4.7 Article

Distinguishing metal bioconcentration from particulate matter in moss tissue: Testing methods of removing particles attached to the moss surface

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 463, 期 -, 页码 727-733

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.061

关键词

Pseudoscleropodium purum; Chemical elements; K distribution; Sequential elution technique; Particulate matter; Biomonitoring

资金

  1. Xunta de Galicia project [10MDS200001P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate differentiation of the proportion of bioconcentrated metals (i.e. incorporated into cells) and the proportion that is not bioconcentrated (i.e. adsorbed at the surface) would lead to a better understanding of the uptake processes and would represent an advance in the use of mosses as biomonitors. Traditionally the methods used to remove contaminants that are not bioconcentrated were to wash the plant material with water or to apply the sequential elution technique, but nowadays both options are considered inaccurate for these purposes. The remaining possibilities are to clean the moss samples with a nitrogen jet or by power ultrasound. Samples of terrestrial moss Pseudoscleropodium purum (Hewd.) Fleisch. were collected from five sampling stations. Different nitrogen jet cleaning procedures and ultrasound cleaning procedures were applied to the mosses. To determine whether any of the treatments altered the membrane integrity of the moss samples, the concentrations of K were determined. The shoots were observed under a scanning electron microscope, and the size and number of particles were determined. Nitrogen jet cleaning was determined to be unacceptable because it damaged the phyllids and/or altered the membrane permeability and did not eliminate the particles from the moss surface. Moreover, ultrasound cleaning treatment should also discarded because of the loss of extracellular metals that are transferred to the water in which the moss is cleaned. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据