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. Human Health Effects Remediation Reproductive & Development Sign in to save

[Influence of Microplastics on the Development of Proteus Biofilm].

PubMed 2022 2 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count.
Hui Tao, Hui Tao, Yi-Ting Qi, Duo Yu, Lan Yang, Lan Yang, Ying Gu, Yanhui Li

Summary

Researchers investigated the influence of 1 um polystyrene microplastics on Proteus biofilm development at different formation stages, measuring effects on biofilm biomass, extracellular polymer composition, and extracellular enzyme activity. Results showed that while microplastics affected all developmental stages similarly, their impact decreased as biofilms matured, suggesting early-stage biofilms are more vulnerable to microplastic interference.

Polymers

Currently, research on the effects of microplastics (MPs) in biofilms has mainly been focused on the mature biofilm communities, with a lack of sufficient details on the influence on different development stages of biofilms. Proteus and 1 μm polystyrene microplastics (PS-MPs), which are widely found in the environment, were selected as the research objects to explore the effects of microplastics on biofilms at different developmental stages. In our study, the effects of PS-MPs on biofilm biomass, extracellular polymer composition(EPS), and extracellular enzyme activity were investigated using an exposure test. Our results showed that the effect of PS-MPs on biofilms at different stages was similar, but the effect was significantly reduced with the development of biofilms. Biofilms at different development stages had different sensitivities to microplastics. In the reversible attachment stage, the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of EPS composition, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and extracellular enzyme activity were significantly lower than those in other stages; however, the NOEC of total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity were similar. This may be the result of ROS-mediated protein oxidation, which can be reduced but not completely eliminated by EPS in other stages of biofilm. This indicates that PS-MPs has a low toxic effect on biofilm.

Share this paper