4.7 Article

Effects of phosphorus supplied in soil on subcellular distribution and chemical forms of cadmium in two Chinese flowering cabbage (Brassica parachinensis L.) cultivars differing in cadmium accumulation

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 2260-2267

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.024

关键词

Chinese flowering cabbage (Brassica parachinensis L.); Cultivar; Cadmium (Cd); Phosphorus (P); Subcellular distribution; Chemical forms

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20877104]
  2. Key Research Project of Guangdong Province [2009B030802006]
  3. State Key Project for Science and Technology Development of China [2009ZX07211-002-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differences in the subcellular distribution and chemical speciation of Cd between two Chinese flowering cabbage (Brassica parachinensis L.) cultivars, Lubao70 (LB70, low-Cd cultivar) and ChixinNO.4 (CX4, high-Cd cultivar) were investigated under various soil Cd and P treatments. Subcellular fractionation of Cd-containing tissues showed that a higher proportion of Cd was bound to the cell wall fraction of LB70 than that of CX4, indicating that Cd compartment functioned better in LB70. Compared to CX4, LB70 had lower proportions of Cd in inorganic form and water-soluble form, but higher proportions of Cd in proteins/pectates integrated form, implying that the low Cd accumulation in LB70 is associated with the low in vivo mobility of Cd. In both cultivars, shoot and root Cd concentration and translocation of Cd from the roots to the shoots obviously decreased with increasing soil P level. It was found that phosphorus (P) played important roles in Cd uptake and translocation via the processes involved in bonding Cd to the cell wall fraction and forming Cd-phosphate complexes. It is suggested that use of low-Cd cultivars in conjunction with P supply is a much useful way to reduce the pollution risk of Cd in the food chain. (C) 2011 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