4.7 Article

The influence of light combination on the physicochemical characteristics and enzymatic activity of soil with multi-metal pollution in phytoremediation

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 393, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122406

关键词

Noccaea caerulescens; Phytoextraction; Antioxidant; Green and sustainable remediation; Heavy metal

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21876014]
  2. National Science and Technology Major Project [2016ZX05046-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Light irradiation with suitable quality and intensity could influence the success of phytoremediation by improving the biomass yield of plants. However, mechanisms involved in this influence on the contaminant accumulation and translocation ability of plants have rarely been studied. Five light combinations with different red (R) and blue (B) ratios (0, 10, 50, 75 and 100 % blue) at the same intensity (220 mu mol m(-2) s(-1)) were used to assist phytoremediation using Noccaea caerulescens, and the change in physicochemical characteristics and enzymatic activities of soils after phytoremediation were evaluated. Compared with the control, the light combinations and monochromic blue light significantly increased the activities of soil ureases, invertases, and phosphatases, whereas monochromic red light strongly inhibited the activities of these enzymes, because different light irradiations altered the formation and excretion of carbohydrates from plants for soil microorganism consumption. Plants under B50R50 treatment accumulated the highest concentrations of metals, but their chlorophyll concentrations and lipid peroxidation were similar to those other species with lower metal concentrations. Hence, light with a proper blue/red ratio can simultaneously improve the physicochemical characteristics and enzymatic activities of soils, increase the metal uptake capacity and oxidation resistance of plants, and reduce the leaching risk during phytoremediation processes.

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