4.7 Article

Antimony uptake and speciation, and associated mechanisms in two As-hyperaccumulators Pteris vittata and Pteris cretica

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 455, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131607

Keywords

Antimonite oxidation; Antimonate reduction; Arsenate reductases ACR2 and HAC1; Plant growth; Sulfur uptake; Translocation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The behaviors of antimony (Sb) and arsenic (As) in plants were examined in two As-hyperaccumulators P. vittata and P. cretica. Both plants showed improved growth under Sb exposure, with P. cretica performing better. Sb accumulation was mainly concentrated in the roots for both plants, with differences in Sb speciation between the two species.
The behaviors of antimony (Sb) and arsenic (As) in plants are different, though they are chemical analogs. Here, we examined the Sb uptake and speciation in two As-hyperaccumulators P. vittata and P. cretica, which were exposed to 0.5 or 5 mg L-1 antimonate (SbV) or antimonite (SbIII) under hydroponics for 7 d. Both plants grew better under Sb exposure, especially for P. cretica. The biomass of P. cretica roots increased by 29-46% after exposing to SbV, possibly due to increased S. Further, the Sb content in P. vittata was 17-93% greater than P. cretica, with 2-3 times more SbIII than SbV in both plants and > 92% Sb being concentrated in the roots, showing limited translocation. Under SbV exposure, SbV was dominant in P. vittata roots at 86-94%, while SbIII was predominant in P. cretica roots at 36-95%. P. cretica's stronger reducing ability than P. vittata may be due to arsenate reductases HAC1 and ACR2, which were upregulated in both plants. In short, while effective in Sb accumulation, it is mostly concentrated in the roots for both plants. The differences in their accumulation and speciation may help to better understand Sb behaviors in other plants.

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