SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bor Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

A Comparative Study on the Effect of Acute Toxicity of Nano and Micro Boron Particles in Lemna minor (Linneaus 1753)

Yeşim DAĞLIOĞLU
Sevda TÜRKİŞ
Pages
263–273
Publication Date
2021-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the contrary, micro B, as the concentration of micro B increases the accumulation of plant tissue.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, studies have shown that uncertainties such as nanoparticle effects on plants, knowledge gaps and toxicity mechanisms have been significantly displayed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Pearson's correlation analysis showed negative correlations between hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde levels in all doses of nano B; Positive correlations were found between malondialdehyde and catalase levels at 100 mg /L of micro B.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the contrary, micro B, as the concentration of micro B increases the accumulation of plant tissue.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Antioxidant activity · Boron · Nanoparticles

Abstract

In recent years, studies have shown that uncertainties such as nanoparticle effects on plants, knowledge gaps and toxicity mechanisms have been significantly displayed. In this study physiological effects and the main factors contributing to nano and micro Boron (B) toxicity in duckweed (Lemna minor) under experimental conditions were investigated. This study reports that that chlorophyll contents of treated nano B are higher than the control group and the treated micro B. Malondialdehyde and superoxide dismutase levels were recorded higher in micro B. Catalase and hydrogen peroxide level were recorded higher in nano B. Pearson's correlation analysis showed negative correlations between hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde levels in all doses of nano B; Positive correlations were found between malondialdehyde and catalase levels at 100 mg /L of micro B. The accumulation in leaf tissues of the duckweed decreased by the increase in the concentration of nano B. On the contrary, micro B, as the concentration of micro B increases the accumulation of plant tissue.

Özet

In recent years, studies have shown that uncertainties such as nanoparticle effects on plants, knowledge gaps and toxicity mechanisms have been significantly displayed. In this study physiological effects and the main factors contributing to nano and micro Boron (B) toxicity in duckweed (Lemna minor) under experimental conditions were investigated. This study reports that that chlorophyll contents of treated nano B are higher than the control group and the treated micro B. Malondialdehyde and superoxide dismutase levels were recorded higher in micro B. Catalase and hydrogen peroxide level were recorded higher in nano B. Pearson's correlation analysis showed negative correlations between hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde levels in all doses of nano B; Positive correlations were found between malondialdehyde and catalase levels at 100 mg /L of micro B. The accumulation in leaf tissues of the duckweed decreased by the increase in the concentration of nano B. On the contrary, micro B, as the concentration of micro B increases the accumulation of plant tissue.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAĞLIOĞLU, Y., TÜRKİŞ, S. (2021). A Comparative Study on the Effect of Acute Toxicity of Nano and Micro Boron Particles in Lemna minor (Linneaus 1753). Bor Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 263–273. https://ajindex.com/articles/252048

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Elimelech M., Gregory J., Jia X., Williams R. I., Particle deposition and aggregation: measurement, modelling and simulation, Butterworth-Heinemann 2013
  2. SCENIHR., Opinion on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, European Commission SCENIHR/002/05, 2005
  3. Lead J. R., Wilkinson K. J., Aquatic colloids and nanoparticles: current knowledge and future trends, Environ Chem., 3:159–171, 2006. [4]Handy R. D., Owen R., Valsami-Jones E., The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs, Ecotoxicol. 17.5:315-325, 2008
  4. Pan B., Xing B., Manufactured nanoparticles and their sorption of organic chemicals, Adv Agr., 108:137–181, 2010
  5. Rico M. C., Majumdar S., Duarte-Gardea M., Peralte-Videa R. J., Gardea-Torresdey L.J., Interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants and their possible implications in the food chain, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 59.8:3485-3498, 2011
  6. Dağlıoğlu Y., Türkiş S., Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles application on photosynthetic pigment contents of duckweed (Lemna minor L.), Acta Biologica Turcica, 30(4), 108-115, 2017
  7. Dağlıoğlu Y., Türkiş S., Effect of nano and microparticle boron on hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and lipid peroxidation (MDA) enzyme activity superoxide dismutase (SOD) of Myriophyllum spicatum. 6(2), 62-70, 2017
  8. Monica R. C., Cremonini R., Nanoparticles and higher plants, Caryologia, 62:161–165, 2009
  9. Fleischer A., O’Neill A. M., Ehwald R., The pore size of non-graminaceous plant cell wall is rapidly decreased by borate ester cross-linking of the pectic polysaccharide rhamnogalacturon II, Plant Physiol., 121:829–838, 1999
  10. Navarro E., Piccapietra F., Wagner B., Marconi F., Kaegi R., Odzak N., Sigg L., Behra R., Toxicity of Silver Nanoparticles to Chlamydomonas Reinhardtii, Environ. Sci., Technology, 42: 8959-8964, 2008
  11. Navarro E., Baun A., Behra R., Hartmann B. N., Filser J., Miao A., Quigg P., Environmental behaviour and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants and fungi, Ecotoxicology, 17:372–386, 2008
  12. Moore M. N., Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment, Environ Int., 32:967–976, 2006
  13. Nair R., Varghese S. H., Nair B. G., Maekawa T., Yoshida Y., Kumar D.