4.8 Article

Cadmium Isotope Fractionation in Soil-Wheat Systems

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 17, 页码 9223-9231

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01568

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss Parliament via the National Research Program (NRP) 69 Healthy Nutrition and Sustainable Food Production [406940_145195/1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [406940_145195] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyses of stable metal isotope ratios constitute a novel tool in order to improve our understanding of biogeochemical processes in soil-plant systems. In this study, we used such measurements to assess Cd uptake and transport in wheat grown on three agricultural soils under controlled conditions. Isotope ratios of Cd were determined in the bulk C and A horizons, in the Ca(NO3)(2)-extractable Cd soil pool, and in roots, straw, and grains. The Ca(NO3)(2)-extractable Cd was isotopically heavier than the Cd in the bulk A horizon (Delta Cd-114/110(extract-Ahorizon) = 0.16 to 0.45 parts per thousand). The wheat plants were slightly enriched in light isotopes relative to the Ca(NO3)(2)-extractable Cd or showed no significant difference (Delta Cd-114/110(wheat-extract) = -0.21 to 0.03 parts per thousand). Among the plant parts, Cd isotopes were markedly fractionated: straw was isotopically heavier than roots (Delta Cd-114/110(straw-root) = 0.21 to 0.41 parts per thousand), and grains were heavier than straw (Delta Cd-114/110(grain-straw) 0.10 to 0.51 parts per thousand). We suggest that the enrichment of heavy isotopes in the wheat grains was caused by mechanisms avoiding the accumulation of Cd in grains, such as the chelation of light Cd isotopes by thiol-containing peptides in roots and straw. These results demonstrate that Cd isotopes are significantly and systematically fractionated in soil-wheat systems, and the fractionation patterns provide information on the biogeochemical processes in these systems.

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

4.8
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