Ti and Zn Content in Moss Shoots After Exposure to TiO2 and ZnO Nanoparticles: Biomonitoring Possibilities

  • Oldřich MotykaEmail author
  • Lucie Chlebíková
  • Kateřina Mamulová Kutláková
  • Jana Seidlerová


To assess the uptake of nanoparticles by moss shoots and the possibility of biomonitoring the moss of nanoparticle pollution, two moss species frequently used in biomonitoring surveys [Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) Schimp. and Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt.] were repeatedly exposed to known concentrations of either nano-TiO2 or nano-ZnO suspensions. The interspecies differences were assessed by exposing both the species to 1 g L−1 nano-ZnO suspension, H. splendens samples were also exposed to either 0.1 g L−1 or 1 g L−1 suspension of nano TiO2. The exposed samples were analysed for Zn or Ti content using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. Both species showed a similar accumulation pattern, H. splendens being a slightly better accumulator. The washing suggests that Ti successfully penetrated the interior of the gametophyte. Since the relationship between the exposure and accumulation is linear, moss biomonitoring is, hereby, considered to be a viable, novel technique in nanoparticle pollution assessment.


Biomonitoring Moss Pollution Nano-TiO2 Nano-ZnO 



The paper was realised in the frame of the projects (Grant Nos. SP2018/71 and LO1404) “Sustainable Development of ENET Center”. While financially supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. Authors would also like to express their gratitude to Mr. Mark Landry for English language editing.


  1. Berg T, Steinnes E (1997) Use of mosses (Hylocomium splendens and Pleurozium schreberi) as biomonitors of heavy metal deposition: from relative to absolute deposition values. Environ Pollut 98:61–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Canivet L, Dubot P, Denayer F (2014) Uptake of iron nanoparticles by Aphanorrhegma patens (Hedw.) Lindb. J Bryol 36:104–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canivet L, Dubot P, Garçon G, Denayer F (2015) Effects of engineered iron nanoparticles on the bryophyte, Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.). Bruch. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 113:499–505. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capozzi F, Giordano S, Aboal JR et al (2016) Best options for the exposure of traditional and innovative moss bags: a systematic evaluation in three European countries. Environ Pollut 214:362–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conway J, Beaulieu A, Beaulieu N et al (2015) Environmental stresses increase photosynthetic disruption by metal oxide nanomaterials in a soil-grown plant. ACS Nano 9:11737–11749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Palma A, Capozzi F, Spagnuolo V et al (2017) Atmospheric particulate matter intercepted by moss-bags: relations to moss trace element uptake and land use. Chemosphere 176:361–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández J, Carballeira A (2000) Differences in the responses of native and transplanted mosses to atmospheric pollution: a possible role of selenium. Environ Pollut 110:73–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández J, Aboal J, Carballeira A (2010) Testing differences in methods of preparing moss samples. Effect of washing on Pseudoscleropodium purum. Environ Monit Assess 163:669–684. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Future Markets (2016) Nanomaterials Production 2002–2016: Production Volumes, Revenues and End User Market DemandGoogle Scholar
  10. Hong F, Zhou J, Liu C et al (2005) Effect of Nano-TiO2 on photochemical reaction of chloroplasts of spinach. Biol Trace Elem Res 105:269–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumari M, Khan S, Pakrashi S et al (2011) Cytogenetic and genotoxic effects of zinc oxide nanoparticles on root cells of Allium cepa. J Hazard Mater 190:613–621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mamulová Kutláková K, Tokarský J, Kovář P et al (2011) Preparation and characterization of photoactive composite kaolinite/TiO2. J Hazard Mater 188:212–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mamulová Kutláková K, Tokarský J, Peikertová P (2015) Functional and eco-friendly nanocomposite kaolinite/ZnO with high photocatalytic activity. Appl Catal B 162:392–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (2003) Definitions, strategies and principles for bioindication/biomonitoring of the environment. In: Markert B, Breure A, Zechmeister H (eds) Bioindicators: principles, concepts, and applications. Elsevier, Boston, pp 3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Motyka O, Macečková B, Seidlerová J, Krejčí B (2015) Environmental factors affecting trace metal accumulation in two moss species. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci 10:57–63Google Scholar
  16. Nowack B, Bucheli T (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  18. Spagnuolo V, Figlioli F, De Nicola F et al (2017) Tracking the route of phenanthrene uptake in mosses: an experimental trial. Sci Total Environ 575:1066–1073. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Walser T, Schwabe F, Thöni L et al (2013) Nanosilver emissions to the atmosphere: a new challenge?. In: Pirrone N (ed) E3S Web of Conferences. pp 14003-1–14003-4Google Scholar
  20. Yang F, Hong F, You W et al (2006) Influences of nano-anatase TiO2 on the nitrogen metabolism of growing spinach. Biol Trace Elem Res 110:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zuverza-Mena N, Martínez-Fernández D, Du W et al (2017) Exposure of engineered nanomaterials to plants: insights into the physiological and biochemical responses-A review. Plant Physiol Biochem. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanotechnology CentreVŠB—Technical University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic
  2. 2.ENET – Energy Units for Utilization of Non-Traditional Energy SourcesVŠB—Technical University of OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations