Oxidative Enzyme Response of Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) to Sublethal Fuel Exposure

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

Biomarkers such as oxidase enzyme activity from flora exposed to chemicals in the water column and sediments have been widely used by ecotoxicologists to assess the quality of an environment. Biomarkers such as oxidase enzymes are especially useful indicators because they represent a direct biological response to environmental toxicity. A luminometer was used to quantify oxidase enzyme production in watercress (Nasturtium officinale) due to toxic chemical exposure of E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline blend), gasoline, and 99% pure ethanol over a 72-h period in aquatic root exposure and volatile leaf exposure experiments. Aquatic exposure to E85 caused an increase in oxidative enzyme production while gasoline and ethanol caused no significant changes in oxidase concentrations. Aquatic root exposure results were compared to volatile leaf exposures where effects of E85, gasoline, and ethanol caused increases in oxidase production. Morphometric measurements were also conducted as plant stress comparisons to oxidative enzyme analyses. Measurements of root length showed increases in root growth at some concentrations of fuels with only the highest concentration of E85 resulting in a decrease in root growth when compared to the control.

Keywords

Aquatic plants Aquatic toxicology Water quality Watercress Peroxidase 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beals, C., & Byl, T. (2014). Chemiluminescent examination of abiotic oxidative stress of watercress. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33, 798–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burken, J. G., & Schnoor, J. L. (1998). Predictive relationships for uptake of organic contaminants by hybrid poplar trees. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 3379–3385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chanjirakul, K., Wang, S. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Siriphanich, J. (2006). Effect of natural volatile compounds on antioxidant capacity and antioxidant enzymes in raspberries. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 40, 106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corseuil, H. X., & Moreno, F. N. (2001). Phytoremediation potential of willow trees for aquifers contaminated with ethanol-blended gasoline. Water Resources, 35, 3013–3017.Google Scholar
  5. Da Silva, M. L. B., & Alvarez, P. J. J. (2004). Enhanced anaerobic biodegradation of benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene–ethanol mixtures in bioaugmented aquifer columns. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70, 4720–4726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farhadian, M., Vachelard, C., Duchez, D., & Larroche, C. (2007). In situ bioremediation of monoaromatic pollutants in groundwater: a review. Bioresource Technology, 99, 5296–5308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerhardt, K. E., Huang, X., Glick, B. R., & Greenberg, B. M. (2009). Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organic soil contaminants: potential and challenges. Plant Science, 176, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Javot, H., & Maurel, C. (2002). The role of aquaporins in root water uptake. Annals of Botany, 90, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kao, C. M., Chen, C. Y., Chen, S. C., Chien, H. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2007). Application of in situ biosparging to remediate a petroleum-hydrocarbon spill site: field and microbial evaluation. Chemosphere, 70, 1492–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lang, C., Popko, J., Wirtz, M., Hell, R., Herschbach, C., Kreuzwieser, J., Rennenberg, H., Mendel, R., & Hansch, R. (2007). Sulfite oxidase as key enzyme for protecting plants against sulfur dioxide. Plant, Cell and Environment, 30, 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maila, M. P., & Randima, P. (2005). Multispecies and monoculture rhizoremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the soil. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 7, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pylon-Smits, E. (2005). Phytoremediation. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 56, 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reuter, J. E., Allen, B. C., Richards, R. C., Pankow, J. F., Goldman, C. R., Scholl, R. L., & Seyfried, J. S. (1998). Concentrations, sources, and fate of gasoline oxygenate methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in a multiple-use lake. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 3666–3672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sawyer, C., McCarty, P. L., & Parkin, G. F. (2003). Chemistry for environmental engineering and science (5th ed., pp. 288–293). New York: McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  15. Soukup, D. A., Ulery, A. L., & Jones, S. (2007). Distribution of petroleum and aromatic hydrocarbons at a former crude oil and natural gas production facility. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 16, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. United States National Response Team. (2010). NRT quick reference guide: fuel grade ethanol spills (including E85). Report available at http://www.nrt.org/on the internet. Report download on October 13, 2010.
  17. Zurayk, R., Sukkariyah, B., & Baalbaki, R. (2001). Common hydrophytes as bioindicators of nickel, chromium and cadmium pollution. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 127, 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EngineeringTennessee State UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations