Evaluation on reducing toxicity of fluoxastrobin with doped TiO2 nanoparticles

On the other hand, even if the tested nanoparticles were not lethal, they caused effects such as growth retardation and changes in biochemical responses on organisms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, toxic effects caused by the degradation of fluoxastrobin, which is a commonly used fungicide where newly synthesized manganese or sulfur-doped TiO2 nanoparticles exist were evaluated.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Subsequently, the photocatalytic performance of nanoparticles, their toxicity, and the photocatalytic degradation products of fluoxastrobin with the same nanoparticles were tested during the two development stages of Xenopus laevis.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, even if the tested nanoparticles were not lethal, they caused effects such as growth retardation and changes in biochemical responses on organisms.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Doped nanoparticles · fluoxastrobin · photodegradation

Abstract

In this study, toxic effects caused by the degradation of fluoxastrobin, which is a commonly used fungicide where newly synthesized manganese or sulfur-doped TiO2 nanoparticles exist were evaluated. The characterization study of nanoparticles was performed by scanning an electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffractometry, Brunau-Emmet-Teller analysis, X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, and UV-Vis (ultraviolet-visible) reflectance spectra. Subsequently, the photocatalytic performance of nanoparticles, their toxicity, and the photocatalytic degradation products of fluoxastrobin with the same nanoparticles were tested during the two development stages of Xenopus laevis. The LC(50)s of fluoxastrobin were determined on test organisms, and a 5 mg L-1 fluoxastrobin was selected to evaluate the photocatalytic degradation capacity due to toxicity studies. The sublethal effects of the nanoparticles and the degradation product of fluoxastrobin were assessed with embryonic malformations and biochemical marker responses. Sulfur-doped TiO2 was found to be more effective compared to manganese-doped TiO2 for the degradation of fluoxastrobin, photocatalytically. On the other hand, even if the tested nanoparticles were not lethal, they caused effects such as growth retardation and changes in biochemical responses on organisms.

Keywords

Doped nanoparticles fluoxastrobin photodegradation toxicity

🔖

Cite This Article

GUNGORDU, A., OZMEN, N., ERDEMOGLU, S., TURHAN, D. O., ASİLTURK, M., AKGEYİK, E., OZMEN, M. (2021). Evaluation on reducing toxicity of fluoxastrobin with doped TiO2 nanoparticles. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 11–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/197288

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

Adetutu EM, 2008, J APPL MICROBIOL, V105, P1777, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03948.x Akbari Ali, 2018, Nano-Structures & Nano-Objects, V14, P19, DOI 10.1016/j.nanoso.2018.01.006 Alkayal NS, 2019, SCI REP-UK, V9, DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-43915-y Amalraj A, 2015, J WATER PROCESS ENG, V7, P94, DOI 10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.06.002 ASTM, 2003, ASTM STAND BIOL EFF, V11, P447 Bacchetta R, 2012,
NANOTOXICOLOGY, V6, P381, DOI 10.3109/17435390.2011.579634 Birhanli A, 2005, DRUG CHEM TOXICOL, V28, P51, DOI 10.1081/DCT-200039689 Birhanli A, 2014, TURK J BIOL, V38, P283, DOI 10.3906/biy-1307-37 BRADFORD MM, 1976, ANAL BIOCHEM, V72, P248, DOI 10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 Budarz JF, 2019, J HAZARD MATER, V372, P61, DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.12.028 Cao FJ, 2019, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V53, P1672, DOI 10.1021/acs.est.8b05829 Chaudhuri RG, 2012, CHEM REV, V112, P2373, DOI 10.1021/cr100449n Chen L, 2015, ECOTOX ENVIRON SAFE, V120, P418, DOI 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.06.027 Cruz M, 2017, APPL SURF SCI, V416, P1013, DOI 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.09.268 Cui F, 2017, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V36, P182, DOI 10.1002/etc.3520 Dunnick KM, 2014, J TOXICOL ENV HEAL A, V77, P1251, DOI 10.1080/15287394.2014.897490 EFSA, 2007, EFSA SCI REPORT, V102, P1, DOI DOI 10.2903/J.EFSA.2005.102R El-Shafai NM, 2019, J IND ENG CHEM, V69, P315, DOI 10.1016/j.jiec.2018.09.045 Gardner ST, 2016, J TOXICOL ENV HEAL A, V79, P71, DOI 10.1080/15287394.2015.1106994 Giahi M, 2019, STUD U BABES-BOL CHE, V64, P7, DOI 10.24193/subbchem.2019.1.01 Gungordu A, 2013, AQUAT TOXICOL, V140, P220, DOI 10.1016/j.aquatox.2013.06.012 HABIG WH, 1974, J BIOL CHEM, V249, P7130 Haynes VN, 2017, AQUAT TOXICOL, V185, P138, DOI 10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.02.012 He XJ, 2014,
NANOTOXICOLOGY, V8, P185, DOI 10.3109/17435390.2013.874050 Jin XD, 2019,
CHEMOSPHERE, V237, DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124433 Kim JO, 2016, J ENVIRON MANAGE, V166, P94, DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.009 Konwick BJ, 2006, AQUAT TOXICOL, V80, P372, DOI 10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.10.003 Kuklinska K, 2013, TRAC-TREND ANAL CHEM, V48, P14, DOI 10.1016/j.trac.2013.03.006 Lagunas-Allue L, 2012, APPL CATAL B-ENVIRON, V115, P285, DOI 10.1016/j.apcatb.2011.12.015 Lewis KA, 2016, HUM ECOL RISK ASSESS, V22, P1050, DOI 10.1080/10807039.2015.1133242 Li D, 2016, ENVIRON POLLUT, V208, P868, DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.010 Li FB, 2002,
CHEMOSPHERE, V48, P1103, DOI 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00201-1 Li H, 2018, ECOTOX ENVIRON SAFE, V151, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.12.061 Liu L, 2013, ECOTOX ENVIRON SAF