| Literature DB >> 32823916 |
Lei Xiang1,2, Yan-Wen Li1, Zhen-Ru Wang1, Bai-Lin Liu1, Hai-Ming Zhao1, Hui Li1, Quan-Ying Cai1, Ce-Hui Mo1, Qing X Li2.
Abstract
Microcystin-LR (Entities:
Keywords: agricultural plants; bioaccumulation; degradation; input pathway; microcystin-LR; phytotoxicity; soil pollution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32823916 PMCID: PMC7472386 DOI: 10.3390/toxins12080523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Figure 1Bioaccumulation of microcystin-LR (MC-LR) in different parts of three tested vegetables upon various treatments. IPW, CPS, and ACM stand for irrigation with polluted water, cultivation of polluted soil, and application of cyanobacterial manure, respectively. The same capital letter in each treatment indicates no significant difference in MC-LR concentration among different vegetable parts (p > 0.05). The same low case letter in each vegetable tissue indicates no significant difference in MC-LR concentration among different treatments (p > 0.05). These annotations mentioned above are no longer annotated hereinafter.
Root concentration factor (RCF), root translation factor (RTF), and stem translation factor (STF) of MC-LR in three tested vegetables in various treatments.
| Vegetable | Treatment |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPW | 0.05 ± 0.02 Aab | 0.12 ± 0.08 Ba | 4.07 ± 1.54 Ba a | |
| CPS | 0.03 ± 0.01 Ba | 0.21 ± 0.02 Ca | 3.94 ± 0.39 Ba | |
| ACM | 0.07 ± 0.02 Ab | 0.15 ± 0.03 Ba | 2.87 ± 1.20 Ba | |
| IPW | 0.03 ± 0.01 Ab | 0.41 ± 0.11 Ca | 0.31 ± 0.11Aa | |
| CPS | 0.004 ± 0.001 Aa | 0.36 ± 0.07 Ba | 1.90 ± 1.12 Ab | |
| ACM | 0.16 ± 0.02 Bc | 0.25 ± 0.12 Ba | 0.17 ± 0.01Aa | |
| IPW | 0.06 ± 0.01 Ab | 0.03 ± 0.01 Aa | 2.62 ± 1.80 Ba | |
| CPS | 0.02 ± 0.01 Ba | 0.02 ± 0.01 Aa | 2.73 ± 0.80 ABa | |
| ACM | 0.19 ± 0.02 Bc | 0.03 ± 0.01 Aa | 1.03 ± 0.45 ABa |
a The same small letters in each factor of one vegetable under different treatments or the same capital letters in each factor of one treatment using different vegetables indicate no significant differences (p > 0.05).
Figure 2MC-LR degradation in soils of various treatments.
The fitted equations for MC-LR degradation in soils grown in different vegetables.
| Vegetable | Treatment | Equation a |
| Half-life ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPW | y = −3.9x2 + 35.6x + 36.5 | 0.744 * | 7.7 | |
| CPS | y = 203.1e−0.28x | 0.936 ** | 3.6 | |
| ACM | y = −3.15x2 + 30.0x + 135.1 | 0.786 ** | 11.3 | |
| IPW | y = −3.1x2 + 30.1x + 25.4 | 0.832 ** | 7.6 | |
| CPS | y = 203.9e−0.28x | 0.863 ** | 3.6 | |
| ACM | y = −1.9x2 + 12.0x + 136.0 | 0.827 ** | 9.8 | |
| IPW | y = −3.1x2 + 27.9x + 38.4 | 0.750 * | 7.4 | |
| CPS | y = 187.3e−0.26x | 0.792 ** | 3.5 | |
| ACM | y = −0.61x2 + 5.2x + 146.9 | 0.643 * | 16.0 | |
| Non-planted vegetable | IPW | y = −2.0x2 + 16.2x + 50.0 | 0.726 * | 6.1 |
| CPS | y = 213.4e−0.24x | 0.947 ** | 4.3 | |
| ACM | y = −2.7x2 + 23.2x + 140.8 | 0.800 ** | 11.4 |
a “x” and “y” in the equation indicate cultivation days and MC-LR concentration in soil, respectively. b “*” and “**” indicate p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively. c Half-life indicates a cultivation time when MC-LR concentration in soil was decreased to half of the total amount of added MC-LR, i.e., 75 μg/kg.
Biomasses of the tested three vegetables in various treatments.
| Vegetable | Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Main Root Length (cm) | Total Weight (g/plant) | Aerial Part Weight (g/plant) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK a | 69.5 ± 7.8 a c | 25.5 ± 0.7 b | 26.4 ± 2.6 b | 25.1 ± 2.3 b | |
| IPW b | 67.7 ± 18.0 a | 24.0 ± 1.0 b | 16.4 ± 0.1 a | 15.5 ± 0.9 a | |
| CPS | 69.0 ± 5.7 a | 25.0 ± 0.1 b | 15.5 ± 3.2 a | 15.1 ± 4.2 a | |
| ACM | 53.8 ± 5.6 a | 16.8 ± 1.9 a | 14.3 ± 3.4 a | 13.1 ± 3.7 a | |
| CK | 58.0 ± 10.2 b | 21.7 ± 8.1 b | 55.6 ± 5.2 b | 54.1 ± 3.3 c | |
| IPW | 39.7 ± 6.1 a | 10.0 ± 1.0 a | 39.8 ± 8.7 a | 37.6 ± 7.9 ab | |
| CPS | 46.7 ± 7.5 ab | 11.0 ± 2.7 a | 46.0 ± 2.0 ab | 39.6 ± 0.8 b | |
| ACM | 32.7 ± 4.7 a | 8.7 ± 0.6 a | 30.6 ± 7.5 a | 28.4 ± 0.4 a | |
| CK | 44.0 ± 7.0 c | 13.0 ± 6.1 b | 35.4 ± 4.6 c | 34.5 ± 4.5 c | |
| IPW | 34.3 ± 1.8 b | 8.0 ± 0.1 a | 17.6 ± 5.5 b | 15.6 ± 7.5 ab | |
| CPS | 35.0 ± 1.4 ab | 10.5 ± 2.1 ab | 16.5 ± 2.2 b | 15.9 ± 2.2 b | |
| ACM | 25.6 ± 1.4 a | 8.7 ± 0.6 ab | 9.4 ± 0.9 a | 8.9 ± 0.9 a |
a CK indicates control treatment without addition of MC-LR. b IPW, CPS, and ACM indicate irrigation of polluted water (IPW), cultivation of polluted soil (CPS), and application of cyanobacterial manure (ACM), respectively. c The same letter in each biomass index of one vegetable indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05).
Figure 3Contents of protein and malondialdehyde (MDA) and activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) in three tested vegetables in various treatments. The same letters in each vegetable tissue indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05). CK stands for the control.
Estimated daily intake (EDI) of MC-LR and risk quotient (RQ) via consuming the vegetables.
| Vegetable | Treatment |
| Risk Level a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPW | 0.013 ± 0.003 a b | 0.32 ± 0.08 a | Medium risk | |
| CPS | 0.019 ± 0.002 a | 0.47 ± 0.04 a | Medium risk | |
| ACM | 0.022 ± 0.008 a | 0.55 ± 0.20 a | Medium risk | |
| IPW | 0.002 ± 0.000 a | 0.06 ± 0.008 a | Low risk | |
| CPS | 0.002 ± 0.001 a | 0.05 ± 0.016 a | Low risk | |
| ACM | 0.003 ± 0.001 a | 0.09 ± 0.022 a | Low risk | |
| IPW | 0.004 ± 0.003 ab | 0.10 ± 0.01 ab | Low risk | |
| CPS | 0.001 ± 0.000 a | 0.02 ± 0.01 a | Low risk | |
| ACM | 0.004 ± 0.001 b | 0.11 ± 0.01 b | Medium risk |
a Risk level was evaluated based on RQ value, i.e., high health risk (RQ > 1), moderate health risk (0.1 ≤ RQ ≤ 1), low health risk (RQ < 0.1). b The same letter in each biomass index of one vegetable indicates no significant difference (p > 0.05).