| Literature DB >> 35873916 |
Zacharias Steinmetz1, Heike Schröder1.
Abstract
Background: Agricultural plastic mulches offer great benefits such as higher yields and lower pesticide use. Yet, plastic mulches may disintegrate over time and fragment into smaller debris. Such plastic debris is expected to remain in the field after removal of the plastic mulch and thus contributes to soil contamination with plastics. Method: To investigate this, we collected soil samples at 0-10 cm and 10-40 cm depth from three fields covered with black mulch film for three consecutive years. Three fields without any reported plastic use served as control. Visual plastic debris > 1 cm (macroplastics) was collected from the soil surface. Mesoplastics between 2 mm and 1 cm were density separated from the sampled soil using saturated NaCl solution and analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Debris ≤ 2 mm (microplastics) was dispersed from 50 g soil using sodium hexametaphosphate solution followed by the aforementioned density separation. The separated polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS) were quantified via solvent-based pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS).Entities:
Keywords: Agriculture; FTIR; Microplastics; Plastic mulching; Py–GC/MS
Year: 2022 PMID: 35873916 PMCID: PMC9306551 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13781
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Figure 1Sampling scheme in the study area (satellite imagery ©2022 TerraMetrics/Google); on the map of Germany, the study area is highlighted in red.
Figure 2Flow chart of the sample preparation steps and subsequent analyses of (A) macroplastics, (B) mesoplastics, and (C) microplastics.
Soil texture and Corg contents at the study sites.
| Site | Texture | Clay (%) | Silt (%) | Sand (%) | Depth (%) | Corg (%) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sandy loam | 25 | 22 | 53 | 0–10 | 1.6 | 7.0 |
| 10–40 | 0.9 | ||||||
| 2 | Silty loam | 27 | 63 | 10 | 0–10 | 1.7 | 6.0 |
| 10–40 | 1.0 | ||||||
| 3 | Silty loam | 30 | 56 | 14 | 0–10 | 0.9 | 6.0 |
| 10–40 | 0.8 | ||||||
| 4 | Silty loam | 30 | 65 | 5 | 0–10 | 1.2 | 6.0 |
| 10–40 | 0.9 | ||||||
| 5 | Clayey sandy loam | 31 | 25 | 44 | 0–10 | 0.9 | 6.0 |
| 10–40 | 0.8 | ||||||
| 6 | Silty clay | 32 | 58 | 10 | 0–10 | 1.0 | 6.5 |
| 10–40 | 1.0 |
Figure 3Mesoplastic counts (2 mm to 1 cm) in mulched soil and non-mulched controls.
Figure 4Photographs of mesoplastics between 2 mm and 1 cm size retrieved from (A) 0–10 cm topsoil and (B) 10–40 cm subsoil.
Figure 5Mean PE, PP, and PS microplastic contents (≤ 2 mm) in fields with and without PE mulching; range bars indicate minimum and maximum values of the three sites studies per treatment.