4.7 Review

Trace metal phytotoxicity in solution culture: a review

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 61, Issue 4, Pages 945-954

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erp385

Keywords

Critical concentration; phytotoxicity; solution culture; trace metal

Categories

Funding

  1. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC-CARE)
  2. University of Queensland Early Career Researcher scheme [2008003392]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solution culture has been used extensively to determine the phytotoxic effects of trace metals. A review of the literature from 1975 to 2009 was carried out to evaluate the effects of As(V), Cd(II), Co(II), Cu(II), Hg(II), Mn(II), Ni(II), Pb(II), and Zn(II) on plants grown in solution. A total of 119 studies was selected using criteria that allowed a valid comparison of the results; reported toxic concentrations varied by five orders of magnitude. Across a range of plant species and experimental conditions, the phytotoxicity of the trace metals followed the trend (from most to least toxic): Pb approximate to Hg > Cu > Cd approximate to As > Co approximate to Ni approximate to Zn > Mn, with median toxic concentrations of (mu M): 0.30 Pb, 0.47 Hg, 2.0 Cu, 5.0 Cd, 9.0 As, 17 Co, 19 Ni, 25 Zn, and 46 Mn. For phytotoxicity studies in solution culture, we suggest (i) plants should be grown in a dilute solution which mimics the soil solution, or that, at a minimum, contains Ca and B, (ii) solution pH should be monitored and reported (as should the concentrations of the trace metal of interest), (iii) assessment should be made of the influence of pH on solution composition and ion speciation, and (iv) both the period of exposure to the trace metal and the plant variable measured should be appropriate. Observing these criteria will potentially lead to reliable data on the relationship between growth depression and the concentration of the toxic metal in solution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available