Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 259–270 | Cite as

Bioeffects of Zn and Cu Nanoparticles in Soil Systems

  • Lyudmila Galaktionova
  • Irina GavrishEmail author
  • Svyatoslav Lebedev
Original article


Objective: Nanoparticles have ecotoxicological pote-n tial into the environment. The purpose of this paper is a comparative assessment of the effect of Zn and Cu nanoparticles on Eisenia fetida and the activity of soil exo enzymes under the conditions of a model experiment.

Methods: Morpho-functional indices of E. fetida were studied when 50, 100, 200 and 400 mg/kg of soil was applied to the soil. Calculation of bioaccumulation, the degree of absorption and rate of accumulation of zinc and copper in the body of E. fetida was determined. Also, the activity of soil enzymes was investigated. In the experiment, was using metal nanoparticles Zn and Cu were used in concentrations of 0, 50, 100, 200 and 400 mg/kg in natural soil. Was the study of the effects of NPs, copper and zinc on parameters E. fetida and the level of the soil exoenzymes were carried out.

Results: The weight of the earthworm increased with soil contamination of CuNPs and decreased against the background of the introduction of ZnNPs. The indicators of the activity system of the enzymes earthworms were sensitive to the effects of metal nanopar-ticles. Soil enzymes showed selective sensitivity to the introduction of nanoparticles. Suppression of urease was observed when the soil was contaminated with CuNPs, and catalase - ZnNPs in a dose of more than 50 mg/kg. Invertase showed sensitivity at contamination with metals at a dose of 200 mg/kg and more.

Conclusion: Thus, the entry into the environment and the further deposition of nanoparticles Zn and Cu in the soil will lead to the suppression of the vital activity of the beneficiary soil animals and the activity of soil enzymes involved in cycle C and N. This is a phenomenon is a special kind of ecological risks for the ecosystem.


Zinc Copper Nanoparticles Antioxidant Enzymes Eisenia fetida 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The study was carried out with the financial support on research work for 2019-2020 at the Federal Research Center for Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies (No 0761-2019-0003).

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Hubbs, A. et al. Nanotoxicology - a pathologists perspective. Toxicol. Pathol.39, 301–324 (2011).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Terekhova, V. A. & Gladkova, M. M. Engineering nano-materials in soil: the problems of assessing their impact on living organisms. Pedology1, 82–90 (2014). (In Russian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simonin, M. et al. Influence of soil properties on the toxicity of TiO2 nanoparticles on carbon mineralization and bacterial abundance. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 529–535 (2015).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dror, I. et al. Abiotic soil changes induced by engineered nanomaterials: A critical review. J. Contam. Hydrol.181, 3–16. (2015).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tong, Z. H. et al. Influence of fullerene (C60) on soil bacterial communities: aqueous aggregate size and solvent co-introduction effects. Sci. Rep.6, 28069 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salehi, H. et al. Morphological, proteomic and metabo-lomic insight into the effect of cerium dioxide nanopar-ticles to Phaseolus vulgaris L. under soil or foliar application. Sci. Total Environ. 616-617, 1540–1551 (2018).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pietrzak, K. & Gutarowska, B. Influence of the silver nanoparticles on microbial community in different environments. Acta Biochim. Polonica62, 721–724 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chunjaturas, W. et al. Shift of bacterial community structure in two Thai soil series affected by silver nanoparti-cles using ARISA. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.62, 2119–2124 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Read, D. S. et al. Soil pH effects on the interactions between dissolved zinc, non-nano- and nano-Zn with soil bacterial communities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.23, 4120–4128(2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah, V. et al. Impact of еngineered nanoparticles on the activity, abundance, and diversity of soil microbial communities: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 13710–13723 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shah, V. et al. Fate and impact of zero-valent copper nanoparticles on geographically-distinct soils. Sci. The Total. Environ.573, 661–670 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott-Fordsmand, J. et al. The toxicity testing of double-walled nanotubes-contaminated food to Eisenia veneta earthworms. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.71, 616–619 (2008).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wallwork, J. A. in Earthworm Biology (Edward Arnold, London, 1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vijver, M. G. et al. Oral sealing using glue: a new method to distinguish between intestinal and dermal uptake of metals in earthworms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 5, 125–132 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morgan, J. E. & Morgan, A. J. The accumulation of metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and Ca) by two ecologically contrasting Earthworm species (Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa): implications for ecotoxico-logical testing. Appl. Soil Ecol.13, 9–20 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yirsaw, D. et al. Effect of zero valent iron nanoparticles to Eisenia fetida in three soil types Biruck. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 9822–9831 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shin, Y. et al. Evidence for the inhibitory effects of silver nanoparticles on the activities of soil exoenzymes. Chemosphere88, 524–529 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Micuţi, M. et al. On the enzymatic indicators for monitoring soil quality. Sci. Bull F. Biotechnol.21, 223–226 (2017).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Žaltauskaitė, J. & Sodienė, I. Effects of cadmium and lead on the life-cycle parameters of juvenile earthworm Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.103, 9–16 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labrot, F. et al. In vitro and in vivo studies of potential biomarkers of lead and uranium contamination: lipid peroxidation, acetylcholinesterase, catalase and glutathi-one peroxidase activities in three non-mammalian species. Biomarkers1, 21–28 (1996).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ville, P. et al. Immuno-modulator effects of carbaryl and 2,4D in the earthworm Eisenia fetida andrei. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.32, 291–297 (1997).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Labrot, F. et al. Acute toxicity, toxicokinetics, and tissue target of lead and uranium in the clam Corbicula flu-minea and the worm Eisenia fetida: comparison with the fish Brachydanio rerio. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.36, 167–178 (1999). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stenersen, J. & Oien, N. Glutathione-S-transferase in earthworms (Lumbricidae). Substrate specificity, tissue and species distribution and molecular weight. Comp. Biochem. Phys. 69, 243–252 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dittbrenner, N. et al. Sensitivity of Eisenia fetida in comparison to Aporrectodea caliginosa and Lumbricus terrestris after imidacloprid exposure. Body mass change and histopathology. J. Soils Sediments6, 1000 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ivask, A. et al. Mechanisms of toxic action of Ag, ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to selected ecotoxicological test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: a comparative review. Nanotoxicol. 8, 57–71 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gil, D. et al. Antioxidant Activity of SOD and Catalase Conjugated with Nanocrystalline Ceria. Bioengineering (Basel.)4, E18 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lebedev, S. V. et al. The trophometabolic potential of Eisenia fetida Savigny, 1826 (Oligochata, Lumbricidae), due to the presence of copper nanoparticles and oxide in the soil. Povolzhskiy J. Ecol.2, 147–156 (2017).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Conder, J. M. & Lanno, R. P. Evaluation of surrogate measures of cadmium, lead, and zinc bioavailability to Eisenia fetida. Chemosphere41, 1659–1668 (2000).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sun, W. et al. Effect of monosultap on protein content. SOD and AChE activity of Eisenia fetida under two different temperatures. J. Agro-Environ. Sci.26, 1816–1821 (2007). (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Unrine, J. M. et al. Evidence for bioavailability of Au nanoparticles from soil and biodistribution within earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Environ. Sci. Technol.44, 8308–8313 (2010).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Novo, M. et al. Different routes, same pathways: Molecular mechanisms under silver ion and nanoparticle exposures in the soil sentinel Eisenia fetida. Environ. Pollut. 205, 385–393 (2015).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duke, S. et al. Hormesis: Is it an important factor in Herbicide use and Allelopathy? Outlooks on Pest Management17, 29–33 (2006).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garcia-Velasco, N. et al. Uptake route and resulting tox-icity of silver nanoparticles in Eisenia fetida earthworm exposed through Standard OECD Tests. Ecotoxicol. 25, 1543–1555 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jin, L. et al. Single-walled carbon nanotubes alter soil microbial community composition. Sci. Total Environ. 466-467, 533–538 (2014).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGee, C. F. et al. Concentration-dependent responses of soil bacterial, fungal and nitrifying communities to silver nano and micron particles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.25, 18693–18704 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carbone, S. et al. Bioavailability and biological effect of engineered silver nanoparticles in a forest soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 280, 89–96 (2014).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wise, K. & Brasuel, M. The current state of engineered nanomaterials in consumer goods and waste streams: the need to develop nanoproperty-quantifiable sensors for monitoring engineered nanomaterials. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl.4, 73–86 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tabatabai, M. A. & Bremner, J. M. Assay of urease activity in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 4, 4479–487 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    George, F. Recycling Organic Waste for Enhancing Soil Urease and Invertase Activity. Int. J. Waste Resources6, 2252–5211 (2016).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Asadishad, B. et al. Amendment of Agricultural Soil with Metal Nanoparticles: Effects on Soil Enzyme Activity and Microbial Community Composition. Environ. Sci. Technol.52, 1908–1918 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Calder, A. J. et al. Soil components mitigate the antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles towards a beneficial soil bacterium, Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6. Sci. Total Environ. 429, 215–222 (2012).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bundschuh, M. et al. Nanoparticles in the environment: where do we come from, where do we go to? Environ. Sci. Eur. 30, 6 (2018).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Li, M. et al. Comparative effects of Cd and Pb on biochemical response and DNA damage in the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Annelida, Oligochaeta). Chemosphere74, 621–625 (2009).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Buege, J. A. & Aust, S. D. Microsomal lipid peroxidation. Methods in Enzymology52, 302–310 (1978).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Claiborne, A. Catalase activity. In: Handbook of methods for oxygen research (eds Greenwald, R.A.) 283–284 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1985).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cortet, J. et al. The use of invertebrate soil fauna in monitoring pollutant. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 35, 115–134 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang, L. et al. The sources and accumulation rate of sedimentary organic matter in the Pearl River Estuary and adjacent coastal area, Southern China. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science2, 190–196 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang, B. et al. Uptake, bioaccumulation, and biodegradation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and its reduced metabolites (MNX and TNX) by the earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Chemosphere76, 76–82 (2009).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Khaziev, F. H. Methods of soil enzymology. (Nauka, Moscow, 1990)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kazeev, K. S., Kolesnikov, S. I. & Valkov, V. F. in Biologic diagnostics and indication of soils: methodology and methods of researches (Rostov University Press, Rostov on Don, 2003).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kaurichev, I. S. in Workshop on Soil Science (Nauka, Moscow, 1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Environmental Risk Assessment and Health Science and Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyudmila Galaktionova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irina Gavrish
    • 1
    Email author
  • Svyatoslav Lebedev
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal Research Center of Biological Systems and Agrotechnologies of RASOrenburgRussia
  2. 2.Orenburg State UniversityOrenburgRussia

Personalised recommendations