Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-023-03689-3

SOILS, SEC 4 • ECOTOXICOLOGY • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Review of microplastics in soils: state‑of‑the‑art occurrence, transport,

and investigation methods
Seon‑jin Yang1 · Byung‑Tae Lee1 · Soon‑Oh Kim2 · Sunhwa Park3

Received: 7 June 2023 / Accepted: 9 November 2023 / Published online: 5 December 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Purpose A number of studies have been conducted on the occurrence, transport, and fate of microplastics in soil environ-
ments. The complexity of matrices presents significant challenges in investigating microplastics in soil, highlighting the need
for further research and development in this field. In this review, sampling and pretreatment methods available for detect-
ing and further studying microplastics in soil environments are primarily focused with a minor discussion on their various
sources and behavior. Finally, based on the current research findings, the directions of future research are proposed as well.
Methods Based on a comprehensive search of the available database, we provide updated information on the sources and
behavior of microplastics in the soil and the analytical techniques available for their study.
Results Previous studies have predominantly focused on microplastic contamination and its levels in various environments.
We propose that the focus of microplastic research needs to be redirected to allow a better understanding of the behavior and
impact of soil microplastics. The novel approach involves modeling the behavior of microplastics in the soil and associated
environmental impacts and risks and developing standardized testing methods. These tools will provide a comprehensive
strategy for creating a healthy and safe environment.
Conclusions As plastic production increases worldwide, the accumulation of microplastics in the soil also increases, with potentially
adverse implications for food security, human health, and climate change. A comprehensive strategy for rational delineation of
microplastic behavior in the soil, as presented here, is needed to counteract and control the environmental impact of microplastics.

Keywords Soil microplastics · Polyethylene terephthalate · Polyamide · Polyvinyl chloride · Microplastic behavior

1 Introduction been collected, with 32.5% recycled and 24.9% landfilled. The
amount of plastic waste, that remains uncollected and continues
Plastics are highly versatile and functional materials. Global to be used or improperly disposed of, exacerbates the environ-
plastic production continually increases, with 356 million mental burden of plastics. Approximately 9 to 23 million tons
tons produced in 2018. Of these, only 29.1 million tons have of plastic waste enter rivers, lakes, and oceans each year, while
13 to 25 million tons of plastic waste are discharged into terres-
trial environments (Lee and Cha 2022). By 2050, an estimated
Responsible editor: Dong-Mei Zhou
260 million tons of plastic waste will be generated worldwide,
* Byung‑Tae Lee with at least 45% expected to enter the environment without
btlee@gist.ac.kr being recycled or incinerated (Geyer et al. 2017; IEA 2018).
* Soon‑Oh Kim Microplastics are high-molecular-weight solid particles
sokim@gnu.ac.kr (typically < 5 mm in size) that do not dissolve in water. There
1
are two types of microplastics, primary and secondary. The
Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Central Research former, such as microbeads used in cleansers and cosmetics,
Facilities, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, 123
Cheomdangwagi‑ro, Buk‑gu, Gwangju, Republic of Korea are intentionally produced, whereas the latter are generated
2 through physical and chemical weathering (i.e., fragmenta-
Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural
Science (RINS), Gyeongsang National University, tion and degradation) of larger plastics in the environment
Gyeongsangnam‑do, Jinju, Republic of Korea (Andrady 2011; Masura et al. 2015). The biodegradation rate
3
Soil and Groundwater Research Division, National Institute of microplastics is overly low; they are widely distributed in
of Environmental Research, Incheon, Republic of Korea our environment, including the soil.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

780 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

Microplastics enter the soil and accumulate therein via and sports facility flooring (Dehghani et al. 2017; Dris et al.
various routes, e.g., resulting from agricultural activities, 2016; Dris et al. 2017; Henseler et al. 2019; Magnusson
such as sludge and organic fertilizer use. They originate et al. 2016; Rezaei et al. 2019). In agriculture, the use of
from different sources, such as tire dust, the atmosphere, agricultural machinery, plastic mulch, polytunnels, agricul-
and streams. Up to 90% of microplastics present in the tural waste, sewage sludge containing microplastics, organic
sewage accumulate in the sludge, with microplastic sludge fertilizers, controlled-release fertilizers, soil amendments,
concentrations ranging from 1,500 to 56,400 particles/kg (Li contaminated irrigation water, and flooding all contribute to
et al. 2018; Mintenig et al. 2017). Further, organic fertilizers large amounts of microplastics (Blasing and Amelung 2018;
contain up to 895 microplastic particles/kg (Weithmann et al. Carr et al. 2016; He et al. 2018; Rodríguez-Seijo et al. 2019;
2018), suggesting that long-term use of sludge and organic Weithmann et al. 2018). Microplastics are also present in
fertilizers can lead to microplastic contamination of soils. A a wide range of living environments, e.g., in clothing, fur-
recent study revealed the presence of up to 15.2 polyethylene niture, or household items, and are released during waste
(PE) microplastic particles per liter of groundwater in karst incineration; they are also contributed by landfills and traf-
regions, e.g., the Salem Plateau and Driftless Area (the fic (Dris et al. 2015, 2016; Liebezeit and Liebezeit 2015).
United States) (Panno et al. 2019). As the soil is a repository In soils, microplastics occur in various forms. High lev-
of all substances in the Earth's environment, it likely contains els of PE, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene, and polyam-
substantial amounts of microplastics. These microplastics ide (PA) microplastics are detected in agricultural areas.
adversely impact the ecosystem via various pathways, In contrast, styrene-butadiene rubber is present in soils
e.g., ingestion of plastics by animals, biomagnification near roads and residential areas, primarily arising from
and bioaccumulation in the food chain, absorption and the wear and tear of automobile tires (Choi et al. 2021).
accumulation of endocrine-disrupting substances contained in In industrial areas in Sydney (Australia), polyvinyl chlo-
plastic additives, and exposure to pollutants (Cole et al. 2011). ride (PVC) was detected in the soil (Fuller and Gautam
Several research studies have comprehensively reviewed the 2016). Generally, the types of contaminating plastics vary
various sources and distribution, the migration, transforma- with their sources, typically present on-site or located in
tion, and ecological impacts of microplastics in soil (Sajjad adjacent areas.
et al. 2022; Yang et al. 2021; You et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2022). Studies on soil microplastic distribution have been con-
However, the research progress of microplastics in the soil is ducted in several countries (Table 2). Most such studies
restricted by inherent technological inconsistencies and diffi- originate in China because of its large population, vast ter-
culties in methods to identify and quantify their particles due ritory, and high plastic production. Another critical reason
to the complex matrices of soil. This review focuses sampling may be that plastic pollution control receives high atten-
and pretreatment methods available for detecting and further tion and more studies are conducted. Further, most studies
studying microplastics in soil environments with a minor dis- on soil microplastics have been conducted in agricultural
cussion on their various sources and behavior. We also discuss areas, which are the main contaminated environments
the implications of the current research findings and propose owing to the abundance of plastic sources, e.g., fertilizers
directions for future research for an improved understanding and mulch, and their role as primary contributors to human
of the environmental impact of these pollutants. and environmental microplastic exposure. In China, plastic
concentrations of 40 ± 126 to 100 ± 141 particles/kg were
detected in agricultural lands in the northern Loess Plateau
2 Literature survey and discussion (Han et al. 2019), and 10.3 ± 2.2 to 78.00 ± 12.91 particles/
kg were detected in farming lands in Shanghai (Liu et al.
2.1 Occurrence of microplastics and their behavior 2018; Lv et al. 2019). The highest concentration of micro-
in the soil plastics in agricultural soil was detected in the Wuhan
region, with 4.3 × ­1 0 4 to 6.2 × ­1 0 5 particles/kg (Zhou
2.1.1 Microplastic contamination in the soil et al. 2019). These studies indicate that the distribution
of microplastics in agricultural soil varies regionally in
Microplastics are widely distributed in the environment, China. The microplastic concentration in agricultural soils
primarily attributed to the extensive production, consump- of Mittelfranken, Germany was reported to be 0.34 ± 0.36
tion, and disposal of plastic products. They enter the soil particles/kg (Piehl et al. 2018). In South Korea's Yongin
due to various anthropogenic activities (Fig. 1). Corradini region, concentrations ranged from 81 to 18,870 particles/
et al. (2019) broadly classified the sources of microplastics kg (Kim et al. 2021), and in the Yeoju region, it was 664
in the soil as industrial, agricultural, and others (Table 1). particles/kg (Choi et al. 2021). The variation in reported
Industrial sources include tire dust, asphalt, various road microplastic concentrations across regions and countries
and building paints, traffic safety facilities, artificial turf, can be attributed to not only differences in the extent of

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792 781

Fig. 1  Sources and occurrence of microplastics in the soil

soil microplastic contamination but also methods of sam- grasslands in the Santiago Province, Chile (Corradini et al.
pling, pretreatment, and analysis. 2021). In the case of Yeoju (South Korea), 500 microplastic
Microplastics are present not only in agricultural lands but particles/kg were detected in residential areas and 1,108 par-
also in residential areas, roads, and forested areas. In forested ticles/kg in road soils, indicating that human residential and
regions in Wuhan, China, 9.6 × ­104 to 6.9 × ­105 microplas- living environments contain microplastics (Choi et al. 2021).
tic particles/kg were detected (Zhou et al. 2019). In contrast, Additionally, microplastics were detected in the soil of 29
184 ± 266 particles/kg of microplastics were detected in floodplains in Switzerland (Scheurer and Bigalke 2018), and

Table 1  Major sources of microplastics in the soil

Major sources Major pollutants References

Industrial activities Dehghani et al. (2017), Dris et al. (2016), Henseler et al.
Tire dust, asphalt, paints from roads and buildings, traffic
(2019), Magnusson et al. (2016), Sommer et al. (2018),
safety facilities, artificial turf, sports facility flooring,
household plastic waste, and airborne microplastics Unice et al. (2019), Prata (2018), Rezaei et al. (2019),
Scheurer and Bigalke (2018)
Agricultural activities Use of agricultural machinery, plastic mulch, polytunnels, Carr et al. (2016), Heuchan et al. (2019), Hurley and
agricultural waste, sewage sludge, organic fertilizers, Nizzetto (2018), Rodriguez-Seijo et al. (2019),
controlled-release fertilizers, soil amendments, Weithmann et al. (2018), Blasing and Amelung (2018),
contaminated irrigation water, and flooding Ng et al. (2018), He et al. (2018), Steinmetz et al. (2016)
Other Clothing, home furniture, waste incineration, landfills, and Dris et al. (2015, 2016, 2017), Liebezeit and Liebezeit
traffic-emitted particles (2015)

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 2  Summary of worldwide field surveys on the distribution of microplastics in the soil
782

Country Region Land use Concentration Major plastic Sampling Cut-off Sample Pretreatment method References
(pieces/kg) types depth (cm) size amount (kg)

13
(mm)

China North (Loess Agricultural 40 ± 126 – 0–10 0.05 – – Han et al. (2019)
Plateau) 100 ± 141 10–30
Orchard 320 ± 329 0–10
120 ± 169 10–30
Agricultural 100 ± 254 0–10
(polytunnel) 80 ± 193 10–30
Shanghai Agricultural 78.00 ± 12.91 PP, PE 0–3 0.02 1 Drying: 70 °C, 24 h Liu et al. (2018)
(upland) Density gradient separation: NaCl (1.19 g/cm3)
Agricultural 62.50 ± 12.97 3–6 Oxidation: 30% H­ 2O2
(lowland) Filtration: 20 mm nylon mesh filter

Agricultural 10.3 ± 2.2 PE, PP – – Lv et al. (2019)

(rice)
Wuhan Woodland 9.6 × ­104 PE, PP, PS, PA, 5 0.15–5 – Oxidation: 30%KOH:NaClO Zhou et al. (2019)
- 6..9 × ­105 PVC Density separation: Nacl(1.19 g/cm3) and ­ZnCl2(1.55 g/cm3)
Vegetable farm- 4.3 × ­104
land - 6.2 × ­105
Vacant lot 2.2 × ­104
- 2.0 × ­105
Hangzhou Bay Agricultural 571.2 PE, PP, PES, 0–10 1–3 – Air drying: 25 °C Zhou et al. (2020)
(mulching) rayon, Sieving: 5 mm mesh
acrylic, PA Density gradient separation: NaCl, NaI
Shanxi Province Agricultural 1430–3410 PS, PE, PP, 0–10 0–5 1 (6 random Drying: 30 °C Ding et al. (2020)
HDPE, PVC, subsamples) Density gradient separation: ­CaCl2 (1.5 g/cm3), NaCl (1.2 g/
PET cm3)
Oxidation: 30% H­ 2O2
Tibet Agricultural 52.35 ± 20.41 PP, PE, PS 0–3 0.05–5 1.2 Drying: 70 °C, 24 h Feng et al. (2020)
43.53 ± 19.45 PE, PA, PS, PP 3–6 Sieving: 2 mm mesh
Density gradient separation: NaCl (1.2 g/cm3)
Oxidation: 0.05 M Fe(II) and 30% H­ 2O2 (75 °C)
Vacant lot 3–340 PVC, PP, PE, 0–5 - 1 Drying: 50 °C, 72 h Yang et al. (2022)
PET Sieving: 2 mm mesh
Density gradient separation: ­ZnCl2 (1.6 g/cm3)
Oxidation: ­FeSO4 ·7H2O
Canada Ontario (entire Agricultural 4.1 × ­1011– PP, PE, PES, 0–15 – – – Crossman et al. (2020)
area) 1.3 × ­1012 acrylic
Industrial waste 1.4 × ­104 0–15 – – Soaking in lukewarm tap water
management Sieving: 1 mm mesh

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Germany Mittelfranken Agricultural 0.34 ± 0.36 PE, PP, PS 0–5 1 – – Piehl et al. (2018)
(Middle Fran-
conia)
North Agricultural – – 10–30 0.2 – Harms et al. (2021)
Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792
 Table 2  (continued)
Country Region Land use Concentration Major plastic Sampling Cut-off Sample Pretreatment method References
(pieces/kg) types depth (cm) size amount (kg)
(mm)

South Korea Yongin Agricultural 1,880 ± 1,563 PE, PET, PP 0–5 0.1 0.2 Sieving: 5 mm mesh Kim et al. (2021)
(inside polytun- Oxidation: 35% H­ 2O2
nel) Density gradient separation: ­ZnCl2: ­CaCl2 (2:1.4 v/v,
1.55–1.58 g/mL)
Agricultural 1,302 ± 2,389 PP, PE, PET 0–5 0.1
(outside poly-
tunnel)

Agricultural 160 ± 93 PE, PP 0–5 0.1

(rice)

Agricultural land 81 ± 77 PP, PE, PS, 0–5 0.1

(using plastic PET
Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

mulch)

Yeoju Road 1108 SBR 0–5 <5 3 random Drying: 60 °C, 48 h Choi et al. (2021)
replicates Sieving: mesoplastics: 5–25 mm mesh microplastics: 5 mm
Agricultural 664 PE, PP <1 mesh
Density gradient separation: ­ZnCl2 (1.7 g/cm3)
Residential area 500 SBR –
Oxidation: 0.05 M F­ eSO4, ­H2SO4, 30% ­H2O2
Forest 160 – (75 °C, 24 h)
Yanggu Agricultural 50–383 PP, PET, PE 0–10 1 Sieving: 5 mm mesh Chia et al. (2023)
land(inside Digestion: 30% H­ 2O2
greenhouse) Density separation: ­Li2WO4 (1.5 g/mL)
Agricultural 158–235
land (using
plastic mulch)
Chile Santiago Grassland 184 ± 266 – – – – – Orona-Návar et al. (2022)
Switzerland Floodplains Floodplains 593 PE 5 <1 5 subsamples, Density gradient separation: NaCl (1.2 g/cm3), ­CaCl2 (1.5 g/ Scheurer and Bigalke
(n = 29) 4 m apart cm3) (2018)
Oxidation: 13% KClO, 50% NaOH, 96% ­H2SO4, 65% ­HNO3,
30% ­H2O2
Australia Sydney Industrial zone – PVC – – – – Fuller and Gautam (2016)
Spain Murcia Agricultural 2 × ­1013 – 0–10 – – Adding triple-distilled water (30 mL) and mixing (150 rpm, Beriot et al. (2021)
30 min)
Centrifugation: 3000 rpm, 10 min
Filtration: Whatman No. 42
Ultrasonic cleaning for 10 min, followed by filtration
Mexico Oaxaca Grassland 1490–1530 – 0–20 0.15– 20 randomly Drying: 2 °C, 72 h Álvarez-Lopeztello et al.
0.5 sampled soil Sieving: 2 mm mesh (2021)
cores Density gradient separation: ­ZnCl2

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Tunisia Moknine Agricultural land 50–880 PE, PP, PAN, 1 Drying: 40 °C Chouchene et al. (2022)
PET Sieving: 5, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, 0.3-mm mesh
Density separation: NaCl (1.2 g/cm3)

PP Polypropylene, PE Polyethylene, PA Polyamide, PS Polystyrene, PMA Polymethyl acrylate, PU Polyurethane, PVC Polyvinyl chloride, PET Polyethylene terephthalate, PTFE Polytetra-
fluoroethylene, SBR Styrene-butadiene rubber

13
783
784 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

high concentrations of microplastics were detected in vacant soil, with few investigations on their vertical or horizontal
lots in Wuhan, China (Zhou et al. 2019). Hence, microplastics distribution. In one study, the authors focused on the distri-
are distributed widely in soils, such as soils of agricultural bution of plastics in three agricultural environments (agri-
lands, residential areas, and roads, highly impacted by anthro- cultural land, orchard, and greenhouse) in the Loess Plateau
pogenic and industrial activities, and soils relatively less (northern China) at depths of 0–10 cm (surface layer) and
affected by these activities, such as those in forested areas. 10–30, suggested that the concentration of microplastics in
the deeper layers was higher than in the surface layer (Han
2.1.2 Transport and fate of microplastics in the soil et al. 2019). However, in the orchard and greenhouse soils,
the opposite tendency was observed as the concentrations
The types of microplastic behavior in the subsurface soil of microplastics in the surface layer were 320 ± 329 and
environment can be divided into three categories, i.e., 100 ± 254 particles/kg, respectively, higher than those in the
surface migration, infiltration in unsaturated zones, and deeper layers, which indicates that the vertical distribution
transport in saturated media (Kim et al. 2019) (Table 3). of microplastics varies with the cultivation method. Further-
Although microplastics are believed to be stored or show more, agricultural activities, such as plowing, disturb both
delayed mobility in soils and sediments, the possible mobil- the topsoil and subsoil and organisms, such as earthworms
ity of extremely small (µm to nm) microplastic particles in and springtails, can transport microplastics (Kim and An
the subsurface environment needs to be investigated in detail 2019; Rillig et al. 2017). In contrast, no substantial differ-
(Alimi et al. 2018). ences were detected in the horizontal distribution of micro-
The transport of microplastics accumulated in the soil plastics inside and outside polytunnel cultivation areas in
via surface runoff into streams and groundwater during pre- Yongin, South Korea (Kim et al. 2021).
cipitation can be explained or predicted based on theories The fate of microplastics in soil environments and their
related to soil erosion and sediment transport (Nizzetto et al. interaction with organisms have also been investigated, with
2016). Further, research on the transport of microplastics in several possible scenarios identified (Ng et al. 2018). For
unsaturated and saturated media, based on studies of colloid instance, soil organisms and animals can ingest or propa-
or nanoparticle behavior, has made considerable progress gate microplastics present in the soil, and plants can absorb
in recent decades (Alimi et al. 2018; Hüffer et al. 2017). nanoscale microplastics (Bandmann et al. 2012; Ng et al.
The application of biosolids in agricultural fields is indeed 2018). Soil bacteria, earthworms, moles, and other under-
a significant pathway for the transfer and accumulation ground organisms can break down microplastics into smaller
of microplastics in soils. In Canada, the concentration of particles, accelerating their transport within the soil (Rillig
microplastics in biosolids used in agriculture was reported 2012). Soil disturbances, caused by plant roots, affect root
to range from 8.7 × ­103 to 1.4 × ­104 MP/kg and the annual movement and growth, and have a similar effect on the
loading of microplastics entering agricultural fields due to behavior of microplastics (Gabet et al. 2003). Further, the
the application of biosolids was estimated to be 4.1 × ­1011 formation of large soil pores resulting from crop harvesting
to 1.3 × ­1012 particles (Crossman et al. 2020). Furthermore, or plant root decomposition promotes the vertical movement
it has been observed that agricultural fields where biosol- of microplastics (Li et al. 2020).
ids are used more frequently and in larger quantities tend Microplastics interact with metals, affecting their adsorp-
to have higher concentrations of microplastics. This can be tion and distribution in the soil (Yu et al. 2021). Moreover,
explained by the fact that some of the microplastics present microplastics compete with soil organic matter for the adsorp-
in biosolids were retained in the soil, leading to an accumu- tion of organic compounds and other substances (Ng et al.
lation of microplastics in those areas over time (Table 4). 2021). Interactions between microplastics and other sub-
Understanding the distribution of microplastics in the soil stances in the soil can, in turn, adversely affect nitrogen and
is crucial for assessing their potential impacts on soil health organic carbon cycling, nutrient delivery, and soil microbial
and the environment. Many studies have been conducted on activity (Dong et al. 2021a, b; Liu et al. 2018; Qi et al. 2020).
the distribution of microplastics in the surface layer of the According to recent studies, microplastics affect soil–plant

Table 3  Microplastic behavior in underground environments

Behavior type Features References

Surface migration Surface runoff enters the river during precipitation, which can be explained or Nizzetto et al. (2022)
predicted using theories related to soil erosion and sediment transport
Infiltration of unsaturated zone Studies of transport within unsaturated and saturated media based on the Alimi et al. (2018),
Transport within the saturated medium behavior of colloids or nanoparticles Hüffer et al. (2017)

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792 785

Table 4  Impact of microplastics on soil properties

Category Microplastic Impact References

Physical properties Microplastics alter soil aggregation, bulk density, porosity, and water-holding Ng et al. (2021), Qi et al. (2020)
capacity
Microplastics cause soil bulk density decrease, which is closely related to soil Mbachu et al. (2021a, b)
erosion risk
Impact on soil aggregation depends on the microplastic type
Heteroaggregation, where plastic particles attach to the soil particle surface, Li et al. (2018), Lu et al. (2018)
can cause microplastic retention in porous media; homoaggregation of
microplastics can lead to particle size increase, hindering their movement
The soil mobility of nanometer-sized microplastics is affected by soil
aggregation
Chemical properties Microplastics are involved in the absorption of metals and their distribution Yu et al. (2021)
within the soil
Microplastics compete with soil organic matter for the adsorption of organic Ng et al. (2021)
compounds and other substances in the soil
Microplastics can negatively affect nitrogen and organic carbon cycling, Dong et al. (2021a, b), Qi et al. (2020)
nutrient delivery, and soil microbial activity
Biological properties Microplastics can affect the soil–plant system, bioaccumulate, and concentrate Mbachu et al. (2021a, b)
along the food chain
Microplastics can disrupt nutrient cycling, affecting the activity, composition, Mbachu et al. (2021a, b)
and diversity of soil microorganisms

systems and are ingested by various organisms at different Although the soil sampling process is relatively simple, it
trophic levels, ultimately accumulating in organisms along can considerably impact the analysis results. This is because
the food chain (Chai et al. 2020). For instance, as the con- errors associated with soil sampling are generally larger than
centration of microplastics in the soil increases, the ingestion measurement errors in the analytical process. Therefore, soil
of microplastics by exposed earthworms also increases (Guo sampling strategies must be carefully designed and consist-
et al. 2020). Pollutants, such as the adsorbed high-molecular- ent. For example, ISO 18400-104:2018 can be referenced to
weight additives, accumulate in earthworms and can then establish a soil sampling strategy (International Organiza-
be transferred to other organisms through the food chain (Li tion for Standardization 2018). Soil sampling for studying
et al. 2020). Progressing through the food chain, microplastics the distribution of soil microplastics requires a strategy for
from the soil could ultimately affect humans (De Falco et al. securing representative samples from the target site or area.
2019). Microplastics can also disrupt soil nutrient cycling, Such a strategy must consider specific methods and criteria
impacting soil microbial activity, composition, and species for selecting soil sampling points, sampling depth, and the
diversity (Mbachu et al. 2021b), which could adversely impact number of samples collected at the target site or area. As the
plants and animals, also threatening food security. Notably, vertical or horizontal distribution of microplastics in the soil
long-term disruption of soil microbial species diversity could is not uniform, it is crucial to standardize sampling point
adversely affect forest soil microbial communities and con- selection with a consistent and comparable sampling depth
tribute to climate change (Ng et al. 2021). to ensure the representativeness of the samples. The soil can
be sampled using either grab sampling or composite sam-
2.2 Methods for soil microplastic analysis pling methods. Composite sampling is used for collecting
representative samples at the target site. It involves select-
2.2.1 Soil sample collection ing 2–6 sub-sites within the target site and combining the
soil collected at each sub-site into a single sample. In South
Investigating environmental microplastics involves several Korea, domestic standards for soil contamination testing pro-
stages, such as sampling, isolation, separation, identifica- vide specific guidelines for the soil sampling methodology
tion, and quantification (Mai et al. 2018). However, no inter- for specific target areas (National Institute of Environmental
nationally recognized testing standards have yet been estab- Research 2017). For the agricultural land, 5–10 sub-sites are
lished for the investigation and analysis of microplastics in designated in a zigzag pattern within the target area, and the
soil media, and the International Organization for Standardi- samples are collected at each sub-site and then combined.
zation (ISO) is working on standardizing test methods in this For factory areas, landfill sites, urban areas, and other areas,
field (Jeong et al. 2018). five sub-sites must be sampled, i.e., one in the center of the

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

786 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

target area and one each 5–10 m from the center and in the detection accuracy. In Raman and infrared spectroscopy,
four directions away from the center. The samples are then the organic matter can potentially distort the readings by
to be combined. When the distance between the points is visually interfering with the analysis (Blasing and Amelung
insufficient because of the presence of facilities in the target 2018). Furthermore, it is difficult to optically distinguish
area, appropriate changes are made to adjust this distance. microplastics from organic matter during analysis (Shaw
After collection, the samples are dried, sieved, divided and Day 1994). In addition, the densities of specific soil
into analytical samples, pretreated, and finally analyzed components (e.g., soil organic matter and organic fibers) and
(Álvarez-Lopeztello et al. 2021; Amrutha and Warrier microplastics are similar, which can impact the accuracy of
2020; Harms et al. 2021). To ensure sample representative- density separation (Zhang and Liu 2018). Hence, organic
ness, sufficient sample mass should be obtained. Domestic matter needs to be removed from soil samples before
standards for soil contamination testing recommend col- analysis.
lecting approximately 0.5 kg of soil per sampling point. As The removal efficiency of organic matter by decomposing
the representative sample is a combination of 5–10 sub-site them can be improved by adjusting the reaction conditions,
samples, the final sample mass is in the range of 2.5 to 5 kg such as reagent concentration and reaction time and tem-
(National Institute of Environmental Research 2017). perature. However, this is associated with the risk of micro-
Soil samples are collected at various depths depending on plastic degradation. Consequently, standardized pretreat-
the purpose of the investigation. The sampling depth would ment methods should be used to minimize plastic damage
ideally be determined considering the vertical distribution (Löder et al. 2017). Currently, no unified standard methods
of microplastics in the soil. Hitherto, few studies have been for organic matter decomposition are available, and there is
published on the vertical distribution and behavior of micro- a lack of systematic studies comparing the efficiency of vari-
plastics in the soil. Most studies focused on microplastics ous methods or providing established protocols and guide-
in the topsoil as the primary sources of soil microplastics lines (Rocha-Santos and Duarte 2017). Below, we provide
are located above ground. Accordingly, a specific depth a brief critical overview of the currently available methods
standard for the topsoil is critical, and the analytical out- for organic matter decomposition.
comes may vary depending on the definition of the surface Organic matter decomposition methods can be classi-
layer depth. For example, when microplastics are distributed fied as acid-based, alkali-based, oxidizing agent-based,
mainly within a few centimeters from the soil surface, com- and enzymatic decomposition. Although various methods
paring microplastic concentrations at 5 and 30 cm sampling are available for decomposing organic matter, each has cer-
depths would reveal a lower concentration at the latter depth. tain limitations, and more research is warranted to allow
Standardizing the topsoil depth is crucial for ensuring the accurate separation of microplastics from soil samples.
consistency of the results and for comparing and evaluating Table 5 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of
the distribution of microplastics. In South Korea, according each method. Acid-based decomposition methods involve
to the soil contamination testing standards, the topsoil is sulfuric acid, nitric acid, chlorous acid, and others (Munno
defined as the soil layer 0–15 cm from the surface. Hitherto, et al. 2018; Scheurer and Bigalke 2018; Zou et al. 2019),
the sampling depth, in studies on microplastic occurrence in with nitric acid being the most commonly used. Nitric acid-
the soil, has ranged from 2 to 30 cm from the soil surface, mediated decomposition of organic matter is robust, with a
with the most common sampling depth of up to 5 cm from relatively short reaction time, from a few minutes to a few
the surface (Table 2). On agricultural land, the upper soil hours (Claessens et al. 2013; Scheurer and Bigalke 2018).
layer is disturbed by periodic plowings, such as paddy plow- However, acid treatment decomposes some plastics, such as
ing and field plowing. During plowing, the soil is mixed to acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, PA, and polyethylene tereph-
approximately 30 cm depth; hence, the soil sampled up to thalate (PET) (Enders et al. 2017; Zou et al. 2019).
30 cm from the surface is relatively homogeneous. Conse- Alkali-based decomposition methods mostly involve
quently, for ease of investigation, the depth of the topsoil sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (Foekema
layer in agricultural land, where periodic plowing is per- et al. 2013). These methods effectively decompose animal
formed, could be set at up to 30 cm from the surface. tissues and soil humic acids (Dehaut et al. 2016; Prata et al.
2019). However, they do not decompose humins (Hurley and
2.2.2 Organic matter decomposition Nizzetto 2018). In contrast, they decompose plastics, such
as polycarbonate (PC), PET, and cellulose acetate. Conse-
Soil samples often contain considerable amounts of organic quently, these methods are not recommended for research
matter, such as tree branches and plant roots. The organic (Hamm et al. 2018; Karami et al. 2017).
matter interferes with the analytical separation of plastics Oxidizing agent-based methods are widely used as they
from the soil. Specifically, it is difficult to spectrally distin- do not alter microplastics (Han et al. 2020; Zhang et al.
guish microplastics from organic matter, and this reduces 2020). Hydrogen peroxide ­(H2O2) is the most commonly

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792 787

Table 5  Advantages and disadvantages of different methods for organic matter decomposition
Category Method Advantages Disadvantages References

Acid-based HNO3 Most general, highest reactivity, Decomposes ABS, PA, PET Dehaut et al. (2016), Scheurer
shortest reaction time (minutes and Bigalke (2018)
to hours)
Alkali-based NaOH Decomposes animal tissues Decomposes PC, PET, CA Dehaut et al. (2016), Hurley
KOH Does not decompose soil
(mussel, crab, and fish tissues) et al. (2018), Blasing and
Decomposes soil humic acids humins Amelung (2018)
Oxidizing agent-based H2O2 Most used, effective in decom-
Long reaction time (> 24 h) Cole et al. (2014), Nuelle et al.
posing fish tissue Short-term reduction in oxidiz- (2014), Tagg et al. (2017),
ing power Jabeen et al. (2017), Hurley
Decomposes PA, PS, PET, PVC, et al. (2018), Liu et al. (2018),
PC, PUR, PP, and LDPE Lusher et al. (2018), Munno
Fenton reaction Most effective for environmental Reduced reaction efficiency et al. (2018)
sample treatment, short reac- at > pH 3
tion time (1–2 h) Affects plastics at high reaction
temperatures (> 70 °C)
Enzymatic Protease Low decomposition efficiency Long reaction time (days) Möller et al. (2022)
Pectinase
Viscozyme
Cellulase

PP Polypropylene, PE Polyethylene, PA Polyamide, PS Polystyrene, PMA Polymethyl acrylate, PU Polyurethane, PVC Polyvinyl chloride, PET
Polyethylene terephthalate, PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene, LDPE Polypropylene low density, ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, CA Cellulose
Acetate

used oxidizer (He et al. 2018; Kumar et al. 2020). It effec- 2.2.3 Density gradient separation
tively removes organic matter from various samples, such as
soil (Wang et al. 2021), sludge (Li et al. 2018), water sam- Density gradient separation is based on the density differ-
ples (Wang et al. 2017), and animal cells (Lv et al. 2019). ence between microplastics present in a sample and other
However, the reaction time is long, over 24 h (Ding et al. substances not removed by organic matter oxidation. High-
2021; Liu et al. 2018). Further, partial decomposition of density sand particles settle at the bottom during separation,
certain plastics (PA, PS, PET, PVC, PC, polyurethane, PP, and the supernatant containing low-density microplastics is
and low-density polyethylene) can occur during the reaction, preserved for analysis. The separation efficiency is deter-
making it unsuitable for microplastic analysis (Hurley and mined by the density difference between the separation solu-
Nizzetto 2018; Nuelle et al. 2014). tion and plastic, such that the bigger the density difference,
Fenton oxidation [­ H2O2 + Fe(II)] reaction decomposes the better the separation. As shown in Table 6, for plastics,
organic matter in the soil more effectively than H
­ 2O2 (Möller such as PVC and PET, where the density difference between
et al. 2022; Prata et al. 2019), with a relatively short reac- the separation solution and plastic is low, the separation effi-
tion time (1 –2 h) (Hurley et al. 2018). However, the sample ciency may vary (Junhao et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2019; Rug-
temperature rises as heat is released during the reaction, gero et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2018, 2020).
which could lead to the decomposition of microplastics in During density gradient separation, separation efficiency
the sample. Accordingly, the reaction temperature needs to (recovery and reproducibility), cost, and hazards of the chem-
be maintained at 40 ℃ or less (Junhao et al. 2021). Further, icals need to be considered (Yu et al. 2020). Till now, water,
the sample pH needs to be maintained at 3.0 or lower to NaCl, ­ZnCl2, NaI, and ­ZnBr2 solutions have been mainly
suppress the generation of oxidized iron, which would fuel used in microplastic research. NaCl is widely used because
Fenton oxidation (Hurley et al. 2018). of its low cost and non-toxicity (Corradini et al. 2019; Liu
Decomposition methods involving protease, pectinase, et al. 2018; Lv et al. 2019; Zhou et al. 2018). However, the
isozyme, cellulase, and other enzymes are popular recovery rate of small plastic particles (< 1 mm) may be as
(Cole et al. 2014) and have been used for organic matter low as 40% because of the small density difference to general
decomposition in biological samples. According to recent plastics (Li et al. 2018; Ruggero et al. 2020; Wang and Wang
studies, the organic matter reduction efficiency reaches 2018). The density of N ­ a2WO4, NaBr, 3­ Na2WO4·9WO3·H2O,
approximately 90% when mixed enzymes are used (Löder and ­Li2WO4 solutions can reach 1.3–1.6 g/cm3 and these
et al. 2017; Mbachu et al. 2021b). However, the reaction high-density reagents have high plastic separation efficiency;
times are long (at least 1 d) (Möller et al. 2022). however, they are more expensive than other solvents, which

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

788 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

Table 6  Separation effectiveness based on the solution used for den- characteristics of microplastics, which limits their ability to
sity gradient separation and plastic-type explain microplastic behavior in the environment. Accordingly,
Polymer Density Water NaCl ZnCl2 NaI the characteristics of microplastics and environmental factors
(g/cm3) (1.0 g/ (1.2 g/ (1.6 g/ (1.8 g/cm3) (e.g., exposure time) should be investigated, technologies to
cm3) cm3) cm3) detect and quantify microplastics in soil environments should
PP 0.9–0.91 + + + + be developed, and predictive models should be iteratively
PE 0.92–0.97 + + + + verified and improved. Ultimately, such efforts would enable
PA 1.02–1.05 – + + + accurate assessment and prediction of microplastic behavior.
PS 1.04–1.1 – + + + In addition, studies on the impact and risk associated with the
Acrylic 1.09–1.20 – + + + presence of microplastics in the soil environment are needed.
PMA 1.17–1.20 – + + + Research regarding the risks of the exposure of humans as well
PU 1.2 – + + + as ecosystems to microplastics is currently at the stage of col-
PVC 1.16–1.58 – – ± ± lection or confirmation of the evidence of toxicity. The specific
PET 1.37–1.45 – – ± ± toxicity mechanisms and impacts of microplastics on humans
PTFE 2.10–2.30 – – – – and ecosystems have not yet been elucidated, and research on
the effects of microplastic contamination on ecosystems and
PP Polypropylene, PE Polyethylene, PA Polyamide, PS Polystyrene, human health is still in its infancy. Research on the risks of
PMA Polymethyl acrylate, PU Polyurethane, PVC, Polyvinyl chlo-
ride, PET Polyethylene terephthalate, PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene environmental exposure to microplastics needs to be conducted
+ Effective separation, ± Separation possible, – Does not separate
in stages, including the assessment of the effects of long-term
(Yu et al. 2020) exposure on the environment and humans in terms of toxicity.
The most urgent and essential issue for evaluating the
status, exposure, and behavior of microplastics is the estab-
increases the cost of testing (Eo et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019). lishment of standardized testing and analysis techniques.
In contrast, ­CaCl2 solutions are relatively inexpensive and Currently, no standardized testing and analysis protocols for
can be used at a density of 1.3 g/cm3 to efficiently separate microplastics in the soil are available. Similarly, the method-
microplastics. However, in some cases, ­CaCl2 interferes with ologies for sample collection, pretreatment, and instrument-
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (Stolte et al. 2015). based analyses need to be standardized to allow for the gen-
The most commonly used density gradient separation eration of consistent and reliable data. This would increase
solutions for environmental sample pretreatment are 8 M the reliability of the studies conducted on microplastic expo-
­ZnCl2 (Nuelle et al. 2014) and 10 M NaI (Imhof et al. 2012), sure and behavior, e.g., through comparative evaluations and
with densities of 1.6 and 1.8 g/cm3 and pH of 8.8 and 2.4, verifications of research results, for a better understanding
respectively. The ­ZnCl2 solution with a density of 1.6 g/cm3 and management of microplastics.
can be used for most microplastic separations (Junhao et al. In conclusion, as plastic production increases worldwide,
2021; Liu et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020). At 1.8 g/cm3, the the exposure to and accumulation of microplastics in the
density of NaI solution is higher than that of other separat- soil also increases, with potentially adverse implications for
ing solutions, and it is often used for efficient microplastic food security, human health, and climate change. A com-
separation (Junhao et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2020; Zhang and prehensive strategy for rational delineation of microplastic
Liu 2018). However, both these solutions require caution behavior in the soil is needed, for example, as presented
during handling because of their toxicity. in this review, to counteract and control the environmental
impact of microplastics.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by grants funded

3 Conclusions and perspectives by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the Republic of Korea
(RE202101055) and the National Institute of Environment Research
To date, research on microplastics in the soil environment (NIER), the Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the Republic of Korea
has mainly focused on identifying their presence and levels. (NIER-SP2022-063).
However, systematic studies are needed to understand the Authors' contributions All authors contributed to the study's conception
occurrence, distribution, and impact of microplastics specifi- and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were per-
cally in the soil to allow their environmental management. It formed by SJY, BTL, SOK, and SHP. The first draft of the manuscript
is necessary to understand the behavior and migration char- was written by SJY and all authors commented on previous versions
of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
acteristics of microplastics in soil environments, but some
critical gaps remain. Improved models for the prediction of Availability of data and material All data generated or analyzed during
microplastic behavior should be developed. Currently, col- this study are included in this published review article.
loid behavior models are used, but they do not reflect the

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792 789

Code availability Not applicable. Claessens M, Van Cauwenberghe L, Vandegehuchte MB, Janssen
CR (2013) New techniques for the detection of microplastics
Declarations in sediments and field collected organisms. Mar Pollut Bull
70:227–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​2013.​03.​009
Ethics approval Not applicable. Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway TS (2011) Microplas-
tics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar
Pollut Bull 62:2588–2597. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​
Consent to participate Not applicable. 2011.​09.​025
Cole M, Webb H, Lindeque PK, Fileman ES, Halsband C, Galloway
Consent for publication Not applicable. TS (2014) Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich seawater
samples and marine organisms. Sci Rep 4:4528. https://​doi.​
Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or non- org/​10.​1038/​srep0​4528
financial interests to disclose. Corradini F, Casado F, Leiva V, Huerta-Lwanga E, Geissen V (2021)
Microplastics occurrence and frequency in soils under different
land uses on a regional scale. Sci Total Environ 752:141917.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​141917
Corradini F, Meza P, Eguiluz R, Casado F, Huerta-Lwanga E, Geis-
References sen V (2019) Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agri-
cultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Sci Total Environ
Alimi OS, Farner Budarz J, Hernandez LM, Tufenkji N (2018) Micro- 671:411–420. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​03.​368
plastics and nanoplastics in aquatic environments: Aggregation, Crossman J, Hurley RR, Futter M, Nizzetto L (2020) Transfer and
deposition, and enhanced contaminant transport. Environ Sci transport of microplastics from biosolids to agricultural soils
Technol 52:1704–1724. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​7b055​59 and the wider environment. Sci Total Environ 724:138334.
Álvarez-Lopeztello J, Robles C, del Castillo RF (2021) Microplastic https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​138334
pollution in neotropical rainforest, savanna, pine plantations, and De Falco F, Cocca M, Guarino V, Gentile G, Ambrogi V, Ambrosio
pasture soils in lowland areas of Oaxaca, Mexico: Preliminary L, Avella M (2019) Novel finishing treatments of polyamide
results. Ecol Indic 121:107084. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ colin​ d.​ fabrics by electrofluidodynamic process to reduce microplastic
2020.​107084 release during washings. Polym Degrad Stab 165:110–116.
Amrutha K, Warrier AK (2020) The first report on the source-to-sink https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​polym​degra​dstab.​2019.​05.​001
characterization of microplastic pollution from a riverine envi- Dehaut A, Cassone A-L, Frère L, Hermabessiere L, Himber C,
ronment in tropical India. Sci Total Environ 739:140377. https://​ Rinnert E, Rivière G, Lambert C, Soudant P, Huvet A, Duflos
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​140377 G, Paul-Pont I (2016) Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark
Andrady AL (2011) Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar protocol for their extraction and characterization. Environ Pol-
Pollut Bull 62:1596–1605. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​ lut 215:223–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2016.​05.​018
2011.​05.​030 Dehghani S, Moore F, Akhbarizadeh R (2017) Microplastic pollu-
Bandmann V, Müller JD, Köhler T, Homann U (2012) Uptake of tion in deposited urban dust, Tehran metropolis. Iran Envi-
fluorescent nano beads into BY2-cells involves clathrin- ron Sci Pollut Res 24:20360–20371. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
dependent and clathrin-independent endocytosis. FEBS Lett s11356-​017-​9674-1
586:3626–3632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​febsl​et.​2012.​08.​008 Ding L, Wang X, Ouyang Z, Chen Y, Wang X, Liu D, Liu S, Yang X,
Beriot N, Peek J, Zornoza R, Geissen V, Lwanga EH (2021) Low Jia H, Guo X (2021) The occurrence of microplastic in Mu Us
density-microplastics detected in sheep faeces and soil: a case Sand Land soils in northwest China: Different soil types, vege-
study from the intensive vegetable farming in Southeast Spain. tation cover and restoration years. J Hazard Mater 403:123982.
Sci Total Environ 755:142653 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2020.​123982
Blasing M, Amelung W (2018) Plastics in soil: Analytical methods Ding L, Zhang S, Wang X, Yang X, Zhang C, Qi Y, Guo X (2020)
and possible sources. Sci Total Environ 612:422–435. https://​ The occurrence and distribution characteristics of microplas-
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2017.​08.​086 tics in the agricultural soils of Shaanxi Province, in north-
Carr SA, Liu J, Tesoro AG (2016) Transport and fate of microplastic western China. Sci Total Environ 720:137525
particles in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 91:174– Dong Y, Gao M, Qiu W, Song Z (2021a) Effect of microplastics and
182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​watres.​2016.​01.​002 arsenic on nutrients and microorganisms in rice rhizosphere
Chai B, Li X, Liu H, Lu G, Dang Z, Yin H (2020) Bacterial com- soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 211:111899. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
munities on soil microplastic at Guiyu, an E-Waste dismantling 1016/j.​ecoenv.​2021.​111899
zone of China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 195:110521. https://​doi.​ Dong Y, Gao M, Qiu W, Song Z (2021b) Uptake of microplastics by
org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoenv.​2020.​110521 carrots in presence of As (III): Combined toxic effects. J Hazard
Chia RW, Lee JY, Lee M, Lee S (2023) Comparison of microplastic Mater 411:125055. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2021.​
characteristics in mulched and greenhouse soils of a major 125055
agriculture area. Korea J Polym Environ 31(5):2216–2229. Dris R, Gasperi J, Mirande C, Mandin C, Guerrouache M, Langlois
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10924-​022-​02746-1 V, Tassin B (2017) A first overview of textile fibers, including
Choi YR, Kim Y-N, Yoon J-H, Dickinson N, Kim K-H (2021) Plastic microplastics, in indoor and outdoor environments. Environ Pol-
contamination of forest, urban, and agricultural soils: a case lut 221:453–458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2016.​12.​013
study of Yeoju City in the Republic of Korea. J Soils Sediment Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Saad M, Renault N, Tassin B (2015)
21:1962–1973. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11368-​020-​02759-0 Microplastic contamination in an urban area: A case study in
Chouchene K, Nacci T, Modugno F, Castelvetro V, Ksibi M (2022) Greater Paris. Environ Chem 12:592–599. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Soil contamination by microplastics in relation to local agricul- 1071/​EN141​67
tural development as revealed by FTIR. ICP-MS and Pyrolysis- Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B (2016) Synthetic
GC/MS Environ Poll 303:119016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ fibers in atmospheric fallout: A source of microplastics in the
envpol.​2022.​119016

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

790 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

environment? Mar Pollut Bull 104:290–293. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Hurley RR, Lusher AL, Olsen M, Nizzetto L (2018) Validation of a
1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​2016.​01.​006 method for extracting microplastics from complex, organic-rich,
Enders K, Lenz R, Beer S, Stedmon CA (2017) Extraction of micro- environmental matrices. Environ Sci Technol 52:7409–7417.
plastic from biota: recommended acidic digestion destroys com- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​8b015​17
mon plastic polymers. ICES J Mar Sci 74:326–331. https://​doi.​ Hurley RR, Nizzetto L (2018) Fate and occurrence of micro(nano)
org/​10.​1093/​icesj​ms/​fsw173 plastics in soils: Knowledge gaps and possible risks. Curr Opin
Eo S, Hong SH, Song YK, Han GM, Shim WJ (2019) Spatiotemporal Environ Sci Health 1:6–11. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ oesh.2​ 017.​
distribution and annual load of microplastics in the Nakdong 10.​006
River, South Korea. Water Res 160:228–237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ IEA (2018) The future of petrochemicals: Towards more sustainable
1016/j.​watres.​2019.​05.​053 plastics and fertilisers. Inter Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. https://​
Feng S, Lu H, Tian P, Xue Y, Lu J, Tang M, Feng W (2020) Analysis of doi.​org/​10.​1787/​97892​64307​414-​en
microplastics in a remote region of the Tibetan Plateau: implica- Imhof HK, Schmid J, Niessner R, Ivleva NP, Laforsch C (2012) A
tions for natural environmental response to human activities. Sci novel, highly efficient method for the separation and quantifica-
Total Environ 739:140087 tion of plastic particles in sediments of aquatic environments.
Foekema EM, De Gruijter C, Mergia MT, van Franeker JA, Murk AJ, Limnol Oceanogr: Methods 10:524–537. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.4​ 319/​
Koelmans AA (2013) Plastic in North Sea fish. Environ Sci lom.​2012.​10.​524
Technol 47:8818–8824. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es400​931b International Organization for Standardization (2018) Standard ISO
Fuller S, Gautam A (2016) A procedure for measuring microplastics 18400–104:2018 - Soil Quality — Sampling. https://​www.​iso.​
using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ Sci Technol 50:5774– org/​stand​ard/​65223.​html. Accessed Oct 2018
5780. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​6b008​16 Jabeen K, Su L, Li J, Yang D, Tong C, Mu J, Shi H (2017) Microplastics
Gabet EJ, Reichman O, Seabloom EW (2003) The effects of bioturba- and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China.
tion on soil processes and sediment transport. Annu Rev Earth Environ Pollut 221:141–149
Planet Sci 31:249–273. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 146/a​ nnure​ v.e​ arth.3​ 1.​ Jeong DH, Ju B, Lee W, Chung H, Park J, Kim C (2018) A mini-review
100901.​141314 on discharge characteristics and management of microplastics
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plas- in sewage treatment plants. J Korean Soc Water Wastewater
tics ever made. Sci Adv 3:1–5. https://​scien​ce.​org/​doi/​10.​1126/​sciadv.​ 32:337–348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11001/​jksww.​2018.​32.4.​337
17007​82 Junhao C, Xining Z, Xiaodong G, Li Z, Qi H, Siddique KH (2021)
Guo J-J, Huang X-P, Xiang L, Wang Y-Z, Li Y-W, Li H, Cai Q-Y, Mo Extraction and identification methods of microplastics and
C-H, Wong M-H (2020) Source, migration and toxicology of nanoplastics in agricultural soil: a review. J Environ Manag
microplastics in soil. Environ Int 137:105263. https://​doi.​org/​ 294:112997. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​112997
10.​1016/j.​envint.​2019.​105263 Karami A, Golieskardi A, Choo CK, Romano N, Ho YB, Salam-
Hamm T, Lorenz C, Piehl S (2018) Microplastics in aquatic systems– atinia B (2017) A high-performance protocol for extraction of
monitoring methods and biological consequences. YOUMARES microplastics in fish. Sci Total Environ 578:485–494. https://​
8–Oceans across boundaries: learning from each other. Proceed- doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2016.​10.​213
ings of the 2017 conference for YOUng MARine RESearchers Kim S-K, Kim J-S, Lee H, Lee H-J (2021) Abundance and charac-
in Kiel, Germany 2018. Springer International Publishing, pp teristics of microplastics in soils with different agricultural
179–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​93284-2_​13 practices: Importance of sources with internal origin and envi-
Han M, Niu X, Tang M, Zhang B-T, Wang G, Yue W, Kong X, Zhu J ronmental fate. J Hazard Mater 403:123997. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
(2020) Distribution of microplastics in surface water of the lower 1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2020.​123997
Yellow River near estuary. Sci Total Environ 707:135601. https://​ Kim SW, An Y-J (2019) Soil microplastics inhibit the movement of
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​135601 springtail species. Environ Int 126:699–706. https://​doi.​org/​
Han X, Lu X, Vogt RD (2019) An optimized density-based approach 10.​1016/j.​envint.​2019.​02.​067
for extracting microplastics from soil and sediment samples. Kim Y, Han WS, Yoon H (2019) Mobility of microplastics in sub-
Environ Pollut 254:113009. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​ surface environments: Current knowledge and perspectives. J
2019.​113009 Soil Groundw Environ 24:1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7857/​JSGE.​
Harms IK, Diekötter T, Troegel S, Lenz M (2021) Amount, distribu- 2019.​24.3.​001
tion and composition of large microplastics in typical agricul- Kumar M, Xiong X, He M, Tsang DC, Gupta J, Khan E, Harrad S,
tural soils in Northern Germany. Sci Total Environ 758:143615. Hou D, Ok YS, Bolan NS (2020) Microplastics as pollutants in
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​143615 agricultural soils. Environ Pollut 265:114980. https://​doi.​org/​
He D, Luo Y, Lu S, Liu M, Song Y, Lei L (2018) Microplastics in 10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2020.​114980
soils: Analytical methods, pollution characteristics and ecologi- Lee JY, Cha JH (2022) Current status of researches on microplastics
cal risks. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 109:163–172. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ in groundwater and perspectives. J Geol Soc Korea 58:233–
10.​1016/j.​trac.​2018.​10.​006 241. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14770/​jgsk.​2022.​58.2.​233
Henseler M, Brandes E, Kreins P (2019) Microplastics in agricultural Li J, Liu H, Paul Chen J (2018) Microplastics in freshwater systems:
soils: a new challenge not only for agro-environmental policy? A review on occurrence, environmental effects, and methods
172nd EAAE Seminar, May 28–29, 2019, Brussels, Belgium. for microplastics detection. Water Res 137:362–374. https://​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​22004/​ag.​econ.​289746 doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​watres.​2017.​12.​056
Heuchan SM, Fan B, Kowalski JJ, Gillies ER, Henry HA (2019) Devel- Li J, Song Y, Cai Y (2020) Focus topics on microplastics in soil:
opment of fertilizer coatings from polyglyoxylate–polyester Analytical methods, occurrence, transport, and ecological
blends responsive to root-driven pH change. J Agric Food Chem risks. Environ Pollut 257:113570. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
67(46):12720–12729 envpol.​2019.​113570
Hüffer T, Praetorius A, Wagner S, von der Kammer F, Hofmann T Liebezeit G, Liebezeit E (2015) Origin of synthetic particles in hon-
(2017) Microplastic exposure assessment in aquatic environ- eys. Pol J Food Nutr Sci 65:143–147. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​
ments: Learning from similarities and differences to engineered pjfns-​2015-​0025
nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 51:2499–2507. https://​doi.​ Liu F, Olesen KB, Borregaard AR, Vollertsen J (2019) Microplastics
org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​6b040​54 in urban and highway stormwater retention ponds. Sci Total

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792 791

Environ 671:992–1000. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​s cito​t env.​ Ng EL, Lin SY, Dungan AM, Colwell JM, Ede S, Huerta Lwanga
2019.​03.​416 E, Meng K, Geissen V, Blackall LL, Chen D (2021) Micro-
Liu M, Lu S, Song Y, Lei L, Hu J, Lv W, Zhou W, Cao C, Shi H, Yang X plastic pollution alters forest soil microbiome. J Hazard Mater
(2018) Microplastic and mesoplastic pollution in farmland soils in 409:124606. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2020.​124606
suburbs of Shanghai, China. Environ Pollut 242:855–862. https://​ Nizzetto L, Bussi G, Futter MN, Butterfield D, Whitehead PG (2016)
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2018.​07.​051 A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catch-
Löder MG, Imhof HK, Ladehoff M, Löschel LA, Lorenz C, Mintenig ments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environ
S, Piehl S, Primpke S, Schrank I, Laforsch C, Gerdts G (2017) Sci Process Impacts 18:1050–1059. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1039/​
Enzymatic purification of microplastics in environmental sam- c6em0​0206d
ples. Environ Sci Technol 51:14283–14292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Nizzetto L, Norling M et al (2022) Catchment-scale mechanistic predic-
1021/​acs.​est.​7b030​55 tions of microplastic transport and distribution across land and
Lu S, Zhu K, Song W, Song G, Chen D, Hayat T, Alharbi NS, Chen water. Research Square
C, Sun Y (2018) Impact of water chemistry on surface charge Nuelle M-T, Dekiff JH, Remy D, Fries E (2014) A new analytical
and aggregation of polystyrene microspheres suspensions. Sci approach for monitoring microplastics in marine sediments.
Total Environ 630:951–959. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​ Environ Pollut 184:161–169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​
2018.​02.​296 2013.​07.​027
Lusher A, Buenaventura NT, Eidsvoll D, Thrane JE, Økelsrud A, Jartun Orona-Návar C, García-Morales R, Loge FJ, Mahlknecht J, Aguilar-
M (2018) Freshwater microplastics in Norway: a first look at Hernández I, Ornelas-Soto N (2022) Microplastics in Latin
sediment, biota and historical plankton samples from Lake Mjøsa America and the Caribbean: a review on current status and per-
and Lake Femunden. NIVA-rapport spectives. J Environ Manag 309:114698
Lv W, Zhou W, Lu S, Huang W, Yuan Q, Tian M, Lv W, He D (2019) Panno SV, Kelly WR, Scott J, Zheng W, McNeish RE, Holm N, Hoe-
Microplastic pollution in rice-fish co-culture system: A report llein TJ, Baranski EL (2019) Microplastic contamination in karst
of three farmland stations in Shanghai, China. Sci Total Environ groundwater systems. Groundwater 57:189–196. https://​doi.​org/​
652:1209–1218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​10.​321 10.​1111/​gwat.​12862
Magnusson K, Eliaeson K, Fråne A, Haikonen K, Olshammar M, Piehl S, Leibner A, Löder MGJ, Dris R, Bogner C, Laforsch C (2018)
Stadmark J, Hultén J (2016) Swedish sources and pathways for Identification and quantification of macro- and microplastics on
microplastics to the marine environment. http://​urn.​kb.​se/​resol​ an agricultural farmland. Sci Rep 8:17950. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
ve?​urn=​urn:​nbn:​se:​ivl:​diva-​362 1038/​s41598-​018-​36172-y
Mai L, Bao L-J, Shi L, Wong CS, Zeng EY (2018) A review of meth- Prata JC (2018) Airborne microplastics: consequences to human
ods for measuring microplastics in aquatic environments. Envi- health? Environ Pollut 234:115–126
ron Sci Pollut Res 25:11319–11332. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Prata JC, da Costa JP, Girão AV, Lopes I, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos
s11356-​018-​1692-0 T (2019) Identifying a quick and efficient method of remov-
Masura J, Baker J, Foster G, Arthur C (2015) Laboratory methods for ing organic matter without damaging microplastic samples. Sci
the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: rec- Total Environ 686:131–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​
ommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and 2019.​05.​456
sediments. NOAA Marine Debris Division, Silver Spring, MD, p Qi R, Jones DL, Li Z, Liu Q, Yan C (2020) Behavior of microplas-
31. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.2​ 5607/O
​ BP-6​ 04 (NOAA Technical Memo- tics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical
randum NOS-OR&R-48) review. Sci Total Environ 703:134722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
Mbachu O, Jenkins G, Kaparaju P, Pratt C (2021a) The rise of artificial scito​tenv.​2019.​134722
soil carbon inputs: Reviewing microplastic pollution effects in Rezaei M, Riksen MJPM, Sirjani E, Sameni A, Geissen V (2019) Wind
the soil environment. Sci Total Environ 780:146569. https://​doi.​ erosion as a driver for transport of light density microplastics. Sci
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2021.​146569 Total Environ 669:273–281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.
Mbachu O, Jenkins G, Pratt C, Kaparaju P (2021b) Enzymatic purifica- ​2019.​02.​382
tion of microplastics in soil. MethodsX 8:101254. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ Rillig MC (2012) Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil?
10.​1016/j.​mex.​2021.​101254 Environ Sci Technol 46:6453–6454. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​
Mintenig SM, Int-Veen I, Löder MGJ, Primpke S, Gerdts G (2017) es302​011r
Identification of microplastic in effluents of waste water treat- Rillig MC, Ziersch L, Hempel S (2017) Microplastic transport in
ment plants using focal plane array-based micro-Fourier-trans- soils by earthworms. Sci Rep 7:1362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
form infrared imaging. Water Res 108:365–372. https://​doi.​org/​ s41598-​017-​01594-7
10.​1016/j.​watres.​2016.​11.​015 Rocha-Santos TA, Duarte AC (2017) Characterization and analysis
Möller JN, Heisel I, Satzger A, Vizsolyi EC, Oster SDJ, Agarwal S, of microplastics. Elsevier, Amsterdam (ISBN: 9780444638984)
Laforsch C, Löder MGJ (2022) Tackling the challenge of extract- Rodríguez-Seijo A, Santos B, Ferreira da Silva E, Cachada A, Pereira
ing microplastics from soils: A protocol to purify soil samples R (2019) Low-density polyethylene microplastics as a source and
for spectroscopic analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 41:844–857. carriers of agrochemicals to soil and earthworms. Environ Chem
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​etc.​5024 16:8–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​EN181​62
Munno K, Helm PA, Jackson DA, Rochman C, Sims A (2018) Impacts Ruggero F, Gori R, Lubello C (2020) Methodologies for microplas-
of temperature and selected chemical digestion methods on tics recovery and identification in heterogeneous solid matrices:
microplastic particles. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:91–98. https://​ A review. J Polym Environ 28:739–748. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​etc.​3935 s10924-​019-​01644-3
National Institute of Environmental Research (2017) Soil contamina- Sajjad M, Huang Q, Khan S, Khan MA, Liu Y, Wang J, Lian F, Wang
tion process test standards. NIER, Incheon Q, Guo G (2022) Microplastics in the soil environment: A criti-
Ng E-L, Huerta Lwanga E, Eldridge SM, Johnston P, Hu H-W, Geissen cal review. Environ Technol Innov 27:102408. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
V, Chen D (2018) An overview of microplastic and nanoplastic 1016/j.​eti.​2022.​102408
pollution in agroecosystems. Sci Total Environ 627:1377–1388. Scheurer M, Bigalke M (2018) Microplastics in Swiss floodplain soils.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​01.​341 Environ Sci Technol 52:3591–3598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​
est.​7b060​03

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

792 Journal of Soils and Sediments (2024) 24:779–792

Shaw DG, Day RH (1994) Colour-and form-dependent loss of plas- risk. Sci Total Environ 780:146546. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
tic micro-debris from the North Pacific Ocean. Mar Pollut Bull scito​tenv.​2021.​146546
28:39–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0025-​326X(94)​90184-8 You X, Wang S, Li G, Du L, Dong X (2022) Microplastics in the soil:
Sommer F, Dietze V, Baum A, Sauer J, Gilge S, Maschowski C, Gieré A review of distribution, anthropogenic impact, and interaction
R (2018) Tire abrasion as a major source of microplastics in the with soil microorganisms based on meta-analysis. Sci Total Envi-
environment. Aerosol Air Qual Res 18:2014–2028 ron 832:154975. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ citot​ env.2​ 022.1​ 54975
Steinmetz Z, Wollmann C, Schaefer M, Buchmann C, David J, Tröger Yu H, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Fan P, Xi B, Tan W (2021) Metal type and
J, Schaumann GE (2016) Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading aggregate microenvironment govern the response sequence of
short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? speciation transformation of different heavy metals to micro-
Sci Total Environ 550:690–705 plastics in soil. Sci Total Environ 752:141956. https://​doi.​org/​
Stolte A, Forster S, Gerdts G, Schubert H (2015) Microplastic con- 10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​141956
centrations in beach sediments along the German Baltic coast. Yu H-W, Kim YS, Lee S, Yoo J, Choi J (2020) A review on analytical
Mar Pollut Bull 99:216–229. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.m
​ arpol​ bul.​ methods and occurrences for microplastics in freshwater. J Envi-
2015.​07.​022 ron Anal Health Toxicol 23:180–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​36278/​
Tagg AS, Harrison JP, Ju-Nam Y, Sapp M, Bradley EL, Sinclair CJ, jeaht.​23.4.​180
Ojeda JJ (2017) Fenton’s reagent for the rapid and efficient Zhang GS, Liu YF (2018) The distribution of microplastics in soil
isolation of microplastics from wastewater. Chem Commun aggregate fractions in southwestern China. Sci Total Environ
53(2):372–375 642:12–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​06.​004
Unice KM, Weeber MP, Abramson M et al (2019) Characterizing Zhang S, Liu X, Hao X, Wang J, Zhang Y (2020) Distribution of low-
export of land-based microplastics to the estuary-Part I: appli- density microplastics in the mollisol farmlands of northeast
cation of integrated geospatial microplastic transport models to China. Sci Total Environ 708:135091. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
assess tire and road wear particles in the Seine watershed. Sci scito​tenv.​2019.​135091
Total Environ 646:1639–1649 Zhao S, Zhang Z, Chen L, Cui Q, Cui Y, Song D, Fang L (2022)
Wang F, Wong CS, Chen D, Lu X, Wang F, Zeng EY (2018) Interaction Review on migration, transformation and ecological impacts of
of toxic chemicals with microplastics: A critical review. Water microplastics in soil. App Soil Ecol 176:104486. https://​doi.​org/​
Res 139:208–219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​watres.​2018.​04.​003 10.​1016/j.​apsoil.​2022.​104486
Wang F, Wu H, Wu W, Wang L, Liu J, An L, Xu Q (2021) Microplas- Zhou Q, Zhang H, Fu C, Zhou Y, Dai Z, Li Y, Tu C, Luo Y (2018)
tic characteristics in organisms of different trophic levels from The distribution and morphology of microplastics in coastal
Liaohe Estuary. China Sci Total Environ 789:148027. https://d​ oi.​ soils adjacent to the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea. Geoderma
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2021.​148027 322:201–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​rma.​2018.​02.​015
Wang J, Peng J, Tan Z, Gao Y, Zhan Z, Chen Q, Cai L (2017) Micro- Zhou Y, Liu X, Wang J (2019) Characterization of microplastics and
plastics in the surface sediments from the Beijiang River littoral the association of heavy metals with microplastics in suburban
zone: Composition, abundance, surface textures and interaction soil of central China. Sci Total Envirn 694:133798. https://​doi.​
with heavy metals. Chemosphere 171:248–258. https://​doi.​org/​ org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​133798
10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2016.​12.​074 Zhou B, Wang J, Zhang H, Shi H, Fei Y, Huang S, Barceló D (2020)
Wang W, Ge J, Yu X, Li H (2020) Environmental fate and impacts of Microplastics in agricultural soils on the coastal plain of Hang-
microplastics in soil ecosystems: Progress and perspective. Sci zhou Bay, east China: multiple sources other than plastic mulch-
Total Environ 708:134841. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​ ing film. J Hazard Mater 388:121814
2019.​134841 Zou Y-D, Xu Q-Q, Zhang G, Li F-Y, Li F-M (2019) Influence of six
Wang W, Wang J (2018) Investigation of microplastics in aquatic envi- digestion methods on the determination of polystyrene micro-
ronments: An overview of the methods used, from field sampling plastics in organisms using the fluorescence intensity. Huan Jing
to laboratory analysis. TrAC Trends in Anal Chem 108:195–202. Ke Xue 40:496–503. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13227/j.​hjkx.​20180​4072
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trac.​2018.​08.​026
Weithmann N, Möller JN, Löder MGJ, Piehl S, Laforsch C, Freitag R Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
(2018) Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
into the environment. Sci Adv 4:eaap8060. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1126/​sciadv.​aap80​60 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
Yang L, Kang S, Wang Z, Luo X, Guo J, Gao T, Zhang Y (2022) exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
Microplastic characteristic in the soil across the Tibetan Pla- author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
teau. Sci Total Environ 828:154518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
scito​tenv.​2022.​154518 such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Yang L, Zhang Y, Kang S, Wang Z, Wu C (2021) Microplastics in
soil: A review on methods, occurrence, sources, and potential

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com