We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Physiological responses of Lemna minor to polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers exposed duckweed plants to two types of microplastics — polystyrene (PS) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) — and found surprisingly opposite effects: PS microplastics actually promoted plant growth, while PMMA microplastics damaged chloroplasts and stunted growth, showing that plastic type matters greatly for environmental harm.
Due to its economic viability, plastic has become an indispensable material whose mass production continues to increase, raising concerns about its impact on living organisms. Its long persistence in the environment and slow degradation to microplastics (MPs) pose a serious problem, as MPs can penetrate plants and animals and interfere with physiological processes. In this study, the in vitro cultured duckweed Lemna minor was exposed to 10, 50 and 100 mg L −1 polystyrene (PS) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) MPs for 7 days to investigate uptake and effects on growth, photosynthetic performance and oxidative stress parameters. We hypothesized that PS-MPs and PMMA-MPs would have different uptake patterns and effects on the physiology of L. minor , due to their different properties. A pronounced agglomeration of PMMA-MPs in the exposure medium correlated with a lower uptake of PMMA-MPs compared to PS-MPs. However, PMMA-MPs induced severe ultrastructural changes in the chloroplasts and a decrease in chlorophyll a and b content, resulting in reduced plant growth. In contrast, treatments with PS-MPs stimulated growth, especially frond area, probably as a result of increased content of photosynthetic pigments and improved photosynthetic efficiency. Both MP types induced mild oxidative stress, which triggered protective responses, but the activation of antioxidant defense was dependent on the polymer type, as PMMA-MPs slightly increased proline content and superoxide dismutase activity, while PS-MPs induced peroxidase activities. In conclusion, PS-MPs seem to be less harmful as they promote growth and photosynthetic efficiency, whereas PMMA-MPs have negative effects on L. minor physiology by causing structural damage to subcellular parts and inhibiting their function. • PS-MPs and PMMA-MPs had distinct effects on the growth and physiology of L. minor . • PS-MPs were less harmful, promoting growth and photosynthetic efficiency. • PMMA-MPs caused structural damage, negatively impacting growth and physiology. • PS-MPs activated peroxidase activities. • PMMA-MPs only slightly increased proline content and SOD activity.
More Papers Like This
The effects of microplastics on the growth and photosynthesis of Lemna minor
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers exposed duckweed (Lemna minor) to polystyrene (PS) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) microplastics at concentrations of 10, 50, and 100 mg/L and measured effects on growth, photosynthetic yield, pigment content, and RuBisCO protein expression. PMMA-MPs were found to be more harmful than PS-MPs, causing greater reductions in chlorophyll content and stronger suppression of RuBisCO, though neither treatment significantly altered maximum quantum yield of PSII.
Do Polystyrene Nanoplastics Have Similar Effects on Duckweed (Lemna minor L.) at Environmentally Relevant and Observed-Effect Concentrations?
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers compared the effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on duckweed (Lemna minor) at environmentally relevant concentrations versus the higher observed-effect concentrations typically used in studies. The study found that both positively and negatively charged nanoplastics produced different biological responses depending on concentration levels. The findings highlight the importance of testing at environmentally realistic concentrations to accurately assess nanoplastic risks to aquatic plants.
Impact of polyethylene microbeads on the floating freshwater plant duckweed Lemna minor
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers exposed duckweed — a small floating freshwater plant — to polyethylene microbeads from cosmetics and found that the beads adhered to the plant surface and reduced growth at higher concentrations. The study highlights how primary microplastics from consumer products can affect freshwater plants even at relatively low doses.
The Effect of Microplastic (MP) Shape on Adsorption and Physiological Responses of Duckweed (Lemna minor)
AI summary Read the abstract
Scientists tested how different shapes of tiny plastic particles (microplastics) affect duckweed plants in freshwater. They found that irregularly shaped plastic fragments damaged plant roots more than round beads or fibers, while other parts of the plants weren't significantly affected. This matters because duckweed and other water plants are part of the food chain that can eventually lead to humans, and understanding how microplastics harm aquatic life helps us predict potential risks to our water systems and food supply.
Effects of Microplastic Contamination on the Aquatic Plant Lemna minuta (Least Duckweed)
AI summary Read the abstract
Researchers tested the effects of microplastic contamination on the aquatic plant Lemna minuta, commonly known as least duckweed. The study found that exposure to microplastics affected plant growth and caused biochemical changes including altered chlorophyll levels over a 28-day period. The results suggest that microplastics can interfere with freshwater plant health, potentially disrupting aquatic ecosystems.
Research digests by email
When a large batch of papers lands in the Atlas, we read through it and send a short write-up of what stood out.