Advertisement

Effect of Nano-Carbon Black Surface Modification on Toxicity to Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) Using Filter Paper Contact and Avoidance Test

  • Kun Xu
  • Ya-xin Liu
  • Xiao-feng Wang
  • Jie-min ChengEmail author
Article

Abstract

Engineered nanomaterials (NMs) may enter the soil through various channels and pose potential harm to soil animals, especially those proactively applied for soil heavy metal remediation. Effects of nano-carbon black (CB) and surface modified carbon black (MCB) on catalase (CAT) activity and malondialdehyde (MDA) content in earthworms exposed on filter paper for 48 h were tested. Avoidance test was used to determine hazard of soil treated with 0.015% and 1.5% CB and MCB. Surface properties of NMs were also characterized. MCB has a significant effect on CAT activity at 70 and 1000 mg/L (1.1 and 15.7 µg/cm2), but has no impact on MDA content in earthworm. Strongly avoidance behavior of worms was also found in soil added 1.5% MCB. Negative charges and oxygen functional groups increased for MCB and its adverse effect on earthworm was higher than CB. The application of MCB in soil remediation warrants more attention.

Keywords

Toxicity Nano-carbon black Surface charge and functional group Earthworm Soil immobilization agents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Fund Committee, China (Nos. 41877119 and 41471255) and the Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation of China (No. ZR2016YL002).

Supplementary material

128_2019_2572_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 5532 KB)

References

  1. Boehm HP (1994) Some aspects of the surface chemistry of carbon blacks and other carbons. Carbon 32(5):759–769Google Scholar
  2. Buege JA, Aust SD (1978) Microsomal lipid peroxidation. In: Methods in enzymology, vol 52. Academic Press, New York, pp. 302–310Google Scholar
  3. Cheng J, Yu L, Li T, Liu Y, Lu C, Li T, Wang H (2015) Effects of nano-scale carbon black modified by HNO3 on immobilization and phytoavailability of Ni in contaminated soil. J Chem 2015(2):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/839069 Google Scholar
  4. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21(10):1166–1170Google Scholar
  5. Donaldson K, Stone V, Seaton A, Macnee W (2001) Ambient particle inhalation and the cardiovascular system: potential mechanisms. Environ Health Perspect 109(Suppl 4):523–527Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson K, Stone V, Tran CL, Kreyling W, Borm PJ (2004) Nanotoxicology. Occup Environ Med 61(9):727–728Google Scholar
  7. Fitzpatrick LC, Muratti-Ortiz JF, Venables BJ, Goven AJ (1996) Comparative toxicity in earthworms Eisenia fetida and Lumbricus terrestris exposed to cadmium nitrate using artificial soil and filter paper protocols. B Environ Contam Toxicol 57(1):63–68Google Scholar
  8. Góth L (1991) A simple method for determination of serum catalase activity and revision of reference range. Clin Chim Acta 196(2–3):143–151Google Scholar
  9. Havrdova M, Hola K, Skopalik J, Tomankova K, Petr M, Cepe K, Polakova K, Tucek J, Bourlinosad AB, Zborila R (2016) Toxicity of carbon dots-effect of surface functionalization on the cell viability, reactive oxygen species generation and cell cycle. Carbon 99:238–248Google Scholar
  10. He M, Shi H, Zhao X, Yu Y, Qu B (2013) Immobilization of Pb and Cd in contaminated soil using nano-crystallite hydroxyapatite. Procedia Environ Sci 18(18):657–665Google Scholar
  11. Li Z, Zhou MM, Lin W (2014) The research of nanoparticle and microparticle hydroxyapatite amendment in multiple heavy metals contaminated soil remediation. J Nanomater 2014(2):1–8Google Scholar
  12. Li S, Stein AJ, Kruger A, Leblanc RM (2015) Head groups of lipids govern the interaction and orientation between graphene oxide and lipids. J Phys Chem C 117(31):16150–16158Google Scholar
  13. Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J, O’neill B, Skjemstadb O, Thiesa J, Luizãoc FJ, Petersend J, Nevese EG (2006) Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70(5):1719–1730Google Scholar
  14. Liu YZ, Cheng JM (2012) Adsorption kinetics and isotherms of Cu(II) and Cd(II) onto oxidized nano carbon black. In: Advanced materials research, vol. 529. Trans Tech Publications, New York, pp. 579–584Google Scholar
  15. Lyv Y, Yu Y, Li T, Cheng J (2018) Rhizosphere effects of Loliumperenne L. and Betavulgaris var. cicla L. on the immobilization of Cd by modified nanoscale black carbon in contaminated soil. J Soil Sediment 18(1):1–11Google Scholar
  16. Magrez A, Kasas S, Salicio V, Pasquier N, Seo JW, Celio M, Catsicas S, Schwaller B, Forró L (2006) Cellular toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials. Nano Lett 6(6):1121–1125Google Scholar
  17. Mcshane H, Sarrazin M, Whalen JK, Hendershot WH, Sunahara GI (2012) Reproductive and behavioral responses of earthworms exposed to nano-sized titanium dioxide in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(1):184–193Google Scholar
  18. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311(5761):622–627Google Scholar
  19. Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150(1):5–22Google Scholar
  20. Oberdörster E (2004) Manufactured nanomaterials (fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environ Health Persp 112(10):1058–1062Google Scholar
  21. Oberdörster G, Ferin J, Lehnert BE (1994) Correlation between particle size, in vivo particle persistence, and lung injury. Environ Health Perspect 102(Suppl 5):173–179Google Scholar
  22. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839Google Scholar
  23. OECD guideline for testing chemical 207.earthworm acute toxicity test (1984) Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. Patricia CS, Nerea GV, Erik U, Elena SM, Darío DMW, Manu S (2017) Responses to silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate in a battery of biomarkers measured in coelomocytes and in target tissues of Eisenia fetida earthworms. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 141:57–63Google Scholar
  25. Petersen EJ, Huang QG, Weber WJW Jr (2008) Ecological uptake and depuration of carbon nanotubes by Lumbriculus variegatus. Environ Health Perspect 116(4):496–500Google Scholar
  26. Schaefer M (2003) Behavioural endpoints in earthworm ecotoxicology. J Soil Sediment 3(2):79–84Google Scholar
  27. Shoults-Wilson WA, Zhurbich OI, Mcnear DH, Tsyusko OV, Bertsch PM, Unrine JM (2011) Evidence for avoidance of Ag nanoparticles by earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Ecotoxicology 20(2):385–396Google Scholar
  28. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Alvarez P, Dionysiou D, Biswas P (2006) Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 40(14):4336–4345Google Scholar
  29. Yu Y, Li X, Cheng J (2016) A comparison study of mechanism: Cu2+ adsorption on different adsorbents and their surface-modified adsorbents. J Chem 2016(5):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7936258 Google Scholar
  30. Zhang L, Hu C, Wang W, Ji F, Cui Y, Li M (2014) Acute toxicity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, sodium pentachlorophenate, and their complex on earthworm Eisenia fetida. Ecotox Environ Safe 103(1):29–35Google Scholar
  31. Zhao FJ, Ma Y, Zhu YG, Tang Z, Mcgrath SP (2015) Soil contamination in china: current status and mitigation strategies. Environ Sci Technol 49(2):750–759Google Scholar
  32. Zhou DM, Wang YJ, Wang HW, Wang SQ, Cheng JM (2010) Surface-modified nanoscale carbon black used as sorbents for Cu(II) and Cd(II). J Hazard Mater 174(1):34–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun Xu
    • 1
  • Ya-xin Liu
    • 1
  • Xiao-feng Wang
    • 1
  • Jie-min Cheng
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Geography and EnvironmentShandong Normal UniversityJinanChina

Personalised recommendations