Journal of Environmental Science Studies

Journal of Environmental Science Studies

Investigating the effects of microplastics on soil microorganisms diversity, microbial respiration and chemical properties

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord
3 Master's degree student, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Earth Sciences, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord
10.22034/jess.2025.504741.2351
Abstract
Introduction

One of the environmental pollutants that has become a global concern is microplastics. This study investigates the impact of two types of microplastics, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyester, on soil characteristics. The objective of this research is to examine the effects of polymeric microplastic particles of polyethylene terephthalate and polyester on certain soil properties, including soil acidity, soil respiration, microbial biomass carbon, and soil microorganism biodiversity. One of the environmental pollutants that has become a global concern is microplastics. This study investigates the impact of two types of microplastics, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyester, on soil characteristics. The objective of this research is to examine the effects of polymeric microplastic particles of polyethylene terephthalate and polyester on certain soil properties, including soil acidity, soil respiration, microbial biomass carbon, and soil microorganism biodiversity.

Materials and methods
For this purpose, microplastic particles smaller than 5 mm were added to the soil at weight percentages of 1%, 3%, 5%, and 10%. The incubation period for assessing the soil characteristics was 60 days. To prepare the soil, the samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve and placed into standardized one-liter plastic jars, which were labeled according to the respective percentages of microplastics added. The prepared samples were then allowed to rest for a duration of two months, during which temperature and humidity were maintained consistently, and parameters such as pH and electrical conductivity were measured. At the end of the resting period, the effects of different types of microplastics at specified weight percentages on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil were assessed. Additionally, the impact on microorganism diversity and distribution was compared with control samples.Additionally, the impact on microorganism diversity and distribution was compared with control samples.
Results and discussion
The results indicated that the addition of microplastic particles to the soil led to a decrease in soil respiration over time. Specifically, for the treatments containing microplastic at the 1% level, soil respiration increased from 24.45 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day to 38.12 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day, while at higher levels, at 10% polyethylene terephthalate, it decreased to 30.45 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day, and in the polyester treatment, it reduced to 27.47 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day.
Furthermore, at the beginning of the research, the microbial biomass carbon level in the soil at the 1% level increased from 7.43 mg carbon per kg of soil to 21.36 mg carbon per kg of soil (for the polyethylene terephthalate treatment) and 21.97 mg carbon per kg of soil (for the polyester treatment). However, over time, at higher levels (10%), the microbial biomass carbon decreased to 12.82 mg carbon per kg of soil for polyethylene terephthalate and to 11.96 mg carbon per kg of soil for polyester. This indicates an inverse relationship between microplastic concentration and biomass carbon. Additionally, over time, negative effects of microplastics on soil biodiversity became evident, with a decrease in biodiversity observed at the 1% level compared to the control treatment, while other levels (3%, 5%, and 10%) exhibited increases.For this purpose, microplastic particles smaller than 5 mm were added to the soil at weight percentages of 1%, 3%, 5%, and 10%. The incubation period for assessing the soil characteristics was 60 days. To prepare the soil, the samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve and placed into standardized one-liter plastic jars, which were labeled according to the respective percentages of microplastics added. The prepared samples were then allowed to rest for a duration of two months, during which temperature and humidity were maintained consistently, and parameters such as pH and electrical conductivity were measured. At the end of the resting period, the effects of different types of microplastics at specified weight percentages on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil were assessed. Additionally, the impact on microorganism diversity and distribution was compared with control samples.
Results and discussion
The results indicated that the addition of microplastic particles to the soil led to a decrease in soil respiration over time. Specifically, for the treatments containing microplastic at the 1% level, soil respiration increased from 24.45 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day to 38.12 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day, while at higher levels, at 10% polyethylene terephthalate, it decreased to 30.45 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day, and in the polyester treatment, it reduced to 27.47 mg CO₂ per kg of soil per day.
Furthermore, at the beginning of the research, the microbial biomass carbon level in the soil at the 1% level increased from 7.43 mg carbon per kg of soil to 21.36 mg carbon per kg of soil (for the polyethylene terephthalate treatment) and 21.97 mg carbon per kg of soil (for the polyester treatment). However, over time, at higher levels (10%), the microbial biomass carbon decreased to 12.82 mg carbon per kg of soil for polyethylene terephthalate and to 11.96 mg carbon per kg of soil for polyester. This indicates an inverse relationship between microplastic concentration and biomass carbon. Additionally, over time, negative effects of microplastics on soil biodiversity became evident, with a decrease in biodiversity observed at the 1% level compared to the control treatment, while other levels (3%, 5%, and 10%) exhibited increases.


Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that microplastics have complex effects on the environment and soil ecosystems, and their impact on microbial activity is intricate and dependent on concentration and type. While microplastics may present opportunities for improving soil quality, they pose serious risks at higher levels. Hence, there is a need for further studies to fully understand their consequences.
Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that microplastics have complex effects on the environment and soil ecosystems, and their impact on microbial activity is intricate and dependent on concentration and type. While microplastics may present opportunities for improving soil quality, they pose serious risks at higher levels. Hence, there is a need for further studies to fully understand their consequences.
Keywords

1.       Anderson, T.H., Domsch, K.H. 1990. Application of eco-physiological quotients (qCO2 and qD) on microbial biomasses from soils of different cropping histories, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 22(2), pp.251-255.
2.       Austin, A.T., et al. 2004. Water pulses and biogeochemical cycles in arid and semiarid ecosystems, Oecologia, 141, pp.221-235.
3.       Blöcker, L., et al. 2020. Living in the plastic age-Different short-term microbial response to microplastics addition to arable soils with contrasting soil organic matter content and farm management legacy, Environmental Pollution, 267, p.115468.
4.       Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils 1, Agronomy journal, 54(5), pp.464-465.
5.       Chen, X., et al. 2023. Presence of different microplastics promotes greenhouse gas emissions and alters the microbial community composition of farmland soil, Science of the Total Environment, 879, p.162967.
6.       de Souza Machado, A.A., et al. 2018. Impacts of microplastics on the soil biophysical environment, Environmental science & technology, 52(17), pp.9656-9665.
7.       Ding, L., et al. 2022. The effects of microplastics on soil ecosystem: A review, Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 26, p.100344.
8.       Fei, Y., et al. 2020. Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil, Science of the Total Environment, 707, p.135634.
9.       Gao, H., et al. 2022. Macro-and/or microplastics as an emerging threat effect crop growth and soil health, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186, p.106549.
10.   Gharahi, N., Zamani-Ahmadmahmoodi, R. 2022. Effect of plastic pollution in soil properties and growth of grass species in semi-arid regions: a laboratory experiment, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(39), pp.59118-59126.
11.   Hazelton P., Murphy B. 2007. Interpreting soil test results, CSIRO publishing, 169.
12.   Hillel, D. 1980. Environmental soil physics, Academic press, 281- 284.
13.   Horton, A.A., et al. 2017. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of the total environment, 586, pp.127-141.
14.   Huang, J., et al. 2021. Microplastic pollution in soils and groundwater: Characteristics, analytical methods and impacts, Chemical Engineering Journal, 425, p.131870.
15.   Huang, Y., et al. 2019. LDPE microplastic films alter microbial community composition and enzymatic activities in soil, Environmental Pollution, 254, p.112983.
16.   Joergensen, R.G. 1995. The fumigation incubation method. Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry, Academic Press Limited, London, Great Britain, pp.376-381.
17.   Kucey, R. 1983. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and fungi in various cultivated and virgin Alberta soils, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 63(4), pp.671-678.
18.   Landi, L., et al. 2000. Influence of cadmium on the metabolic quotient, L-: D-glutamic acid respiration ratio and enzyme activity: microbial biomass ratio under laboratory conditions, Biology and fertility of soils, 32, pp.8-16.
19.   Lian, Y., et al. 2022. Effects of polyethylene and polylactic acid microplastics on plant growth and bacterial community in the soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 435, p.129057.
20.   Liu, H., et al. 2017. Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in Chinese loess soil, Chemosphere, 185, pp.907-917.
21.   Lozano, Y. M., et al. 2021b. Effects of microplastics and drought on soil ecosystem functions and multifunctionality, Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(5), 988-996.
22.   Lozano, Y.M., et al. 2021a. Microplastic shape, polymer type, and concentration affect soil properties and plant biomass, Frontiers in plant science, 12, p.616645.
23.   Mai L. Bao L.J. Wong C.S. and Zeng E.Y. (2018). Microplastics in the terrestrial environment. In Microplastic contamination in aquatic environments, pp. 365-378.
24.   Rezania, S., et al. 2018. Microplastics pollution in different aquatic environments and biota: A review of recent studies, Marine pollution bulletin, 133, pp.191-208.
25.   Rillig, M.C. 2012. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(12) , 6453-6454.
26.   Rillig, M.C., Lehmann, A. 2020. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems, Science, 368(6498), pp.1430-1431.
27.   Sun, Y., et al. 2022. Effects of microplastics on soil microbiome: The impacts of polymer type, shape, and concentration. Science of the Total Environment, 806, p.150516.
28.   Thukral, A.K. 2017. A review on measurement of Alpha diversity in biology, Agricultural Research Journal, 54(1).
29.   Wang, C., et al. 2021. Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics, Journal of hazardous materials, 407, p.124357.
30.   Wollum, A.G. 1982. Cultural methods for soil microorganisms, Methods of soil analysis: part 2 chemical and microbiological properties, 9, pp.781-802.
31.   Yi, M., et al. 2021. The effects of three different microplastics on enzyme activities and microbial communities in soil, Water Environment Research, 93(1), pp.24-32.
32.   Yu, H., et al. 2020. Inhibitory effect of microplastics on soil extracellular enzymatic activities by changing soil properties and direct adsorption: An investigation at the aggregate-fraction level, Environmental Pollution, 267, p.115544.
33.   Zhao, T., et al. 2021. Microplastics increase soil pH and decrease microbial activities as a function of microplastic shape, polymer type, and exposure time, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, p.675803.
34.   Ziajahromi, S., et al. 2017. Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for microplastics: development of a new approach to sample wastewater-based microplastics, Water research, 112, pp.93-99.
35.  غازان شاهی، ج ۱۳۸۵. آنالیز خاک و گیاه، انتشارات آییژ. ۲۷۴ صفحه.