| Literature DB >> 33934305 |
Mirco Bundschuh1,2, Jochen P Zubrod3,4, Marco Konschak3, Patrick Baudy3, Bianca Frombold3, Ralf Schulz3,4.
Abstract
Nanoparticulate titanium dioxide (nTiO2) is frequently applied, raising concerns about potential side effects on the environment. While various studies have assessed structural effects in aquatic model ecosystems, its impact on ecosystem functions provided by microbial communities (biofilms) is not well understood. This is all the more the case when considering additional stressors, such as UV irradiation - a factor known to amplify nTiO2-induced toxicity. Using pairwise comparisons, we assessed the impact of UV (UV-A = 1.6 W/m2; UV-B = 0.7 W/m2) at 0, 20 or 2000 μg nTiO2/L on two ecosystem functions provided by leaf-associated biofilms: while leaf litter conditioning, important for detritivorous invertebrate nutrition, seems unaffected, microbial leaf decomposition was stimulated (up to 25%) by UV, with effect sizes being higher in the presence of nTiO2. Although stoichiometric and microbial analyses did not allow for uncovering the underlying mechanism, it seems plausible that the combination of a shift in biofilm community composition and activity together with photodegradation as well as the formation of reactive oxygen species triggered changes in leaf litter decomposition. The present study implies that the multiple functions a microbial community performs are not equally sensitive. Consequently, relying on one of the many functions realized by the same microbial community may be misleading for environmental management.Entities:
Keywords: Ecological effects; Food selection; Nanomaterials; Semi-conductor; Trophic interaction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33934305 PMCID: PMC8445855 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14090-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Mean (±95% confidence interval (CI)) leaf mass consumed by G. fossarum in food choice experiments. a The impact of UV at a given nTiO2 concentration was assessed: Gammarids had the choice between leaf discs conditioned in darkness (filled symbols) or under UV irradiation (open symbols) in combination with 0 (circles), 20 (squares), and 2000 (triangles) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p > 0.5; n ≥ 39). b The impact of two nTiO2 concentrations during conditioning in darkness was assessed: gammarids had the choice between leaf discs conditioned in darkness (filled symbols) in combination with 0 (circles) vs 20 (square) and 2000 (triangle) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p > 0.5; n ≥ 39). c The impact of two nTiO2 concentrations during conditioning under UV irradiation was assessed: gammarids had the choice between leaf discs conditioned under UV irradiation (open symbols) in combination with 0 (circles) vs 20 (square) and 2000 (triangle) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p > 0.5; n ≥ 39)
Fig. 2Mean (±95% CI) a fungal biomass measured as ergosterol and b bacterial density after 12 days of microbial conditioning in darkness (filled symbols) or under UV irradiation (open symbols) fully crossed with 0 (circles), 20 (squares), and 2000 (triangles) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; n = 7; asterisk indicates a significant difference at p < 0.001)
Mean percentage (with range) of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S) contained in leaf material microbially conditioned in the presence of different nTiO2 concentrations in the absence or presence of ambient UV irradiation (UV-A = 1.6 W/m2; UV-B = 0.7 W/m2) for 12 days
| nTiO2 | UV | C (%) | H (%) | N (%) | S (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 μg/L | No | 49.10 (48.07–50.12) | 6.16 (6.01–6.30) | 5.82 (5.45–6.20) | 0.52 (0.43–0.61) |
| Yes | 49.80 (48.69–50.91) | 6.29 (6.10–6.49) | 5.82 (5.53–6.11) | 0.39 (0.23–0.55) | |
| 20 μg/L | No | 49.22 (48.14–50.30) | 6.21 (6.09–6.32) | 5.85 (5.46–6.23) | 0.44 (0.35–0.52) |
| Yes | 50.01 (48.98–51.05) | 6.22 (6.15–6.30) | 5.83 (5.57–6.09) | 0.46 (0.35–0.58) | |
| 2000 μg/L | No | 49.46 (48.40–50.52) | 6.12 (5.88–6.35) | 5.92 (5.60–6.23) | 0.43 (0.25–0.61) |
| Yes | 49.61 (48.79–50.44) | 6.25 (6.08–6.41) | 5.71 (5.38–6.03) | 0.37 (0.20–0.53) |
Output table of the two-factorial ANOVAs performed on untransformed or rank-transformed fungal biomass and bacterial density data, respectively
| Df | Sum of squares | Mean squares | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fungal biomass | |||||
| UV | 1 | 52,415 | 52,415 | 16.427 | <0.001 |
| nTiO2 | 2 | 16,323 | 8161 | 2.558 | 0.091 |
| Interaction | 2 | 10,774 | 5387 | 1.688 | 0.199 |
| Residuals | 36 | 114,872 | 3191 | ||
| Bacterial density | |||||
| UV | 1 | 107 | 106.88 | 0.686 | 0.413 |
| nTiO2 | 2 | 364 | 182.00 | 1.168 | 0.322 |
| Interaction | 2 | 92 | 45.81 | 0.294 | 0.747 |
| Residuals | 36 | 5608 | 155.78 | ||
Fig. 3Mean (±95% CI) microbial leaf mass loss. a The impact of UV at a given nTiO2 concentration was assessed in a pairwise design; microbial leaf mass during conditioning in darkness (filled symbols) or under UV irradiation (open symbols) fully crossed with 0 (circles), 20 (squares), and 2000 (triangles) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p < 0.001; n ≥ 48). b The impact of two nTiO2 concentrations during conditioning in darkness was assessed in a pairwise design; microbial leaf mass during conditioning in darkness (filled symbols) in combination with 0 (circles) vs 20 (square) and 2000 (triangle) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p > 0.1; n ≥ 39). c The impact of two nTiO2 concentrations during conditioning under UV irradiation was assessed in a pairwise design; microbial leaf mass during conditioning under UV irradiation (open symbols) in combination with 0 (circles) vs 20 (square) and 2000 (triangle) μg nTiO2/L, respectively (pairwise t-tests; p > 0.01; n ≥ 48)