4.0 Article

Evaluation on reducing toxicity of fluoxastrobin with doped TiO2 nanoparticles

期刊

TURKISH JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 11-24

出版社

Tubitak Scientific & Technological Research Council Turkey
DOI: 10.3906/zoo-2008-29

关键词

Doped nanoparticles; fluoxastrobin; photodegradation; toxicity

类别

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [113Z561, 111T124]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study confirmed that sulfur-doped TiO2 showed higher efficiency in degrading fluoxastrobin compared to manganese-doped TiO2. Additionally, the tested nanoparticles, while not lethal, still caused growth retardation and changes in biochemical responses in organisms.
In this study, toxic effects caused by the degradation of fluoxastrobin, which is a commonly used fungicide where newly synthesized manganese or sulfur-doped TiO2 nanoparticles exist were evaluated. The characterization study of nanoparticles was performed by scanning an electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffractometry, Brunau-Emmet-Teller analysis, X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, and UV-Vis (ultraviolet-visible) reflectance spectra. Subsequently, the photocatalytic performance of nanoparticles, their toxicity, and the photocatalytic degradation products of fluoxastrobin with the same nanoparticles were tested during the two development stages of Xenopus laevis. The LC(50)s of fluoxastrobin were determined on test organisms, and a 5 mg L-1 fluoxastrobin was selected to evaluate the photocatalytic degradation capacity due to toxicity studies. The sublethal effects of the nanoparticles and the degradation product of fluoxastrobin were assessed with embryonic malformations and biochemical marker responses. Sulfur-doped TiO2 was found to be more effective compared to manganese-doped TiO2 for the degradation of fluoxastrobin, photocatalytically. On the other hand, even if the tested nanoparticles were not lethal, they caused effects such as growth retardation and changes in biochemical responses on organisms.

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

4.0
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