Home Journals Progress in Chemistry
Progress in Chemistry

Abbreviation (ISO4): Prog Chem      Editor in chief: Jincai ZHAO

About  /  Aim & scope  /  Editorial board  /  Indexed  /  Contact  / 
Microplastics Special Issue

Potential Health Risks Associated with Biodegradable Plastics and Future Research Prospects: A Focus on Biodegradable Microplastics

  • Yongfeng Deng 1 ,
  • Ailin Zhao 2 ,
  • Changzhi Shi 2 ,
  • Ao Guo 2 ,
  • Ruqin Shen 2 ,
  • Mingliang Fang , 2, *
Expand
  • 1 Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China
  • 2  Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China

Received date: 2024-09-12

  Revised date: 2024-11-19

  Online published: 2025-01-20

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(22276073)

National Natural Science Foundation of China(22376032)

Joint Fund of Colleges and Departments of Southeast University(2242024K40045)

Research Start-up Fund for New Faculty of Southeast University(RF1028623238)

Zhishan Young Scholar Fund of Southeast University by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(2242024RCB0027)

Abstract

The global concern over white pollution and microplastic contamination caused by traditional non-degradable plastic waste has garnered widespread attention. Promoting biodegradable plastics (BPs) as alternatives to non-degradable plastics is a strategic approach to mitigating these forms of plastic pollution. However, under real-world environmental conditions, BPs often face challenges in achieving rapid degradation and may release significant quantities of biodegradable microplastics (BMPs) during the degradation process, posing potential environmental and health risks. In this review, we critically examine the environmental risks associated with traditional non-degradable plastic waste and the use of BPs. We systematically evaluate current pre-treatment techniques, analytical methods, and occurrence patterns of BMPs in environmental and biological samples. Furthermore, we highlight recent advancements in understanding the potential impacts of BMPs on organisms across various trophic levels, including human health. Finally, we address the challenges in applying BPs, particularly in identifying, analyzing, assessing health impacts, and developing future regulatory standards and measures for BMPs. This review provides theoretical foundations and technical guidance for advancing environmentally friendly and safe BPs.

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 The importance of plastics in modern human social life and production

1.2 Ecological and environmental risks associated with the use of traditional refractory plastics

1.3 Production, application status, and potential risks of emerging degradable plastics

2 Analytical methods and environmental occurrence of degradable plastics

2.1 Methods for analyzing biodegradable microplastics

2.2 Environmental occurrence of degradable plastics

3 Research progress on potential environmental and health risks of biodegradable plastics

3.1 Potential ecological and environmental risks of degradable plastics

3.2 Potential health risks of biodegradable plastics

4 Conclusion and outlook

4.1 Insufficient public awareness of BPs and BMPs

4.2 Suitable for BMPs extraction and detection method vacancy

4.3 The long-term migration and transformation of BMPs in vivo and its health risks need to be clarified

4.4 Bioplastics and BMPs management and control methods and governance standards are missing

Cite this article

Yongfeng Deng , Ailin Zhao , Changzhi Shi , Ao Guo , Ruqin Shen , Mingliang Fang . Potential Health Risks Associated with Biodegradable Plastics and Future Research Prospects: A Focus on Biodegradable Microplastics[J]. Progress in Chemistry, 2025 , 37(1) : 59 -75 . DOI: 10.7536/PC240904

1 introduction

So far, the cumulative weight of man-made objects has exceeded the sum of all organisms on earth[1]Plastic, as one of the typical materials, is a synthetic or semi synthetic material with polymer as the main component. Due to its high plasticity, plastics can be molded, extruded or pressed into various shapes. Because of its light weight, durability, flexibility and low production cost, it has become the most widely used man-made material in production and life[2]

1.1 The significance of plastics to contemporary human social life and production

Since its birth, the plastic industry has developed rapidly and the market share has increased rapidly[3]By 2019, the global plastic production has reached 400 million tons[4]Figure 1A). With the development of economy and the improvement of consumption level, the plastic production will have a further growth trend in the future. According to the data provided by plasticsceurope, by 2022, the industrial scale of plastic raw materials and plastic products in Europe had still increased by about 20% compared with 2015[5]It is estimated that the global annual plastic production will exceed 1.1 billion tons in 2050.
Figure 1 (a) Annual changes of global plastic production (1950-2019)[3](b) Distribution of global plastic production by type in 2019

Fig. 1 (a) Annual change of global plastic production (1950—2019)[3]; (b) Distribution of the 2019 global plastics production by type

There are many kinds of traditional plastics, such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polyurethane (PUR) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which are widely used due to their different properties. It can be divided into fiber type and non fiber type according to the purpose, and there are significant differences between them in the application field and production process. In 2019, PE (28%), PP (19%) and PVC (13%) ranked the top three in terms of the proportion of non fiber plastics output, while pet, PS and pur accounted for no more than 10%[5]Figure 1B); Polyester fiber accounts for 70% of the total output of fiber plastics, and pet contributes significantly[6]About 42% of non fiber plastics are used for packaging, which is the largest plastic consumption field. PE, PP and pet are the mainstream raw materials. PET material has the advantages of light weight, transparency, impact resistance and chemical corrosion resistance, which can effectively protect the quality of liquid products and improve the safety[7-8]So it is popular. The construction and construction industry is the second largest consumer sector, accounting for 69% of the total PVC production and 19% of non fiber plastics[9]Table 1). Due to its strong corrosion resistance, convenient installation and long service life, PVC pipes have become the preferred materials for water supply and drainage systems in the construction field[10]
Table 1 The share of plastic production by type and industrial use sector calculated from the data of Europe, the United States, China and India from 2002 to 2014[6]

Table 1 Share of plastic production by type and industrial use sector, calculated from data for Europe, the United States, China, and India covering the period 2002—2014[6]

Total Other PUR PET PVC PS PP HDPE LDPE,LLDPE Market sector
6.70% 1.40% 1.60% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 2.60% 0.80% 0.10% Transportation
44.80% 0.10% 0.20% 10.10% 0.90% 2.30% 8.20% 9.30% 13.50% Packaging
18.80% 0.50% 2.40% 0.00% 8.10% 2.20% 1.20% 3.30% 1.10% Building
3.80% 1.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.60% 0.90% 0.20% 0.50% Electronic
11.90% 0.20% 1.00% 0.00% 0.60% 1.80% 3.80% 1.70% 2.90% Consumer products
0.80% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.20% Industrial machinery
13.20% 1.70% 2.50% 0.00% 1.40% 0.70% 4.20% 0.90% 1.70% Other
100.00% 4.90% 8.20% 10.20% 11.80% 7.60% 21.00% 16.30% 20.00% Total
The plastic industry plays a significant role in promoting the global economy. Plastic production and processing enterprises provide a large number of employment opportunities, from raw material production to product manufacturing, and then to recycling, involving many links and industries. Moreover, plastic products have low cost and superior performance, which are widely used in various products, driving production demand, improving production efficiency and reducing manufacturing costs. Due to the wide application fields and huge economic effects of plastics, it has become indispensable in modern industry and daily life.

1.2 Ecological and environmental risks of traditional refractory plastics in the application process

Plastic products may cause pollution in production, use, recycling and other links, and then induce major global environmental problems[11]Due to the imperfect recycling system, high recycling costs and lack of public awareness of environmental protection, a large number of waste plastics have not been effectively recycled[12-13]According to the summary statistics of China's plastic products industry, the output will be 74.885 million tons in 2023, while the recycling of waste plastics will only be 19million tons[14]Globally, only about 18% of plastic waste is recycled, 24% is incinerated, and the remaining 58% is landfilled or entered the natural environment[6]For example, the landfill rate of waste plastics in the United States exceeds 75%, accounting for 19% of all municipal solid waste. According to the current growth rate, the cumulative amount of plastic waste landfilled and/or entering the natural environment worldwide is expected to reach nearly 120million tons by 2050[15]
Plastics are difficult to degrade in the natural environment. It usually takes hundreds of years or even longer to completely decompose. During this period, harmful substances will be continuously released, threatening the safety of the ecosystem[12,16]Among them, microplastics (MPS) pollution is a hot issue in the field of ecological environment and public health in recent years. MPs refers to plastic particles, fibers and fragments with a particle size of<5 mm, which are released through the decomposition of large plastic products, industrial and personal care products, etc[17]Access to the environment. MPs not only has a negative impact on the ecosystem, but also may pose a potential threat to human health[18-19]The latest research shows that MPs entering the human body will accumulate in the arteries, which may increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and other diseases[20]

1.3 Production, application status and potential risks of emerging biodegradable plastics

In the face of major environmental and health problems such as "white pollution" and MPs infringement, the idea of using biodegradable plastics (BPS) instead of traditional plastics to alleviate or even solve plastic pollution has been widely spread[21]In theory, BPS can be rapidly decomposed into harmless substances (such as water, carbon dioxide and biomass) under the action of microorganisms in the natural environment, so as to reduce the pollution of discharged plastics to the environment[22]
The main raw materials of BPS include lignin, cellulose, starch and bioethanol, which are renewable resources, reducing the dependence on oil resources, and then promoting resource recycling and sustainable utilization. The main types of BPS include bio based polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and starch mixtures, as well as petroleum based polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polycaprolactone (PCL) and polybutylene succinate (PBS)[5]PLA PHA、 BPS, including starch mixtures, accounted for 53.8% of the global production of bio based plastics in 2023 (about 1.14 million tons)[23]Figure 2). BPS has been widely used in many key areas. In the field of food packaging, BPS can be made into straw, disposable tableware, paper cup, etc. In agricultural production, the main applications of BPS include plastic film, compost bag, pesticide slow-release carrier, etc. In the field of medical materials and devices, BPS (such as PLA) are widely used in the production of surgical sutures, artificial bones, artificial skin, medical stents, orthopedic needles, stents, wound dressings, etc. due to their excellent biocompatibility, which promote the progress of medical technology and improve the safety of the treatment process. It is estimated that by 2028, the global production of BPS will reach about 4.61 million tons[24]
Figure 2 Proportion of global biodegradable plastics production in 2023[23]

Fig. 2 Global production capacities of bioplastics in 2023[23]

In 2020, the national development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of ecological environment issued the opinions on Further Strengthening the treatment of plastic pollution, further prohibiting and restricting the production, sale and use of plastic products, promoting alternative products such as biodegradable plastic bags, and ushering in new opportunities for the development of biodegradable materials. In recent years, policies such as the "14th five year plan" for green industrial development, the "14th five year plan" for raw material industry development, and the "three year action plan for accelerating the innovation and development of non grain bio based materials" have been issued frequently, strongly supporting the high-quality development of biodegradable materials. By 2027, the scale of China's degradable materials industry is expected to reach 32.41 billion yuan, with a year-on-year increase of 19.5%[25]
However, there are still some disputes about whether BPS is really green, environmental protection and safety in the academic community. With the increasingly frequent use of BPs, the potential risks caused by biodegradable microplastics (BMPs) and oligomers released from BPS degradation are increasingly serious[19]The BPS discharged into the natural environment are not degraded rapidly as expected. For example, BPs in the water environment ecosystem may not be completely degraded in a short time, but may produce more BMPs than petroleum based plastics, and the potential harm may also increase[26]In addition, some BMPs may even act as carbon sources to interfere with the normal metabolic activities of some microbial communities and disrupt the ecological balance[23]It can be seen that the simple and large-scale promotion and use of BPS can not completely eliminate the pollution of traditional plastics, especially the ecological environment and health risks brought by BMPs. However, the research on the potential hazards of waste BPS and derived BMPs is still in its infancy, especially their migration and transformation behavior in the environment and potential ecological and health effects. Compared with traditional non degradable plastics, BPS has stronger degradability and is easier to decompose into BMPs to a certain extent, but so far there is little in-depth analysis of the temporal and spatial distribution of BMPs in different environmental media and the content of BMPs in different animals and plants. These questions have seriously hindered the development of hazard identification and prevention measures for BPS and its derivative BMPs.
As a substitute for traditional plastics, BPS has made some progress in production and application due to increasing policy support. However, the environmental health risks caused by BPS still need to be further studied and solved to ensure the realization of its goal of real environmental protection and sustainable development in practical application. Therefore, this review will deeply discuss the potential environmental health risks of BPs, especially the analysis methods of BMPs and their occurrence in the environment, analyze their exposure pathways and potential health effects, and prospect the future application trends and challenges of BPs, so as to provide theoretical and technical support for the promotion and application of BPS and risk prevention.

2 Analysis methods and environmental storage of degradable plastics

BPS can be degraded into water, carbon dioxide, methane and mineralized inorganic salts by bacteria, fungi and algae in the environment, but the process is affected by environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and microbial activity. Inappropriate environmental conditions will greatly inhibit the degradation efficiency of BPs, thereby prolonging its life cycle in the natural environment[27]BPs in the natural environment will lead to the production of BMPs, and because the degradation efficiency of BPS is more easily affected, BPS may produce more BMPs than refractory plastics in the same time range[28]Therefore, the environmental occurrence and ecological risk of BMPs deserve further attention. Reliable detection and analysis methods are needed to study the environmental behavior of BMPs. At present, traditional MPs analysis methods are usually used for the separation and characterization of BMPs. Some of the strong chemical reactions applicable to refractory plastics may damage the structure of BPS and affect the characterization conclusion of BPS. Therefore, it is necessary to balance the extraction efficiency and plastic damage[29]This section mainly introduces the common analysis methods of BMPs, the similarities and differences with traditional MPs, and the environmental occurrence of BPS.

2.1 BMPs analysis method

The analysis of refractory MPs in environmental samples generally includes sample preparation and detection analysis[30]MPs is separated and purified from environmental media such as atmosphere, water, soil and organisms through sample pretreatment, and then its mass concentration or particle size distribution is characterized and counted by different instruments(Figure 3)。
Figure 3 Purification, separation, characterization and statistical methods of microplastics in environmental samples

Fig. 3 Purification, separation, characterization and statistical methods of microplastics in environmental samples

2.1.1 Sample preparation method

For environmental samples with simple components, physical methods such as visual sorting, filtering and screening can be directly used to separate MPs. However, such methods are time-consuming, difficult to distinguish MPs from other materials, and have certain requirements for particle size. At the same time, there are problems such as filter membrane pollution, which may lead to false positive or false negative results[31-32]At present, the commonly used sample preparation technology is density separation method combined with organic digestion method[33]It can remove inorganic and organic matrix components from complex samples such as sediments and biological tissues. The reagents used in organic digestion include acid, alkali, oxidant and enzyme. HNO3 The destruction rate of organic substances reached 94%~98%, but Avio et al[34]It was found that it would lead to partial polymer dissolution; Foekema et al[35]It was observed that when 10 mol/L KOH solution was added, the organic matter was completely destroyed after 2-3 weeks, and most of the polymers were resistant to KOH; H2O2 It is an effective oxidant, using 30% H2O2 70% MPs could be extracted after 7 days of digestion[36]; enzymes can be used to remove organics and some biological tissues, and the reaction conditions are relatively mild, Cole et al[37]The application of protease K degraded 97% of organic matter, but the cost was high. The principle of density separation method is plastic density (0.8~1.6 g · cm-3)It is much lower than the sediment (2.7 g · cm-3)The operation method is to mix the high concentration or saturated salt solution with the sample at an appropriate volume ratio, and separate the supernatant containing MPs within an appropriate time interval[38]Because the density of MPS is affected by the concentration of additives, the type of polymer and the adsorbed substances, the selection of salt solution for density separation method needs to match it. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recommends NaCl solution (1.2 g · cm-3)Is flotation liquid[39]It is widely used because of its economy and reliability, but it is not suitable for high polymers such as PVC and pet. To overcome this limitation, high density salts such as NaI (1.8 g · cm-3)Has been tested and used, in addition to ZnCl2、ZnBr2、 NaBr、 96% ethanol and rapeseed oil can be used to separate some polymers[40]In addition to density separation methods, field flow separation (such as asymmetric field flow separation (AF4)), hydrodynamic chromatography (such as high temperature gel permeation chromatography (ht-gpc)), size exclusion chromatography (SEC), electrostatic separation, magnetic extraction, etc., can achieve efficient separation of MPs[33]
At present, few separation and purification methods have been developed for BMPs. Most studies have introduced physical screening method, organic digestion method and density separation method. However, the physical and chemical properties of BPS are different from those of traditional plastics. It is necessary to balance the digestion efficiency with plastic damage, experimental time and experimental cost, and optimize the relevant sample preparation methods(Table 2). Yu et al[29]Multi criteria decision making (MCDM) method was used to comprehensively evaluate and optimize the extraction scheme of BMPs from five aquatic species. Enzymatic hydrolysis time, enzymatic hydrolysis efficiency, mass loss, cost, polymer integrity and size change were selected as evaluation indexes. The optimal digestion method was pepsin+H2O2The digestion efficiency was 99.56%. In terms of separation methods, Nai is more suitable for separating BMPs from digested residues than olive oil. The study also found that, unlike traditional plastics, HNO3 And KOH can cause high mass loss (65%~87%) and obvious size change of biodegradable polymers, while the mass loss caused by enzymes and oxidants is low. Therefore, strong acids and bases should be avoided when digesting BMPs. For the density separation method for separating BMPs from solid sample matrix, Berit et al[41]A series of experiments were carried out to explore four kinds of salt solutions (H2O. Effects of NaCl, SHMP, NaBr) on the separation of traditional MPs and BMPs from solid sample substrates (sand, artificial soil and compost). research[42]It was found that the recovery rate of traditional MPs in each solution and matrix was higher than that of BMPs, and the increase of solution density would increase the recovery rate of BMPs. The recovery rate of BMPs in NaBr solution was the highest, which was 17%~85%. Since the study identified MPs visually, the analysis showed that the low recovery rate of BMPs mainly depended on the appearance of polymer with low visibility during sample processing, and the subsequent optimization of BMPs separation method should reduce the dependence on visibility. In addition, the selection of salt solution should also pay attention to the type of polymer, such as saturated ZnCl2The solution can dissolve cellulose, which may interfere with the extraction of BMPs containing cellulose.
Table 2 Separation and purification of microplastics (MPS) from environmental samples[31]

Table 2 Methods for separating and purifying microplastics (MPs) in environmental samples[31]

Purification/Separation Applicable media Limitations
Manual extraction* Sediments,wastewater,atmospheric fallout 1~5 mm
Acidic and alkaline digestion Sediments,Biological tissues 10~500 μm
Oxidization with hydrogen peroxide* Sediments,Biological tissues 1 mm
Enzymatic digestion* Biological tissues 10~500 μm
Density separation* Sediments,Soil samples,Biological samples after digestion <1 mm~2.5 cm
AF4* Soil samples,Biological samples after digestion 1~1000 nm
HT-GPC Personal-care products 0.1%~3%w/w
Size-exclusion chromatography (SEC)* Biological tissues ≤100 nm
Electrostatic separation* Quartz sand,freshwater, suspended particulate matter, sediments, beach sand 0.063~5 mm
Magnetic extraction* Seawater 200 μm~1 mm

* implies that the method is applicable to degradable microplastics (BMPs) as well.

2.1.2 Detection of BMPs

Analytical techniques are essential for identifying and quantifying MPs. At present, the detection of MPS mainly depends on the methods of physical morphology and chemical properties[43]It can be divided into spectral method, mass spectrometry, etc[44]The choice of specific analysis methods mainly depends on the research objectives and research needs, and is limited by the physical and chemical properties of MPs, such as particle size, shape, polymer type, hydrophobic property and surface charge[45]The most commonly used microspectral methods for MPS detection are Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy[46]At present, the detection of BMPs mostly refers to the analysis method of traditional MPs, such as Yu et al[29]Raman spectroscopy was used to characterize the five BMPs in aquatic economic species PBS, PCL, PHB, PLA and starch based plastics. However, the pretreatment process of these methods is cumbersome and cannot be accurately quantified. The quantification of MPs in environmental samples usually relies on thermal analysis methods, such as thermal extraction thermal desorption gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (ted-gc/MS), pyrolysis gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Pyr GC/MS) and differential scanning calorimetry; Or through chemical methods such as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and chemical extraction combined with liquid chromatography and UV detection. Due to the limitations of infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy and thermal analysis[47]And the detection methods developed for petroleum based MPs are not necessarily suitable for BMPs, resulting in a lack of relevant research. At present, the reported quantitative detection technologies of BMPs in environmental samples mainly include Pyr GC/MS, Ted GC/MS and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)(Table 2)。
Pyr GC/MS is a new technology for qualitative and quantitative analysis of plastics in environmental samples. It has no restrictions on the size and shape of plastic particles, and non polymer materials will not interfere with the recognition of plastics, and can identify and quantify a variety of polymers at the same time. This technology requires less sample quantity, the sample preparation process is simple, and there is no need to separate a single particle, which improves the analysis efficiency, reduces the error caused by density and optical separation, and is a cost-effective analysis method[48]This method has been effectively applied to the detection of MPs in various complex samples, including sediments, freshwater organics and seawater. The BMPs in environmental samples can also be analyzed by Pyr GC/MS, for example, to identify and quantify PLA thermal degradation products[49]In addition, okoffo et al[26]Five kinds of BMPs (PLA, PHA, PBS, PCL and PBAT) in environmental samples were identified and quantified by pressurized liquid extraction combined with Pyr GC/Ms. the limit of quantification (LOQ) ranged from 20 to 50 μ g/g. However, Pyr GC/MS is a destructive method, which can not obtain the particle size distribution and shape of BMPs. Moreover, the LOQ of this method is relatively high, which is mainly used for the qualitative identification of polymers, and its application in quantitative analysis is limited.
For quantitative issues, Wang et al[50]A new method for quantitative analysis of PLA MPs by alkali assisted pyrolysis polymerization combined with LC-MS/MS was proposed. After removing the background monomer compound, PLA MPS was efficiently depolymerized into lactic acid, and the content of PLA MPS was determined by the concentration of lactic acid detected by LC-MS/Ms. the limit of quantification was 18.7 ng/g, and the recovery was 93%. Compared with Pyr GC/MS, in-situ depolymerization and LC-MS/MS have higher sensitivity, but can only detect a single kind of polymer. In addition, the method also does not need to separate MPs from the sample, ensuring the recovery rate of the sample.
Ted-gc/MS can quickly identify and quantify MPs in different environmental samples by detecting polymer specific thermal decomposition products (labeled compounds). Compared with the conventional MPs detection technology, the advantage of ted-gc/MS is that it does not need time-consuming sample preparation steps, and the analysis takes only 2~3 hours[51]A recent study used ted-gc/ms to analyze PBAT and PLA for the first time and found that ted-gc/ms could accurately detect non degradable polymer standards, but some degradable polymer markers could be clearly identified only when the content was high[52]For example, in activated sludge samples rich in organic matter, the two different labeled compounds of PLA and PBAT were interfered, resulting in an average detection limit of 1.41~7.18 μ g and 0.84~20.46 μ g, respectively. The two degradable polyesters are greatly affected by the environmental matrix, which may be related to the co elution of the decomposition products of the environmental matrix and the potential interaction in the pyrolysis process. Therefore, compared with Pyr GC/MS and LC MS/MS, this method is not suitable for the quantitative detection of BMPs in complex organic systems.
In conclusion, the spectral method is simple, low-cost, and can provide information such as chemical structure, which is suitable for rapid and preliminary qualitative analysis, but it is difficult to detect small particles such as nano plastics due to its limited sensitivity and low resolution. Mass spectrometry is often used for quantitative analysis with high sensitivity, and can simultaneously analyze a variety of MPS and their decomposition products in the sample, which is suitable for the detection of complex samples. However, this method usually needs to destroy the sample, and the data analysis is complex. Therefore, the selection of which method should be based on the specific needs, such as sample nature, detection accuracy requirements, time and cost. It can be seen that the current technical methods for BMPs identification and analysis are not perfect. The first is how to extract BMPs effectively. In the future, we should develop a variety of methods to extract BMPs from different types of samples (water, soil, gas and other environmental media and biological samples), and strive to improve the extraction efficiency and recovery rate, so as to break the existing technical problems of complex BMPs extraction methods and poor recovery rate. In addition, the accuracy and sensitivity of qualitative and quantitative detection of BMPs should be further improved. In the future, electronic microscope, particle analyzer, Raman spectroscopy, mass spectrometry and other instruments can be comprehensively used to improve the recognition accuracy of BMPs and realize high-throughput detection of different types of BMPs, and finally strive to form a set of advanced and highly integrated technical methods to meet the current demand for accurate and efficient identification and quantitative technology of BMPs.

2.2 Environmental occurrence of BMPs

According to the type of polymer and environmental conditions, BMPs formed by BPS may remain in the natural environment for decades. On the one hand, the biodegradation process in the natural environment is slow, on the other hand, BMPs particles are mainly composed of microcrystals, and the crystal structure is not easy to be approached by aging medium, so the biodegradation rate is lower, so it can exist for a long time[53]These BMPs usually come from agricultural applications and the use of daily products, such as mulching film, packaging materials, catering products, cosmetics and textiles, which bring pollution to the ecosystem. Based on the current limited research on the concentration of BMPs in the environment, these materials are not uncommon in the aquatic environment. PLA, PHA and PBAT were identified in water purification wastewater, sewage sludge and marine sediment samples[54]The content of PLA is the highest, and the concentration range is 90~180 μ g/g(Table 3)。
Table 3 Comparison of detection methods for degradable microplastics in aquatic environment (MPS)[54]

Table 3 Comparison of methods for the detection of biodegradable microplastics (BMPs) in aquatic environments[54]

Methods Size Identification Characteristic fragment ions LOQ
(ng/g)
Limitations
Pyr-GC/MS >1 μm PLA 2,3-pentadione;
meso-lactide (3,6-dimethyl-1,4-dioxane-2,5-dion);
DL-lactide (3,6-dimethyl-1,4-dioxane-2,5-dion);
methyl 2-hydroxypropanoate;
methyl 2-methoxypropanoate
50 Destructive method;
Particle size distribution and shape cannot be obtained
PCL &epsilon;-caprolactone;
dimer of &epsilon;-caprolactone;
trimer of &epsilon;-caprolactone;
pentyl pent-4-enoate;
5-oxo-5-(pentyloxy)pentyl pent-4-enoate;
5-hexenoic acid;
6-(5-hexenoyloxy)hexanoic acid;
methyl 6-methoxyhexanoate
30
PBS tetrahydrofuran;
1,4-butanediol;
3-dibutenyl succinate;
3-butenyl-4-hydroxybutyl succinate;
bis(4-hydroxybutyl) succinate;
dibut-3-enyl-butane-1,4-diyl disuccinate;
dimethyl succinate;
butylene glycol methyl ether
40
PBAT tetrahydrofuran;
cyclopentanone;
benzoic acid;
3-butenyl 4-hydroxybutyl adipate;
2-((but-3-enyloxy)carbonyl)benzoic acid;
dimethyl terephthalate;
dimethyl hexanedioate
30
PHAs 2-butenoic acid (cis);
2-butenoic acid (trans);
1H-indene,1-chloro-2,3-dihydromethyl 2-butenoate (cis);
methyl 2-butenoate (trans)
20
LC-MS/MS 0.075,0.15,
and 2 mm
PLA lactic acid 18.7 Simultaneous detection is not possible
TED-GC/MS >1 μm PLA propanoic acid
propenoic acid
3,6-dimethyl-1,4-dioxan-2,5-dione
/ Not applicable to complex organic systems
PBAT terephthalic acid dibut-3-enyl ester
adipic acid dibut-3-enyl ester
1,6-dioxacyclododecane-7,12-dione
Compared with traditional plastics, the degradation of BPS is more susceptible to various factors, and its degradation rate may be accelerated to produce a large number of BMPs[55]. Lambert and Wagner[56]The MPS released from four kinds of traditional plastic materials (PP, PE, PS, PET) and biodegradable PLA plastics under UV irradiation at 30 ℃ were studied. It was found that after 112 days, the number of MPS increased in all types of plastics, and the release of micron particles from PS plastic cover and PLA cup increased the most. Wei et al[53]The degradation processes of biodegradable PBAT and traditional LDPE were compared in different aquatic environments. It was found that PBAT was more likely to produce MPs than LDPE, because in addition to microbial decomposition, ultraviolet degradation, oxidation and erosion also promoted the formation of BMPs. Weinstein et al[57]The degradability of biodegradable PLA in salt marsh was compared with that of traditional pet, HDPE and PS. after 4 weeks of natural weathering, MPs and biofilm were detected in all plastic types. This shows that there is no significant difference between BPS and traditional plastics in terms of degradation and MPs production under natural conditions. Therefore, the biodegradability of BPS can not eliminate BMPs, but has greater potential for BMPs accumulation.
In addition, due to the degradability of BPs, the impact of BMPs on the ecological environment should be regarded as the dual input of physical and biochemical[58]For example, BMPs in soil may become the carbon source of microorganisms, affecting the composition and function of soil microorganisms, and the release of BMPs degradation by-products will also have a more far-reaching impact. At present, the research on the environmental behavior of BMPs is not comprehensive, and more experimental data are needed in the future to further explore the environmental occurrence and ecological risk of BPS.

3 Research Progress on potential environmental and health risks of degradable plastics

In view of the ubiquity of MPs, which has posed a serious threat to the global ecological environment and human health, BPS is regarded as a potential solution to the environmental crisis of traditional plastics[59]The use of BPS will inevitably have an impact on the environment, and its ecological toxicity and health risks have aroused widespread concern in the academic community. Inconsistent with expectations, the complete degradation of BPS requires specific conditions (such as high temperature, high humidity and oxygen enriched environment). Therefore, under natural conditions, the degradation time of BPS is much longer than expected, and will be accompanied by the production of a large number of BMPs and even bio nanoplastics (BNPs). BMPs and BNPs themselves and the toxic chemicals carried or adsorbed by them will have unpredictable risks to the environment and organisms[60]In addition, compared with traditional plastics, the small particles produced by the faster decomposition of BPS may have a more far-reaching impact on ecosystems and humans due to their enhanced reactivity and fluidity[61-62]Therefore, this section will explore the toxic effects and potential mechanisms of BPS on organisms at all levels of the ecosystem, from primary producers to humans(Figure 4)。
Figure 4 Effects of degradable plastics on various trophic organisms

Fig. 4 Effects of biodegradable plastics on organisms of various trophic levels

3.1 Potential ecological and environmental risks of degradable plastics

A stable food chain is the key factor to maintain the balance of species in the ecosystem. As the starting point of the food chain, primary producers play a vital role in food supply and ecosystem functions. Studies have found that BMPs and BNPs in the environment will directly or indirectly affect the growth, physiology and development of aquatic or terrestrial primary producers[23]Table 4)。
Table 4 Toxic effects of degradable plastics on organisms at all levels of ecosystem

Table 4 Toxic effects of biodegradable plastics on organisms at all levels of the ecosystem

Test
species
type MPs type and concentration research objective size Exposure mode Exposure period Toxic effects reference
literature
Aquatic plants chlorella pacifica 10. MPE, MPa, MPLA and mPBS at 100 and 1000 mg/l Effects of BMPs on Phytoplankton PE(77.75 µm)
PA(59.88 µm)
PLA(57.41 µm);
PBS(53.33 µm)
Water source exposure 1~11 d Growth was inhibited; Stimulating chlorophyll content to prevent stress; EPS generation increase 63
Microcystis 10. 50 and 200 mg/l PLA Effects of BMPs on Phytoplankton 0.5~100 μm Water source exposure 63 d Cause oxidative damage, cell deformation, inhibit first and then promote growth 64
Heterotrophic cyanobacteria and
chlorella
20 g PCL particles were degraded in 200 ml PBS for 14 days, and the supernatant was obtained by fractional filtration Toxicity difference of PCL with different sizes PCL submicron
(1 μm~100 nm), Nanometer
Grade (<100 nm), oligomer (<50 kDa)
Water source exposure 3 d Excessive production of ROS, changes in intracellular pH and metabolic activity, and membrane potential and morphology damage inhibit the nitrogen fixation of algae 65
Brown algae 0.01, 0.1, 1 mg/ml PCL or OCL Comparison of toxicity differences between PCL and oligomer -- Water source exposure 24 h Plasma membrane damage and energy metabolism disorder in OCL exposed group 66
Terrestrial plant rice 1% PBAT or PE Effects of microplastics on crops 50 μm Soil exposure 60 d or 120 d The growth of rice plants was affected by nitrogen metabolism and photosynthesis. After treatment, the net photosynthetic rate of rice shoots was significantly inhibited, and the gene expression was reduced 68
Sorghum, cress, mustard, corn 0.02, 0.095, 0.48, 2.38 and 11.9% w/W PLA, PHB and PP were added to the soil Effects of BMPs on Germination and early growth of higher plants 3~5 mm Soil exposure 72 h PLA and PHB were inhibited earlier than PP
Stage root growth
80
soybean Adding 0%, 0.1%, 0.5% and 1% w/w PE or degradable plastic film (PLA or PBAT) to soil Effects of different mulching films on Seed Germination and plant growth of soybean 0.5、1、2 cm2 Soil exposure 60 d or 120 d Seed germination rate and leaf area decreased 82
wheat 10~100 mg/kg PS and degradable film fragments Effects of multiple MPs interactions on plant growth 5 μ m or 70 nm Soil exposure 14 d Reduce plant height, especially when combined with PS 83
Aquatic animals Daphnia magna 1. 5 mg/l PLA or pet Acute and chronic toxicity of BMPs 1~80 μm Water source exposure 21 d Survival rate decreased, offspring decreased, sex ratio changed and abnormal embryos increased 67
Sea urchin 1. 5 and 10 mg/l PBS PBSA、PCL、PHB、PLA Effects of BPS on marine invertebrates PBS(193.10 ±
148.40 μm)
PBSA(207.70 ± 131.40 μm)
PCL(164.90 ±
99.20 μm)
PHB(0.64 ±
0.30 μm)
PLA(335.00 ±
182.01 μm)
Water source exposure 48 h PCL, PHB and PLA MPs affect embryonic development; PHB and PLA destroy the first mitosis of eggs and lead to developmental retardation of other eggs; PCL causes embryonic malformation 68
Zebrafish 3、9 mg/L PLA MPs Toxicity of PLA on early development of zebrafish 150 μm Water source exposure 5 d The larvae 'swimming distance and speed led to anxiety like behavior and decreased acetylcholinesterase activity 69
Zebrafish 1. 25, 50, 100, 250 and 500 mg/l PGA and PLA granular solutions Effects on development and neurobehavior 667.5~4213.5 nm Water source exposure 96 h It leads to developmental retardation of early larvae, reduces survival rate, destroys movement, affects sleep/wake behavior, and induces anxiety like behavior 70
Zebrafish 1. 25, 50, 100, 250 and 500 mg/l PGA and PLA granular solutions Effects on development and neurobehavior 667.5~4213.5 nm Water source exposure 96 h It leads to developmental retardation of early larvae, reduces survival rate, destroys movement, affects sleep/wake behavior, and induces anxiety like behavior
European perch PLA 2%(w:w) Behavioral toxicity of BPS 90~150 μm Dietary exposure 180 d The visual response to the same species was enhanced, the motor ability was decreased, the internal gathering distance was reduced, and the active predator response was weakened 72
Zebrafish 1 mg/l and 100 mg/l PGA, PLA, PBS, PHA and PBAT Effects of BPS on eye development and visual function -- Water source exposure 5 d Influence on early development of zebrafish juveniles and gene changes related to visual development 73
Zebrafish 1000 grains/l PLA or pet Toxicity of chronic exposure to BPS PET(204 ± 51 µm); PLA(222 ± 58 µm) Dietary exposure 90 d PLA accumulated more in intestine; Lactic acid utilization capacity was enhanced; Significant intestinal injury 75
Tilapia 100 μg/L PLA
Or PVC
Intestinal toxicity of BPS PLA (2.52 ± 0.46 μ m) and PVC (1.58 ± 0.36 μ m) Water source exposure 14 d Intestinal tissue was severely damaged, including edema of intestinal mucosal epithelial cells, swelling of mitochondria, extensive dissolution of some epithelial cell matrix, release of organelles, expansion of intercellular space and damage of intestinal barrier 76
Daphnia magna 1 μ g/ml or
1 ng/ml PCL or OCL
Comparison of toxicity differences between PCL and oligomer -- Water source exposure 21 d The total number of offspring in OCL exposed group decreased 66
Zebrafish 0.1, 1, 10,
25 mg/l PLA
Toxic effect of photoaging on BPS 5~50 μm Water source exposure 7 d The bioaccumulation ability of photodegradable PLA increased; Inhibition of bone development, apoptosis, fission inhibition, depolymerization and mitochondrial structural damage 107
Barramundi PLA and PBAT mixture 20 capsules/D; The control is PE plastic Gastrointestinal toxicity of dietary intake of BPS 3.06 ± 0.26 mm Dietary exposure 21 d Inducing intestinal microbial diversity
Sexual and protein changes; There is no difference in the effect of different micro plastics
108
Zebrafish 2.5 and 5 mg/l PLA Multi endpoint toxicity 2.34 ± 0.07 μm Water source exposure 30 d Acetylcholinesterase activity increased; Oxidation reduction system imbalance 88
Zebrafish 60 mg/ml or granular leaching solution Toxicity of PCL and its extract -- Water source exposure 3 D or
24 h
Consumer grade PCL has acute toxicity to zebrafish embryos, and polymer decomposition products may be the source of toxicity 102
Terrestrial animals earthworm 0, 0.125, 1.25, 12.5, 125, 250 and 500 g/kg PLA, PPC and PE Toxicity difference of degradable and non degradable plastics to earthworms 120 μm Soil exposure 7, 14, 21, 28 d Significantly reduced the survival rate of earthworms 85
earthworm 5. 20 and 50 g/kg (wet weight of soil) PLA, PVC and LDPE Effects of BMPs on terrestrial organisms 0.8~1 mm Soil exposure 7、4、
28 d
Mucous vacuole formation and longitudinal muscle disorder, PLA is not safer than traditional plastics 86
drosophila 25, 100 and 400 μ g/ml PLA Effects of PLA NPs on Drosophila melanogaster 463.9 ± 129.4 nm Instant medium wetting method 4 d Oxidative stress and possible DNA damage 87
Dragonfly larvae 6 mg/l PLA or PE Toxicity of traditional and bioplastics to model organisms 35.46 ± 18.17 μm Water source exposure 48 h The levels of nitrite and lipid peroxidation increased; The decrease of superoxide dismutase activity and total mercaptan level; Decreased AChE activity 88
mice 0.1, 0.5 mg/day PLA or PVC Toxic effects of different MPs on mice PLA(16~350 μm);PVC(40~300 μm) Gavage 42 d Weight gain inhibition; Compared with PVC, PLA MPs had greater effects on lipid metabolism and digestive system 94
mice 5、50 mg/kg Hepatotoxicity of PLA -- Gavage 10 d Weight loss, reduced food intake, impaired liver function, increased liver inflammation, changes in bile acid profile, and dysregulation of bile acid metabolic pathways 95
mice 0.2 mg/day PLA NPs or MPs; 0.03 mg/day PLA NPs or MPS Hepatotoxicity induced by PLA from different exposure sources PLA NP(50 nm)
And MP (5 μ m)
Intragastric or nasal administration 42 d Food borne and air exposure to PLA lead to imbalance of intestinal and pulmonary non biota, metabolic and transcriptional disorders, respectively, and induce hepatotoxicity through enterobacteria gut liver axis and airway bacteria lung liver axis 96
mice 0.01, 0.1, 1 mg/day PLA MPS or oligomers Toxicity of PLA and degradation products PLA MPs(25 μm); Oligomer (molecular weight 900 DA) Gavage 7 d PLA is degraded to oligomer under the catalysis of gastrointestinal esterase, inducing intestinal injury and acute inflammation 19
mice 2.5, 25 mg/kg polymer PLA or oligomer PLA ADME and neurotoxicity of PLA and oligomers PLA polymer (40 kDa); PLA oligomer (2 kDa) Gavage 28 d PLA and oligomers induce Parkinson's disease like neurotoxicity, and the mechanism involves the up regulation of midbrain micu3, leading to neuronal mitochondrial calcium overload 97
In the aquatic environment, the effects of BMPs on aquatic primary producers are mainly manifested in the growth inhibition of algae, cell structure damage and metabolic disorder, etc[23]It was found that PLA MPs and PBS MPs could inhibit the growth of microalgae in a wide concentration range (10~1000 mg/L), and the severity of inhibition was positively correlated with the exposure concentration and time. Exposure to higher concentrations of BMPs promotes the production of chlorophyll and extracellular polymeric substances in microalgae, which may be a defense mechanism caused by stress[63]In another study, Microcystis exposed to 10-200 mg/L PLA MPs showed oxidative damage and changes in cell morphology. With the extension of exposure time, the growth of Microcystis was firstly inhibited, and then promoted[64]Therefore, BMPs can play a dual role as a potential inorganic carbon source to promote the growth of algae and as a particulate matter to hinder the growth of algae. Cyanobacteria will suffer different degrees of toxic damage when exposed to submicron and nano PCL (polycaprolactone) and its oligomers. When exposed to different fractions or combinations of PCL MPs alone, both organisms showed excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, intracellular pH changes and metabolic activity changes. However, changes in membrane potential and morphological damage were observed only when the combination of PCL NPs and PCL oligomers was exposed[65]Similarly, Yoshinaga et al[66]When brown algae were exposed to PCL MPs particles or oligomers, it was found that the plasma membrane damage and energy metabolism disorder were only observed in the oligomer treatment group. Therefore, BMPs with different sizes and polymerization degrees will significantly affect their toxicity levels.
MPs may be ingested by plankton and large marine animals, which will lead to physical blockage and chemical damage[62]This intake not only reduces their feeding activities, destroys the balance of intestinal microorganisms, but also causes damage to their reproduction, growth and development. The mortality of Daphnia magna exposed to 5 mg/L PLA MPS was significantly increased, and long-term exposure to 1 and 5 mg/L PLA MPs resulted in the reduction of offspring, the change of sex ratio and the increase of abnormal embryos[67]. viel et al[68]They paid attention to the effects of PBS, PBSA, PCL, PHB and PLA on marine invertebrates. They found that three kinds of BMPs could affect embryonic development. PHB MPs and PLA MPs destroyed the first mitosis of eggs and led to developmental retardation of other eggs, while PCL MPs led to embryonic malformation. In addition, de Oliveira et al[69]Zebrafish experiments showed that the accumulation of PLA MPs in larvae was related to the changes of movement and exploration activities and the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase function. Exposure to 100 mg/L PGA MPs and PLA MPs can cause zebrafish growth retardation 24 hours after fertilization, reduce survival rate, affect sleep patterns and induce anxiety like behavior[70]After the combined exposure of PLA MPs and PBAT MPs, zebrafish showed shallow water behavior, anxiety like reaction and avoidance behavior. BMPs may cause abnormal behavior and neurotoxicity in zebrafish by inducing brain immune dysfunction[71]The long-term intake of PLA MPs significantly affected the social behavior of juvenile Lateolabrax japonicus, such as decreased motor ability, reduced internal gathering distance and weakened active predator response[72]BPS can also affect the visual function of zebrafish. After exposure to PLA -, PBS -, PHA - and pbat-mp, the genes related to early visual development of zebrafish juveniles changed[73]In addition, compared with traditional plastics, some aquatic organisms, such as zebrafish and perch, showed stronger feeding preference for pla-mp[74]Intestinal injury is another significant effect of BMPs. Duan et al[75]It was reported that the pla-mp residue in adult zebrafish was higher than that in pet-mp after 90 days of exposure to PLA - or pet-mp. Although the degradation products of PLA can be absorbed by zebrafish as a carbon source, the histological damage caused by pla-mp on fish intestine is more significant. Bao et al[76]It was also found that compared with the traditional plastic pvc-mp, the intestinal edema of tilapia fed with pla-mp was more obvious, and the intestinal flora was significantly maladjusted.
For the terrestrial environment, agricultural plastic film is an important application scenario of BPs, so the impact of BPS on crops and animals in the terrestrial environment deserves attention. On the one hand, BMPs have adverse effects on primary producers by changing soil properties and ecological functions[77]For example, BMPs can affect the nitrogen cycle mediated by BMPs by affecting soil microbial community, function and diversity, such as nitrogen fixation process, anaerobic denitrification process, etc., and then affect crop growth. For example, some agricultural film mulching residues can significantly reduce the expression of carbon and nitrogen cycle in soil and affect soil fertility[78]On the other hand, BMPs may have direct toxic effects on plants. BMPs may induce plant cells to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) by inducing mechanical damage. The accumulation of these reactive oxygen species may damage the plant cell membrane and other cell structures, thus triggering a series of oxidative stress reactions[79]. Yang and Gao[80]The oxidative stress response of rice stems and roots induced by MPS was reported. The genes encoding ammonium and nitrate transporters in rice roots were down regulated during vegetative development and up-regulated during reproductive development in PBAT exposed group. BMPs significantly inhibited the net photosynthetic rate of plants during vegetative period and reduced the expression of light response related genes. In addition, the study focused on the effects of BMPs on crop germination and early growth. For example, compared with PP MPs, PLA MPs and PHB MPs in soil had more significant inhibitory effects on the early root growth of sorghum, Oenanthe javanica and mustard[81]Degradable mulching film is similar to PS and PE mulching film, which will lead to the decrease of seed germination rate, leaf area and plant height[82-83]
Similar to the aquatic environment, BMPs and BNPs in the soil environment may be widely spread through the food chain. Compared with plants and microorganisms, animals, as the main consumers in terrestrial ecosystems, are at greater risk of ingesting more MPs directly or through food chain transfer (intake of foods containing MPs and NPs)[84]Recently, more and more ecotoxicological evidences show that BMPs have no less toxic effects than traditional MPs, and its safety still needs to be further evaluated(Table 4)。
Earthworm is a common soil invertebrate, which is often used to evaluate the ecological toxicity of environmental pollutants. Ding et al[85]The effects of PLA -, PC - and PE MPs on the biological toxicity, mortality, avoidance behavior and reproductive response of earthworms were studied. It was found that the concentration of BMPs had a greater impact than the type of plastic. Zhao et al[86]The different responses of earthworms to PLA -, PVC - and PE MPs in soil environment were studied. It was found that the ecotoxicity of BMPs to earthworms was time-dependent. After 28 days of exposure to 50 g/kg, the earthworm epidermis showed mucosal cavitation, longitudinal muscle disorder and granular lipid deposition. This study also emphasized that BMPs had similar toxicity to traditional MPs. Another study used Drosophila as a model to explore the internalization and related effects of PLA NPs. They found that PLA NPs were enriched by enzyme vesicles and passed through the intestinal membrane, and finally internalized by intestinal cells. Their exposure triggered intestinal damage, oxidative stress, DNA damage and inflammatory reaction[87]In addition, in the dragonfly larva model, PLA MPs also showed greater toxicity than traditional plastics, causing redox imbalance and neurotoxicity[88]

3.2 Potential health risks of degradable plastics

MPs are ubiquitous in the environment and can migrate between different environmental media and enter the human body through the food chain, direct inhalation or skin contact[89-90]According to the estimation of food consumption, each person may consume 39000-52000 plastic particles per year[91]A large number of studies have detected MPs in human biological samples (including excreta, body fluids, tissues and organs), which has triggered widespread health concerns[92]Similarly, with the widespread use of BPs, human beings will inevitably be exposed to BMPs and BNPs.
Although many previous studies have used invertebrates, zebrafish and other low-grade organisms to show that the toxic effects of BMPs are similar to those of traditional plastics, the sensitivity and response patterns of these organisms are significantly different from those of terrestrial mammals, which can not fully and accurately reflect the impact of BMPs on complex biological systems[93]In order to better understand the potential impact of BMPs on terrestrial mammals and human health, some recent studies have used mammals as models to explore. Our previous work compared the toxicity of irregular PLA - and PVC MPs to growing mice. The results showed that the biological toxicity of PLA MPS was no less than that of PVC MPs, and the effect on lipid metabolism and digestive system was more significant. Specifically, both MPs caused an increase in the level of oxidative stress, changes in the intestinal microbial community, and changes in gene expression in the liver and colon. These findings challenge the biological safety of BPS and BMPs[94]In another study, male mice were exposed to PLA MPs for 10 consecutive days, which showed liver injury and increased inflammation. This process is mainly due to the inhibition of CYP7A1 enzyme activity by PLA MPs and the activation of fgf-jnk/ERK signaling pathway, which destroys the normal metabolism of bile acids[95]. Zha et al[96]The hepatotoxic effects of PLA MPs and PLA NPs from different exposure sources were investigated by using multinomial methods. It was found that food derived and air derived PLA MPs induced hepatotoxicity by interfering with the "gut microbiota liver" axis and the "airway microbiota lung liver" axis, respectively. Specifically, they led to intestinal and pulmonary flora imbalance, intestinal, lung and serum metabolic changes, and liver transcriptome changes.
As a kind of biodegradable polyester, the transformation process of BPs in the intestine and the toxic effects caused by degradation products have attracted much attention. Wang et al[19]It is reported that PLA MPs can be degraded by lipase in the gastrointestinal tract and produce excessive PLA NPs. These nanoparticles are formed by hydrophobically driven oligomer self aggregation, and after exposure, oligomers and their related nanoparticles will bioaccumulate in different organs (including liver, intestine and brain) and cause intestinal injury and inflammation. Liang et al[97]A 28 day oral gavage study in mice showed that the incomplete degradation of PLA MPs in the gastrointestinal tract would increase its bioavailability and toxicity, thereby aggravating nerve injury. The mechanism of neurotoxicity induced by these MPs is similar to that observed in the pathology of Parkinson's disease, which is characterized by mitochondrial calcium overload in the midbrain region. In the past, people mainly focused on BPS itself, and the above findings suggest that BPs degradation intermediates may also be potential contributors to polymer toxicity. Environmental friendly biopolymers are usually composed of endogenous monomers, which leads to the possibility that their oligomers may have the ability to interfere with the metabolism of organisms and cause a variety of toxic effects[18]The structure of oligomers is complex, the physical and chemical properties are greatly different, and the types and number of oligomers are far more than MPs itself. The current understanding of oligomers is only the tip of the iceberg. Therefore, the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) of BPS oligomers should be paid special attention and studied in depth in the future.
Compared with mammalian model, in vitro cell model provides a rapid, economic and easy to control method, which can carry out multi-endpoint toxicity assessment and simplify the exploration of toxicity mechanism to a certain extent[98]These cell models will not only help researchers quickly predict and evaluate the potential impact of these new materials on human health, but also help to formulate relevant safety standards and regulatory policies(Table 5). Banaei et al[99]Using Caco-2 and HT29 colon adenocarcinoma cell lines, the behavior of PLA NPs released from tea bags in intestinal epithelium was studied. It was found that these particles could be internalized and absorbed by intestinal cells. Garc í a- Rodr í Guez et al[100]Using the in vitro bronchial epithelial model Calu-3 cell line, it was found that PLA NPs were easily internalized by the barrier under the condition of gas-liquid interface exposure, resulting in increased barrier permeability and mucus secretion, and long-term exposure would lead to significant genetic toxicity and immune response. In addition, as part of the innate immune system, macrophages play an important role in the defense of exogenous particles. Studies have found that PLA NPs can reduce the phagocytic activity of macrophages and increase the secretion of proinflammatory factors represented by TNF - α[101], PLA degradation intermediate oligomer has stronger pro-inflammatory effect than MPs itself[19]In terms of neurotoxicity, Yoshinaga et al[66]It was found that compared with PCL MPs itself, its oligomer (tetramer) and monomer had stronger toxicity to neurons differentiated from PC12 cells, resulting in decreased cell viability, impaired mitochondrial function and morphological changes of neurons. In another high-throughput screening study in vitro, the methanol extract of PCL activated five toxicity endpoints, including pregnane X receptor (pxr/pxre) and peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPAR γ/ppre). Studies have shown that this toxicity may be caused by oligomers and nanoparticles released by PCL[102]This kind of multi endpoint in vitro reporting bioassay combined with non targeted chemical analysis has significant application value in evaluating the safety of BPs, especially for screening the key toxic components in plastic related chemical mixtures. Researchers have used yeast and luminescent bacteria[103]Fish cell line[104]And mammalian cell lines[105]The high-throughput toxicity evaluation of BPS consumer product extract was carried out in vitro. The results showed that BPs showed non negligible toxicity, which was mainly caused by the degradation of BMPs BNPs、 Caused by oligomers and additives. Previously, people mainly focused on the impact of BMPs, but more and more studies have shown that BMPs themselves and the by-products produced in their degradation process are different in toxicity. Future studies should further clarify the main sources and mechanisms of these "plastic toxicity".
Table 5 Evaluation of toxic effects of degradable plastics by in vitro model

Table 5 Evaluation of toxic effects of biodegradable plastics in vitro

In vitro model Exposure type and concentration research objective MPs size Exposure mode Exposure time research conclusion References
Caco-2 and HT29 cell lines 0, 50 and 100 µ g/ml PLA Fate of nanoparticles released from tea bags in gastrointestinal tract 100 nm Medium exposure 48 h or 72 h Internalize intestinal cells (such as intestinal cells and goblet cells), cross the protective mucus layer and epithelial barrier in the intestine, and destroy the barrier 99
Calu-3 cell line 2.5, 10 and 20 µ g/cm2 Respiratory toxicity of PLA NPS 130.06 nm Gas liquid interface exposure 24 h; 7 d or
14 d
The barrier permeability and mucus secretion increased; Long term exposure leads to significant genotoxicity and immune response 100
J774A.1 cell line 10 μ g/ml PLA or PS Response of macrophages to PLA NPS 150 nm Medium exposure 24 h Phagocytic activity of macrophages decreased and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines increased 101
RAW 264.7 800 ng/ml~0.5 mg/ml PLA MPs, NPs or oligomers Pro inflammatory effect of PLA and oligomer PLA MPs(25 μm); Oligomer (molecular weight
900 Da)
Medium exposure 24 h The levels of C5a, C3a and THF - α in oligomer treated group were significantly increased, while the secretion of mmp12 was decreased 19
PC12 cell line 0.1, 0.5, 1 mg/ml PCL or OCL Comparison of toxicity differences between PCL and oligomer -- Medium exposure 24 h In OCL exposed group, cell viability decreased, mitochondrial function was impaired, and neuronal morphology changed 66
HepG2 cell line 1. 3,9 μ l PCL extract Multi endpoint evaluation of bioactivity of PCL extract -- Medium exposure 24 h The five activation endpoints included pregnane X receptor (PXR/pxre), peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPAR γ/ppre) and nuclear factor red blood cell 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) 102
Luminescent bacteria, arec3 cell line, yeast Bio based plastics include PLA PHA、PBS、PBAT、Bio-PE, Methanol extract of plant-based plastics including fiber, starch, etc Is biological and plant-based plastics a safe alternative to traditional plastics -- Medium exposure -- 67% of the samples induced baseline toxicity, 42% of the samples induced oxidative stress, 23% of the samples induced anti androgen and one sample induced estrogen activity; Toxicity varies by product 103
Plhc-1 cell line Methanol extract after photodegradation and composting of plastic consumer goods (PBAT, starch, pet, LDPE, etc.) Effects of photodegradation and composting on toxicity -- Medium exposure 24 h or 48 h After 24 hours, cell viability decreased, and photodegradation and composting increased toxicity 104
A549 cell line and HepG2 cell line Crushed particles or organic solvent extracts of plastic consumer goods (PLA, PHB and HDPE) Toxicity of bioplastics and additives 100 nm ~ 10 μm Medium exposure 24 h Extract causes significant oxidative stress 105
In vitro simulated digestion and fermentation model 0.166 g PLA or PCL Digestion characteristics of BMPs and potential effects on intestinal flora PLA MP(75 μm);
PCL MP(150 μm)
-- 24 h Disturbance of intestinal flora and reduced secretion of short chain fatty acids 106
Although there are direct evidences showing the distribution and content of BMPs and BNPs in human tissues, the latest epidemiological studies show that the content of MPs in human body is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and intestinal inflammation, which are consistent with the results of animal and cell experiments. Different from traditional plastics, BPS are easier to degrade in vivo, producing smaller BNPs and oligomers, which are easier to enter the circulatory system through the gastrointestinal tract, penetrate the biological barrier and enter the cells, which may lead to more serious health risks such as intestinal inflammation. In addition, during the degradation process, the additives contained in the polymer are more likely to be released, which together with the polymer have toxic effects on the body. On the other hand, the surface of BMPs and BNPs particles is more rough, and contains rich oxygen-containing functional groups and hydrogen bonds. It is speculated that these characteristics make it easier to combine with specific proteins in body fluid to form a "protein crown", which will give new biological characteristics to nanoparticles, and then affect the interaction mode, toxic effect and potential mechanism between plastic particles and cells[106]
Therefore, waste BPS and BMPs are not only emerging environmental issues, but also an important public health issue. In the future, we need to pay special attention to and in-depth study the impact on the ecological environment and human health. In particular, BMPs may have different mechanisms for biological interference at different trophic levels. In addition to analyzing the environmental and health effects caused by BMPs, future research should also deeply analyze the toxic mechanism, providing new ideas and directions for the research and development of BPS pollution control measures in the future.

4 Conclusion and Prospect

The use of BPs to replace traditional non degradable plastics is one of the important measures to alleviate the problem of plastic pollution, which has been highly recognized and promoted by the mainstream countries in the world. So far, BPS has been widely used in more and more industries at home and abroad, and plastic pollution, including white pollution, has been improved to some extent. Although BPS has broad application prospects, it will still produce ecological environment and health risks that can not be ignored in the process of practical application and disposal, especially BMPs and oligomers produced in the degradation process, as well as the compound effect caused by the release of toxic additives. The environmental and health risk problems and challenges that need to be solved urgently include: (1) how to help the public establish a correct understanding of the environmental behavior and potential hazards of BPS and BMPs; (2) How to establish an efficient and simple method to extract BMPs from different environmental media and biological samples and accurately identify them in high throughput; (3) What are the health effects and potential mechanisms of long-term exposure to environmental related doses of BMPs in vivo; (4) On the basis of fully considering the opinions of the government, industry and the public, how to develop control methods and standards suitable for BPS and BMPs in the future. Specific issues are discussed as follows(Figure 5)。
Figure 5 Challenges and prospects of BMPs research

Fig. 5 Challenges and Prospectives of BMPs research

4.1 Insufficient public awareness of BPS and BMPs

The main reason why BPS can be widely used is that its core concept is biodegradable and environmentally friendly. When countries popularize and use BPs, they usually focus on its advantages, but tend to ignore the disadvantages and potential hazards of BPS. Therefore, the public will think that BPs can solve the pollution and harm caused by traditional plastics once and for all. More seriously, it will further deepen people's cognitive bias and firmly believe that BPs is environmentally friendly and can be directly discharged without any treatment and disposal, resulting in a large number of BPS directly and disorderly discharged into the environment, thereby increasing the content of BMPs in the environment.
Therefore, before identifying, evaluating and disposing the potential hazards of BPS and BMPs in the future, it is necessary to help people fully understand the advantages and potential hazards of BPs, especially the complete environmental behavior of discharged bps. Only by correctly recognizing the potential harm of excessive emission of BPs, can we reduce the emission of BPS from the source and promote the true environmental friendliness of BPS.

4.2 Suitable for BMPs extraction and detection method vacancy

Similar to traditional refractory MPs, BMPs with different concentrations and types have been detected in typical environmental media such as water, soil and atmosphere. However, there is still a lack of reliable technology to accurately identify the internal laws of BMPs' environmental behavior. The current identification technology of BMPs comes from traditional refractory MPs, and has not formed a set of technical method system suitable for BMPs identification. In the traditional pretreatment process, the use of strong acids and bases may degrade BMPs too quickly to a certain extent, thus underestimating the amount of BMPs in real environmental media and biological samples. On the other hand, BMPs are usually blends, which directly leads to the difficulty of obtaining test standards. Therefore, compared with traditional MPs, the analysis and detection process of BMPs will be more complex. Based on the existing micro Raman spectroscopy, micro infrared spectroscopy, chromatography-mass spectrometry, how to quickly and accurately identify and quantify the types and contents of BMPs is still one of the main challenges in the current and future BMPs related research.

4.3 The long-term migration and transformation of BMPs in vivo and health risks need to be clarified

BMPs in environmental media can be ingested by animals and humans through mouth (drinking water, diet) and respiration. In addition, more and more BPS are used in the field of food processing and packaging, indicating that the type and content of BMPs wrongly ingested into the body will gradually increase in the future, but so far, the interpretation of the migration and transformation of different types of BMPs in the body is still limited. In addition to the above sample pretreatment methods and the qualitative and quantitative methods in vivo, BMPs may be partially degraded in vivo, which further increases the difficulty of qualitative and quantitative analysis in vivo. Nevertheless, it is an important premise to understand the toxic effect and potential mechanism of BMPs by clarifying the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) of BMPs in vivo. Therefore, future research needs to further develop methods to explore the migration and transformation of BMPs in vivo, and accurately identify the ADME process of BMPs with different properties in vivo.
More importantly, BMPs have non negligible toxicity in vivo. Compared with the traditional material MPs, BMPs represented by PLA can degrade into smaller particle size BMPs or even BNPs in vivo, leading to more serious toxic effects. However, at present, the research on the health effects of BMPs in vivo is mainly focused on a few kinds of materials such as PLA and PBAT, and there is little toxicity assessment on other BPS (such as starch based and starch based PLA blend BMPs) produced and used in large quantities. In addition, in the above-mentioned in vivo and in vitro exposure experiments, the exposure concentration of BMPs was higher than the environmental background concentration and the exposure period was shorter, which was inconsistent with the actual situation that people were exposed to low concentrations of BMPs for a long time. Therefore, in the future, the health risk assessment of BMPs in vivo should not only give priority to the types with large production and wide range of use, but also fully consider the background concentration and exposure cycle in the actual environment, and strive to truly restore and identify the long-term health hazards of typical BMPs in vivo.
On the other hand, the toxicity mechanism of BMPs is still in the black box mode. As a typical particulate matter, the toxicity of MPS not only depends on its physical properties (particle size, shape, surface properties, aging degree, etc.), but also is closely related to its chemical composition. In addition, different kinds of additives added in the production process of BMPs will be absorbed into the body with BMPs, further increasing the complexity of the toxicity mechanism of BMPs in vivo. Therefore, more studies in the future need to focus on how to clarify the toxicity mechanism of BMPs with different characteristics in vivo, provide basic data for the control of BPs, and provide available biomarkers for the prevention of BMPs hazards.

4.4 Lack of BPS and BMPs control methods and governance standards

The promotion of BPS has reached major global consensus. Therefore, in the process of controlling and processing BPS and BMPs in the future, governments and scientists of various countries also need to strengthen exchanges and cooperation. When developing relevant management and control methods and governance standards, it is necessary to have a global perspective and consider local government policies and economic background. At the same time, the suggestions of local residents and enterprises shall be actively considered.
To sum up, this paper reviews the potential environmental health risks of BPs in the practical application process from the perspectives of BPS application background and current situation, the occurrence and analysis methods of BMPs produced in the degradation process in the environment, and potential toxicity. On this basis, it further puts forward relevant research deficiencies and future priority development direction, in order to provide theoretical basis and technical support for the future large-scale promotion and use of BPS and reducing the corresponding environmental health risks.
[1]
Elhacham E, Ben-Uri L, Grozovski J, Bar-On Y M, Milo R. Nature, 2020, 588(7838): 442.

[2]
Thompson R C, Swan S H, Moore C J, vom Saal F S. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2009, 364(1526): 1973.

[3]
Ritchie Hannah. Roser Max. [2024-08-01]. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution# [Z]. Our World in Data. 2018.

[4]
Tsakona M, Baker E, Rucevska I. et al. Google Scholar.

[5]
PlasticsEurope EUPC. EPRO E. An analysis of plastics production, demand and recovery for, 2022.

[6]
Geyer R, Jambeck J R, Law K L. Sci. Adv., 2017, 3(7): e1700782.

[7]
Lepoittevin B. Roger P. Handbook of Engineering and Speciality Thermoplastics, 2011, 3: 97.

[8]
Chen J L, Jiang M M, Zhang F Z, Wang L, Yang J P. Adv. Mater., 2024: 2401867.

[9]
Brooks A L, Wang S L, Jambeck J R. Sci. Adv., 2018, 4(6): eaat0131.

[10]
Makris K F, Langeveld J, Clemens F H L R. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 2020, 16(6): 880.

[11]
MacLeod M, Arp H P H, Tekman M B, Jahnke A. Science, 2021, 373(6550): 61.

[12]
Chen J L, Zhang L Y, Wang L, Kuang M, Wang S B, Yang J P. Matter, 2023, 6(10): 3322.

[13]
Li J Z, Chen J L, Zhang L Y, Matos J, Wang L, Yang J P. Electron, 2024, 2(3): e63.

[14]
China Resources Recycling Association. 2023 Report on the Scale of China's Plastic Recycling Industry, 2024.

(中国物资再生协会. 2023年中国塑料回收产业规模报告. [2024-08-01] http://www.replastics.org/. 2024)

[15]
Zheng J J, Suh S. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2019, 9(5): 374.

[16]
Chamas A, Moon H, Zheng J J, Qiu Y, Tabassum T, Jang J H, Abu-Omar M, Scott S L, Suh S. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8(9): 3494.

[17]
Thompson R C, Olsen Y, Mitchell R P, Davis A, Rowland S J, John A W G, McGonigle D, Russell A E. Science, 2004, 304(5672): 838.

[18]
Shi C Z, Wang M J, Wang Z M, Qu G B, Jiang W, Pan X C, Fang M L. Environ. Health, 2023, 1(4): 228.

[19]
Wang M J, Li Q Q, Shi C Z, Lv J, Xu Y D, Yang J J, Chua S L, Jia L R, Chen H W, Liu Q, Huang C J, Huang Y C, Chen J M, Fang M L. Nat. Nanotechnol., 2023, 18(4): 403.

[20]
Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C, Fulgenzi G, Graciotti L, Spadoni T, D’Onofrio N, Scisciola L, La Grotta R, Frige C, Pellegrini V, Municinò M, Siniscalchi M, Spinetti F, Vigliotti G, Vecchione C, Carrizzo A, Accarino G, Squillante A, Spaziano G, Mirra D, Esposito R, Altieri S, Falco G, Fenti A, Galoppo S, Canzano S, Sasso F C, Matacchione G, Olivieri F, Ferraraccio F, Panarese I, Paolisso P, Barbato E, Lubritto C, Balestrieri M L, Mauro C, Caballero A E, Rajagopalan S, Ceriello A, D’Agostino B, Iovino P, Paolisso G. N Engl J. Med., 2024, 390(10): 900.

[21]
Shen M C, Song B, Zeng G M, Zhang Y X, Huang W, Wen X F, Tang W W. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 263: 114469.

[22]
Euopeam Bioplastics. (2024-10-14)[2024-10-14]. https://www.european-bioplastics.org/

[23]
Shi C L, Zhang Y N, Shao Y J, Ray S S, Wang B Y, Zhao Z R, Yu B Z, Zhang X F, Li W B, Ding J F, Liu Z Q, Zhang H J. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 178: 117832.

[24]
Bioplastics market development update,[2024-10-14]. https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/. 2023

[25]
CCID Consulting. Advamced Mauufacturing 2024, 2024.

(赛迪顾问. 先进制造2024, 2024.).

[26]
Okoffo E D, Chan C M, Rauert C, Kaserzon S, Thomas K V. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(19): 13774.

[27]
Sawada H. Polym. Degrad. Stab., 1998, 59(1-3): 365.

[28]
Fojt J, David J, Prikryl R, Rezácová V, Kucerík J. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 745: 140975.

[29]
Yu W Y, Chen J Q, Zhang S H, Zhao Y P, Fang M L, Deng Y F, Zhang Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 838: 156396.

[30]
Tirkey A, Upadhyay L S B. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2021, 170: 112604.

[31]
Wagner J, Wang Z M, Ghosal S, Rochman C, Gassel M, Wall S. Anal. Methods, 2017, 9(9): 1479.

[32]
Lares M, Ncibi M C, Sillanpää M, Sillanpää M. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2019, 26(12): 12109.

[33]
Wang Y, Xiang L L, Amelung W, Elsner M, Gan J, Kueppers S, Christian L, Jiang X, Adu-Gyamfi J, Heng L E, Ok Y S, Ivleva N P, Luo Y M, Barceló D, Schäffer A, Wang F. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2023, 169: 117309.

[34]
Avio C G, Gorbi S, Regoli F. Mar. Environ. Res., 2015, 111: 18.

[35]
Foekema E M, De Gruijter C, Mergia M T, van Franeker J A, Murk A J, Koelmans A A. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47(15): 8818.

[36]
Claessens M, Van Cauwenberghe L, Vandegehuchte M B, Janssen C R. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2013, 701-2: 227.

[37]
Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway T S. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2011, 62(12): 2588.

[38]
Löder M G J, Gerdts G. Marine Anthropogenic Li, Eds: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, Springer, 2015. 201-227.

[39]
Masura J, Baker J, Foster G, Arthur C, Herring C E. Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Synthetic Particles in Waters and Sediments, Siver Spring, MD, NOAA Marine Debris Division, 2015.

[40]
Stock F, Kochleus C, Bänsch-Baltruschat B, Brennholt N, Reifferscheid G. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2019, 113: 84.

[41]
Schütze B, Thomas D, Kraft M, Brunotte J, Kreuzig R. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2022, 29(54): 81452.

[42]
Qin M, Chen C Y, Song B, Shen M C, Cao W C, Yang H L, Zeng G M, Gong J L. J. Clean. Prod., 2021, 312: 127816.

[43]
Singh B, Kumar A. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 170: 117440.

[44]
Shruti V C, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 170: 117421.

[45]
Hale R C. Anal. Methods, 2017, 9(9): 1326.

[46]
Wang W F, Wang J. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2018, 108: 195.

[47]
Ainali N M, Kalaronis D, Kontogiannis A, Evgenidou E, Kyzas G Z, Yang X, Bikiaris D N, Lambropoulou D A. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 794: 148725.

[48]
Käppler A, Fischer M, Scholz-Böttcher B M, Oberbeckmann S, Labrenz M, Fischer D, Eichhorn K J, Voit B. Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 2018, 410(21): 5313.

[49]
Llana-Ruíz-Cabello M, Pichardo S, Jimenez-Morillo N T, Abad P, Guillamón E, González-Vila F J, Camean A M, González-Pérez J A. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2016, 120: 334.

[50]
Wang L, Peng Y W, Xu Y L, Zhang J J, Zhang T, Yan M Q, Sun H W. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56(18): 13029.

[51]
Goedecke C, Eisentraut P, Altmann K, Elert A M, Bannick C G, Ricking M, Obermaier N, Barthel A K, Schmitt T, Jekel M, Braun U. Front. Environ. Chem., 2022, 3: 844633.

[52]
Kittner M, Eisentraut P, Dittmann D, Braun U. Appl. Res., 2024, 3(2): e202200089.

[53]
Wei X F, Bohlén M, Lindblad C, Hedenqvist M, Hakonen A. Water Res., 2021, 198: 117123.

[54]
Shi C L, Zhang Y N, Shao Y J, Ray S S, Wang B Y, Zhao Z R, Yu B Z, Zhang X F, Li W B, Ding J F, Liu Z Q, Zhang H J. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 178: 117832.

[55]
Napper I E, Thompson R C. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2016, 112(1-2): 39.

[56]
Lambert S, Wagner M. Chemosphere, 2016, 161: 510.

[57]
Weinstein J E, Dekle J L, Leads R R, Hunter R A. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2020, 160: 111518.

[58]
Qi Y L, Beriot N, Gort G, Huerta Lwanga E, Gooren H, Yang X M, Geissen V. Environ. Pollut., 2020, 266: 115097.

[59]
Horton A A. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 422: 126885.

[60]
Shruti V C, Kutralam-Muniasamy G. Sci. Total Environ., 2019, 697: 134139.

[61]
Huang D N, Zhang M, Gao F L, Zheng R H, Huang W S, Bo J, Fang C. Asian J. Ecotoxicol., 2023, 18(3): 175.

(黄丹妮, 章敏, 高富龙, 郑榕辉, 黄文树, 薄军, 方超. 生态毒理学报, 2023, 18(3): 175. ).

[62]
Wang J Z, Xu T T, Cheng H D, Xu G B, Yu W Q, Zheng C M, Xu X R, Qiu W H. Mar. Environ. Sci., 2024, 43(2): 186.

(王加珍, 许婷婷, 程昊东, 徐亘博, 於伟琼, 郑春苗, 徐向荣, 裘文慧. 海洋环境科学, 2024, 43(2): 186.).

[63]
Su Y Y, Cheng Z R, Hou Y P, Lin S Y, Gao L, Wang Z Z, Bao R Q, Peng L C. Aquat. Toxicol., 2022, 244: 106097.

[64]
Tang B R, Zhang L X, Salam M, Yang B, He Q, Yang Y C, Li H. Environ. Pollut., 2024, 344: 123347.

[65]
Tamayo-Belda M, Pulido-Reyes G, González-Pleiter M, Martín-Betancor K, Leganés F, Rosal R, Fernández-Piñas F. Chemosphere, 2022, 303: 134966.

[66]
Yoshinaga N, Tateishi A, Kobayashi Y, Kubo T, Miyakawa H, Satoh K, Numata K. Biomacromolecules, 2023, 24(6): 2721.

[67]
An G, Na J, Song J, Jung J. Aquat. Toxicol., 2024, 266: 106790.

[68]
Viel T, Cocca M, Manfra L, Caramiello D, Libralato G, Zupo V, Costantini M. Environ. Pollut., 2023, 334: 122129.

[69]
de Oliveira J P J, Estrela F N, de Lima Rodrigues A S, Guimarães A T B, Rocha T L, Malafaia G. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 404: 124152.

[70]
Luan J L, Zhang S H, Xu Y X, Wen L, Feng X Z. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 2023, 258: 114994.

[71]
Zhang D Y, Xu X L, Lu Y, Guo L. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 928: 172354.

[72]
König Kardgar A, Ghosh D, Sturve J, Agarwal S, Carney Almroth B. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 881: 163425.

[73]
Wen L, Man X T, Luan J L, Zhang S H, Zhao C T, Bao Y H, Liu C Z, Feng X Z. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol., 2024, 284: 109981.

[74]
Duan Z H, Cheng H D, Duan X Y, Zhang H H, Wang Y D, Gong Z Y, Zhang H J, Sun H W, Wang L. J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 429: 128332.

[75]
Duan Z H, Chen Y Z, Dou Y H, Fan H Y, Wang J, Cong J Y, Sun H W, Wang L. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 466: 133604.

[76]
Bao R Q, Cheng Z R, Peng L C, Mehmood T, Gao L, Zhuo S C, Wang L, Su Y Y. Aquat. Toxicol., 2023, 265: 106745.

[77]
Fan P, Yu H, Xi B D, Tan W B. Environ. Int., 2022, 163: 107244.

[78]
Bacha A U R, Nabi I, Zaheer M, Jin W B, Yang L. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 858: 160108.

[79]
Feng S S, Wang H D, Wang Y, Cheng Q G. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 904: 166855.

[80]
Yang C, Gao X H. Sci. Total Environ., 2022, 828: 154579.

[81]
Liwarska-Bizukojc E. Chemosphere, 2022, 289: 133132.

[82]
Li B T, Huang S, Wang H M, Liu M J, Xue S, Tang D, Cheng W L, Fan T L, Yang X M. Environ. Pollut., 2021, 272: 116418.

[83]
Ren X W, Wang L, Tang J C, Sun H W, Giesy J P. Environ. Pollut., 2022, 294: 118516.

[84]
Ding R, Dong Y K, Ouyang Z Z, Zuo X, Zhang Y, Guo X T. Trac Trends Anal. Chem., 2024, 171: 117484.

[85]
Ding W L, Li Z, Qi R M, Jones D L, Liu Q Y, Liu Q, Yan C R. Sci. Total Environ., 2021, 781: 146884.

[86]
Zhao Y Y, Jia H T, Deng H, Xing W Z, Feng D, Li J T, Ge C J, Yu H M, Zhang Y, Chen H Y. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 858: 160092.

[87]
Alaraby M, Abass D, Farre M, Hernández A, Marcos R. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 919: 170592.

[88]
Chagas T Q, da Costa Araújo A P, Malafaia G. Sci. Total Environ., 2024, 957: 177801.

[89]
Wright S L, Kelly F J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51(12): 6634.

[90]
Feng Y D, Tu C, Li R J, Wu D, Yang J, Xia Y K, Peijnenburg W J G M, Luo Y M. Eco Environ. Health, 2023, 2(4): 195.

[91]
Cox K D, Covernton G A, Davies H L, Dower J F, Juanes F, Dudas S E. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 53(12): 7068.

[92]
Zuri G, Karanasiou A, Lacorte S. Environ. Res., 2023, 237: 116966.

[93]
Pelegrini K, Pereira T C B, Maraschin T G, De Souza Teodoro L, De Souza Basso N R, De Galland G L B, Ligabue R A, Bogo M R. Sci. Total Environ., 2023, 878: 162954.

[94]
Deng Y F, Yang P, Tan H L, Shen R Q, Chen D. J. Agric. Food Chem., 2023, 71(49): 19772.

[95]
Yang M T, Wang R R, Wei L S, Liu H, Wang Y T, Tang H W, Liu Q Z, Tang Z. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 2024, 732: 150410.

[96]
Zha H, Han S Y, Tang R Q, Cao D, Chang K, Li L J. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol., 2024, 21: 100428.

[97]
Liang B, Deng Y, Zhong Y, Chen X, Huang Y, Li Z, Huang Z. Adv. Sci., 2024, 2401009.

[98]
Halappanavar S, Mallach G. Curr. Opin. Toxicol., 2021, 28: 52.

[99]
Banaei G, García-Rodríguez A, Tavakolpournegari A, Martín-Pérez J, Villacorta A, Marcos R, Hernández A. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 458: 131899.

[100]
García-Rodríguez A, Gutiérrez J, Villacorta A, Arribas Arranz J, Romero-Andrada I, Lacoma A, Marcos R, Hernández A, Rubio L. J. Hazard. Mater., 2024, 475: 134900.

[101]
Collin-Faure V, Vitipon M, Diemer H, Cianférani S, Darrouzet E, Rabilloud T. Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2024, 11(10): 4102.

[102]
James B D, Medvedev A V, Makarov S S, Nelson R K, Reddy C M, Hahn M E. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng., 2024, 10(8): 5237.

[103]
Zimmermann L, Dombrowski A, Völker C, Wagner M. Environ. Int., 2020, 145: 106066.

[104]
Wang T T, Hosseinzadeh M, Cuccagna A, Alakenova R, Casademunt P, Reyes Rovatti A, López-Rubio A, Porte C. J. Hazard. Mater., 2023, 459: 132123.

[105]
Savva K, Borrell X, Moreno T, Pérez-Pomeda I, Barata C, Llorca M, Farré M. Chemosphere, 2023, 313: 137494.

[106]
Du T T, Yu X, Shao S, Li T, Xu S M, Wu L J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2023, 57(8): 3206.

[107]
Zhang X L, Xia M L, Su X J, Yuan P, Li X K, Zhou C Y, Wan Z P, Zou W. J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 413: 125321.

[108]
Xie M J, Xu P, Zhou W G, Xu X R, Li H X, He W H, Yue W Z, Zhang L, Ding D W, Suo A N. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2022, 179: 113744.

Outlines

/