Next Article in Journal
The Adsorption of H2 and C2H2 on Ge-Doped and Cr-Doped Graphene Structures: A DFT Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Analysis of Proteins Regulated during Cadmium Sulfide Quantum Dots Response in Arabidopsis thaliana Wild Type and Tolerant Mutants
Previous Article in Journal
Construction and Mechanism Analysis of a Self-Assembled Conductive Network in DGEBA/PEI/HRGO Nanocomposites by Controlling Filler Selective Localization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/nano11010229
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Single and Repeated Applications of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Differently Affect the Growth and Biomass Accumulation of Silene flos-cuculi L. (Caryophyllaceae)

by
Daniel Lizzi
1,2,
Alessandro Mattiello
1,
Barbara Piani
1,
Emanuele Gava
3,
Guido Fellet
1 and
Luca Marchiol
1,*
1
Department of AgriFood, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy
2
Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Via Licio Giorgieri 10, 34127 Trieste, Italy
3
Laboratory of Inorganic Micro-Pollutants Regional Environmental Protection Agency of Friuli Venezia Giulia (ARPA-FVG), Via Colugna 42, 33100 Udine, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2021, 11(1), 229; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010229
Submission received: 16 December 2020 / Revised: 13 January 2021 / Accepted: 13 January 2021 / Published: 16 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Genetic Changes Induced by Engineered Manufactured Nanomaterials (EMNs))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cerium oxide nanoparticles (nCeO2) have a wide variety of applications in industry. Models demonstrated that nCeO2 can reach environmental compartments. Studies regarding the relationships between plants and nCeO2 considered only crop species, whereas a relevant knowledge gap exists regarding wild plant species. Specimens of Silene flos-cuculi (Caryophyllaceae) were grown in greenhouse conditions in a substrate amended with a single dose (D1) and two and three doses (D2 and D3) of 20 mg kg−1 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2 suspensions, respectively. sp-ICP-MS and ICP-MS data demonstrated that nCeO2 was taken up by plant roots and translocated towards aerial plant fractions. Biometric variables showed that plants responded negatively to the treatments with a shortage in biomass of roots and stems. Although not at relevant concentrations, Ce was accumulated mainly in roots and plant leaves.

1. Introduction

Nanoscience and nanotechnology are rapidly developing in different applications, having the potential to considerably improve human life. Much progress has been made in applying the application of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and nano-enabled products in medicine, energy, electronics, innovative materials and many more fields [1]. On the other hand, the increase in the industrial production of ENMs inevitably leads to their release into the environment [2].
Once released in terrestrial ecosystems, ENMs enter watercourses and soils reaching the biota [3]. Since 2006, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has developed toxicity test guidelines for ENMs [4]. Currently, the endpoints/targets of such tests are the green algae Raphidocelis subcapitata, the daphnid Daphnia magna, the fish Danio rerio, the sediment organism Lumbriculus variegatus, soil microflora and terrestrial invertebrates Enchytraeus crypticus and Eisenia fetida [5].
The global biomass on Earth is dominated by plants, which are the primary producers in terrestrial and water ecosystems and represent about 80% of the biota [6]. Their life cycle is strongly dependent on their relationships with air, soil, and water. However, for that very reason, they constitute the first biological target of ENMs, and are not considered among the environmental targets of ENMs by the OECD guidelines. It would be advisable to evaluate the impact of ENMs and consider the consequences concerning the ecosystem services that plants provide [7].
The literature lacks systematic knowledge regarding the effects of ENMs on vascular plants. In part, this is due to the very high pace of research and development on nanomaterials. However, the most important reason concerns the fact that the discussion regarding the most appropriate experimental strategies is still open [8,9]. The studies carried out on crops [10,11,12] have been far more numerous compared to those on spontaneous plant species, and between the latter the papers on aquatic species largely prevail over those on terrestrial plants. According to the last “State of the World’s Plants and Fungi” release [13], the number of vascular plants species currently known is about 391,000. Only about 150 species have a significant commercial value, and 20% of them account for more than half of the plants eaten by humans [14,15]. Therefore, we optimistically assume that the relationships between ENMs and vascular plants have been studied much less than 0.05% of higher plant species, so far. Practical gap-filling actions are expected on this issue in the next future.
Cerium oxide nanoparticles (nCeO2) are a rare earth nanomaterial with several engineering and biological applications due to their catalytic, electrochemical, and optical properties [16]. With an estimated annual global production of 100–1000 tons per year, nCeO2 is among the most widely utilized metal oxide nanoparticle in Europe [17]. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development included nCeO2 in the list of ENMs for immediate priority testing [18].
As previously mentioned, the existing body of literature regarding the relationships between ENMs and plants is mostly focused on agricultural plant species. While this is justified concerning the potential risks of human exposure to nanomaterials through food consumption, in a broader ecological context, the impacts of ENMs on the whole primary producers should not be underrated in a broader ecological context. From this perspective, more aquatic [19,20,21] and wetland species [22,23,24] have been studied than terrestrial varieties. Concerning terrestrial ecosystems, to the best of our knowledge, Pinus sylvestris L. and Quercus robur L. are the only non-food terrestrial plant species to have been investigated for the exposure to ENMs [25].
The fate and effects of ENMs in the soil-plant system are always studied by supplying plants with ENMs at different concentrations, sizes, and shapes, and structured with several capping molecules in a single dose and at given time [26]. What remains is whether and how ENMs affect plant metabolism and plant growth under realistic conditions. Regardless of the ENMs source, plants are likely exposed to ENMs over a much longer time, at relatively lower concentrations but repeated pulses of ENMs; it is this last aspect about which we developed our experiment. The main goal of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of a single dose and two and three repeated applications of nCeO2 at different concentrations on the growth of Silene flos-cuculi (L.).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. nCeO2 Characterization

Nanoparticle characterization was carried out at the laboratories of the National Research Council—Institute of Science and Technology for Ceramics (Faenza, Italy). The cerium oxide nanopowders with an average particle size of 25 nm were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The nCeO2 had a mass weight of 172.11 g mol−1, density of 7.13 g mL−1 at 25 °C, and 99.95% purity. The size and average shape were measured with a transmission electron microscope (TEM, FEI Tecnai F20, FEI Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands). The nCeO2 was suspended in deionized water and sonicated in a water bath for 30 min with a sonication intensity of 180 watts. The suspensions were characterized for Z—average size at pH 7 and hydrodynamic diameter (Hd), whose distributions were measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS) on a Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern Ltd., Worcestershire, UK).

2.2. Plant Material

Silene flos-cuculi L. (synonym Lychnis flos-cuculi) is a diploid polycarpic herbaceous perennial wetland plant, belonging to the Caryophyllaceae family. This species is native and distributed throughout Europe, where it is found in moist open habitats, along roads and flood plain, in wet meadows and pastures, but it also grows in the northern United States and eastern Canada [27]. In arable landscapes, it has become scarce because of the loss of habitats, but is still found in secondary habitats such as ditches and stream verges. The species is predominantly outcrossing, but capable of self-fertilization [28]. S. flos-cuculi forms vegetative rosettes with numerous flower stems that could be from 30 to 90 cm tall. The stems have barbed hairs that make the plant rough to the touch; stems grow over the foliage and end with pink flowers, which open between April and June, and many types of insects are attracted by the flower’s nectar. Another characteristic of these flowers is that they have five narrow petals divided into four lobes. The leaves are paired: the lower ones are stalked and the upper leaves present pointed apexes. The fruits consist of small capsules, containing many dark seeds, which can be dispersed mechanically [29].

2.3. Experimental Setup

Seeds of S. flos-cuculi were purchased from SemeNostrum (Udine, Italy). The soil used for this experiment was Compo Sana organic potting mix containing forest products, compost, perlite, and fertilizer (soil pH = 6.8–7.2). The potting substrate, having a Ce concentration of 17.3 mg kg−1, was amended with water suspensions of nCeO2 of 25 nm in order to reach a final substrate concentration of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2. Tap water was used as the control. Before sowing, nCeO2 suspensions were stirred and sonicated for 30 min to avoid the aggregation, and the first addition of nCeO2 to the substrate occurred in one dose through irrigation. The amended substrate was carefully mixed in order to obtain the prearranged concentrations. The nCeO2 amended substrates were stored in the dark at 15 °C for three days for conditioning before planting seeds. After soil equilibration, the pots were filled with 500 g soil. Repeated applications of nCeO2 were performed after 20 and 40 days from seedling emergence (DSE) in separate sets of pots. The experimental setup is showed in Figure 1. More precisely, D1 refers to the pots that received only the nCeO2 dose before sowing; D2 refers to the pots that received a second adjustment 20 DSE; and D3 refers to the pots that underwent three applications (the last one occurred 40 DSE). The additional treatments were carried out via irrigation with the solutions containing the same initial nCeO2 concentration (20 or 200 mg L−1). This was to attempt to recreate a situation of chronic “contamination”. The experiment was carried out in a semi-controlled greenhouse facility at the experimental farm of the University of Udine (Italy).
The trial was set up in a randomized experimental design, focusing the attention in particular on repeated treatments. Each treatment was replicated four times. Seeds were put about 2.5 cm deep in the soil and pots were placed in full sunlight, at 18–27 °C (night/day) with a relative humidity of around 60%. Two weeks after seed planting, the seedlings were thinned to two seedlings per pot. During the trial, pots were irrigated every three days and randomly reallocated every week. After 60 days, control and treated plants were harvested. Fresh plant biomass was separated into roots, stems, and leaves, and then weighed. Then, the plant fractions were thoroughly washed in tap water and rinsed three times with distilled water. In addition, roots were washed in 400 mL of 0.01 M of nitric acid in a shaker bath at 300 rpm for 5 min to remove metal ions adsorbed at the surface. Leaf area was measured using an LI-3100C Area Meter (Li-Cor Corporation, Lincoln, NE, USA). After that, the plant fractions were oven dried at 60 °C for three days, and weighed.

2.4. nCeO2 Extraction from Plant Tissues

In our study, plants grew for the entire life cycle in a solid substrate enriched with nCeO2 at the beginning and with additional treatments during the experiment. From a sub-set of pots prepared for this purpose, 20 days after the appearance of the cotyledon leaves of S. flos-cuculi, the plants were harvested in order to verify the entry of nCeO2 in their tissues by enzymatic digestion and single particle inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (spICP-MS) analysis. The plant fractions (roots, stems and leaves) were separated and in turn sent for preparation. The digesting enzyme used was Macerozyme R-10 Pectinase from Rhizopus sp. (Sigma-Aldrich). Small sections (0.03 g) of fresh roots, stems, and leaves were harvested, rinsed three times with deionized water, and homogenized with 8 mL of 2 mM citrate buffer at pH 4.5, using an ultrasonic bath for 5 min. After the homogenization, for every sample 2 mL of the enzyme solution (0.05 g of enzyme dissolved in 2 mL of MilliQ water) were added [30]. The final supernatants were analyzed via spICP-MS (NexION 350 ICP-MS PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) to obtain the size distribution of nCeO2 present in roots and leaves.

2.5. Ce Concentration in Plant Fractions

Plant fractions were carefully washed with deionized water. The material was then oven-dried for three days at 60 °C. Subsequently, 0.3 g of dry plant fraction tissues were acid-digested on a CEM microwave oven (MARS Xpress, CEM, Matthews, NC, USA), using 9 mL of HNO3 (65%) and 1 mL of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in Teflon cylinders at 180 °C, according to the USEPA 3052 method [31]. After mineralization, plant extracts were filtered at room temperature under a fume hood with Whatman 0.45 μm PTFE membrane filters, and finally diluted and analyzed. Determinations of the total content of cerium were carried out using the NexION 350 ICP-MS. The accuracy of the analytical procedure adopted for ICP-MS analysis was checked by running standard solutions every 20 samples.

2.6. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out with one- and two-way ANOVA. A posteriori comparison of individual means was performed using Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Before ANOVA, arcsine and logarithmic transformations were used to determine seed germination percentage and Ce concentration data, respectively. spICP-MS data on nCeO2 size distribution were processed using Syngistix Nano Application Module software and interpolated with Gaussian curves.

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of nCeO2

nCeO2 characterization data are showed in Table S1, Supplementary Materials. The Hd distribution of both the materials is in agreement with the value provided by the supplier. The nCeO2 exhibited a monodisperse size particle distribution with relatively low PDI. The highest particle size was 62.0 nm (Figure 2A). The relative Z-averages were much larger than that value due to particle aggregation (Figure 2B).

3.2. nCeO2 in Plant Fractions

Before setting up the experiment on the entire vegetative cycle of S. flos-cuculi, some preliminary observations were carried out to demonstrate that nCeO2 was assimilated by the roots of plants and subsequently translocated to the upper plant parts. They were evidently necessary to set up the subsequent experiment illustrated in this paper. At first, a test was carried out to demonstrate the entry of nCeO2 within germinating seeds of S. flos-cuculi seeds [32]. Subsequently, under the same conditions as the main experiment, we wanted to verify that even in the presence of a complex matrix (that is, the potting soil compared to the very simple conditions of the germination test) the roots of S. flos-cuculi were able to take up the nCeO2.
The results reported in Figure 3A,B clearly show that the nCeO2 was absorbed by the roots of S. flos-cuculi, and then moved upwards to reach the leaf tissues. The magnitude of pulses quantitatively represents the presence of nCeO2 in plant tissue; after the nCeO2 root absorption, only about 25% of nanoparticles moved to the plant leaves (Figure 3B). The mean size of nCeO2 was 33 ± 2 nm and 31 ± 1.5 nm in the roots and leaves, respectively (Table S2, Supplementary Materials), meaning that after being assimilated, nCeO2 did not undergo relevant aggregation. In the plant extract sample, the spICP-MS analysis also provided the concentration of the ionic form of an element dissolved from a nanostructure. In our case, the dissolved ionic Ce was very low, and equal to 4.86 ± 0.4 µg kg−1 in the roots and 0.08 ± 0.03 µg kg−1 in the leaves of S. flos-cuculi, respectively (Table S2, Supplementary Materials).

3.3. Plant Growth

An overall view of the experimental data relating to plant growth is showed in Table S3, Supplementary Materials, containing the results of a two–way ANOVA. In particular, the table reports the p-values testing the statistically significant effects of the nCeO2 dose (D1, D2 and D3), nCeO2 concentration (20 and 200 mg kg−1), and their interaction on biometric variables of S. flos-cuculi.
In broad terms, only the root dry weight (p = 0.0009 ***) responded in a statistically significant way to the dose of nCeO2, while this did not happen in the case of the other plant fractions and the leaf area. The factor “concentration” determined statistically significant effects in the case of root dry matter (p = 0.0281 *), stem dry matter (p = 0.0000 ***), and total plant dry weight (p = 0.0000 ***), as well. Finally, because the root apparatus was directly exposed to the soil matrix, as expected we recorded a statistically significant interaction of “dose X concentration” for root dry matter (p = 0.0018 *) (Table S3, Supplementary Materials).
Carefully observing the effects of treatments on the vegetative development of S. flos-cuculi, some aspects of particular interest can be highlighted. As already mentioned, the root biomass dry weight, being the plant fraction directly exposed to the treatments, showed to be particularly sensitive to the experimental conditions. The development of the root apparatus responded positively to D1 (single dose of nCeO2 provided to pot soil before seed germination). At both concentrations of nCeO2, an increase of 29% (at 20 mg kg−1) and 9% (at 200 mg kg−1) in root biomass compared to the control was observed (Figure 4).
At the lowest concentration, the higher doses of nCeO2 (D2 and D3) did not promote the same effect detected for D1. The weight of the root biomass returned to a level very close to that of the control plants. This also occurred for D2 at the highest concentration (200 mg kg−1), while the response to D3 was a reduction of about 27% in root development compared to the control (Figure 4). Additionally, a statistical analysis was performed by isolating the concentration factor, i.e., testing the effect of single and repeated administration of nCeO2 to plants within the same concentration level. In this case, considering D1 as the reference within each concentration, we evaluated the effect of the additional doses of nCeO2 on the plant root biomass (Figure 4). Whether the single nCeO2 dose stimulated the production of root biomass, the second additional dose (D3), even though supplied to the plants at a late vegetative stage, resulted in a reduction in the root biomass. Compared to D1, we recorded a reduction in root dry matter of S. flos-cuculi by approximately 21% and 33%, for nCeO2 20 mg kg−1 and 200 mg kg−1, respectively (Figure 4).
As reported in Table S3 Supplementary Materials, some other biometric variables were observed in plants. In particular, on the aboveground plant biomass, the number of stems and leaves for each plant were counted. The total leaf area per plant and the leaf dry matter were recorded as well. For these variables, the statistical analysis did not reveal significant effects of the treatments, whereas there was a very evident negative effect of nCeO2 on dry matter accumulation in the stems of S. flos-cuculi (Figure 5). Regardless of the concentration and dose of nCeO2, the negative effect of the treatment determined an average reduction of 75.5% in dry matter accumulation in the stems compared to the control.
As reported in Supplementary Materials (Figures S1–S4), the response to treatments of other biometric variables did not confirm either the stimulating effect highlighted on the case of root biomass or the negative effect on the dry matter accumulation on the stems S. flos-cuculi. Indeed, although the biomass of the stems was reduced, the architecture of the plants was not affected; the number of stems in the treated plants was no different from that of the control plants (Figure S1, Supplementary Materials). Even the number of leaves per plant, the leaf area per plant and the accumulation of dry matter in the leaves themselves were not affected by the treatments (Figures S2–S4, Supplementary Materials).
Figure 6 reports the plants’ total dry matter. Aggregating the different effects observed on the plant fractions could hide the impact of nCeO2 treatments. However, in our case this did not happen. Albeit to a lesser extent than that observed for the weight of the stems, the effect of nCeO2 on plant development is also visible on total biomass production. The negative effect of the treatments on the growth of S. flos-cuculi is statistically significant (p = 0.00000 ***), regardless of the nCeO2 dose and even at the lower concentration of nanoparticles (Figure 6).
After C fixation, the plant biomass was allocated according to species-specific patterns that are also influenced by environmental conditions as well as biotic and abiotic stress. Data regarding the dry weight of the plant fractions and the leaf area per plant were used to calculate new parameters (see Table S4, Supplementary Materials) that allowed us to evaluate the effects of nCeO2 treatments with a more accurate perspective. Additionally, in this case we can appreciate an overview of the effects of the experimental factors through the results of the two-way ANOVA (Table S5, Supplementary Materials). The effect of the “dose” factor was statistically significant only in the case of the root mass fraction (RMF) and the S/R ratio, while the response to the “concentration” factor was much more evident: only for specific leaf area (SLA) was the effect not statistically significant in the ANOVA. The interaction between the experimental factors was statistically significant for the RMF and the SLA (Table S5, Supplementary Materials). One-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of treatments compared to the control and within the same concentration of nCeO2.
Compared to the control and regardless of the nCeO2 concentration, the RMF was enhanced by D1, whereas D2 and D3 determined a subsequent drop of RMF. At the lowest concentration of nCeO2 concerning D1, we observed an almost-equal reduction in RMF in response to D2 and D3 (−33%). Additionally, at the highest concentration of nCeO2, the response to D2 and D3 was negative, although in this case it was gradual, with the reduction in RMF concerning D1 equal to −17% and −33%, for D2 and D3, respectively. However, the RMF of D2 and D3 treated plants was always higher than the control plants (Table 1).
SLA did not respond to the single experimental factors; however, ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect for the interaction “dose X concentration” (p = 0.0243 *). Regarding the effects of the treatments, we observed a possible SLA stimulating effect of nCeO2 20 mg kg−1 D1 and D2. At the same time, a certain variability prevented this empirical evidence from being statistically verified, whereas we observed a significant reduction in SLA in plants that received D3 compared to the controls (Table 1). In plants of S. flos-cuculi treated with nCeO2 200 mg kg−1, SLA responded differently (p = 0.0243 *). Indeed, a slight reduction in SLA compared to the control due to treatment D1 (−4.7%) is associated with an evident increase in this parameter in response to treatments D2 and D3 (+10.7% and +18.6% greater than the control, respectively) (Table 1). Further ratios calculated from biometric variables (Stem mass fraction SMF, Leaf mass fraction LMF, Shoot to root ratio Shoot/Root and Leaf area ratio LAR) are reported in Supplementary Materials (Figures S5–S8).

3.4. Cerium Concentration in Plant Fractions

A general view of the Ce uptake and accumulation in plant tissues as affected by experimental factors is given in Table S6, Supplementary Materials. The factor “dose” result was statistically significant only for Ce concentration in plant stems (p = 0.0000 ***), while the Ce accumulation in each plant tissue, as expected, increased responding to the factor “concentration”. A statistically significant interaction “dose x concentration” was observed in the roots (p = 0.0313 *) and stems (p = 0.0021 **).
Table 2 reports data regarding the Ce concentrations in plant fractions. At first glance, the data indicate that plant Ce uptake was not very high compared to the treatments. Concerning the plant fractions, as expected, Ce in the roots was higher than the others.
On average, the treatment concentration of Ce in the root tissues (3074 µg kg−1) was four times higher than that of the stems (779 µg kg−1) and two times higher than that found in the leaves (1594 µg kg−1), respectively. However, we do not observe a clear and statistically significant response to the nCeO2 doses regardless of the treatment concentration. However, the statistically significant interaction “dose X concentration” is explained by the different response in terms of Ce accumulation in roots after dose D3 nCeO2 200 mg kg−1 that was about 49% higher than the average D1–D2. (Table 2).
After being taken up by the roots, a fraction of Ce moved towards the aerial plant fractions to be allocated in the stems. A statistically significant effect of the dose factor and of the interaction is visible by observing the concentration of Ce in the stems (Table 2). Here, although the highest Ce concentration was detected at D3 nCeO2 20 mg kg−1, the most evident effect of the “dose” factor can be appreciated for plants exposed to nCeO2 200 mg kg−1 (p = 0.0015 **; Table 2). Finally, the leaves represent the final allocation of Ce in plant aerial biomass. Here, Ce accumulation was higher in than in stems; however, due to a certain variability, it was not possible to statistically verify a significant effect of the experimental treatments (Table 2)

4. Discussion

Only in 2012 were the effects of ENMs over the whole plant cycle studied [33]. In soybeans (Glycine max L.), it was demonstrated that Ce concentrations in the roots and the concentration of nCeO2 in soil were correlated. Nanoceria negatively influenced the yield of soybean and N2-fixation by affecting the efficiency of the symbiotic system established with Bradyrhizobium: a dramatic example of the influence on cultivated plants and wild species’ ecological services, as well.
A large body of literature reports negative responses observed at different plant growth stages. When germinating seeds are exposed to nCeO2, other effects could be verified, basically depending on particle size and concentration. Additionally, statistically significant species-specific responses were reported, regarding root elongation being more sensitive to nCeO2 than germination [34,35,36]. Other studies explored the physiological implications of the nCeO2 plant uptake, concluding that plants responded to the treatments increasing the antioxidant enzyme activities. However, the oxidative stress induced by high concentrations of nCeO2 cannot be attenuated by the antioxidant system [37,38,39,40].
The growth of S. flos-cuculi was negatively affected by nCeO2. Suppose the root apparatus development in plants treated at the lowest nCeO2 concentration has not undergone apparent alterations at the highest concentration; in this case, the effect is evident and progressively increases as the nCeO2 dose increases. The impact of nCeO2 on plant growth was much more apparent in the biomass of plant stems. We observed a slowdown in plant growth. The number of plant stems did not change, but they were shorter than the controls’. No statistically significant evidence was found regarding the effects of treatments on leaf biomass (evaluated by counting the number of leaves per plant, the leaf area, and the leaf dry weight). However, likely the relevant data variability detected in the treated plants compared to that of the control plants was an early signal of plant stress.
SLA is a very informative parameter in plant ecology. The total leaf area ratio to total leaf dry mass correlates with whole-plant growth linking C gain and water loss [41]. Even though we calculated the SLA using data from a single biomass sampling at the end of the growth cycle of S. flos-cuculi, the response of SLA to the nCeO2 treatments allowed us to interpret the experimental data more effectively. In particular, the increase in SLA responded to the dose of nCeO2 received by the plant. Moreover, this could be a consequence of the slowing of the vegetative growth rate and could lead us to conclude that the nCeO2 negatively affects the C accumulation by leaf tissues. Our data do not allow us to identify the specific cause precisely. However, this observation corroborates the literature evidence regarding the slowing of the plant growth cycle [42] and photosynthesis, both in terrestrials and aquatic plants [43,44].
The growing number of nanotechnology applications in various fields inevitably results in the release of nanomaterials into the environment. Models demonstrated that wastewater and sewage sludge are the primary vectors by which ENMs end up in the environment [45]. Apart from the quantitative aspect, nanomaterials’ flows can occur differently concerning the position of the target to the source (e.g., a single massive event or events repeated over time). Literature papers concerning the effects of ENMs on plants always report experiments where the nanomaterials were applied in a single concentration, whereas a more realistic exposure scenario involves repeated pulses.
In our study, plants of S. flos-cuculi were grown in soil amended with nCeO2. The experimental design was conceived assuming that the soil could receive different nCeO2 pulses over time, thereby obtaining three different doses of nCeO2 supplied at different growth stages of S. flos-cuculi. At the moment, we cannot compare our data with other works having the same experimental approach. We have already cited a paper reporting Ag and Cu nanoparticles’ effects on seedlings of Pinus sylvestris and Quercus robur. A single dose of nanomaterials was administered to plants by three subsequent foliar applications in that study, whereas in our experiment were provided three amounts of nCeO2. However, in both experiments, the experimental factor “dose” or merely the phenological stage at which plants received the treatments showed some influence on the consequences of the treatment. Therefore, this early indication suggests that this type of study should be further developed. Other studies of soil ecology have used the same approach. In particular, it was demonstrated that soil enzyme activity is differently affected by repeated ENM doses, indicating that additive effects occur [46,47]. It will be necessary to compile these different works to achieve a complete evaluation of the effects of ENMs on the soil–plant system.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/11/1/229/s1: Figure S1. Number of stems per plant in specimens of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S2. Number of leaves per plant in specimens of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S3. Total leaf area in plants of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S4. Leaf dry matter in plants of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S5. Stem mass fraction of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S6. Leaf mass fraction of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S7. Shoot to root ratio in S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Figure S8. Leaf area ratio of S. flos-cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration. Table S1. Average, PDI and ζ-potentials of nCeO2 25 nm. Table S2. Most frequent particle size, mean particle size, number of pulses and concentration of dissolved Ce determined by sp-ICP-MS analysis after enzymatic extraction from roots and leaves of Silene flos-cuculi. Table S3. Two-way ANOVA p-values testing the statistically significant effects of dose and concentration and their interaction of nCeO2 on biometric variables of S. flos-cuculi. Table S4. Biomass allocation variables calculated from plant measurements (Poorter et al., 2011). Table S5. Two-way ANOVA p-values testing the statistically significant effects of dose and concentration and their interaction of nCeO2 on growth indices of S. flos-cuculi. Table S6. Two-way ANOVA p-values testing the statistically significant effects of dose and concentration and their interaction on Ce concentrations in fractions of S. flos-cuculi and Ce translocation factor.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.L. and L.M.; formal analysis, D.L. and L.M.; funding acquisition, L.M.; investigation, D.L.; methodology, A.M., B.P. and E.G.; supervision, L.M.; Writing—Original draft, L.M.; Writing—Review and editing, G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, General Directorate of Environment, project “Nanomateriali 2017–2020”.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to PhD course in “Environmental Life Sciences” jointly offered by the Universities of Trieste (Italy) and University of Udine (Italy). L.M. is grateful to Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, General Directorate of Environment, for the financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hull, M.S.; Bowman, D.M. Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety. In Risks, Regulation, and Management, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Meesters, J.A.J.; Quik, J.T.K.; Koelmans, A.A.; Hendriks, A.J.; van de Meent, D. Multimedia environmental fate and speciation of engineered nanoparticles: A probabilistic modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Nano 2016, 3, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Holden, P.A.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; Klaessig, F.; Turco, R.F.; Mortimer, M.; Hund-Rinke, K.; Cohen Hubal, E.A.; Avery, D.; Barceló, D.; Behra, R.; et al. Considerations of environmentally relevant test conditions for improved evaluation of ecological hazards of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 6124–6145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Hund-Rinke, K.; Baun, A.; Cupi, D.; Fernandes, T.F.; Handy, R.; Kinross, J.H.; Navas, J.M.; Peijnenburg, W.; Schlich, K.; Shaw, B.J.; et al. Regulatory ecotoxicity testing of nanomaterials—Proposed modifications of OECD test guidelines based on laboratory experience with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 2016, 10, 1442–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rasmussen, K.; Rauscher, H.; Kearns, P.; González, M.; Riego Sintes, J. Developing OECD test guidelines for regulatory testing of nanomaterials to ensure mutual acceptance of test data. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 104, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bar-On, Y.M.; Phillips, R.; Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 16506–16511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Isbell, F.; Calcagno, V.; Hector, A.; Connolly, J.; Stanley Harpole, W.; Reich, P.B.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Schmid, B.; Tilman, D.; van Ruijven, J.; et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 2011, 477, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kah, M.; Kookana, R.S.; Gogos, A.; Bucheli, T.D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Petersen, E.J.; Mortimer, M.; Burgess, R.M.; Handy, R.; Hanna, S.; Ho, K.T.; Johnson, M.; Loureiro, S.; Henriette Selck, H.; Scott-Fordsmand, J.J.; et al. Strategies for robust and accurate experimental approaches to quantify nanomaterial bioaccumulation across a broad range of organisms. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 1619–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zuverza-Mena, N.; Martínez-Fernández, D.; Du, W.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Bonilla-Bird, N.; López-Moreno, M.L.; Komárek, M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Exposure of engineered nanomaterials to plants: Insights into the physiological and biochemical responses—A review. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 236–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ma, X.; Yan, J. Plant uptake and accumulation of engineered metallic nanoparticles from lab to field conditions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 6, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, T.Y.; Gottschalk, F.; Hungerbuhler, K.; Nowack, B. Comprehensive probabilistic modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Antonelli, A.; Fry, C.; Smith, R.J.; Simmonds, M.S.J.; Kersey, P.J.; Pritchard, H.W.; Sofo, A.; Haelewaters, D.; Gâteblé, G. State of the World’s Plants and Fungi 2020; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wiersema, J.H.; Léon, B. World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  15. Janick, J. New crops and the search for new food resources. In Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses; Janick, J., Ed.; ASHS Press: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1999; pp. 281–304. [Google Scholar]
  16. Singh, K.R.B.; Nayak, V.; Sarkar, T.; Singh, R.P. Cerium oxide nanoparticles: Properties, biosynthesis and biomedical application. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 27194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Piccinno, F.; Gottschalk, F.; Seeger, S.; Nowack, B. Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. J. Nanopart. Res. 2012, 14, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. OECD. ENV/JM/MONO(2010)46-List of Manufactured Nanomaterials and List of Endpoints for Phase One of the Sponsorship Programme for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Revision; OECD: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ding, Y.; Bai, X.; Ye, Z.; Ma, L.; Liang, L. Toxicological responses of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on Eichhornia crassipes and associated plant transportation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ekperusia, A.O.; Sikokic, F.D.; Nwachukwud, E.O. Application of common duckweed (Lemna minor) in phytoremediation of chemicals in the environment: State and future perspective. Chemosphere 2019, 223, 285–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Geitner, N.K.; Cooper, J.L.; Avellan, A.; Castellon, B.T.; Perrotta, B.G.; Bossa, N.; Simonin, M.; Anderson, S.M.; Inoue, S.; Hochella, M.F.; et al. Size-based differential transport, uptake, and mass distribution of ceria (CeO2) nanoparticles in wetland mesocosms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 9768–9776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yin, L.; Colman, B.P.; McGill, B.M.; Wright, J.P.; Bernhardt, E.S. Effects of silver nanoparticle exposure on germination and early growth of eleven wetland plants. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Jacob, D.L.; Borchardt, J.D.; Navaratnam, L.; Otte, M.L.; Bezbaruah, A.N. Uptake and translocation of Ti nanoparticles in crops and wetland plants. Int. J. Phytorem. 2013, 15, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Song, U.; Lee, S. Phytotoxicity and accumulation of zinc oxide nanoparticles on the aquatic plants Hydrilla verticillata and Phragmites australis: Leaf-type-dependent responses. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 8539–8545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aleksandrowicz-Trzcińska, M.; Bederska-Błaszczyk, M.; Szaniawski, A.; Olchowik, J.; Studnicki, M. The effects of copper and silver nanoparticles on container-grown Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur L.) seedlings. Forests 2019, 10, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Servin, A.D.; White, J.C. Nanotechnology in agriculture: Next steps for understanding engineered nanoparticle exposure and risk. NanoImpact 2016, 1, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jalas, J.; Suominen, J. Atlas Florae Europaeae (AFE)—Distribution of Vascular Plants in Europe 7 (Caryophyllaceae (Silenioideae)); Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo: Vanamo, Helsinki, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aavik, T.; Holderegger, R.; Bolliger, J. The structural and functional connectivity of the grassland plant Lychnis flos-cuculi. Heredity 2014, 112, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Biere, A. Parental effects in Lychnis flos-cuculi L.: Seed size, germination and seedling performance in a controlled environment. J. Evol. Biol. 1999, 4, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jiménez-Lamana, J.; Wojcieszek, J.; Jakubiak, M.; Asztemborska, M.; Szpunar, J. Single particle ICP-MS characterization of platinum nanoparticles uptake and bioaccumulation by Lepidium sativum and Sinapis alba plants. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2016, 31, 2321–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. US EPA. EPA Method 3052. Microwave assisted acid digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices in US Environmental Protection Agency. In Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lizzi, D.; Mattiello, A.; Piani, B.; Fellet, G.; Adamiano, A.; Marchiol, L. Germination and early development of three spontaneous plant species to nanoceria (nCeO2) with different concentrations and particle sizes. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Priester, J.H.; Ge, Y.; Mielke, R.E.; Horst, A.M.; Moritz, S.C.; Espinosa, K.; Gelb, J.; Walker, S.L.; Nisbet, R.M.; An, Y.J.; et al. Soybean susceptibility to manufactured nanomaterials with evidence for food quality and soil fertility interruption. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 2451–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. López-Moreno, M.L.; De La Rosa, G.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) corroboration of the uptake and storage of CeO2 nanoparticles and assessment of their differential toxicity in four edible plant species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 3689–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Mattiello, A.; Pošćić, F.; Musetti, R.; Giordano, C.; Vischi, M.; Filippi, A.; Bertolini, A.; Marchiol, L. Evidences of genotoxicity and phytotoxicity in Hordeum vulgare exposed to CeO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Andersen, C.P.; King, G.; Plocher, M.; Storm, M.; Pokhrel, L.R.; Johnson, M.G.; Rygiewicz, P.T. Germination and early plant development of ten plant species exposed to titanium dioxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 2223–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rico, C.M.; Morales, M.I.; Barrios, A.C.; McCreary, R.; Hong, J.; Lee, W.Y.; Nunez, J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the quality of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 11278–11285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barrios, A.C.; Medina-Velo, I.A.; Zuverza-Mena, N.; Dominguez, O.D.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Nutritional quality assessment of tomato fruits after exposure to uncoated and citric acid coated cerium oxide nanoparticles, bulk cerium oxide, cerium acetate and citric acid. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Zhang, P.; Ma, Y.; Liu, S.; Wang, G.; Zhang, J.; He, X.; Zhang, J.; Rui, Y.; Zhang, Z. Phytotoxicity, uptake and transformation of nano-CeO2 in sand cultured romaine lettuce. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 1400–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Servin, A.D.; De La Torre-Roche, R.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Pagano, L.; Hawthorne, J.; Musante, C.; Pignatello, J.; Uchimiya, M.; White, J.C. Exposure of agricultural crops to nanoparticle CeO2 in biochar-amended soil. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Gunn, S.; Farrar, J.F.; Collis, B.E.; Nason, M. Specific leaf area in barley: Individual leaves versus whole plants. New Phytol. 1999, 143, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marchiol, L.; Mattiello, A.; Pošćić, F.; Fellet, G.; Zavalloni, C.; Carlino, E.; Musetti, R. Changes in physiological and agronomical parameters of barley (Hordeum vulgare) exposed to cerium and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cao, Z.; Stowers, C.; Rossi, L.; Zhang, W.; Lombardini, L.; Ma, X. Physiological effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles on the photosynthesis and water use efficiency of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Environ. Sci. Nano 2017, 4, 1086–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rodea-Palomares, I.; Gonzalo, S.; Santiago-Morales, X.; Leganés, F.; García-Calvo, E.; Rosal, R.; Fernández-Piñas, F. An insight into the mechanisms of nanoceria toxicity in aquatic photosynthetic organisms. Aquati. Toxicol. 2012, 122–123, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Giese, B.; Klaessig, F.; Park, P.; Kaegi, R.; Steinfeldt, M.; Wigger, H.; von Gleich, A.; Gottschalk, F. Risks, release and concentrations of engineered nanomaterial in the environment. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schlich, K.; Beule, L.; Hund-Rinke, K. Single versus repeated applications of CuO and Ag nanomaterials and their effect on soil microflora. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 215, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mishra, P.; Xue, L.; Eivazi, F.; Afrasiabi, Z. Size, concentration, coating, and exposure time effects of silver nanoparticles on the activities of selected soil enzymes. Geoderma 2021, 381, 114682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Experimental setup showing the combination of treatments: control, single-, double-, and triple-dosed plants (Ctrl, D1, D2, and D3, respectively); (B) S. flos-cuculi plants at 40 DSE.
Figure 1. (A) Experimental setup showing the combination of treatments: control, single-, double-, and triple-dosed plants (Ctrl, D1, D2, and D3, respectively); (B) S. flos-cuculi plants at 40 DSE.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g001
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Particle size distribution obtained by dynamic light scattering (DLS). (B) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of nCeO2 25 nm suspension.
Figure 2. (A) Particle size distribution obtained by dynamic light scattering (DLS). (B) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of nCeO2 25 nm suspension.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g002
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g003 550
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of nCeO2 extracted after enzymatic digestion procedure from (A) roots and (B) leaves of S. flos-cuculi.
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of nCeO2 extracted after enzymatic digestion procedure from (A) roots and (B) leaves of S. flos-cuculi.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g003
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g004 550
Figure 4. Root dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated (D2, D3) applications of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration: asterisks indicate the statistically significant difference of dose factor at * 0.05 ≥ p ≥ 0.01; ***p ≥ 0.001, respectively.
Figure 4. Root dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated (D2, D3) applications of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration: asterisks indicate the statistically significant difference of dose factor at * 0.05 ≥ p ≥ 0.01; ***p ≥ 0.001, respectively.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g004
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g005 550
Figure 5. Stem dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration.
Figure 5. Stem dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g005
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g006 550
Figure 6. Plant dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration.
Figure 6. Plant dry mass of S. flos cuculi. Comparison of effects based on single (D1) and repeated applications (D2, D3) of 20 and 200 mg kg−1 nCeO2, respectively. Letters indicate statistically significant difference between treatments (p ≤ 0.05) using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. † One-way ANOVA p-value within each concentration.
Nanomaterials 11 00229 g006
Table
Table 1. Root mass fraction (RMF), shoot to root ratio (S/R ratio), and specific leaf area (SLA) ± standard deviation of S. flos-cuculi grown in presence of different inputs of 20–200 mg kg−1 nCeO2. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by the letters using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. Dashed box indicate ANOVA p-values (p ≤ 0.05) within the nCeO2 concentration. ns: not significant at p ≤ 0.05; * and ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01.
Table 1. Root mass fraction (RMF), shoot to root ratio (S/R ratio), and specific leaf area (SLA) ± standard deviation of S. flos-cuculi grown in presence of different inputs of 20–200 mg kg−1 nCeO2. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by the letters using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. Dashed box indicate ANOVA p-values (p ≤ 0.05) within the nCeO2 concentration. ns: not significant at p ≤ 0.05; * and ** significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01.
TreatmentDoseRMFSLA
(g g−1)(m2 kg−1)
CtrlD00.054 ± 0.003 c25.3 ± 0.70 ab
nCeO2 20 mg kg−1D10.117 ± 0.009 a25.7 ± 1.21 ab
D20.078 ± 0.008 bc27.3 ± 1.32 ab
D30.077 ± 0.007 bc24.4 ± 1.42 b
p = 0.0028 **p = 0.2801 ns
nCeO2 200 mg kg−1D10.105 ± 0.009 ab24.1 ± 1.31 b
D20.087 ± 0.01 abc28 ± 1.63 ab
D30.070 ± 0.006 c30 ± 1.36 a
p = 0.0271 *p = 0.0243 *
Table
Table 2. Ce concentration in plant fraction and Ce translocation factor in S. flos cuculi grown in the presence of different inputs of nCeO2 (20 and 200 mg kg−1.) Data are mean ± standard deviation. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by the letters using one-way ANOVA follow by Tukey’s test. Dashed boxes indicate ANOVA p-values (p ≤ 0.05) within nCeO2 concentration. ns: not significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant at p ≤ 0.01.
Table 2. Ce concentration in plant fraction and Ce translocation factor in S. flos cuculi grown in the presence of different inputs of nCeO2 (20 and 200 mg kg−1.) Data are mean ± standard deviation. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are indicated by the letters using one-way ANOVA follow by Tukey’s test. Dashed boxes indicate ANOVA p-values (p ≤ 0.05) within nCeO2 concentration. ns: not significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant at p ≤ 0.01.
TreatmentDoseCe rootsCe stemsCe leaves
(µg kg−1)(µg kg−1)(µg kg−1)
CtrlD0546 ± 390 b154 ± 125 b254 ± 198 b
nCeO2 20 mg kg−1D11300 ± 112 b333 ± 281 b1083 ± 70 ab
D22407 ± 793 b477 ± 172 ab1240 ± 170 ab
D32670 ± 1130 b1450 ± 918 a1770 ± 96.7 a
p = 0.1653 nsp = 0.0988 nsp = 0.3638 ns
nCeO2 200 mg kg−1D13023 ± 700 ab573 ± 87 ab1580 ± 60.7 ab
D23130 ± 2210 ab816 ± 91 ab2063 ± 41.8 a
D35910 ± 1140 a1023 ± 61 ab1827 ± 24 a
p = 0.0941 nsp = 0.0015 **p = 0.4643 ns
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lizzi, D.; Mattiello, A.; Piani, B.; Gava, E.; Fellet, G.; Marchiol, L. Single and Repeated Applications of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Differently Affect the Growth and Biomass Accumulation of Silene flos-cuculi L. (Caryophyllaceae). Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010229

AMA Style

Lizzi D, Mattiello A, Piani B, Gava E, Fellet G, Marchiol L. Single and Repeated Applications of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Differently Affect the Growth and Biomass Accumulation of Silene flos-cuculi L. (Caryophyllaceae). Nanomaterials. 2021; 11(1):229. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lizzi, Daniel, Alessandro Mattiello, Barbara Piani, Emanuele Gava, Guido Fellet, and Luca Marchiol. 2021. "Single and Repeated Applications of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Differently Affect the Growth and Biomass Accumulation of Silene flos-cuculi L. (Caryophyllaceae)" Nanomaterials 11, no. 1: 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010229

APA Style

Lizzi, D., Mattiello, A., Piani, B., Gava, E., Fellet, G., & Marchiol, L. (2021). Single and Repeated Applications of Cerium Oxide Nanoparticles Differently Affect the Growth and Biomass Accumulation of Silene flos-cuculi L. (Caryophyllaceae). Nanomaterials, 11(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop