0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Remediation Sign in to save

Microplastic polymer type impacts water infiltration and its own transport in soil

2024 Score: 35 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Qihang Li, Qihang Li, Qihang Li, Anna Bogush Qihang Li, Anna Bogush Qihang Li, Anna Bogush Anna Bogush Anna Bogush Anna Bogush Anna Bogush Anna Bogush Marco Van De Wiel, Anna Bogush Marco Van De Wiel, Marco Van De Wiel, Marco Van De Wiel, Marco Van De Wiel, Pan Wu, Anna Bogush Pan Wu, Pan Wu, Pan Wu, Pan Wu, Pan Wu, Ran Holtzman, Ran Holtzman, Ran Holtzman, Ran Holtzman, Ran Holtzman, Anna Bogush Pan Wu, Anna Bogush

Summary

Researchers conducted laboratory soil column experiments to examine how microplastic polymer type affects both water infiltration rates and the transport of the plastic particles themselves through soil, testing the two most commonly used agricultural microplastic types under controlled hydrological conditions. The study found that polymer type significantly influenced both water flow dynamics and microplastic mobility in soil, with important implications for predicting plastic fate in agricultural and natural terrestrial ecosystems.

Understanding the fate of microplastics (MPs) in soil is one of the most urgent environmental tasks we face. It is also a very challenging one, as there are numerous properties of both MPs and the soil, as well as hydrological and geochemical conditions, that interplay to affect MPs transport. In this study, we conduct laboratory experiments in which two of the most commonly used MPs types in agriculture (polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene (PP)) are leached into an idealized soil analog (glass beads). We find that MPs inhibit water flow, delaying its passage through the sample and making it more tortuous, forcing the flow to occur through preferential pathways (fingers). These effects are more pronounced for PP, which is more hydrophobic, than for PET. The transport of PP is inhibited relative to that of PET, which is attributed to its both its impeding effect on water flow (the driving force), as well as its surface charge which increases its tendency to adsorb onto soil particles, and lower density which curbs downward transport.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper