| Literature DB >> 27284692 |
Yi Hao1, Feifan Yu2, Ruitao Lv2, Chuanxin Ma3, Zetian Zhang1, Yukui Rui1,3, Liming Liu1, Weidong Cao4, Baoshan Xing3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the phytotoxicity of thin-walledEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27284692 PMCID: PMC4902202 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1TEM and HRTEM image of MWCNTs (A, D), Fe-CNTs (B, E), and FeCo-CNTs (C, F), and Raman spectra of each CNTs (G).
C: N ratio in rice roots and shoots after treatments with three different carbon nanotubes.
| Roots | Shoots | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (mg/L) | 0 | 10 | 50 | 300 | 0 | 10 | 50 | 300 | |
| MWCNTs | C contents (%) | 44.24a | 44.49a | 43.20b | 43.86ab | 42.06a | 41.49ab | 41.19b | 41.68ab |
| N contents (%) | 1.09a | 0.95b | 0.87bc | 0.76c | 1.86b | 1.78b | 2.15a | 1.90ab | |
| C:N Ratio | 40.48c | 46.93bc | 49.93ab | 57.64a | 22.50a | 23.35a | 18.68b | 21.91ab | |
| Fe-CNTs | C contents (%) | 44.24b | 44.44b | 44.24b | 45.46a | 42.06a | 42.62a | 41.96a | 42.91a |
| N contents (%) | 1.09a | 0.79b | 0.78b | 0.76b | 1.87ab | 1.97a | 1.71b | 1.90ab | |
| C:N Ratio | 40.48b | 56.46a | 56.56a | 59.82a | 22.50ab | 21.66b | 24.47a | 22.59ab | |
| FeCo-CNTs | C contents (%) | 44.24b | 45.53a | 45.11a | 45.41a | 42.06a | 42.78a | 42.86a | 42.79a |
| N contents (%) | 1.09a | 0.86b | 0.83b | 0.82b | 1.87a | 1.71b | 1.66b | 1.97a | |
| C:N Ratio | 40.48b | 52.70a | 54.11a | 55.45a | 22.50b | 25.06a | 25.83a | 21.69b | |
Note: Within each data, different letters represent significant difference (p<0.05), compared with control group.
Fig 2Fe content in rice roots and shoots after treatments with Fe-CNTs (A), FeCo-CNTs(B). and Co contents in rice shoots and rice roots after treatments with FeCo-CNTs(C). Data are average of three replicates ±SE. Bars with different letters are statistically different at p<0.05, compared with control group.
Fig 3Biomass production of rice after treatments with MWCNTs (A),Fe-CNTs (B) and FeCo-CNTs (C). Data are average of three replicates±SE. Bars with different letters are statistically different at p<0.05, compared with control group.
Fig 4Rice root length (A) and shoot length (B) after treatments with three types of carbon nanoparticles. Data are average of three replicates±SE. Bars with different letters are statistically different at p<0.05, compared with control group.
Fig 5Transmission electron micrographs of untreated rice roots (A), rice roots treated with MWCNTs (B), Fe-CNTs (C), FeCo-CNTs (D), EDS spectra of FeCo-CNTs in rice roots (E). CNTs are circled in images, cw: cell wall.
Fig 6Concentrations of IAA, IPA, and GA1+3 in shoots and roots or rice seedlings after treatments with MWCNTs (A, B), Fe-CNTs (C,D), FeCo-CNTs (E, F). Data are average of three replicates ±SE. Bars with different letters are statistically different at p<0.05, compared with control group.
Fig 7Concentrations of ABA, JA, BR in shoots and roots of rice plants after treatments with MWCNTs (A, B), Fe-CNTs (C, D), FeCo-CNTs (E, F). Data are average of three replicates ±SE. Bars with different letters are statistically different at p<0.05, compared with control group.