4.7 Article

Dose-response analysis of diesel fuel phytotoxicity on selected plant species

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 263, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128382

Keywords

Dose-response analysis; Bioassay; Phytotoxicity; Diesel fuel; Hormesis

Funding

  1. Commonwealth Government of Australia [2017561]
  2. Macquarie University, Sydney [2017561]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bioassays were conducted on 15 plant species to determine their tolerance to diesel fuel toxicity. Results showed that increasing diesel fuel concentrations generally led to a decrease in biomass in 13 species, while Medicago sativa exhibited a significant hormetic influence. The study highlights the importance of considering hormesis in plant toxicology research.
As an ecotoxicological tool, bioassays are an effective screening tool to eliminate plants sensitive to the contaminant of interest, and thereby reduce the number of plant species requiring further study. We conducted a bioassay analysis of fifteen plant species to determine their tolerance to diesel fuel toxicity. Dose-response analysis revealed that increasing diesel fuel concentrations in the soil generally led to a monotonically decreasing biomass in 13 species (P < 0.001), with EC10 values (+/- SE) ranging from 0.36 +/- 0.18 g/kg to 12.67 +/- 2.13 g/kg. On the other hand, hydrocarbons had a statistically significant hormetic influence on Medicago sativa (f = 3.90 +/- 1.08; P < 0.01). The EC10 and EC50 values (+/- SE) from the fitted hormetic model were 15.33 +/- 1.47 g/kg and 26.89 +/- 2.00 g/kg, respectively. While previous studies have shown M. sativa's tolerance of hydrocarbon toxicity, this is the first attempt to describe diesel fuel-induced hormesis in M. sativa using the Cedergreen-Ritz-Streibig model. This study thus shows that hormesis cannot be ignored in plant toxicology research, and that when present, an appropriate statistical model is necessary to avoid drawing wrong conclusions. (C) 2020 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available