4.7 Article

EDTA-induced heavy metal accumulation and phytotoxicity in cardoon plants

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 26-32

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.06.006

关键词

EDTA; heavy metals; phytoextraction; phytotoxicity; transpiration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In most metal polluted soils, Pb usually appears together with other heavy metals (HM), such as zinc (Zn) and cadmium (Cd). In addition, in phytoextraction experiments, efficient Pb uptake is generally limited by its low phytoavailability. Then, as part of our studies on chelate-induced phytoextraction, cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) seedlings were hydroponically exposed to a range of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid concentrations (EDTA: 0, 250, 500, and 750 mu M) in the absence and presence of a mixture of heavy metals (300 mu M Pb2+ + 150 mu M Zn2+ + 50 mu M Cd2+). Increasing EDTA concentrations in solution significantly increased shoot Pb accumulation and shoot/root ratios. On the contrary, above 250 mu M, EDTA decreased root and shoot Zn and Cd accumulation. Our results suggest a non-selective apoplastic root uptake of metal-EDTA complexes. When supplied independently, both EDTA and the mixture of heavy metals negatively affected plant physiological parameters related to plant water transpiration, such as shoot water content, evapotranspiration, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance. On the contrary, in the presence of heavy metals, increasing EDTA concentrations led to decreased metal phytotoxicity. The highest total amount of metals in shoots was obtained at 250 mu M EDTA, a close to equimolar concentration to the metal with the lowest phytoavailability present in the solution (i.e., Pb). Our results indicate that proper management of the EDTA concentration can reduce metal phytotoxicity, maintain the free uptake of some metals and, at the same time, increase the uptake of metals with low phytoavailability. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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