4.8 Article

Root uptake and reduction of hexavalent chromium by aquatic macrophytes as assessed by high-resolution X-ray emission

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 17, Pages 4159-4166

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.041

Keywords

Hexavalent chromium; Detoxification; Aquatic macrophytes; High-resolution K beta spectroscopy

Funding

  1. Brazilian Research Supporting Council (CNPq) [476724/2007-4]
  2. Brazilian Light Synchrotron Laboratory (LNLS) [XRD1-6510]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aquatic macrophytes Salvinia auriculata, Pistia stratiotes and Eichhornia crassipes were chosen to investigate the Cr(VI) reduced by root-based biosorption in a chromium uptake experiment, using a high-resolution XRF technique. These plants were grown in hydroponics medium supplied with non-toxic Cr concentrations during a 27-day metal uptake experiment. The high-resolution Cr-K beta fluorescence spectra for dried root tissues and Cr reference material (100% Cr, Cr2O3, and CrO3) were measured using an XRF spectrometer. For all species of aquatic plant treated with Cr(VI), the energy of the Cr-K beta(2,5) line was shifted around 8 eV below the same spectral line identified for the Cr(VI) reference, but it was also near to the line identified for the Cr(III) reference. Moreover, there was a lack of the strong Cr-K beta line assigned to the Cr(VI) reference material within the Cr(VI)-treated plant spectra, suggesting the reduction of Cr(VI) for other less toxic oxidation states of Cr. As all Cr-K beta spectra of root tissue species were compared, the peak energies and lineshape patterns of the Cr-K beta(2,5) line are coincident for the same aquatic plant species, when they were treated with Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Based on the experimental evidence, the Cr(VI) reduction process has happened during metal biosorption by these plants. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available