| Literature DB >> 28775260 |
Yang Yang1, Yichen Ge2, Hongyuan Zeng2, Xihong Zhou2, Liang Peng2, Qingru Zeng3,4,5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to estimate the influence of regenerated tobacco on the extraction of Cd from two acidic soils as well as to address the problem of how to deal with contaminated leaves following phytoextraction. Results showed that a coppicing tobacco led to a decline in Cd concentration in regenerated leaves and stalks when plants were grown in pots, but increased concentrations in regenerated lower and middle leaves when plants were grown under field conditions. The highest recorded bioconcentration factors in Chaling and Guanxi soil were 37.53 and 19.21 in lower leaves in the field, respectively. Total Cd extraction efficiency in practice (9.43% for Chaling soil and 6.24% for Guanxi soil) under field conditions confirmed our theoretical calculations (10.0% for Chaling soil and 6.73% for Guanxi soil). Use of a 0.5% hydrochloric acid(HCl) solution was sufficient to reduce Cd (98.4%) in tobacco leaves to permissible levels as required by the Hygienic Standard for Feeds in China (≤0.5 mg kg-1). Regenerated tobacco has the potential to allow cultivation of Cd contaminated farmland to produce animal feed, assist in lowering total Cd content of soil, and allow income generation for farmers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28775260 PMCID: PMC5543114 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05834-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Cd concentrations in tobacco grown in pot and field experiments. Values are means ± SE for nine replicates, while different letters indicate significant differences between root, stalk, lower leaf, middle leaf, and upper leaf of tobacco according to Duncan’s multiple range test at P ≤ 0.05.
BCF values for tobacco grown in pot and field experiments.
| Soil | Cutting times | Upper leaf | Middle leaf | Lower leaf | Stalk | Root |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chaling | Pot-1st | 19.31 ± 2.16a | 23.99 ± 2.48b | 41.11 ± 3.22a | 2.32 ± 0.14c | 3.51 ± 0.16b |
| Pot-2nd | 16.56 ± 0.91b | 19.25 ± 1.16c | 36.41 ± 1.82a | 5.38 ± 0.19c | 2.14 ± 0.10a | |
| Field-1st | 14.04 ± 0.83b | 18.96 ± 1.26c | 28.23 ± 2.16b | 6.05 ± 0.70a | 3.60 ± 0.15b | |
| Field-2nd | 16.09 ± 1.18b | 27.71 ± 2.54a | 37.53 ± 2.99a | 4.51 ± 0.41b | 5.37 ± 0.18a | |
| Guanxi | Pot-1st | 6.07 ± 1.17b | 11.44 ± 0.44c | 23.45 ± 2.64a | 4.16 ± 0.34b | 1.58 ± 0.06c |
| Pot-2nd | 5.38 ± 1.26b | 9.24 ± 0.70d | 19.07 ± 0.58a | 3.75 ± 0.12b | 2.31 ± 0.10b | |
| Field-1st | 11.55 ± 0.89a | 13.71 ± 0.84b | 17.48 ± 0.46a | 5.38 ± 0.19a | 1.55 ± 0.21c | |
| Field-2nd | 10.46 ± 1.14a | 15.34 ± 0.74a | 19.21 ± 0.30a | 5.06 ± 0.21a | 3.51 ± 0.31a |
Note: Standard deviation is represented here as ±SE (n = 3); columns with different letters indicate a significant difference at the P ≤ 0.05 level on the basis of Duncan’s multiple range test.
Biomass of tobacco leaves and stalks.
| Pot experiment | Cutting time | Upper leaf | Middle leaf | Lower leaf | Total leaves | Stalk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g plant−1 | ||||||
| Chaling | 1st | 72.32 ± 0.60a | 73.41 ± 1.31a | 49.20 ± 1.56a | 194.93 ± 0.92b | 63.30 ± 0.90a |
| 2nd | 73.15 ± 0.76a | 74.25 ± 1.36a | 50.00 ± 0.71a | 197.40 ± 0.53a | 63.16 ± 1.05a | |
| Guanxi | 1st | 73.55 ± 1.06a | 73.98 ± 1.00a | 49.15 ± 0.57a | 196.67 ± 1.87ab | 62.67 ± 1.32a |
| 2nd | 73.04 ± 0.88a | 73.56 ±1.23a | 49.87 ± 2.22a | 196.47 ± 0.97ab | 62.53 ± 0.55a | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Chaling | 1st | 1.86 ± 0.02a | 1.86 ± 0.02a | 1.31 ± 0.03a | 5.03 ± 0.03a | 1.47 ± 0.020a |
| 2nd | 1.65 ± 0.02b | 1.64 ± 0.03b | 1.13 ± 0.03b | 4.42 ± 0.08b | 1.42 ± 0.024 b | |
| Guanxi | 1st | 1.85 ± 0.04a | 1.85 ± 0.02a | 1.28 ± 0.02b | 4.98 ± 0.06a | 1.48 ± 0.017a |
| 2nd | 1.65 ± 0.02b | 1.49 ± 0.01c | 1.12 ± 0.01b | 4.24 ± 0.01c | 1.41 ± 0.018 b | |
Note: Standard deviation is represented as ±SE (n = 3); columns with different letters indicate a significant difference at the P ≤ 0.05 level on the basis of Duncan’s multiple range test.
Cd uptake and phytoextraction efficiency of tobacco grown in different soils after two cuts.
| Soil | Cutting time | Cd uptake by tobacco | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pot experiment mg pot−1 | Field experiment g ha−1 | ||
| Chaling | 1st | 3.13 ± 0.02d | 61.15 ± 1.77 f |
| 2nd | 2.70 ± 0.04 f | 70.91 ± 1.41e | |
| Total | 5.82 ± 0.02b | 132.06 ± 3.19b | |
| Guanxi | 1st | 3.64 ± 0.03c | 107.65 ± 1.28c |
| 2nd | 1.88 ± 0.04e | 96.26 ± 0.24d | |
| Total | 5.52 ± 0.07a | 203.91 ± 1.73a | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||
| Chaling | 1st | 35.51 ± 0.22b | 4.63 ± 0.13d |
| 2nd | 30.64 ± 0.41d | 5.37 ± 0.11c | |
| Total | 66.16 ± 0.26a | 10.00 ± 0.25a | |
| Guanxi | 1st | 18.04 ± 0.16e | 3.55 ± 0.05e |
| 2nd | 15.05 ± 0.19 f | 3.18 ± 0.01f | |
| Total | 33.09 ± 0.35c | 6.73 ± 0.06b | |
Note: Standard deviation is represented as ±SE (n = 3); columns with different letters indicate a significant difference at the P ≤ 0.05 level on the basis of Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 2Cd concentrations in soils before and after phytoextraction and Cd removal efficiency by tobacco. Cd concentration in soil (mg kg−1) expressed as bar plots with SE of means, while Cd removal efficiency (%) expressed as the symbols ■, ●, ▲ and ▼ represent means with SE.
Figure 3Cd concentrations in tobacco leaves and extraction yield (%) from tobacco leaves after the three step extraction using different concentration of HCl. Bar plots with SE of means, while different letters indicate significant variations between different HCl concentrations and extraction steps on the basis of Duncan’s multiple range test (P ≤ 0.05).
Content of nicotine and nutrients (i.e., crude protein, Ca, Mg, Fe, K, and P) in residual tobacco leaves following extraction.
| Ca | Mg | P | Fe | K | Crude protein% | Nicotine % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg kg−1 | |||||||
|
| 20,942 ± 193a | 3,781 ± 115a | 3,380 ± 115a | 234 ± 10a | 18,817 ± 172a | 13.93 ± 0.27a | 2.52 ± 0.04 |
|
| 18,256 ± 347b | 3,052 ± 70b | 2,840 ± 81b | 221 ± 3b | 17,771 ± 302b | 13.19 ± 0.06b | 0.26 ± 0.03 |
|
| 10,277 ± 267c | 1,145 ± 91c | 2,168 ± 159c | 219 ± 6b | 15,676 ± 416c | 12.95 ± 0.11b | — |
|
| 6,976 ± 147d | 784 ± 69d | 1,849 ± 61d | 213 ± 4b | 14,573 ± 265d | 12.49 ± 0.07c | — |
|
| 2,994 ± 117e | 376 ± 38e | 965 ± 84e | 209 ± 6b | 13,669 ± 399e | 12.17 ± 0.09d | — |
Note: Standard deviation is represented as ±SE (n = 3); columns with different letters indicate a significant difference at the P ≤ 0.05 level on the basis of Duncan’s multiple range test.
Soil properties.
| Soil properties | Location | |
|---|---|---|
| Chaling | Guanxi | |
| pH (soil:H2O = 1:5) | 4.70 | 5.40 |
| CEC (cmol kg−1) | 12.76 | 16.32 |
| Organic matter (g kg−1) | 33.62 | 24.37 |
| Total N (g kg−1) | 2.19 | 1.12 |
| Total P (mg kg−1) | 685.13 | 408.75 |
| Total Cd (mg kg−1) | 0.59 | 1.38 |
| Available Cd (mg kg−1) | 0.42 | 0.66 |