| Literature DB >> 34658457 |
H Pérez-Hernández1, A Pérez-Moreno2, C R Sarabia-Castillo2, S García-Mayagoitia2, G Medina-Pérez3, F López-Valdez4, R G Campos-Montiel3, P Jayanta-Kumar5, F Fernández-Luqueño2.
Abstract
Currently, hundreds of different nanomaterials with a broad application in products that make daily lives a little bit easier, in every aspect, are being produced on an industrial scale at thousands of tons per year. However, several scientists, researchers, politics, and ordinary citizens have stated their concern regarding the life cycle, collateral effects, and final disposal of these cutting-edge materials. This review summarizes, describes, and discusses all manuscripts published in the Journal Citation Reports during the last 10 years, which studied the toxicity or the effects of nanomaterials on human and environmental health. It was observed that 23.62% of the manuscripts analyzed found no ecological or human risks; 54.39% showed that several nanomaterials have toxicological effects on the ecosystems, human, or environmental health. In comparison, only 21.97% stated the nanomaterials had a beneficial impact on those. Although only 54.39% of the manuscripts reported unfavorable effects of nanomaterials on ecosystems, human, or environmental health, it is relevant because the potential damage is invaluable. Therefore, it is imperative to make toxicological studies of nanomaterials with holistic focus under strictly controlled real conditions before their commercialization, to deliver to the market only innocuous and environmentally friendly products.Entities:
Keywords: Ecofriendly; Ecological risks; Environmental pollution; Green synthesis; Nanoparticle; Nanotechnology and nanoscience; Nanotoxicology; Social welfare; Soil degradation; Sustainable development
Year: 2021 PMID: 34658457 PMCID: PMC8507508 DOI: 10.1007/s11270-021-05370-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Water Air Soil Pollut ISSN: 0049-6979 Impact factor: 2.520
Fig. 1Flow diagram of study selection (according to criteria of PRISMA)
Fig. 2Effects caused by ENMs on plants, meso and macrofauna, and mycorrhizal fungi
Fig. 3Scenarios where the effects of ENMs on plants, meso and macrofauna, and mycorrhizal fungi were evaluated
Fig. 4The number of studies in culture media where the effects of ENMs on plants, meso and macrofauna, and mycorrhizal fungi were evaluated
Fig. 5Effects of engineered nanomaterials mostly evaluated in agricultural soils and the response of beneficiary microorganisms
Effects of ENMs in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis
| Nanoparticle | Microbial specie | Evaluation technique | Study focus | Effect degree | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2 | Autochthonous microbes soil | TRFLP, PCR, MRPP* | Composition microbial soil | TiO2 influenced mycorrhizal fungi, but changes in the composition of microbial communities may not affect plants | Burke et al. ( |
| ZnO | BCF, ROS, SOD | Root colonization | ZnO (800 mg kg−1) produced root colonization inhibition; however, inoculation significantly reducing the accumulation of ROS | Wang et al. ( | |
| ZnO | ICP-AES, phosphatase activity | Synergistic effect of root colonization | Inoculation relieves the synergistic effects of pollutants (Cd) | Wang et al. ( | |
| ZnO | ICP-AES, phosphorus uptake | Root colonization and phosphorus acquisition | Inoculation reduced the absorption of Zn ions and promoted phosphorus absorption and, synergistically, the growth of the plant | Wang et al. ( | |
| ZnO | ICP-OES, TEM | Glomalin content, root colonization | Glomalin production reduced the absorption of the Zn ion; mycorrhiza and rhizobium are considered to have a symbiotic association | Siani et al. ( | |
| Fe3O4 | TEM, microcalorimetric measurements, DNA and PCR | Bacterial community, composition, microbe interactions, root colonization | Microbial association reduced the harmful effects of nanoparticles | Cao et al. ( | |
| Fe3O4, Ag | Enzyme determinations, GRSP, X-ray micro-CT | Glomalin content, root colonization | Nanoparticles influenced mycorrhizal growth and function. They decreased enzymatic activity and root growth | Feng et al. ( | |
| TiO2, CeO2, MWCNT | Autochthonous microbes soil | Nitrogen fixation, phosphorus content | Root colonization | MWCNTs (3000 mg kg−1) slightly increased nitrogen fixation. Colonization was not negatively affected by nanoparticle exposure | Moll et al. ( |
| AgS | Autochthonous microbes soil | Enzyme activity, SOD, ICP-MS, DNA extraction, PCR | Mycorrhiza communities | Ag decreased the mycorrhizal colonization and alkaline phosphatase activity. The relative abundances of | Cao et al. ( |
*TRFLP terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, MRPP multi-response permutation procedures, PCR polymerase chain reaction, BCF concentrations and bioconcentration factor, ROS reactive oxygen species, SOD superoxide dismutase, ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, ICP-AES inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy, GRSP glomalin-related soil protein, M-CT a micro-computed tomography