“…Among the various toxicants, heavy metals are the most analyzed (74%), followed by pharmaceutical and personal care products and hydrocarbons (around 7%). Recently, other emerging contaminants, such as plastics, attracted the attention of researchers in assessing their toxicity also in freshwaters (van Sebille et al 2015 ; Ma et al 2019 ), but only few studies investigated toxicity responses in freshwater plants (Kalcíková et al 2017 ; Yi et al 2019 ). Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Very few plant species were tested with these contaminants, including microalgal species of the genus Chlorella and Scenedesmus and flowering plants such as Lemna minor and Myriophyllum spicatum (Supplementary Table 6 ). However, the limited available literature shows that the phytotoxicological effects of the most commonly encountered plastics include photosynthesis inhibition and sprout and root growth (Kalcíková et al 2017 ; Bosker et al 2019; Dovidat et al 2019; van Weert et al 2019 ), as micro- and nanoplastic particles adsorbed on external plant tissues form physical blocks to light and air by hindering photosynthesis and respiration activities (Bhattacharya et al 2010 ; Besseling et al 2014 ; Kalčíková et al 2017 ; Mateos-Cárdenas et al 2019 ; Ma et al 2019 ; van Weert et al 2019 ; Yi et al 2019 ). However, many of these studies showed that generally plant species are only affected when the concentrations of micro- and nanoplastics are higher than those recorded in nature (Mateos-Cárdenas et al 2019 ; van Weert et al 2019 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the various toxicants, heavy metals are the most analyzed (74%), followed by pharmaceutical and personal care products and hydrocarbons (around 7%). Recently, other emerging contaminants, such as plastics, attracted the attention of researchers in assessing their toxicity also in freshwaters (van Sebille et al 2015;Ma et al 2019), but only few studies investigated toxicity responses in freshwater plants (Kalcíková et al 2017;Yi et al 2019). The methods for testing the various toxicants in plantbased ecotoxicological tests differ slightly in design but basically utilize easily cultured plant organisms which are exposed to different toxicant concentrations for a time range that can vary from few hours to several days.…”
Section: Toxicants Tested In Freshwater Plant-based Ecotoxicological mentioning
This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, limitations, critical issues, and new directions in freshwater plant ecotoxicology. We selected peer-reviewed studies using relevant databases and for each (1) publication year, (2) test plant species, (3) reference plant group (microalgae, macroalgae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, flowering plants), (4) toxicant tested (heavy metal, pharmaceutical product, hydrocarbon, pesticide, surfactant, plastic), (5) experiment site (laboratory, field), and (6) toxicant exposure duration. Although aquatic plant organisms play a key role in the functioning of freshwater ecosystems, mainly linked to their primary productivity, their use as biological models in ecotoxicological tests was limited if compared to animals. Also, toxicant effects on freshwater plants were scarcely investigated and limited to studies on microalgae (80%), or only to a certain number of recurrent species (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Chlorella vulgaris, Lemna minor, Myriophyllum spicatum). The most widely tested toxicants on plants were heavy metals (74%), followed by pharmaceutical products and hydrocarbons (7%), while the most commonly utilized endpoints in tests were plant growth inhibition, variations in dry or fresh weight, morpho-structural alterations, chlorosis, and/or necrosis. The main critical issues emerged from plant-based ecotoxicological tests were the narrow range of species and endpoints considered, the lack of environmental relevance, the excessively short exposure times, and the culture media potentially reacting with toxicants. Proposals to overcome these issues are discussed.
“…Among the various toxicants, heavy metals are the most analyzed (74%), followed by pharmaceutical and personal care products and hydrocarbons (around 7%). Recently, other emerging contaminants, such as plastics, attracted the attention of researchers in assessing their toxicity also in freshwaters (van Sebille et al 2015 ; Ma et al 2019 ), but only few studies investigated toxicity responses in freshwater plants (Kalcíková et al 2017 ; Yi et al 2019 ). Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Very few plant species were tested with these contaminants, including microalgal species of the genus Chlorella and Scenedesmus and flowering plants such as Lemna minor and Myriophyllum spicatum (Supplementary Table 6 ). However, the limited available literature shows that the phytotoxicological effects of the most commonly encountered plastics include photosynthesis inhibition and sprout and root growth (Kalcíková et al 2017 ; Bosker et al 2019; Dovidat et al 2019; van Weert et al 2019 ), as micro- and nanoplastic particles adsorbed on external plant tissues form physical blocks to light and air by hindering photosynthesis and respiration activities (Bhattacharya et al 2010 ; Besseling et al 2014 ; Kalčíková et al 2017 ; Mateos-Cárdenas et al 2019 ; Ma et al 2019 ; van Weert et al 2019 ; Yi et al 2019 ). However, many of these studies showed that generally plant species are only affected when the concentrations of micro- and nanoplastics are higher than those recorded in nature (Mateos-Cárdenas et al 2019 ; van Weert et al 2019 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the various toxicants, heavy metals are the most analyzed (74%), followed by pharmaceutical and personal care products and hydrocarbons (around 7%). Recently, other emerging contaminants, such as plastics, attracted the attention of researchers in assessing their toxicity also in freshwaters (van Sebille et al 2015;Ma et al 2019), but only few studies investigated toxicity responses in freshwater plants (Kalcíková et al 2017;Yi et al 2019). The methods for testing the various toxicants in plantbased ecotoxicological tests differ slightly in design but basically utilize easily cultured plant organisms which are exposed to different toxicant concentrations for a time range that can vary from few hours to several days.…”
Section: Toxicants Tested In Freshwater Plant-based Ecotoxicological mentioning
This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, limitations, critical issues, and new directions in freshwater plant ecotoxicology. We selected peer-reviewed studies using relevant databases and for each (1) publication year, (2) test plant species, (3) reference plant group (microalgae, macroalgae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, flowering plants), (4) toxicant tested (heavy metal, pharmaceutical product, hydrocarbon, pesticide, surfactant, plastic), (5) experiment site (laboratory, field), and (6) toxicant exposure duration. Although aquatic plant organisms play a key role in the functioning of freshwater ecosystems, mainly linked to their primary productivity, their use as biological models in ecotoxicological tests was limited if compared to animals. Also, toxicant effects on freshwater plants were scarcely investigated and limited to studies on microalgae (80%), or only to a certain number of recurrent species (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Chlorella vulgaris, Lemna minor, Myriophyllum spicatum). The most widely tested toxicants on plants were heavy metals (74%), followed by pharmaceutical products and hydrocarbons (7%), while the most commonly utilized endpoints in tests were plant growth inhibition, variations in dry or fresh weight, morpho-structural alterations, chlorosis, and/or necrosis. The main critical issues emerged from plant-based ecotoxicological tests were the narrow range of species and endpoints considered, the lack of environmental relevance, the excessively short exposure times, and the culture media potentially reacting with toxicants. Proposals to overcome these issues are discussed.
“…Although the above toxic effects of microplastics on microalgae have received more attention, the toxicity mechanism is quite complex (Figure 2). First, as microplastics have various shapes and rough edges, it is easy to cause mechanical damage to algae cells, such as the cell wall damage and cell fragmentation [107][108][109][110], which may eventually lead to algal cells death. The mechanical damage becomes more serious with the increasing of the microplastics concentration.…”
Section: Toxic Effects Of Microplastics On Marine Microalgaementioning
Recently, microplastics pollution has attracted much attention in the environmental field, as researchers have found traces of microplastics in both marine and terrestrial ecological environments. Here, we reviewed and discussed the current progress on microplastics pollution in the marine environment from three main aspects including their identification and qualification methods, source and distribution, and fate and toxicity in a marine ecosystem. Microplastics in the marine environment originate from a variety of sources and distribute broadly all around the world, but their quantitative information is still lacking. Up to now, there have been no adequate and standard methods to identify and quantify the various types of microplastics, which need to be developed and unified. The fate of microplastics in the environment is particularly important as they may be transferred or accumulated in the biological chain. Meanwhile, microplastics may have a high adsorption capacity to pollutants, which is the basic research to further study their fate and joint toxicity in the environment. Therefore, all the findings are expected to fill the knowledge gaps in microplastics pollution and promote the development of relative regulations.
“…Most of the researches have focused on the effects of PS on algal cells (Bhattacharya et al 2010;Casado et al 2013;Besseling et al 2014;Sjollema et al 2016;Bergami et al 2017;Chae et al 2018;Yi et al 2019). Nanometer-sized PS particles have been reported to inhibit algal photosynthesis and growth, whereas micrometer-sized PS particles did not pose such effects (Besseling et al 2014;Sjollema et al 2016;Yi et al 2019). Moreover, aggregation of positively charged PS particles was observed when algal cells co-existed, which induced structural damage and oxidative stress in algae; these effects were greater than those of negatively charged PS particles (Bhattacharya et al 2010;Bergami et al 2017).…”
Nylon powders are a type of microplastic (MP) used in personal care products such as cosmetics and sunscreens. To determine the effects of nylon on freshwater microalgae, we investigated the effects of two types of micrometer-sized nylons, i.e., powdered nylon 6 (Ny6-P) and nylon 12 (Ny12), and four other micrometer-sized MPs, i.e., low-density polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, on the microalga Raphidocelis subcapitata. The results showed that Ny6-P inhibited R. subcapitata growth more than the other MPs; R. subcapitata growth was inhibited by 54.2% with 6.25 mg/L Ny6-P compared with the control. Ny6-P in the culture media adhered R. subcapitata cells electrostatically, which disrupted growth and photosynthesis. Metabolomic analysis revealed that many metabolites related to the amino acid catabolic pathway and γ-glutamyl cycle were induced, which might reflect responses to avoid starvation and oxidative stress. Our study provides important information on the effects of Ny6-P on algae in freshwater environments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
