4.7 Article

Single particle ICP-MS method development for the determination of plant uptake and accumulation of CeO2 nanoparticles

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 408, 期 19, 页码 5157-5167

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-016-9565-1

关键词

CeO2 nanoparticles; Single particle ICP-MS; Plant uptake of nanoparticles; Enzymatic digestion; Nanoparticle characterization; Biotransformation

资金

  1. University of Missouri Research Board
  2. US Department of Agriculture-AFRI [2011-67006-30181, 2012-67005-19585]
  3. NIFA [578579, 2012-67005-19585] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerium dioxide nanoparticles (CeO(2)NPs) are among the most broadly used engineered nanoparticles that will be increasingly released into the environment. Thus, understanding their uptake, transportation, and transformation in plants, especially food crops, is critical because it represents a potential pathway for human consumption. One of the primary challenges for the endeavor is the inadequacy of current analytical methodologies to characterize and quantify the nanomaterial in complex biological samples at environmentally relevant concentrations. Herein, a method was developed using single particle-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (SP-ICP-MS) technology to simultaneously detect the size and size distribution of particulate Ce, particle concentration, and dissolved cerium in the shoots of four plant species including cucumber, tomato, soybean, and pumpkin. An enzymatic digestion method with Macerozyme R-10 enzyme previously used for gold nanoparticle extraction from the tomato plant was adapted successfully for CeO2NP extraction from all four plant species. This study is the first to report and demonstrate the presence of dissolved cerium in plant seedling shoots exposed to CeO(2)NPs hydroponically. The extent of plant uptake and accumulation appears to be dependent on the plant species, requiring further systematic investigation of the mechanisms.

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