Advertisement

Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 769–782 | Cite as

Assessment of the toxicity of silicon nanooxide in relation to various components of the agroecosystem under the conditions of the model experiment

  • Svyatoslav Valeryevich Lebedev
  • Irina Aleksandrovna GavrishEmail author
  • Lyudmila Vyacheslavovna Galaktionova
  • Anastasia Mickhailovna Korotkova
  • Elena Anatolyevna Sizova
Original Paper

Abstract

Investigation of SiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) effect on Eisenia fetida showed no toxic effect of the metal at a concentration of 250, 500 and 1000 mg per kg of soil, but conversely, a biomass increase from 23.5 to 29.5% (at the protein level decrease from 60 to 80%). The reaction of the earthworm organism fermentative system was expressed in the decrease in the level of superoxide dismutase (SOD) on the 14th day and in the increase in its activity to 27% on the 28th day. The catalase level (CAT) showed low activity at average element concentrations and increase by 39.4% at a dose of 1000 mg/kg. Depression of malonic dialdehyde (MDA) was established at average concentrations of 11.2% and level increase up to 9.1% at a dose of 1000 mg/kg with the prolongation of the effect up to 87.5% after 28-day exposure. The change in the microbiocenosis of the earthworm intestine was manifested by a decrease in the number of ammonifiers (by 42.01–78.9%), as well as in the number of amylolytic microorganisms (by 31.7–65.8%). When the dose of SiO2 NPs increased from 100 to 1000 mg/kg, the number of Azotobacter increased (by 8.2–22.2%), while the number of cellulose-destroying microorganisms decreased to 71.4% at a maximum dose of 1000 mg/kg. The effect of SiO2 NPs on Triticum aestivum L. was noted in the form of a slight suppression of seed germination (no more than 25%), an increase in the length of roots and aerial organs which generally resulted in an increase in plant biomass. Assessing the soil microorganisms’ complex during introduction of metal into the germination medium of Triticum aestivum L., there was noted a decrease in the ammonifiers number (by 4.7–67.6%) with a maximum value at a dose of 1000 mg/kg. The number of microorganisms using mineral nitrogen decreased by 29.5–69.5% with a simultaneous increase in the number at a dose of 50 mg/kg (+ 20%). Depending on NP dose, there was an inhibition of the microscopic fungi development by 18.1–72.7% and an increase in the number of cellulose-destroying microorganisms. For all variants of the experiment, the activity of soil enzymes of the hydrolase and oxidoreductase classes was decreased.

Keywords

Silicon dioxide Nanoparticle Triticum vulgare Eisenia fetida Microbiocenosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Russian Academy of Sciences within the framework of the program of fundamental scientific research on the programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences «Development of theoretical foundations and practical methods for increasing the efficiency of crop production using nanotechnological solutions» (No. 0761-2018-0032).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed (OECD).

References

  1. Adhikari, T., Kundu, S., & Rao, A. S. (2013). Impact of SiO2 and Mo nano particles on seed germination of rice (Oryza sativa L.). International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology, 4(8), 809–816.Google Scholar
  2. Antisari, L. V., Laudicina, V. A., Gatti, A., Carbone, S., Badalucco, L., & Vianello, G. (2015). Soil microbial biomass carbon and fatty acid composition of earthworm Lumbricus rubellus after exposure to engineered nanoparticles. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 51(2), 261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-014-0972-1.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharjee, S., Haan, L., Evers, N. M., Jiang, X., Marcelis, A., Zuilhof, H., et al. (2010). Role of surface charge and oxidative stress in cytotoxicity of organic monolayer-coated silicon nanoparticles towards macrophage NR8383 cells. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 7, 25.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-7-25.Google Scholar
  4. Calder, A. J., Dimkpa, C. O., McLean, J. E., Britt, D. W., Johnson, W., & Anderson, A. J. (2012). Soil components mitigate the antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles towards a beneficial soil bacterium, Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6. Science of the Total Environment, 429, 215–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.049.Google Scholar
  5. Carbone, S., Antisari, L. V., Gaggia, F., Baffoni, L., Di Gioia, D., Vianello, G., et al. (2014). Bioavailability and biological effect of engineered silver nanoparticles in a forest soil. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 280, 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.07.055.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, D., Hodson, M. E., Eggleton, P., & Kirk, C. (2007). Earthworm induced mineral weathering: Preliminary results. European Journal of Soil Biology, 43, S176–S183.Google Scholar
  7. Chai, H., Yao, J., Sun, J., Zhang, C., Liu, W., Zhu, M., et al. (2015). The effect of metal oxide nanoparticles on functional bacteria and metabolic profiles in agricultural soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 94(4), 490–495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1485-9.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, F., Ding, H., Wang, J., & Shao, L. (2004). Preparation and characterization of porous hollow silica nanoparticles for drug delivery application. Biomaterials, 25(4), 723–727.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00566-0.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, D., Luxton, T., Kumar, N., Shah, S., Walker, V. K., & Shah, V. (2012). Assessing the impact of copper and zinc oxide nanoparticles on soil: A field study. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42663.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042663.Google Scholar
  10. Cornelis, G., Hund-Rinke, K., Kuhlbusch, T., Van den Brink, N., & Nickel, C. (2014). Fate and bioavailability of engineered nanoparticles in soils: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44(24), 2720–2764.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2013.829767.Google Scholar
  11. Debnath, N., Das, S., Seth, D., Chandra, R., Bhattacharya, S., & Goswami, A. (2011). Entomotoxic effect of silica nanoparticles against Sitophilus Oryzae (L.). Journal of Pest Science, 84, 99–105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-010-0332-3.Google Scholar
  12. Du, W., Sun, Y., Ji, R., Zhu, J., Wu, J., & Guo, H. (2011). TiO2 and ZnO nanoparticles negatively affect wheat growth and soil enzyme activities in agricultural soil. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(4), 822–828.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00611D.Google Scholar
  13. Duan, J., Yu, Y., Li, Y., Yu, Y., & Sun, Z. (2013). Cardiovascular toxicity evaluation of silica nanoparticles in endothelial cells and zebrafish model. Biomaterials, 34(23), 5853–5862.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.032.Google Scholar
  14. Eom, H., & Choi, J. (2009). Oxidative stress of silica nanoparticles in human bronchial epithelial cell, Beas-2b. Toxicology in Vitro, 23(7), 1326–1332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2009.07.010.Google Scholar
  15. Fruijtier-Pölloth, C. (2012). The toxicological mode of action and the safety of synthetic amorphous silica-a nanostructured material. Toxicology, 294, 61–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2012.02.001.Google Scholar
  16. Future Markets. (2012). The global market for nanomaterials 2002–2016: Production volumes, revenues and end use markets. Future Markets Inc, 2012, 371.Google Scholar
  17. GOST 33061-2014. (2015). Methods for testing chemical products that present a danger to the environment. Ground plants: Test for seed germination and development of seedlings. Moscow: Standartinform (in Russian).Google Scholar
  18. GOST RISO 22030-2009. (2009). Soil quality. Biological methods. Chronic phytotoxicity in relation to higher plants. Moscow: Publishing Standards (in Russian).Google Scholar
  19. Grishin, G. E., Kuzin, E. N., Akanova, N. I., Nadezhkin, S. M., & Kurnosova, E. V. (2005). Methods of soil and agrochemical research: A textbook for high schools. Penza: RIO of PSPA (in Russian).Google Scholar
  20. He, S., Feng, Y., Ni, J., Sun, Y., Xue, L., Feng, Y., et al. (2016). Different responses of soil microbial metabolic activity to silver and iron oxide nanoparticles. Chemosphere, 147, 195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.055.Google Scholar
  21. Hortal, S., Lozano, Y. M., Bastida, F., Armas, C., Moreno, J. L., Garcia, C., et al. (2017). Plant-plant competition outcomes are modulated by plant effects on the soil bacterial community. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17756.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18103-5.Google Scholar
  22. Hsueh, Y. H., Lin, K. S., Ke, W. J., Hsieh, C. T., Chiang, C. L., et al. (2015). The antimicrobial properties of silver nanoparticles in Bacillus subtilis are mediated by released Ag + ions. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0144306.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144306.Google Scholar
  23. Huang, J., Liang, C., & Zhang, X. (2017). Effects of nano-SiO(2) on the adsorption of chiral metalaxyl to agricultural soils. Environmental Pollution, 225, 201–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.03.065.Google Scholar
  24. Huynh, K. A., & Chen, K. L. (2011). Aggregation kinetics of citrate and polyvinylpyrrolidone coated silver nanoparticles in monovalent and divalent electrolyte solutions. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(13), 5564–5571.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es200157h.Google Scholar
  25. Ismail, S. M. M., Ahmed, M. T., Mosleh, Y. Y. & Ahmed, Y. M. (1997). Comparative toxicity, growth rate and biochemical effect of certain pesticides on earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa. In 7th national congress on pests and diseases of vegetables and fruits in Egypt, Ismailia, Egypt (pp. 107–109).Google Scholar
  26. ISO 11269-1. (2012). Soil quality. Determination of the impact of pollutants on the flora of the soil. Part 1. Method for measuring root growth retardation.Google Scholar
  27. ISO 11269-2. (2012). Soil quality. Determination of the impact of pollutants on the flora of the soil. Part 2. Effects of chemicals on the growth of higher plants.Google Scholar
  28. Kalteh, M., Alipour, Z. T., Ashraf, S., Aliabadi, M. M., & Nosratabadi, A. F. (2014). Effect of silica nanoparticles on basil (Ocimum basilicum) under salinity stress. Journal of Chemical Health Risks, 4(3), 49–55.Google Scholar
  29. Karimi, J., & Mohsenzadeh, S. (2016). Effects of silicon oxide nanoparticles on growth and physiology of wheat seedlings. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 63(1), 119–123.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443716010106.Google Scholar
  30. Karunakaran, G., Suriyaprabha, R., Rajendran, V., & Kannan, N. (2016). Influence of ZrO2, SiO2, Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles on maize seed germination under different growth conditions. IET Nanobiotechnology, 10(4), 171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt.2015.0007.Google Scholar
  31. Karyagina, L. A., & Mikhailovskaya, N. A. (1986). Determination of the activity of polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase in soil. Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences BSSR. Series of agricultural sciences, 2, 41–42. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  32. Kaurichev, I. S. (1982). Workshop on soil science. Moscow: Kolos (in Russian).Google Scholar
  33. Kazeev, K. (2003). Biologic diagnostics and indication of soils: Methodology and methods of researches. Rostov: Publishing House of RGU.Google Scholar
  34. Khaziev, F. H. (1990). Methods of soil enzymology. Moscow: Science (in Russian).Google Scholar
  35. Kim, S., Kim, J., & Lee, I. (2011). Effects of Zn and ZnO nanoparticles and Zn2+ on soil enzyme activity and bioaccumulation of Zn in Cucumis sativus. Chemistry and Ecology, 27(1), 49–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2010.529074.Google Scholar
  36. Kosyan, D. B., Yausheva, E. V., Vasilchenko, A. S., Vasilchenko, A. V., & Miroshnikov, S. A. (2017). Toxicity of SIO2, TIO2 and CEO2 nanoparticles evaluated using the bioluminescence assay. International Journal of GEOMATE, 13(40), 66–73.  https://doi.org/10.21660/2017.40.32064.Google Scholar
  37. Kuzyakov, Y., & Xu, X. (2013). Competition between roots and microorganisms for nitrogen: Mechanisms and ecological relevance. New Phytologist, 198(3), 656–669.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12235.Google Scholar
  38. Lebedev, S., Yausheva, E., Galaktionova, L., & Sizova, E. (2015). Impact of Zn nanoparticles on growth, survival and activity of antioxidant enzymes in Eisenia Fetida. Modern Applied Science, 9(10), 34.Google Scholar
  39. Lebedev, S., Yausheva, E., Galaktionova, L., & Sizova, E. (2016). Impact of molybdenum nanoparticles on survival, activity of enzymes, and chemical elements in Eisenia fetida using test on artificial substrata. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(18), 18099–18110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6916-6.Google Scholar
  40. Li, L. Z., Zhou, D. M., Peijnenburg, W. J., van Gestel, C. A., Jin, S. Y., Wang, Y. J., et al. (2011). Toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles in the earthworm, Eisenia fetida and subcellular fractionation of Zn. Environment International, 37(6), 1098–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.008.Google Scholar
  41. Liang, Y., Nikolic, M., Belanger, R., Gong, H., & Song, A. (2015). Silicon in agriculture: From theory to practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Louie, S. M., Tilton, R. D., & Lowry, G. V. (2013). Effects of molecular weight distribution and chemical properties of natural organic matter on gold nanoparticle aggregation. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(9), 4245–4254.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es400137x.Google Scholar
  43. Lu, M. M. D., De Silva, D. M. R., Peralta, E. K., Fajardo, A. N., & Peralta, M. M. (2015). Effects of nanosilica powder from rice hull ash on seed germination of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Philippine e-Journal for Applied Research and Development, 5, 11–22.Google Scholar
  44. Luyckx, M., Hausman, J. F., Lutts, S., & Guerriero, G. (2017). Silicon and plants: Current knowledge and technological perspectives. Frontiers in Plant Science, 23(8), 411.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00411.Google Scholar
  45. Matichenkov, V. V., Bocharnikova, E. A., Kosobryukhov, A. A., & Biel, K. Y. (2008). Mobile forms of silicon in plants. Doklady Biological Sciences, 418(1), 39–40.Google Scholar
  46. Matychenkov, V. V., & Snyder, G. H. (1996). Mobile silicon-bound compounds in some soils of southern Florida. Eurasian Soil Science, 29(12), 1350–1354.Google Scholar
  47. Method for determining the toxicity of chemicals, polymers, materials and products using the bio-test « Ecolum » . Methodical recommendations No. 01.018-07 (Russian Federation) http://www.consultant.ru/cons/CGI/online.cgi?req=doc&base=EXP&n=410536&dst=100001#0.
  48. Methodical recommendations on the detection of nanomaterials that present a potential danger to human health (2010). Bulletin of normative and methodological documents of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision (Vol. 1) (in Russian). Google Scholar
  49. Morgan, J. E., & Morgan, A. (1999). The accumulation of metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and Ca) by two ecologically contrasting earthworm species (Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa): Implications for ecotoxicological testing. Applied Soil Ecology, 13(1), 9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(99)00012-8.Google Scholar
  50. Mosleh, Y. Y., Paris-Palacios, S., Couderchet, M., & Vernet, G. (2003). Effects of the herbicide isoproturon on survival, growth rate, and protein content of mature earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris L.) and its fate in the soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 23(1), 69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00161-0.Google Scholar
  51. Mukherjee, A., Peralta-Videa, J. R., Bandyopadhyay, S., Rico, C. M., Zhao, L., & Gardea-Torresdey, J. L. (2014). Physiological effects of nanoparticulate ZnO in green peas (Pisum sativum L.) cultivated in soil. Metallomics, 6(1), 132–138.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3mt00064h.Google Scholar
  52. Mullin, J. B., & Riley, J. P. (1955). The colorimetric determination of silicate. Analytica Chimica Acta, 12, 162–176.Google Scholar
  53. Navarro, E., Baun, A., Behra, R., Hartmann, N. B., Filser, J., Miao, A. J., et al. (2008). Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology, 17(5), 372–386.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-008-0214-0.Google Scholar
  54. Nel, A., Xia, T., & Madler, L. (2006). Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science, 311(5761), 622–627.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114397.Google Scholar
  55. OECD. (2010). OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Proposal for a New Test Guideline. Bioaccumulation in Terrestrial Oligochaetes. ENV/JM/TG(2010). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. Accessed 23 Feb 2010.Google Scholar
  56. Park, E., & Park, K. (2009). Oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory responses induced by silica nanoparticles in vivo and in vitro. Toxicology Letters, 184(1), 18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.10.012.Google Scholar
  57. Pavlovic, J., Samardzic, J., Masimovic, V., Timotijevic, G., Stevic, N., Laursen, K. H., et al. (2013). Silicon alleviates iron deficiency in cucumber by promoting mobilization of iron in the root apoplast. New Phytologist, 198, 1096–1107.Google Scholar
  58. Romero-Aranda, M. R., Jurado, O., & Cuartero, J. (2006). Silicon alleviates the deleterious salt effect on tomato plant growth by improving plant water status. Journal of Plant Physiology, 163(8), 847–855.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2005.05.010.Google Scholar
  59. Scott-Fordsmand, J. J., Krogh, P. H., Schaefer, M., & Johansen, A. (2008). The toxicity testing of double-walled nanotubes-contaminated food to Eisenia veneta earthworms. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 71(3), 616–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.04.011.Google Scholar
  60. Shcherbakova, T. A. (1968). On the procedure for determining the activity of invertase and amylase in the soil, pp. 453–455. Reports of the symposium on soil enzymes. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  61. Shcherbakova, T. A. (1983). Enzymatic activity of soils and transformation of organic matter. Moscow: Science and technology.Google Scholar
  62. Siddiqui, M., & Al-Whaibi, M. (2014). Role Of nano-SiO2 In germination of tomato (Lycopersicum Esculentum seeds mill). Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 21, 13–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2013.04.005.Google Scholar
  63. Simonin, M., & Richaume, A. (2015). Impact of engineered nanoparticles on the activity, abundance, and diversity of soil microbial communities: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(18), 13710–13723.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4171-x.Google Scholar
  64. Tepper, E. Z., Shilnikova, V. K., & Pereverzeva, G. I. (1987). Workshop on Microbiology. Moscow: Agropromizdat. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  65. Vance, M. E., Kuiken, T., Vejerano, E. P., McGinnis, S. P., Hochella, M. F., Rejeski, D., et al. (2015). Nanotechnology in the real world: Redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 6, 1769–1780.  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.181.Google Scholar
  66. Wang, S., Wang, F., & Gao, S. (2015). Foliar application with nano-silicon alleviates Cd toxicity in rice seedlings. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 22(4), 2837–2845.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3525-0.Google Scholar
  67. Yausheva, E., Sizova, E., Lebedev, S., Skalny, A., Miroshnikov, S., Plotnikov, A., et al. (2016). Influence of zinc nanoparticles on survival of worms Eisenia fetida and taxonomic diversity of the gut microflora. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(13), 13245–13254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6474-y.Google Scholar
  68. Yirsaw, B. D., Mayilswami, S., Megharaj, M., Chen, Z., & Naidu, R. (2016). Effect of zero valent iron nanoparticles to Eisenia fetida. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(10), 9822–9831.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6193-4.Google Scholar
  69. Yu, S., Zhu, T., Yi, L., & Jincai, Z. (2009). Size-dependent hydroxyl radicals generation induced by SiO2 ultra-fine particles: The role in surface iron. Science in China, Series B: Chemistry, 52(7), 1033–1041.Google Scholar
  70. Žaltauskaitė, J., & Sodienė, I. (2010). Effects of total cadmium and lead concentrations in soil on the growth, reproduction and survival of earthworm Eisenia fetida. Ekologija, 56(1–2), 10–16.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10055-010-0002-z.Google Scholar
  71. Zappa, G., Carconi, P., Gatti, R., D’Alessio, A., Di Bonito, R., Mosiello, L., et al. (2009). Feasibility study for the development of a toner-reference material. Measurement, 42(10), 1491–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2009.08.006.Google Scholar
  72. Zhang, L., Duan, X., He, N., Chen, X., et al. (2017a). Exposure to lethal levels of benzo[a]pyrene or cadmium trigger distinct protein expression patterns in earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Science of the Total Environment, 595, 733–742.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.003.Google Scholar
  73. Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Feng, L., Mao, L., & Jiang, H. (2017b). Oxidative stress of imidaclothiz on earthworm Eisenia fetida. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology, 191, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2016.09.001.Google Scholar
  74. Zvyagintsev, D. G. (1991). Methods of soil microbiology and biochemistry. Moscow: MSU Publishing House (in Russian).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svyatoslav Valeryevich Lebedev
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irina Aleksandrovna Gavrish
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lyudmila Vyacheslavovna Galaktionova
    • 1
  • Anastasia Mickhailovna Korotkova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elena Anatolyevna Sizova
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Orenburg State UniversityOrenburgRussia
  2. 2.Federal Scientific Centre of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of Russian Academy of SciencesOrenburgRussia

Personalised recommendations