| Literature DB >> 27385767 |
Miaomiao Cheng1, Peng Wang2, Peter M Kopittke2, Anan Wang1, Peter W G Sale1, Caixian Tang3.
Abstract
Nitrogen fertilization could improve the efficiency of Cd phytoextraction in contaminated soil and thus shorten the remediation time. However, limited information is available on the effect of N form on Cd phytoextraction and associated mechanisms in plants. This study examined the effect of N form on Cd accumulation, translocation, and speciation in Carpobrotus rossii and Solanum nigrum Plants were grown in nutrient solution with 5-15 μM Cd in the presence of 1000 µM NH4 (+) or NO3 (-) Plant growth and Cd uptake were measured, and Cd speciation was analyzed using synchrotron-based X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Shoot Cd accumulation was 30% greater with NH4 (+) than NO3 (-) supply. Carpobrotus rossii accumulated three times more Cd than S. nigrum. However, Cd speciation in the plants was not influenced by N form, but it did vary with species and tissues. In C. rossii, up to 91% of Cd was bound to S-containing ligands in all tissues except the xylem sap where 87-95% were Cd-OH complexes. Furthermore, the proportion of Cd-S in shoots was substantially lower in S. nigrum (44-69%) than in C. rossii (60-91%). It is concluded that the application of NH4 (+) (instead of NO3 (-)) increased shoot Cd accumulation by increasing uptake and translocation, rather than changing Cd speciation, and is potentially an effective approach for increasing Cd phytoextraction.Entities:
Keywords: Carpobrotus rossii; Cd speciation; Cd translocation; Solanum nigrum; XANES.; halophytes; nitrogen form; phytoremediation; synchrotron
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27385767 PMCID: PMC5014155 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw270
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Effects of N form supplied on dry weights of Carpobrotus rossii (a) and Solanum nigrum (b) grown for 14 d in solutions containing Cd at a concentration of either 5 or 15 µM. Bars represent the standard errors (n=3). For each panel, different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among treatments for each tissue of individual species (Tukey’s test, P<0.05).
Fig. 2.Effects of N form supplied on Cd concentrations in the different tissues of Carpobrotus rossii (a) and Solanum nigrum (b) grown for 14 d in solutions containing Cd at a concentration of either 5 or 15 µM. Bars represent the standard errors (n=3). For each panel, different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among treatments for each tissue of individual species (Tukey’s test, P<0.05).
Fig. 3.Effects of N form supplied on Cd shoot content (a) and shoot-to-root Cd concentration ratio (translocation factor) (b) of Carpobrotus rossii and Solanum nigrum grown for 14 d in solutions containing Cd at a concentration of either 5 or 15 µM. Bars represent the standard errors (n=3). For each panel, different letters above the bars indicate significant differences among treatments for individual species (Tukey’s test, P<0.05).
Fig. 4.Normalized K-edge XANES spectra of the Cd standards. The horizontal grey lines represent a value of 1 for each of the normalized spectra, while the vertical grey lines represent white-line peaks of Cd-S (solid line) and Cd-OH (dotted line) standards.
Fig. 5.Normalized Cd K-edge XANES spectra for various tissues of two Cd hyperaccumulator plants (Carpobrotus rossii and Solanum nigrum) grown in nutrient solutions containing (NH4)2SO4 and 15 µM Cd. The vertical grey lines represent white-line peaks of Cd-S (solid line) and Cd-OH (dotted line) standards.
The predicted speciation of Cd in various tissues of Carpobrotus rossii and Solanum nigrum grown for 14 d in nutrient solutions containing 15 μM Cd, as calculated using linear combination fitting (LCF) of the K-edge XANES spectra
| Treatment |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd-S (%) | Cd-OH (%) |
| Cd-S (%) | Cd-OH (%) |
| |
|
| ||||||
| (NH4)2SO4 | 89 (0.8) | 11 (1.2) | 0.00012 | 68 (0.6) | 32 (0.9) | 0.00006 |
| KNO3 | 91 (0.8) | 9 (1.7) | 0.00011 | 69 (1.0) | 31 (0.6) | 0.00006 |
|
| ||||||
| (NH4)2SO4 | 75 (0.8) | 25 (1.4) | 0.00010 | 55 (1.0) | 45 (1.0) | 0.00019 |
| KNO3 | 75 (1.1) | 25 (1.3) | 0.00020 | 44 (1.0) | 56 (1.0) | 0.00018 |
|
| ||||||
| (NH4)2SO4 | 79 (0.8) | 21 (2.2) | 0.00013 | 45 (0.8) | 55 (0.8) | 0.00012 |
| KNO3 | 60 (0.8) | 40 (1.6) | 0.00010 | 46 (0.8) | 54 (0.8) | 0.00010 |
|
| ||||||
| (NH4)2SO4 | 80 (1.0) | 20 (1.5) | 0.00017 | 83 (0.6) | 17 (1.1) | 0.00006 |
| KNO3 | 68 (0.6) | 32 (1.6) | 0.00008 | 85 (1.0) | 15 (1.0) | 0.00005 |
|
| ||||||
| (NH4)2SO4 | 13 (0.9) | 87 (1.9) | 0.00014 | |||
| KNO3 | 5 (0.7) | 95 (1.8) | 0.00010 | |||
The values in brackets show the percentage variation in the calculated values. The goodness of fit is indicated by the R-factor: R-factor = Σ (experiment – fit)2 ⁄ Σ (experimental)2, where the sums are over the data points in the fitting region.