Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 34, pp 34559–34569 | Cite as

Evaluation of tolerance of tubers Solanum tuberosum to silicа nanoparticles

  • Alexandr Alekseevich Mushinskiy
  • Evgeniya Vladimirovna Aminovа
  • Anastasia Mikhailovna Korotkova
Research Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, researches on the impact of nanometals on the state of soil ecosystems, including silicon, which is known to have a positive effect on plants under stressful conditions, have become relevant. The aim of this study was to assess the biological effects of nanoparticles (NP) of SiO2 on the plant Solanum tuberosum. Testing of biological activity of NP SiO2 on potato tubers was carried out on the example of five concentrations of metal increasing exponentially (0.03, 0.09, 0.18, 0.21, and 0.36 g/kg of potatoes) and control (without processing of NP SiO2). We have shown that on the 21st day of the experiment after tuber treatment, the average mass of tuber in concentrations 0.18 and 0.21 g/kg of NP SiO2 increased by 6.6% and 2.2%, respectively; stimulation of root length by 27.8–21.0%, the length of sprouts increased to 55.3%, and at a concentration of 0.36 g/kg on the 14th and 45th days, there was a maximum accumulation of Si in different parts of the plants. Analysis of chlorophyll content in the sprouts Solanum tuberosum showed that concentrations of nanoform SiO2 0.03–0.21 g/kg chlorophyll were higher than control by 48.8% and content of carotenoids by 29.7%. According to the results of field studies, the maximum mass of potato stems and tubers was observed at concentrations of 0.09 g/kg and 0.18 g/kg NP SiO2, which confirmed the absence of toxic properties of NP SiO2. The absence of the toxic effect of the investigated range of concentrations of NP SiO2 from 0.03 to 0.36 g/kg was also confirmed by electrophoretic mobility of plant DNA molecules after incubation with silicon nanoparticles in vitro.

Keywords

Tuber Potato Nanomaterial Photosynthetic pigments Silicon oxide Electrophoretic mobility of DNA molecules 

Notes

Funding information

Potato experiments were performed within the framework of the RAS program No. 0761-2018-0021 and investigations of electrophoretic mobility of DNA molecules were supported by RFBR Grant No. 18-316-00116.

References

  1. Anon (2016) http://www.fao.org/faostat/. Accessed 15 Dec 2016
  2. Armor BA (1985) Methods of field experience (the basics of statistical processing of research results). 4th ed., recycled and supplemented. Moscow: KolosGoogle Scholar
  3. Asgari F, Majd A, Jonoubi P, Najafi F (2018) Effects of silicon nanoparticles on molecular, chemical, structural and ultrastructural characteristics of oat (Avena sativa L.). Plant Physiol Biochem 127:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atha DH, Wang H, Petersen EJ, Cleveland D, Holbrook RD, Jaruga P, Dizdaroglu M, Xing B, Nelson BC (2012) Copper oxide nanoparticle mediated DNA damage in terrestrial plant models. Environ Sci Technol 46:1819–1827.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es202660k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bao-shan L, Shao-qi D, Chun-hui L, Li-jun F, Shu-chun Q, Min Y (2004) Effect of TMS (nanostructured silicon dioxide) on growth of Changbai larch seedlings. J Forest Res 15:138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chitchumroonchokchai C, Diretto G, Parisi B, Giuliano G, Failla ML (2017) Potential of golden potatoes to improve vitamin A and vitamin E status in developing countries. PLoS One 12(11):e0187102. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crusciol CAC, Pulz AL, Lemos LB, Soratto RP, Lima GPP (2009) Effects of silicon and drought stress on tuber yield and leaf biochemical characteristics in potato. Publ Crop Sci 49:949–954.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.04.0233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deshmukh RK, Vivancos J, Ramakrishnan G, Guérin V, Carpentier G, Sonah H, Labbé C, Isenring P, Belzile FJ, Bélanger RR (2015) A precise spacing between the NPA domains of aquaporins is essential for silicon permeability in plants. Plant J 83:489–500.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimkpa CO, McLean JE, Latta DE, Manangón E, Britt DW, Johnson WP, Boyanov MI, Anderson AJ (2012) CuO and ZnO nanoparticles: phytotoxicity, metal speciation, and induction of oxidative stress in sand-grown wheat. J Nanopart Res 14(9):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Temsah YS, Joner EJ (2012) Impact of Fe and Ag nanoparticles on seed germination and differences in bioavailability during exposure in aqueous suspension and soil. Environ Toxicol 27(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) FAO STAT-Agriculture. http://www.fao.org
  12. Fraceto L F, Grillo R, de Medeiros G A, Scognamiglio V, Rea G, Bartolucci C (2016) Nanotechnology in agriculture: which innovation potential does it have?. Front Environ Sci 4: 20 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00020
  13. Future_Markets (2012) The global market for nanomaterials 2002–2006: production volumes, revenues and end use markets. Future Markets Inc., //www.futuremarketsinc.com/index.php?
  14. Ghosh SK, Pal S, Banerjee S, Chakraborty N (2015) In vitro study of lysis of cell wall preparation from phomopsis vexans by lytic enzyme from some biocontrol agents. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 4(10):153–157Google Scholar
  15. GOST 12038-84 (n.d.) Seeds of agricultural crops. Methods for determination of germination (with amendments N 1, 2)Google Scholar
  16. GOST 13496.4-93 (2011) Feed, mixed fodder, feed mixed raw materials. Methods for determination of nitrogen and crude protein contentGoogle Scholar
  17. GOST 20290-74 (n.d.) Seeds of agricultural crops. Determination of seed quality of seeds. Terms and definitionsGoogle Scholar
  18. GOST 33061-2014 (2015) Test methods for chemical products that present a danger to the environment. Ground plants: test for seed germination and development of seedlings. Moscow: StandartinformGoogle Scholar
  19. Gowayed SMH, Al-Zahrani HSM, Metwali EMR (2017) Improving the salinity tolerance in potato (Solanum tuberosum) by exogenous application of silicon dioxide nanoparticles. Int J Agric Biol 19:183–194.  https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.0262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerriero G, Hausman JF, Legay S (2016) Silicon and the plant extracellular matrix. Front Plant Sci 7(463).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00463
  21. Gui X, Rui M, Song Y, Ma Y, Rui Y, Zhang P, He X, Li Y, Zhang Z, Liu L (2017) Phytotoxicity of CeO2 nanoparticles on radish plant (Raphanus sativus). Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(15):13775–13781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haynes MJ, Vincent K, Fischhoff C, Bremner AP, Lanlo O, Hankey GJ (2012) Assessing the risk of stroke from neck manipulation: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 66(10):940–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He C, Ma J, Wang L (2015) A hemicellulose-bound form of silicon with potential to improve the mechanical properties and regeneration of the cell wall of rice. New Phytol 206:1051–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Judy JD, Unrine JM, Rao W, Wirick S, Bertsch PM (2012) Bioavailability of gold nanomaterials to plants: importance of particle size and surface coating. Environ Sci Technol 46:8467–8474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karunakaran K, Navaneethan G, Elango KP (2012) Development and validation of a stability-indicating RP-HPLC method for simultaneous determination of paracetamol, tramadol HCl and domperidone in a combined dosage form. Trop J Pharm Res 11(1):99.  https://doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v11i1.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kazeev KS, Kolesnikov SI, Valkov VF (2013) Biological diagnostics and indication of soils: methodology and research methods. Publishing house of the RSU, Rostov-on-donGoogle Scholar
  27. Kornilina VV (2012) The influence of false aspen tinder on the content of pigments in aspen leaves in the forests of the Ulyanovsk region. Fundamental Res 9(3):568–572Google Scholar
  28. Le VN, Rui Y, Gui X, Li X, Liu S, Han Y (2014) Uptake, transport, distribution and bio-effects of SiO2 nanoparticles in Bt-transgenic cotton. J Nanobiotechnol 5:12–50.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-014-0050-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee CW, Mahendra S, Zodrow K, Dong L, Tsai Y-C, Braam J, Alvarez PJJ (2010) Developmental phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):669–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin D, Xing B (2007) Phytotoxicity of nanoparticles: inhibition of seed germination and root growth. Environ Pollut 150:243–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lu K, Ding R, Tang Q, Chen J, Wang L, Wang C, Wu S, Hu D (2015) Association between self-reported global sleep status and prevalence of hypertension in Chinese adults: data from the Kailuan community. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:488–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma JF, Goto S, Tamai K, Ichii M (2001) Role of root hairs and lateral roots in silicon uptake by rice. Plant Physiol 127:1773–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maher Z, Ivanov P, O'Brien L, Sims H, Taylor RJ, Heath SL, Livens FR, Goddard D, Kellet S, Rand P, Bryan ND (2016) Americium and plutonium association with magnesium hydroxidecolloids in alkaline nuclear industry process environments. J Nucl Mater 468:84–96. doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.11.0100022-3115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manzer H, Mohamed H (2013) Role of nano- SiO2 in germination of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) seeds. Saudi J Biol Sci 21:13–17Google Scholar
  35. Martin-Ortigosa S, Peterson DJ, Valenstein JS, Lin VS, Trewyn BG, Lyznik LA et al (2014) Mesoporous silica nanoparticle-mediated intracellular cre protein delivery for maize genome editing via loxP site excision. Plant Physiol 164:537–547.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.233650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Medvedev SS (2013) Plant physiology. SPb.: BHV-Petersburg Methods of state variety testing of agricultural crops (1975) Vol. 4 Moscow: KolosGoogle Scholar
  37. Mukherjee A, Basu S, Manna PK, Yusuf SM, Pal M (2014) Giant magnetodielectric and enhanced multiferroic properties of Sm doped bismuth ferrite nanoparticles. J Mater Chem 2(29):5885–5891Google Scholar
  38. Nazaralian S, Majd A, Irian S, Najafi F, Ghahremaninejad F, Landberg T, Greger M (2017) Comparison of silicon nanoparticles and silicate treatments in fenugreek. Plant Physiol Biochem 115:25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nowack B, Bucheli TD (2007) Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Pollut 150(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pilon C, Soratto RP, Moreno LA (2013) Effects of soil and foliar application of soluble silicon on mineral nutrition, gas exchange, and growth of potato plants. Publ Crop Sci 53:1605–1614.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.10.0580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pošćić F, Mattiello A, Fellet G, Miceli F, Marchiol L (2016) Effects of cerium and titanium oxide nanoparticles in soil on the nutrient composition of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) kernels. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(6).  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pulz AL, Crusciol CAC, Lemos LB, Soratto RP (2008) Influência de silicato ecalcário na nutrição, produtividade e qualidade da batata sob deficiência hídrica. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo 32:1651–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rad JS, Karimi J, Mohsenzadeh S, Rad MS, Moradgholi J (2014) Evaluating SiO2nanoparticles effects on developmental characteristic and photosynthetic pigment contents of Zea mays L. Bull Environ Pharmacol Life Sci 3:194–201Google Scholar
  44. Reyna N, Saina V, Baiju C, Maekawa T, Yoshida Y, Sakhi D (2010) Nanoparticle material delivery to plants. Plant Sci 179:154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reynolds GH (2002) Forward to the future nanotechnology and regulatory policy. Pacific Res Inst 24:1–23Google Scholar
  46. Riahi-Madvar A, Rezaee F, Jalali V (2012) Effects ofalumina nanoparticles on morphological properties and anti-oxidant system of Triticum aestivum. Iran J Plant Physiol 3:595–603Google Scholar
  47. Romero-Aranda MR, Jurado O, Cuartero J (2006) Silicon alleviates the deleterious salt effect on tomato plant grow by improving plant water status. J Plant Physiol 163:847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Savvas D, Giotis D, Chatzieustratiou E, Bakea M, Patakioutas G (2009) Silicon supply in soilless cultivations of zucchini alleviates stress induced by salinity and powdery mildew infections. Environ Exp Bot 65(1):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shaban ZI, Mohamed A, Shukry M, Mahmoud S, Ishizuka M (2013) Constitutive androstane receptor dependent and independent modulation of CYP3A2,CYP1A2 by phenobarbital and fibrate in rats’ liver. Am J Biochem Biotechnol 9(3):272–281.  https://doi.org/10.3844/ajbbsp.2013.272.281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siddiqui MH, Al-Whaibi MH (2014) Role of nano-SiO2 in germination of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum seeds Mill.). Saudi J Biol Sci 21:13–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2013.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simonin M, Richaume A (2015) Impact of engineered nanoparticles on the activity, abundance, and diversity of soil microbial communities: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:13710–13723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Slomberg DL, Schoenfisch MH (2012) Silica nanoparticle phytotoxicity to Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Sci Technol 46:10247–10254.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es300949f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smashevsky ND (2011) In: Smashevsky ND (ed) Practical work on plant physiology: textbook. Astrakhan State University, Publishing house “Astrakhan University”, AstrakhanGoogle Scholar
  54. Soundararajan P, Sivanesan I, Jana S, Jeong BR (2014) Influence of silicon supplementation on the growth and tolerance to high temperature in Salvia splendens. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 55:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stampoulis D, Sinha SK, White JC (2009) Assay-Dependent Phytotoxicity of Nanoparticles to Plants. Environ Sci Technol 43(24):9473–9479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stewart CR (1981) Proline accumulation: Biochemical aspects. In: Paleg LG, Aspinall D (eds) The physiology and biochemistry of drought resistance in plants. Academic Press, Sydney, p 243Google Scholar
  57. Sun D, Hussain HI, Yi Z, Rookes JE, Kong L, Cahill DM (2016) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles enhance seedling growth and photosynthesis in wheat and lupin. Chemosphere 152:81–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tahir MA, Rahmatullah A, Aziz T, Ashraf M (2010) Wheat genotypes differed significantly in their response to silicon nutrition under salinity stress. J Plant Nutr 33:1658–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tripathi DK, Singh VP, Prasad SM, Chauhan DK, Dubey NK (2015) Silicon nanoparticles (SiNp) alleviate chromium (VI) phytotoxicity in Pisum sativum (L.) seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 96:189–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh VP, Prasad SM, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK (2016) Silicon nanoparticles more effectively alleviated UV-B stress than silicon in wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 110:70–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.06.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF Jr, Rejeski D et al (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780.  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vulavala VKR, Elbaum R, Yermiyahu U, Fogelman E, Kumar A, Ginzberg I (2015) Silicon fertilization of potato: expression of putative transporters and tuber skin quality. Planta 243(1):217–229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-015-2401-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang F, Liu X, Shi Z, Tong R, Adams CA, Shi X (2016) Arbuscular mycorrhizae alleviate negative effects of zinc oxide nanoparticle and zinc accumulation in maize plants–a soil microcosm experiment. Chemosphere 147:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wei C, Zhang Y, Guo J, Han B, Yang X, Yuan J (2010) Effects of silica nanoparticles on growth and photosynthetic pigment contents of Scenedesmus obliquus. J Environ Sci 22:155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson K, Walker J (2015) Principles and methods of biochemistry and molecular Biology (7th Edition.). Edited by K Wilson and J Walker. per. with English. - 2 nd ed. (el.). BINOM. Laboratory of knowledge, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  66. Yang J, Zhang Y, Dong F (2017) Neural word segmentation with rich pretraining. In: ACL, Vancouver, pp 839–849Google Scholar
  67. Wintermans JFGM, De Mots A (1965) Spectrophotometric characteristics of chlorophylls a and b and their pheophytins in ethanol. Biochim Et biophys Acta 109(2):448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yuvakkumar R, Elango V, Rajendran V, Kannan NS, Prabu P (2011) Influence of nanosilica powder on the growth of maize crop (Zea mays L.). Intern J Green Nanotech 3:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zaman MS, Ali GM, Muhammad A, Farooq K, Hussain I (2015) In vitro screening of salt tolerance in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties. Sarhad J Agric 31:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandr Alekseevich Mushinskiy
    • 1
  • Evgeniya Vladimirovna Aminovа
    • 1
  • Anastasia Mikhailovna Korotkova
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal Scientific Centre of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of Russian Academy of SciencesOrenburgRussia
  2. 2.Orenburg State UniversityOrenburgRussia

Personalised recommendations