4.7 Review

Interaction of metal oxide nanoparticles with higher terrestrial plants: Physiological and biochemical aspects

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 210-225

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.04.024

关键词

Metal oxide nanoparticles; Soil; Higher plants; Physiology; Biochemistry

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21307056, 21177058]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-12-0266]
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Environmental Protection Agency [DBI-1266377]
  5. National Institutes on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [2G12MD007592]
  6. USDA [2011-38422-30835]
  7. NSF ERC on Nanotechnology-Enabled Water Treatment [EEC-1449500, CHE-0840525, DBI-1429708]
  8. China Scholarship Council (CSC) grant [201406195015]
  9. Academy of Applied Science/US Army Research Office, Research and Engineering Apprenticeship program (REAP) at UTEP [W11NF-10-2-0076, 13-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple applications of metal oxide nanoparticles (MONPs) could result in their accumulation in soil, threatening higher terrestrial plants. Several reports have shown the effects of MONPs on plants. In this review, we analyze the most recent reports about the physiological and biochemical responses of plants to stress imposed by MONPs. Findings demonstrate that MONPs may be taken up and accumulated in plant tissues causing adverse or beneficial effects on seed germination, seedling elongation, photosynthesis, antioxidative stress response, agronomic, and yield characteristics. Given the importance of determining the potential risks of MONPs on crops and other terrestrial higher plants, research questions about field long-term conditions, transgenernational phytotoxicity, genotype specific sensitivity, and combined pollution problems should be considered. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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