4.7 Article

Bacteria compete with hematite nanoparticles during their uptake by the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 411, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125098

关键词

Bacteria; Ciliate; Hematite nanoparticles; Phagocytosis; Uptake competition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21822605, 21677068]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [021114380148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that bacteria have an impact on the uptake of non-associated nanoparticles (NPs) in aquatic ecosystems, but their effects on the physiological activities of ciliates are minimal.
Bacterial accumulation of engineered nanoparticles (NPs) result in their transfer along the food chain. However, there are a lot of NPs not associated with bacteria. Whether bacteria, as representative biotic particles, influence the biological uptake of these non-associated NPs in aquatic ecosystems is unclear. In the present study, we examined the effects of four bacterial species on the uptake kinetics of polyacrylate-coated hematite nano particles (HemNPs) by the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. The HemNPs were well dispersed. Their adsorption on the bacteria was low with negligible uptake by T. thermophila through bacterial ingestion. This result demonstrated the feasibility of examining the effects of bacteria on the uptake of non-associated HemNPs. Our study further showed that all four bacterial species inhibited the uptake of HemNPs by T. thermophila; however, the effects of the bacterial cells on the physiological activities of the ciliate with respect to its uptake of HemNPs were negligible. In the absence of phagocytosis by T. thermophila, none of the bacteria inhibited HemNP uptake. This observation suggested that bacterial cells competed with the HemNPs for uptake via phagocytosis. Therefore, in evaluations of the environmental risks of NPs, their competition with biotic particles should be taken into account.

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