4.7 Article

Toxicity Evaluation of Three Imidazolium-based ionic liquids ([C6mim] R) on Vicia faba Seedlings Using an integrated biomarker response (IBR) index

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124919

关键词

ROS; Oxidative stress; Antioxidant enzyme; DNA damage; IBR

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41771282, 41701279]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China [ZR2017MD005and ZR2017BB075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionic liquids (ILs) are regarded as green solvents and are frequently used in the chemical industry. However, ILs may impact plant growth if they are present in the soil environment. To compare toxicity of ILs with different anions in soil, three imidazolium-based ionic liquids (1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bromide, 1-hexy1-3-methylimidazolium nitrate, 1-hexy1-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate) were used to assess impact on Vicia faba. Following 10 d of exposure to these three ILs from 0 to 2500 mg kg(-1), shoot length, root length and dry weight of Vicia faba were determined. Pot trials revealed that ILs inhibited Vicia faba growth and according to EC50 values, [C(6)mim]BF4 was the most toxic one. In addition, physiological indicators of Vicia faba were determined following 10 d of exposure at selected IL concentrations (0, 1, 10, 100 and 500 mg kg(-1)). ILs led to the generation of reactive oxygen species and then caused oxidative damage, including lipid peroxidation, protein damage and DNA damage, which triggered an increase in antioxidant content and enzyme activity. The experimental results indicated that oxidative stress may be the primary underlying toxic mechanism for Vicia faba. Furthermore, based on the data of physiological experiment, integrated biomarker response (IBR) was calculated to compare the toxicity of the three ILs and toxic order was: [C(6)mim]NO3 < [C(6)mim]Br < (C(6)mim]BF4. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. 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