4.7 Article

TiO2 nanoparticles in a biosolid-amended soil and their implication in soil nutrients, microorganisms and Pisum sativum nutrition

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.110095

关键词

Anatase and rutile; Mineral nutrition; Pea plants; Soil bacterial communities; Soil organic amendment; Titanium dioxide nanoparticles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The wide use of nanoparticles (NPs), gives concern about their possible negative implications in the environment and living organisms. In particular, titanium dioxide (TiO2) NPs are accumulated in biosolids (Bs) coming from wastewater treatment plants, which in turn are used as farm soil amendments and are becoming an important way of NPs entrance in the terrestrial ecosystems. In this study, to simulate a low and cumulative load of TiO2 NPs, 80 and 800 mg TiO2 per Kg of soil were spiked in the Bs prior to its addition to soil. The effects of different crystal phases of TiO2 NPs (pure anatase and pure rutile or their mixture) and their non-coated bulk counterparts (larger particles) on the availability of mineral nutrients and on the status of the bacterial communities together with the nutritional status of Pisum sativum L. plants were evaluated. Results showed the reduction, to different extents, on the availability of important soil mineral nutrients (e.g. Mn 65%, Fe 20%, P 27%, averagely), in some cases size- (e.g. P) and dose-dependent. Bacterial biodiversity was also affected by the presence of high TiO2 dose in soil. The mineral nutrition of pea plants was also altered, showing the main reduction in Mn (80% in the roots and 50% in the shoots), K, Zn, P (respectively, 80, 40, and 35% in the roots), and an increase of N in the shoots, with possible consequences on the quality of the crop. The present study gives new integrated data on the effects of TiO2 NPs in the soil-plant system, on the soil health and on the nutritional quality of crops, rising new implications for future policies and human health.

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