Acute Effects of Engineered Nanoparticles on the Growth and Gas Exchange of Zea mays L.—What are the Underlying Causes?
- 226 Downloads
The increasing use of nanoparticles (nps) in consumer and industrial applications raises concerns about their potential risks to ecosystems and biological systems. The nps can cause negative effects on bacteria, algae, and animals. However, only little is known about their effects on higher plants and the underlying mechanisms. Zea mays L. “Ayrro” was used to investigate effects of ZnO (30–40 nm), TiO2 (5–15 nm), and Ag (15 nm) nps, in comparison their corresponding bulk counterparts, on germination and early seedling growth. Treatment with nps affected growth positively (ZnO) or negatively (TiO2, Ag) in a dose-dependent manner. Effects of the corresponding bulk counterparts were either similar (TiO2) or opposite (ZnO), or even absent (Ag). To separate direct np effects (“nano effects”) from effects of ions released from nps, roots of 5-week-old plants were either treated with Ag nps or Ag+ ions with the same effective concentrations of dissolved free Ag+ ions, each with or without CaCl2 to precipitate free Ag+ ions as AgCl. Both Ag treatments reduced transpiration and assimilation rate. After addition of CaCl2, these negative effects disappeared, indicating that acute negative effects can be largely attributed to free Ag+ ions, rather than to specific nano effects. Further research with longer exposure times and different growth media could provide further insights in the analysis of np effects on plants.
KeywordsNanoparticles Toxicity Ion release Plants Gas exchange
We acknowledge the financial support of the Agricultural Faculty of the University of Bonn. We thank the company RAS AG for providing silver nanoparticles for the experiments. We are also very grateful to Prof. Heiner E. Goldbach for his valuable and supportive advises during our work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abdelhamid, H. N. (2016). Nanoparticles as pharmaceutical agents. Mathews Journal of Anesthesia, 1(1), 003.Google Scholar
- Andersen C. P., King G., Plocher M., Storm M., Pokhrel L. R., Johnson M. G., Rygiewicz P. T. (2016). Germination and early plant development of ten plant species exposed to TiO2 and CeO2 nanoparticles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.3374/epdf.
- Burke, D. J., Pietrasiak, N., Situ, S. F., Abenojar, E. C., Porche, M., Kraj, P., Lakliang, Y., & Samia, A. C. S. (2015). Iron oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticle effects on plant performance and root associated microbes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(10), 23630–23650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dimkpa, C. O., McLean, J. E., Latta, D. E., Manangón, E., Britt, D. W., Johnson, W. P., Boyanov, M. I., & Anderson, A. J. (2012). CuO and ZnO nanoparticles: phytotoxicity, metal speciation, and induction of oxidative stress in sand-grown wheat. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(9), 1125–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EU commission (2011). Commission recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial OJ L 275/38, 18 October 2011.Google Scholar
- Foltete, A.-S., Masfaraud, J.-F., Bigorgne, E., Nahmani, J., Chaurand, P., Botta, C., Labille, J., Rose, J., Ferard, J.-F., & Cotelle, S. (2011). Environmental impact of sunscreen nanomaterials: ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of altered TiO2 nanocomposites on Vicia faba. Environmental Pollution, 159(10), 2515–2522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- García-Gómez, C., Babin, M., Obrador, A., Álvarez, J. M., & Fernández, M. D. (2015). Integrating ecotoxicity and chemical approaches to compare the effects of ZnO nanoparticles, ZnO bulk, and ZnCl2 on plants and microorganisms in a natural soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(21), 16803–16813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Judy J. D. (2013). Bioavailability of manufactured nanomaterials in terrestrial ecosystems. PhD Thesis. University of Kentucky. Lexington, Kentucky, USA.Google Scholar
- Larue, C., Laurette, J., Herlin-Boime, N., Khodja, H., Fayard, B., Flank, A.-M., Brisset, F., & Carriere, M. (2012). Accumulation, translocation and impact of TiO2 nanoparticles in wheat (Triticum aestivum spp.): influence of diameter and crystal phase. The Science of the Total Environment, 431, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lopez-Moreno, M. L., de La Rosa, G., Hernandez-Viezcas, J. A., Castillo-Michel, H., Botez, C. E., Peralta-Videa, J. R., & Gardea-Torresdey, J. L. (2010). Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(19), 7315–7320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lowry, G. V., Hotze, E. M., Bernhardt, E. S., Dionysiou, D. D., Pedersen, J. A., Wiesner, M. R., & Xing, B. (2010). Environmental occurrences, behavior, fate, and ecological effects of nanomaterials: an Introduction to the special series. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(6), 1867–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mahajan, P., Dhoke, S. K., & Khanna, A. S. (2011). Effect of nano-ZnO on growth of of mung bean (Vigna radiata) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seedlings using plant agar method. Applied Biological Research, 13(2), 54–61.Google Scholar
- Piccinno F., Gottschalk F., Seeger S., Nowack B. (2012). Industrial production quantities and uses often engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. Journal of Nanoparticle Research (14): 1109–1120.Google Scholar
- Poole, C. P., & Owens, F. J. (2003). Introduction to nanotechnology. Hoboken: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Savery, L. C., Viñas, R., Nagy, A. M., Pradeep, P., Merrill, S. J., Hood, A. M., Malghan, S. G., Goering, P. L., & Brown, R. P. (2017). Deriving a provisional tolerable intake for intravenous exposure to silver nanoparticles released from medical devices. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 85, 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shvedova, A. A., Kisin, E. R., Mercer, R., Murray, A. R., Johnson, V. J., Potapovich, A. I., Tyurina, Y. Y., Gorelik, O., Arepalli, S., Schwegler-Berry, D., Hubbs, A. F., Antonini, J., Evans, D. E., Ku, B. K., Ramsey, D., Maynard, A., Kagan, V. E., Castranova, V., & Baron, P. (2005). Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. American Journal of Physiology - Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology, 289(5), 698–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tripathi, D. K., Singh, S., Singh, V. P., Prasad, S. M., Chauhan, D. K., & Dubey, N. K. (2016). Silicon nanoparticles more efficiently alleviate arsenate toxicity than silicon in maize cultiver and hybrid differing in arsenate tolerance. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 4, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tripathi, D. K., Singh, S., Singh, S., Pandey, R., Singh, V. P., Sharma, N. C., Pandey, R., Singh, V. P., Prasad, S. M., & Dubey, N. K. (2017). An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 110, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wang, J., Koo, Y., Alexander, A., Yang, Y., Westerho, S., Zhang, Q., Qingbo, Z., Jerald, L., Schnoor, Vicki, L., Colvin, Braam, J., & Alvarez, P. J. (2013). Phytostimulation of poplars and Arabidopsis exposed to silver nanoparticles and Ag+ at sublethal concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(10), 5442–5449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yang, Z., Chen, J., Dou, R., Gao, X., Mao, C., & Wang, L. (2015). Assessment of the phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles on two crop plants, maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(12), 15100–15109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar