| Literature DB >> 33917750 |
Cristina Dinu1, Stefania Gheorghe1, Anda Gabriela Tenea1,2, Catalina Stoica1, Gabriela-Geanina Vasile1, Roxana Luisa Popescu3, Ecaterina Anca Serban1, Luoana Florentina Pascu1.
Abstract
This study aimed to evEntities:
Keywords: Mentha piperita; metals; translocation
Year: 2021 PMID: 33917750 PMCID: PMC8068125 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18083904
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The results of metal concentrations (average ± SD) detected in control soil.
| Metals | Control Soil (M) | Reference Values for Soils with Sensitive Uses (mg/kg d.w.) * | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal Value | Alert | Intervention Threshold | ||
| As | 1.29 ± 0.33 | 5 | 15 | 25 |
| Cd | <0.08 ** | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Ni | 13.4 ± 0.12 | 20 | 75 | 150 |
| Pb | 4.8 ± 0.56 | 20 | 50 | 100 |
Note: * MAPPM Order 756/1997; SD—Standard Deviation (n = 6); ** value lower than method quantification limit.
The performance parameters of the applied method.
| Metals | LOD, | Precision, | Uncertainty, % | BCR-482 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Certified Value ± Uncertainty, mg/kg | Determined Value ± Uncertainty, mg/kg | Recovery, % | ||||
| As | 0.25 | 7.50 | 15.3 | 0.85 ± 0.07 | 0.88 ± 0.13 | 103.5 |
| Cd | 0.02 | 5.65 | 12.5 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 0.54 ± 0.07 | 96.43 |
| Cr | 0.02 | 4.55 | 13.1 | 4.12 ± 0.15 | 4.23 ± 0.55 | 102.7 |
| Cu | 0.02 | 5.30 | 12.6 | 7.03 ± 0.19 | 6.94 ± 0.87 | 98.72 |
| Ni | 0.04 | 4.80 | 12.7 | 2.47 ± 0.07 | 2.56 ± 0.33 | 103.7 |
| Pb | 0.50 | 5.70 | 14.6 | 40.9 ± 1.4 | 39.6 ± 5.8 | 96.82 |
| Zn | 0.03 | 5.35 | 12.7 | 100.6 ± 2.2 | 96.4 ± 12.2 | 95.81 |
Figure 1Variation of As concentration in soil (average ± SD, n = 6).
Figure 2Variation of Cd concentration in soil (average ± SD, n = 6).
Figure 3Variation of Ni concentration in soil (average ± SD, n = 6).
Figure 4Variation of Pb concentration in soil (average ± SD, n = 6).
The p values applied to plant organs in terms of metals (Cd, Ni, and Pb) in the exposed period (May–July).
| Plant Organ System | Experiment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | Ni | Pb | ||
| Root–stem | M | ** (0.002) | ** (0.008) | ns (0.135) |
| AsCd | ** (0.0001) | * (0.014) | * (0.043) | |
| AsCdNiPb | * (0.022) | ** (0.003) | ns (0.110) | |
| Root–leaves | M | ns (0.062) | * (0.018) | ns (0.256) |
| AsCd | ** (0.0001) | ns (0.255) | * (0.036) | |
| AsCdNiPb | * (0.010) | ** (0.002) | * (0.038) | |
| Stem–leaves | M | ns (0.445) | ns (0.276) | ns (0.280) |
| AsCd | ns (0.303) | ns (0.159) | ns (0.186) | |
| AsCdNiPb | ns (0.169) | ns (0.306) | * (0.030) | |
Note: ns (insignificant) p > 0.05, * significant p < 0.05, ** very significant p < 0.01.
Figure 5Variation of Cd concentration in Mentha piperita. The gray lines on the top indicate significant differences: ** in root (p < 0.01) and * in stem (p < 0.05), during the exposed period (from May to July) compared to control (M).
Figure 6Variation of Ni concentration in Mentha piperita. The gray lines on the top indicate significant differences: ** in root (p < 0.01) and * in stem (p < 0.05), during the exposed period (from May to July) compared to control (M).
Figure 7Variation of Pb concentration in Mentha piperita. The gray lines on the top indicate significant differences: * in root and stem (p < 0.05), during the exposed period (from May to July) compared to control (M).
The p values for the controls and polluted experiments using the data obtained for the same plant organ in the exposed period (May–July).
| Plant Organ/Experiment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | Ni | Pb | |
|
| |||
| M/AsCd | ** (0.001) | ns (0.327) | ns (0.404) |
| M/AsCdNiPb | ** (0.009) | ** (0.0005) | * (0.048) |
| AsCd/AsCdNiPb | ns (0.234) | ** (0.005) | ns (0.074) |
|
| |||
| M/AsCd | ns (0.191) | ns (0.381) | ns (0.179) |
| M/AsCdNiPb | * (0.030) | * (0.012) | * (0.040) |
| AsCd/AsCdNiPb | * (0.049) | ** (0.009) | * (0.040) |
|
| |||
| M/AsCd | ns (0.491) | ns (0.197) | ns (0.103) |
| M/AsCdNiPb | ns (0.247) | ns (0.089) | ns (0.188) |
| AsCd/AsCdNiPb | ns (0.220) | ns (0.171) | ns (0.095) |
Note: ns (insignificant) p > 0.05, * significant p < 0.05, ** very significant p < 0.01.
Figure 8Biometrical data of Mentha piperita leaves (after 1 month of exposure), expressed as average ± SD (n = 12), where: (A)—Leaves length; (B)—Leaves width; (C)—Leaves weight; and * significant differences (p < 0.05), ** very significant differences (p < 0.01) compared to control (M)
Figure 9Chlorophyll pigments concentration in Mentha piperita leaves, expressed as average ± SD (n = 4).
Figure 10Transfer coefficient (TC) of metals from soil to Mentha piperita root.
Figure 11Translocation factor (TF) of metals from root to stem in Mentha piperita.
Figure 12Translocation factor (TF) of metals from root to leaves in Mentha piperita.