Wang Z. (2023). From natural environment to animal tissues: a review of microplastics (nanoplastics) translocation and hazards studies. Sci. Total Environ. 855, 158686. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158686
  36. Ducoli S., Kalčíková G., Velimirovic M., Depero L. E., Federici S. (2025). Production, characterization, and toxicology of environmentally relevant nanoplastics: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 23, 1 – 27. doi:10.1007/s10311-024-01810-7
  37. Eberhard T., Casillas G., Zarus G. M., Barr D. B. (2024). Systematic review of microplastics and nanoplastics in indoor and outdoor air: identifying a framework and data needs for quantifying human inhalation exposures. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 34, 185 – 196. doi:10.1038/s41370-023-00634-x
  38. Ekner-Grzyb A., Duka A., Grzyb T., Lopes I., Chmielowska-Bąk J. (2022). Plants oxidative response to nanoplastic. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1027608. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.1027608
  39. Feng L. J., Li J. W., Xu E. G., Sun X. D., Zhu F. P., Ding Z. (2019). Short-term exposure to positively charged polystyrene nanoparticles causes oxidative stress and membrane destruction in cyanobacteria. Environ. Sci. Nano 6, 3072 – 3079. doi:10.1039/c9en00807a
  40. Fu Q., Lai J., Ji X., Luo Z., Wu G., Lei P. (2022). Alterations of the rhizosphere soil microbial community composition and metabolite profiles of Zea mays by polyethylene particles of different molecular weights. J. Hazard. Mat. 423, 127062. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127062
  41. Gao M., Xu Y., Liu Y., Wang S., Wang C., Dong Y. (2021). Effect of polystyrene on di-butyl phthalate (DBP) bioavailability and DBP-induced phytotoxicity in lettuce. Environ. Pollut. 268, 115870. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115870
  42. Gao M., Bai L., Li X., Wang S., Song Z. (2022). Effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on lead toxicity in dandelion seedlings. Environ. Pollut. 306, 119349. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119349
  43. Gao M., Chang J., Wang Z., Zhang H., Wang T. (2023). Advances in transport and toxicity of nanoparticles in plants. J. Nanobiotechnol. 21, 75. doi:10.1186/s12951-023-01830-5
  44. Garcia-Muñoz P., Robert D., Ruppert A. M., Keller N. (2023). “ Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs): introduction,” in Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering (Elsevier), 1 – 32.
  45. Ge J., Li H., Liu P., Zhang Z., Ouyang Z., Guo X. (2021). Review of the toxic effect of microplastics on terrestrial and aquatic plants. Sci. Total Environ. 791, 148333. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148333
  46. Gigault J., Davranche M. (2025). Nanoplastics in focus: exploring interdisciplinary approaches and future directions. NanoImpact 37, 100544. doi:10.1016/j.impact.2025.100544
  47. Giorgetti L., Spanò C., Muccifora S., Bottega S., Barbieri F., Bellani L. (2020). Exploring the interaction between polystyrene nanoplastics and Allium cepa during germination: internalization in root cells, induction of toxicity and oxidative stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 149, 170 – 177. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.02.014
  48. Guo M., Zhao F., Tian L., Ni K., Lu Y., Borah P. (2022). Effects of polystyrene microplastics on the seed germination of herbaceous ornamental plants. Sci. Total Environ. 809, 151100. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151100
  49. Hayder M., Davies K., Gruter G. J. M. (2025). “ Quantification of micro- and nanoplastics,” in Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics (Elsevier), 333 – 369. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-15779-0.00003-1
  50. Hoang V. H., Nguyen M. K., Hoang T. D., Ha M. C., Huyen N. T. T., Bui V. K. H. (2024). Sources, environmental fate, and impacts of microplastic contamination in agricultural soils: a comprehensive review. Sci. Total Environ. 950, 175276. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175276
  51. Hu P., An J., Faulkner M. M., Wu H., Li Z., Tian X. (2020). Nanoparticle charge and size control foliar delivery efficiency to plant cells and organelles. ACS Nano 14, 7970 – 7986. doi:10.1021/acsnano.9b09178
  52. Huang D., Wang X., Yin L., Chen S., Tao J., Zhou W. (2022). Research progress of microplastics in soil-plant system: ecological effects and potential risks. Sci. Total Environ. 812, 151487. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151487
  53. Ilyas M., Liu X., Yang J., Xu G. (2024). Foliar implications of polystyrene nanoplastics on leafy vegetables and its ecological consequences. J. Hazard. Mat. 480, 136346. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136346
  54. Jahandari A. (2023). Microplastics in the urban atmosphere: sources, occurrences, distribution, and potential health implications. J. Hazard. Mat. Adv. 12, 100346. doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100346
  55. Jia L., Liu L., Zhang Y., Fu W., Liu X., Wang Q. (2023). Microplastic stress in plants: effects on plant growth and their remediations. Front. Plant Sci. 14, 1226484. doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1226484
  56. Jiang X., Chen H., Liao Y., Ye Z., Li M., Klobučar G. (2019). Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of polystyrene microplastics on higher plant Vicia faba. Environ. Pollut. 250, 831 – 838. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.055
  57. Judy J. D., Williams M., Gregg A., Oliver D., Kumar A., Kookana R. (2019). Microplastics in municipal mixed-waste organic outputs induce minimal short to long-term toxicity in key terrestrial biota. Environ. Pollut. 252, 522 – 531. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.027
  58. Kajal S., Thakur S. (2024). Coexistence of microplastics and heavy metals in soil: occurrence, transport, key interactions and effect on plants. Environ. Res. 262, 119960. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.119960
  59. Kaur M., Xu M., Wang L. (2022). Cyto-genotoxic effect causing potential of polystyrene microplastics in terrestrial plants. Nanomaterials 12, 2024. doi:10.3390/nano12122024
  60. Kim M. S., Chang H., Zheng L., Yan Q., Pfleger B. F., Klier J. (2023). A review of biodegradable plastics: chemistry, applications, properties, and future research needs. Chem. Rev. 123, 9915 – 9939. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00876
  61. Kuka E., Cirule D., Andersone I., Vasiljevs L. O., Merna J., Sarakovskis A. (2024). A step to microplastic formation: microcracking and associated surface transformations of recycled LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, and PP plastics exposed to UV radiation. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 229, 110967. doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2024.110967
  62. Kumar M., Xiong X., He M., Tsang D. C., Gupta J., Khan E. (2020). Microplastics as pollutants in agricultural soils. Environ. Pollut. 265, 114980. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114980
  63. Kumar A., Mishra S., Pandey R., Yu Z. G., Kumar M., Khoo K. S. (2023). Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems: un-ignorable impacts on soil characteristics, nutrient storage and its cycling. Trac. Trends Anal. Chem. 158, 116869. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2022.116869
  64. Law K. L., Thompson R. C. (2014). Microplastics in the seas. Science 345, 144 – 145. doi:10.1126/science.1254065
  65. Le V. G., Nguyen M. K., Nguyen H. L., Lin C., Hadi M., Hung N. T. Q. (2023). A comprehensive review of micro- and nano-plastics in the atmosphere: occurrence, fate, toxicity, and strategies for risk reduction. Sci. Total Environ. 904, 166649. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166649
  66. Lei L., Liu M., Song Y., Lu S., Hu J., Cao C. (2018). Polystyrene (nano) microplastics cause size-dependent neurotoxicity, oxidative damage and other adverse effects in Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 2009 – 2020. doi:10.1039/C8EN00412A
  67. Li L., Zhou Q., Yin N., Tu C., Luo Y. (2019). Uptake and accumulation of microplastics in an edible plant. Chin. Sci. Bull. 64, 928 – 934. doi:10.1360/n972018-00845
  68. Li C., Sanchez G. M., Wu Z., Cheng J., Zhang S., Wang Q. (2020). Spatiotemporal patterns and drivers of soil contamination with heavy metals during an intensive urbanization period (1989–2018) in southern China. Environ. Pollut. 260, 114075. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114075
  69. Li L., Luo Y., Li R., Zhou Q., Peijnenburg W. J., Yin N. (2020). Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack entry mode. Nat. Sustain. 3, 929 – 937. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0567-9
  70. Li W., Wufuer R., Duo J., Wang S., Luo Y., Zhang D. (2020). Microplastics in agricultural soils: extraction and characterization after different periods of polythene film mulching in an arid region. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 141420. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141420
  71. Li X., Wang R., Dai W., Luan Y., Li J. (2023). Impacts of micro(nano)plastics on terrestrial plants: germination, growth, and litter. Plants 12, 3554. doi:10.3390/plants12203554
  72. Li J., Yu Y., Chen X., Yu S., Cui M., Wang S. (2023). Effects of biochar on the phytotoxicity of polyvinyl chloride microplastics. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 195, 228 – 237. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.01.022
  73. Li Y., Zhang J., Xu L., Li R., Zhang R., Li M. (2025). Leaf absorption contributes to accumulation of microplastics in plants. Nature 641, 666 – 673. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08831-4
  74. Lian J., Shen M., Liu W. (2019). Effects of microplastics on wheat seed germination and seedling growth. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 38, 737 – 745. doi:10.3329/jbs.v33i2.87442
  75. Lian J., Wu J., Xiong H., Zeb A., Yang T., Su X. (2020a). Impact of polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Hazard. Mat. 385, 121620. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121620
  76. Lian J., Wu J., Zeb A., Zheng S., Ma T., Peng F. (2020b). Do polystyrene nanoplastics affect the toxicity of cadmium to wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)? Environ. Pollut. 263, 114498. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114498
  77. Lian J., Liu W., Meng L., Wu J., Chao L., Zeb A. (2021a). Foliar-applied polystyrene nanoplastics (PSNPs) reduce the growth and nutritional quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Environ. Pollut. 280, 116978. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116978
  78. Lian J., Liu W., Meng L., Wu J., Zeb A., Cheng L. (2021b). Effects of microplastics derived from polymer-coated fertilizer on maize growth, rhizosphere, and soil properties. J. Clean. Prod. 318, 128571. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128571
  79. Lian J., Liu W., Sun Y., Men S., Wu J., Zeb A. (2022). Nanotoxicological effects and transcriptome mechanisms of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under stress of polystyrene nanoplastics. J. Hazard. Mat. 423, 127241. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127241
  80. Lian Y., Liu W., Shi R., Zeb A., Wang Q., Li J. (2022). Effects of polyethylene and polylactic acid microplastics on plant growth and bacterial community in the soil. J. Hazard. Mat. 435, 129057. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129057
  81. Liao Y.-C., Nazygul J., Li M., Wang X.-L., Jiang L.-J. (2019). Effects of microplastics on the growth, physiology, and biochemical characteristics of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Huan Jing Ke Xue 40, 4661 – 4667. doi:10.13227/j.hjkx.201903113
  82. Liu Y., Yue L., Wang C., Zhu X., Wang Z., Xing B. (2020). Photosynthetic response mechanisms in typical C3 and C4 plants upon La 2 O 3 nanoparticle exposure. Environ. Sci. Nano 7, 81 – 92. doi:10.1039/C9EN00992B
  83. Liu S., Wang J., Zhu J., Wang J., Wang H., Zhan X. (2021). The joint toxicity of polyethylene microplastic and phenanthrene to wheat seedlings. Chemosphere 282, 130967. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130967
  84. Liu J., Wang P., Wang Y., Zhang Y., Xu T., Wu J. (2022). Negative effects of poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) microplastics on Arabidopsis and its root-associated microbiome. J. Hazard. Mat. 437, 129294. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129294
  85. Liu Y., Guo R., Zhang S., Sun Y., Wang F. (2022). Uptake and translocation of nano/microplastics by rice seedlings: evidence from a hydroponic experiment. J. Hazard. Mat. 421, 126700. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126700
  86. Liu L., Zhou Y., Wang C., Liu H., Xie R., Wang L. (2022). Oxidative damage in roots of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings exposed to microplastics or combined with cadmium. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 110, 15. doi:10.1007/s00128-022-03659-4
  87. Liu Y., Xu F., Ding L., Zhang G., Bai B., Han Y. (2023). Microplastics reduce nitrogen uptake in peanut plants by damaging root cells and impairing soil nitrogen cycling. J. Hazard. Mat. 443, 130384. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130384
  88. Lozano Y. M., Rillig M. C. (2020). Effects of microplastic fibers and drought on plant communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 6166 – 6173. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c01051
  89. Luo Y., Li L., Feng Y., Li R., Yang J., Peijnenburg W. J. G. M. (2022). Quantitative tracing of uptake and transport of submicrometre plastics in crop plants using lanthanide chelates as a dual-functional tracer. Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 424 – 431. doi:10.1038/s41565-021-01063-3
  90. Lv J., Christie P., Zhang S. (2019). Uptake, translocation, and transformation of metal-based nanoparticles in plants: recent advances and methodological challenges. Environ. Sci. Nano 6, 41 – 59. doi:10.1039/C8EN00645H
  91. Lwanga E. H., Beriot N., Corradini F., Silva V., Yang X., Baartman J. (2022). Review of microplastic sources, transport pathways and correlations with other soil stressors: a journey from agricultural sites into the environment. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 9 (1), 20. doi:10.1186/s40538-021-00278-9
  92. Ma J., Aqeel M., Khalid N., Nazir A., Alzuaibr F. M., Al-Mushhin A. A. M. (2022). Effects of microplastics on growth and metabolism of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 307, 135749. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135749
  93. Mahdi K. N., Peters R., van der Ploeg M., Ritsema C., Geissen V. (2018). Tracking the transport of silver nanoparticles in soil: a saturated column experiment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 229, 1 – 13. doi:10.1007/s11270-018-3985-9
  94. Maity S., Guchhait R., Sarkar M. B., Pramanick K. (2022). Occurrence and distribution of micro/nanoplastics in soils and their phytotoxic effects: a review. Plant Cell Environ. 45 (4), 1011 – 1028. doi:10.1111/pce.14248
  95. Makhdoumi P., Pirsaheb M., Amin A. A., Kianpour S., Hossini H. (2023). Microplastic pollution in table salt and sugar: occurrence, qualification and quantification and risk assessment. J. Food Compos. Anal. 119, 105261. doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105261
  96. Mateos-Cárdenas A., Scott D. T., Seitmaganbetova G., van Pelt F. N. A., O’Halloran J., Marcel A K J. (2019). Polyethylene microplastics adhere to Lemna minor (L.), yet have no effects on plant growth or feeding by Gammarus duebeni (Lillj.). Sci. Total Environ. 689, 413 – 421. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.359
  97. Meng F., Yang X., Riksen M., Geissen V. (2022). Effect of different polymers of microplastics on soil organic carbon and nitrogen – a mesocosm experiment. Environ. Res. 204, 111938. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111938
  98. Mondal N. K., Kundu S., Debnath P., Mondal A., Sen K. (2022). Effects of polyethylene terephthalate microplastic on germination, biochemistry and phytotoxicity of Cicer arietinum L. and cytotoxicity study on Allium cepa L. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 94, 103908. doi:10.1016/j.etap.2022.103908
  99. Movahedi A., Aghaei-Dargiri S., Barati B., Kadkhodaei S., Wei H., Sangari S. (2022). Plant immunity is regulated by biological, genetic, and epigenetic factors. Agronomy 12, 2790. doi:10.3390/agronomy12112790
  100. Nel A. E., Mädler L., Velegol D., Xia T., Hoek E. M. V., Somasundaran P. (2009). Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nat. Mat. 8, 543 – 557. doi:10.1038/nmat2442
  101. O’Brien S., Rauert C., Ribeiro F., Okoffo E. D., Burrows S. D., O'Brien J. W. (2023). There’s something in the air: a review of sources, prevalence and behaviour of microplastics in the atmosphere. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162193. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162193
  102. Pflugmacher S., Sulek A., Mader H., Heo J., Noh J. H., Penttinen O. P. (2020). The influence of new and artificial aged microplastic and leachates on the germination of Lepidium sativum L. Plants 9, 339. doi:10.3390/plants9030339
  103. Pignattelli S., Broccoli A., Piccardo M., Terlizzi A., Renzi M. (2021). Effects of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) microplastics and acid rain on physiology and growth of Lepidium sativum. Environ. Pollut. 282, 116997. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116997
  104. Prinz N., Korez S. (2020). “ Understanding how microplastics affect marine biota on the cellular level is important for assessing ecosystem function: a review,” in YOUMARES 9 – the Oceans: Our Research, Our Future (Springer), 101 – 120.
  105. Prokić M. D., Radovanović T. B., Gavrić J. P., Faggio C. (2019). Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics: Examination of biomarkers, current state and future perspectives. TrAC Trends in analytical chemistry, 111, 37 – 46. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2018.12.001
  106. Qi Y., Yang X., Pelaez A. M., Lwanga E. H., Beriot N., Gertsen H. (2018). Macro- and micro-plastics in soil–plant system: effects of plastic mulch film residues on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1048 – 1056. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.229
  107. Qiu G., Wang Q., Wang T., Zhang S., Song N., Yang X. (2024). Microplastic risk assessment and toxicity in plants: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 22 (1), 209 – 226. doi:10.1007/s10311-023-01665-4
  108. Radic T. M., Vukosav P., Komazec B., Formosa-Dague C., Jurašin D. D., Peharec Štefanić P. (2022). Nanoplastic-induced nanostructural, nanomechanical, and antioxidant response of marine diatom Cylindrotheca closterium. Water 14, 2163. doi:10.3390/w14142163
  109. Ren X., Yin S., Wang L., Tang J. (2022). Microplastics in plant–microbes–soil system: a review on recent studies. Sci. Total Environ. 816, 151523. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151523
  110. Ren F., Huang J., Yang Y. (2024). Unveiling the impact of microplastics and nanoplastics on vascular plants: a cellular metabolomic and transcriptomic review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 279, 116490. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116490
  111. Rillig M. C., Bonkowski M. (2018). Microplastic and soil protists: a call for research. Environ. Pollut. 241, 1128 – 1131. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.147
  112. Rillig M. C., Lehmann A., de Souza Machado A. A., Yang G. (2019). Microplastic effects on plants. New Phytol. 223 (3), 1066 – 1070. doi:10.1111/nph.15794
  113. Romphophak P., Faikhaw O., Sairiam S., Thuptimdang P., Coufort-Saudejaud C. (2024). Removal of microplastics and nanoplastics in water treatment processes: a systematic literature review. J. Water Process Eng. 64, 105669. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.105669
  114. Roy T., Dey T. K., Jamal M. (2023). Microplastic/nanoplastic toxicity in plants: an imminent concern. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195 (1), 27. doi:10.1007/s10661-022-10654-z
  115. Rossatto A., Arlindo M. Z. F., de Morais M. S.,, de Souza T. D., Ogrodowski C. S. (2023). Microplastics in aquatic systems: A review of occurrence, monitoring and potential environmental risks. Environmental Advances, 13, 100396.
  116. Rozman U., Kokalj A. J., Dolar A., Drobne D., Kalčíková G. (2022). Long-term interactions between microplastics and floating macrophyte Lemna minor: The potential for phytoremediation of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Science of the Total Environment, 831, 154866.
  117. Rui H., Chen C., Zhang X., Shen Z., Zhang F. (2016). Cd-induced oxidative stress and lignification in the roots of two Vicia sativa L. varieties with different Cd tolerances. J. Hazard. Mat. 301, 304 – 313. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.08.052
  118. Sahasa R. G. K., Dhevagi P., Poornima R., Ramya A., Moorthy P. S., Alagirisamy B. (2023). Effect of polyethylene microplastics on seed germination of blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environ. Adv. 11, 100349. doi:10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100349
  119. Schiavo S., Oliviero M., Chiavarini S., Manzo S. (2020). Adverse effects of oxodegradable plastic leachates in freshwater environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 8586 – 8595. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-07466-z
  120. Shahzad B., Tanveer M., Rehman A., Cheema S. A., Fahad S., Rehman S. (2018). Nickel; whether toxic or essential for plants and environment – a review. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 132, 641 – 651. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.10.014
  121. Sharma S., Singh V. K., Kumar A., Mallubhotla S. (2019). “ Effect of nanoparticles on oxidative damage and antioxidant defense system in plants,” in Molecular Plant Abiotic Stress: Biology and Biotechnology (Cham: Springer), 315 – 333. doi:10.1002/9781119463665.ch17
  122. Shen L., Li Z., Huang X., Zhang P., Zhang L., Zhao W. (2024). Effects of polystyrene microplastic composite with florfenicol on photosynthetic carbon assimilation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings: light reactions, carbon reactions, and molecular metabolism. J. Hazard. Mat. 478, 135470. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.135470
  123. Shi R., Liu W., Lian Y., Wang Q., Zeb A., Tang J. (2022). Phytotoxicity of polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J. Environ. Manage. 317, 115441. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115441
  124. Singh V., Sergeeva L., Ligterink W., Aloni R., Zemach H., Doron-Faigenboim A. (2019). Gibberellin promotes sweetpotato root vascular lignification and reduces storage-root formation. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1426. doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01320
  125. Song Z., Zhao X., Dong Y., Bai L., Wang S., Gao M. (2023). Effects of polystyrene nanoplastics with different functional groups on the accumulation and toxicity of Pb on dandelion. Chemosphere 310, 136874. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136874
  126. Spano C., Muccifora S., Castiglione M. R., Bellani L., Bottega S., Giorgetti L. (2022). Polystyrene nanoplastics affect seed germination, cell biology and physiology of rice seedlings in short-term treatments: evidence of their internalization and translocation. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 172, 158 – 166. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.01.012
  127. Sun X. D., Yuan X. Z., Jia Y., Feng L. J., Zhu F. P., Dong S. S. (2020). Differentially charged nanoplastics demonstrate distinct accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15 (9), 755 – 760. doi:10.1038/s41565-020-0707-4
  128. Sun H., Lei C., Xu J., Li R. (2021). Foliar uptake and leaf-to-root translocation of nanoplastics with different coating charge in maize plants. J. Hazard. Mat. 416, 125854. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125854
  129. Surendran U., Jayakumar M., Raja P., Gopinath G., Chellam P. V. (2023). Microplastics in terrestrial ecosystem: sources and migration in soil environment. Chemosphere 318, 137946. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137946
  130. Tang M., Huang Y., Zhang W., Fu T., Zeng T., Huang Y. (2022). Effects of microplastics on the mineral elements absorption and accumulation in hydroponic rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 108, 949 – 955. doi:10.1007/s00128-021-03453-8
  131. Teuten E. L., Saquing J. M., Knappe D., Barlaz M. A., Jonsson S., Björn A. (2009). Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2027 – 2045. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0284
  132. Thompson J., Wilder L., Crooks R. (2021). Filtering and continuously separating microplastics from water using electric field gradients formed electrochemically in the absence of buffer. Chem. Sci. 12, 13744 – 13755. doi:10.1039/D1SC03192A
  133. Tian L., Jinjin C., Ji R., Ma Y., Yu X. (2022). Microplastics in agricultural soils: sources, effects, and their fate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 25, 100311. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100311
  134. Tripathi D. K., Singh S., Singh S., Srivastava P. K., Singh V. P., Singh P. K. (2017). Nitric oxide alleviates silver nanoparticles (AgNPs)-induced phytotoxicity in Pisum sativum seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 110, 167 – 177. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.06.015
  135. Ullah R., Tsui M., Chow A., Chen H., Williams C., Ligaba-Osena A. (2023). Micro(nano)plastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystem: emphasis on impacts of polystyrene on soil biota, plants, animals, and humans. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195, 252. doi:10.1007/s10661-022-10769-3
  136. Urbina M. A., Correa F., Aburto F., Ferrio J. P. (2020). Adsorption of polyethylene microbeads and physiological effects on hydroponic maize. Sci. Total Environ. 741, 140216. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140216
  137. Waghamare S., Kodag P. (2025). “ Plant stress management mitigating micro/nano plastics pollution,” in Societal and Environmental Ramifications of Plastic Pollution (Hershey: IGI Global), 63 – 88. doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-9163-1.ch004
  138. Wang F., Zhang X., Zhang S., Zhang S., Sun Y. (2020a). Interactions of microplastics and cadmium on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in an agricultural soil. Chemosphere 254, 126791. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126791
  139. Wang F., Zhang X., Zhang S., Zhang S., Adams C. A., Sun Y. (2020b). Effects of co-contamination of microplastics and Cd on plant growth and Cd accumulation. Toxics 8, 36. doi:10.3390/toxics8020036
  140. Wang F., Wang Q., Adams C. A., Sun Y., Zhang S. (2022). Effects of microplastics on soil properties: current knowledge and future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mat. 424, 127531. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127531
  141. Wang C., Luo Q., Zhang J., Zhang X., Yang N., Feng L. (2023). Toxic effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on plants: a global meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 337, 122593. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122593
  142. Wang J., Li J., Liu W., Zeb A., Wang Q., Zheng Z. (2023). Three typical microplastics affect the germination and growth of amaranth (Amaranthus mangostanus L.) seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 194, 589 – 599. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.12.007
  143. Wang Y., Bai J., Wen L., Wang W., Zhang L., Liu Z. (2023). Phytotoxicity of microplastics to the floating plant Spirodela polyrhiza (L.): plant functional traits and metabolomics. Environ. Pollut. 322, 121199. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121199
  144. Weber A., Scherer C., Brennholt N., Reifferscheid G., Wagner M. (2018). PET microplastics do not negatively affect the survival, development, metabolism and feeding activity of the freshwater invertebrate Gammarus pulex. Environ. Pollut. 234, 181 – 189. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.014
  145. Wen X., Yin L., Zhou Z., Kang Z., Sun Q., Zhang Y. (2022). Microplastics can affect soil properties and chemical speciation of metals in yellow-brown soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 243, 113958. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113958
  146. Wu J., Liu W., Zeb A., Lian J., Sun Y., Sun H. (2021). Polystyrene microplastic interaction with Oryza sativa: toxicity and metabolic mechanism. Environ. Sci. Nano 8 (12), 3699 – 3710. doi:10.1039/D1EN00636C
  147. Wu S., Xu A., Zhou J., Xin F., Yu Z. (2022). Microplastics in wastewater treatment: current status and future trends. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao 38 (7), 2410 – 2422. doi:10.13345/j.cjb.210918
  148. Wu X., Hou H., Liu Y., Yin S., Bian S., Liang S. (2022). Microplastics affect rice (Oryza sativa L.) quality by interfering metabolite accumulation and energy expenditure pathways: a field study. J. Hazard. Mat. 422, 126834. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126834
  149. Xia T., Lin Y., Li S., Yan N., Xie Y., He M. (2021). Co-transport of negatively charged nanoparticles in saturated porous media: impacts of hydrophobicity and surface O-functional groups. J. Hazard. Mat. 409, 124477. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124477
  150. Xiao F., Feng L. J., Sun X. D., Wang Y., Wang Z. W., Zhu F. P. (2022). Do polystyrene nanoplastics have similar effects on duckweed (Lemna minor L.) at environmentally relevant and observed-effect concentrations? Environ. Sci. Technol. 56 (7), 4071 – 4079. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c06595
  151. Xu Y. H., Liu R., Yan L., Liu Z. Q., Jiang S. C., Shen Y. Y. (2012). Light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b-binding proteins are required for stomatal response to abscisic acid in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 63 (3), 1095 – 1106. doi:10.1093/jxb/err315
  152. Xu Z., Zhang Y., Lin L., Wang L., Sun W., Liu C. (2022). Toxic effects of microplastics in plants depend more on their surface functional groups than just accumulation contents. Sci. Total Environ. 833, 155097. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155097
  153. Yang M., Tian X., Guo Z., Chang C., Li J., Baddock M. (2023). Wind erosion induced low-density microplastics migration at landscape scale in a semi-arid region of northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 871, 162068. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162068
  154. Yi Z., Zhang Z., Chen G., Rengel Z., Sun H. (2023). Microplastics have rice cultivar-dependent impacts on grain yield and quality, and nitrogenous gas losses from paddy, but not on soil properties. J. Hazard. Mat. 446, 130672. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130672
  155. Yoon M. G., Jeon H. J., Kim M. N. (2012). Biodegradation of polyethylene by a soil bacterium and AlkB cloned recombinant cell. J. Bioremed. Biodegr. 3, 1 – 8. doi:10.4172/2155-6199.1000145
  156. Yu H., Zhang Z., Zhang Y., Fan P., Xi B., Tan W. (2021). Metal type and aggregate microenvironment govern the response sequence of speciation transformation of different heavy metals to microplastics in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 752, 141956. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141956
  157. Yusuf E. O., Amber I., Officer S., Oluyemi G. F. (2024). Transport of nanoparticles in porous media and associated environmental impact: a review. J. Eng. Res. 12 (2), 275 – 284. doi:10.1016/j.jer.2024.01.006
  158. Zantis L. J., Borchi C., Vijver M. G., Peijnenburg W., Di Lonardo S., Bosker T. (2023). Nano- and microplastics commonly cause adverse impacts on plants at environmentally relevant levels: a systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 867, 161211. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161211
  159. Zeb A., Liu W., Ali N., Shi R., Wang Q., Wang J. (2024). Microplastic pollution in terrestrial ecosystems: global implications and sustainable solutions. J. Hazard. Mat. 461, 132636. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132636
  160. Zhai G., Walters K. S., Peate D. W., Alvarez P. J. J., Schnoor J. L. (2014). Transport of gold nanoparticles through plasmodesmata and precipitation of gold ions in woody poplar. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1, 146 – 151. doi:10.1021/ez400202b
  161. Zhang S., Wang J., Liu X., Qu F., Wang X., Chi G. (2019). Microplastics in the environment: a review of analytical methods, distribution, and biological effects. Trac. Trends Anal. Chem. 111, 62 – 72. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2018.12.002
  162. Zhang Q., Zhao M., Meng F., Xiao Y., Dai W., Luan Y. (2021). Effect of polystyrene microplastics on rice seed germination and antioxidant enzyme activity. Toxics 9, 179. doi:10.3390/toxics9080179
  163. Zhang Y., Zhang C., Jiang M., Zhou G. (2022). Bio-effects of bio-based and fossil-based microplastics: case study with lettuce-soil system. Environ. Pollut. 306, 119395. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119395
  164. Zhang Q., Gong K., Shao X., Liang W., Zhang W., Peng C. (2023a). Effect of polyethylene, polyamide, and polylactic acid microplastics on Cr accumulation and toxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) in hydroponics. J. Hazard. Mat. 450, 131022. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131022
  165. Zhang T., Luo X.-S., Xu J., Yao X., Fan J., Mao Y. (2023b). Dry–wet cycle changes the influence of microplastics (MPs) on the antioxidant activity of lettuce and the rhizospheric bacterial community. J. Soils Sediments 23, 2189 – 2201. doi:10.1007/s11368-023-03479-x
  166. Zhao L., Man Q., Wang D., Wong G. (2017). Transgenerational toxicity of nanopolystyrene particles in the range of μg L−1 in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Environ. Sci. Nano 4 (12), 2356 – 2366. doi:10.1039/C7EN00707H
  167. Zhou C. Q., Lu C. H., Mai L., Bao L. J., Liu L. Y., Zeng E. Y. (2021). Response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) roots to nanoplastic treatment at seedling stage. J. Hazard. Mat. 401, 123412. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123412

Citation

Cakaj, A., et al. (2026). Micro- and nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: uptake, accumulation, and impacts on growth and physiology. Frontiers in Environmental Chemistry, Volume 7. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
7 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Cakaj, Sicard, Setsungnern, Tachapermpon, De Marco, Paoletti and Treesubsuntorn.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Arlinda Cakaj

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchMineral-dependent and calcium-inhibited adsorption of radium-226 onto quartz and kaolinite in a natural sand substrateC. L. Proulx, C. Cadieux, D. R. Knaack, D. Fortin, R. R. GouletReviewSustainable approaches to lignin recovery from kraft black liquor and its application in environmental remediationAleesha Nabhai, Oliver Charles Wasson, Hongmei Gu, Zhen Cai, Heon E. Park, James Springstead, Qingliu Wu, Jinghao LiOriginal ResearchAmmonia-salt-assisted green hydrometallurgy for CuO nanosynthesis from waste PCBsSuzana Gotovac Atlagić, Milica Kosić, Tijana Kremenović, Željko Todorović, Predrag Ilić, Ljiljana Tankosić, Elvir Babajić, Eldin Halilčević, Andrzej Biessikirski, Andrzej Baziak