4.7 Article

Effects of chain length and pH on the uptake and distribution of perfluoroalkyl substances in maize (Zea mays)

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 85-90

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.018

关键词

Nutrient solution experiment; Shoot:root ratio; Short-chain PFASs; pH-dependent uptake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maize is the most important grain crop grown for human nutrition, animal fodder and biogas production worldwide. Nonetheless, no systematic studies have been undertaken on these plants to examine the uptake mechanisms for perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) dependent upon chain length and pH value. The aim of the present study was therefore to determine the influence of chain length (C4 to C10) and pH value (pH 5, pH 6, pH 7) on the uptake and distribution of seven perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and three perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs) by maize in nutrient solution experiments under controlled conditions in a climate chamber. A pH-dependent uptake was observed for perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) with an uptake rate of 2.51 mu g g(-1) at pH 5 compared to 1.52 mu g g(-1), root dry weight (DW) per day (d) at pH 7. Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) had the highest uptake rate within the group of PFCAs with an average of 2.46 mu g g(-1), root DW d(-1) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) had the highest uptake rate (3.63 mu g g(-1) root DW d(-1)) within the group of PFSAs. The shoot:root ratio for shorter-chain PFCAs (<= C7) and PFBS (C4) was >2.0, which indicates that shorter-chain PFASs are transferred predominantly and at higher concentrations to the shoot. In contrast, long-chain PFCAs such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) as well as the PFASs perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) accumulated at higher concentrations in the roots of maize plants with a shoot:root ratio of <1.0. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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