Physiological responses of Lemna minor to polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Plant Biology
Published
2025-03-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2025.100473
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.03

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Physiological responses of Lemna minor to polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics

Petra Peharec Štefanić, Sandra Vitko, Karla Košpić, Nino Dimitrov et al.
8 citations
Current Plant Biology
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
4.03
article

Physiological responses of Lemna minor to polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate microplastics

Petra Peharec Štefanić, Sandra Vitko, Karla Košpić, Nino Dimitrov, Mirta Tkalec, Biljana Balen, Luka Kobelščak, Ana Matešković
article en
8 citations

Abstract

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.

Current Plant BiologyVol. 42
University of Rijeka (HR), University of Zagreb (HR), Institute of Public Health Bengaluru (IN), Hrvatski zavod za javno zdravstvo (HR)
Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost, European Regional Development Fund
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
4.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.