4.7 Article

Dose-response analysis of diesel fuel phytotoxicity on selected plant species

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 263, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128382

关键词

Dose-response analysis; Bioassay; Phytotoxicity; Diesel fuel; Hormesis

资金

  1. Commonwealth Government of Australia [2017561]
  2. Macquarie University, Sydney [2017561]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioassays were conducted on 15 plant species to determine their tolerance to diesel fuel toxicity. Results showed that increasing diesel fuel concentrations generally led to a decrease in biomass in 13 species, while Medicago sativa exhibited a significant hormetic influence. The study highlights the importance of considering hormesis in plant toxicology research.
As an ecotoxicological tool, bioassays are an effective screening tool to eliminate plants sensitive to the contaminant of interest, and thereby reduce the number of plant species requiring further study. We conducted a bioassay analysis of fifteen plant species to determine their tolerance to diesel fuel toxicity. Dose-response analysis revealed that increasing diesel fuel concentrations in the soil generally led to a monotonically decreasing biomass in 13 species (P < 0.001), with EC10 values (+/- SE) ranging from 0.36 +/- 0.18 g/kg to 12.67 +/- 2.13 g/kg. On the other hand, hydrocarbons had a statistically significant hormetic influence on Medicago sativa (f = 3.90 +/- 1.08; P < 0.01). The EC10 and EC50 values (+/- SE) from the fitted hormetic model were 15.33 +/- 1.47 g/kg and 26.89 +/- 2.00 g/kg, respectively. While previous studies have shown M. sativa's tolerance of hydrocarbon toxicity, this is the first attempt to describe diesel fuel-induced hormesis in M. sativa using the Cedergreen-Ritz-Streibig model. This study thus shows that hormesis cannot be ignored in plant toxicology research, and that when present, an appropriate statistical model is necessary to avoid drawing wrong conclusions. (C) 2020 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