» Articles » PMID: 30276680

Oxidative Stress, Energy Metabolism and Molecular Responses of Earthworms (Eisenia Fetida) Exposed to Low-density Polyethylene Microplastics

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2018 Oct 3
PMID 30276680
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Soils are both a sink and a pathway of plastic wastes, but there is a great lack of knowledge regarding their impacts on soil biota. To tackle the mechanisms of toxicity of these contaminants to soil invertebrates, earthworms (Eisenia fetida Savigny, 1826) were exposed during 28 days to different concentrations of low-density polyethylene microplastics (62, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 mg MPs kg soil) with sizes ranging between 250 and 1000 μm, in an artificial soil. The ecotoxicological responses were evaluated by analysing various oxidative stress biomarkers (catalase, glutathione S-transferase and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances), a biomarker of energy metabolism (lactate dehydrogenase) and overall organism molecular changes by Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) analyses. Significant effects resulting from an unbalanced oxidative stress system, expressed in terms of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances levels were recorded on earthworms exposed at the three highest concentrations tested. Despite that, no significant changes were recorded on the molecular profiles of earthworms by FTIR-ATR. NMR analysis pointed out for differences from the control, only for earthworms exposed to the lowest concentration of MPs. Considering that stress responses are complex, and involve multiple mechanisms, a cluster analysis taking into account all the parameters assessed, clearly identified two groups of earthworms separated by the concentration of 250 mg MPs kg soil, above each meaningful effects were recorded.

Citing Articles

New Insights in Microplastic Cellular Uptake Through a Cell-Based Organotypic Rainbow-Trout () Intestinal Platform.

Verdile N, Cattaneo N, Camin F, Zarantoniello M, Conti F, Cardinaletti G Cells. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39791745 PMC: 11719976. DOI: 10.3390/cells14010044.


Are Biobased Microfibers Less Harmful than Conventional Plastic Microfibers: Evidence from Earthworms.

Courtene-Jones W, De Falco F, Burgevin F, Handy R, Thompson R Environ Sci Technol. 2024; 58(46):20366-20377.

PMID: 39498562 PMC: 11580163. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c05856.


The comparison effect on earthworms between conventional and biodegradable microplastics.

Lai H, Han S, Sun J, Fang Y, Liu P, Zhao H Heliyon. 2024; 10(18):e37308.

PMID: 39309927 PMC: 11415699. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37308.


Different mulch films, consistent results: soil fauna responses to microplastic.

Weltmeyer A, Ross-Nickoll M Environ Monit Assess. 2024; 196(10):943.

PMID: 39289215 PMC: 11408579. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-024-13096-x.


Occurrence, transport, and toxicity of microplastics in tropical food chains: perspectives view and way forward.

Kataria N, Yadav S, Garg V, Rene E, Jiang J, Rose P Environ Geochem Health. 2024; 46(3):98.

PMID: 38393462 DOI: 10.1007/s10653-024-01862-2.


References
1.
Kiyama Y, Miyahara K, Ohshima Y . Active uptake of artificial particles in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. J Exp Biol. 2012; 215(Pt 7):1178-83. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.067199. View

2.
Hamer J, Gutow L, Kohler A, Saborowski R . Fate of microplastics in the marine isopod Idotea emarginata. Environ Sci Technol. 2014; 48(22):13451-8. DOI: 10.1021/es501385y. View

3.
Albani J, Demuynck S, Grumiaux F, Lepretre A . Fluorescence fingerprints of Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei. Photochem Photobiol. 2004; 78(6):599-602. DOI: 10.1562/0031-8655(2003)078<0599:ffoefa>2.0.co;2. View

4.
Peda C, Caccamo L, Fossi M, Gai F, Andaloro F, Genovese L . Intestinal alterations in European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758) exposed to microplastics: Preliminary results. Environ Pollut. 2016; 212:251-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.083. View

5.
Nizzetto L, Futter M, Langaas S . Are Agricultural Soils Dumps for Microplastics of Urban Origin?. Environ Sci Technol. 2016; 50(20):10777-10779. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04140. View