Frontiers | Reining in plasticulture from land to sea: Pacific Northwest (USA) perspectives on agriculture and aquaculture

Frontiers | Reining in plasticulture from land to sea: Pacific Northwest (USA) perspectives on agriculture and aquaculture
REVIEW article
Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
, 12 September 2025
Sec. Agroecology and Ecosystem Services
Volume 9 - 2025 |
Published in
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Agroecology and Ecosystem Services
3.1
impact factor
6.2
citescore
Part of a Research Topic
Addressing Microplastic Contamination: Sustainable Solutions for Resilient Food Systems
29k
views
articles
Edited by
Sedat Gundogdu
Reviewed by
Muhittin AKÇA
Kenan Gedik
Outline
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
View in article
Figure 2
View in article
Figure 3
View in article
Figure 4
View in article
Figure 5
View in article
Figure 6
View in article
Figure 7
View in article
Figure 8
View in article
Figure 9
View in article
Figure 10
View in article
Figure 11
View in article
Figure 12
View in article
Figure 13
View in article
Figure 14
View in article
Table 1
View in article
Table 2
View in article
REVIEW article
Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
, 12 September 2025
Sec. Agroecology and Ecosystem Services
Volume 9 - 2025 |
Reining in plasticulture from land to sea: Pacific Northwest (USA) perspectives on agriculture and aquaculture
Susanne M. Brander
Gail A. Langellotto
Minal T. Mistry
Sebastian L. Singleton
MacKenna A. Hainey
Lauren M. Kashiwabara
Kelsey Arthur
Elise F. Granek
Kervelle Baird
Ricardo Palazuelos
Nayeli Campos
Heather Trim
Libby Sommer
10
Stacey Harper
11
Gifty Rhodalyn Tetteh
12
1.
Department Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, United States
2.
Department Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States
3.
State of Oregon Department of Environment Quality, Portland, OR, United States
4.
Department Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States
5.
Department Biomedical Sciences, Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, United States
6.
Department Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States
7.
Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, United States
8.
Health & Human Services | Solid Waste & Recycling, Washington County, Beaverton, OR, United States
9.
Zero Waste Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
10.
Libby Sommer LLC, Portland, OR, United States
11.
Department Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States
12.
Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
Article metrics
View details
Abstract
Plastic use in food production—known as plasticulture—has transformed agriculture and aquaculture globally. Plasticulture gained momentum in the mid-20th century with the development of novel plastic materials, and by 2009, U.S. farmers used over 200 million pounds of plastic films annually. Though plastics have increased yields and efficiency, they now pose environmental hazards through the release of microplastics (MPs) and chemicals. Despite extensive documentation of MPs in the environment, their role in U.S. food production and impacts on crop, livestock, and aquaculture health remain underexplored. In regions like the Pacific Northwest (PNW), with robust agricultural and aquaculture sectors, plastics from films, mulches, cages, and ropes are significant sources of MPs. Soil amendments like biosolids and compost also contribute MPs from household waste. Agricultural plastics accounted for 3–5% (10–18 million tons) of global plastic production in 2018 and are projected to increase due to growing food demand. Aquaculture uses an estimated 2.1 million tons of plastics annually, but detailed data on MP generation is lacking. Despite known environmental concerns, a sustainable circular model for plastics in food systems is still absent, but necessary. While biodegradable products for use in farming and aquaculture have been introduced, high costs, regulations, and practical limitations hinder widespread adoption. Until recently, the American Society for Plasticulture (ASP) primarily focused on new plastic innovations rather than sustainability. Now, growing awareness of plastic pollution and health risks has led to increased scrutiny. In the PNW—home to key specialty crops and 6% of U.S. aquaculture operations—there is an urgent need for coordinated efforts to reduce plastic contamination. Shifting toward sustainable practices is challenging but critical to protect ecosystems, food safety, and public health, and possible through regional and state-level regulations on composting, wastewater and biosolids mitigation, and movement to more sustainable replacements where feasible. As our knowledge of micro and nanoplastic impacts on the food supply at sea and on land increases, approaches to reduce the use of plastics overall and to limit leaching and fragmentation into crops, seafood, and meat is essential to protecting human and environmental health. Regulatory efforts at the regional, national and global levels are needed to enhance food safety.
Introduction
Plastic pollution has become one of our greatest environmental problems, contributing to an exponential increase in non-biodegradable waste and exacerbating climate change by necessitating the extraction of fossil fuels for its production and via alterations to the ocean carbon pump and soil carbon cycling and storage (
Brander et al., 2024
Zhu and Rochman, 2022
). After approximately two decades of research, it is now demonstrably clear that impacts from micro/nanoplastics and associated chemicals extend from land to sea, impacting both wildlife and humans (
Thompson et al., 2025
). Although many pathways for MPs to the environment have been described and characterized, the role that food production plays in the transport of MPs to waterways and terrestrial ecosystems, as well as MPs' impact on crop production, aquaculture activities, and environmental health, remains relatively unexplored, particularly in the United States (
FAO, 2021
2024
). However, the demand for plastics to facilitate the production of food and non-food crops continues to increase, and the hazard of plastics fragmentation and leaching of chemical components is now widely demonstrated worldwide (
United Nations Environment Programme, 2022
Briassoulis, 2023
). In regions such as the Pacific Northwestern United States, where both farming and aquaculture are of critical importance, plastic waste, microplastics generation, and leaching of plastic-associated chemicals are of concern for both (
Goldberger et al., 2015
2019
). For agriculture alone this load is projected to increase by over 6% from 2023 to 2030 with growing global populations and food demand. In 2018, agricultural plastics were estimated to account for 3–5%, ~10–18 million tons, of total global plastic production (
Hofmann et al., 2023
FAO, 2024
2021
). Microplastics from such products originate in part from the use of plastic films and mulch as well as soil amendments including biosolids (sterilized sludge from wastewater treatment) and compost that often contains remnants of plastic refuse from households (
Jin et al., 2022
Golwala et al., 2021
Vithanage et al., 2021
). Notably, a recent survey conducted in Ireland found that the number of farmers reporting an increase in plastic use and an increase in the concerns about plastics' impacts sat at 80% and 88%, respectively (
Hofmann et al., 2023
). Thus, it is clear that desire for change is building, but practitioners lack the ability to make better choices either due to availability, expense, or both.
In aquaculture a variety of plastic materials from cages, ropes, etc. are prone to fragmentation. The use of plastics in multiple types of products and soil amendments creates a pathway for MPs to contaminate soils and waterways via both point and non-point sources. The long-term impacts of MNPs on crops, livestock, and soil ecosystems remain underexplored, particularly in the U.S. The PNW, an agricultural hub for crops like hops, hazelnuts, berries, apples, pears, onions, and alfalfa, and aquacultural hub for shellfish like oysters and geoducks, requires more research to assess MNP risks (American Farmland Trust, 2024)
. Plastics have been integral to farming, enhancing yields and resource efficiency (
FAO, 2024
). Agriplastics account for 3.5% of global plastic use and 14% of plastic pollution, with most ending up in landfills, buried, or burned due to contamination (
FAO, 2021
). Recycling remains challenging, as used mulch can gain 200% weight from organic contamination alone (
United Nations Environment Programme, 2021
2022
).
Fisheries and aquaculture combined are estimated to use at least 2.1 million tons of plastic per year (
United Nations Environment Programme, 2021
), and concerns about impacts both to seafood, in terms of food safety, and to surrounding ecosystems are increasing, particularly in the context of concerns about multiple stressors from the relatively rapid advancement of climate change (
Fred-Ahmadu et al., 2024
). For aquaculture alone, exact estimates of plastic used or microplastics generated annually are unavailable, but are likely a considerable fraction of that total since global marine and coastal aquaculture production grew by 64% in volume over the period of 2009–2019, compared to only 4% growth for wild-capture fisheries production (
Skirtun et al., 2022
FAO, 2021
).
Ultimately, MPs generated during food production result from the use of plastic products by farmers and aquaculturists as well as inputs from households (e.g., MPs in biosolids or compost) with no clear end game for sustainable reuse or disposal, nor a plan toward circularity (
Figure 1
). The advent and rapid adoption of plasticulture in the production of food has been compared to an agricultural transformation on par with the Green Revolution, during which we became more reliant on technology to grow crops globally (
Jensen, 2000
). The development of novel plastics formulations (e.g., polyvinylchloride, polystyrene, polyolefins, methyl acrylates) that have become common use for agricultural and aquaculture purposes, catalyzed a major period of growth in the plastics industry starting in the 1930s (
Brydson, 1999
). The 1940s and 1950s saw material improvements and manufacturing efficiencies that made plastics more widely accessible and affordable, as well as the introduction of novel materials, such as nylon (
Brydson, 1999
). But it wasn't until the 1960s that plastics were widely adopted and incorporated into food production, particularly to modify and control changing environmental conditions. Both terrestrial crops and seafood production were early targets for plasticulture, including plastic mulches, row coverings, greenhouses, and poly tunnels for farming (
FAO, 2021
) as well as pond liners, cages, and synthetic ropes used in aquaculture (
National Aquaculture Association, 2025
). Given the high value of many specialty crops and growing reliance on seafood as a protein source, entrepreneurs who were able to modify microclimates to accelerate growth, improve product quality, and/or extend the growing season were able to access economic premiums for their products (
Skirtun et al., 2022
Tarara, 2000
).
Figure 1
The 1960s also marked the formation of professional organizations focused on agricultural plastics. The first recorded workshop on the use of plastic films in agriculture was held in 1960, and was soon followed by the formation of the National Agricultural Plastics Association (NAPA) in 1962. The organization brought together university, grower, and industry stakeholders to discuss improving “general agricultural horticultural practices through the use of plastic products at lower cost to the ultimate consumer” (
Lamont and Orzolek, 2009
). In 1990, the organization's name was changed to the American Society for Plasticulture (ASP) to better reflect the organization's scope of activities (
Lamont and Orzolek, 2009
). Although there is not a specific organization dedicated to promoting plastic use in aquaculture, this sector was established as a national policy priority in the United States in 1980 (National Aquaculture Association), long before plastic pollution or microplastics were identified as either environmental or health concerns. Notably, the vast majority of papers published through ASP between 2000 and 2009 focused on novel plastic formulations and uses, with few papers (5%,
= 189) addressing alternatives to plastics and no papers addressing plastics recycling or reuse, or acknowledging the issue of plastic waste generated from food production (
Figure 2
). Eventually, APS was subsumed into the American Horticultural Society, and became the Plasticulture Professional Interest Group, which continues to facilitate information exchange and networking around the use of plastics in horticultural research and industry.
Figure 2
Over the decades during which plastic use has skyrocketed, research published through agricultural professional organizations focused on improved production practices using plastic films as greenhouse glazing material, mulches, or row covers, or has touted the benefits of using versatile plastic materials for increased efficiency, allowing for the construction of durable and/or rust-resistant nets, cages, and tanks (
AGRU America, 2024
). In the early 1960s, most greenhouse structures in the US were glass. Low-cost single layer polyethylene (PE) structures started to appear in the 1960s, but they were usually temporary, and used to produce seedlings in the spring. Double layers of plastic produced a warmer interior with less condensation, and reduced energy costs by as much as 30%, compared to single glazed glass covers (
Figure 3
).
Figure 3
Plastic use in the industry has been the standard in commercial aquaculture operations for decades. Although indigenous aquaculture practices emphasize sustainability and a small ecological footprint, current approaches are reliant on technology involving plastic use to maximize production.
Many early plasticulture studies focused on improving long-term stability of plastic films, which ultimately complicated plastics recycling due to the number of plastic types and chemical additives involved. The life span of films was increased from 5 months to 4 years via the addition of coatings and approaches such as air inflation to constrain film movement. These enhancements reduced energy costs and issues from condensation. Plastic mulches also increased in popularity from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, reaching 3 million pounds (out of total annual use of 60 million pounds of mulch by the end of the 20th century (
Giacomelli et al., 2000
). By 2009, U.S. farmers were using 200 million pounds of plastic films each year for growing crops (
Figure 3
). Biodegradable plastic mulches, consisting of biobased (e.g., starches) and synthetic polymers (e.g., polylactic acid), were introduced in the 1980s and promoted to be an ecologically sustainable alternative to polyethylene plastic mulch (
Goldberger et al., 2015
). However, the perceived complexity of selecting appropriate biodegradable mulches, relatively high cost of materials, labor, and specialized equipment to use biodegradable mulches, concerns related to the negative environmental impacts of synthetic chemical additives, and unpredictable breakdown have limited their widespread adoption (
Goldberger et al., 2015
). Similarly, the ease of use and durability of plastic materials adopted in aquaculture practices have led to their widespread incorporation across species and life stages (
FAO, 2021
).
Even when accounting for a brief pause in plastics manufacturing during the 1970s oil crisis, by the turn of the century, 180 kilotonnes (396 million pounds) of plastic films were sold to agricultural markets, including mulch films (37% of sales), plastic covers for crop storage and silage protection (34%), 19% for greenhouses, 5% for water conservation, and 4% for fumigation and sterilization (
Laverde, 2002
Lamont and Orzolek, 2009
). Today, increasing concerns related to plastic pollution, the contributions of plastics to climate change, and the impacts of plastic additives and particles on human health have renewed calls to rein in agricultural and aquacultural plastics use (MINAGRIS,
FAO, 2021
). Given the ubiquity of plastics used in terrestrial and aquatic systems, as well as the short-term economic advantages that strategic use of plastics can confer to producers, the transition to new production models and plastics alternatives will be challenging. However, even industry organizations and registered industry political action committees have recently started working to reduce plastics, perhaps to get in front of impending legislation. In the Pacific Northwest, in particular, the considerable size of both the aquaculture [6% of US operations and 18% of sales [
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2024
] and agricultural industries [more than 90,000 farms cultivating over 40 million acres of land [
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2024
], as well as increased pressures on producers due to climate change, presents the need for a united approach to reduce contamination of the food supply from plasticulture, and to protect sensitive ecosystems and the health of human consumers.
Plastics in agriculture in the U.S. Pacific Northwest
The geographic and climatic diversity and fertile soils of the Pacific Northwest supports an enormous variety of agricultural commodities [300+ in Washington, 250+ in Oregon, and 185+ in Idaho;
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2025
], including many specialty crops. Yet ongoing changes to global climate and increasing population size have increased pressure on the agricultural industry and on farmers, leading farmers to become more reliant on plastic products despite their potential negative consequences (
Okeke et al., 2023
). In the Pacific Northwest, more severe winter storms coupled with overall lower precipitation, and warmer summers coupled with frequent wildfires, invasive pests, and pathogens [
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2025
] are significantly impacting growers, causing greater reliance on plastics in production systems (
Tarara, 2000
). The productive oceans and complex and extensive coastlines of the Pacific Northwest offer vast opportunities for aquaculture of diverse shellfish species.
These rich agricultural and aquacultural practices utilize plastic products of different types. One common use of plastic in farming with high rates of shedding micro and nanoplastics (MNPs) is mulch films, typically composed of polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride in the US. These films, used to increase water retention and reduce weed growth, have become more critical due to climatic changes to temperature and precipitation. These plastic mulch films can fragment into smaller pieces in <1 year, depending on the material type, making them a major source of MNPs to soil and surrounding areas. For example, the tensile strength of even some biodegradable mulches, such as those made from PBAT and PLA, can counterintuitively increase with weathering and be altered by differing temperatures or humidity levels (
Hayes et al., 2017
Yu et al., 2024
). While mulch film collection programs exist in some states (
Madrid et al., 2022
), they are not easily recyclable due to residual soil. Furthermore, it is laborious and expensive to remove mulch films from the soil between growing seasons given that these films easily break apart at 8–50 μm thickness leaving small pieces that are impractical or impossible to remove from soil (
Yan et al., 2014
Sarpong et al., 2024
Dada et al., 2025
). When they are removed, recovered mulches have 30–80% surface contamination, making recycling challenging (
Sarpong et al., 2024
). A survey of farm soils (
= 69) across 19 Chinese provinces found that degraded mulch film can account for 10–30% of MPs in agricultural soils (
Ren et al., 2021
), though this is likely an underestimate given that continual breakdown into nano-sized particles eventually renders the debris undetectable while producing orders of magnitude more particles (
Cunningham et al., 2023
). For example, degradation of the estimated 5 trillion pieces of MPs in the environment could result in 5 × 10
15
pieces of nanoplastics (NPs) (
Eriksen et al., 2023
). When compared to soils amended with compost made from greenhouse and garden clippings, soil using plastic mulch contained more than double the number of MPs (2,243 particles/kg compared to 888 particles/kg) (
van Schothorst et al., 2021
). While the breakdown of plastic mulch has been explored and uptake by organisms such as earthworms is documented, little is known about groundwater impacts from plastic particles and associated chemicals such as plasticizers and UV stabilizers (e.g.,
Ramanayaka et al., 2023
Figure 4
). Factors influencing MP concentration in soils include soil texture, crop type, irrigation method, cultivation method, prolonged mulching duration. Crops such as potatoes, which are commonly grown in the Pacific Northwest [
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2024
], rely on mechanical harvesting which tears the plastic covering, increasing the concentration of plastics in the soil (
Miao et al., 2024
).
Figure 4
Plastics in organic agriculture
Many organic farms in the Pacific Northwest depend on plastic products. These include mulch for weed control to avoid pesticide use given limited organic-certified herbicides (
Dentzman and Goldberger, 2020
). Black polyethylene plastic, used since the 1950s, generates up to 120 pounds of plastic waste per acre. With over 228 K acres of organic farmland in Oregon, this amounts to ~27 million pounds annually. Mulch is difficult to recycle due to contamination and removal costs (
OSU Small Farms, 2015
). Though the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) allows biodegradable, biobased plastic mulch, only paper mulch is compliant, as biobased plastic alternatives (e.g., PBAT) still contain fossil-fuel components (
OSU Small Farms, 2015
). Economic pressures to enhance crop health and water retention make transitioning to sustainable alternatives challenging. While paper mulch is available, the limited data available suggests that paper mulches do not suppress weeds as well as plastic mulches, and underperform plastic mulches in terms of yield (
Coolong, 2010
Marble et al., 2019
). Though recent studies suggest soil-biodegradable plastic mulches may be viable alternatives, with some improving soil stability, water retention, and nutrient uptake, these mulches still degrade into micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs), potentially impacting soil and organism health (
Bandopadhyay et al., 2018
).
Another commonly used product type, plastic nets, provide protection from abiotic damage (e.g., hail, sun, or wind) as well as biotic pests, primarily birds and insects. Nets are used primarily in high value specialty crops, including tree fruits, berries, and ornamental plants, due to the costs associated with their purchase and installation. In some orchard systems, netting can represent up to 25% of production costs in the first 3 years of use, with costs increasing on hilly sites, as crop height increases, and with irregular farm layouts. Plastic nets are woven or knitted in a way that allows gasses and liquids to move through the material (
Castellano et al., 2008
). The most common types of plastic nets are made of HDPE, although non-woven layers may be made of polypropylene (
Castellano et al., 2008
). Nets that are manufactured to protect crops from sun or hail tend to be woven and more resistant to breakage than knitted nets used to protect crops from insects or wind (
Briassoulis et al., 2007
). UV stabilizers are often embedded in plastic nets, to slow their breakdown over time, but ultimately their lifespan does not exceed 6 years, and these chemicals gradually leach out of products into soils, etc. (
Castellano et al., 2008
). Compared to studies of plastic mulch breakdown and pollution in agricultural systems (reviewed in
Sa'adu and Farsang, 2023a
), studies have yet to examine how plastic fibers shed from nets in the field. Instead, researchers have derived estimates of net performance (
Castellano et al., 2008
) based upon ISO testing of net properties (e.g.,
Briassoulis et al., 2007
). In addition, there has been limited research on (
Mukherjee et al., 2019
), and limited adoption of biodegradable nets in farming systems, likely because of their scarcity in the marketplace and the high costs associated with agricultural nets, in general. However, some argue that the higher costs of biodegradable nets are recovered due to reduced disposal costs (
Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2012
).
Types of plastics in agriculture
Additional plastics products and types can be found in each step of crop production and can be grouped into three main categories based on their physical properties, including flexible products
e.g., films, tunnel and greenhouse films
, semi-flexible products,
e.g., tubes and drip line
, and rigid products,
e.g., bottles, baskets
FAO, 2021
). These can then be further classified into the following additional categories: protective cultivation films: PE (polyethylene), PVC (polyvinyl chloride), Protective Cultivation panels: PVC (polyvinylchloride), RFP (rigid fiberglass), PC (polycarbonate), PMMA (acrylic panels), nets, piping, irrigation/drainage, packaging, fertilizer, and other [
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
] (
Table 1
).
Table 1
Category
Agricultural product
Intended use/benefit
Plastic alternatives
Notes
Sources
Protective cultivation films (PE and PVC)
Greenhouse Permanent structure with climate control components (e.g., heat, fans).
Designed primarily for environmental control of temperature and moisture. Protects and enhances plant growth, extends cropping seasons, and increases yields.
Glass panels
Glass panels are costly. Glass offers better environmental control than PE, but less than PVC.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Roberts, 2000
Wells, 2000
High/low tunnel, hoop house Semi- permanent, greenhouse- like structure without climate control components.
Designed primarily for season extension. Protects and enhances plant growth, extends cropping seasons, and increases yields.
No known alternatives.
In addition to the plastic film covering, high and low tunnel ribs are often made from PVC piping.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Roberts, 2000
Wells, 2000
Plastic mulch A layer of material applied to the soil surface.
Reduces weed growth, prevents insect pests and vectors of plant disease, eradicates soil-borne pathogens, which reduces the need for pesticides. Reduces evaporative water losses, which reduces irrigation inputs. Warms soil for earlier start to the growing season.
BDM and organic mulches, including crop residue, sawdust, leaf mold, compost, hay and straw. Cover cropping or green mulches can also be used as an alternative to plastic mulch.
Many BDM are commercially available, made from plant-based starches and biodegradable polymers (e.g., PLA, PBAT).
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Schonbock, 2012
Vineyard, berry crop, and orchard covering
Reduces insect pests, environmental damage from frost or sun. Increased environmental control of light wavelengths and temperature. Improved color, sweetness, and overall crop quality.
No known alternatives.
Depending upon the timing of installation, use of crop coverings can limit yield in pollination-dependent crops, including berries and orchard fruits, by excluding pollinators.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Vox et al., 2016
Protective cultivation panels (PVC, FRP, PC, PMMA)
Greenhouse Permanent structure with climate control components (e.g., heat, fans).
Designed primarily for environmental control of temperature and moisture. Protects and enhances plant growth, extends cropping seasons, and increases yields.
Glass panels
Glass panels are costly. Glass offers better environmental control than PE, but less than PVC.
Roberts, 2000
Nets (PE, HDPE)
Shade Net and Shade Cloth Woven, cloth-like material with varying degrees of opacity.
Protects crops from sunscald, limits evapotranspiration, and may reduce incidence of pests or disease.
Burlap or jute-based fabrics. Agrivoltaics.
Agri-voltaic arrays provide shade and can benefit low-growing crops and livestock.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Anti Wind Net and Windbreak Woven lattice made from sturdy materials.
Protects and enhances plant growth, extend cropping seasons, and increase yields
Wood-based windbreaks. Living windbreaks include perennial plants, shrubs, and trees
Living windbreaks may also provide additional sources of farm income from the sale of harvested seeds, fruits, nuts, fuel, and flowers.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Anti hail net Woven, cloth-like material.
Protects and enhances plant growth, extends cropping seasons, and increases yields.
Anti-hail insurance
Actuarial models can predict when anti-hail insurance makes more economic sense than anti-hail nets.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Rogna et al., 2023
Anti bird net Mesh netting
Mesh netting that excludes birds from foraging on crops.
Use of deterrent methods (e.g., visual scares, noise, chemical repellents) and creating and restoring natural habitats.
Deterrent methods keep birds away from specific areas. Creating and restoring natural habitats provides alternative areas for birds to thrive, reducing the need for bird netting.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Piping, irrigation, and drainage (PE, HDPE, PVC)
Irrigation tape Thin flat plastic tubing.
Flexible tubing used to direct precise amounts of water to plant roots. Improves water use efficiency.
Soil management practices that promote on-site water conservation, such as hydrological keyline design or dry farming.
Biodegradable options have been explored for research, but suffered issues during manufacturing. More permanent irrigation systems would eliminate the need for retrieval and disposal, but these permanent systems do not meet all farmers' needs.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Hofmann et al., 2023
Hiskakis et al., 2011
del Carmen Ponce-Rodríguez et al., 2021
Davis et al., 2023
Water Reservoir Infrastructure, often lined with plastic, designed to store substantial amounts of water for irrigation.
Prevents water scarcity in drought-prone areas by ensuring farmers have continuous access to water, ultimately enhancing crop yields and profitability.
Concrete reservoirs and compacted earth reservoirs. Soil management practices that promote on-site water conservation, such as hydrological keyline design or dry farming.
Weed management prevents water loss to vegetation. Covered reservoirs limit evaporative water loss and block sunlight necessary for weed growth.
Irrigation Reservoirs, 2025
Sahoo et al., 2021
Channel lining
Plastic layer added to irrigation canals prevents soil erosion and water seepage and loss into the soil.
Compacted earth or concrete linings are historical alternatives, but are not as effective as plastics and geotextiles.
Weed management prevents water loss to vegetation. Solar photovoltaic arrays can be situated above channels, to prevent evaporative water loss.
Samir et al., 2023
Drippers
Thin-walled tubing meant to direct precise amounts of water to plant roots. Improves water use efficiency
No known alternatives.
Soil management practices that promote on-site water conservation, such as hydrological keyline design or dry farming, may lessen the need for irrigation.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Hofmann et al., 2023
del Carmen Ponce-Rodríguez et al., 2021
Davis et al., 2023
Packaging (PP)
Bags/sacks Plastic film or woven bags
Ensures safe containment of inputs (e.g., seed, compost, feed, fertilizer etc.) during transport, storage and use, minimizes risks of exposure.
Burlap, cloth, or paper sacks Use manure or produce compost on-site. Buy unbagged products, in bulk.
Will generally need a protected area or open shed, with a level pad and roof or protection from rain, if opting to buy in bulk.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Marinac, 2025
Agrochemical containers
Hold and store pesticides, fertilizers, and other agrochemicals
Steel tanks. Sprayer provider services can limit the need for agrochemical containers on every farm. Refillable containers to limit waste.
Regulations related to the containment, storage, and transport of hazardous materials preclude most forms of non-plastic packaging.
Recycling is limited, due to concerns related to residues.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Tanks for liquid storage
Allows for transportation of water throughout the farm and the collection of rainwater for livestock, crops or emergency water use.
Steel tanks
While steel tanks offer durability, plastic options often provide cost effective solutions, and easier handling for transportation.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
IBC Tanks, 2024
Galle, 2023
Crates
Reduction of food loss during post harvest transportation and storage.
Wooden crates. Burlap, jute or cloth sacks.
Crates have a higher reduction in food loss compared to sacks.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Coatings
Slow release fertilizers
Polymer coated fertilizer to control the release rate of chemicals.
Organic coatings made from plant-based starches, gums, rubber, cellulose, or lignin. Use of leguminous and non-leguminous cover crops can substitute for slow-release fertilizers.
Fertilizers may be overapplied as a form of farmer-managed “crop insurance.” Informed use of soil tests can limit over applications.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Lawrencia et al., 2021
Protective seed coating
Polymer seed coatings improve germination, pesticides in the coatings can assist the survival of seedlings.
Organic coatings made from plant-based starches and gums.
Timing planting to optimal environmental conditions can improve germination of uncoated seeds.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Afzal et al., 2020
Other (PE, PP, PVC)
Silage films
Plastic film that provides protection from air and rain. It also is used to aid the fermentation of biomass for animal fodder and avoid the need for storage buildings
Biodegradable films
Biodegradable films have been found to be effective for bales that are not stored outside for extended periods, and when used within 6 months.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Fumigation films
Plastic sheets used to trap fumigants and control soil-borne pests prior to replanting. They also help control fumigation emissions in the atmosphere.
Mustard and sorghum, as meal or cover crop, can act as a biofumigant.
Methyl bromide and other soil fumigants have been or at risk of being phased out, which may reduce use of fumigation films.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Bale twines and wraps
Twine and net wraps used to bind hay bales together. Prevents bale deterioration.
Natural fibers for bale twine and wraps include abaca (i.e., Manila hemp), wool, cotton, sisal, straw, jute, hemp, and coir.
Twine collection and recycling programs are available in a few regions of the U.S. and Canada, supported by community non-profits.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Nursery trays/pots Containers used to start and grow seedlings and young plants.
Allow efficient propagation, production, transportation, and staging at the point of sale. Used for ornamental nursery plants, as well as by propagators or other crop plants.
Biodegradable pots and trays. Soil blocking. Buy bare-root plants, if possible.
Biodegradable pots and trays are commercially available, made from plant-based starches and biodegradable polymers (e.g., PLA or PBAT). Soil blocking decreases plastic use but may not meet all farmers' needs.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Hofmann et al., 2023
Strings and ropes
Used to support and trellis climbing plants, train young plants to upright growth habit.
Natural fibers for string and rope include abaca (i.e., Manila hemp), wool, cotton, sisal, straw, jute, hemp, and coir.
Natural fibers need to be replaced every 1–2 years, but have the advantage of being less likely to cut into plant stems than plastic ties.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Boxes
Optimizing the cost and fuel needed to transport products—by using lightweight packaging for final products to be distributed or sold to consumers.
Non-waxed Cardboard boxes
Waxed boxes cannot be recycled or composted due to their polyethylene coating.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
FAO, 2021
Fittings Connect pipes and tubing in irrigation systems.
Allows for modification to existing irrigation systems.
No known alternatives.
Soil management practices that promote on-site water conservation, such as hydrological keyline design or dry farming, may lesson need for irrigation.
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 2023
Non-woven protective textiles or “fleece”
Protect crops from extreme cold and/or sunlight
Cotton batting and cheesecloth are suggested, though untested, alternatives.
Designing appropriate windbreaks and intermixing low- and high-growing crops may provide some protection for the low-growing crops.
FAO, 2021
Lists of common agricultural plastics and their respective categories along with their intended use, benefits and plastic alternatives, when available.
PE, polyethylene; PP, polypropylene; PC, polycarbonate; RFP, rigid fiberglass panel; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PMMA, Poly(methyl methacrylate); BDM, biodegradable mulches; PLA, polyclactic acid; PBAT, polybutylene adipate-co-terephtalate.
The types of plastic and how much or often they are used vary across regions and countries, influenced by factors such as the level of mechanization, the length of supply chains, and the reliance on exports, although a 2021 Food and Agriculture Organization report found that films represent the largest quantity of non-packaging plastics used in agriculture worldwide (
FAO, 2021
). In the PNW, a recent research project in Washington State assessed the types of agriplastics used by farmers and the challenges they pose. Researchers interviewed 59 farmers across 14 counties, representing a range of agricultural operations, including vegetable farms, livestock ranches, dairies, orchards, and flower farms. The top 10 waste items were identified and greenhouse films were the most used plastic. Other commonly used items included nursery trays, drip tape, bags (e.g., for soil amendments and feed), row cover, landscape fabric, silage film, plastic twine, packaging materials (such as produce bags and waxed boxes), and super sacks (
Zero Waste Washington, 2025
). The interviews revealed significant challenges in managing these materials. Most farmers dispose of their agriplastics in landfills as they have few options for handling the soil-contaminated materials (
Zero Waste Washington, 2025
).
Another MNP source in agriculture is biosolids, which trap 95% of MNPs from industrial and household wastewater during wastewater treatment and are then used as agricultural fertilizers. In the U.S., 53% of municipal biosolids are applied to farmland, with nearly 50% in Washington and over 70% in Oregon, amounting to 40,000 dry tons annually (
National Biosolids Data Project, 2023
). These biosolids contain high MNP concentrations, primarily microfibers from laundry (
Geyer et al., 2022
). Microfibers are highly toxic, causing oxidative stress and growth limitation in organisms (
Granek et al., 2022
Siddiqui et al., 2023
). Proposed U.S. regulations for washing machine filters to reduce microfibers entering biosolids have yet to pass due to industry opposition (OR SB 405, CA AB 1628). Compost also contains MNPs, with biosolid-derived compost contributing ~1,750 particles/kg compared to 888 particles/kg from garden waste (
Hermann et al., 2011
). The increasing use of newer plastics, such as PLA, exacerbates contamination. Studies indicate polyester and polyethylene fragments (from traditional plastics) alter soil properties, reducing bulk density and changing water retention (
de Souza Machado et al., 2019
Lehmann et al., 2019
). Municipal compost programs in the PNW collect food waste, inadvertently increasing MNP contamination.
Ultimately, food production in the Pacific Northwest and globally is being impacted by plastic pollution (
Figure 5
). Recently the impacts on both crop and seafood production were quantified and estimated to be 109.73–360.87, and 1.05–24.33 million metric tons for crop production and seafood, respectively (
Zhu et al., 2025
). It is clear that new approaches are needed for food production that reduce plastic use and subsequent fragmentation and leaching of microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals.
Figure 5
Plastics in aquaculture in the U.S. Pacific Northwest
The farming and management of shellfish and finfish species along the Northwest Pacific Coast of the United States has been practiced since time immemorial. Beginning with innovative methods developed by First Nations people (clam gardens), and later modern farming of shellfish (100–150 years ago), managing and celebrating shellfish is an intrinsic part of the Pacific Northwestern cultures and an essential local resource (
Groesbeck et al., 2014
Lepofsky et al., 2021
Reeder-Myers et al., 2022
Gordon et al., 2023
).
In present times, among the U.S. West Coast states, according to farm self-reporting for the 2018 aquaculture census, the value of aquaculture products sales was $23 million for Oregon, $207 million for Washington, and $106 million for California. This is an increase from the USDA 2013 consensus finding the combined aquaculture value of California, Washington, and Oregon of $176 million. In 2018, in Alaska—where finfish aquaculture is prohibited, aquaculture sales at the 22 reporting farms reached $1.8 million; however, with over 60 farms in the state, this is likely a vast underrepresentation (
Ehrhart and Doerr, 2022
). Aquaculturists utilize plastic materials (
Table 2
) as they contend with strong tides and currents, which can impact shellfish beds, as well as harmful algal blooms depending on oceanographic conditions and other abiotic factors such as ocean acidification. Yet along the US. West coast are some of the most stringent aquaculture regulations in the US which facilitates the protection of water quality and habitat.
Table 2
Industry and type of plastic
Benefits to production
Drawbacks
Notes
Alternatives
Alternatives
Oysters, geoducks, and other bivalves
PVC pipe plumbing
Essential for hatcheries, cost, ease of use
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Molluscs are extremely sensitive to metals -metal pipe is not an option
Aluminum
Mercer, 2023
PVC pipe stakes (oyster stake cultivation)
Cost, ease of use
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding, alteration of estuarine sediment bed
Used for securing clutch w/spat in grow-out locations
Cedar stakes
Mercer, 2023
PVC protection tubes (geoduck farming)
Cost, ease of use
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding, alteration of estuarine sediment bed
To protect juvenile geoducks from predators
Fiberglass
NOAA Fisheries, 2024
Mesh spat-bags (oysters)
Cost, ease of use, potentially reusable
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Used for protecting loose spat at small stages
PHA/PHB, mycelium, or help-based
Mercer, 2023
Grow-out cages (oysters)
Cost, ease of use, reusable over many seasons
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Used for protecting oysters until harvest for sale
PHA/PHB, mycelium, or kelp-based Perforated Aluminum
Mercer, 2023
Barrows, 2025
Rope
Essential to production, cost, ease of use, reusable over many seasons
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Multi-use item
Wool and basalt rope are promising alternatives
Mercer, 2023
Barrows, 2025
Broodstock and larval culture tanks
Essential to production, cost, ease of use, reusable over many seasons
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Essential to self-sustaining operation
Fiberglass
Mercer, 2023
Consumables
Gloves, pipette tips, algae bags
Typically, 1-time use
Essential to self-sustaining operation
Algae bags could be replaced with reusable alternatives—alternatives can be expensive
Mercer, 2023
Algae Culture in Biotechnology, 2025
Used tires
Low/no cost boat dock bumpers, retaining walls
Leaches chemicals and tire wear particles
Protects expensive equipment, low-cost erosion management
It could be replaced with rubber bumpers and concrete blocks
Personal observation of tires used as bumpers and retaining wall structure in Oregon
Styrofoam floats
Low cost, if wrapped properly can last a long time
If outer protectant is compromised, it will shed polystyrene beads and chunks, Can leach chemicals
Very buoyant, boring organisms like boring clams and shipworms, can burrow into structure causing damage
It could be replaced with hard plastic or steel floats
Snow and company
Sea urchins
Plastic mesh feeders
Low-cost, customizable
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding, urchins chew on plastic, fragmenting it
Used to hold macroalgae
Could be remade with PHA/PHB
Personal observation of trial urchin farming in Oregon
Uni packaging
Low-cost, lightweight
One-time use, hard to recycle once dirty
Clear materials show aesthetic presentation of uni products – important to the industry
Reduce plastic packaging. Swap for wood, waxed paperboard, biopolymers, algae, or mycelium-based packaging
Grown Bio, 2022
Pumpkin, 2008
PVC pipe plumbing
Essential for husbandry tanks, cost, ease of use
Becomes brittle over time, MNP shedding
Echinoderms are sensitive to metals, like copper
None known yet
Ladouceur and Ghobrial, 2021
Description of plastic products used in aquaculture, and their benefits, drawbacks and potential alternatives.
In current shellfish aquaculture, various plastic components and equipment have become critical to shellfish farms' success, growth, and ability to keep operating costs as low as possible. Oyster farming, in particular, is currently dependent on many plastic items such as rope, cages, PVC pipe, identification tags, repurposed tires, styrofoam dock floats, packaging, and storage containers, with limited readily available cost-effective alternatives (
Figure 6
). However, product trials are occurring on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States with the eastern oyster (
Crassostrea virginica
). If successful, these materials and methods could be adopted in PNW shellfish farming. Deer Isle Oyster Company is trialing a plastic-free oyster ranch using various new and old materials such as cedar wood floats and frames, perforated aluminum, mushroom mycelium inoculated hemp-chafe buoys (mycobuoys™), hemp line, basalt mesh, and painted cork—with mixed success. Their trials are ongoing (
Barrows, 2025
).
Figure 6
Geoduck farming also relies heavily on plastic equipment, such as large PVC tubes and plastic netting, used to protect growing geoduck clams. Despite the direct use of PVC in native sediments, geoduck farming has minimal effect on benthic communities when grown outside of eelgrass meadows and may provide environmental benefits such as increased water filtration (
NOAA Fisheries, 2024
). All bivalve farming includes the use of plastic items and tools, some of which have become critical to production, such as grow-out cages and other protective structures that need to be lightweight and able to withstand environmental conditions. Alternative materials such as metal or wood rust or break down quickly, increasing farm costs, and are heavier than plastics, potentially making physical work more dangerous and strenuous on facility staff and machines. Items like rope and consumer packaging, currently made from plastics, might have higher potential for successful replacement with non-plastic materials, such as wool or basalt rope and wood or waxed paper-board packaging.
Sea urchin ranching (
Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
) is a growing industry in the Pacific Northwestern States, especially Oregon, borne from an ecologically unstable wild urchin population explosion. The extirpation and near-extinction of the purple urchin's top predator, the sunflower star (
Pycnopodia helianthoides
) by Sea Star Wasting Disease (SSWD) resulted in a dramatic trophic cascade transforming dense kelp forests into overpopulated urchin barrens (
Schultz et al., 2016
Gravem et al., 2021
). Live, but starving urchins on these barrens are collected by divers and fattened up on commercial diets or red macroalgae such as dulse (
Palmaria palmata
) in land-based operations. After a few months, the collected urchins are full of uni (roe) ready for market (
Oregon Kelp Alliance, 2023
). These urchin ranchers rely on numerous plastic products ranging from mesh to hold algal fronds, plastic totes and PVC pipe, to the product (uni) packaging. While the former items are proving to be essential to basic urchin husbandry, items like plastic uni packaging could be swapped for traditional materials like bamboo, or modern ones such as waxed paperboard to create a minimal-plastic standard for this growing industry. While the sources of microplastics in aquatic environments are also derived from airborne (atmospheric deposition) and terrestrial origins, the use of plastic materials in the ocean and estuaries leads to the release of plastic fragmentation and microplastic particles directly into these aquatic ecosystems (
Rossatto et al., 2023
Tursi et al., 2022
). Plastics can be dislodged from aquaculture structures during storm events or large debris impacts and these macroplastics can entangle marine life, affecting swimming ability and potentially food acquisition. Larger plastics, when weathered by marine salt, wave and wind energy, acidifying waters, and UV from solar radiation, are broken down into microplastics, which can be ingested or inhaled by marine organisms. Shellfish such as bivalves and shrimp are not immune to pollution exposure (
Traylor et al., 2024
) and have been recognized as important indicator species of MNP presence in the environment (
Li et al., 2019
Siddiqui et al., 2022
2023
). For example, shrimp exposed to HDPE microplastics have altered enzyme activity and gene expression indicating increased stress, as well as evidence of histopathology (
Niemcharoen et al., 2022
Figure 7
).
Figure 7
Filter-feeding shellfish, including oysters, mussels, and geoducks, filter hundreds of liters of water each day, concentrating the MNPs they capture, if not egested (
Rochman et al., 2015
). Other filter feeders, such as colonial and stalked ascidians are suggested to be better indicators of MNP presence in the environment as they are less selective and tend to reject/egest MNPs at a lower frequency when compared to bivalves (
Messinetti et al., 2019
Ward et al., 2019
Harel et al., 2024
). These ascidians often co-occur where bivalves are grown. While some particles are successfully excreted from the body after a few hours or days through depuration, some MNPs remain within the bodies of these organisms and are subsequently consumed by their predators (
Weinstein et al., 2022
Liu et al., 2023
). Some studies conducted in major aquaculture hubs have documented that a significant portion of microplastics found in aquaculture areas are directly derived from these materials, often termed aquaculture-derived microplastics (AD-MPs). However, while the mechanisms and pathways of breakdown are well-described, quantitative rates of breakdown under field conditions are less frequently reported, and most available data are from laboratory or regional surveys outside the U.S. (
Lin et al., 2022
2023
). Once ingested, these microplastics can lead to a false sense of satiation that can cause reductions in feeding, successful settlement, and growth rates; inflammation when microplastics irritate internal tissue or organs, reproductive effects, and DNA damage (
Bringer et al., 2021
Horn et al., 2020
; Siddiqui et al., 2023;
Cunningham et al., 2024
Hutton et al., 2024
). This raises concerns about the health and quality of the shellfish and risks for consumers, including humans and long-term environmental accumulation (
Smith et al., 2018
).
Globally and in the Pacific Northwestern U.S., seaweed farming has a long history in human cultures and plays a role in mitigating the effects of runoff while increasing carbon sequestration (
Chung et al., 2011
Buschmann et al., 2017
). Marine cultivation of seaweed reduces pressure on limited terrestrial resources needed to meet human food demands (
Radulovich et al., 2015
). In the United States, consumers prefer seaweed for its high nutritional value (
Gómez et al., 2016
), and (
Cornish 2017
) found that it could support brain health. However, the effects of microplastics in seaweed on human health remain unknown (
Xiao et al., 2024
). Seaweed farming methods include vertical, garland, and longline systems (
Mumford, 2019
). (
Cunningham et al. 2024
) found that the chosen method influenced protein content. In 2023, Washington and Oregon collectively produced 10,432 kg of primarily Pacific Dulse (
Devaleraea mollis
), Bull Kelp (
Nereocystis luetkeana
), Sea Lettuce (
Ulva
), and Giant Kelp (
Macrocystis pyrifera
), while California produced 144,242 kg from five longline farms and six land-based farms. The economic viability of longline farms in these states remains limited (
Donovan, 2025
). In Washington,
Mumford (2019)
identified Sugar Kelp (
Saccharina latissima
) among other cultivated seaweeds. These farms rely on nutrient inputs from riverine transport or upwelling to support kelp growth (
Whiting et al., 2020
). However, the longevity of seaweed-based materials, such as ropes, is dependent on variable ambient conditions (
Arantzamendi et al., 2023
).
Current seaweed farming infrastructure includes various materials. Pacific Sea Farms utilizes steel anchors, chains, connections, and an aluminum spreader, while buoys, lines, and totes for collection are plastic (Spranger, pers. comm.). Vashon Kelp Forest anticipates supplementing some plastic lines and buoys with steel buoys upon operationalization (Kollins, pers. comm.). Alternatives such as hemp lines for kelp aquaculture and water-resistant plant-based materials for totes may also be viable substitutes for plastic. While biodegradable materials are often proposed as a solution to plastic pollution, the potential for regrettable substitutes remains a concern. They also are still capable of breakdown into micro and nanoplastics, and in some cases exert adverse effects on biota (
Hutton et al., 2024
). Although seaweed-based plastics may serve as an alternative, their true biodegradability in the marine environment and their potential risks to sensitive species have not yet been studied in laboratory settings and require further investigation.
Known and suspected impacts
Impact on soil ecosystems
The potential impact of microplastics and their smaller counterparts, nanoplastics, on soil ecosystems is wide-ranging and concerning (
Figure 8
). MPs in soil are susceptible to photograph- and biodegradation causing them to release and adsorb plastic-associated chemicals (
Vithanage et al., 2021
). They can also alter soil pH and subsequently cause changes to soil organic matter content, changing the ratio of carbon to nitrogen C:N (
Boots et al., 2019
Zhang et al., 2021
). MNPs have varying effects on microbial biomass (
Qi et al., 2022
), however their presence in soil decreases biodiversity in soil microbial communities in a dose-dependent manner (
Qi et al., 2022
). Laboratory studies also demonstrate that nanoplastics may be taken up by crops such as lettuce, wheat, and rice, and these particles tend to accumulate in roots (
Khalid et al., 2023
). MPs reduced growth in strawberries (LDPE), rice (mulch film, PE), cotton root (PE, PP), and common bean roots/shoots (LDPE, PLA) (
Meng et al., 2020
Liu et al., 2023
Pinto-Poblete et al., 2023
).
Figure 8
Microplastic toxicity and impacts to bioavailability
At agricultural sites, MNP pollution originates primarily from mulch films, compost, and biosolid applications. Mulch films, widely used since the 1950s, are the most common source, followed by biosolids (
Huang et al., 2020
Sa'adu and Farsang, 2023b
). Farms with long-term mulch and biosolid use exhibit higher soil MNP concentrations, ranging from negligible to 1.27 × 107 particles/kg (
Shi et al., 2024
). Agricultural soils contain diverse polymers, including PE, PVC, PP, PET, PES, LDPE, HDPE, and PA (
Huang et al., 2019
Sa'adu and Farsang, 2023b
Qiu et al., 2024
). Most studies focus on topsoil (0–30 cm), with limited research on deeper layers or groundwater contamination. In Europe, where biosolid use is extensive and regulated by heavy metal limits (Council Directive 86/278/EEC), MNP concentrations are higher (
Gianico et al., 2021
). In the U.S., biosolids are regulated under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 503), but unclassified pollutants may still be applied due to regulatory gaps. MNP movement in soil is influenced by size and shape. Nanoplastics (1 nm to 1 μm) exhibit colloidal behavior, allowing them to migrate through porous soil matrices. Microplastics (1 μm to 5 mm) can also travel through soil, aided by earthworm activity, which transports smaller particles deeper and coats burrow walls with MPs (
Rillig et al., 2017
). A study in Chinese agricultural fields with 30 years of mulch film use found higher microplastic concentrations at deeper soil layers (
Meng et al., 2020
). Another study demonstrated that MPs measuring 0.05–0.25 mm accounted for 82% of total particles, with fibers as the dominant shape (86% of samples) (
Zhang and Liu, 2018
).
MNP bioaccumulation is difficult to quantify as traditional bioconcentration and biomagnification concepts rely on octanol/water partition coefficients, which do not apply to nanoparticles. Beneficial organisms such as earthworms are one of the more obvious concerns in terms of impacts. Plastic types including PLA, PE, and PS decrease earthworm survival, growth, and fitness, and LDPE aged, alone, and in combination with commonly used herbicides causes oxidative stress and changes in gene expression (
Boots et al., 2019
Figure 9
). Earthworms in soil spiked with tire particles showed significant increases in heavy metals—Zn, Pb, or Cd. These increases corresponded with increases in ingestion of smaller particles (
Sheng et al., 2021
). In the smallest size fraction, superoxide dismutase (SOD) significantly increased after both 14 and 28 days. SODs are enzymes that act as a first line of defense against reactive oxygen species (
Song et al., 2009
), so a decrease in SODs may have adverse effects on earthworms. Additionally, soil in this study did not increase in metals, likely due to the uptake by the earthworms. Tire wear particles (TWPs) have been found to impact some soil microbes and may further affect soil communities and ecosystems (
Mayer et al., 2024
).
Figure 9
Plant uptake through root systems raises concerns about trophic transfer.
Abdolahpur Monikh et al. (2022)
demonstrated NP movement from contaminated soil through a food chain involving lettuce (
Lactuca sativa
), black soldier fly larvae (
Hermetia illucens
), and roach fish (
Rutilus rutilus
). No acute toxicity was observed, but trophic transfer throughout this experimental food web was documented. Transfer of NPs to fish suggests they could also be transferred to terrestrial consumers, potentially including humans. Further research on lettuce by demonstrated that polystyrene nanoparticles could alter root metabolism and cause oxidative stress. These subtle yet potentially highly consequential responses are deeply concerning. MNPs can sorb chemicals, metals, and biomolecules depending on polymer type, size, and environmental conditions such as salinity and pH (
Cui et al., 2023
Torres et al., 2021
Tourinho et al., 2019
). The “Trojan horse effect” suggests MNPs act as carriers, releasing contaminants under changing conditions. Some studies indicate MNPs exacerbate toxicity (
Horton et al., 2018
Peng et al., 2024
), while others suggest they reduce bioavailability. This has been specifically demonstrated with mulch, which is demonstrated to fragment into smaller pieces, is extremely difficult to recover once mixed in with soil, and can both accumulate and release contaminants while in some cases lowering crop productivity and resulting in trophic transfer throughout the surrounding terrestrial food web (
Khalid et al., 2023
).
MNP exposures are complex and may result in physical or molecular effects caused by both the particle and associated chemicals. In terms of ingestion concerns, a study on mice co-exposed to PS MPs and Pb(II) found altered gut permeability and metabolism only in the co-exposure group (
Shen et al., 2024
). In an
in vitro
digestion model, different polymers released chemicals into simulated digestion fluids, with environmental samples showing the highest contaminant levels (
Peters et al., 2022
). Both inorganic and organic chemicals associated with plastics breaking down from agricultural products are a challenge. MNPs can influence metal bioavailability. PS MPs in soil reduced Cu2+ adsorption by blocking active sites and increased desorption through ion exchange and electrostatic interactions, enhancing its mobility and toxicity (
Peng et al., 2024
). In metal-contaminated soils, earthworms exposed to MPs had higher tissue metal concentrations and gene expression and enzyme activity associated with oxidative stress compared to metal-only exposures (
Li M. et al., 2021
). PCBs, a legacy contaminant that is still highly persistent in the environment, exhibited reduced bioaccumulation in earthworms when sorbed to LDPE MPs, with smaller MPs further decreasing uptake due to higher surface area (
Velzeboer et al., 2014
). PCB preference for MNPs over soil/sediment has been previously noted. Highly water soluble chemicals like thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid insecticide, and tetracycline, an antibiotic, showed altered soil sorption in the presence of MPs, with some studies indicating reduced bioavailability (
Hu et al., 2023
Ma et al., 2020
). These findings have implications for pesticide efficacy, soil toxicity, and pollutant leaching into watersheds. MNP present in crop soils may alter pesticide efficacy by changing their bioavailability through several different mechanisms. One mechanism for altering bioavailability is direct sorption of the chemicals/pesticides to MNPs, as MNPs can act as a sink for many types of chemicals. Alternatively, hydrophobic MNPs may drive water soluble chemicals out of the soil pore water, further preventing them from interacting with their target organisms. MNPs may also agglomerate within or with soil particles, potentially blocking or altering the movement of water and chemicals through the soil, again preventing the pesticide or chemical from interacting with their target organism as expected. MNPs in soil creates a complex mixture that is difficult to understand and hard to replicate in the lab. Studies focusing on the toxicity of MNP mixtures will be important to predicting the impacts of agricultural soils polluted with MNPs to crop production as altered bioavailability could increase disease risk, crop injury, and yield loss, further highlighting the need for further research into MNP-chemical interactions in terrestrial systems.
Nano-encapsulated chemicals
Nano-encapsulated pesticides and fertilizers are another class of materials that contribute a small, but impactful, portion of plastic pollution to the environment, specifically to agricultural soils. These materials are formulated, or engineered, to be in the size ranges of other nanomaterials (<1,000 and 1> nm). Nano-encapsulated pesticides and fertilizer can be made from multiple types of materials including lipids, inorganics or clay-based materials, and are not exclusively made from conventional plastics (
Nuruzzaman et al., 2016
). Encapsulated nano-carriers are polymer-based nanomaterials that are formulated in one of four designs: nanocapsule, nanospheres, micelles or nanogels. These nanocarrier designs help disperse the active ingredients in various ways via controlled release of the active ingredients (A.I.), which are most often pesticides or fertilizers. The purpose of nanoencapsulation is to increase solubility, stability, dispersal, permeability, prolonged release (or slow release), increase bioavailability and reduced overall amount of A.I. application, among others (
Kookana et al., 2014
Nuruzzaman et al., 2016
). Multiple studies have shown the benefit of these nano-carriers with increases in agricultural yields while lowering the amount of overall pesticide used during application and the bonus of lowered toxic impacts to non-target species (
Chaud et al., 2021
Grillo et al., 2021
). However, the long-term impact and persistence of the leftover nanoplastic carriers after the release of the A.I.'s is not well-documented due to inherent complications of quantifying nanomaterials in the natural environment (
Lead et al., 2018
Grillo et al., 2021
). There is concern about nanomaterial applications since the designs for nanocarriers are intended to increase A.I. solubility and dispersion within the soil, ultimately leading to greater dispersion and solubility of nanoplastic materials (
Lead et al., 2018
). The current methods we have for assessing risks of conventional pesticides are not suitable for nanopesticides (
Kookana et al., 2014
) since these methods rely on chemical characterization based on sorption coefficients that nanomaterials inherently do not abide by (
Lead et al., 2018
). Overall, there is great concern for the environmental fate of these mobility-enhanced nanoplastics with A.I.'s, emphasizing the need to study their long-term environmental fate and toxicological impacts. This leads to the conclusion that nanomaterials must be designed and engineered with care and caution, to mitigate potential unforeseen negative effects long after their initial application.
Impact of plastics on soil microorganisms and agriculture
The microbiome plays a crucial role in agricultural and aquaculture systems, contributing to nutrient cycling, mineral weathering, and ecosystem stability (
Philippot et al., 2024
). Soil microbial communities drive nitrogen fixation, organic matter decomposition, and plant growth promotion, with nitrogen-fixing bacteria such as
Rhizobia
spp. and
Azospirillum
spp. converting atmospheric nitrogen into bioavailable forms (
Fukami et al., 2018
). In aquatic systems, microbes regulate water quality and nutrient cycles, supporting aquaculture operations (
Alaa et al., 2023
). Within these environments, plastic materials, whether or not purposely introduced, have been observed to serve as novel habitats for a myriad of organisms, scaling from micro to macro in size. Collectively these organisms and their ecological interactions constitute a dynamic global inter-kingdom assemblage referred to as the plastisphere (
Zettler et al., 2013
). The microbiome of marine plastic debris and aquaculture-associated plastics host a diverse assortment of taxa and function compared to ambient seawater (
Zettler et al., 2013
Li C. et al., 2021
Singleton et al., 2023
). Largely dominated by heterotrophic cosmopolitan bacteria (e.g., α-proteobacteria, Flavobacteriia, γ-proteobacteria), autotrophs (e.g., bacillariophyta, cyanobacteria) and various eukaryotic organisms (e.g., ciliates). Plastisphere communities, whether within freshwater or marine systems, are often enriched in functional traits related to pathogenicity, hydrocarbon degradation, cellulolysis, aromatic degradation, and saprotrophic activities. However, in contrast, freshwater plastic-associated microbiomes exhibit low complexity and high competitive ecosystem interactions (
Li C. et al., 2021
).
Although plastics can serve as a colonizable surface for some bacteria capable of overcoming hydrophobic surface properties, multiple reports have described plastic waste and/or residues to impact microbial dynamics, impacting species diversity and enzyme activity (
Wang et al., 2023
Li C. et al., 2021
Zhang et al., 2021
Zhu et al., 2022
Figure 10
). For instance, soil microplastic pollution can introduce selective pressures that favor plastic-degrading microbes and alter soil characteristics such as water retention, aeration, and heavy metal availability (
Gkoutselis et al., 2021
Zhu et al., 2022
). In Pb-contaminated sandy loam, microplastic amendments affected pH, microbial composition, and enzymatic activity, with certain bacterial orders enriched or suppressed based on polymer type (
Feng et al., 2022
). Plastic film mulching improves crop yield through moisture retention and weed suppression but alters soil porosity and aeration. Microplastics clog soil pores, reducing drainage and air exchange, while mesoplastics minimize these effects but still transport toxic chemicals (
Ryan et al., 1988
Mato et al., 2001
Teuten et al., 2007
Li et al., 2014
). These changes can impact microbial nutrient cycling and water retention (
Feng et al., 2022
Fu et al., 2023
). Plastic residues in soil can influence nitrogen cycling, with polypropylene (PP) increasing total nitrogen and polyphenol oxidase activity, while polyethylene (PE) has no significant effect (
Fu et al., 2023
Liu et al., 2017
). Plastics may also alter microbial community structure, with mixed effects on plant growth depending on bacterial, fungal, and protistan changes (
Huo et al., 2022
Ranauda et al., 2024
), although other findings suggest plastic contamination shifts microbial composition without directly impairing plant growth (
de Souza Machado et al., 2019
). The extent of these effects depends on soil conditions, plastic type, and particle size (
Huo et al., 2022
).
Figure 10
Microplastics disrupt microbial communities through structural changes, toxic additive release, and pollutant sorption (
Fu et al., 2023
). Factors such as crystallinity, hydrophilicity, and molecular weight determine plastic-microbe interactions, potentially displacing beneficial microbes crucial for biogeochemical cycling (
de Souza Machado et al., 2019
Huo et al., 2022
). Plastisphere communities often exhibit reduced diversity, favoring plastic-associated microbes over native species (
Aralappanavar et al., 2024
). Biodegradable plastics like polylactic acid (PLA) can enrich fungal taxa such as
Aspergillus, Fusarium
, and
Penicillium
, altering mycorrhizal interactions (
Zhou et al., 2023
). Like synthetic plastics, bioplastics release hazardous additives and sorbed pollutants during degradation (
Hahladakis et al., 2018
Huo et al., 2022
).
Plastic exposure often upregulates hydrolase and oxidase enzymes, affecting organic matter decomposition and nitrogen cycling. Urease, catalase, and phosphatase activities shift based on polymer type, with PA, PAN, and polyaramide increasing biogeochemically active nitrogen availability (
de Souza Machado et al., 2019
). PLA at 2% w/w enhances urease and phosphatase activity in sandy loam (
Feng et al., 2022
), while polystyrenpe nanoparticles suppress key nitrogen- and phosphorus-cycle enzymes (
Awet et al., 2018
). PP increases fluorescein diacetate hydrolase (FDAse) activity, whereas PE and PVC inhibit FDAse while stimulating urease and phosphatase activity (
Wang et al., 2020
Fei et al., 2020
Wang et al., 2022
). Differences in soil enzyme response may stem from polymer size, manufacturing additives, and treatment conditions. Plasticizers such as dibutyl phthalate (DBP) also affect nitrogen cycling. In a 60-day mesocosm study, DBP increased ammonium and reduced nitrate levels by shifting microbial nitrogen metabolism. Phthalate-containing PVC altered nitrogen-fixation and urea decomposition gene abundance, while plasticizer-free PVC had no effect, indicating DBP as the primary driver of observed changes (
Zhu et al., 2022
). These findings highlight the complex interactions between plastics, microbial communities, and soil health, underscoring the need for further research into long-term ecosystem impacts.
Plastic vectors for pollutant and pathogen transport
Depending on the environment in which plastic particles are deposited, plastics and associated biological agents can facilitate the migration of POPs and other micropollutants. Abiotic aging (or weathering) of plastics (UV-irradiation, thermal oxidation, oxo-oxidation, etc.) influence the adsorption and desorption of hydrophobic chemicals and potentially hazardous pollutants. While monitoring the chemical release of two synthetic (PVC, PET) and one biodegradable plastic (PBAT) immersed in natural seawater over ~1.5 years, (
Kedzierski et al. 2018
) observed differential changes in the release of chemicals from the plastic polymers and their estrogenic activities. Although methanolic extracts of the three polymers did not elicit significant cytotoxic effects, significant estrogenic activity was observed in extracts obtained from two of the three polymers. Notably, estrogenic activity of PVC increased over time from 4.5% to 14.0% (14 to 63 days) and later declined. It is inferred that the increase in estrogenic activity is associated with the migration of polymer estrogenic compounds into the surrounding seawater as the plastic ages and the polymer structure degrades.
Once a chemical is plastic-sorbed in the soil or floating in the marine system, it may not remain permanently bound to the plastic (
Ryan et al., 1988
Teuten et al., 2007
). Biofouling of plastic materials has been observed to promote the absorption (or desorption) of various plastic-associated chemicals, whether by biofilm-forming bacteria or within the gut of macrofauna (e.g., polychaete worms) (
Mukherjee et al., 2018
). This is due to the production of biosurfactants and bioemulsifiers which increase the bioaccessibility of the soil, sediment, and plastic-bound compounds leading to increased chemical desorption into the surrounding soil or seawater (
Teuten et al., 2007
Sachdev and Cameotra, 2013
). An investigation by
Wang et al. (2020)
detailed this interaction through the assessment of copper ions (Cu
2+
) and tetracycline (TC) co-absorption on virgin and biofouled PE. These chemicals often occur in agricultural soil from the use of copper-based pesticides and tetracycline-containing animal feed. In the soil, their interaction can impact the other's bioavailability leading to concerns of environmental contamination and the development of antibiotic resistance (
Song et al., 2017
). The development of biofilms on the surface of synthetic MP have been observed to influence adsorption properties of the plastic resulting in enhanced chemical adsorption of metal-ion containing compounds (
Xu et al., 2018
Wang et al., 2020
). The presence of microbial biofilms can enhance Cu-TC co-absorption and later desorption. Insights into microbial community disruptions aid in the assessment of risk related to the support of native microbial functions, agricultural soil health, and aquaculture water quality, highlighting the importance of microbiome-informed approaches in agriculture and soil/aquatic remediation efforts.
Among temporally abundant cosmopolitan bacteria and eukaryotes, exist rare plastic degrading species as well as an assortment of commensal opportunistic fungal and bacterial pathogens of human, aquaculture, agricultural relevance (e.g.,
Vibrio
spp.,
Aeromonas
spp., Phoma-like filamentous fungi and cryptococcal yeast) (
Viršek et al., 2017
Gkoutselis et al., 2021
Singleton et al., 2023
). In terrestrial systems, plastics disposed in landfills or other municipal areas have been observed to select for distinct fungal members which include a variety of plant and animal pathogens (
Gkoutselis et al., 2021
). In the marine system, buoyant plastics (e.g., PE, PP, PA, and PET) and their microbial hitchhikers, undergo indiscriminate dispersal by local and large-scale oceanic circulation, driven by surface currents and gyre systems (
Hoseini and Bond, 2022
). Greater insight into the abundance and persistence of pathogenic plastic-associated representatives and plastic transport research over the past decade have sparked debates concerning human, aquaculture, and ecosystem health (
Viršek et al., 2017
Bowley et al., 2021
). Moving forward, pathogenicity of abundant aquaculture-plastic colonizers and of plastic-associated pathogen transport on aquaculture systems should be further studied to support risk mitigation and comprehensive planning efforts in aquaculture.
Pollinators
The impacts of plastics on pollinators have been best studied in honey bees, mostly
Apis mellifer
a (the European honey bee). MPs have been found in 100% of sampled
Apis mellifera
hives studied in Copenhagen, Denmark (
Edo and Fernández-Alba, 2020
), São Paulo, Brazil (
Rodrigues et al., 2024
), Lima, Peru (
Iannacone et al., 2024
), the Campania region of Southern Italy (
Schiano et al., 2024
), and Gualaceo Canton, Ecuador (
Arévalo et al., 2024
), although the majority of MPs in honey bee hives likely originated from clothing, rather than agricultural plastics. A study of Finnish bumblebees found MPs on 78% of bees sampled (
Helli, 2024
). Unlike on honey bees, the most common MPs on bumblebees' bodies were plastic types used in agriculture, including PEs (52%) and PPs (33%) (
Helli, 2024
).
MPs reach
Apis mellifera
brains 3 days after oral ingestion (
Pasquini et al., 2024
) and ultimately affect learning, memory, and responsiveness to food stimuli (
Balzani et al., 2022
Pasquini et al., 2024
Figure 11
). Honey bees exposed to MPs experience oxidative stress and have altered gut microbiomes (
Wang et al., 2022
), reduced feeding rates, which reduces body size (
Al Naggar et al., 2024
), and are more susceptible to viral infections (
Deng et al., 2021
). Increased susceptibility to viral infections, in association with MP exposure, was also found in
Apis cerana
(the Asian honey bee,
Deng et al., 2021
). One additional study on
Apis cerana
found that bees fed sucrose with high concentrations of MP (50 mg/L of 100 nm diameter MPs) had impaired development of pharyngeal glands, which are critical to successfully provisioning larval brood cells with protein (
Xue et al., 2025
).
Figure 11
Because they are eusocial, the impacts of MPs on honey bees may not be comparable to impacts on other pollinators which are solitary, but these reports are still concerning given their importance as pollinators. Eusocial species exhibit reproductive division of labor that includes a sterile worker caste. In this social system, the loss of a few workers has little effect on overall colony health (
Straub et al., 2015
), which is why honey bees likely have a higher level of resilience to environmental toxins than other bees (
Sgolastra et al., 2019
). But more than 75% of bee species are solitary (
Danforth et al., 2019
), where a single female is responsible for building and maintaining a nest, foraging for pollen and nectar, provisioning brood cells, and producing offspring. To date, only a single study examined the impact of microplastics on a solitary bee,
Osmia cornifrons
(a solitary, cavity-nesting bee that caps brood cells with mud), exposed to one of three soil treatments: no MP, 0.5 g MP/kg soil, or 4.0 g MP/kg soil (
Lin et al., 2024
). Researchers found no effect of MP on measures of bee reproductive success (e.g., brood cell number, cocoon number, or number of daughters produced in the F1 generation), although there was a downward trend (
Lin et al., 2024
). However, (
Pasquini et al. 2024
Figure 11
) observed that the response to sucrose was hindered by some plastics types, such as PMMA and polystyrene. More research is clearly needed in this area to determine what impacts microplastics may have on insects important to agricultural success.
Non-target aquatic organisms
Plastic usage from agriculture and aquaculture not only impact the systems they are used in but also contribute to plastic pollution in environmental systems. The majority of plastic debris, including MNPs, is overwhelmingly linked to terrestrial sources (
Lassen et al., 2015
). Stormwater and runoff carry debris from land to aquatic ecosystems, inadvertently exposing them and the organisms within them to plastic pollution. MNPs have been found in every ocean basin and in over 1,300 terrestrial and aquatic species globally (
Bergmann, 2015
). In the PNW, MPs have been detected in ecologically, culturally, and commercially valuable species such as marine amphipods, bivalves, gray whales, and in the edible tissues of Chinook salmon, lingcod, black rockfish, pink shrimp, Pacific herring, and Pacific lamprey (
Baechler et al., 2020
Torres et al., 2023
Traylor et al., 2024
).
Though it is difficult to link MPs to a specific source and research on the impact of agricultural plastics on aquatic organisms is limited, laboratory studies identify numerous impacts of MNPs on aquatic organisms. Small schooling fishes and invertebrates are vital primary and secondary consumers in estuarine and marine ecosystems, acting as prey to salmonids and gray whales.
In vitro
, MP/NP exposure studies have found that PVC particles affect cell viability and redox homeostasis in fish cells (
Espinosa et al., 2018
). Laboratory studies on EPA test species: schooling fish inland silversides (
Menidia beryllina
) and invertebrate mysid shrimp (
Americamysis bahia
), identified effects of MNP exposures. After 7-day exposure to polyester or cotton,
A. bahia
and
M. beryllina
exhibit altered behavior with
M. beryllina
also exhibiting anxiety-like behaviors after a 21-day exposure to PLA or polyester microfibers. Individuals exposed to micro and nano PLA particles and polyester microfibers had differential gene expression related to muscle function and sensory detection, respectively (
Hutton et al., 2024
). Micro and nano tire particles also impacted growth and behavior in two indicator species,
M. beryllina
and
Americamysis bahia
Siddiqui et al., 2022
), with implications for predator-prey interactions in the natural environment. In
Daphnia magna
, tire particles from 12 tires were tested and all were found to have toxic effects after 24 h and even greater effects after 48 h. UV-exposed TWPs increased toxicity 10-fold in 4 of the tested tires (
Wik and Dave, 2005
). In the environment, microparticles are also known to biofoul and can act as a vector for viruses/bacteria. In the lab, rainbow trout co-exposed to microplastics/microfibers and a virus had significantly increased mortality compared to those exposed to either single stressor alone (
Seeley et al., 2023
).
The effects of MPs range from physiological, such as oxidative stress and growth, to mortality having implications for MP-exposed populations in the natural environment. The taxa used in these studies are often used as indicators of their aquatic environment indicating the ecological and economic implications of plastics exposure in these ecosystems.
Livestock
Animals and animal products are an essential part of the United States economy, contributing $271.6 billion in 2024 [
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2024
]. Livestock is considered the “missing link” between microplastic contamination and human health (
Figure 12
). Though to the best of our knowledge there is no specific literature on the occurrence of microplastics in livestock in the United States, various routes of exposure and studies from other countries indicate the presence of particles. Livestock are exposed to plastic pollution via ground water, soil, crops, and feed. Cow and sheep contain an average of 0.14 and 0.13 MP items/g of edible meat, with edible cow meat containing 0.19 items/g (
Bahrani et al., 2024
Figure 12
) similar to amounts found in some edible shellfish and fish tissue (
Baechler et al., 2020
Traylor et al., 2024
).
Figure 12
Livestock may be at particular risk of adverse effects of MNP pollution due to the various routes of exposure, and ruminants in particular, may have increased risk of affects due to their complex digestive systems (CITE). Chicken exposed to polyethylene microplastics can suffer from growth, metabolism, and antioxidant capacity effects (
Li et al., 2023
) Chicken meat quality and neural function can be impacted by microplastic exposures (
Chen et al., 2023
). In mammals, lambs exposed to polystyrene suffered damaged digestive systems resulting in decreased daily growth and lamb meat quality/nutrition (
Chang et al., 2024
). MPs have also been shown to impact neural function in pigs exposed to PET (
Gałecka and Całka, 2024
Tassone et al., 2024
).
Though there are few studies
in vivo
for microplastics and livestock,
in vitro
studies using mammalian tissue provide further insight into how mammalian livestock may be impacted in the future. MPs and NPs have also been found to impact cellular function in several ways. They reduce viability in human and mice cells in a concentration- and size-dependent manner, with smaller NPs having higher toxicity levels (
Xu, 2003
Chen et al., 2017
Banerjee and Lee Shelver, 2021
). NPs may reduce cell viability mechanically, via membrane disruption, or physiologically, by inducing oxidative stress or immune response (
Banerjee and Lee Shelver, 2021
).
Policy needs and the way forward
In 2023, the state of Washington introduced the Compost Reimbursement Program (CRP) to incentivize local farmers to use compost purchased from selected commercial facilities. The program prioritizes compost containing food waste feedstock and incorporates data collection through a Crop & Field Survey and soil sample analysis by the Washington State Department of Agriculture to evaluate four soil health criteria. This incentive, covering up to 50% of qualifying costs, appeals particularly to smaller farms that depend on subsidies to offset expenses. However, selected compost providers favoring food waste feedstock cannot guarantee material free from micro and nanoplastics (MNPs). This contamination arises from agricultural practices, such as using landscape fabric and plastic as weed barriers, which degrade into smaller particles over time. Farmers may also leave drip irrigation lines on the ground during winter, drained to prevent expansion damage. If post-harvest remains are sent to larger composting facilities, any contamination in the feedstock persists.
Larger farms often retrieve drip lines mechanically, but this process can damage the lines and leave plastic residue in the soil. To recycle these lines, they must be unearthed, a process that can be labor-intensive or involve machinery that risks further contamination. Drip lines, typically around 400 feet in length, require meticulous handling, making proper removal costly. Furthermore, the scarcity of recycling facilities in Oregon exacerbates the challenges of managing plastic waste, as degraded materials often remain onsite and break down into smaller debris (
Vendries et al., 2020
Mistry et al., 2018
). Additionally, commercial composting facilities frequently receive consumer-generated waste, including “compostable” takeaway containers that do not meet the criteria for healthy composting. Consequently, these materials may end up in compost used by farmers participating in programs like CRP. According to
McKinsey and Company (2024)
, a McKinsey & Company report highlights that sustainable practices are increasingly adopted in North America to achieve higher yields. Among U.S.-based respondents, practices such as crop rotation (87%), variable rate fertilization (56%), and reduced or no tilling (78%) are common regenerative agriculture methods. Avoiding tilling minimizes the risk of plastic fragmentation and enables more effective removal of these materials.
The transition toward increased use of plastics, coupled with technological advancements such as lighter and cheaper greenhouse structures, benefits agricultural production (
Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2012
). However, disposal, reuse, and recycling remain challenging. Soil-contact plastics, such as mulch films, are particularly problematic for recycling due to residue soil contamination, leading to landfill disposal (
Empson et al., 2021
). While mechanical recycling is the most environmentally favorable option, inadequate infrastructure, economic constraints, and the high cost of cleaning soil-contaminated plastics pose significant barriers (
Empson et al., 2021
). Additionally, a large portion of plastic waste—estimated at 70% in 2023—remains uncollected, ending up in landfills, being openly burned, or leaking into the environment (
Berger et al., 2023
).
Many agricultural plastics require high quantities of raw materials. Currently, no recycled agricultural plastic waste is used for mulch films, greenhouses, and nets, despite the feasibility of incorporating at least 25% recycled content in most agricultural plastic products (
FAO, 2024
). Recognizing the environmental impact of agricultural plastics, there is growing interest in alternatives that do not rely on fossil fuels or synthetic polymers and that biodegrade over time (
FAO, 2024
). However, concerns remain regarding the longevity, cost-effectiveness, and large-scale availability of these alternatives, necessitating further research and life cycle assessments (
Empson et al., 2021
). Efforts are also underway to modify agricultural plastics to extend their lifespan and improve their potential for reuse and recycling. This applies particularly to products such as greenhouse covers, mulch films, irrigation drip tape, tree guards and shelters, ear tags, insulated fish crates and boxes, and bale films and nets (
FAO, 2024
). A 2021 comprehensive qualitative risk assessment identified polymer-coated fertilizers, pesticide containers, and mulching films as high-priority targets for sustainability improvements (
FAO, 2021
). Employing the 6R framework (refuse, redesign, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover), the assessment proposed alternatives and interventions for these products while emphasizing the need for context-specific solutions (
FAO, 2021
).
Outlook for biodegradation
Options for alternative materials in terms of bio-based plastics, as mentioned above, are somewhat limited due to rules governing particular types of farms (e.g., National Organic Program) and the expense of these newer materials. Additionally, these products are not necessarily safer, with such challenges already demonstrated in aquatic organisms (
Hutton et al., 2024
). For example,
Vendries et al. (2020)
call attention to the material attributes biobased, compostable and biodegradable, for much confusion exists about these terms and the implied end of use treatment. Biobased only describes the inputs or feedstock being sourced from plants, renewable agricultural, marine, and forestry materials. Feedstock by itself does not produce the desired attributes of compostability or biodegradation. For example, the common polymer mulch polyethylene (PE) can be sourced from both fossil and biobased feedstocks, with the final finished PE film performing identically, and neither are compostable or biodegradable. In compost and in soil they merely fragment into ever smaller particles (i.e., MNP). Further, not all biobased materials are 100% biobased. PE is a good example of blended feedstock used to lower the embodied carbon content.
Compostable plastic materials are those that have the potential to break down via biological processes to yield CO
, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass. Such products generally cannot be composted in a backyard setting. Likewise, not all biobased materials are compostable, though many compostable materials are biobased. Therefore, not all biobased plastics are biodegradable.
Figure 13
illustrates a comparison of life cycle impacts of different bio-derived and conventional polymers used in packaging. It reveals no clear ecological advantage through the full life cycle of the materials. However, feedstock substitution from fossil to bio-sources for the same polymer (e.g., fossil PE vs. bio-derived PE) offers advantage for GWP and simultaneously reveals burden shifting to other impact categories including ecotoxicity, human toxicity, eutrophication and land use (
Vendries et al., 2020
). It is therefore prudent to assess material substitution through a life cycle perspective that goes beyond basic carbon footprinting and including metrics relevant to agriculture. Results from this meta-review indicate that, as a rule, relying on any one attribute as a design or procurement parameter to achieve environmentally preferable outcomes is not scientifically supported (
Vendries et al., 2020
). Bio-based and synthetic plastics offer similar benefits in preserving soil moisture, regulating local soil temperatures, enabling drip irrigation and fertigation, and eliminating weeds. The bio-based polymers are less affordable due to limited supply and commercial adoption (
Maraveas, 2020
). Furthermore, although starch-based biodegradable mulches are potentially more sustainable than those made from traditional PE, uncertainties remain about their residence time and their effects on soil, crop and organism health (
Dada et al., 2025
). Given that recommendations regarding the global plastics treaty are centered around source (plastics) reduction and chemical simplification (
Brander et al., 2024
), it would be most beneficial for farmers and aquaculturists to revert to non-plastic materials where possible, especially given that prior to the 1960s and 70s, most food was produced without single-use plastics and the myriad of products relied upon today.
Figure 13
State and federal lawmakers (e.g., Deb Patterson, US Senator Jeff Merkley) support more sustainable practices, with preliminary data suggesting that switching to low-carbon-footprint materials may not significantly increase costs. Research in Mount Vernon, Washington, found that cellulosic-paper mulch improved soil conditions compared to polyethylene (PE) film mulch. PE mulching increased soil temperature, altering microbial activity, while soil-biodegradable plastics initially performed similarly but disintegrated over the season (
Sintim et al., 2021
). Paper mulch effectively inhibited light penetration for weed control but required structural integrity to increase its durability (
Sintim et al., 2019
). Biodegradable plastic mulches degraded faster in compost than in soil, making composting a preferable disposal method for these films in cooler climates (
Sintim et al., 2020
).
Rates and the extent of fragmentation and biodegradation of mulch varies across different climates, and the toxicity of these materials before and during breakdown is largely unknown. Studies indicate that field-weathered BDMs have stronger negative effects on plant development than pristine ones (
Serrano-Ruiz et al., 2023
). The issue parallels plastic microbeads in personal care products—initially valued for convenience but later recognized as environmental pollutants. Precaution is warranted, as biodegradable polymers may degrade unpredictably outside controlled conditions (
Sintim and Flury, 2017
). Both fossil- and bio-derived plastic mulches impact the environment through their life cycles. Life cycle assessments (LCA) compare environmental impacts, showing that while PE film has a better environmental profile than alternatives, it accelerates soil organic carbon decomposition and greenhouse gas emissions (
Dong et al., 2022
). However, there are issues with traditional LCA approaches because they are skewed toward costs associated with stages earlier in the plastics life cycle such as production and shipping costs (e.g., weight of the material) rather than weighing in longer term impacts such as fragmentation (
Gontard et al., 2022
). Recycling is preferable but often impractical due to soil contamination, making managed landfilling potentially more environmentally sound. Some studies suggest compostable plastics exhibit better environmental outcomes in landfills than in composting facilities due to incomplete degradation under composting conditions (
Vendries et al., 2020
Chamas et al., 2020
).
While often spoken of as a binary characteristic, the potential for any substance (both natural or synthetic) to biodegrade is a product of two critical factors: (1) the physical and chemical properties of the substance, and (2) the environmental conditions in which the substance is found (
Sommer, 2024
).
Egan and Salmon (2021)
describe the “biological cascade” of both physical and chemical changes that are necessary to achieve complete biodegradation, which is the breakdown of organic molecules into carbon, water and salts, and conversion to biomass (
Figure 14
). Many materials may physically disintegrate but never biodegrade due to either environmental conditions or chemical structure or both. Common plastics in agriculture such as polyethylene and PVC are examples.
Figure 14
Frequent trade-offs between non-biodegradable plastics and potentially biodegradable alternatives have been mentioned above. Due to the very likely disintegration (but not necessarily biodegradation) of most polymers used in agricultural applications, a preference for biodegradable rather than non-biodegradable polymers is logical. Yet important questions remain about the impact of biodegradable polymers relative to their non-biodegradable counterparts. There is evidence (mentioned in the previous text) of toxicity associated with both biodegradable and non-biodegradable polymers possibly due to the hazards of the materials themselves and likely due to the additives and treatments applied to them. The precise causes of toxicity associated with MNPs from both biodegradable and non-biodegradable polymers is rarely understood, and therefore further toxicity testing is warranted to begin to design for lower impact polymers and materials. Comparative toxicity testing and a thorough understanding of the chemical content of tested materials is critical to providing such actionable information. Further, changes to the way toxicity studies are reported and conducted would enable meta-analysis and clearer conclusions to be drawn from existing data (
Thornton Hampton et al., 2022
).
In short, while biodegradability is an important feature for materials used in environmentally dispersive applications—such as terrestrial and aquatic agriculture—it does not, on its own, eliminate the risk of toxicity. Therefore, thorough testing of both biodegradable and non-biodegradable polymers is necessary before large-scale use, in order to prevent regrettable substitutions.
Recycling
The lack of available recycling facilities that accept common farm-use plastics, or that would accept bio-based options, has made it extremely difficult for farmers to manage excess, damaged, or seasonal plastic waste. For many farms under 99 acres in Oregon, it is common practice to leave drip tape in the ground year-round, replacing it only when it is damaged, rather than seasonally (
Ahmadaali et al., 2016
). The flexibility of the material allows the drip lines to withstand low temperatures, making them impervious to frost or freezing, even when small volumes of water remain inside.
Farmers frequently remove PVC-based accessories, such as ball valves and other rigid components, due to PVC's vulnerability to breakage in cold conditions. In contrast, drip lines are retained for extended periods because of their durability and resistance to freezing temperatures. Some companies provide looped recycling services, supplying high-density polyethylene (HDPE) crates to farms while also accepting damaged brand-specific crates for recycling. One such company has adopted a first-right-of-refusal policy, which allows existing customers to purchase recycled crates for non-edible item handling. This cost-efficient approach promotes waste reduction and sustainability, enabling farms to enhance operational efficiency through the reuse of recycled materials.
Statewide, plastic materials constitute a small fraction of Oregon's overall material recovery efforts. In 2022, plastics accounted for just 2% of the total recovered materials, with the majority being metals (28.5%), yard debris (25.2%), and cardboard (19.1%) (Hefferan, 2024)
. This indicates that while agricultural plastics contribute to waste, they represent a minor portion of the state's recycling stream. To address the broader challenges of plastic waste management, Oregon enacted the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) in 2021, set to take effect on July 1, 2025. This legislation aims to overhaul the state's recycling system by introducing producer responsibility programs, standardizing recycling practices, and ensuring that collected plastics are processed in environmentally responsible ways. These measures are expected to enhance the efficiency of recycling programs and reduce the environmental footprint of plastic waste, including that generated by agricultural activities (
Environment Oregon, 2023
). Notwithstanding this effort, said act will focus on packaging for consumer products rather than those specific materials in farm production that this paper addresses.
While post-use plastic recovery from farms is a desirable aspiration, it is important to not draw too many material management parallels from the region's solid waste management practices that are typically organized to recover residential and business generated waste. On farm generated plastic waste comes with a very different waste profile as described herein, much of it is embedded with soil and is in various stages of physical deterioration. Both conditions in turn affect the material's secondary uses. Policies that take into consideration these unique characteristics, as well as field trials and appropriate recovery infrastructure need to be part of the dialogue both regionally and nationally. Examples such as the European Union's Plastic Strategy and China's ban on different uses and types of plastic are important models. Yet, they represent national and multinational agreement. Such agreement is lacking in the USA and represents a significant deficit for unified plastic materials management in the USA. Opportunities may exist in the form of regional cooperative agreement, and advocacy for parallel legislation modeled after the RMA in Oregon tailored for on farm applications.
Conclusion
While the use of plastics in agriculture and aquaculture was once hailed as a revolutionary advancement, it has now resulted in a cycle of waste that provides few viable options for sustainable recycling or responsible disposal. In summary, although plastics have played a crucial role in enhancing the productivity and efficiency of agriculture and aquaculture, the environmental and health hazards associated with agri- and aquacultural plastic use, waste, and resultant microplastics (MPs) are not fully understood, particularly in U.S, including productive regions of the country such as the Pacific Northwest. Microplastics present a unique and dynamic challenge to agricultural and aquaculture systems. Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) have significant and detrimental effects on soil ecosystems, including alterations to soil pH, impacts on organic matter content, and reductions in biodiversity among microbial communities. Studies have even indicated that MNPs present in soil can be taken up by a variety of crops, accumulate in their roots, and negatively affect plant growth. Efforts are greatly needed to reduce the pollution of agricultural sites from the use of mulch films, compost, and biosolids, as well as other practices such as the use of encapsulated pesticides and fertilizers.
Additionally, plastics can act as vectors for pollutants and pathogens, depending on their deposition. Plastics not only affect agricultural organisms but pollute the entire terrestrial food web, hence the need for policies and altenative pathways. The increasing dependence on plastics in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and other food producing regions in the U.S., raises concerns about food contamination and pollution in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. This region uniquely recognizes the need to transform and modernize its waste management systems, including those of agricultural and aquacultural plastics. For example, a report by the Center for Sustainable Infrastructure outlines a path to create tens of thousands of environmentally-focused jobs across the region by 2040 through waste management and recycling infrastructure advancements. This transformation aims to balance environmental sustainability with economic growth, potentially offsetting some costs associated with plastic pollution (
Roth and Mazza, 2020
).
Efforts to understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of agricultural plastic waste are gaining international momentum, exemplified by the European Union's (EU) MINAGRIS project, which investigates the sources, environmental fate, and soil impacts of micro and nano plastics (MNP) in agriculture in 11 countries (
MINAGRIS, 2023
). Both the EU and Japan classify agricultural plastics waste as industrial waste, placing responsibility for proper collection and disposal on producers or farmers under EPR systems (
European CAP Network, 2023
Ministry of the Environment Japan, 2022
). Future international collaboration, guided by the eventual Global Plastics Treaty (
Stöfen-O'Brien, 2022
Brander et al., 2024
Dignac et al., 2025
), could focus on coordinated waste classification standards, investment in biodegradable or circular plastic alternatives, and cross-border research platforms to assess soil contamination and remediation. Such alignment would support global sustainability goals while enabling coordinated responses to the rising challenge of plastics pollution in agriculture (
He et al., 2018
Sa'adu and Farsang, 2023b
). Addressing these challenges requires a holistic strategy that can include improved management practices, the creation of truly sustainable plastic alternatives, and efficient recycling systems to reduce the environmental effects of plastic usage in food production systems. It is imperative to note that recycling is not an all-encompassing solution. It can be a step toward addressing some of the challenges we have to grapple with regarding plastics in the food industry. Ultimately there is a need to limit the use of plastics in agriculture, especially as this category of plastics contributes up to 5% of global plastic production, with predictions of large increases if business as usual continues. The continued reliance on plastics without clear strategies for circularity or reduced production underscores the urgent need for research and policy interventions in a manner that the benefits of plasticulture do not compromise long-term environmental health and sustainability at a planetary scale.
Statements
Author contributions
SB: Writing – review & editing, Software, Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Visualization. GL: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MM: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Investigation. SS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Writing – original draft. MH: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. LK: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. KA: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft. EG: Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation. KB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. RP: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. NC: Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. HT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Visualization. LS: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. SH: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. GT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Oregon State University Research Advancement Academy provided support to SB for the Farm to Table Workshop held in September 2024 that resulted in the generation of this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all of the attendees at the September 2024 Plastics from Farm to Table workshop held in Portland, OR, USA, who contributed valuable ideas and discussions that led to the writing of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
NC and HT were employed by Zero Waste Washington. LS was employed by Libby Sommer LLC.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1.
American Farmland Trust. Available online at:
(Accessed December 2024).
2.
Snow and Company. Available online at:
(Accessed Jan 2025).
3.
Resource Recycling.
(Accessed March, 2025).
References
Abdolahpur Monikh
F.
Holm
S.
Kortet
R.
Bandekar
M.
Kekäläinen
J.
Koistinen
A.
et al
. (
2022
).
Quantifying the trophic transfer of sub-micron plastics in an assembled food chain
Nano Today
46
101611
10.1016/j.nantod.2022.101611
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Afzal
I.
Talha
J.
Amirkhani
M.
Taylor
A. G.
2020
).
Modern seed technology: seed coating delivery systems for enhancing seed and crop performance
Agriculture
10
526
10.3390/agriculture10110526
CrossRef
Google Scholar
AGRU America
X. X.
2024
). Available online at:
(Accessed December, 2024).
Google Scholar
Ahmadaali
K.
Liaghat
A. M.
Pourmohseni
A. A.
2016
).
Investigating the challenges and environmental impacts of drip tape irrigation
Water Manag. Agric.
59
72
Google Scholar
Al Naggar
Y.
Ali
H.
Mohamed
H.
Kholy
S. E.
El-Seedi
H. R.
Mohamed
A.
et al
. (
2024
).
Exploring the risk of microplastics to pollinators: focusing on honey bees
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
31
46898
46909
10.1007/s11356-024-34184-y
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Alaa
E.
Abou
G. M.
Hassan
S. M.
Abdelatif
H. H.
El-Din
N. G. S.
Abdelnaby
H. M.
et al
. (
2023
).
Applications of marine bacteria in the aquaculture industry for improving water quality and treating microbial attack
Egy. J. Aquat. Biol. Fisher.
27
249
275
10.21608/ejabf.2023.309197
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Algae Culture in Biotechnology
2025
). Available online at:
(Accessed March, 2025).
Google Scholar
Aralappanavar
V. K.
Mukhopadhyay
R.
Yu
Y.
Liu
J.
Bhatnagar
A.
Praveena
S. M.
et al
. (
2024
).
Effects of microplastics on soil microorganisms and microbial functions in nutrients and carbon cycling–a review
Sci. Total Environ.
2024
171435
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171435
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Arantzamendi
L.
Andrés
M.
Basurko
O. C.
José Suárez
M.
2023
).
Circular and lower impact mussel and seaweed aquaculture by a shift towards bio-based ropes
Rev. Aquacult.
15
1010
1019
10.1111/raq.12816
CrossRef
Google Scholar
10
Arévalo
P. W.
Orellana
V. P.
López
P. G. B.
Cajamarca
X. J.
2024
).
Influence of geographic separation between urban centers and microplastic burden on bees (
Apis mellifera
One Ecosyst.
11680
10.3897/oneeco.9.e127698
CrossRef
Google Scholar
11
Awet
T. T.
Kohl
Y.
Meier
F.
Straskraba
S.
Grün
A. L.
Ruf
T.
et al
. (
2018
).
Effects of polystyrene nanoparticles on the microbiota and functional diversity of enzymes in soil
Environ. Sciences Eur.
30
10
10.1186/s12302-018-0140-6
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
12
Baechler
B. R.
Granek
E. F.
Mazzone
S. J.
Nielsen-Pincus
M.
Brander
S. M.
2020
).
Microplastic exposure by razor clam recreational harvester-consumers along a sparsely populated coastline
Front. Mar. Sci.
588481
10.3389/fmars.2020.588481
CrossRef
Google Scholar
13
Bahrani
F.
Mohammadi
A.
Dobaradaran
S.
De-la-Torre
G. E.
Arfaeinia
H.
Ramavandi
B.
et al
. (
2024
).
Occurrence of microplastics in edible tissues of livestock (cow and sheep)
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
31
22145
22157
10.1007/s11356-024-32424-9
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
14
Balzani
P.
Galeotti
G.
Scheggi
S.
Masoni
A.
Santini
G.
Baracchi
D.
et al
. (
2022
).
Acute and chronic ingestion of polyethylene (PE) microplastics has mild effects on honey bee health and cognition
Environ. Pollut.
305
119318
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119318
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
15
Bandopadhyay
S.
Martin-Closas
L.
Pelacho
A. M.
DeBruyn
J. M.
2018
).
Biodegradable plastic mulch films: impacts on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions
Front. Microbiol.
819
10.3389/fmicb.2018.00819
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
16
Banerjee
A.
Lee Shelver
W.
2021
).
Micro- and nanoplastic induced cellular toxicity in mammals: a review
Sci. Total Environ.
755
142518
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142518
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
17
Barrows
A.
2025
).
Plastic Free Sea Farming
. Deer Isle Oyster Company. Available online at:
(Accessed April 15, 2025).
Google Scholar
18
Berger
N. J.
Masri
M. A.
Brück
T.
Garbe
D.
Pfeifer
C.
Lindorfer
J.
2023
).
Utilizing a CHP power plant's energy and CO2 emissions for the manufacture of affordable and carbon neutral algae bioplastic for re-useable packaging
Indus. Eng. Chem. Res.
62
7275
7296
10.1021/acs.iecr.3c00590
CrossRef
Google Scholar
19
Bergmann
M. (Ed.).
2015
).
Marine Anthropogenic Litter
. Heidelberg: Springer.
10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3
CrossRef
Google Scholar
20
Boots
B.
Russell
C. W.
Green
D. S.
2019
).
Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: above and below ground
Environ. Sci. Technol.
53
11496
11506
10.1021/acs.est.9b03304
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
21
Bowley
J.
Baker-Austin
C.
Porter
A.
Hartnell
R.
Lewis
C.
2021
).
Oceanic hitchhikers–assessing pathogen risks from marine microplastic
Trends Microbiol.
29
107
116
10.1016/j.tim.2020.06.011
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
22
Brander
S. M.
Senathirajah
K.
Fernandez
M. O.
Weis
J. S.
Kumar
E.
Jahnke
A.
et al
. (
2024
).
The time for ambitious action is now: science-based recommendations for plastic chemicals to inform an effective global plastic treaty
Sci. Total Environ.
949;174881.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174881
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
23
Briassoulis
D.
2023
).
Agricultural plastics as a potential threat to food security, health, and environment through soil pollution by microplastics: problem definition
Sci. Total Environ.
892
164533
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164533
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
24
Briassoulis
D.
Mistriotis
A.
Eleftherakis
D.
2007
).
Mechanical behaviour and properties of agricultural nets. Part II: analysis of the performance of the main categories of agricultural nets
Polymer Test.
26
970
984
10.1016/j.polymertesting.2007.06.010
CrossRef
Google Scholar
25
Bringer
A.
Le Floch
S.
Kerstan
A.
Thomas
H.
2021
).
Coastal ecosystem inventory with characterization and identification of plastic contamination and additives from aquaculture materials
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
167
112286
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112286
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
26
Brydson
J. A.
1999
).
The Historical Development of Plastics Materials. Plastics Materials, 7th Edn.
Oxford
Butterworth-Heinemann
10.1016/B978-075064132-6/50071-1
CrossRef
Google Scholar
27
Buschmann
A. H.
Camus
C.
Infante
J.
Neori
A.
Israel
A.
Hernández-González
M. C.
et al
. (
2017
).
Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity
Eur. J. Phycol.
52
391
406
10.1080/09670262.2017.1365175
CrossRef
Google Scholar
28
Castellano
S.
Mugnozza
G. S.
Russo
G.
Briassoulis
D.
Mistriotis
A.
Hemming
S.
et al
. (
2008
).
Plastic nets in agriculture: a general review of types and applications
Appl. Eng. Agric.
24
799
808
10.13031/2013.25368
CrossRef
Google Scholar
29
Chamas
A.
Hyunjin
M.
Zheng
J.
Qiu
Y.
Tabassum
T.
Jang
J. H.
et al
. (
2020
).
Degradation rates of plastics in the environment
ACS Sust. Chem. Eng.
3494
3511
10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635
CrossRef
Google Scholar
30
Chang
X.
Li
Y.
Han
Y.
Fang
Y.
Xiang
H.
Zhao
Z.
et al
. (
2024
).
Polystyrene exposure induces lamb gastrointestinal injury, digestive disorders and inflammation, decreasing daily gain, and meat quality
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
277
116389
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116389
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
31
Chaud
M.
Souto
E. B.
Zielinska
A.
Severino
P.
Batain
F.
Oliveira-Junior
J.
et al
. (
2021
).
Nanopesticides in agriculture: benefits and challenge in agricultural productivity, toxicological risks to human health and environment
Toxics
131
10.3390/toxics9060131
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
32
Chen
J.
Chen
G.
Peng
H.
Qi
L.
Zhang
D.
Nie
Q.
et al
. (
2023
).
Microplastic exposure induces muscle growth but reduces meat quality and muscle physiological function in chickens
Sci. Total Environ.
882
163305
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163305
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
33
Chen
Q.
Gundlach
M.
Yang
S.
Jiang
J.
Velki
M.
Yin
D.
et al
. (
2017
).
Quantitative investigation of the mechanisms of microplastics and nanoplastics toward zebrafish larvae locomotor activity
Sci. Total Environ.
584–
585
1022
1031
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.156
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
34
Chung
I. K.
Beardall
J.
Mehta
S.
Sahoo
D.
Stojkovic
S.
2011
).
Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal
J. Appl. Phycol.
23
877
886
10.1007/s10811-010-9604-9
CrossRef
Google Scholar
35
Coolong
T.
2010
).
Performance of paper mulches using a mechanical plastic layer and water wheel transplanter for the production of summer squash
Hort Technol.
20
319
324
10.21273/HORTTECH.20.2.319
CrossRef
Google Scholar
36
Cornish
M. L.
2017
).
Seaweeds as human food and aquaculture feeds
de l'Association Aquacole du Canada
Google Scholar
37
Cui
W.
Hale
R. C.
Huang
Y.
Zhou
F.
Wu
Y.
Liang
X.
et al
. (
2023
).
Sorption of representative organic contaminants on microplastics: effects of chemical physicochemical properties, particle size, and biofilm presence
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
251
114533
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114533
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
38
Cunningham
B. E.
Sharpe
E. E.
Brander
S. M.
Landis
W. G.
Harper
S. L.
2023
).
Critical gaps in nanoplastics research and their connection to risk assessment
Front. Toxicol
1154538
10.3389/ftox.2023.1154538
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
39
Cunningham
E. M.
Kregting
L.
McKinney
R. E.
Salotra
R.
Maggs
C. A.
Healey
E.
et al
. (
2024
).
Longline and mesocosm cultivation of serrated wrack fucus serratus (
Phaeophyceae
Appl. Phycol.
85
96
10.1080/26388081.2024.2393110
CrossRef
Google Scholar
40
Dada
O. I.
Habarakada Liyanage
T. U.
Chi
T.
Yu
L.
DeVetter
L. W.
Chen
S.
et al
. (
2025
).
Towards sustainable agroecosystems: a life cycle assessment review of soil-biodegradable and traditional plastic mulch films
Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol.
24
100541
10.1016/j.ese.2025.100541
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
41
Danforth
B. N.
Minckley
R. L.
Neff
J. L.
2019
).
The Solitary Bees
Princeton, NJ
Princeton University Press
10.1515/9780691189321
CrossRef
Google Scholar
42
Davis
M.
Stone
A.
Gallagher
A.
Garrett
A.
2023
).
Site factors related to dry farm vegetable productivity and quality in the Willamette Valley of Oregon
Hort Technol.
33
587
600
10.21273/HORTTECH05287-23
CrossRef
Google Scholar
43
de Souza Machado
A. A.
Lau
C. W.
Kloas
W.
Bergmann
J.
Bachelier
J. B.
Faltin
E.
et al
. (
2019
).
Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance
Environ. Sci. Technol.
53
6044
6052
10.1021/acs.est.9b01339
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
44
del Carmen Ponce-Rodríguez
M.
Carrete-Carreón
F. O.
Núñez-Fernández
G. A.
de Jesús Muñoz-Ramos
J.
Pérez-López
M. E.
2021
).
Keyline in bean crop (
Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) for soil and water conservation
Sustainability
13
9982
10.3390/su13179982
CrossRef
Google Scholar
45
Deng
Y.
Jiang
X.
Zhao
H.
Yang
S.
Gao
J.
Wu
Y.
et al
. (
2021
).
Microplastic polystyrene ingestion promotes the susceptibility of honeybee to viral infection
Environ. Sci. Technol.
55
11680
11692
10.1021/acs.est.1c01619
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
46
Dentzman
K. E.
Goldberger
J. R.
2020
).
Organic standards, farmers' perceptions, and the contested case of biodegradable plastic mulch in the United States
J. Rural Stud.
73
203
213
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.002
CrossRef
Google Scholar
47
Dignac
M.-F.
Bakhos
M.
Brander
S.
Colombini
G.
Deeney
M.
Dufour
E.
et al
. (
2025
).
Why a strong global plastics treaty is essential for agricultural systems, food safety, food security and human health
Cambridge Prisms: Plast.
e18
10.1017/plc.2025.10006
CrossRef
Google Scholar
48
Dong
H.
Yang
G.
Zhang
Y.
Yang
Y.
Wang
D.
Zhou
C.
et al
. (
2022
).
Recycling, disposal, or biodegradable-alternative of polyethylene plastic film for agricultural mulching? A life cycle analysis of their environmental impacts
J. Clean. Prod.
380
134950
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134950
CrossRef
Google Scholar
49
Donovan
B.
2025
).
An Economic and Production Analysis of Seaweed Farms in California and the Pacific Northwest
. MS Thesis, California Polytechnic State University, Humboldt, California.
Google Scholar
50
Edo
C.
Fernández-Alba
A. R.
2020
).
microplastics in the environment
Sci. Total Environ.
2020
144481
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144481
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
51
Egan
J.
Salmon
S.
2021
).
Evaluating plastic waste solutions through an international governance lens
SN Appl. Sci.
858
10.1007/s42452-021-04851-7
CrossRef
Google Scholar
52
Ehrhart
A. L.
Doerr
A. N.
2022
).
Oregon Marine Aquaculture: Barriers, Opportunities and Policy Recommendations
[White paper]. Oregon Sea Grant. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
53
Empson
L.
Harris
K.
Hurtado
I.
McGinley
K.
Weissenfluh
A.
2021
). Reducing
Agricultural Plastics' Environmental Impacts
. UCSB Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
54
Environment Oregon
2023
).
Environment Oregon co-hosts “2023 Plastic Policy Roundup”
. Available online at:
(Accessed January, 2025).
Google Scholar
55
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
X. X.
2023
).
Ocean: Cultivating Plastic Part 1 – Agriplastics and the UK Gocery Supply Chain Line
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
56
Eriksen
M.
Cowger
W.
Erdle
L. M.
Coffin
S.
Villarrubia-Gómez
P.
Moore
C. J.
et al
. (
2023
).
A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world's oceans—Urgent solutions required
PLoS ONE
18
e0281596
10.1371/journal.pone.0281596
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
57
Espinosa
C.
García Beltrán
J. M.
Ángeles Esteban
M.
Cuesta
A.
2018
).
In vitro
effects of virgin microplastics on fish head-kidney leucocyte activities
Environ. Pollut.
235
30
38
10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.054
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
58
European CAP Network
X. X.
2023
).
MINAGRIS: Micro- and Nano-Plastics in Agricultural Soils
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
59
FAO
X. X.
2021
).
Assessment of Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability – A Call for Action
Rome
FAO
Google Scholar
60
FAO
X. X.
2024
).
A Short Overview of Regulatory and Market-Based Instruments for the Management of Plastics Used in Agriculture
. FAO. Available online at:
(Accessed March 5, 2025).
Google Scholar
61
Fei
Y.
Huang
S.
Zhang
H.
Tong
Y.
Wen
D.
Xia
X.
et al
. (
2020
).
Response of soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities to the accumulation of microplastics in an acid cropped soil
Sci. Total Environ.
707
135634
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135634
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
62
Feng
X.
Wang
Q.
Sun
Y.
Zhang
S.
Wang
F.
2022
).
Microplastics change soil properties, heavy metal availability and bacterial community in a Pb-Zn-contaminated soil
J. Hazard. Mater.
424
127364
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127364
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
63
Fred-Ahmadu
O. H.
Ahmadu
F. O.
Adedapo
A. E.
Oghenovo
I.
Ogunmodede
O. T.
Benson
N. U.
et al
. (
2024
).
Microplastics and chemical contamination in aquaculture ecosystems: the role of climate change and implications for food safety—a review
Environ. Sci. Europe
36
181
10.1186/s12302-024-00995-6
CrossRef
Google Scholar
64
Fu
F.
Long
B.
Huang
Q.
Li
J.
Zhou
W.
Yang
C.
et al
. (
2023
).
Integrated effects of residual plastic films on soil-rhizosphere microbe-plant ecosystem
J. Hazard. Mater.
445
130420
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130420
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
65
Fukami
J.
Cerezini
P.
Hungria
M.
2018
).
Azospirillum: benefits that go far beyond biological nitrogen fixation
AMB Express
73
10.1186/s13568-018-0608-1
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
66
Gałecka
I.
Całka
J.
2024
).
Oral exposure to microplastics affects the neurochemical plasticity of reactive neurons in the Porcine Jejunum
Nutrients
16
14
10.3390/nu16142268
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
67
Galle
J.
2023
).
8 Best Farm Water Tank Containers
. Tank-Depot.com. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
68
Geyer
R.
Gavigan
J.
Jackson
A. M.
Saccomanno
V. R.
Suh
S.
Gleason
M. G.
2022
).
Quantity and fate of synthetic microfiber emissions from apparel washing in California and strategies for their reduction
Environ. Pollut.
298
118835
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118835
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
69
Giacomelli
G. A.
Garrison
S. A.
Jensen
M.
Mears
D.
Patterson
J. W.
Roberts
W. J.
et al
. (
2000
).
Advances in Plasticulture Technologies 1977–2000
. Hershey, PA.
Google Scholar
70
Gianico
A.
Braguglia
C. M.
Gallipoli
A.
Montecchio
D.
Mininni
G.
2021
).
Land application of biosolids in europe: possibilities, constraints and future perspectives
Water
13
103
10.3390/w13010103
CrossRef
Google Scholar
71
Gkoutselis
G.
Rohrbach
S.
Harjes
J.
Obst
M.
Brachmann
A.
Horn
M. A.
et al
. (
2021
).
Microplastics accumulate fungal pathogens in terrestrial ecosystems
Sci. Rep.
11
13214
10.1038/s41598-021-92405-7
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
72
Goldberger
J. R.
DeVetter
L. W.
Dentzman
K. E.
2019
).
Polyethylene and biodegradable plastic mulches for strawberry production in the united states: experiences and opinions of growers in three regions
Hort Technol.
29
619
628
10.21273/HORTTECH04393-19
CrossRef
Google Scholar
73
Goldberger
J. R.
Jones
R. E.
Miles
C. A.
Wallace
R. W.
Inglis
D. A.
2015
).
Barriers and bridges to the adoption of biodegradable plastic mulches for us specialty crop production
Renew. Agric. Food Syst.
30
143
153
10.1017/S1742170513000276
CrossRef
Google Scholar
74
Golwala
H.
Zhang
X.
Md Iskander
S.
Smith
A. L.
2021
).
Solid waste: an overlooked source of microplastics to the environment
Sci. Total Environ.
769
144581
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144581
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
75
Gómez
P.
Luis
J.
Martel Quintana
A.
2016
).
Algae production and their potential contribution to a nutritional sustainability
J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng.
10.15436/2378-6841.16.1101
CrossRef
Google Scholar
76
Gontard
N.
David
G.
Guilbert
A.
Sohn
J.
2022
).
Recognizing the long-term impacts of plastic particles for preventing distortion in decision-making
Nat. Sust
472
478
10.1038/s41893-022-00863-2
CrossRef
Google Scholar
77
Gordon
D. G.
Wagner
M. B.
Larson
S.
2023
).
Heaven on the Half Shell: The Story of the Oyster in the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edn
. University of Washington Press. Available online at:
(Accessed March 2, 2025).
Google Scholar
78
Granek
E. F.
Traylor
S. D.
Tissot
A. G.
Hurst
P. T.
Wood
R. S.
Brander
S. M.
2022
).
Clothes Encounters of the Microfibre Kind: The Effects of Natural and Synthetic Textiles on Organisms. Polluting Textiles
. Abingdon: Routledge,
63
99
10.4324/9781003165385-5
CrossRef
Google Scholar
79
Gravem
S.
Heady
W.
Saccomanno
V.
Alvstad
K.
Gehman
A.
Frierson
T.
et al
. (
2021
).
Pycnopodia helianthoides. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
, 43.
Google Scholar
80
Grillo
R.
Fraceto
L. F.
Amorim
M. J. B.
Scott-Fordsmand
J. J.
Schoonjans
R.
Chaudhry
Q.
et al
. (
2021
).
Ecotoxicological and regulatory aspects of environmental sustainability of nanopesticides
J. Hazard. Mater.
404
124148
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124148
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
81
Groesbeck
A. S.
Rowell
K.
Lepofsky
D.
Salomon
A. K.
2014
).
Ancient clam gardens increased shellfish production: adaptive strategies from the past can inform food security today
PLoS ONE
e91235
10.1371/journal.pone.0091235
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
82
Grown Bio
X. X.
2022
).
Innovative Mycelium Packaging for All Kinds of Products
. Grown Bio. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
83
Hahladakis
J. N.
Velis
C. A.
Weber
R.
Iacovidou
E.
Purnell
P.
2018
).
An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling
J. Hazard. Mater.
344
179
199
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
84
Harel
E.
Zucker
I.
Shenkar
N.
2024
).
Effects of biological filtration by ascidians on microplastic composition in the water column
Chemosphere
367
143589
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143589
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
85
Hayes
D. G.
Wadsworth
L. C.
Sintim
H. Y.
Flury
M.
M.
Schaeffer
S.
et al
. (
2017
).
Effect of diverse weathering conditions on the physicochemical properties of biodegradable plastic mulches
Polym. Test.
62
454
467
10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.07.027
CrossRef
Google Scholar
86
He
D.
Luo
Y.
Lu
S.
Liu
M.
Song
Y.
2018
).
Microplastics in soils: analytical methods, pollution characteristics and ecological risks
TrAC Trends Anal. Chem.
109
163
172
10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.006
CrossRef
Google Scholar
87
Helli
J.
2024
).
Bumblebees in Revealing Anthropogenic Pollution in Finnish Cities: Microplastic and Metals Matter
M.S. Thesis
). Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.
Google Scholar
88
Hermann
B. G.
Debeer
L.
De Wilde
B.
Blok
K.
Patel
M. K.
2011
).
To compost or not to compost: Carbon and energy footprints of biodegradable materials' waste treatment
Polym. Degrad. Stab.
96
1159
1171
10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.12.026
CrossRef
Google Scholar
89
Hiskakis
M.
Babou
E.
Briassoulis
D.
2011
).
Experimental processing of biodegradable drip irrigation systems—possibilities and limitations
J. Polym. Environ.
19
887
907
10.1007/s10924-011-0341-1
CrossRef
Google Scholar
90
Hofmann
T.
Ghoshal
S.
Tufenkji
N.
Adamowski
J. F.
Bayen
S.
Chen
Q.
et al
. (
2023
).
Plastics can be used more sustainably in agriculture
Commun. Earth Environ.
11
10.1038/s43247-023-00982-4
CrossRef
Google Scholar
91
Horn
D. A.
Granek
E. F.
Steele
C. L.
2020
).
Effects of environmentally relevant concentrations of microplastic fibers on Pacific mole crab (
Emerita analoga
) mortality and reproduction
Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett.
74
83
10.1002/lol2.10137
CrossRef
Google Scholar
92
Horton
A. A.
Vijver
M. G.
Lahive
E.
Spurgeon
D. J.
Svendsen
C.
Heutink
R.
et al
. (
2018
).
Acute toxicity of organic pesticides to
Daphnia magna
is unchanged by co-exposure to polystyrene microplastics
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
166
26
34
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.052
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
93
Hoseini
M.
Bond
T.
2022
).
Predicting the global environmental distribution of plastic polymers
Environ. Pollut.
300
118966
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118966
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
94
Hu
M.
Huang
L.
Wang
Y.
Tan
H.
Yu
X.
2023
).
Insight into the effect of microplastics on the adsorption and degradation behavior of thiamethoxam in agricultural soils
Chemosphere
337
139262
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139262
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
95
Huang
Y.
Liu
Q.
Jia
W.
Yan
C.
Wang
J.
2020
).
Agricultural plastic mulching as a source of microplastics in the terrestrial environment
Environ. Pollut.
260
114096
10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114096
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
96
Huang
Y.
Zhao
Y.
Wang
J.
Zhang
M.
Jia
W.
Qin
X.
et al
. (
2019
).
LDPE microplastic films alter microbial community composition and enzymatic activities in soil
Environ. Pollut.
254
112983
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.112983
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
97
Huo
Y.
Dijkstra
F. A.
Possell
M.
Singh
B.
2022
).
Ecotoxicological effects of plastics on plants, soil fauna and microorganisms: a meta-analysis
Environ. Pollut.
310
119892
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119892
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
98
Hutton
S. J.
Kashiwabara
L.
Anderson
E.
Siddiqui
S.
Harper
B.
Harper
S.
et al
. (
2024
).
Behavioral and molecular effects of micro and nanoplastics across three plastic types in fish: weathered microfibers induce a similar response to nanosized particles
Front. Toxicol.
1490223
10.3389/ftox.2024.1490223
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
99
Iannacone
J.
Seminario
M.
Minaya
D.
Alvariño
L.
Castañeda-Pérez
L.
Tejada
G.
et al
. (
2024
).
Microplastics in the honey bee (
Apis mellifera
) from urban apiaries in Metropolitan Lima, Peru
Innovaciencia
e4450
10.15649/2346075X.4450
CrossRef
Google Scholar
100
IBC Tanks
X. X.
2024
).
How IBC Totes Can Help Maximize Farm Productivity
. IBC Tanks. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
101
Irrigation Reservoirs
X. X.
2025
).
Novagric
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
102
Jensen
M. H.
2000
).
Plasticulture in the global community - view of the past and future
Am. Soc. Plasticult.
29
11
Google Scholar
103
Jin
T.
Tang
J.
Lyu
H.
Wang
L.
Gillmore
A. B.
Schaeffer
S. M.
et al
. (
2022
).
Activities of microplastics (MPs) in agricultural soil: a review of mps pollution from the perspective of agricultural ecosystems
J. Agric. Food Chem.
70
4182
4201
10.1021/acs.jafc.1c07849
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
104
Kedzierski
M.
d'Almeida
M.
Magueresse
A.
Le Grand
A.
Duval
H.
César
G.
et al
. (
2018
).
Threat of plastic ageing in marine environment. Adsorption/desorption of micropollutants
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
127
684
694
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.059
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
105
Khalid
N.
Aqeel
M.
Noman
A.
Fatima Rizvi
Z.
2023
).
Impact of plastic mulching as a major source of microplastics in agroecosystems
J. Hazard. Mater.
445
130455
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130455
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
106
Kookana
R. S.
Boxall
A. B. A.
Reeves
P. T.
Ashauer
R.
Beulke
S.
Chaudhry
Q.
et al
. (
2014
).
Nanopesticides: guiding principles for regulatory evaluation of environmental risks
J. Agric. Food Chem.
62
4227
4240
10.1021/jf500232f
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
107
Ladouceur
J.-R.
Ghobrial
T.
2021
).
“Observation of culverts with fish passage design in winter time. CGU HS Committee on River Ice Processes and the Environment,”
in
21
st
Workshop on the Hydraulics of Ice-Covered Rivers
. Saskatchewan, Canada.
Google Scholar
108
Lamont
W. J.
Orzolek
M. D.
2009
).
The American Society for Plasticulture- an organization that changed the face of modern Horticulture
Am. Soc. Plasticult.
35
36
39
Google Scholar
109
Lassen
C.
Hansen
S. F.
Magnusson
K.
Hartmann
N. B.
Jensen
P. R.
Nielsen
T. G.
et al
. (
2015
).
Microplastics: Occurrence, Effects and Sources of Releases to the Environment in Denmark
Copenhagen
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Google Scholar
110
Laverde
G.
2002
).
Agricultural films: types and applications
J. Plastic Film Sheeting
18
269
277
10.1177/8756087902034748
CrossRef
Google Scholar
111
Lawrencia
D.
Wong
S. K.
Low
D. Y. S.
Goh
B. H.
Goh
J. K.
Ruktanonchai
U. R.
et al
. (
2021
).
Controlled release fertilizers: a review on coating materials and mechanism of release
Plants
10
238
10.3390/plants10020238
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
112
Lead
J. R.
Batley
G. E.
Alvarez
P. J. J.
Croteau
M. N.
Handy
R. D.
McLaughlin
M. J.
et al
. (
2018
).
Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects—an updated review
Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
37
2029
2063
10.1002/etc.4147
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
113
Lehmann
A.
Fitschen
K.
Rillig
M. C.
2019
).
Abiotic and biotic factors influencing the effect of microplastic on soil aggregation
Soil Syst.
21
10.3390/soilsystems3010021
CrossRef
Google Scholar
114
Lepofsky
D.
Toniello
G.
Earnshaw
J.
Roberts
C.
Wilson
L.
Rowell
K.
et al
. (
2021
).
Ancient anthropogenic clam gardens of the northwest coast expand clam habitat
Ecosystems
24
248
260
10.1007/s10021-020-00515-6
CrossRef
Google Scholar
115
Li
A.
Wang
Y.
Farooq Arshad Kulyar
M.
Iqbal
M.
Lai
R.
Zhu
H.
et al
. (
2023
).
Environmental microplastics exposure decreases antioxidant ability, perturbs gut microbial homeostasis and metabolism in chicken
Sci. Total Environ.
856
159089
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159089
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
116
Li
C.
Moore-Kucera
J.
Lee
J.
Corbin
A.
Brodhagen
M.
Miles
C.
et al
. (
2014
).
Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil quality
Appl. Soil Ecol.
79
59
69
10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.02.012
CrossRef
Google Scholar
117
Li
C.
Wang
L.
Ji
S.
Chang
M.
Wang
L.
Gan
Y.
et al
. (
2021
).
The ecology of the plastisphere: microbial composition, function, assembly, and network in the freshwater and seawater ecosystems
Water Res.
202
117428
10.1016/j.watres.2021.117428
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
118
Li
J.
Lusher
A. L.
Rotchell
J. M.
Deudero
S.
Turra
A.
Bråte
I. L. N.
et al
. (
2019
).
Using mussel as a global bioindicator of coastal microplastic pollution
Environ. Pollut.
244
522
533
10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.032
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
119
Li
M.
Liu
Y.
Xu
G.
Wang
Y.
Yu
Y.
2021
).
Impacts of polyethylene microplastics on bioavailability and toxicity of metals in soil
Sci. Total Environ.
760
144037
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144037
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
120
Lin
L.
Chen
C. C.
Zhu
X.
Pan
K.
Xu
X.
2022
).
Risk of aquaculture-derived microplastics in aquaculture areas: an overlooked issue or a non-issue?
Front. Mar. Sci.
923471
10.3389/fmars.2022.923471
CrossRef
Google Scholar
121
Lin
L.
Huang
Y.
Wang
P.
Chen
C. C.
Qian
W.
Zhu
X.
et al
. (
2023
).
Environmental occurrence and ecotoxicity of aquaculture-derived plastic leachates
J. Hazard. Mater.
458
132015
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132015
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
122
Lin
W.
He
X.
Hu
J.
Balle
M.
Darras
K. F. A.
Jing
S.
et al
. (
2024
).
Diversification mitigates pesticide but not microplastic effects on bees without compromising rapeseed yield in China
bioRxiv
10.1101/2024.09.28.615554
CrossRef
Google Scholar
123
Liu
H.
Yang
X.
Liu
G.
Liang
C.
Xue
S.
Chen
H.
et al
. (
2017
).
Response of soil dissolved organic matter to microplastic addition in chinese loess soil
Chemosphere
185
907
917
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.064
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
124
Liu
Y.
Shi
H.
Chen
L.
Teng
X.
Xue
C.
Li
Z.
et al
. (
2023
).
An overview of microplastics in oysters: analysis, hazards, and depuration
Food Chem.
422
136153
10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.136153
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
125
Ma
J.
Sheng
G. D.
O'Connor
P.
2020
).
Microplastics combined with tetracycline in soils facilitate the formation of antibiotic resistance in the
Enchytraeus crypticus
microbiome
Environ. Pollut.
264
114689
10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114689
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
126
Madrid
B.
Wortman
S.
Hayes
D. G.
DeBruyn
J. M.
Miles
C.
Flury
M.
et al
. (
2022
).
End-of-life management options for agricultural mulch films in the United States—a review
Front. Sust. Food Syst.
921496
10.3389/fsufs.2022.921496
CrossRef
Google Scholar
127
Maraveas
C.
2020
).
Environmental sustainability of plastic in agriculture
Agriculture
10
10.3390/agriculture10080310
CrossRef
Google Scholar
128
Marble
S. C.
Steed
S. T.
Saha
D.
Khamare
Y.
2019
).
On-farm evaluations of wood-derived, waste paper, and plastic mulch materials for weed control in florida container nurseries
Hort Technol.
29
866
873
10.21273/HORTTECH04437-19
CrossRef
Google Scholar
129
Marinac
D.
2025
).
What Are Fertilizer Bags Made Of?
Standuppouches.net. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
130
Mato
Y.
Isobe
T.
Takada
H.
Kanehiro
H.
Ohtake
C.
Kaminuma
T.
et al
. (
2001
).
Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment
Environ. Sci. Technol.
35
318
324
10.1021/es0010498
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
131
Mayer
P. M.
Moran
K. D.
Miller
E. L.
Brander
S. M.
Harper
S.
Garcia-Jaramillo
M.
et al
. (
2024
).
Where the rubber meets the road: emerging environmental impacts of tire wear particles and their chemical cocktails
Sci. Total Environ.
927
171153
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171153
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
132
McKinsey and Company
2024
).
Global Farmer Insights 2024
. Available online at:
(Accessed February 2025).
Google Scholar
133
Meng
F.
Fan
T.
Yang
X.
Riksen
M.
Xu
M.
Geissen
V.
et al
. (
2020
).
Effects of plastic mulching on the accumulation and distribution of macro and micro plastics in soils of two farming systems in Northwest China
Peer J
e10375
10.7717/peerj.10375
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
134
Mercer
B. D.
2023
).
Ecological Effects of Higher Water Temperature in Experimental Montane Streams
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
135
Messinetti
S.
Mercurio
S.
Scarì
G.
Pennati
A.
Pennati
R.
2019
).
Ingested microscopic plastics translocate from the gut cavity of juveniles of the Ascidian
Ciona intestinalis
Eur. Zool. J
86
189
195
10.1080/24750263.2019.1616837
CrossRef
Google Scholar
136
Miao
H.
Zhang
S.
Gao
W.
Zhou
J.
Cai
H.
Wu
L.
et al
. (
2024
).
Microplastics occurrence and distribution characteristics in mulched agricultural soils of Guizhou Province
Sci. Rep.
14
21505
10.1038/s41598-024-72829-7
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
137
MINAGRIS
X. X.
2023
).
Micro- and Nano-Plastics in Agricultural Soils: Sources, Environmental Fate, and Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Sustainability [EU Horizon 2020 Project]
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
138
Ministry of the Environment Japan X. X.
2022
).
Plastic Resource Circulation Strategy
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
139
Mistry
M.
Allaway
D.
Canepa
P.
Rivin
J.
2018
).
Material Attribute: COMPOSTABLE – How Well Does It Predict the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Packaging and Food Service Ware?
State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Google Scholar
140
Mukherjee
A.
Knoch
S.
Chouinard
G.
Tavares
J. R.
Dumont
M.-J.
2019
).
Use of bio-based polymers in agricultural exclusion nets: a perspective
Biosyst. Eng.
180
121
145
10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.01.017
CrossRef
Google Scholar
141
Mukherjee
S.
Roy Chaudhuri
U.
Kundu
P. P.
2018
).
Biodegradation of polyethylene via complete solubilization by the action of
Pseudomonas fluorescens
, biosurfactant produced by
Bacillus licheniformis
and anionic surfactant
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
93
1300
1311
10.1002/jctb.5489
CrossRef
Google Scholar
142
Mumford
T.
2019
).
Seaweed Aquaculture in Washington State
Google Scholar
143
National Biosolids Data Project X. X.
2023
). Available online at:
(Accessed Jan, 2025).
Google Scholar
144
National Aquaculture Association X. X.
2025
). Available online at:
(Accessed May 14, 2025).
Google Scholar
145
Niemcharoen
S.
Haetrakul
T.
Paliæ
D.
Chansue
N.
2022
).
Microplastic-contaminated feed interferes with antioxidant enzyme and lysozyme gene expression of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) leading to hepatopancreas damage and increased mortality
Animals
12
3308
10.3390/ani12233308
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
146
Niemcharoen
S.
Haetrakul
T.
Palić
D.
Chansue
N.
2022
).
Microplastic-contaminated feed interferes with antioxidant enzyme and lysozyme gene expression of pacific white shrimp (
Litopenaeus vannamei
) leading to hepatopancreas damage and increased mortality
Animals
12
3308
10.3390/ani12233308
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
147
NOAA Fisheries
X. X.
2024
).
Fisheries NOAA Geoduck: Aquaculture
. NOAA Fisheries. Available online at:
(Accessed March 2, 2025).
Pubmed Abstract
Google Scholar
148
Nuruzzaman
M.
Rahman
M. M.
Liu
Y.
Naidu
R.
2016
).
Nanoencapsulation, nano-guard for pesticides: a new window for safe application
J. Agric. Food Chem.
64
1447
1483
10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05214
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
149
Okeke
E. S.
Chukwudozie
K. I.
Addey
C. I.
Okoro
J. O.
Ezeorba
T. P. C.
Atakpa
E. O.
et al
. (
2023
).
Micro and nanoplastics ravaging our agroecosystem: A review of occurrence, fate, ecological impacts, detection, remediation, and prospects
Heliyon
e13296
10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13296
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
150
Oregon Kelp Alliance
X. X.
2023
).
Urchin/Dulse Co-culture
. Available online at:
(Accessed March 2, 2025).
Google Scholar
151
OSU Small Farms
2015
).
Biodegradable Mulch Update
. Available online at:
Google Scholar
152
Pasquini
E.
Ferrante
F.
Passaponti
L.
Saverio Pavone
F.
Costantini
I.
Baracchi
D.
et al
. (
2024
).
Microplastics reach the brain and interfere with honey bee cognition
Sci. Total Environ.
912
169362
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169362
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
153
Peng
H.
Lin
Z.
Lu
D.
Yu
B.
Li
H.
Yao
J.
et al
. (
2024
).
How do polystyrene microplastics affect the adsorption of copper in soil?
Sci. Total Environ.
924
171545
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171545
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
154
Peters
R.
Jong
N.
de Haan
L.
de Wright
S.
Bouwmeester
H.
2022
).
Release and intestinal translocation of chemicals associated with microplastics in an
in vitro
human gastrointestinal digestion model
Microplast. Nanoplast.
10.1186/s43591-021-00022-y
CrossRef
Google Scholar
155
Philippot
L.
Chenu
C.
Kappler
A.
Rillig
M. C.
Fierer
N.
2024
).
The interplay between microbial communities and soil properties
Nat. Rev. Microbiol.
22
226
239
10.1038/s41579-023-00980-5
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
156
Pinto-Poblete
A.
Retamal-Salgado
J.
Zapata
N.
Sierra-Almeida
A.
Schoebitz
M.
2023
).
Impact of polyethylene microplastics and copper nanoparticles: Responses of soil microbiological properties and strawberry growth
Appl. Soil Ecol.
184
104773
10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104773
CrossRef
Google Scholar
157
Porterfield
K. K.
Hobson
S. A.
Neher
D. A.
Niles
M. T.
Roy
E. D.
2023
).
Microplastics in composts, digestates, and food wastes: a review
J. Environ. Qual.
52
225
240
10.1002/jeq2.20450
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
158
Pumpkin
A.
2008
).
Sea urchin, Canned and Retort Food Manufacturing metHod
IFI CLAIMS Patent Services Patent No. KR20090130891A
). Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
159
Qi
Y.
Ossowicki
A.
Yergeau
É.
Vigani
G.
Geissen
V.
Garbeva
P.
2022
).
Plastic mulch film residues in agriculture: impact on soil suppressiveness, plant growth, and microbial communities
FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.
98
fiac017
10.1093/femsec/fiac017
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
160
Qiu
S.
Shen
H.
Song
J.
Fang
H.
Yu
Y.
Zhang
L.
et al
. (
2024
).
Different effects of polyethylene microplastics on bioaccumulation of three fungicides in maize (
Zea mays
L.)
Crop Health
10.1007/s44297-024-00028-x
CrossRef
Google Scholar
161
Radulovich
R.
Neori
A.
Valderrama
D.
Reddy
C. R. K.
Cronin
H.
Forster
J.
et al
. (
2015
).
“Chapter 3 - farming of seaweeds,”
in
Seaweed Sustainability
, eds. K. B. K. Tiwari and D. J. Troy (Amsterdam: Academic Press),
27
59
10.1016/B978-0-12-418697-2.00003-9
CrossRef
Google Scholar
162
Ramanayaka
S.
Vithanage
M.
Zhang
H.
Semple
K. T.
2023
).
Role of soil organic matter on the retention and mobility of common plastic additives, Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bisphenol A and benzophenone, in soil
Environ. Res.
236
116725
10.1016/j.envres.2023.116725
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
163
Ranauda
M. A.
Tartaglia
M.
Zuzolo
D.
Prigioniero
A.
Maisto
M.
Fosso
E.
et al
. (
2024
).
From the rhizosphere to plant fitness: implications of microplastics soil pollution
Environ. Exp. Bot.
226
105874
10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105874
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
164
Reeder-Myers
L.
Rick
T. C.
Hofman
C. A.
Smith
E. A. E.
Garland
C. J.
Grone
M.
et al
. (
2022
).
Indigenous oyster fisheries persisted for millennia and should inform future management
Nat. Commun.
13
2383
10.1038/s41467-022-29818-z
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
165
Ren
S.-Y.
Kong
S.-F.
Ni
H.-G.
2021
).
Contribution of mulch film to microplastics in agricultural soil and surface water in China
Environ. Pollut
291
118227
10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118227
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
166
Rillig
M. C.
Ziersch
L.
Hempel
S.
2017
).
Microplastic transport in soil by earthworms
Sci. Rep.
1362
10.1038/s41598-017-01594-7
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
167
Roberts
W. J.
2000
).
Greenhouse technology - open roof design
Am. Soc. Plasticult
28
68
Google Scholar
168
Rochman
C. M.
Tahir
A.
Williams
S. L.
Baxa
D. V.
Lam
R.
Miller
J. T.
et al
. (
2015
).
Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption
Sci. Rep.
14340
10.1038/srep14340
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
169
Rodrigues
K. F. S.
Rani-Borges
B.
Ando
R. A.
Suffredini
I. B.
Smith
W. S.
2024
).
Presence of microplastics in workers of
Apis mellifera
(Linnaeus, 1758) in different landscapes in Brazil
Water Air Soil Pollut.
235
593
10.1007/s11270-024-07395-9
CrossRef
Google Scholar
170
Rogna
M.
Schamel
G.
Weissensteiner
A.
2023
).
Modelling the switch from hail insurance to antihail nets
Austral. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
67
118
136
10.1111/1467-8489.12499
CrossRef
Google Scholar
171
Rossatto
A.
Arlindo
M. Z. F.
Morais
D. E.
De Souza
M. S. T. D.
Ogrodowski
C. S.
2023
).
Microplastics in aquatic systems: a review of occurrence, monitoring and potential environmental risks
Environ. Adv.
13
100396
10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100396
CrossRef
Google Scholar
172
Roth
R.
Mazza
P.
2020
).
From Waste Management to Clean Materials: A 2040 Blueprint for Pacific Northwest Leadership
. Washington CORE. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
173
Ryan
P. G.
Connell
A. D.
Gardner
B. D.
1988
).
Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: is there a relationship?
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
19
174
176
10.1016/0025-326X(88)90674-1
CrossRef
Google Scholar
174
Sa'adu
I.
Farsang
A.
2023a
).
Plastic contamination in agricultural soils: a review
Environ. Sci. Europe
35
13
10.1186/s12302-023-00720-9
CrossRef
Google Scholar
175
Sa'adu
M. S.
Farsang
A.
2023b
).
Sources and distribution of microplastics in agricultural soils: a review
Environ. Sci. Europe
35
114
10.1186/s12303-023-00798-9
CrossRef
Google Scholar
176
Sachdev
D. P.
Cameotra
S. S.
2013
).
Biosurfactants in agriculture
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
97
1005
1016
10.1007/s00253-012-4641-8
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
177
Sahoo
D.
Yazdi
M. N.
Owen
J. S.
White
A.
Jr.
White
A. S.
2021
).
The Basics of Irrigation Reservoirs for Agriculture. Land-Grant Press, Clemson University, South Carolina
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
178
Samir
A.
El Shiekh
H.
El-Dawy
M.
El-Zayat
Y.
El-Molla
D.
2023
).
“Water losses from irrigation canals and their modern sustainable solutions—a review,”
in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Cities
861
886
Google Scholar
179
Sarpong
K. A.
Adesina
F. A.
DeVetter
L. W.
Zhang
K.
DeWhitt
K.
Englund
K. R.
et al
. (
2024
).
Recycling agricultural plastic mulch: limitations and opportunities in the United States
Circ. Agric. Syst.
e005
10.48130/cas-0024-0003
CrossRef
Google Scholar
180
Scarascia-Mugnozza
G.
Sica
C.
Russo
G.
2012
).
Plastic materials in European agriculture: actual use and perspectives
J. Agric. Eng.
42
15
10.4081/jae.2011.3.15
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
181
Schiano
M. E.
D‘Auria
L. J.
D'Auria
R.
Seccia
S.
Rofrano
G.
Signorelli
D.
et al
. (
2024
).
Microplastic contamination in the agri-food chain: the case of honeybees and beehive products
Sci. Total Environ.
948
174698
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174698
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
182
Schonbock
M.
2012
).
Organic Mulching Materials for Weed Management
. eOrganic. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
183
Schultz
J. A.
Cloutier
R. N.
Côté
I. M.
2016
).
Evidence for a trophic cascade on rocky reefs following sea star mass mortality in British Columbia
Peer J.
e1980
10.7717/peerj.1980
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
184
Seeley
M. E.
Hale
R. C.
Zwollo
P.
Vogelbein
W.
Verry
G.
Wargo
A. R.
et al
. (
2023
).
Microplastics exacerbate virus-mediated mortality in fish
Sci. Total Environ.
866
161191
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161191
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
185
Serrano-Ruiz
H.
Martin-Closas
L.
Pelacho
A. M.
2023
).
Impact of buried debris from agricultural biodegradable plastic mulches on two horticultural crop plants: tomato and lettuce
Sci. Total Environ.
856
159167
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159167
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
186
Sgolastra
F.
Hinarejos
S.
Pitts-Singer
T. L.
Boyle
N. K.
Joseph
T.
Luckmann
J.
et al
. (
2019
).
Pesticide exposure assessment paradigm for solitary bees
Environ. Entomol.
48
22
35
10.1093/ee/nvy105
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
187
Shah
S.
Hayashi
Y.
Suzuki
K.
Morimoto
M.
Omura
M.
Maruyama
M.
et al
. (
2023
).
Interaction of microplastics with root exudates increases their rhizosphere retention and translocation in plants
Environ. Sci. Technol.
57
2672
2681
10.1021/acs.est.2c07733
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
188
Shen
W.
Zhao
M.
Xu
W.
Shi
X.
Ren
F.
Tu
P.
et al
. (
2024
).
Sex-specific effects of polystyrene microplastic and lead(II) co-exposure on the gut microbiome and fecal metabolome in C57BL/6 mice
Metabolites
14
189
10.3390/metabo14040189
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
189
Sheng
Y.
Liu
Y.
Wang
K.
Cizdziel
J. V.
Wu
Y.
Zhou
Y.
2021
).
Ecotoxicological effects of micronized car tire wear particles and their heavy metals on the earthworm (
Eisenia fetida
) in soil
Sci. Total Environ.
793
148613
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148613
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
190
Shi
W.
Wu
N.
Zhang
Z.
Liu
Y.
Chen
J.
Li
J.
et al
. (
2024
).
A global review on the abundance and threats of microplastics in soils to terrestrial ecosystem and human health
Sci. Total Environ.
912
169469
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169469
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
191
Siddiqui
S.
Dickens
J. M.
Cunningham
B. E.
Hutton
S. J.
Pedersen
E. I.
Harper
B.
et al
. (
2022
).
Internalization, reduced growth, and behavioral effects following exposure to micro and nano tire particles in two estuarine indicator species
Chemosphere
296
133934
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133934
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
192
Siddiqui
S.
Hutton
S.
Dickens
J.
Pedersen
E.
Harper
S.
Brander
S.
2023
).
Natural and synthetic microfibers alter growth and behavior in early life stages of estuarine organisms
Front. Mar. Sci
991650
10.3389/fmars.2022.991650
CrossRef
Google Scholar
193
Singleton
S. L.
Davis
E. W.
Arnold
H. K.
Daniels
A. M. Y.
Brander
S. M.
Parsons
R. J.
et al
. (
2023
).
Identification of rare microbial colonizers of plastic materials incubated in a coral reef environment
Front. Microbiol.
14
1259014
10.3389/fmicb.2023.1259014
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
194
Sintim
H. Y.
Bandopadhyay
S.
M. E.
Bary
A.
Liquet y González
J. E.
DeBruyn
J. M.
et al
. (
2021
).
Four Years of Continuous use of soil-biodegradable plastic mulch: impact on soil and groundwater quality
Geoderma
381
114665
10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114665
CrossRef
Google Scholar
195
Sintim
H. Y.
Bandopadhyay
S.
M. E.
Bary
A. I.
DeBruyn
J. M.
Schaeffer
S. M.
et al
. (
2019
).
Impacts of biodegradable plastic mulches on soil health
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
273
36
49
10.1016/j.agee.2018.12.002
CrossRef
Google Scholar
196
Sintim
H. Y.
Bary
A. I.
Hayes
D. G.
Wadsworth
L. C.
Anunciado
M. B.
M. E.
et al
. (
2020
).
In situ
degradation of biodegradable plastic mulch films in compost and agricultural soils
Sci. Total Environ.
727
138668
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138668
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
197
Sintim
H. Y.
Flury
M.
2017
).
Is biodegradable plastic mulch the solution to agriculture's plastic problem?
Environ. Sci. Technol.
51
1068
1069
10.1021/acs.est.6b06042
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
198
Skirtun
M.
Sandra
M.
Jan Strietman
W.
van den Burg
S. W. K.
Raedemaecker
F. D. E.
et al
. (
2022
).
Plastic Pollution pathways from marine aquaculture practices and potential solutions for the North-East Atlantic region
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
174
113178
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113178
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
199
Smith
M.
Love
D. C.
Rochman
C. M.
Neff
R. A.
2018
).
Microplastics in seafood and the implications for human health
Curr. Environ. Health Rep.
375
386
10.1007/s40572-018-0206-z
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
200
Sommer
L.
2024
).
Infosheet #1: Understanding Biodegradation and Textiles
. The Biomimicry Institute Design for Transformation Initiative. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Pubmed Abstract
Google Scholar
201
Song
J.
Rensing
C.
Holm
P. E.
Virta
M.
Brandt
K. K.
2017
).
Comparison of metals and tetracycline as selective agents for development of tetracycline resistant bacterial communities in agricultural soil
Environ. Sci. Technol.
51
3040
3047
10.1021/acs.est.6b05342
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
202
Song
Y.
Zhu
L.
Wang
J.
Wang
J.
Liu
W.
Xie
H.
2009
).
DNA damage and effects on antioxidative enzymes in earthworm (
Eisenia foetida
) induced by atrazine
Soil Biol. Biochem.
41
905
909
10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.09.009
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
203
Stöfen-O'Brien
A.
2022
).
The prospects of an international treaty on plastic pollution
Int. J. Mar. Coastal Law
37
28
10.1163/15718085-bja10108
CrossRef
Google Scholar
204
Straub
L.
Williams
G. R.
Pettis
J.
Fries
I.
Neumann
P.
2015
).
Superorganism resilience: eusociality and susceptibility of ecosystem service providing insects to stressors
Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.
12
109
112
10.1016/j.cois.2015.10.010
CrossRef
Google Scholar
205
Tarara
J. M.
2000
).
Microclimate modification with plastic mulch
Hort Sci.
35
169
180
10.21273/HORTSCI.35.2.169
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
206
Tassone
S.
Barbera
S.
Kaihara
H.
Glorio Patrucco
S.
Abid
K.
2024
).
First evidence of the effects of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics on ruminal degradability and gastro-intestinal digestibility of mixed hay
Animals
14
15
10.3390/ani14152139
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
207
Teuten
E. L.
Rowland
S. J.
Galloway
T. S.
Thompson
R. C.
2007
).
Potential for plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants
Environ. Sci. Technol.
41
7759
7764
10.1021/es071737s
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
208
Thompson
R. C.
Courtene-Jones
W.
Boucher
J.
Pahl
S.
Raubenheimer
K.
Koelmans
A. A.
et al
. (
2025
).
Twenty years of microplastic pollution research—what have we learned?
Science
386
eadl2746
10.1126/science.adl2746
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
209
Thornton Hampton
L. M.
Lowman
H.
Coffin
S.
Darin
E.
De Frond
H.
Hermabessiere
L.
et al
. (
2022
).
A living tool for the continued exploration of microplastic toxicity
Microplast. Nanoplast.
11
10.1186/s43591-022-00032-4
CrossRef
Google Scholar
210
Torres
F. G.
Dioses-Salinas
D. C.
Pizarro-Ortega
C. I.
De-la-Torre
G. E.
2021
).
Sorption of chemical contaminants on degradable and non-degradable microplastics: recent progress and research trends
Sci. Total Environ.
757
143875
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143875
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
211
Torres
L. G.
Brander
S. M.
Parker
J. I.
Bloom
E. M.
Norman
R.
Van Brocklin
J. E.
et al
. (
2023
).
Zoop to poop: assessment of microparticle loads in gray whale zooplankton prey and fecal matter reveal high daily consumption rates
Front. Mar. Sci.
10
1201078
10.3389/fmars.2023.1201078
CrossRef
Google Scholar
212
Tourinho
P. S.
Kočí
V.
Loureiro
S.
van Gestel
C. A. M.
2019
).
Partitioning of chemical contaminants to microplastics: sorption mechanisms, environmental distribution and effects on toxicity and bioaccumulation
Environ. Pollut.
252
1246
1256
10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.030
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
213
Traylor
S. D.
Granek
E. F.
Duncan
M.
Brander
S. M.
2024
).
From the ocean to our kitchen table: anthropogenic particles in the edible tissue of U.S. West Coast seafood species
Front. Toxicol.
1469995
10.3389/ftox.2024.1469995
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
214
Tursi
A.
Baratta
M.
Easton
T.
Chatzisymeon
E.
Chidichimo
F.
De Biase
M.
et al
. (
2022
).
Microplastics in aquatic systems, a comprehensive review: origination, accumulation, impact, and removal technologies
RSC Adv.
12
28318
28340
10.1039/D2RA04713F
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
215
United Nations Environment Programme
X. X.
2021
).
Agricultural Plastics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
216
United Nations Environment Programme
X. X.
2022
).
Plastics in Agriculture – An Environmental Challenge. Early Warning, Emerging Issues and Futures. Foresight Brief
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
217
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) X. X.
2024
).
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture
. Available online at:
(Accessed August 23, 2025).
Google Scholar
218
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) X. X.
2025
).
USDA Climate Hubs Website
. Available online at:
(Accessed Jan, 2025).
Google Scholar
219
van Schothorst
B.
Beriot
N.
Huerta Lwanga
E.
Geissen
V.
2021
).
Sources of light density microplastic related to two agricultural practices: the use of compost and plastic mulch
Environments
36
10.3390/environments8040036
CrossRef
Google Scholar
220
Velzeboer
I.
Kwadijk
C.
Koelmans
A.
2014
).
Strong sorption of PCBs to nanoplastics, microplastics, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes
Environ. Sci. Technol.
48
4869
4876
10.1021/es405721v
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
221
Vendries
J.
Sauer
B.
Hawkins
T. R.
Allaway
D.
Canepa
P.
Rivin
J.
et al
. (
2020
).
The significance of environmental attributes as indicators of the life cycle environmental impacts of packaging and food service ware
Environ. Sci. Technol.
54
10.1021/acs.est.9b07910
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
222
Viršek
M. K.
Lovšin
M. N.
Koren
Š.
KrŽan
A.
Peterlin
M.
2017
).
Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species
Aeromonas salmonicida
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
125
301
309
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.024
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
223
Vithanage
M.
Ramanayaka
S.
Hasinthara
S.
Navaratne
A.
2021
).
Compost as a carrier for microplastics and plastic-bound toxic metals into agroecosystems
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health
24
100297
10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100297
CrossRef
Google Scholar
224
Vox
G.
Loisi
R. V.
Blanco
I.
Mugnozza
G. S.
Schettini
E.
2016
).
Mapping of agriculture plastic waste
Agric. Agric. Sci. Proc.
583
591
10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.080
CrossRef
Google Scholar
225
Wang
P.
Gu
Y.
Feng
S.
Liu
Y.
Liu
X.
Sun
X.
et al
. (
2020
).
Microplastics as a vector of chemicals and microorganisms in the environment: a review
Environ. Pollut.
267
115600
10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115600
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
226
Wang
S.
Zhang
W.
Ren
H.
Geng
J.
2022
).
A meta-analysis of the impact of microplastics on microbial communities in different environments
J. Hazard. Mater
423
127171
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127171
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
227
Wang
W.
Yu
Z.
Ren
C.
Li
Y.
2023
).
Microplastics and antibiotic resistance: sources, occurrence, interaction, and health risks
Sci. Total Environ.
881
163290
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163290
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
228
Ward
J. E.
Zhao
S.
Holohan
B. A.
Mladinich
K. M.
Griffin
T. W.
Wozniak
J.
et al
. (
2019
).
Selective ingestion and egestion of plastic particles by the blue mussel (Mytilus
edulis
) and eastern oyster (
Crassostrea virginica
): implications for using bivalves as bioindicators of microplastic pollution
Environ. Sci. Technol.
53
8776
8784
10.1021/acs.est.9b02073
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
229
Weinstein
J. E.
Ertel
B. M.
Gray
A. D.
2022
).
Accumulation and depuration of microplastic fibers, fragments, and tire particles in the eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica
: a toxicokinetic approach
Environ. Pollut.
308
119681
10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119681
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
230
Wells
O. S.
2000
).
Season extension technology
Am. Soc. Plasticult.
29
71
Google Scholar
231
Whiting
J. M.
Wang
T.
Yang
Z.
Huesemann
M. H.
Wolfram
P. J.
Mumford
T. F.
et al
. (
2020
).
Simulating the trajectory and biomass growth of free-floating macroalgal cultivation platforms along the U.S. West Coast
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
938
10.3390/jmse8110938
CrossRef
Google Scholar
232
Wik
A.
Dave
G.
2005
).
Environmental labeling of car tires—toxicity to
Daphnia magna
can be used as a screening method
Chemosphere
58
645
651
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.08.103
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
233
Xiao
X.
Liu
S.
Li
L.
Li
R.
Zhao
X.
Yin
N.
et al
. (
2024
).
Seaweeds as a major source of dietary microplastics exposure in East Asia
Food Chem.
450
139317
10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139317
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
234
Xu
B.
Liu
F.
Brookes
P. C.
Xu
J.
2018
).
Microplastics play a minor role in tetracycline sorption in the presence of dissolved organic matter
Environ. Pollut.
240
87
94
10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.113
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
235
Xu
H.
2003
).
Role of residual additives in the cytotoxicity and cytokine release caused by polyvinyl chloride particles in pulmonary cell cultures
Toxicol. Sci.
72
92
102
10.1093/toxsci/kfg003
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
236
Xue
Y.
Gong
X.
Yang
L.
Zhi
D.
Meng
Q.
Guo
Y.
et al
. (
2025
).
Influence of nano-polystyrene on cyfluthrin toxicity in honeybee
Apis cerana cerana
Fabricius
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
290
117753
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.117753
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
237
Yan
D.
Zhi-Qiang
G.
Min
S.
Wei-Feng
Z.
Hong-Mei
Z.
Qing
L.
2014
).
Effects of deep plowing and mulch in fallow period on soil water and yield of wheat in dryland
Chinese J. Appl. Ecol
25
132
Google Scholar
238
Yu
Y.
Velandia
M.
Hayes
D. G.
DeVetter
L. W.
Miles
C. A.
Flury
M.
et al
. (
2024
).
“Chapter three - biodegradable plastics as alternatives for polyethylene mulch films,”
in
Advances in Agronomy
, ed. D. L. Sparks (Amsterdam: Academic Press),
121
192
10.1016/bs.agron.2023.10.003
CrossRef
Google Scholar
239
Zero Waste Washington
X. X.
2025
).
Farm Waste Reduction Project
. Available online at:
(Accessed Feb, 2025).
Google Scholar
240
Zettler
E. R.
Mincer
T. J.
Amaral-Zettler
L. A.
2013
).
Life in the ‘plastisphere': microbial communities on plastic marine debris
Environ. Sci. Technol.
47
7137
7146
10.1021/es401288x
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
241
Zhang
G.
Liu
Y.
2018
).
The distribution of microplastics in soil aggregate fractions in Southwestern China
Sci. Total Environ.
642
12
20
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.004
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
242
Zhang
S.
Wang
J.
Wang
X.
Li
X.
Liu
J.
Ma
X.
et al
. (
2021
).
Microplastics in the environment: sources, fate, and effects
Science of the Total Environment
755
142422
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142422
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
243
Zhou
J.
Jia
R.
Brown
R. W.
Yang
Y.
Zeng
Z.
Jones
D. L.
et al
. (
2023
).
The long-term uncertainty of biodegradable mulch film residues and associated microplastics pollution on plant-soil health
J. Hazard. Mater.
442
130055
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130055
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
244
Zhu
F.
Yan
Y.
Doyle
E.
Zhu
C.
Jin
X.
Chen
Z.
et al
. (
2022
).
Microplastics altered soil microbiome and nitrogen cycling: the role of phthalate plasticizer
J. Hazard. Mater.
427
127944
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127944
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
245
Zhu
Q.
Zhang
Z.
Zhang
N.
Zhong
H.
Zhou
F.
Zhang
X.
et al
. (
2025
).
A global estimate of multiecosystem photosynthesis losses under microplastic pollution.
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci
U. S. A.
122
e2423957122
10.1073/pnas.2423957122
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
246
Zhu
X.
Rochman
C.
2022
).
Emissions inventories of plastic pollution: a critical foundation of an international agreement to inform targets and quantify progress
Environmental Sci. Technol.
56
3309
3312
10.1021/acs.est.2c01038
Pubmed Abstract
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Summary
Keywords
agriculture
aquaculture
microplastics
nanoplastics
chemicals of concern
soil pollution
food supply
Citation
Brander SM, Langellotto GA, Mistry MT, Singleton SL, Hainey MA, Kashiwabara LM, Arthur K, Granek EF, Baird K, Palazuelos R, Campos N, Trim H, Sommer L, Harper S and Tetteh GR (2025)
Reining in plasticulture from land to sea: Pacific Northwest (USA) perspectives on agriculture and aquaculture
Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
9:1634747. doi:
10.3389/fsufs.2025.1634747
Received
25 May 2025
Accepted
28 July 2025
Published
12 September 2025
Volume
9 - 2025
Edited by
Sedat Gundogdu, Çukurova University, Türkiye
Reviewed by
Muhittin Akça, Ankara University, Türkiye
Kenan Gedik, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Türkiye
Updates
© 2025 Brander, Langellotto, Mistry, Singleton, Hainey, Kashiwabara, Arthur, Granek, Baird, Palazuelos, Campos, Trim, Sommer, Harper and Tetteh.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)
. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Susanne M. Brander
susanne.brander@oregonstate.edu
†ORCID: Minal T. Mistry
orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-5069
Sebastian L. Singleton
orcid.org/0000-0001-8562-1102
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Article metrics
View details
PDF
ReadCube
epub
XML
High-impact AI
AI playbook for researchers
Your step by step support for responsible and impactful AI use
Explore the guide
Outline
Figures
Cite article
Copy to clipboard
Export citation file
BibTex
EndNote
Reference Manager
Simple Text file
Share article
Email
WeChat
Share on WeChat
Scan with WeChat to share this article
Article metrics