# Polylactic acid synthesis, biodegradability, conversion to microplastics and toxicity: a review

Wajid Ali, H. Ali, S. Gillani, Philippe Zinck, S. Souissi, S. Gillani

► To cite this version:

Wajid Ali, H. Ali, S. Gillani, Philippe Zinck, S. Souissi, et al., Polylactic acid synthesis, biodegradability, conversion to microplastics and toxicity: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 2023, Environ. Chem. Lett., 21, pp.1761-1786. 10.1007/s10311-023-01564-8. hal-04107119

HAL Id: hal-04107119

https://hal.univ-lille.fr/hal-04107119

Submitted on 26 May 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Polylactic acid synthesis, biodegradability, conversion to microplastics and toxicity: a review

Wajid Ali<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />✉ · Hazrat Ali<fnref n="3" /> · Sayed Gillani<fnref n="4" /> · Philippe Zinck<fnref n="1" /> · Sami Souissi<fnref n="2" />

Received: 31 October 2022 / Accepted: 9 January 2023 / Published online: 25 January 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

## Abstract

Global pollution by plastics derived from petroleum has fostered the development of carbon-neutral, biodegradable bioplastics synthesized from renewable resources such as modern biomass, yet knowledge on the impact of bioplastics on ecosystems is limited. Here we review the polylactic acid plastic with focus on synthesis, biodegradability tuning, environmental conversion to microplastics, and impact on microbes, algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, annelids, mollusk and fish. Polylactic acid is a low weight semi-crystalline bioplastic used in agriculture, medicine, packaging and textile. Polylactic acid is one of the most widely used biopolymers, accounting for 33% of all bioplastics produced in 2021. Although biodegradable *in vivo*, polylactic acid is not completely degradable under natural environmental conditions, notably under aquatic conditions. Polylactic acid disintegrates into microplastics faster than petroleum-based plastics and may pose severe threats to the exposed biota.

**Keywords** Biota · Degradation · Microplastics · Petroleum-based plastics · Polylactic acid · Toxicity

## Introduction

The production of durable plastics started in 1940s (Chia et al. 2021). Plastics became an integral part of human life and as a result a huge amount is being produced every year, with around 370 million tons in 2021 (EuropeanBioplastics 2022). The non-biodegradable character of most petroleum-based plastics in addition to a low rate of recycling,

for example only 9% of the total plastic produced until 2015 has been recycled (Almeshal et al. 2020), are the key factors of its accumulation in the natural environment. Plastic wastes are prone to natural weathering processes including ultraviolet radiations, oxidation, and biodegradation, which result into tiny pieces of 1 µm to 5 mm in size, termed as microplastics (Frias and Nash 2019). The presence of microplastics has been reported in almost all types of environmental media, including the ice blocks of Antarctic region (Kelly et al. 2020; Obbard et al. 2014). Marine organisms accidentally take up microplastics from their ambient environment with food (Matijaković et al. 2022). As a result, the presence of microplastics has been reported in a wide range of organisms, ranging from zooplankton (Thery et al. 2022) to fish (Alomar et al. 2021), followed by their accumulation in the food chain via trophic transfer (Sarker et al. 2022). Consequently, a wide range of implications has been reported in the exposed individuals ranging from physical damage (Eltemsah and Bøhn 2019) to hormonal disruption (Ismail et al. 2021) and even mortality (Eom et al. 2020), suggesting that the impact of petroleum-based plastic on aquatic ecosystems is becoming severe (Nandhini et al. 2022).

Bioplastics, biodegradable and or compostable, may be considered as a relevant alternative to petroleum-based plastics. Polylactic acid is one of the most widely produced

<footnote>✉ Wajid Ali
wajid.ali@univ-lille.fr</footnote>

<footnote>✉ Philippe Zinck
philippe.zinck@univ-lille.fr</footnote>

<footnote>✉ Sami Souissi
sami.souissi@univ-lille.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ CNRS, UMR 8181—UCCS—Unité de Catalyse et Chimie du Solide, Univ. Lille, 59000 Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CNRS, UMR 8187, LOG, Laboratoire d'Océanologie et de Géosciences, Station marine de Wimereux, Univ. Lille, 59000 Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Environmental Chemistry, Ecotoxicology and Applied Ecology Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir Lower 18800, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Institut Catholique d'Arts et Métiers, 6 Rue Auber, 59800 Lille, France</footnote>
biopolymers which constituted 33% of all the bioplastics produced in 2021 (EuropeanBioplastics 2022). This aliphatic polyester is made from renewable resources (Nanda et al. 2022) and is used in agriculture, medicine and medical devices including temporary implants (Shruti and Kutralam-Muniasamy 2019), as well as for packaging, in automotive, and is now emerging for textile applications. The investigation of its degradation in natural environment is thus of great interest. Although polylactic acid is known for its in vivo biodegradable character, its biodegradation in the natural environment, notably in aquatic, is not so easy. Several review papers have summarized the applications, degradation mechanisms, modifications and ecotoxicological evaluation of polylactic acid over the last few years (Ainali et al. 2022; Chamas et al. 2020; Hubbe et al. 2021; Karamanlioglu et al. 2017; Qin et al. 2021; Ribba et al. 2022; Taib et al. 2022; Zaaba and Jaafar 2020). A comprehensive presentation on polylactic acid including the strategies available to promote biodegradability, the synthesis of microplastics and their impact on aquatic biota is still missing. This is the objective of the present contribution.

## Polylactic acid as bioplastic

Polylactic acid is a low weight, in vivo biodegradable and compostable semi-crystalline bio-based polymer, synthesized from natural sources like corn starch, sugarcane or cassava roots (Grigoras 2021). For the very first time polylactic acid was synthesized in 1845 by Théophile-Jules Pelouze (Benninga 1990) and was commercialized in 1990s byCGill and Dow Chemicals. However, polylactic acid and its copolymers were used as biomedical material during 1970s (Masutani and Kimura 2015). Due to its bio-absorbable and biocompatible nature, polylactic acid has been used in various biomedical applications ranging from instant drug

delivery (Hu et al. 2003; Miao et al. 2011) to tissue engineering (Zhang and Ma 2004) (Fig. 1).

Due to its mechanical properties, for example, Young modulus of 1–3 GPa and elongation at break around 6–7% for poly(L-lactide), and biodegradable nature, polylactic acid has also been utilized for short-term use ranging from packing to coating (Garlotta 2001) (Fig. 1), since the mid of 1990s, with the aim to replace petroleum-based plastics. Polylactic acid has a glass transition temperature (T<sub>g</sub>) around 60 °C and is relatively brittle. Improvements are being achieved by means of copolymerization (Meimoun et al. 2021), blending, compounding and additives (Kfoury et al. 2013), which reflect the hopes and interests of both the researchers and public for replacing petroleum-based plastics with the bioplastic, polylactic acid.

## Synthesis of polylactic acid

The precursor of polylactic acid is lactic acid, 2-hydroxy propionic acid, which exists in two stereo isomeric forms (Fig. 2). They are mainly produced by microbial fermentation and/or chemical synthesis. During chemical synthesis, an equal amount of L-lactic acid and D-lactic acid is produced (Juodeikiene et al. 2015), while during fermentation either type of lactic acid is produced depending on the type of bacteria used. It is then subjected to purification process in which a number of techniques are used, ranging from nanofiltration and electrodialysis to reactive distillation (Msuya et al. 2017). Once purified, an oligo(lactic acid) is synthesized by the process of polycondensation, which gives rise to a cyclic dimer, lactide, by depolymerization reaction (Filachione and Costello 1952; Masutani and Kimura 2015) (Fig. 2). L-lactide, D-lactide and meso lactide are obtained, as shown in Fig. 2. Polylactic acid can be synthesized from these monomers either by ring-opening polymerization or

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Polylactic acid has been used as a potential alternative to petroleum-based plastics in many sectors. In agriculture, polylactic acid is used in greenhouses, drip irrigation and as a protective layer against soil erosion. Medical applications of polylactic acid range from surgery to dentistry. It is also used in automotive industry to produce different parts of vehicles. It is also used in increasing amount in packaging to produce cartoons, cups and plastic lined paper bags</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Synthetic route of stereo forms of polylactic acid from biomass. Stereo forms of lactic acid are synthesized from biomass. Oligo(lactic acid) is formed from lactic acid by polycondensation. Oligo(lactic acid) gives rise to different stereo forms of lactide through depolymerization reaction. Polylactide is mainly synthesized by the ring opening polymerization of lactide in the presence of catalyst</figcaption></figure>

polycondensation, catalyzed by metallic and organic catalysts mainly. However, ring-opening polymerization was the first method of polylactic acid synthesis (Taib et al. 2022) and still being used for the manufacturing of polylactic acid on industrial scale. The resultant stereo forms of polylactic acid, poly(L-lactide), poly(D-lactide), and poly(DL-lactide) (Nair et al. 2013), and their properties depend on the stereo isomeric form of lactide and the catalyst used for their synthesis. For example, the resultant polylactic acid can be either semi-crystalline, poly(L-lactide) or poly(L-lactide), or amorphous, poly(DL-lactic acid) (Naser et al. 2021).

## Biobased versus biodegradable/degradable nature of polylactic acid

According to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, biodegradable plastics are macromolecular substances which can be degraded as a result of biological activity, leading to reduction in molecular weight. Not all bioplastics are degradable. For example, biobased polyamides are not degradable (Vardar et al. 2022). The misconception that all bioplastics are biodegradable became the base of their popularity (Reddy et al. 2013).
The biodegradation of polylactic acid depends on several factors including its material properties, first and higher order structure, environmental conditions, ultraviolet radiations, temperature, pH and humidity (Karamanlioglu et al. 2017), catalytic species, microorganisms and/or enzyme (Nampoothiri et al. 2010; Qi et al. 2017). The biodegradation of polylactic acid occurs in two main steps: fragmentation and mineralization. Fragmentation of polylactic acid is achieved by means of hydrolysis which can be biotic or abiotic. For instance, biotic hydrolysis involves microorganisms and/or enzymes, whereas abiotic hydrolysis involves mechanical weathering. The second step, mineralization, is achieved by microbes resulting into CO₂, water and methane (Fig. 3) depending on the presence and/or absence of oxygen in the medium.

Many studies have assessed the biodegradation of polylactic acid and its blends with other polymers. Narancic et al. (2018) studied the biodegradation of polylactic acid and other polymers along with some of their blends using standards of biodegradation. The authors reported that polylactic acid alone or other polylactic acid-based plastics were not degraded in 56 days experiment in a simulated aquatic environment, anaerobic sludge, derived from wastewater treatment plant, under 35 ± 2 °C. The authors concluded that polylactic acid and its blends are similar to non-biodegradable plastics in terms of biodegradation in aquatic environment. Bagheri et al. (2017) studied the degradation of polylactic acid, along with other biopolymers and synthetic

polymers, in artificial freshwater and sea water, in a thermostatic chamber at 25 °C and under fluorescence light of 16 h light and 8 h dark cycle. The authors found that polylactic acid did not show any significant degradation as compared to others during a 400 days experiment. Other studies have also reported very low or negligible degradation rate of polylactic acid in the aquatic environment (Martin et al. 2014; Pinto et al. 2015; Tsuji and Suzuyoshi 2002a).

Similarly, Weinstein et al. (2020) conducted a 32-week experiment in intertidal salt marshes, where samples were submerged at high tide for 6 h and exposed to low tide for approximately 6 h too, and compared the degradation of polylactic acid, as a commercial biobased case study polymer, to conventional petro-based plastics. The conventional petro-based plastics included poly(ethylene terephthalate), high density polyethylene and polystyrene, some of which contain additives to enhance the degradation. The authors reported the formation of biofilms and microplastics, and polylactic acid showed the slowest rate of degradation of all polymers tested. Kliem et al. (2020) proposed that low temperatures along with low bacterial density make the sea water unsuitable for the biodegradation of polylactic acid.

It can be concluded from these results that polylactic acid is having no or very low degradability in the natural environment at room temperature. Consequently, like majority of other petroleum-based plastics, polylactic acid will be fragmented by mechanical weathering and due to uncommon microorganisms for polylactic acid degradation and

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** A huge amount of polylactic acid is produced each year. After its use, a small portion is either recycled or incinerated. The rest of polylactic acid goes to dumping sites where it is prone to environmental degradation to form low molecular weight polymer. The low molecular weight polymer is either degraded by microbes, to form carbon dioxide, water, methane and biomass, or fragmented, to form pieces of less than 5 mm in size termed as microplastics. Microplastics accumulate in phytoplankton and then in zooplankton via ingestion, hence make their way to the aquatic food chain. The prey–predator relationship in aquatic ecosystems makes the microplastics to reach higher trophic levels, including humans</figcaption></figure>
assimilation (Ribba et al. 2022), these fragments will turn to microplastics by the actions of several environmental factors including interaction with biota (Wang et al. 2021), which will have impact on aquatic biota. It should be noted in turn that polylactic acid is a compostable polymer which can be degraded under controlled conditions. In fact, the degradation of polylactic acid requires a high temperature (55–175 °C), which is beyond the limits of the natural environment (Garlotta 2001; Haider et al. 2019).

## Modifications strategies for promoting the biodegradability of polylactic acid

Efforts are being made to modify polylactic acid for long term utilities. Literature survey reveals that blending with other polymers in the presence of eventual compatibilizers and the use of additives, such as plasticizers, have a significant effect on the degradability of polylactic acid as shown in Table 1.

### Plasticizers

Plasticizers are used as additives which increase elongation at break, the stretching of plastic before it breaks, along with reduction in glass transition temperature and elastic modulus. Many studies have reported the use of different additives as plasticizers which promote degradation of polylactic acid. For example, Arrieta et al. (2014b) reported that the use of polyethylene glycol and acetyl-tri-*n*-butyl citrate, as plasticizer, can enhance polylactic acid degradation, where weight loss was higher than 90% after 28 days of incubation under composting conditions. In another example, Gardella et al. (2017) investigated the effects of a dendrimer like structure, a hyperbranched polyglycerol core poly(d-lactide) arms, as a plasticizer on the degradation rate of polylactic acid under composting conditions. The authors reported a faster degradation and increase in hydrophilicity of the polymer, up to about 30%. The authors attributed the faster degradation to increased hydrophilicity of the modified polylactic acid. Similar results were also reported by many other authors including Xie et al. (2014) and Sharma et al. (2021) while investigating the degradation of plasticized polylactic acid.

The degradation of modified polylactic acid depends on the nature of the additive used. In some cases, the use of plasticizer is shown to have very little or no effects on the degradation of polylactic acid. For example, Balart et al. (2018) reported that the use of epoxidized linseed oil, as plasticizer and or compatibilizer, can delay the degradation of polylactic acid. The authors reported that plasticized polylactic acid showed a weight loss of 61% only, while this value for unplasticized polylactic acid was 86%. Likewise, literature review reveals that other additives, when

used as plasticizer, including d-limonene, glucose pentaacetate, sucrose octaacetate and glucose hexanoate esters, are reported to have slight or no effects on polylactic acid in terms of degradation (Fortunati et al. 2014; Nair et al. 2012; Yang and Hakkarainen 2015).

### Blends with hydrophilic polymers

Blending with hydrophilic polymers is another approach for the modification of polylactic acid to improve mechanical properties as well as degradability. As polylactic acid is hydrophobic in nature, therefore blending it with hydrophilic polymers/polysaccharide has been shown to increase its degradability, attributed to an increase in hydrophilic characteristic of the polymer. For example, Claro et al. (2016) have shown that polylactic acid/chitosan and polylactic acid/cellulose acetate blends allow rapid biodegradation as compared to neat polylactic acid. Lv et al. (2017) studied the biodegradation of polylactic acid blended with starch and wood flour for 105 days under ambient environmental conditions and reported an accelerated degradation of polylactic acid. The authors concluded that the degradation of starch created holes in the polylactic acid matrix which facilitated the diffusion of water, leading to an enhanced hydrolysis of polylactic acid.

In another example, Wilfred et al. (2018) investigated the biodegradation of polylactic acid/starch blend in a commercial compost and soil for 14 and 28 days. The authors reported that the degradation rate of polylactic acid/starch blend was higher as compared to neat polylactic acid. These results also reveal a positive correlation of starch content and degradation rate, as proposed by Yamano et al. (2014) that biodegradability is correlated with hydrophilicity. Likewise, a number of studies have shown that blending of polylactic acid with hydrophilic polymers and or polysaccharides can make them more susceptible to degradation as shown in Table 1.

### Blends with hydrophobic polymers

Chuayjuljit et al. (2017) studied the degradation of polylactic acid blended with poly(butylene succinate) in natural environment, buried in soil under ambient environmental temperature for 90 days. The authors reported faster degradation of blended polylactic acid and attributed it to the faster degradation of poly(butylene succinate). Similar results were also reported for blending of polylactic acid with other hydrophobic polymers, for example poly(β-hydroxybutyrate) (Bonartsev et al. 2012) and poly(vinyl acetate) (Haque et al. 2017).

However, not necessarily the blending of polylactic acid with hydrophobic polymers could contribute to their degradability profile. For example, Luzi et al. (2016) reported a
<table><caption>**Table 1** Effects of modifications in polylactic acid on its degradability</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Additives</th><th>System</th><th>Percentage of additive</th><th>Degradation conditions</th><th>Sample size</th><th>Effect on degradation rate</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Compatibilizer for polymer blend and composite</td><td>Poly(e-caprolactone)</td><td>Polylactic acid based composites</td><td>5% by weight</td><td>20 °C under lake water, soil and compost for 28 days</td><td>10 mm<sup>2</sup></td><td>Degraded faster in lake water and compost</td><td>Olewnik-Kruszkowska et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Glycerol</td><td>Wood filled polylactic acid composite/ starch blend</td><td>30% by weight in thermoplastic starch</td><td>Thermogravimetric analysis under nitrogen environment</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Thermal degradation decreased with increase in thermoplastic starch in the blend</td><td>Sun et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Polymethylmethacrylate</td><td>Polylactic acid/wood flour composite</td><td>20% by weight</td><td>In water bath with pH=12.5 under 50 °C for 10 days</td><td>150×10×4 mm<sup>3</sup></td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Wan and Zhang (2018) and Wan et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly(ethylene glycol)</td><td>Polylactic acid/ nanocrystalline cellulose bio-nanocomposites</td><td>10–16% by weight</td><td>37 °C in buffer solution of pH=7.4 for up to 60 days</td><td>10×35 mm<sup>2</sup></td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Zhang et al. (2019a, b)</td></tr><tr><td>Epoxidized or maleinized cottonseed oil derivatives</td><td>Polylactic acid/ poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) binary blends</td><td>1 and 7.5% by weight</td><td>Buried in compost 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21 and 23 days</td><td>25×25 mm<sup>2</sup></td><td>No effects on the degradation</td><td>Carbonell-Verdu et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Wood flour</td><td>Polylactic acid/ poly(butylene succinate) blend</td><td>5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 parts per hundred</td><td>In Soil, 20 cm from the surface, for 30–90 days under ambient temperature</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Higher degradation rate as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Chuayjuljit et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Cellulose nanocrysals, Surfactant modified cellulose nanocrystals</td><td>Polylactic acid/ poly(butylene succinate) blend</td><td>1 or 3% by weight</td><td>Buried in organic substrate with 58 °C temperature and 50% of humidity for 1–17 days</td><td>15×15×0.03 mm<sup>3</sup></td><td>Degraded slower as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Luzi et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Copolymer of Ethylene vinyl acetate and glycidylmethacrylate</td><td>Polylactic acid/ cellulose fibers binary composite</td><td>10% by weight</td><td>58 °C under aerobic conditions in the presence of compost inoculum</td><td>20×20×2 mm<sup>3</sup></td><td>Degraded faster</td><td>Fortunati et al. (2013a)</td></tr><tr><td>Maleic-anhydride-grafted poly(i-lactide) and maleic-anhydride-grafted poly(butylene succinate)</td><td>Polylactic acid/ poly(butylene succinate) blend</td><td>1–4% by weight</td><td>In test chamber under 50 °C humidity of 50% for 19.8 days</td><td>3×3 cm<sup>2</sup></td><td>Degradation rate was double in the presence of compatibilizer as compared to the blend without compatibilizer</td><td>Persenaire et al. (2014)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Additives</th><th>System</th><th>Percentage of additive</th><th>Degradation conditions</th><th>Sample size</th><th>Effect on degradation rate</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Plasticizer</td><td>Triallyl isocyanurate</td><td>Polylactic acid/ligin blend</td><td>3 parts per hundred</td><td>In phosphate-buffer solution with pH of 7.1 under 58 °C for 7, 14, 21 and 28 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degradation rate was higher in first 2 weeks as compared to neat polylactic acid Degradation rate was lower in the last 2 weeks as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Kumar et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Polyethylene glycol, triethyl citrate and lotader</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>3, 5 and 10% by weight</td><td>Buried at a depth of 80 mm in a novel compost with temperature of 40 °C and humidity of 70% for 20, 40 and 60 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>All the samples degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Sharma et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Epoxidized linseed oil</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>7.5–22.5% by weight</td><td>58 °C and humidity of 55% under compost conditions</td><td>20×20×1 mm³</td><td>Degraded slowly as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Balart et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Hyperbranched polyglycerol core poly(b-lactide) arms</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>3.75% by weight</td><td>37 °C under aerobic conditions in the presence of proteinase K for 120 h</td><td>15×15 mm²</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Gardella et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Cellulose nanocrystals, Surfactant modified cellulose nanocrystals</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>1 or 3% by weight</td><td>Buried in organic substrate with 58 °C temperature and 50% of humidity for 1–17 days</td><td>15×15×0.03 mm³</td><td>Degraded slower as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Luzi et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Glucose pentaacetate, Sucrose octaacetate and Glucose hexanoate esters</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10 or 20% by weight</td><td>37 and 60 °C in water for 1 day to 3 weeks</td><td>10 mm</td><td>Degradation rate was not affected as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Yang and Hakkarainen (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Acetyl (tributyl citrate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>15% by weight</td><td>58 °C under compost conditions for 1–14 days</td><td>15×15 mm²</td><td>Disintegration rate was faster compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Arrieta et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Phenol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>6 or 8% by weight</td><td>58 °C in aerobic medium under compost conditions for 7–57 days</td><td>15×5×2 mm³</td><td>Degradation was little faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Ramos et al. (2014)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Additives</th><th>System</th><th>Percentage of additive</th><th>Degradation conditions</th><th>Sample size</th><th>Effect on degradation rate</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Hydrophobic polymers</td><td>Poly (ethylene glycol)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>5–15% by weight</td><td>37 °C in alkaline solution for up to 100 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Xie et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly (ethylene glycol) and acetyl-tri-n-butyl citrate and D-limonene</td><td>Polylactic acid, poly-lactic acid/polyhydroxybutyrate blend</td><td>15% by weight</td><td>50 °C under compost conditions for 21 and 35 days</td><td>30 × 30 mm²</td><td>Disintegrated faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Arrieta et al. (2014a, 2014b)</td></tr><tr><td>D-limonene</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>15, 20 or 25% by weight</td><td>58 °C, 50% of humidity and in aerobic medium under compost conditions</td><td>15 × 15 × 0.05 mm³</td><td>Disintegrated slowly as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Fortunati et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Gum arabic (GA), poly(ethylene glycol)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>50% by weight</td><td>30 °C for 7 days in the presence of soil bacterium (Lentzea waywayandensis)</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degradation was faster in the case of gum arabic, while slower in the case of poly (ethylene glycol)</td><td>Nair et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Polysaccharides</td><td>Starch</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10 and 20% by weight</td><td>Thermogravimetric analysis under nitrogen environment</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Thermal degradation temperature decreased with increase in starch in the blend</td><td>Sun et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Starch</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>90, 75, 50, 25 and 10% by weight</td><td>45 °C and 55 °C with 40% of humidity under soil and compost</td><td>3 × 1 cm² and thickness about 2 mm</td><td>Degradation rate was directly proportional to starch content in the blend</td><td>Wilfred et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Starch, wood flour</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>9, 15 and 21% by weight</td><td>Buried in soil 15 cm deep under ambient environmental condition</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degradation rate was higher as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>LV et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Chitosan</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10, 20, and 30% by weight</td><td>25 °C and a humidity of 50% for 48 h</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Exhibited decrease in onset and degradation temperature</td><td>Claro et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Poly(vinyl acetate) functionalized with glycidyl methacrylate</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>33% by weight</td><td>58 °C, 50% humidity and aerobic conditions with compost inoculum, for 40 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to other blends but slower as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Haque et al. (2017)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Additives</th><th>System</th><th>Percentage of additive</th><th>Degradation conditions</th><th>Sample size</th><th>Effect on degradation rate</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Composites fillers</td><td>Poly(butylene succinate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>30% by weight</td><td>In soil, 20 cm from the surface, for 30–90 days under ambient temperature</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Higher degradation rate as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Chuayjuljit et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly(butylene succinate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10 and 20% by weight</td><td>Buried in organic substrate with 58 °C temperature and 50% of humidity for 1–17 days</td><td>15×15×0.03 mm³</td><td>Degraded slower as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Luzi et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly(β-hydroxybutyrate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>25% by weight</td><td>58 °C under compost conditions for 1–14 days</td><td>15 mm×15 mm</td><td>Disintegration rate was similar to that of neat polylactic acid</td><td>Arrieta et al. (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly(β-hydroxybutyrate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>25% by weight</td><td>58 °C, and in aerobic medium under compost conditions for 35 days</td><td>30×30×0.2 mm³</td><td>Disintegrated slowly as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Arrieta et al. (2014a)</td></tr><tr><td>Poly(β-hydroxybutyrate)</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>50% by weight</td><td>37 and 70 °C in phosphate buffer of pH=7.4 for 91 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Bonartsev et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>Stereo-copolymers of polylactic acid</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>1-Lactide content of 75–95%</td><td>37 °C with proteinase K in buffer solution of pH=8.6, in a rotatory shaker</td><td>1×1 cm²</td><td>Degradation of amorphous region was higher</td><td>MacDonald et al. (1996)</td></tr><tr><td>Stereo-copolymers of polylactic acid</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>1-Lactide content of 50–99%</td><td>37 °C with proteinase K in buffer solution of pH=8.6, in a rotatory shaker of 100 rpm</td><td>25×10 mm²</td><td>Degradation of amorphous region was higher</td><td>Reeve et al. (1994)</td></tr><tr><td>Woodfiber, Wollastonite</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>30 parts by weight per hundred of resin</td><td>2 and 4 moths under ambient condition in compost</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat and blended polylactic acid, wood fibre composite degraded faster as compared to Wollastonite</td><td>Chaiwutthinan et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Sisal fibers</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>20 and 40% by weight</td><td>Buried in soil with 30% moisture for 98 days</td><td>30×30×1 mm³</td><td>Degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Wu (2012)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Additives</th><th>System</th><th>Percentage of additive</th><th>Degradation conditions</th><th>Sample size</th><th>Effect on degradation rate</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Halloysite nanotubes (HNT), Ramie fabric</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>5% by weight in the case of HNT and 40 ± 3% in the case of ramie fabric</td><td>Buried at a depth of 80 mm in a novel compost with temperature of 40 °C and humidity of 70% for 20, 40 and 60 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Both the samples degraded faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Sharma et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Okra fibres</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10, 20 and 30% by weight</td><td>50 °C and in aerobic medium under modified compost with 50% humidity for 10, 20, 30 and 40 days</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Initial disintegration rate of composite (10 and 20% by weight) was higher as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Fortunati et al. (2013b)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Olive husk flour</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>20% by weight</td><td>Incubated under 37 °C in the presence of <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> for 6 weeks</td><td>1 × 1 cm<sup>2</sup></td><td>Disintegrated faster as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Hammiche et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Benzylated pulp and pulping liquor</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>10, 20 and 30% by weight</td><td>Buried in agricultural rich soil with humidity of 50–60% under 20–25 °C for 180 days</td><td>2 × 2 × 0.1 cm<sup>3</sup></td><td>Considerable biodegradation as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Zandi et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Paddy straw powder</td><td>Polylactic acid</td><td>5, 10, 15 and 20% by weight</td><td>Buried in natural soil for 6 months under ambient environmental condition</td><td>Not applicable</td><td>Degradation rate was higher in the blends as compared to neat polylactic acid</td><td>Yaacob et al. (2016)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
decrease in the degradation of polylactic acid blended with poly(butylene succinate), compared to neat polylactic acid, attributed to higher crystallinity induced by poly(butylene succinate). These contradictions in the results, as compared to Chuayjuljit et al. (2017), could be attributed to the difference in the percentage of poly(butylene succinate) content in the blend and composting conditions as well. Furthermore, in some cases the blending of polylactic acid with hydrophobic polymers is shown to have varying effects on the degradation of polylactic acid, as shown in Table 1.

## Composites

Compounding of polylactic acid with other materials, having significantly different characteristics, either synthetically or artificially to obtain composites is another approach to improve the degradation rate of polylactic acid. Many studies have reported significant improvements in the degradation rate of the resultant polylactic acid composites. For example, Yaacob et al. (2016) investigated the degradation of paddy straw powder/polylactic acid composite and reported an improved degradation rate of polylactic acid in natural soil burial experiment. The authors attributed the improved degradation rate to the hydrophilic nature of paddy straw. In another work, Zandi et al. (2019) investigated the benzylated pulp (rich in cellulose)/polylactic acid and pumping liquor (rich in lignin)/polylactic acid composites in an indoor soil biodegradation experiment. The authors reported considerable biodegradation of polylactic acid composites, attributed to lower glass transition temperature and higher water absorption, in addition to larger biodegradation of filler. Similar results were also reported by many other authors as shown in Table 1.

## Compatibilizers for polymer blend and composite

Many studies have reported that the use of compatibilizers can affect the degradation rate of polylactic acid in blends and composites. For example, Fortunati et al. (2013a) investigated a blend of polylactic acid with ethylene-vinyl acetate-glycidylmethacrylate copolymer, on the degradation rate of polylactic acid. The authors reported a faster degradation of the blend, 71% weight loss, under aerobic conditions in the presence of compost inoculum at 58 °C, as compared to neat polylactic acid. The authors attributed it to the faster diffusion of water in to the polymer mixture. Persenaire et al. (2014) also studied the biodegradation of polylactic acid/poly(butylene succinate) blends in the presence of a compatibilizer, maleic-anhydride-grafted polylactic acid and maleic-anhydride-grafted poly(butylene succinate), under composting conditions, in a test chamber under 50 °C and humidity of 50% for 475 h. The authors reported an enhanced molar mass loss in the presence of compatibilizer

as compared to the polylactic acid/poly(butylene succinate) blend. Similar results were also reported by many other studies, including Olewnik-Kruszkowska et al. (2020), Sun et al. (2021), Wan and Zhang (2018) and Wan et al. (2019), while investigating the degradation of polylactic acid after the addition of compatibilizers, as shown in Table 1.

In contrast to these results, a few studies have shown that the use of compatibilizer can also negatively affect the degradation rate of polylactic acid. For example, Carbonell-Verdu et al. (2018) reported that the use of epoxidized cotton seed oil derivatives, as compatibilizer in polylactic acid/poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) binary blends, reduced the disintegration ability of polylactic acid. The authors attributed the reduced disintegration rate of the blend to the lower disintegration rate of poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate). However, it is worthy to note that the compatibilizer do improve some of the mechanical properties of the blend as reported by Luzi et al. (2016).

## Conversion of polylactic acid into microplastics

The term microplastic was introduced to the scientific literature by Thompson et al. (2004), and defined it as microscopic plastic pieces, while investigating its accumulation in sediments and water of European territory. This definition was further refined by Arthur et al. (2009) as plastic fragments less than 5 mm in size. In terms of size, this is the most used definition in the literature with controversy on lower size limit. However, many authors have set different lower size limits ranging from 1 to 20 µm. To address this issue, Frias and Nash (2019) defined microplastic as any synthetic polymeric particle of 1 µm to 5 mm in size, irrespective of shape and source of origin (primary or secondary).

As discussed earlier, polylactic acid is having no or very low biodegradability in the natural environment; as a result it will remain for a long time in the environment. Like petroleum-based plastics, many biotic and abiotic factors will lead to its fragmentation and consequently microplastics will be generated from it. For example, Lambert and Wagner (2016) reported the release of microscopic size particles into the surrounding solution while investigating the biodegradation of polylactic acid along with polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polypropylene in the weathering chamber. The authors also reported that polylactic acid generated significantly higher rate of particles, $11.6 \times 10^6$ particles per milliliter, as compared to other polymers, where polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene and polypropylene generated $8.0 \times 10^6$, $9.4 \times 10^6$, $9.9 \times 10^6$, and $9.8 \times 10^6$ particles per milliliter, respectively. This could be attributed to the fact that bioplastics are more susceptible to degradation factors as compared to petroleum-based plastics
and consequently bioplastics are having high degradation rate (Napper and Thompson 2019; Wei et al. 2021), leading to the generation of huge number of microplastics.

Niu et al. (2022) assessed the disintegration of polylactic acid and its capacity to form microplastics using sea water and accelerated ultraviolet radiations for 18 months. The authors reported that polylactic acid forms almost 18 times fewer microplastics as compared to the petroleum-based plastic, polypropylene. However, the capacity of polylactic acid to form microplastics was double as compared to polypropylene in control. In contrast to Lambert and Wagner (2016), the number of generated microplastics were very less. The possible reason might be difference in the experimental conditions, for example, temperature which is known to have impact on the degradation of polylactic acid, and chemistry of polylactic acid used in both the studies. In a recent study, Le Gall et al. (2022) studied the formation of microplastics from self-reinforced polylactic acid (homo-composite of two comingled grades of polylactic acid fibers) using artificial sea water and accelerated ultraviolet radiations for 18 months. The authors reported the formation of microplastics in both, control (without ultraviolet radiations exposure and kept in dark) and experimental group. However, the experimental group had double number of microplastics (17 ± 18) as compared to control (9 ± 5).

Many recent research studies including Shruti and Kutralam-Muniasamy (2019), Wei et al. (2021) and Wei et al. (2022) show that other bioplastics also give rise to microplastics under laboratory conditions. The findings of these studies indicate that bioplastics including polylactic acid can give rise to microplastics, similar to petroleum-based plastics. Consequently, very recently, a few studies have identified polylactic acid microplastics in sediments (Bancin et al. 2019), marine ecosystems (Kazour et al. 2019) and wastewater treatment plant (Granberg et al. 2019), which further makes it an alarming issue. Yagi et al. (2012) reported that polylactic acid microplastics degradation rate is much slower as compared to large fragments, which reflects their persistent nature similar to petroleum-based microplastics. Polylactic acid microplastics are also resistant to degradation under normal environmental conditions and will persist in ecosystems, where they will pose potential threat to the natural environment and biota.

## Environmental factors affecting formation of microplastics from polylactic acid

The degradation of polylactic acid requires both abiotic and biotic processes therefore the term environmental degradation was suggested for the overall mechanisms of degradation (Nampoothiri et al. 2010). Both types of processes are crucial for the degradation of polylactic acid, as there is

evidence that polylactic acid can be degraded by biotic factors, for example enzymes, after decrease in its molecular mass by an abiotic mechanism (Stloukal et al. 2015). Like for all other plastics, there are several factors which affect the degradation of polylactic acid and lead to the formation of microplastics.

## Ultraviolet radiations

Ultraviolet radiations can cause changes in the polymer microstructure by different pathways including chain scission and/or cross linking (Kijchavengkul et al. 2010). Considering the latter, polymers exposed to ultraviolet radiations were found to have reduced biodegradation because of higher molecular weight which in turn decreases its assimilation by microorganisms (Kijchavengkul et al. 2008). Jeon and Kim (2013) reported that exposure of polylactic acid to ultraviolet radiations for a long period reduced its biodegradation by microorganisms which suggested the formation of poorly assimilated solids or microplastics. However, Stloukal et al. (2012) reported that exposure of polylactic acid to ultraviolet radiations leads to chain scissions and specific surface area is more important factor than photo-oxidation for degradation. It is very clear from the above discussion that ultraviolet radiations can affect the degradation of polylactic acid and lead to the formation of microplastics.

## Temperature

Temperature is another factor which can influence the degradation of polylactic acid. It is shown by many studies that an increase in temperature can accelerate polylactic acid degradation. The possible reason is that high temperature enhances water's affinity for the polymer and increases hydrolysis rate (Goto et al. 2020), resulting in a faster degradation of the polymer. The hydrolysis of polylactic acid starts from its amorphous region (Growney Kalaf et al. 2017), which allows water to diffuse more readily as compared to the crystalline region. Consequently, with the passage of time, portion of crystalline region increases and the rate of degradation decreases (Siparsky et al. 1998). The degradation of polylactic acid was investigated by Le Duigou et al. (2009) considering 20 and 40 °C temperature for 3 months. The authors reported slight change in the molecular weight of polylactic acid at 20 °C and 48% decrease at 40 °C after 3 months.

Lyu et al. (2007) reported significant variations in abiotic hydrolysis of polylactic acid considering a range of temperature from 37 to 90 °C. Similarly, Karamanlioglu et al. (2017) reported that the polylactic acid chains become more flexible at or above glass transition temperature, therefore rate of polylactic acid degradation is higher above this temperature which accelerates both hydrolysis and attachment
of microbes. The attachment of microbes to polylactic acid could be very rare in the aquatic environment, as two studies have reported that there is no evidence of microbial degradation after 10 weeks of polylactic acid immersion in static and dynamic seawater (Tsuji and Suzuyoshi 2002a, 2002b). The degraded portion might be that of the amorphous region of polylactic acid and the crystalline region will persist which could lead to the formation of microplastics.

## pH

Hydrolysis of polylactic acid in acidic and basic media occurs by bulk erosion and surface erosion, respectively (Rodriguez et al. 2016). There is evidence that pH can also influence the degradation of polylactic acid. The degradation of polylactic acid has been reported under both, acidic and basic media driven by different mechanisms of depolymerization. For example, chain end scission hydrolyzes polylactic acid under acidic medium where protonation activates hydroxyl group, resulting in the depolymerization of polylactic acid to lactic acid (Codari et al. 2012; Lazzari et al. 2014). It should be noted that the rate of degradation was independent of chain length due to high hydrophilicity of chain end and hydrophobicity of polymer chain.

On the other hand, back biting reaction leads to random chain scission under basic medium, which depolymerizes polylactic acid into lactide followed by hydrolysis (de Jong et al. 2001; van Nostrum et al. 2004), as shown in Fig. 4. During hydrolysis, hydroxide ions catalyzed the cleavage of ester. At higher pH, the concentration of hydroxide ions is higher and therefore enhances the degradation of polylactic acid (Cam et al. 1995; Tsuji and Ikada 1998). However, the complete degradation of polylactic acid in natural environment takes time and the resulting disintegrated fragments or microplastics will aid in microplastic pollution before mineralization. Additionally, the reduction in the size of microplastics makes them likely of ingestion by organisms (Naqash et al. 2020). The question is whether these microplastics will pose the same threat to the ecosystems as petroleum-based microplastics or they will have different effects?

## Impact of polylactic acid microplastics on aquatic biota

Recently some studies have shown that polylactic acid microplastics have a prominent impact on marine biota. Due to their compostable nature, polylactic acid microplastics cannot be degraded and are assimilated as all marine biota do not have the specific enzymes responsible for their degradation. In case of petroleum-based microplastics, it is well known that ingestion of these contaminants can cause a number of adverse effects. However, in the case of polylactic

acid microplastics, very recently scientific community has shown an interest in their ecotoxicological evaluation. Very few studies have been conducted on the impact of polylactic acid microplastics on limited number of aquatic species which revealed that in some cases these contaminants can negatively affect the exposed individuals analogous to petroleum-based microplastics. The literature survey reveals that Green et al. (2016) is pioneer in assessing the toxic effects of polylactic acid microplastics on aquatic biota. After this, many research studies focused on the ecotoxicological evaluation of polylactic acid microplastics using a range of experimental model species (Table 2).

## Microbial communities

Sediment microbial communities consist of large number of the earth's biodiversity and which play a key role in biogeochemical cycling of nutrients (Vincent et al. 2021) and ecological purification of pollutants (John et al. 2022). The presence of microplastics in the environment provides a new habitat to these microbes (McCormick et al. 2014), but on the other hand, the degradation of these polymers can produce toxic substances which will have negative effects on these microbes (Kong et al. 2018). A few species of bacteria will be benefited but the others will be negatively affected (Li et al. 2020), as different species of bacteria respond differently to the presence of microplastics (Wang et al. 2020). The impact of petroleum-based microplastics on microbial communities is well studied. However, studies focusing on the impact of polylactic acid microplastics on microbial communities are scarce.

Seeley et al. (2020) have conducted a 2-week microcosm experiment to investigate the effects of petroleum-based and bio-based microplastics on composition and function of sedimentary microbial communities. They reported a significant alteration in microbial communities exposed to petroleum-based microplastics. Surprisingly, polylactic acid microplastics were found to promote nitrification and denitrification. Based on the results, the authors suggested that the microorganisms might have utilized the microplastics as organic carbon for the energy which facilitated these phenomena. However, degradation and assimilation of polylactic acid microplastics in 2 weeks have not been reported in the literature.

## Algae

Microalgae are the primary producer of aquatic ecosystems which play an important role in their functioning (Casado et al. 2013). Being a primary producer, microalgae account for 50% of net production (Barbosa 2009), and therefore, any alteration in microalgae population can have serious effects on food webs. Many studies have been carried out to
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Mechanism of polylactic acid degradation. **a** Back biting reaction, where polylactic acid is depolymerized into lactide followed by hydrolysis. **b** Chain end scission under acidic environment, where polylactic acid</figcaption></figure>

is depolymerized into lactide by the activation of hydroxyl group through protonation. Scheme is adapted from (c) and (d) [de Jong et al. (2001), used with permission from Elsevier]
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** (continued)</figcaption></figure>

investigate the impact of petroleum-based microplastics on
several parameters of microalgae, including growth (Long
et al. 2017), morphological changes (Mao et al. 2018), chlo-
rophyll content (Prata et al. 2018), photosynthesis (Zhang
et al. 2017) and gene expression (Lagarde et al. 2016).
The results of all these studies reveal that petroleum-based
microplastics have deleterious effects on microalgae ranging
from individual to population level.

The impact of polylactic acid microplastics on microal-
gae has also been investigated. Su et al. (2022) investigated
the effects of petroleum-based microplastics and bio-based
microplastics including polylactic acid on marine alga *Chlo-
rella vulgaris*. The authors reported that both types of micro-
plastics inhibited the growth of microalgae. However, poly-
lactic acid microplastics were reported to have severe effects
on growth of algae with highest inhibition rate of 47.95%,
as compared to other petroleum-based and bio-based micro-
plastics. The authors attributed these effects to the physi-
ochemical properties and chemical changes of microplastics.
The authors also reported that microplastics can stimulate
pigments content (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carot-
enoid), attributed to the cellular defense against stress. These
findings are very interesting in two domains. Firstly, in the
context of adaptation and or defense mechanisms against
microplastics pollution, secondly, in understanding the fact
that polylactic acid microplastics appear to be more toxic as
compared to petroleum-based microplastics.

Phytoplankton community

Being primary producers, phytoplankton plays a key role
in maintaining aquatic ecosystems. Due to their key role in
food chains/webs, there is a serious concern about the impact
of microplastics on phytoplankton (Koenigstein 2020). Any
alteration or threat to the primary producers will have sig-
nificant effects on the food chains/webs and consequently

on the entire ecosystems, therefore, assessing the impact of
emerging pollutants on primary producers is crucial. Litera-
ture survey revealed that petroleum-based microplastics have
deleterious effects on various parameters of phytoplankton
including photosynthetic capacity and growth (Sánchez-
Fortún et al. 2021).

Studies on the impact of polylactic acid microplastics on
phytoplankton are scare. Only a few studies have assessed
their impact on phytoplankton. For example, Yokota and
Mehlrose (2020) have assessed the impact of polylactic acid
microplastics, originated from body wash scrub, on natural
phytoplankton communities in a 7-days incubation experi-
ment conducted in temperate mesotrophic lake. The authors
reported that polylactic acid microplastics eliminated crypto-
phytes and increased chrysophytes, resulting in the alteration
of taxonomic composition of the phytoplankton in the meso-
cosms. They suggested that chrysophytes contain a protec-
tive siliceous loricae against the polylactic acid microplas-
tics whereas cryptophytes do not have any such protection
and thereby got affected by the polylactic acid microplastics.

Zooplankton

Zooplanktons are primary consumers and located at the
base of food chains/webs, thereby channeling nutrients and
energy from the primary producers to higher trophic levels.
Most researchers investigating the effects of microplastics
on aquatic biota have focused on the primary consumers. As
compared to other species, zooplanktons are more prone to
microplastics and therefore documented as potential micro-
plastics consumers (Cole and Galloway 2015). Microplastics
act as analogues of zooplankton prey (Gambardella et al.
2017) and can have negative impact on different ecologi-
cal processes. Recently, many studies have reported adverse
effects of petroleum-based microplastics on a range of zoo-
plankton species. The results of those studies reveal that
<table><caption>**Table 2** Effects of polylactic acid microplastics on aquatic biota</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Model species</th><th>Concentration</th><th>Size range</th><th>Duration</th><th>Effects</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Algae</td><td><i>Chlorella vulgaris</i></td><td>100 mg/L</td><td>57.41 µm</td><td>11 days</td><td>Inhibited the growth of algae. Microplastics stimulated pigment contents. Effects were due to physiochemical properties and chemical changes of microplastics</td><td>Su et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Microbes</td><td>Microbial communities</td><td>0.5% by weight</td><td>53–300 µm</td><td>7–16 days</td><td>No effects on microbes. Increased nitrification and denitrification</td><td>Seeley et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Phytoplankton</td><td>Chrysophytes and Cryptophytes</td><td>67 mg/L</td><td>–</td><td>7 days</td><td>Increased chrysophytes and eliminated cryptophytes</td><td>Yokota and Mehlrose (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Zooplankton</td><td><i>Daphnia magna</i></td><td>10, 50, 100 and 500 mg/L</td><td>&lt;59 µm</td><td>21 days</td><td>Reduced the survival up to 40% at 500 mg/L. Reduced the mean body length and reproductive outputs</td><td>Zimmermann et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Artemia franciscana (larvae), <i>Aurelia</i> species (ephyrae)</td><td>1, 10 and 100 mg/L</td><td>&lt;500 µm</td><td>24 h</td><td>Microplastics were internalized by both the species. Reduced pulsation in <i>Aurelia</i> species at all the concentrations. No effects on the immobility at each concentration</td><td>Di Giannantonio et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Annelids</td><td><i>Lumbricus variegatus</i></td><td>1–8.4% dry weight of sediments</td><td>≤150 µm</td><td>128 days</td><td>Chemicals associated with plastic were the driver of toxicity. Survival rate reduced. Microplastics layered on the sediment surface affected less than that mixed with sediments</td><td>Klein et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Arenicola marina</td><td>0.02–2% by weight of wet sediments</td><td>1.4–707 µm</td><td>31 days</td><td>At all the concentrations feeding was decreased and at higher concentration microalgae mass was reduced. Ammonia concentration was reduced in pore water</td><td>Green et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Polychaetes and oligochaetes</td><td>0.0025 and 0.025 mg/L</td><td>0.6–363 µm</td><td>50 days</td><td>Ammonia concentration in pore water and biomass of cyanobacteria decreased in addition to effects on infauna invertebrate assemblage, with significantly less polychaetes and more oligochaetes</td><td>Green et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Mollusks</td><td><i>OsREA edulis</i> and associated macrafauna</td><td>0.8 and 80 mg/L</td><td>0.6–363 µm</td><td>60 days</td><td>Minimal effects on <i>OsREA edulis</i> but richness of benthic species decreased. In higher concentration the total number of organisms was 1.2 and 1.5 times less as compared to control</td><td>Green (2016)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Model species</th><th>Concentration</th><th>Size range</th><th>Duration</th><th>Effects</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ostrea edulis and Mytilus edulis</td><td>0.0025 and 0.025 mg/L</td><td>0.6–363 µm</td><td>50 days</td><td>At higher concentration filtration by Mytilus edulis was decreased, while no effects on associated fauna at both concentrations. Filtration by Ostrea edulis was increased at both the concentrations</td><td>Green et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Mytilus edulis</td><td>0.025 mg/L</td><td>0.6–363 µm</td><td>52 days</td><td>Alteration in immunological profile of hemolymph. No adverse effects on the attachment strength of Mytilus edulis</td><td>Green et al. (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>Microcosmus exasperates</td><td>1 and or 10 particles per day</td><td>200–500 µm</td><td>28 days</td><td>Accumulation rate of PLA microplastics was comparable to petroleum-based plastic, PET. Rate of fertilization was reduced</td><td>Anderson and Shenkar (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Mytilus edulis</td><td>0.01 and 0.1 mg/L</td><td>0.8–10 µm</td><td>8 days</td><td>No effects on oxidative stress, neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity</td><td>Khalid et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Fish</td><td>2.5–5 mg/L</td><td>2.34±0.07 µm</td><td>30 days</td><td>PLA accumulated in carcass, gills, brain, and liver tissues. Increased acetylcholinesterase activity and REDOX imbalance leads to cholinergic changes. Neither anxiety like behavior nor locomotor damages. In shoal behavioral changes</td><td>Chagas et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Danio rerio</td><td>3–9 mg/L</td><td>&lt;150 µm</td><td>5 days</td><td>Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity. Induced anxiety. Reduced swimming distance and speed</td><td>de Oliveira et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Danio rerio</td><td>0.1, 1, 10 and 25 mg/L</td><td>5–50 µm</td><td>7 days</td><td>Aged PLA bioaccumulation was higher which inhibited skeletal development</td><td>Zhang et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Danio rerio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Pristine PLA had higher efflux and detoxification as compared to aged PLA</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Danio rerio</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Apoptosis, fission inhibition, depolymerization and mitochondrial structural damages triggered by oxidative stress</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Model species</th><th>Concentration</th><th>Size range</th><th>Duration</th><th>Effects</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>Danio rerio</i></td><td>17.5 mg/L</td><td>135.35 ± 37.12 µm</td><td>15 days</td><td>PLA microplastics were actively ingested and abundance was 170 times in the intestines as compared to PET microplastics. Damaged gastrointestinal tract and induced changes in the microbial diversity of gut. Promoted microbiota linked with energy metabolism, cellular processes and fish diseases</td><td>Duan et al. (2022)</td></tr></tbody></table>

petroleum-based microplastics have adverse effects on survival rate and reproduction (Yu et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2019a), feeding capacity and selectivity (Cole et al. 2019; Coppock et al. 2019) and behavior (Suwaki et al. 2020). However, studies investigating the effects of polylactic acid microplastics on zooplankton are scarce and only a few studies are available.

Zimmermann et al. (2020) investigated that how polylactic acid microplastics affected the survival, reproduction, and growth of *Daphnia magna* in a 21-days experiment. They found that polylactic acid microplastics cause the mortality of 60% individuals exposed to 500 mg/L, while in control the mortality was 5%. The authors also reported decrease in reproductive output and body length in the exposed individuals, induced by the microplastics themselves rather than leachates or additives. Similarly, very recently Di Gianantonio et al. (2022) studied the effects of polylactic acid microplastics on uptake of microplastics, immobility, and behavior of two zooplankton species, the crustacean *Artemia franciscana* and the cnidarian *Aurelia* species (common jellyfish) in a 24 h experiment. The authors reported polylactic acid microplastics in the digestive system of *A. franciscana* and in the gelatinous tissue of *Aurelia* species exposed to 100 mg/L, with no effects on the immobility of both the species. However, significant alterations were reported in the swimming behavior (pulsation) of *Aurelia* species at all the exposure concentrations (1, 10 and 100 mg/L), attributed to the direct toxicity of polylactic acid microplastics. It is worthy to note that the concentration of microplastics used in majority of the ecotoxicological studies, to evaluate their potential effects on the exposed organisms, are much higher as compared to their concentrations found in the natural environment.

## Annelids

Annelids are invertebrates which play an important role in benthic ecosystems by serving as a link from primary producers to higher trophic levels and in the cycling of minerals (Rafia and Ashok 2014). They are the dominant invertebrates of the deep sea and mostly occupy sediments. Recent studies reported that petroleum-based microplastics can have deleterious effects on various parameters of annelids which include decrease in food intake (Wright et al. 2013), impairment of immune system, physical stress and even death (Browne et al. 2013), leading to a drastic impact on ecological processes (Green et al. 2016). To the best of our knowledge, only three studies have assessed the negative effects of polylactic acid microplastics on annelids. Klein et al. (2021) investigated the impact of polylactic acid microplastics (mixed and or layered on sediment surface) on

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
freshwater worms (*Lumbricus variegatus*) under labora-
tory conditions. The authors reported a significant reduction
in the survival of the worms exposed to microplastics mixed
with the sediments. However, they attributed the toxicity to
the associated chemicals rather than to the polymer.

Similarly, Green et al. (2016) assessed the effects of poly-
lactic acid and petroleum-based microplastics on lugworms
(Arenicola marina) using concentrations of 0.02, 0.20 and
2% (wet sediment weight) in a 31-days mesocosm experi-
ment with focus on health, biological activity and nitrogen
cycling, in addition to the primary productivity of the sedi-
ments. The authors reported a significant impact of both
types of microplastics on the health and behavior of the
exposed individuals, as well as reduction in the primary
productivity of the sediments they inhabited. Polylactic acid
microplastics exposure not only reduced the feeding activity
of the exposed individuals but also reduced the biomass of
the algae on the surface of sediments. They also found that
polylactic acid microplastics reduced the concentration of
ammonia in pore water, which might be due to the potential
of carbonyl and hydroxyl groups of polylactic acid to adsorb
cations.

In another study, Green et al. (2017), while investigating
the ecological impacts of polylactic acid and petroleum-
based microplastics, high-density polyethylene, on the
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, found a difference
in faunal invertebrate assemblages in the exposed groups,
with less polychaetes and more oligochaetes, highlighting
the potential of polylactic acid microplastics to affect eco-
system. These results are quite interesting in the context of
species-specific response to microplastics (Bai et al. 2021)
or other contaminants, as both the species were exposed
to the same types and concentrations of microplastics but
showed completely different responses.

Mollusks

Mollusks are a diverse group of filter feeders which can be
found in a variety of aquatic habitats. They provide ecologi-
cal services to a number of organisms ranging from habitat
to food (Fernández-Pérez et al. 2018). Being filter feed-
ers, mollusks can accumulate and transfer microplastics to
higher trophic levels, which will have detrimental effects on
their consumers including humans. Therefore, many eco-
toxicological studies have used mollusks as bioindicators
of pollution (Capillo et al. 2018). However, there are only a
few studies available on the impact of polylactic acid micro-
plastics on mollusks. Green et al. (2017) studied the ecologi-
cal impacts of polylactic acid and petroleum-based micro-
plastics on the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of
bivalve-dominated European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) and
blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) habitats in outdoor 50-days
mesocosms experiment, using two different concentrations

of 2.5 and 25 µg/L for each type of microplastics. The
authors reported a significant reduction in filtration by *M. edulis* (exposed to 25 µg/L), while no effects were observed
on ecosystem functioning or the associated assemblages of
invertebrates. On the other hand, the authors reported a sig-
nificant increase in filtration by *O. edulis* after exposure to
2.5 and 25 µg/L and decrease in the pore water ammonium
and biomass of benthic cyanobacteria.

Khalid et al. (2021) also studied the effects of polylactic acid microplastics on blue mussels (*M. edulis*) using two different concentrations, 10 and 100 µg/L, in an 8-days experiment with biochemical endpoints. The authors found no significant effects of polylactic acid microplastics on *M. edulis* in terms of oxidative stress (catalase, glutathione-S-transferase, and superoxide dismutase activities), neurotoxicity (acetylcholinesterase), and immunotoxicity (lysosomal membrane stability and acid phosphatase activity). In contrast to these results, Green et al. (2019) found a significant alteration in the immunological profile of haemolymph of *Mytilus edulis* exposed to polylactic acid microplastics in a 52-days mesocosms experiment. However, the authors found no adverse effects of polylactic acid microplastics on the attachment strength of the exposed individuals.

Green (2016) investigated that how polylactic acid and petroleum-based microplastics at low and high concentrations (0.8 and 80 µg/L) affect the health and biological functioning of European flat oysters (*Ostrea edulis*) along with the impact on structure of associated macro faunal assemblages in a 60-days mesocosm experiment. They reported minimal effects on the exposed individuals, but the associated macro faunal assemblages were significantly altered which were ~ 1.2 and 1.5 times reduced as compared to the control. For instance, the biomass of *Scrobicularia plana* (pepperly furrow shell clam), the abundance of juvenile *Littorina sp.* (periwinkles) and *Idotea balthica* (an isopod) were decreased 1.5, 2.0 and 8.0 times in groups exposed to either type of microplastics compared to the control.

Beside the mussels, other filter feeder organisms were
also used for the ecotoxicological evaluation of microplas-
tics. For example, Anderson and Shenkar (2021) investigated
the impact of polyethylene terephthalate and polylactic acid
microplastics on the biological and ecological features of a
solitary ascidian (*Microcosmus exasperatus*). The authors
reported that both polylactic acid and petroleum-based
microplastics had similar impact on the exposed individu-
als; for example, both types of microplastics reduced the
fertilization rates in the exposed individuals.

Fish

Fish are a good source of unsaturated fatty acids and pro-
teins; therefore, their consumption is recommended in
human diet (Ali et al. 2017). Therefore, assessment of
microplastics and its consequent impact on fish is of major environmental importance. Many ecotoxicological studies have used fish as bioindicator of water quality and ecosystem health. Fish have the potential to accumulate and magnify pollutants which may have potential impacts on their consumers including humans. Many studies have reported the ingestion and accumulation of petroleum-based microplastics in a range of fish species, while studies on polylactic acid microplastics are very few.

Recently, Chagas et al. (2021) studied the bioaccumulation of polylactic acid microplastics, at a concentration of 2.5 and 5 mg/L, in adult zebrafish and its consequent impact on behavioral, biochemical, and morphological parameters in a 30-days experiment. The authors reported the accumulation of microplastics in the liver, brain, gills, and carcass of the exposed group in addition to behavioral and morphological changes. The reported behavioral and biochemical changes were shoals predictive of co-specific social interaction and an anti-predator defense response defect, attributed to cholinergic changes inferred by an increase in the activity of acetylcholinesterase and redox imbalance whereas the morphological changes were alteration In the pigmentation pattern. However, in contrast to de Oliveira et al. (2021), no locomotor damages or anxiety-like behavior was observed in the exposed individuals. The possible reason might be difference in the life stages of the test organism as early life stages are more sensitive to different contaminants.

Most studies, while investigating the effects of various contaminants on aquatic organisms, have focused on early life stages of fish, for example larvae and embryo (Mu et al. 2022), because of their sensitivity to different contaminants (Schweizer et al. 2018), which are critical on individual and population health's point of view. For instance, zebrafish (Danio rerio) has been widely used as a biological model and/or as a representative of fish group by many researchers to investigate the toxicological impact of microplastics. de Oliveira et al. (2021) investigated the effects of polylactic acid microplastics (3 and 9 mg/L) on zebrafish larvae in a 5-days exposure experiment with behavioral and biochemical endpoints. The authors reported a decrease in the swimming speed and distance of the exposed individuals in open field test. The authors attributed these outcomes as a consequent impact of microplastics on fish locomotor and exploration activities. They also reported anxiety like behavior and accumulation of microplastics, which inhibited the activity of acetylcholinesterase leading to the reinforcement of neurotoxic action in the exposed group.

Similarly, another study also focused on the impact of polylactic acid microplastics (virgin and degraded) on zebrafish larvae (Zhang et al. 2021). They found a slower efflux and detoxification of degraded polylactic acid, mediated by ABC transporters and P450 enzymes, leading to increase in bioaccumulation of microplastics and thereby inhibiting

the skeletal development of larvae. They also pointed the higher toxicity of degraded polylactic acid microplastics by identification of crucial mechanisms, for example, mitochondrial structural damage by oxidative stress, apoptosis, depolarization, and fission inhibition. However, no effects were reported on the hatching rate of larvae when exposed to both types of polylactic acid microplastics. The authors attributed these outcomes to the fact that the size of microplastics was larger as compared to the chorionic pore canals and the resistance of the chorionic barrier to polylactic acid microplastics.

Very recently, Duan et al. (2022) compared the accumulation and toxicity of polylactic acid and poly(ethylene terephthalate) microplastics using zebrafish (Danio rerio) as a model organism. The authors reported 170 times higher polylactic acid microplastics in the fish as compared to poly(ethylene terephthalate) microplastics resulting in intestinal epithelial tract damage followed by affecting the diversity of intestinal microbiota. The authors attributed these results to the depolymerization of polylactic acid in the digestive tract of fish, which decreased the intestinal pH and changed the carbon source structure. These results are quite interesting in understanding the toxicity of polylactic acid microplastics. These findings strongly support the concept that polylactic acid microplastics will have severe effects, similar to petroleum-based plastics, on the exposed individuals.

## Conclusion

Due to the persistence and non-biodegradability of most petroleum-based plastics, efforts have been made to develop ecofriendly and environmentally safe substitutes. Polylactic acid is considered as a potential substitute of petroleum-based plastics. A comprehensive literature review shows that polylactic acid is compostable rather than biodegradable in the natural environment, leading to the formation of microplastics. Recent research has clearly identified that microplastics originating from polylactic acid are emerging environmental contaminants similar to microplastics from petroleum-based plastics. They are severely toxic to aquatic biota and might be a threat to human population as well through the food chain.

**Acknowledgements** The authors are thankful to Program for Early-Stage Researchers in Lille (PEARL), coordinated by the Foundation I-SITE ULNE, for the funding under the project 'Assessing the toxicity of plastic fragments on zooplankton ecology via video tracking and behavioral analysis' TOPAZ. Sami SOUISSI acknowledges the French CNRS delegation program providing him one sabbatical semester in 2022–2023. The authors are also grateful to the Editor for his valuable comments on the earlier versions of the manuscript, which really helped to substantially improve the quality of the manuscript.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
## Declarations

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Ainali NM, Kalaronis D, Evgenidou E, Kyzas GZ, Bobori DC, Kaloyianni M, Yang X, Bikiaris DN, Lambropoulou DA (2022) Do poly(lactic acid) microplastics instigate a threat? A perception for their dynamic towards environmental pollution and toxicity. Sci Total Environ 832:155014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155014

Ali H, Ali W, Ullah K, Akbar F, Ahrar S, Ullah I, Ahmad I, Ahmad A, Ilahi I, Sajad MA (2017) Bioaccumulation of Cu and Zn in *Schizothorax plagiostomus* and *Mastacembelus armatus* from river Swat, river Panjkora and river Barandu in Malakand Division, Pakistan. Pak J Zool 49:1555–1561. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.5.1555.1561

Almeshal I, Tayeh BA, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, Mustafa Mohamed A, Alaskar A (2020) Use of recycled plastic as fine aggregate in cementitious composites: a review. Constr Build Mater 253:119146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119146

Alomar C, Sanz-Martín M, Compa M, Rios-Fuster B, Álvarez E, Ripolles V, Valencia JM, Deudero S (2021) Microplastic ingestion in reared aquaculture fish: biological responses to low-density polyethylene controlled diets in *Sparus aurata*. Environ Pollut 280:116960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116960

Anderson G, Shenkar N (2021) Potential effects of biodegradable single-use items in the sea: polylactic acid (PLA) and solitary ascidians. Environ Pollut 268:115364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115364

Arrieta MP, López J, Hernández A, Rayón E (2014a) Ternary PLA–PHB–Limonene blends intended for biodegradable food packaging applications. Eur Polym J 50:255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.11.009

Arrieta MP, López J, Rayón E, Jiménez A (2014b) Disintegrability under composting conditions of plasticized PLA–PHB blends. Polym Degrad Stab 108:307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.01.034

Arrieta MP, Fortunati E, Dominici F, López J, Kenny JM (2015) Bio-nanocomposite films based on plasticized PLA–PHB/cellulose nanocrystal blends. Carbohydr Polym 121:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.12.056

Arthur C, Baker JE, Bamford HA (2009) Proceedings of the international research workshop on the occurrence, effects, and fate of microplastic marine debris, September 9–11, 2008. University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA

Bagheri AR, Laforsch C, Greiner A, Agarwal S (2017) Fate of so-called biodegradable polymers in seawater and freshwater. Glob Chall 1: A1700048. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700048

Bai Z, Wang N, Wang M (2021) Effects of microplastics on marine copepods. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 217:112243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112243

Balart JF, Montanes N, Fombuena V, Boronat T, Sánchez-Nacher L (2018) Disintegration in compost conditions and water uptake of green composites from poly(lactic acid) and hazelnut shell flour. J Polym Environ 26:701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-017-0988-3

Bancin LJ, Walther BA, Lee Y-C, Kunz A (2019) Two-dimensional distribution and abundance of micro- and mesoplastic pollution in the surface sediment of Xialiao Beach, New Taipei City, Taiwan. Mar Pollut Bull 140:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.028

Barbosa AB (2009) Dynamics of living phytoplankton: implications for paleoenvironmental reconstructions. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 5:012001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1307/5/1/012001

Benninga H (1990) A history of lactic acid making: a chapter in the history of biotechnology, vol 11. Springer, Berlin

Bonartsev AP, Boskhomodgiev AP, Iordanskii AL, Bonartseva GA, Rebrov AV, Makhina TK, Myshkina VL, Yakovlev SA, Filatova EA, Ivanov EA, Bagrov DV, Zaikov GE (2012) Hydrolytic degradation of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate), polylactide and their derivatives: kinetics, crystallinity, and surface morphology. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 556:288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15421406.2012.635982

Browne MA, Niven Stewart J, Galloway Tamara S, Rowland Steve J, Thompson Richard C (2013) Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Curr Biol 23:2388–2392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012

Cam D, Hyon S, Ikada Y (1995) Degradation of high molecular weight poly(l-lactide) in alkaline medium. Biomaterials 16:833–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(95)94144-A

Capillo G, Silvestro S, Sanfilippo M, Fiorino E, Giangrosso G, Ferrantelli V, Vazzana I, Faggio C (2018) Assessment of electrolytes and metals profile of the Faro Lake (Capo Peloro Lagoon, Sicily, Italy) and its impact on *Mytilus galloprovincialis*. Chem Biodivers 15:1800044. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201800044

Carbonell-Verdu A, Ferri J, Dominici F, Boronat T, Sanchez-Nacher L, Balart R, Torre L (2018) Manufacturing and compatibilization of PLA/PBAT binary blends by cottonseed oil-based derivatives. Express Polym Lett 12:808–823. https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2018.69

Casado MP, Macken A, Byrne HJ (2013) Ecotoxicological assessment of silica and polystyrene nanoparticles assessed by a multitrophic test battery. Environ Int 51:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.11.001

Chagas TQ, Araújo APC, Malafaia G (2021) Biomicroplastics versus conventional microplastics: an insight on the toxicity of these polymers in dragonfly larvae. Sci Total Environ 761:143231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143231

Chaiwutthinan P, Chuayjuljit S, Srasomsub S, Boonmahitthisud A (2019) Composites of poly(lactic acid)/poly(butylene adipate-coterephthalate) blend with wood fiber and wollastonite: physical properties, morphology, and biodegradability. J Appl Polym Sci 136:47543. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.47543

Chamas A, Moon H, Zheng J, Qiu Y, Tabassum T, Jang JH, Abu-Omar M, Scott SL, Suh S (2020) Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 8:3494–3511. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635

Chia RW, Lee J-Y, Kim H, Jang J (2021) Microplastic pollution in soil and groundwater: a review. Environ Chem Lett 19:4211–4224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01297-6
Chuayjuljit S, Wongwaiwattanakul C, Chaiwutthinan P, Prasassaranakich P (2017) Biodegradable poly(lactic acid)/poly(butylene succinate)/wood flour composites: physical and morphological properties. Polym Compos 38:2841–2851. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.23886

Claro PIC, Neto ARS, Bibbo ACC, Mattoso LHC, Bastos MSR, Mar-concini JM (2016) Biodegradable blends with potential use in packaging: a comparison of PLA/chitosan and PLA/cellulose acetate films. J Polym Environ 24:363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0785-4

Codari F, Lazzari S, Soos M, Storti G, Morbidelli M, Moscatelli D (2012) Kinetics of the hydrolytic degradation of poly(lactic acid). Polym Degrad Stab 97:2460–2466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.06.026

Cole M, Galloway TS (2015) Ingestion of nanoplastics and micro-plastics by Pacific oyster larvae. Environ Sci Technol 49:14625–14632. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04099

Cole M, Coppock R, Lindeque PK, Altin D, Reed S, Pond DW, Sørensen L, Galloway TS, Booth AM (2019) Effects of nylon microplastic on feeding, lipid accumulation, and moulting in a coldwater copepod. Environ Sci Technol 53:7075–7082. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01853

Coppock RL, Galloway TS, Cole M, Fileman ES, Queirós AM, Lindeque PK (2019) Microplastics alter feeding selectivity and faecal density in the copepod, *Calanus helgolandicus*. Sci Total Environment 687:780–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.009

de Jong SJ, Arias ER, Rijkers DTS, van Nostrum CF, Kettenes-van den Bosch JJ, Hennink WE (2001) New insights into the hydrolytic degradation of poly(lactic acid): participation of the alcohol terminus. Polymer 42:2795–2802. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-3861(00)00646-7

de Oliveira JPJ, Estrela FN, Rodrigues ASL, Guimarães ATB, Rocha TL, Malafaia G (2021) Behavioral and biochemical consequences of *Danio rerio* larvae exposure to polylactic acid bioplastic. J Hazard Mater 404:124152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124152

Di Giannantonio M, Gambardella C, Miroglio R, Costa E, Sbrana F, Smerieri M, Carraro G, Utzeri R, Faimali M, Garaventa F (2022) Ecotoxicity of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) and polylactic acid (PLA) microplastics in marine zooplankton. Toxics 10:479. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10080479

Duan Z, Cheng H, Duan X, Zhang H, Wang Y, Gong Z, Zhang H, Sun H, Wang L (2022) Diet preference of zebrafish (*Danio rerio*) for bio-based polylactic acid microplastics and induced intestinal damage and microbiota dysbiosis. J Hazard Mater 429:128332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128332

Eltemsah YS, Böhn T (2019) Acute and chronic effects of polystyrene microplastics on juvenile and adult *Daphnia magna*. Environ Pollut 254:112919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.087

Eom H-J, Nam S-E, Rhee J-S (2020) Polystyrene microplastics induce mortality through acute cell stress and inhibition of cholinergic activity in a brine shrimp. Mol Cell Toxicol 16:233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13273-020-00088-4

EuropeanBioplastics (2022) Market—European bioplastics. european-bioplastics.org. Accessed July 2022

Fernández-Pérez J, Nantón A, Arias-Pérez A, Freire R, Martínez-Patiño D, Méndez J (2018) Mitochondrial DNA analyses of *Donax trunculus* (Mollusca: Bivalvia) population structure in the Iberian Peninsula, a bivalve with high commercial importance. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 28:1139–1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2929

Filachione E, Costello E (1952) Lactic esters by reaction of ammonium lactate with alcohols. Ind Eng Chem 44:2189–2191

Fortunati E, Puglia D, Kenny JM, Minhaz-Ul Haque M, Pracella M (2013a) Effect of ethylene-co-vinyl acetate-glycidylmethacrylate and cellulose microfibers on the thermal, rheological

and biodegradation properties of poly(lactic acid) based systems. Polym Degrad Stab 98:2742–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.10.007

Fortunati E, Puglia D, Monti M, Santulli C, Maniruzzaman M, Foresti ML, Vazquez A, Kenny JM (2013b) Okra (*Abelmoschus escu lentus*) fibre based PLA composites: mechanical behaviour and biodegradation. J Polym Environ 21:726–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-013-0571-5

Fortunati E, Luzi F, Puglia D, Dominici F, Santulli C, Kenny JM, Torre L (2014) Investigation of thermo-mechanical, chemical and degradative properties of PLA-limonene films reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals extracted from *Phormium tenax* leaves. Eur Polym J 56:77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.03.030

Frias JPGL, Nash R (2019) Microplastics: finding a consensus on the definition. Mar Pollut Bull 138:145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.022

Gambardella C, Morgana S, Ferrando S, Bramini M, Piazza V, Costa E, Garaventa F, Faimali M (2017) Effects of polystyrene microbeads in marine planktonic crustaceans. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 145:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.036

Gardella L, Forouharshad M, Pastorino L, Monticelli O (2017) Hyberbranched PDLA-polyglycerol: a novel additive for tuning PLLA electrospun fiber degradation and properties. Eur Polym J 91:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2017.03.054

Garlotta D (2001) A literature review of poly(lactic acid). J Polym Environ 9:63–84. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020200822435

Goto T, Kishita M, Sun Y, Sako T, Okajima I (2020) Degradation of polylactic acid using sub-critical water for compost. Polymers 12:2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12112434

Granberg M, von Friesen LW, Bach L, Collard F, Gabrielsen GW, Strand J (2019) Anthropogenic microlitter in wastewater and marine samples from Ny-Ålesund, Barentsburg and Signehamna, Svalbard

Green DS (2016) Effects of microplastics on European flat oysters, *Ostrea edulis* and their associated benthic communities. Environ Pollut 216:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.043

Green DS, Boots B, Sigwart J, Jiang S, Rocha C (2016) Effects of conventional and biodegradable microplastics on a marine ecosystem engineer (*Arenicola marina*) and sediment nutrient cycling. Environ Pollut 208:426–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.010

Green DS, Boots B, O'Connor NE, Thompson R (2017) Microplastics affect the ecological functioning of an important biogenic habitat. Environ Sci Technol 51:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04496

Green DS, Colgan TJ, Thompson RC, Carolan JC (2019) Exposure to microplastics reduces attachment strength and alters the haemolymph proteome of blue mussels (*Mytilus edulis*). Environ Pollut 246:423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.017

Grigoras AG (2021) Natural and synthetic polymeric antimicrobials with quaternary ammonium moieties: a review. Environ Chem Lett 19:3009–3022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01215-w

Growney Kalaf EA, Hixon KR, Kadakia PU, Dunn AJ, Sell SA (2017) Electrospun biomaterials for dermal regeneration. In: Uyar T, Kny E (eds) Electrospun materials for tissue engineering and biomedical applications. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, pp 179–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101022-8.00005-3

Haider TP, Völker C, Kramm J, Landfester K, Wurm FR (2019) Plastics of the future? The impact of biodegradable polymers on the environment and on society. Angew Chem Int Ed 58:50–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201805766
Hammiche D, Boukerrou A, Azzeddine B, Guermazi N, Budtova T (2019) Characterization of polylactic acid green composites and its biodegradation in a bacterial environment. Int J Polym Anal Charact 24:236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1023666X.2019.1567083

Haque MM-U, Puglia D, Fortunati E, Pracella M (2017) Effect of reactive functionalization on properties and degradability of poly(lactic acid)/poly(vinyl acetate) nanocomposites with cellulose nanocrystals. React Funct Polym 110:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2016.11.003

Hu Y, Jiang X, Ding Y, Zhang L, Yang C, Zhang J, Chen J, Yang Y (2003) Preparation and drug release behaviors of nimodipine-loaded poly(caprolactone)–poly(ethylene oxide)–polylactide amphiphilic copolymer nanoparticles. Biomaterials 24:2395–2404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00021-8

Hubbe MA, Lavoine N, Lucia LA, Dou C (2021) Formulating bio-plastic composites for biodegradability, recycling, and performance: a review. BioResources 16:2021–2083

Ismail RF, Saleh NE, Sayed AE-DH (2021) Impacts of micro-plastics on reproductive performance of male tilapia (*Oreo-chromis niloticus*) pre-fed on *Amphora coffeaeformis*. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:68732–68744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14984-2

Jeon HJ, Kim MN (2013) Biodegradation of poly(L-lactide) (PLA) exposed to UV irradiation by a mesophilic bacterium. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 85:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.08.013

John J, Nandhini AR, Velayudhaperumal Chellam P, Sillanpää M (2022) Microplastics in mangroves and coral reef ecosystems: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20:397–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01326-4

Juodeikiene G, Vidmantiene D, Basinskiene L, Cernauskas D, Bartk-iene E, Cizeikiene D (2015) Green metrics for sustainability of biobased lactic acid from starchy biomass vs chemical synthesis. Catal Today 239:11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2014.05.039

Karamanlioglu M, Preziosi R, Robson GD (2017) Abiotic and biotic environmental degradation of the bioplastic polymer poly(lactic acid): a review. Polym Degrad Stab 137:122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2017.01.009

Kazour M, Jemaa S, Issa C, Khalaf G, Amara R (2019) Microplastics pollution along the Lebanese coast (Eastern Mediterranean Basin): occurrence in surface water, sediments and biota samples. Sci Total Environ 696:133933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133933

Kelly A, Lannuzel D, Rodemann T, Meiners KM, Auman HJ (2020) Microplastic contamination in east Antarctic sea ice. Mar Pollut Bull 154:111130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111130

Kfoury G, Raquez J-M, Hassouna F, Odent J, Toniazzo V, Ruch D, Dubois P (2013) Recent advances in high performance poly(lactide): from “green” plasticization to super-tough materials via (reactive) compounding. Front Chem 1:32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2013.00032

Khalid A, Zalouk-Vergnoux A, Benali S, Mincheva R, Raquez J-M, Bertrand S, Poirier L (2021) Are bio-based and biodegradable microplastics impacting for blue mussel (*Mytilus edulis*)? Mar Pollut Bull 167:112295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112295

Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Ngouajio M, Fernandez RT (2008) Assessment of aliphatic-aromatic copolyester biodegradable mulch films. Part I: field study. Chemosphere 71:942–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.10.074

Kijchavengkul T, Auras R, Rubino M, Alvarado E, Camacho Montero JR, Rosales JM (2010) Atmospheric and soil degradation of

aliphatic-aromatic polyester films. Polym Degrad Stab 95:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.11.048

Klein K, Piana T, Lauschke T, Schweyen P, Dierkes G, Ternes T, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Oehlmann J (2021) Chemicals associated with biodegradable microplastic drive the toxicity to the freshwater oligochaete *Lumbriculus variegatus*. Aquat Toxicol 231:105723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2020.105723

Kliem S, Kreutzbruck M, Bonten C (2020) Review on the biological degradation of polymers in various environments. Materials 13:4586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13204586

Koenigstein S (2020) Arctic marine ecosystems, climate change impacts, and governance responses: an integrated perspective from the Barents Sea. In: Pongrácz E, Pavlov V, Hänninen N (eds) Arctic marine sustainability: arctic maritime businesses and the resilience of the marine environment. Springer, Cham, pp 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28404-6_3

Kong X, Jin D, Jin S, Wang Z, Yin H, Xu M, Deng Y (2018) Responses of bacterial community to dibutyl phthalate pollution in a soil-vegetable ecosystem. J Hazard Mater 353:142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.04.015

Kumar A, Tumu VR, Ray Chowdhury S, Ramana Reddy SVS (2019) A green physical approach to compatibilize a bio-based poly (lactic acid)/lignin blend for better mechanical, thermal and degradation properties. Int J Biol Macromol 121:588–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.057

Lagarde F, Olivier O, Zanella M, Daniel P, Hiard S, Caruso A (2016) Microplastic interactions with freshwater microalgae: Hetero-aggregation and changes in plastic density appear strongly dependent on polymer type. Environ Pollut 215:331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.006

Lambert S, Wagner M (2016) Formation of microscopic particles during the degradation of different polymers. Chemosphere 161:510–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.07.042

Lazzari S, Codari F, Storti G, Morbidelli M, Moscatelli D (2014) Modeling the pH-dependent PLA oligomer degradation kinetics. Polym Degrad Stab 110:80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.08.012

Le Duigou A, Davies P, Bailey C (2009) Seawater ageing of flax/poly(lactic acid) biocomposites. Polym Degrad Stab 94:1151–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.03.025

Le Gall M, Niu Z, Curto M, Catarino AI, Demeyer E, Jiang C, Dhakal H, Everaert G, Davies P (2022) Behaviour of a self-reinforced polylactic acid (SRPLA) in seawater. Polym Test 111:107619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107619

Li C, Gan Y, Dong J, Fang J, Chen H, Quan Q, Liu J (2020) Impact of microplastics on microbial community in sediments of the Huangjinxia reservoir—water source of a water diversion project in western China. Chemosphere 253:126740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126740

Long M, Paul-Pont I, Hégaret H, Moriceau B, Lambert C, Huvet A, Soudant P (2017) Interactions between polystyrene microplastics and marine phytoplankton lead to species-specific hetero-aggregation. Environ Pollut 228:454–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.047

Luzi F, Fortunati E, Jiménez A, Puglia D, Pezzolla D, Gigliotti G, Kenny JM, Chiralt A, Torre L (2016) Production and characterization of PLA_PBS biodegradable blends reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals extracted from hemp fibres. Ind Crops Prod 93:276–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.045

Lv S, Zhang Y, Gu J, Tan H (2017) Biodegradation behavior and modelling of soil burial effect on degradation rate of PLA blended with starch and wood flour. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 159:800–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.08.056
Lyu SJ, Loy B, Lind D, Hobot C, Sparer R, Untereker D (2007) Kinetics and time–temperature equivalence of polymer degradation. *Biomacromol* 8:2301–2310. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm070313n

MacDonald RT, McCarthy SP, Gross RA (1996) Enzymatic degradability of poly(lactide): effects of chain stereochemistry and material crystallinity. *Macromolecules* 29:7356–7361. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma960513j

Mao Y, Ai H, Chen Y, Zhang Z, Zeng P, Kang L, Li W, Gu W, He Q, Li H (2018) Phytoplankton response to polystyrene microplastics: perspective from an entire growth period. *Chemosphere* 208:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.170

Martin RT, Camargo LP, Miller SA (2014) Marine-degradable polylactic acid. *Green Chem* 16:1768–1773. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3GC42604A

Masutani K, Kimura Y (2015) Chapter 1 PLA synthesis. From the monomer to the polymer. In: Jiménez A, Peltzer M, Ruseckaite R (eds) Poly(lactic acid) science and technology: processing, properties, additives and applications. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781782624806-00001

Matijaković Mlinarić N, Selmani A, Brkić AL, Njegić Džakula B, Kralj D, Kontrec J (2022) Exposure of microplastics to organic matter in waters enhances microplastic encapsulation into calcium carbonate. *Environ Chem Lett* 20:2235–2242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01433-w

McCormick A, Hoellein TJ, Mason SA, Schluep J, Kelly JJ (2014) Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an urban river. *Environ Sci Technol* 48:11863–11871. https://doi.org/10.1021/es503610r

Meimoun J, Sutapin C, Stoclet G, Favrelle A, Roussel P, Bria M, Chirachanchai S, Bonnet F, Zinck P (2021) Lactide lactone chain shuttling copolymerization mediated by an aminobisphenolate supported aluminum complex and Al(OiPr)₃: access to new polylactide based block copolymers. *J Am Chem Soc* 143:21206–21210. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c09744

Miao Y, Rousseau C, Mortreux A, Martin P, Zinck P (2011) Access to new carbohydrate-functionalized polylactides via organocatalyzed ring-opening polymerization. *Polymer* 52:5018–5026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2011.08.040

Msuya N, Katima J, Masanja E, Temu A (2017) Poly (lactic-acid) production from monomer to polymer: a review. *SciFed J Polym Sci* 1:1000002

Mu X, Qi S, Liu J, Yuan L, Huang Y, Xue J, Qian L, Wang C, Li Y (2022) Toxicity and behavioral response of zebrafish exposed to combined microplastic and bisphenol analogues. *Environ Chem Lett* 20:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01320-w

Nair NR, Nampoothiri KM, Pandey A (2012) Preparation of poly(l-lactide) blends and biodegradation by *Lentzea waywayandensis*. *Biotechnol Lett* 34:2031–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-012-1005-5

Nair AB, Sivasubramanian P, Balakrishnan P, Ajith Kumar KAN, Sreekala MS (2013) Environmental effects, biodegradation, and life cycle analysis of fully biodegradable “green” composites. In: Thomas S, Joseph K, Malhotra SK, Goda K, Sreekala MS (eds) Polymer composites. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 515–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527674220.ch15

Nampoothiri KM, Nair NR, John RP (2010) An overview of the recent developments in polylactide (PLA) research. *Bioresour Technol* 101:8493–8501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.092

Nanda S, Patra BR, Patel R, Bakos J, Dalai AK (2022) Innovations in applications and prospects of bioplastics and biopolymers: a review. *Environ Chem Lett* 20:379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01334-4

Nandhini R, Sivaprakash B, Rajamohan N, Vo D-VN (2022) Lignin and polylactic acid for the production of bioplastics and

valuable chemicals. *Environ Chem Lett.* https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01505-x

Napper IE, Thompson RC (2019) Environmental deterioration of biodegradable, oxo-biodegradable, compostable, and conventional plastic carrier bags in the sea, soil, and open-air over a 3-year period. *Environ Sci Technol* 53:4775–4783. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06984

Naqash N, Prakash S, Kapoor D, Singh R (2020) Interaction of freshwater microplastics with biota and heavy metals: a review. *Environ Chem Lett* 18:1813–1824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01044-3

Narancic T, Verstichel S, Reddy Chaganti S, Morales-Gamez L, Kenny ST, De Wilde B, Babu Padamati R, O’Connor KE (2018) Biodegradable plastic blends create new possibilities for end-of-life management of plastics but they are not a panacea for plastic pollution. *Environ Sci Technol* 52:10441–10452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02963

Naser AZ, Deiab I, Darras BM (2021) Poly (lactic acid)(PLA) and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), green alternatives to petroleum-based plastics: a review. *RSC Adv* 11:17151–17196. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RA02390J

Niu Z, Catarino AI, Le Gall M, Curto M, Demeyer E, Hom D, Davies P, Everaert G (2022) Release of microplastics from a bio-based composite after ultraviolet irradiation. *Copernicus Meetings*

Obbard RW, Sadri S, Wong YQ, Khitun AA, Baker I, Thompson RC (2014) Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice. *Earth’s Future* 2:315–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000240

Olewnik-Kruszkowska E, Burkowska-But A, Tarach I, Walczak M, Jakubowska E (2020) Biodegradation of polylactide-based composites with an addition of a compatibilizing agent in different environments. *Int Biodeterior Biodegrad* 147:104840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.104840

Persenaire O, Quintana R, Lemmouchi Y, Sampson J, Martin S, Bonnaud L, Dubois P (2014) Reactive compatibilization of poly(l-lactide)/poly(butylene succinate) blends through polyester maleation: from materials to properties. *Polym Int* 63:1724–1731. https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.4700

Pinto VC, Ramos T, Alves S, Xavier J, Tavares P, Moreira PMGP, Guedes RM (2015) Comparative failure analysis of PLA, PLA/GNP and PLA/CNT-COOH biodegradable nanocomposites thin films. *Procedia Eng* 114:635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.004

Prata JC, Lavorante BRBO, Montenegro MdC BSM, Guilhermino L (2018) Influence of microplastics on the toxicity of the pharmaceuticals procainamide and doxycycline on the marine microalgae *Tetraselmis chuii*. *Aquat Toxicol* 197:143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.02.015

Qi X, Ren Y, Wang X (2017) New advances in the biodegradation of poly(lactic) acid. *Int Biodeterior Biodegrad* 117:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2017.01.010

Qin M, Chen C, Song B, Shen M, Cao W, Yang H, Zeng G, Gong J (2021) A review of biodegradable plastics to biodegradable microplastics: Another ecological threat to soil environments? *J Clean Prod* 312:127816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127816

Rafia R, Ashok KP (2014) Macroinvertebrates (oligochaetes) as indicators of pollution: a review. *J Ecol Nat Environ* 6:140–144

Ramos M, Fortunati E, Peltzer M, Dominici F, Jiménez A, Garrigós MC, Kenny JM (2014) Influence of thymol and silver nanoparticles on the degradation of poly(lactic acid) based nanocomposites: thermal and morphological properties. *Polym Degrad Stab* 108:158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.02.011
Reddy RL, Reddy VS, Gupta GA (2013) Study of bio-plastics as green and sustainable alternative to plastics. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 3:76–81

Reeve MS, McCarthy SP, Downey MJ, Gross RA (1994) Polylactic stereochemistry: effect on enzymic degradability. Macromolecules 27:825–831

Ribba L, Lopretti M, Montes de Oca-Vásquez G, Batista D, Goyanes S, Vega-Baudrit JR (2022) Biodegradable plastics in aquatic ecosystems: latest findings, research gaps, and recommendations. Environ Res Lett 17:033003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac548d

Rodriguez EJ, Marcos B, Huneault MA (2016) Hydrolysis of poly-lactide in aqueous media. J Appl Polym Sci 133:44152. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.44152

Sánchez-Fortún A, Fajardo C, Martín C, D'ors A, Nande M, Mengs G, Costa G, Martín M, Sánchez-Fortún S (2021) Effects of polyethylene-type microplastics on the growth and primary production of the freshwater phytoplankton species *Scenedesmus armatus* and *Microcystis aeruginosa*. Environ Expe Bot 188:104510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104510

Sarker S, Huda ANMS, Niloy MNH, Chowdhury GW (2022) Trophic transfer of microplastics in the aquatic ecosystem of Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 838:155896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155896

Schweizer M, Dieterich A, Corral Morillas N, Dewald C, Miksch L, Nelson S, Wick A, Triebskorn R, Köhler H-R (2018) The importance of sediments in ecological quality assessment of stream headwaters: embryotoxicity along the Nidda River and its tributaries in Central Hesse, Germany. Environ Sci Eur 30:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0150-4

Seeley ME, Song B, Passie R, Hale RC (2020) Microplastics affect sedimentary microbial communities and nitrogen cycling. Nat Commun 11:2372. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16235-3

Sharma S, Majumdar A, Butola BS (2021) Tailoring the biodegradability of polylactic acid (PLA) based films and ramie- PLA green composites by using selective additives. Int J Biol Macromol 181:1092–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.04.108

Shruti VC, Kutralam-Muniasamy G (2019) Bioplastics: missing link in the era of Microplastics. Sci Total Environ 697:134139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134139

Siparsky GL, Voorhees KJ, Miao F (1998) Hydrolysis of polylactic acid (PLA) and polycaprolactone (PCL) in aqueous acetonitrile solutions: autocatalysis. J Environ Polym Degrad 6:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022826528673

Stloukal P, Verney V, Commereuc S, Rychly J, Matisova-Rychlá L, Pis V, Koutny M (2012) Assessment of the interrelation between photooxidation and biodegradation of selected polyesters after artificial weathering. Chemosphere 88:1214–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.072

Stloukal P, Pekačová S, Kalendova A, Mattausch H, Laske S, Holzer C, Chitu L, Bodner S, Maier G, Slouf M, Koutny M (2015) Kinetics and mechanism of the biodegradation of PLA/clay nanocomposites during thermophilic phase of composting process. Waste Manag 42:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.006

Su Y, Cheng Z, Hou Y, Lin S, Gao L, Wang Z, Bao R, Peng L (2022) Biodegradable and conventional microplastics posed similar toxicity to marine algae *Chlorella vulgaris*. Aquat Toxicol 244:106097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2022.106097

Sun Y, Lee D, Wang Y, Li S, Ying J, Liu X, Xu G, Gwon J, Wu Q (2021) Thermal decomposition behavior of 3D printing filaments made of wood-filled polylactic acid/starch blend. J Appl Polym Sci 138:49944. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.49944

Suwaki CH, De-La-Cruz LT, Lopes RM (2020) Impacts of microplastics on the swimming behavior of the copepod *Temora turbinata*

(Dana, 1849). Fluids 5:103. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5030103

Taib N-AAB, Rahman MR, Huda D, Kuok KK, Hamdan S, Bakri MKB, Julaihi MRMB, Khan A (2022) A review on poly lactic acid (PLA) as a biodegradable polymer. Polym Bull. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-022-04160-y

Thery J, Bialais C, Kazour M, Moreau M, Dufour D, Benali S, Amara R, Monchy S, Raquez JM, Souissi S (2022) A new method for microplastics identification in copepods. Front Environ Chem 3:905303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvc

Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG, McGonigle D, Russell AE (2004) Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304:838–838. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094559

Tsuji H, Ikada Y (1998) Properties and morphology of poly(L-lactide). II. Hydrolysis in alkaline solution. J Polym Sci Part A Polym Chem 36:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0518(19980115)36:1%3c59::AID-POLA9%3e3.0.CO;2-X

Tsuji H, Suzuyoshi K (2002a) Environmental degradation of biodegradable polyesters 1. Poly(e-caprolactone), poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate], and poly(l-lactide) films in controlled static seawater. Polym Degrad Stab 75:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-3910(01)00240-3

Tsuji H, Suzuyoshi K (2002b) Environmental degradation of biodegradable polyesters 2. Poly(e-caprolactone), poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate], and poly(l-lactide) films in natural dynamic seawater. Polym Degrad Stab 75:357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-3910(01)00239-7

van Nostrum CF, Veldhuis TFJ, Bos GW, Hennink WE (2004) Hydrolytic degradation of oligo(lactic acid): a kinetic and mechanistic study. Polymer 45:6779–6787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2004.08.001

Vardar S, Demirel B, Onay TT (2022) Degradability of bioplastics in anaerobic digestion systems and their effects on biogas production: a review. Rev Environ Sci Bio/technol 21:205–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-021-09610-z

Vincent SGT, Jennerjahn TC, Ramasamy K (2021) Microbial communities in coastal sediments: structure and functions. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Wan L, Zhang Y (2018) Jointly modified mechanical properties and accelerated hydrolytic degradation of PLA by interface reinforcement of PLA-WF. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 88:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.016

Wan L, Zhou S, Zhang Y (2019) Parallel advances in improving mechanical properties and accelerating degradation to polylactic acid. Int J Biol Macromol 125:1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.148

Wang J, Huang M, Wang Q, Sun Y, Zhao Y, Huang Y (2020) LDPE microplastics significantly alter the temporal turnover of soil microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 726:138682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138682

Wang C, Yu J, Lu Y, Hua D, Wang X, Zou X (2021) Biodegradable microplastics (BMPs): A new cause for concern? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:66511–66518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16435-4

Wei X-F, Bohlén M, Lindblad C, Hedenqvist M, Hakonen A (2021) Microplastics generated from a biodegradable plastic in freshwater and seawater. Water Res 198:117123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117123

Wei X-F, Capezza AJ, Cui Y, Li L, Hakonen A, Liu B, Hedenqvist MS (2022) Millions of microplastics released from a biodegradable polymer during biodegradation/enzymatic hydrolysis. Water Res 211:118068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118068

Weinstein JE, Dekle JL, Leads RR, Hunter RA (2020) Degradation of bio-based and biodegradable plastics in a salt marsh habitat:
another potential source of microplastics in coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull 160:111518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2020.111518

Wilfred O, Tai H, Marriott R, Liu Q, Tverezovskiy V, Curling S, Fan Z, Wang W (2018) Biodegradation of polyactic acid and starch composites in compost and soil. Int J Nano Res 1:1–11

Wright SL, Rowe D, Thompson RC, Galloway TS (2013) Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Curr Biol 23:R1031–R1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub. 2013.10.068

Wu C-S (2012) Preparation, characterization, and biodegradability of renewable resource-based composites from recycled polylactic acid bioplastic and sisal fibers. J Appl Polym Sci 123:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.34223

Xie L, Xu H, Wang Z-P, Li X-J, Chen J-B, Zhang Z-J, Yin H-M, Zhong G-J, Lei J, Li Z-M (2014) Toward faster degradation for natural fiber reinforced poly(lactic acid) biocomposites by enhancing the hydrolysis-induced surface erosion. J Polym Res 21:357. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10965-014-0357-z

Yaacob ND, Ismail H, Ting SS (2016) Soil burial of polylactic acid/ paddy straw powder biocomposite. BioResources 11:1255–1269

Yagi H, Ninomiya F, Funabashi M, Kunioka M (2012) Anaerobic bio-
degradation of poly (lactic acid) film in anaerobic sludge. J Polym
Environ 20:673–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-012-0472-z

Yamano N, Kawasaki N, Oshima M, Nakayama A (2014) Polyamide 4 with long-chain fatty acid groups—suppressing the biodegradability of biodegradable polymers. Polym Degrad Stab 108:116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2014.06.011

Yang X, Hakkarainen M (2015) Migration resistant glucose esters as bioplasticizers for polylactide. J Appl Polym Sci 132:41928. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.41928

Yokota K, Mehlrose M (2020) Lake phytoplankton assemblage altered by irregularly shaped PLA body wash microplastics but not by PS calibration beads. Water 12:2650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w12092650

Yu J, Tian J-Y, Xu R, Zhang Z-Y, Yang G-P, Wang X-D, Lai J-G, Chen R (2020) Effects of microplastics exposure on ingestion, fecundity, development, and dimethylsulfide production in *Tigriopus japonicus* (Harpacticoida, copepod). Environ Pollut 267:115429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115429

Zaaba NF, Jaafar M (2020) A review on degradation mechanisms of polylactic acid: hydrolytic, photodegradative, microbial, and

enzymatic degradation. Polym Eng Sci 60:2061–2075. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pen.25511

Zandi A, Zanganeh A, Hemmati F, Mohammadi-Roshandeh J (2019) Thermal and biodegradation properties of poly(lactic acid)/rice straw composites: effects of modified pulping products. Iran Polym J 28:403–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13726-019-00709-3

Zhang R, Ma PX (2004) Biomimetic polymer/apatite composite scaffolds for mineralized tissue engineering. Macromol Biosci 4:100–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.200300017

Zhang C, Chen X, Wang J, Tan L (2017) Toxic effects of microplas-
tic on marine microalgae *Skeletonema costatum*: interactions
between microplastic and algae. Environ Pollut 220:1282–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.005

Zhang C, Jeong C-B, Lee J-S, Wang D, Wang M (2019a) Transgen-
erational proteome plasticity in resilience of a marine copepod
in response to environmentally relevant concentrations of micro-
plastics. Environ Sci Technol 53:8426–8436. https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.est.9b02525

Zhang P, He Y-Y, Gao D, Cai Y, Liu B (2019b) Hydrolytic and thermal degradation of polyethylene glycol compatibilized poly(lactic acid)-nanocrystalline cellulose bionanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 136:46933. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.46933

Zhang X, Xia M, Su X, Yuan P, Li X, Zhou C, Wan Z, Zou W (2021) Photolytic degradation elevated the toxicity of polylactic acid microplastics to developing zebrafish by triggering mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis. J Hazard Mater 413:125321. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125321

Zimmermann L, Göttlich S, Oehlmann J, Wagner M, Völker C (2020) What are the drivers of microplastic toxicity? Comparing the toxicity of plastic chemicals and particles to *Daphnia magna*. Environ Pollut 267:115392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol. 2020.115392

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.