4.6 Article

Impact of multiwall carbon nanotubes on the accumulation and distribution of carbamazepine in collard greens (Brassica oleracea)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-NANO
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 149-159

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6en00419a

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA-AFRI [2011-67006-30181]
  2. USDA-AFRI Hatch program [MAS 00475]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pre-existing pharmaceutical residues in agricultural soils may encounter engineered nanomaterials, resulting in poorly understood co-contamination interactions. In this study, the bioaccumulation and translocation of the pharmaceutical residue carbamazepine (100 mu g L-1) in collard greens (Brassica oleracea) was evaluated upon concurrent exposure to pristine or carboxyl-functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes (pCNTs or cCNTs) at 50 mg L-1 under hydroponic exposure and at 500 mg kg(-1) in soil-grown conditions. B. oleracea toxicity was more evident under hydroponic exposure, with growth inhibtion dependent on carbamazepine concentrations; however, biomass enhancement was noted in cCNTs-treated plants. Without CNTs, B. oleracea accumulated and translocated significant amounts of carbamazepine; up to 2500 mu g kg(-1) in the leaves and 300 mu g kg(-1) in the roots, depending on growth condition. The co-exposure of carbon materials notably suppressed carbamazepine accumulation in both hydroponic and soil systems. Specifically, root carbamazepine content in soil-grown plants was suppressed 29%, 53% and 89% by pCNTs, cCNTs and AC, respectively. Generally, the adsorption capacity of the carbon materials correlated well with the suppression of carbamazepine accumulation. The results also suggest that functionalization of CNTs enhanced carbamazepine translocation potential and significantly affected nanomaterial/co-contaminant interactions as compared to its pristine analog. These findings show that the CNTs in the environment may significantly affect the bioavailability and translocation pattern of coexisting organic contaminants.

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

4.6
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