4.7 Article

Uptake and phytotoxicity of anthracene and benzo[k]fluoranthene applied to the leaves of celery plants (Apium graveolens var. secalinum L.)

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 19-25

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.01.032

关键词

Anthracene; Benzo[k]fluoranthene; Uptake; Total polyphenols; Vitamin C; Chlorophyll

资金

  1. [BST 0706-802]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The above-ground parts of celery plants were exposed to two polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): 3-ring anthracene (ANT) and 5-ring benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), and the combination of ANT and BkF. After 43 days of exposure (overall dose of 1325 mu g/plant), celery plants retained only 1.4% of the total dose of ANT and 17.5% of the total dose of BkF. After exposure to a combination of ANT and BkF (1325 mu g of each compound per plant), the average ANT concentrations were more than twofold higher in/on leaf blades, whereas BkF levels were insignificantly higher. Under natural photoperiod conditions equivalent to a normal day, the combined application of ANT and BkF to the above-ground parts of celery plants slowed down physicochemical transformations of ANT. A similar effect was observed when PAHs were applied to glass surfaces. The combination of both PAHs probably led to stacking interactions, which decreased volatilization, in particular of ANT. Phytotoxicity of ANT and BkF could not be unambiguously established based on the results of this study. In all analyzed treatments, the chlorophyll content of leaf blades remained unchanged. Foliar application of ANT reduced ascorbic acid levels in all analyzed plant parts and increased the total acidity of celery leaves. In all experimental treatments, the total phenolic content of leaves increased up to 15%. Interestingly, ANT and BkF did not produce cumulative effects when applied in combination (when total PAH concentrations per plant were twofold higher). (c) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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