4.7 Article

Foliar spraying with a mixture of transpiration inhibitor-rhamnolipid reduces the Cd content in rice grains

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 885, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163844

关键词

Heavy metal; Paddy; Pollution; Binding site; Translocation factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and mechanisms of foliar spraying of a transpiration inhibitor (TI) and different amounts of rhamnolipid (Rh) on reducing the Cd content in rice grain. It was found that the combined application of TI and 1Rh significantly reduced the Cd concentration in rice grain to meet the national food safety requirements. This method holds potential for safe food production in Cd-polluted soils.
A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and mechanisms of foliar spraying of transpiration inhibitor (TI) and different amounts of rhamnolipid (Rh) on the Cd content in rice grain. The contact angle of TI on the rice leaves was significantly reduced when it was combined with one critical micelle concentration of Rh. The Cd concentration in the rice grain in the presence of TI, TI + 0.5Rh, TI + 1Rh, and TI + 2Rh significantly decreased by 30.8 %, 41.7 %, 49.4 %, and 37.7 % respectively, compared with the control treatment. Specifically, the Cd content with TI + 1Rh was as low as 0.182 +/- 0.009 mg/kg, which meets the national food safety requirements (< 0.2 mg/kg). The rice yield and plant biomass of TI + 1Rh were highest compared to the other treatments, possibly because of the alleviation of oxidative stress due to Cd. The hydroxyl and carboxyl concentrations in the soluble components in the leaf cells for the TI + 1Rh treatment were the highest compared to the other treatments. Our results demonstrated that the foliar spraying of TI + 1Rh is an efficient method to reduce Cd accumulation in rice grain. It holds potential for the future development of safe food production in soils polluted with Cd.

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