Author
Listed:
- Jing Nie
(College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
- Yuqiang Pan
(Key Laboratory of Farming System, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)
- Jing Shi
(Department of Safety Engineering, China Institute of Industrial Relations, Beijing 100048, China)
- Yan Guo
(College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)
- Zengguang Yan
(State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
- Xiaoli Duan
(State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
- Meng Xu
(State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
Abstract
In soil ecotoxicological studies, a toxic metal is usually added in the form of either an inorganic or organic salt with relatively high solubility. Nitrate, chloride, acetate, or sulfate are commonly considered as valid options for that aim. However, recent studies have shown that different salts of the same metal at the same cationic concentration may exhibit different toxicities to plants and soil organisms. This information should be considered when selecting data to use for developing toxicological criteria for soil environment. A comparative study was carried out to evaluate the toxicity of five nickel (Ni) salts: NiCl 2 , NiSO 4 , Ni(II)-citrate, Ni(CH 3 COO) 2 , and Ni(II)-EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetate), on maize seedlings. The plant metrics used were plant height, shoot and root biomass, leaf soluble sugars and starch, and the Ni contents of the shoots and roots. The results indicated that when Ni was added to the soil, toxicity varied with the selected anionic partner with the following toxicity ranking NiSO 4 < Ni(CH 3 COO) 2 < Ni(II)-citrate < NiCl 2 < Ni(II)-EDTA. Taking the plant-height metric as an example, the effective concentrations for 50% inhibition (EC 50 ) were 3148 mg·kg −1 for NiSO 4 , 1315 mg·kg −1 for NiCl 2 , and 89 mg·kg −1 for Ni(II)-EDTA. Compared with the Ni in the other salts, that in Ni(II)-EDTA was taken up the most efficiently by the maize roots and, thus, resulted in the greatest toxic effects on the plants. Nickel generally reduced leaf soluble sugars, which indicated an effect on plant carbohydrate metabolism. The outcome of the study demonstrates that different salts of the same metal have quite different ecotoxicities. Therefore, the anionic counterpart of a potentially toxic metal cation must be taken into account in the development of ecotoxicological criteria for evaluating the soil environment, and a preferred approach of leaching soil to reduce the anionic partner should also be considered.
Suggested Citation
Jing Nie & Yuqiang Pan & Jing Shi & Yan Guo & Zengguang Yan & Xiaoli Duan & Meng Xu, 2015.
"A Comparative Study on the Uptake and Toxicity of Nickel Added in the Form of Different Salts to Maize Seedlings,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, November.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:12:p:14972-15087:d:59598
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Ya Wang & Chengqiao Shi & Kang Lv & Youqing Li & Jinjin Cheng & Xiaolong Chen & Xianwen Fang & Xiangyang Yu, 2019.
"Genotypic Variation in Nickel Accumulation and Translocation and Its Relationships with Silicon, Phosphorus, Iron, and Manganese among 72 Major Rice Cultivars from Jiangsu Province, China,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:12:p:14972-15087:d:59598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.