Next Article in Journal
Synthesis, Structural Characterization, and Infrared Analysis of Double Perovskites Pr2NiMnO6, Gd2NiMnO6, and Er2NiMnO6 Functional Nano-Ceramics
Previous Article in Journal
Electrochemical Determination of Uric Acid Using a Nanocomposite Electrode with Molybdenum Disulfide/Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes (MoS2@MWCNT)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/nano14110959
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

Effect of MnO2 Nanoparticles Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Germination and Development of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seedlings

by
Andrey Nagdalian
1,*,
Andrey Blinov
2,
Alexey Gvozdenko
2,
Alexey Golik
2,
Zafar Rekhman
2,
Igor Rzhepakovsky
3,
Roman Kolesnikov
4,
Svetlana Avanesyan
3,
Anastasiya Blinova
2,
Maxim Pirogov
2,
Pavel Leontev
2,
Alina Askerova
1,
Evgeniy Tsykin
1 and
Mohammad Ali Shariati
5,*
1
Laboratory of Food and Industrial Biotechnology, Faculty of Food Engineering and Biotechnology, North Caucasus Federal University, 355017 Stavropol, Russia
2
Department of Physics and Technology of Nanostructures and Materials, Physical and Technical Faculty, North Caucasus Federal University, 355017 Stavropol, Russia
3
Interdepartmental Scientific and Educational Laboratory of Experimental Immunomorphology, Immunopathology and Immunobiotechnology, Faculty of Medicine and Biology, North Caucasus Federal University, 355017 Stavropol, Russia
4
Scientific Department, Saints Petersburg State Agrarian University, 190005 Pushkin, Russia
5
Semey Branch of Kazakh Research Institute of Processing and Food Industry, Almaty 050060, Kazakhstan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2024, 14(11), 959; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14110959
Submission received: 16 April 2024 / Revised: 21 May 2024 / Accepted: 28 May 2024 / Published: 30 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Biology and Medicines)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to synthesize, characterize, and evaluate the effect of cocamidopropyl betaine-stabilized MnO2 nanoparticles (NPs) on the germination and development of pea seedlings. The synthesized NPs manifested as aggregates ranging from 50–600 nm, comprising spherical particles sized between 19 to 50 nm. These particles exhibited partial crystallization, indicated by peaks at 2θ = 25.37, 37.62, 41.18, 49.41, 61.45, and 65.79°, characteristic of MnO2 with a tetragonal crystal lattice with a I4/m spatial group. Quantum chemical modelling showed that the stabilization process of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine is energetically advantageous (∆E > 1299.000 kcal/mol) and chemically stable, as confirmed by the positive chemical hardness values (0.023 ≤ η ≤ 0.053 eV). It was revealed that the interaction between the MnO2 molecule and cocamidopropyl betaine, facilitated by a secondary amino group (NH), is the most probable scenario. This ascertain is supported by the values of the difference in total energy (∆E = 1299.519 kcal/mol) and chemical hardness (η = 0.053 eV). These findings were further confirmed using FTIR spectroscopy. The effect of MnO2 NPs at various concentrations on the germination of pea seeds was found to be nonlinear and ambiguous. The investigation revealed that MnO2 NPs at a concentration of 0.1 mg/L resulted in the highest germination energy (91.25%), germinability (95.60%), and lengths of roots and seedlings among all experimental samples. However, an increase in the concentration of preparation led to a slight growth suppression (1–10 mg/L) and the pronounced inhibition of seedling and root development (100 mg/L). The analysis of antioxidant indicators and phytochemicals in pea seedlings indicated that only 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs have a negative effect on the content of soluble sugars, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, and phenols. Conversely, lower concentrations showed a stimulating effect on photosynthesis indicators. Nevertheless, MnO2 NPs at all concentrations generally decreased the antioxidant potential of pea seedlings, except for the ABTS parameter. Pea seedlings showed a notable capacity to absorb Mn, reaching levels of 586.5 μg/L at 10 mg/L and 892.6 μg/L at 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs, surpassing the toxic level for peas according to scientific literature. However, the most important result was the observed growth-stimulating activity at 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine, suggesting a promising avenue for further research.

1. Introduction

The field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a leguminous crop of significant food and feed importance. With its relatively high yields and relatively low production costs, the pea has emerged as a key alternative protein source, driving its increasing demand over recent decades [1,2]. Global pea production surpassed 20 million tons, with a projected 7% growth by 2026 [3,4].
Pea plants exhibit adaptability to diverse soil and climatic conditions, facilitated by their relatively short growing season [5,6]. Despite its adaptability, pea cultivation faces challenges stemming from the crop’s high sensitivity to various abiotic stress factors. Fluctuations in yields not only jeopardize the sustainability of pea production, but also impedes market development [7,8,9,10]. It is noteworthy that modern, highly productive pea varieties have substantial metabolic requirements, necessitating adequate nutrient supply in various forms and application methods for both macro- and microelements [11]. Insufficient manganese (Mn) content in the soil frequently emerges as a significant limiting factor for pea growth and development [12,13,14]. Therefore, addressing this issue is crucial for optimizing pea cultivation and ensuring robust yields [15,16].
Mn is present in peas in very small quantities (14–15 mg/g), yet its role in growth, development and crop formation is indispensable [17]. This element actively participates in photosynthesis and various physiological processes, being a constituent of numerous ribosomes, chloroplasts, and enzymes [18]. In instances of manganese deficiency, chlorophyll synthesis is impaired, leading to the appearance of light yellow spots on leaves while the veins remain green [19]. Furthermore, according to Priyadarsini et al. [20], Mn has the highest number of significant relationships with other trace elements, implying that a manganese deficiency can trigger a broader mineral imbalance in peas. In the later phases of ontogenesis, signs of manganese deficiency can resemble those of iron deficiency. Severe deficiency can result in stunt growth, and, in extreme cases, the biomass gain may be negligible. Manganese deficiency is most commonly observed in alkaline and neutral soils rich in humus, as well as in cases of moisture deficiency [21]. Importantly, an Mn deficiency is not solely attributable to the absence or insufficient content of the element in soil. The bioavailability of Mn forms plays a crucial role, depending on factors such as shape, size, stability, and soil conditions (acidity, humidity, buffer properties) [22,23,24].
Currently, a considerable body of research has accumulated on the utilization of Mn forms in crop production. Among these forms of Mn studied, nanoscale forms emerge as the most promising due to their high activity and lower consumption [25]. It was discovered in a previous work that 0.05 mg/L MnxOy nanoparticles (NPs) increase the germination energy of barley seeds by 50%, while the seedling length increases by 68% when compared with the control [26]. Kasote et al. [27] reported that ≤40 mg/L Mn2O3 NPs significantly influenced the phenolic acid and phytohormone profiles of watermelon seedlings, leading to increased crop productivity. Ye et al. [28] found that Mn NPs were less phytotoxic when compared to other Mn forms and were more effective in minimizing abiotic stresses in plants. Nawaz et al. [29] demonstrated the positive nutritive impact of 15 mg/L MnO NPs, which increased the callus induction in Moringa oleifera. In a study on wheat biofortification, Dimkpa et al. [30] reported that Mn2O3 NPs were the most effective form, resulting in better seedling growth and yield. Pradhan et al. [31] studied the molecular, biochemical, and biophysical effects of Mn NPs on Vigna radiate, revealing the stimulation of photosynthesis processes. Additionally, Heena et al. [32] highlighted the highly beneficial effects of Mn NPs on the growth, yield, and economics of garden peas, confirming the potential of treating peas with Mn nanoforms. However, all discussed works showed a potential toxic effect of Mn NPs at higher concentrations, underscoring the need for further experimentation and careful consideration when applying Mn nanoforms to peas.
This study is distinctive in its use of an ampholytic surfactant, cocamidopropyl betaine, as a stabilizer, enabling the maintenance of nanoparticle (NP) stability at any pH, owing to the presence of positive and negative charges in the stabilizer molecule. Cocamidopropyl betaine was chosen as the stabilizer agent because of its amphiphilic properties and great performance in terms of stabilization of Se NPs in the previous work [33]. Consequently, the use of cocamidopropyl betaine as a stabilizer facilitates achieving the desired morphology and optimal particle size, while maintaining the functional properties of MnO2 NPs. Thus, considering the results of the literature review and our own results, the aim of this study concerns the synthesis, characterization, and study of the effect of MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine on the germination and development of pea seedlings.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Materials

In the present study, reagent-grade chemicals and grade A glassware were used. The conductivity of the distilled water used in this work was less than 2 µS/cm. The following chemicals were obtained from StavReaChem (Stavropol, Russia) and were used as received: potassium permanganate, L-methionine, cocamidopropyl betaine, and sodium hydroxide. Lenreactive (St. Petersburg, Russia) provided phloroglucinol, hydrochloric acid, ascorbic acid, sulfuric acid, gallic acid, sodium phosphate, sodium carbonate, iron chloride, phosphate buffer, and ethanol. Picric acid, potassium ferricyanide, trichloroacetic acid, ammonium molybdate, Tris-HCl buffer, chromogen, ABTS, trolox, and folin reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds were purchased from the Timiryazevsky nursery of the Russian State Agrarian University-Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy (Moscow, Russia) in August–October 2023. The selected seeds were not subjected to any prior additional processing.

2.2. Synthesis of MnO2 NPs

The synthesis of MnO2 NPs involved mixing a 0.14 M aqueous solution of KMnO4 and 0.24 M aqueous solution of L-methionine in the presence of cocamidopropyl betaine with ω = 0.085%. The resulting sample underwent centrifugation 3 times at 3000 rpm using a Gyrozen 1580R centrifuge (Gyrozen, St. Petersburg, Russia). Subsequently, the sample was dried in a drying chamber IKA OVEN 125 basic dry (IKA-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, Staufen, Germany) at 65 °C for 24 h.

2.3. Characterization and Modelling of MnO2 NPs

Several methods were employed to characterize the produced MnO2 NPs. A micrograph of MnO2 NPs was obtained using an AZtecEnergy Standard X-max 20 system and a MIRA3-LMH scanning electron microscope (Tescan, Brno, Czech Republic) to determine its elemental composition. The phase composition of samples of MnO2 NPs was examined using an X-ray diffractometer Empyrean (PANalytical, Almelo, the Netherlands). The size of MnO2 NPs was analyzed using the dynamic light scattering (DLS) method with a Photocor Complex device (Antek-97, Moscow, Russia). The data obtained were processed using DynaLS v.2.0 software (Antek-97, Moscow, Russia). For DLS analysis, MnO2 NP samples were diluted four times with distilled water. Furthermore, the ζ-potential was investigated using acoustic and electroacoustic spectroscopy with a DT-1202 device (Dispersion Technology Inc., Bedford Hills, NY, USA).
Quantum chemical modeling was used to investigate the interaction of a MnO2 molecule with cocamidopropyl betaine through several functional groups (secondary amino group, carboxyl group, and nitrogen) to assess the viability of cocamidopropyl betaine as a stabilizer of MnO2 NPs. The stabilization process of CuO NPs with stabilizers was also studied using QChem v. 6.2 software (QChem, Pleasanton, CA, USA) with a IQmol molecular editor (QChem, Pleasanton, CA, USA).
Calculations were performed at the data processing center (Schneider Electric, Moscow, Russia) of the North Caucasus Federal University (Stavropol, Russia). Calculations were carried out with the following parameters: calculation—energy, method—B3LYP, basis—6-31G*, convergence—5, force field—Chemical. The total energy of the molecular complex (E), the energy of the most occupied molecular orbital (EHOMO), and the energy of the least occupied molecular orbital (ELUMO) were considered as quantum chemical variables. Based on the calculated values, the total energy difference (∆E) of cocamidopropyl betaine and the MnO2–cocamidopropyl betaine molecular complex, and the chemical rigidity (η) of the molecular system equal to half of the difference between EHOMO and ELUMO were obtained.
To confirm the results of the quantum chemical modeling, IR spectra of cocamidopropyl betaine, MnO2 NPs, and the MnO2–cocamidopropyl betaine molecular complex were acquired and analyzed using an FSM-1201 FTIR spectrometer (Infraspek, St. Petersburg, Russia). Measurements were recorded in the range 500–4000 cm−1.

2.4. Pea Seed Preparation and Investigation

Pea seeds (75 units per group) were evenly distributed in Petri dishes, with each dish containing 25 units placed on filter paper under optimal humidification conditions at a temperature of 20 °C for 7 days. The ratio of liquid phase to seeds was maintained at 4:5. Considering the results of the literature review, the liquid phase consisted of the following: distilled water (control group), 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs solution (experimental group 1), 1 mg/L MnO2 NPs solution (experimental group 2), 10 mg/L MnO2 NPs solution (experimental group 3), and 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs solution (experimental group 4). The germination energy, germinability, and the linear dimensions of seedlings and roots were evaluated according to the ISTA (2006) standard every 3 days for the 9 days of germination. Further investigation was focused on pea seedlings considering potential microgreens applications.

2.5. Investigation of Pea Seedlings

2.5.1. Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy

Seedling cut micrographs with Mn mapping were obtained using a scanning electron microscope MIRA3-LMH (Tescan, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic) with a system for determining the elemental composition AZtecEnergy Standard/X-max 20 (standard). Seedling samples were freeze-dried at −40 °C. A double-sided conductive carbon tape was glued on a standard instrumentation table (12 mm), onto which the freeze-dried seedling samples were applied. Finally, a carbon coating with a thickness of about 10 nm was deposited. The parameters of the measurement were as follows: Voltage: 10 kV, Work distance: 4.9 mm, and an In-Beam secondary electron detector.
Micrographs of pea seedlings with manganese mapping were acquired using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) model MIRA3-LMH (Tescan, Brno-Kohoutovice, Czech Republic), equipped with an AZtecEnergy Standard/X-max 20 system for determining the elemental composition. Seedling samples underwent freeze-drying at −40 °C. Double-sided conductive carbon tape (12 mm) was applied to a standard instrumentation table, onto which the freeze-dried seedling samples were applied. Subsequently, a carbon coating approximately 10 nm thick was deposited. The measurement parameters were set as follows: Voltage: 10 kV, Working distance: 4.9 mm, and an In-Beam secondary electron detector.

2.5.2. Antioxidant Indicators and Phytochemicals in Pea Seedlings

For probe preparation, 100 mg of freeze-dried pea seedlings were grounded and soaked in 10 mL of 70% ethanol. The extracts underwent centrifugation at 13,000 rpm for 15 min using MicroCL 17R centrifuge (Thermo FS, Waltham, MA, USA) to investigate the supernatants. All parameters studied, except for the dry matter value and Mn content, were recalculated per g of freeze-dried sample.
  • Dry matter
The dry matter was determined in fresh seedlings using an Ohaus MB 25 (Ohaus Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, USA) moisture meter at 105 °C.
  • Soluble sugars
Soluble sugars in the extract were determined via the reaction with picric acid using an SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia) according to Mukherjee et al. [34]. Soluble sugars were expressed in mg of glucose per g of freeze-dried seedlings (mg G/g).
  • Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)
The FRAP assay was carried out following the methods outlined by Hazra et al. [35] and Moualek et al. [36] with slight modifications. Specifically, 25 µL of extract was mixed with 2 mL of phosphate buffer (pH 6.6) and 1 mL of 1% potassium ferricyanide. This mixture was then incubated in a climatic chamber (Thermo FS, Waltham, MA, USA) at 50 °C for 20 min. The reaction was terminated by the addition of 1 mL of 10% trichloroacetic acid. Subsequently, the mixture was centrifuged at 3000 rpm g for 10 min using MicroCL 17R centrifuge (Thermo FS, Waltham, MA, USA). Next, 1 mL of freshly prepared 0.1% FeCl3 was introduced to the supernatant, and the absorption was measured at λ = 700 nm using the SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia). Ascorbic acid was served as a standard. The FRAP was expressed in mg of ascorbic acid equivalent per g of freeze-dried seedings (mg AAE/g).
  • Total antioxidant activity (TAA)
The TAA was assayed with the use of the phospho-molybdenum method [37,38]. To begin, 25 µL of extract was mixed with 4 mL of the reagent solution (0.6 M sulfuric acid, 28 mM sodium phosphate, and 4 mM ammonium molybdate). The mixture was then incubated in a climatic chamber (Thermo FS, Waltham, MA, USA) at 95 °C for 90 min, followed by being cooled to room temperature. Subsequently, the absorbance was measured at λ = 695 nm using the SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia). Ascorbic acid was used as a standard. The TAA was expressed in mg of ascorbic acid equivalent per g of freeze-dried seedings (mg AAE/g).
  • ABTS radical scavenging activity
ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)) radical scavenging activity was determined according to the procedure described by Liu et al. [39] with slight modifications. Initially, a working solution was prepared by dissolving the chromogen containing ABTS+ in 20 mL of Tris-HCl buffer. The extract (0.030 mL) was added to 2.97 mL of the ABTC solution and allowed to stand for 3 min. Next, the optical density of resulting mixture was measured at λ = 734 nm using the SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia). Trolox was used as a standard. In the negative control, 70% ethanol was used instead of the extract. ABTS radical scavenging activity was expressed in μM of trolox equivalent per g of freeze-dried seedings (μM TE/g).
  • Total phenolics
Phenols were quantified using the Folin–Ciocalteu method [40]. Firstly, Folin reagent (diluted 10 times) was added to 0.2 mL of the extract. Subsequently, 0.5 mL of 20% Na2CO3 and 2.5 mL of distilled water were added, and the resulting solution was allowed to stand for 45 min at room temperature in a dark place. The optical density was then measured at λ = 760 nm using the SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia). Gallic acid served as the standard reference. The content of the phenolic compounds was expressed in mg of gallic acid equivalent per g of freeze-dried seedlings (mg GAE/g).
  • Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, and Total carotenoids content
The content of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total carotenoids was measured spectrophotometrically. The extract was mixed with 95% ethanol and then clarified via centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C using MicroCL 17R centrifuge (Thermo FS, Waltham, MA, USA). The absorbance of the supernatant was measured using the SF 102 UV spectrophotometer (Aquilon, Moscow, Russia), and the concentrations of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids were calculated considering 95% ethanol, as described by Alam et al. [41].
  • Mn content
Mn content in pea seedlings was determined using the atomic absorption spectrometer MGA-1000 (Lumex, St. Petersburg, Russia).

2.6. Statistical Data Processing

The experiments were carried out in threefold biological and fivefold analytical repetitions. All parameters obtained underwent one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student’s t-test (p  <  0.05) using the statistical package STATISTICA v. 12 for Windows (Statsoft, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA). Data regarding the root and seedling length were statistically processed using Python 3.10 software with the Jupyter Notebook web-based interactive computing platform, using the pandas, numpy, sklearn, matplotlib, and seaborn libraries (Source). Microsoft Excel 2010 and Origin v. 9.0 software were also employed for histogram and graph creation based on the results of the data processing.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of MnO2 NPs Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine

At the first stage, the average hydrodynamic radius and ζ-potential of MnO2 NPs were studied to validate the effectiveness of cocamidopropyl betaine as a stabilizer. The outcomes of DLS are presented in Figure 1.
DLS showed that the average hydrodynamic radius of MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine (36 nm) is significantly lower than the size of MnO2 NPs without a stabilizer (420 nm). At the same time, results from acoustic and electroacoustic spectroscopy indicate that the ζ-potential of the stabilized sample (+32.64 mV) was higher than in the non-stabilized sample (+1.34 mV). These findings conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of using cocamidopropyl betaine as a stabilizer.
The results of the characterization of MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine are depicted in Figure 2. The analysis of SEM micrographs (Figure 2A) revealed that synthesized MnO2 NPs are aggregated structures measuring 50–600 nm, composed of spherical particles of 19 to 50 nm. The study of the phase composition (Figure 2B) showed that the stabilization of MnxOy NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine leads to the formation of amorphous MnO2 [42,43]. Further analysis of the obtained diffractogram showed the partial crystallization of the sample, evidenced by maxima at 2θ = 25.37, 37.62, 41.18, 49.41, 61.45, and 65.79°, characteristic of MnO2 with a tetragonal crystal lattice with a spatial group I4/m [44].
The stabilization process of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine was studied using quantum chemical modelling. As a result, models of molecule, electron density distribution, HOMO, and LUMO were obtained and presented in Figure 2D and Supplementary Figures S1–S3. Additionally, quantum chemical calculations were also carried out and presented in Table 1.
According to Table 1, the stabilization process of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine is energetically favorable (∆E > 1299.000 kcal/mol) and chemically stable, as indicated by the positive chemical hardness values (0.023 ≤ η ≤ 0.053 eV) [45]. It was revealed that the interaction of the MnO2 molecule with cocamidopropyl betaine via a secondary amino group (NH) is the most probable, as evidenced by the values of the difference in total energy (∆E = 1299.519 kcal/mol) and chemical hardness (η = 0.053 eV). The electron density distribution model (Figure 2(D2)) indicates a transfer of positive charge from the hydrocarbon radical (CH) towards the MnO2 molecule. Additionally, there is a shift of the LUMO towards the MnO2 molecule, confirming the chemical interaction between MnO2 and cocamidopropyl betaine [46]. When the MnO2 molecule interacts with cocamidopropyl betaine through the carboxylate anion (COO−), the ∆E value increases to 1299.622 kcal/mol, indicating a high energy benefit of the process [47].
Meanwhile, the η value drops to 0.023 eV, indicating the relatively low chemical stability of the interaction [45]. In this case, the oxygen atoms in the MnO2 molecule acquire a negative charge [48]. Conversely, as seen from Table 1, the interaction of the MnO2 molecule with cocamidopropyl betaine through an ionized amino group is chemically stable (η = 0.053 eV), albeit less energetically advantageous (∆E = 1299.107 kcal/mol). Consequently, the MnO2 molecule acquires a positive charge [48].
The results of quantum chemical modelling were confirmed using FTIR spectroscopy. The obtain spectra are shown in Figure 2C, and their description is presented in Table 2.
According to Table 2, a significant decrease in intensity is observed, ranging from 1591 to 1558 cm−1, corresponding to the fluctuations of the NH group [49]. This finding confirms the results of quantum chemical analysis, which demonstrates the interaction between the MnO2 molecule and the secondary amino group of cocamidopropyl betaine. Consequently, the results justify the utilization of cocamidopropyl betaine as a stabilizing agent for MnO2 NPs.

3.2. Effect of MnO2 NPs Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Germination of Pea Seeds

The effect of MnO2 NPs at various concentrations on the germination of pea seeds was found to be nonlinear and ambiguous. The research results revealed that seeds from the first experimental group (0.1 mg/L) exhibited the highest germination energy (91.25%). In contrast, the percentage germination of pea seeds from the fourth experimental group (100 mg/L) was the lowest (86.33%) when compared to other groups. Samples from the second group (1 mg/L) and the third group (10 mg/L) showed average values of germination energy (90.87% and 90.10%, respectively), albeit this was slightly higher than in the control group (87.45%). Ensuring the development of healthy, fully formed seedlings is a crucial prerequisite for achieving high yields of pea seeds [50].
The highest germinability value, 95.60%, was recorded following treatment with 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs, which is 8.8% higher than seeds germinated in distilled water (87.77%). Consistent with the results of germination energy, germinability in the second group (1 mg/L) and the third group (10 mg/L) surpassed that of the control group, reaching 93.33% and 91.10%, respectively. However, it was discovered that 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs negatively affected the germinability of pea seeds, resulting in 83.33%, equivalent to pea seeds stored for 5 years with reduced morphofunctional properties [51].
Thus, the results obtained revealed the growth stimulation effect of MnO2 NPs at concentrations of 0.1–10 mg/L. The inhibitory effect of 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs can be associated with the potential toxic effect on pea seeds at higher concentrations, which is in line with the results of our previous work [26] and the reports of another researcher [27,29,30,52,53,54].
The same trend was observed when evaluating the effect of MnO2 NPs on the seedling and root length (Figure 3). Statistical data processing (Supplementary, Tables S1–S3, Figures S4–S7) showed a significant difference in the length of roots and seedlings as a function of the MnO2 NP concentration. The highest growth simulation was revealed following treatment with 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs. Increasing the concentration of preparation led to a slight suppression of growth (1–10 mg/L) and a pronounced inhibition of seedling and root development (100 mg/L) when compared to the control. These results correspond to those of Pradhan et al. [31] and confirm the prospect of using MnO2 NPs at low concentrations as a growth stimulator for pea seeds.

3.3. Effect of MnO2 NPs Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Parameters of Pea Seedlings

Mn is crucial for various physiological and biochemical processes in plants. However, excessive concentrations of Mn can lead to phytotoxicity, as evidenced by reduced seed germinability, germination energy, and impaired seedling and root growth, as discussed in the literature review. High Mn levels can induce oxidative stress in plants by generating ROS, leading to lipid peroxidation, disrupting antioxidant enzymes, reducing photosynthesis and metabolism parameters, interfering with the uptake, and even damaging cell structure and modulating the gene expression [55,56,57,58]. Visually, Mn toxicity may result in inhibited root and seedling growth and, in severe cases, plant death [59,60]. Understanding the biosorption capacity of pea seeds and the mechanisms of the translocation and accumulation of MnO2 nanoparticles is essential for this study. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy of experimental pea seedlings was conducted, and the resulting electronic micrographs and Mn mapping are shown in Figure 4.
The release of Mn4+ from MnO2 NPs leads to the Mn4+ bioaccumulation in pea seeds and its distribution in roots and seedlings. Generally, plants can absorb and translocate NPs into various tissues, with roots being the primary target for absorption and accumulation [61]. For instance, Ahmed et al. [62] observed that, at a concentration of 2 mg/L, CuO NPs exhibited intense translocation from roots to seedlings and leaves of maize, leading to the higher bioaccumulation of Cu in aboveground tissues when compared to roots. Similar observations were reported for rice roots and seedlings by Peng et al. [63].
During the translocation from roots to seedlings and leaves, metal NPs may form complexes with cysteine, citrate, and phosphate ligands. Additionally, Mn can be translocated from roots to seedlings via xylem and re-translocated to roots via the phloem, likely involving transformation Mn2+-Mn4+-Mn7+ [23,64,65]. At optimal concentrations, Mn activates photosynthesis processes and positively effects seed germination [31]. The residual Mn is normally immobilized in the cytosol through chelation and sequestration with Mn-related proteins and stores in vacuoles [66,67].
This mechanism sheds insights onto why 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs stimulated the growth of pea seedlings and resulted in the highest germination energy and germinability of seeds. According to the results obtained, MnO2 NPs at concentrations of 100 mg/L disrupt the natural mechanism of Mn assimilation and utilization, leading to phytopathological consequences, as depicted in Figure 4. Mn mapping obtained via energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy showed the significant redistribution of the Mn atomic presence. The increase in the MnO2 NP concentration led to intense Mn accumulation. The widespread distribution of Mn in seedlings treated with 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs indicates a high biosorption capacity of pea seedlings, consistent with similar results reported by Kasote et al. [27] in watermelon seedlings. However, this led to a reduction in germinability and germination energy in pea seeds and inhibited the growth of their seedlings and roots.
The high content of Mn, as a redox active element, can lead to active ROS generation in pea seedlings through interactions with the photosynthetic electron transport system [30,68,69]. Considering the literature data and the results of energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, experimental samples were studied for antioxidant indicators and phytochemicals content (Table 3).
According to Table 3, MnO2 NPs led to a reduction in the water content in seedlings with an increase in the concentration. Margenot et al. [70] attributed this decrease in water content to the negative effect of high concentrations of metal oxide NPs on root function and water transport. It is important to note that ROS generating at MnO2 NPs treatment can induce oxidative stress, leading to multifactor damages and cell death [71,72]. Plants have adopted strategies to counteract these toxic effects through both antioxidant enzymatic and non-enzymatic activity [73,74].
Thus, to assess the effect of MnO2 NPs on the antioxidant system in pea seedlings, the FRAP, TAA, and ABTS were evaluated. It was found that the FRAP decreased by 2–3 times with increasing MnO2 NP concentrations, reaching its minimum value (21.16 mg AAE/g) at 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs. Similarly, MnO2 NPs led to a decrease in the TAA in pea seedlings, ranging from 23% (0.1 mg/L) to 53% (100 mg/L), indicating a significant depletion of total antioxidant potential in the experimental samples.
Surprisingly, the ABTS test revealed an inverse effect; the maximum value (24.7 μM TE/g) was detected at 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs, while other groups, including the control, had no statistically significant difference (21.4–23.1 μM TE/g). This observed trend might be attributed to the oxidative stress response and the activation of antioxidant enzymes [75,76].
The analysis of soluble sugars, chlorophyll a/b, and carotenoids revealed a single trend. It was found that MnO2 NPs at concentrations of 0.1–10 mg/L had a positive effect on the content of soluble sugars, chlorophyll a/b, and carotenoids in pea seedlings. These results align with the findings of Heena et al. [32], suggesting that this effect may be attributed to the stimulation of photosynthesis processes. However, at a concentration of 100 mg/L, MnO2 NPs likely disrupted the biochemical homeostasis in peas, leading to a significant decrease in the studied indicators of the photosynthesis intensity, which is consistent with findings of Pradhan et al. [31]. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that a positive effect on photosynthesis processes was still observed at 10 mg/L MnO2 NPs, corresponding to results of Kasote et al. [27], Ye et al. [28], Nawaz et al. [29], and Dimpka et al. [30]. These studies, conducted with different crops and various forms of MnxOy NPs, found an upper optimal concentration range of 15–40 mg/L.
Interestingly, the phenols content correlates well with carotenoids and chlorophyll a/b contents. Seedlings treated with 0.1, 1, and 10 mg/L MnO2 NPs had higher phenol contents (9.66, 10.68, and 9.71 mg GAE/g, respectively) than the control samples (9.53 mg GAE/g). Moreover, this indicator was even higher in samples from the second and third experimental groups. As expected, seeds treated with 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs contained only 8.75 GAE/g phenols in seedlings, representing an 8.2% decrease when compared to the control group. These results align with those of Ramesh et al. [77]. However, further studies on phenolic compounds are warranted to fully understand the nature of the observed effect. This is particularly critical as phenolic compounds may play a significant role in antioxidant capacities under Mn toxicity, as logically inferred from the results presented in Table 3.
The analysis of the Mn content in pea seedlings provided data that objectively supplemented the Mn mapping micrographs obtained via energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. As mentioned earlier, pea seedlings exhibited a high absorbance capacity for Mn, reaching 892.6 μg/L at 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs. According to Donchaeva et al. [56], Mn inhibits pea growth and development in a dose- and time-dependent manner at accumulation concentrations ≥ 500 μg/L. Thus, experimental pea seedlings treated with 10 mg/L MnO2 NPs were also above the toxic level of Mn content (586.5 μg/L).
Thus, it can be inferred that 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine have a pronounced toxic effect on pea seeds. This effect is also observed at concentrations of 10 mg/L, albeit to a lesser extent and not across all indicators. However, the most important result was the revealed growth-stimulating activity of 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine. This discovery opens up a new avenue of research into the application of MnO2 NPs as a stable bioavailable molecular complex based on essential trace elements (Mn), with a growth-promoting effect in the early germination stages of agricultural crops.

4. Conclusions

Within the scope of this study, manganese dioxide nanoparticles stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine were synthesized. These nanoparticles formed aggregates ranging from 50–600 nm, composed of spherical particles between 19 and 50 nm with partial crystallization. The presence of maxima at 2θ = 25.37, 37.62, 41.18, 49.41, 61.45, and 65.79° indicates characteristic features of MnO2 with a tetragonal crystal lattice and spatial group I4/m. Quantum chemical modelling elucidated the optimal formation pathway of the MnO2 NPs–cocamidopropyl betaine molecular complex through a secondary amino group. This was confirmed by the values of the difference in total energy (∆E = 1299.519 kcal/mol) and chemical hardness (η = 0.053 eV), which were further validated using FTIR spectroscopy.
The effect of MnO2 NPs at various concentrations on the germination of pea seeds was found to be nonlinear and ambiguous. Notably, 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs provided the highest germination energy (91.25%), germinability (95.60%), and root and seedling lengths among all experimental samples. However, an increase in the concentration of the preparation led to a slight growth suppression (1–10 mg/L) and the pronounced inhibition of seedling and root development (100 mg/L). The analysis of antioxidant indicators and phytochemicals in pea seedlings showed that only 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs have a negative effect on the content of soluble sugars, chlorophyll a/b, carotenoids, and phenols. Conversely, lower concentrations showed a stimulating effect on photosynthesis indicators.
However, MnO2 NPs at all concentrations generally decreased the antioxidant potential of pea seedlings, except for the ABTS parameter. Pea seedlings showed a high absorbance capacity to Mn, reaching 586.5 μg/L at 10 mg/L and 892.6 μg/L at 100 mg/L MnO2 NPs, thus surpassing the toxic threshold for peas according to the scientific literature.
The most important result was the revealed growth-stimulating activity of 0.1 mg/L MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine. This discovery paves the way for a new direction of research into the application of MnO2 NPs as an essential trace element (Mn)-based bioavailable stable molecular complex with a growth stimulating effect in the early stages of agricultural crop germination.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nano14110959/s1, Figure S1: Quantum chemical modelling of cocamidopropyl betaine molecule; Figure S2: Quantum chemical modelling of interaction of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine through carboxilat-anoin; Figure S3: Quantum chemical modelling of interaction of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine through the ionized amino group; Figure S4: Correlation heat map between log of MnO2 NPs concentration, root length and seedling (sprout) length; Figure S5: Box plot of dependence of roots length on MnO2 NPs concentration; Figure S6: Box plot of dependence of seedling (sprout) length on MnO2 NPs concentration; Figure S7: Distribution of length of roots and seedling; Table S1: ANOVA of dependence of roots length on concentration of MnO2 NPs; Table S2: ANOVA of dependence of seeding length on concentration of MnO2 NPs; Table S3: Statistically data processing.

Author Contributions

A.N.: Writing original draft, writing—review and editing, investigation, visualization, resources, project administration; A.B. (Andrey Blinov): Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, formal analysis, supervision; A.G. (Alexey Gvozdenko): Methodology, investigation, formal analysis; writing original draft; A.G. (Alexey Golik): Methodology, investigation, software, writing original draft; Z.R.: Methodology, investigation, writing original draft; I.R.: Methodology, investigation, formal analysis; R.K.: formal analysis, visualization, resources; S.A.: Methodology, investigation; A.B. (Anastasiya Blinova): Methodology, software; M.P.: Methodology, investigation; P.L.: Methodology, investigation; A.A.: Methodology, investigation; E.T.: Methodology, investigation; M.A.S.: Writing—review and editing, project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was carried out at the expense of a grant of the Russian Science Foundation No. 23-76-10046, https://rscf.ru/project/23-76-10046/ (accessed on 27 May 2024).

Data Availability Statement

All raw data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Alexander Osadchiy for an invaluable contribution in statistical data processing. The authors also appreciate contribution of Vyacheslav Lapin and Sergey Povetkin in energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy of the experimental samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sun, X.D.; Arntfield, S.D. Molecular forces involved in heat-induced pea protein gelation: Effects of various reagents on the rheological properties of salt-extracted pea protein gels. Food Hydrocoll. 2012, 28, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ge, J.; Sun, C.; Corke, H.; Gul, K.; Gan, R.; Fang, Y. The health benefits, functional properties, modifications, and applications of pea (Pisum sativum L.) protein: Current status, challenges, and perspectives. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 1835–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. FAO. Crop Prospects and Food Situation—Triannual Global Report No. 3, November 2023; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gudko, V.; Usatov, A.; Minkina, T.; Duplii, N.; Azarin, K.; Tatarinova, T.V.; Sushkova, S.; Garg, A.; Denisenko, Y. Dependence of the Pea Grain Yield on Climatic Factors under Semi-Arid Conditions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Acevedo, M.; Pixley, K.; Zinyengere, N.; Meng, S.; Tufan, H.; Cichy, K.; Bizikova, L.; Isaacs, K.; Ghezzi-Kopel, K.; Porciello, J. A scoping review of adoption of climate-resilient crops by small-scale producers in low- and middle-income countries. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ghodsi, A.; Honar, T.; Heidari, B.; Salarpour, M.; Etemadi, M. The interacting effects of irrigation, sowing date and nitrogen on water status, protein and yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Singh, B.K.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Egidi, E.; Guirado, E.; Leach, J.E.; Liu, H.; Trivedi, P. Climate change impacts on plant pathogens, food security and paths forward. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 640–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Yang, X.; Soliman, A.A.; Hu, C.; Yang, F.; Lv, M.; Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, A.; Dai, Z.; Li, Q.; et al. Yield Adaptability and Stability in Field Pea Genotypes Using AMMI, GGE, and GYT Biplot Analyses. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bénézit, M.; Biarnès, V.; Jeuffroy, M.-H. Impact of Climate and Diseases on Pea Yields: What Perspectives with Climate Change? OCL 2017, 24, D103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bagheri, M.; Santos, C.S.; Rubiales, D.; Vasconcelos, M.W. Challenges in Pea Breeding for Tolerance to Drought: Status and Prospects. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2023, 183, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jacques, C.; Forest, M.; Durey, V.; Salon, C.; Ourry, A.; Prudent, M. Transient Nutrient Deficiencies in Pea: Consequences on Nutrient Uptake, Remobilization, and Seed Quality. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 785221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rahman, N.; Schoenau, J. Response of wheat, pea, and canola to micronutrient fertilization on five contrasting prairie soils. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Corpas, F.J.; Barroso, J.B.; Palma, J.M.; Rodriguez-Ruiz, M. Plant peroxisomes: A nitro-oxidative cocktail. Redox Biol. 2017, 11, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wohor, O.Z.; Rispail, N.; Ojiewo, C.O.; Rubiales, D. Pea Breeding for Resistance to Rhizospheric Pathogens. Plants 2022, 11, 2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wu, D.-T.; Li, W.-X.; Wan, J.-J.; Hu, Y.-C.; Gan, R.-Y.; Zou, L. A Comprehensive Review of Pea (Pisum sativum L.): Chemical Composition, Processing, Health Benefits, and Food Applications. Foods 2023, 12, 2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Montgomery, A.; Herndon, E.; Sams, C.; Jagadamma, S. Manganese Sources and Rates Impact Plant Mn Concentrations and Soil Mn Fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2023, 87, 1120–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Reid, J.; Trolove, S.; Tan, Y.; Johnstone, P. Luxury Uptake of Magnesium by Peas, Pisum sativum. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2013, 163, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. El-Aidy, F.; Hassan, N.A.; El-Waraky, Y.; Abu El-Ftooh, F.; Bayoumi, Y.; Elhawat, N. Boron, Manganese and Zinc Reduce the Hazardous Impact of Sodic-Saline Soil on Growth and Yield of Pea (Pisum sativum L.). J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 2447–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hacisalihoglu, G.; Beisel, N.S.; Settles, A.M. Characterization of Pea Seed Nutritional Value within a Diverse Population of Pisum sativum. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Priyadarsini, S.; Nandi, A.; Nedunchezhiyan, M.; Choudhari, P.; Singh, S.; Pattnaik, A. Nutritional status of Zombi pea (Vigna vexillata) as influenced by plant density and deblossoming. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, H.; Santos, F.; Butler, K.; Herndon, E. A Critical Review on the Multiple Roles of Manganese in Stabilizing and Destabilizing Soil Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 12136–12152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ahmed, N.; Zhang, B.; Chachar, Z.; Li, J.; Xiao, G.; Wang, Q.; Hayat, F.; Deng, L.; Narejo, M.-U.; Bozdar, B.; et al. Micronutrients and Their Effects on Horticultural Crop Quality, Productivity and Sustainability. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 323, 112512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alejandro, S.; Hoeller, S.; Meier, B.; Peiter, E. Manganese in Plants: From Acquisition to Subcellular Allocation. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Schmidt, S.B.; Jensen, P.E.; Husted, S. Manganese Deficiency in Plants: The Impact on Photosystem II. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pradhan, S.; Patra, P.; Mitra, S.; Dey, K.K.; Jain, S.; Sarkar, S.; Roy, S.; Palit, P.; Goswami, A. Manganese Nanoparticles: Impact on Non-Nodulated Plant as a Potent Enhancer in Nitrogen Metabolism and Toxicity Study both in Vivo and in Vitro. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 8777–8785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blinov, A.; Gvozdenko, A.; Golik, A.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Göğüş, F.; Blinova, A.; Maglakelidze, D.; Shevchenko, I.; Rebezov, M.; Nagdalian, A. Effect of MnxOy Nanoparticles Stabilized with Methionine on Germination of Barley Seeds (Hordeum vulgare L.). Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kasote, D.M.; Lee, J.H.J.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Patil, B.S. Manganese Oxide Nanoparticles as Safer Seed Priming Agent to Improve Chlorophyll and Antioxidant Profiles in Watermelon Seedlings. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ye, Y.; Medina-Velo, I.A.; Cota-Ruiz, K.; Moreno-Olivas, F.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Can Abiotic Stresses in Plants Be Alleviated by Manganese Nanoparticles or Compounds? Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 184, 109671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Nawaz, Q.-U.; Kausar, R.; Jabeen, N.; Zubair, M.; Haq, A.U.; Hussain, S.; Rizwan, M.; Khalid, M.F. Influence of Bio Fabricated Manganese Oxide Nanoparticles for Effective Callogenesis of Moringa Oleifera Lam. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 198, 107671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dimkpa, C.O.; Singh, U.; Adisa, I.O.; Bindraban, P.S.; Elmer, W.H.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C. Effects of Manganese Nanoparticle Exposure on Nutrient Acquisition in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agronomy 2018, 8, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pradhan, S.; Patra, P.; Das, S.; Chandra, S.; Mitra, S.; Dey, K.K.; Akbar, S.; Palit, P.; Goswami, A. Photochemical Modulation of Biosafe Manganese Nanoparticles on Vigna radiata: A Detailed Molecular, Biochemical, and Biophysical Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 13122–13131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Heena; Yadav, D.; Kumar, S.; Ravinder; Kumar, A. Effect of Application of Zn and Mn on Growth, Yield and Economics of Garden Pea (Pisum sativum var. hortense L.). Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nagdalian, A.A.; Nagdalian, A.A.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Maglakelidze, D.G.; Maglakelidze, D.G.; Gvozdenko, A.A.; Gvozdenko, A.A.; Blinova, A.A.; Blinova, A.A.; et al. Synthesis and characterization of selenium nanoparticles stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 21975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mukherjee, K.; Acharya, K. Toxicological Effect of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Soil and Aquatic Habitats. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 75, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hazra, B.; Biswas, S.; Mandal, N. Antioxidant and free radical scavenging activity of Spondias pinnata. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2008, 8, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moualek, I.; Iratni Aiche, G.; Mestar Guechaoui, N.; Lahcene, S.; Houali, K. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of Arbutus unedo aqueous extract. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Prieto, P.; Pineda, M.; Aguilar, M. Spectrophotometric Quantitation of Antioxidant Capacity through the Formation of a Phosphomolybdenum Complex: Specific Application to the Determination of Vitamin E. Anal. Biochem. 1999, 269, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rao, A.S.; Reddy, S.G.; Babu, P.P.; Reddy, A.R. The antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of methanolic extracts from Njavara rice bran. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2010, 10, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, D.; Guan, X.; Huang, K.; Li, S.; Liu, J.; Yu, W.; Duan, R. Protective effects of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) against high-fat-induced oxidative stress. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 7, 4063–4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lin, Y.; Zhou, C.; Li, D.; Jia, Y.; Dong, Q.; Yu, H.; Wu, T.; Pan, C. Mitigation of Acetamiprid Residue Disruption on Pea Seed Germination by Selenium Nanoparticles and Lentinans. Plants 2023, 12, 2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Alam, M.Z.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.; Hoque, A.; Ahammed, G.J. Effect of soil amendments on antioxidant activity and photosynthetic pigments in pea crops grown in arsenic contaminated soil. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wei, C.; Pang, H.; Zhang, B.; Lu, Q.; Liang, S.; Gao, F. Two-Dimensional β-MnO2 Nanowire Network with Enhanced Electrochemical Capacitance. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, srep02193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reddy, R.N.; Reddy, R.G. Synthesis and electrochemical characterization of amorphous MnO2 electrochemical capacitor electrode material. J. Power Sources 2004, 132, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, W.; Cui, X.; Zeng, R.; Du, G.; Sun, Z.; Zheng, R.; Ringer, S.P.; Dou, S.X. Performance modulation of α-MnO2 nanowires by crystal facet engineering. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, srep08987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bogojeski, M.; Vogt-Maranto, L.; Tuckerman, M.E.; Mueller, K.-R.; Burke, K. Quantum chemical accuracy from density functional approximations via machine learning. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brosi, F.; Schlöder, T.; Schmidt, A.; Beckers, H.; Riedel, S. A combined quantum-chemical and matrix-isolation study on molecular manganese fluorides. Dalton Trans. 2016, 45, 5038–5044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. John, P.C.S.; Guan, Y.; Kim, Y.; Etz, B.D.; Kim, S.; Paton, R.S. Quantum chemical calculations for over 200,000 organic radical species and 40,000 associated closed-shell molecules. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hill, J.-R.; Freeman, C.M.; Rossouw, M.H. Understanding γ-MnO2 by molecular modeling. J. Solid State Chem. 2004, 177, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mohanty, M.; Panda, P.K.; Ayorinde, A.E.; Nayak, B.P.; Sharma, N.; Tripathy, B.C. Facile Electrolytic Synthesis of ϒ- Manganese Dioxide from Manganese Sulphate Solutions in the Presence of Betaine. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 152, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ayupov, D.S.; Davletov, F.A.; Asylbaev, I.G.; Kuznetsov, I.Y.; Davletov, I.I.; Dmitriev, A.M.; Vakhitova, R.K.; Satarov, M.Y.; Avsakhov, F.F.; Irgalina, R.S. Selection of high-yielding, high-tech varieties of field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Legum. Res.-Int. J. 2019, 42, 615–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mayer, A.M.; Poljakoff-Mayber, A. Germination of Seeds, 4th ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, NY, USA; pp. 38–43.
  52. Gangwar, S.; Singh, V.P.; Maurya, J.N. Responses of Pisum sativum L. to Exogenous Indole Acetic Acid Application Under Manganese Toxicity. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 86, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, X.; Sathiyaseelan, A.; Naveen, K.V.; Lu, Y.; Wang, M.-H. Research Progress in Green Synthesis of Manganese and Manganese Oxide Nanoparticles in Biomedical and Environmental Applications—A Review. Chemosphere 2023, 337, 139312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Perfileva, A.I.; Krutovsky, K.V. Manganese Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Mechanisms of Influence on Plant Resistance to Stress, and Prospects for Application in Agricultural Chemistry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2024, 72, 7564–7585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gangwar, S.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M.; Maurya, J.N. Modulation of Manganese Toxicity in Pisum sativum L. Seedlings by Kinetin. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 126, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Doncheva, S.; Georgieva, K.; Vassileva, V.; Stoyanova, Z.; Popov, N.; Ignatov, G. Effects of Succinate on Manganese Toxicity in Pea Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2005, 28, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tuemer, C.; Cavusoglu, K.; Yalcin, E. Screening the toxicity profile and genotoxicity mechanism of excess manganese confirmed by spectral shift. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ghosh, I.; Sadhu, A.; Moriyasu, Y.; Bandyopadhyay, M.; Mukherjee, A. Manganese Oxide Nanoparticles Induce Genotoxicity and DNA Hypomethylation in the Moss Physcomitrella Patens. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2019, 842, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tkachenko, K.; Kosareva, I.; Frontasyeva, M. The Influence of Manganese on Growth Processes of Hordeum L. (Poaceae) Seedlings. Plants 2021, 10, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Simonova, O.A.; Simonov, M.V.; Tovstik, E.V. The Effect of Manganese(II) Excess on Growth and Antioxidant Status of Barley Seedlings. Agric. Sci. Euro-North-East 2020, 21, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, J.; Lai, Y.; Yang, C.; Dong, L. Monitoring of Cu2+ Release from Controllably Synthesized Nano-Copper Pesticides. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2024, 36, 2300477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ahmed, B.; Rizvi, A.; Syed, A.; Elgorban, A.M.; Khan, M.S.; Al-Shwaiman, H.A.; Musarrat, J.; Lee, J. Differential Responses of Maize (Zea mays) at the Physiological, Biomolecular, and Nutrient Levels When Cultivated in the Presence of Nano or Bulk ZnO or CuO or Zn2+ or Cu2+ Ions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Peng, C.; Duan, D.; Xu, C.; Chen, Y.; Sun, L.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, X.; Zheng, L.; Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; et al. Translocation and Biotransformation of CuO Nanoparticles in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Plants. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 197, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Page, V.; Feller, U. Heavy Metals in Crop Plants: Transport and Redistribution Processes on the Whole Plant Level. Agronomy 2015, 5, 447–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Socha, A.L.; Guerinot, M.L. Mn-euvering manganese: The Role of Transporter Gene Family Members in Manganese Uptake and Mobilization in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schmidt, S.B.; Husted, S. The Biochemical Properties of Manganese in Plants. Plants 2019, 8, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lanquar, V.; Ramos, M.S.; Lelièvre, F.; Barbier-Brygoo, H.; Krieger-Liszkay, A.; Krämer, U.; Thomine, S. Export of Vacuolar Manganese by AtNRAMP3 and AtNRAMP4 Is Required for Optimal Photosynthesis and Growth under Manganese Deficiency. Plant Physiol. 2010, 152, 1986–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Chaiswing, L.; Yarana, C.; Clair, W.S.; Tovmasyan, A.; Batinic-Haberle, I.; Spasojevic, I.; Clair, D.S. A Redox-active Mn Porphyrin, MnTnBuOE-2-PyP5+, Synergizes with Carboplatin in Treatment of Chemoresistant Ovarian Cell Line. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2022, 2022, 9664636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Salama, D.M.; El-Aziz, M.E.A.; Osman, S.A.; Elwahed, M.S.A.A.; Shaaban, E.A. Foliar Spraying of MnO2-NPs and Its Effect on Vegetative Growth, Production, Genomic Stability, and Chemical Quality of the Common Dry Bean. Arab. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2022, 29, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Margenot, A.J.; Rippner, D.A.; Dumlao, M.R.; Nezami, S.; Green, P.G.; Parikh, S.J.; McElrone, A.J. Copper oxide nanoparticle effects on root growth and hydraulic conductivity of two vegetable crops. Plant Soil 2018, 431, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dayem, A.A.; Hossain, M.K.; Lee, S.B.; Kim, K.; Saha, S.K.; Yang, G.-M.; Choi, H.Y.; Cho, S.-G. The Role of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) in the Biological Activities of Metallic Nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sachdev, S.; Ahmad, S. Role of Nanomaterials in Regulating Oxidative Stress in Plants. In Nanobiotechnology; Al-Khayri, J.M., Ansari, M.I., Singh, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Espinosa-Vellarino, F.L.; Garrido, I.; Casimiro, I.; Silva, A.C.; Espinosa, F.; Ortega, A. Enzymes Involved in Antioxidant and Detoxification Processes Present Changes in the Expression Levels of Their Coding Genes under the Stress Caused by the Presence of Antimony in Tomato. Plants 2024, 13, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sobiecka, E.; Mroczkowska, M.; Olejnik, T.P. The Enzymatic Antioxidants Activities Changes in Water Plants Tissues Exposed to Chlorpyrifos Stress. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sieprawska, A.; Rudolphi-Szydło, E.; Skórka, M.; Telk, A.; Filek, M. Assessment of the oxidative stress intensity and the integrity of cell membranes under the manganese nanoparticles toxicity in wheat seedlings. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jiang, M.; Song, Y.; Kanwar, M.K.; Ahammed, G.J.; Shao, S.; Zhou, J. Phytonanotechnology applications in modern agriculture. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2021, 19, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ramesh, R.; Catherine, G.; Sundaram, S.J.; Khan, F.L.A.; Kaviyarasu, K. Synthesis of Mn3O4 Nano Complex Using Aqueous Extract of Helianthus Annuus Seed Cake and Its Effect on Biological Growth of Vigna radiata. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 36, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g001
Figure 1. Histograms of the distribution of the average hydrodynamic radius (R) of MnO2 NPs with a stabilizer (a) and without a stabilizer (b).
Figure 1. Histograms of the distribution of the average hydrodynamic radius (R) of MnO2 NPs with a stabilizer (a) and without a stabilizer (b).
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g001
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g002
Figure 2. Results of the characterization of MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine: scanning electron microscopy at magnification of ×100,000 (A); X-ray diffractogram (B); FTIR spectra (C): cocamidopropyl betaine (1), MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine (2), MnO2 NPs (3); Quantum chemical modelling of interactions of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine molecule through secondary amino group (D): model of a molecular complex (D1), electron density distribution (D2), the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO (D3), the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO (D4), the gradient of the electron density distribution (D5).
Figure 2. Results of the characterization of MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine: scanning electron microscopy at magnification of ×100,000 (A); X-ray diffractogram (B); FTIR spectra (C): cocamidopropyl betaine (1), MnO2 NPs stabilized with cocamidopropyl betaine (2), MnO2 NPs (3); Quantum chemical modelling of interactions of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine molecule through secondary amino group (D): model of a molecular complex (D1), electron density distribution (D2), the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO (D3), the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO (D4), the gradient of the electron density distribution (D5).
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g002
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g003
Figure 3. Effect of MnO2 NPs on germination of pea seeds: profile view of experimental samples at the same scale (I); distribution of seedling length depending on concentration of MnO2 NPs (II); distribution of roots length depending on concentration of MnO2 NPs (III); seedling length: roots length ratio at different concentrations of MnO2 NPs (IV).
Figure 3. Effect of MnO2 NPs on germination of pea seeds: profile view of experimental samples at the same scale (I); distribution of seedling length depending on concentration of MnO2 NPs (II); distribution of roots length depending on concentration of MnO2 NPs (III); seedling length: roots length ratio at different concentrations of MnO2 NPs (IV).
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g003
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g004
Figure 4. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy of experimental pea seedlings.
Figure 4. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy of experimental pea seedlings.
Nanomaterials 14 00959 g004
Table 1. Quantum chemical calculations of the stabilization process of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine.
Table 1. Quantum chemical calculations of the stabilization process of MnO2 NPs with cocamidopropyl betaine.
InteractionE, kcal/mol∆E, kcal/molEHOMO, eVELUMO, eVη, eV
−1082.031–−0.1500.0160.083
Through the secondary amino group−2381.1381299.519−0.154−0.0480.053
Through the carboxylate anion−2381.6531299.622−0.0340.0110.023
Through the ionized amino group−2381.5501299.107−0.143−0.0380.053
Table 2. Description of FTIR spectra.
Table 2. Description of FTIR spectra.
MnO2 NPsCocamidopropyl BetaineMnO2 NPs Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine
ν, cm−1Bondν, cm−1Bondν, cm−1Bond
607(Mn-O)565.00δoop (O–H)560.00(Mn-O)
711(Mn-O)667.00δoop (O–H)1048.00flexural (O-H)
879(Mn-O)713.00δ (NH)1198.00ν (C-N)
1047flexural (O-H)896.00δ (CH3)1324.00ν (C-N)
1089flexural (O-H)985.00δ (CH3)1408.00ν (CH2)
δ (CH2)
1402(O-H)1051.00ν (C-N)1481.00δ (CH3)
1539flexural (O-H)1116.00ν (C-N)1547.00flexural (O-H)
1643(O-H)1151.00ν (C-N)1569.00δ (NH)
––1192.00ν (C-N)1591.00δ (NH)
––1336.00ν (C-N)1664.00(O-H)
––1417.00ν (CH2)
δ (CH2)		––
––1456.00δ (CH3)––
––1469.00δ (CH3)––
––1558.00δ (NH)––
––1651.00absorptive (C=O)––
––2152.00absorptive (C=O)––
––2854.00ν (CH)
δ (CH)		––
––2922.00ν (CH)
δ (CH)		––
––2958.00(C-H)––
Table 3. Antioxidant indicators and phytochemicals in pea seedlings, p < 0.05.
Table 3. Antioxidant indicators and phytochemicals in pea seedlings, p < 0.05.
IndexConcentration of MnO2 NPs, mg/L
00.1110100
Dry matter, %13.27 ± 0.3412.62 ± 0.3513.00 ± 0.4413.66 ± 0.3915.46 ± 0.69
FRAP, mg AAE/g61.12 ± 0.7130.03 ± 0.6531.91 ± 0.4728.99 ± 0.3421.16 ± 0.40
TAA, mg AAE/g161.1 ± 1.4123.2 ± 2.090.3 ± 2.890.0 ± 1.675.5 ± 2.7
ABTS, μM TE/g23.1 ± 0.724.7 ± 0.823.0 ± 0.621.4 ± 0.822.2 ± 0.7
Soluble sugars, mg G/g136.6 ± 4.1148.3 ± 5.5141.0 ± 3.2127.3 ± 5.496 ± 2.9
Chlorophyll a, mg/g0.53 ± 0.060.61 ± 0.050.72 ± 0.060.55 ± 0.050.35 ± 0.04
Chlorophyll b, mg/g0.26 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.020.33 ± 0.030.26 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.01
Carotenoids, mg/g0.11 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.010.15 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.010.08 ± 0.01
Phenols, mg GAE/g9.53 ± 0.049.66 ± 0.0310.68 ± 0.059.71 ± 0.048.75 ± 0.06
Mn content, μg/L244.2 ± 1.2256.9 ± 2.9291.0 ± 4.1586.5 ± 8.3892.6 ± 14.2
FRAP—Ferric reducing antioxidant power; TAA—Total antioxidant activity; ABTS—2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nagdalian, A.; Blinov, A.; Gvozdenko, A.; Golik, A.; Rekhman, Z.; Rzhepakovsky, I.; Kolesnikov, R.; Avanesyan, S.; Blinova, A.; Pirogov, M.; et al. Effect of MnO2 Nanoparticles Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Germination and Development of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seedlings. Nanomaterials 2024, 14, 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14110959

AMA Style

Nagdalian A, Blinov A, Gvozdenko A, Golik A, Rekhman Z, Rzhepakovsky I, Kolesnikov R, Avanesyan S, Blinova A, Pirogov M, et al. Effect of MnO2 Nanoparticles Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Germination and Development of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seedlings. Nanomaterials. 2024; 14(11):959. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14110959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nagdalian, Andrey, Andrey Blinov, Alexey Gvozdenko, Alexey Golik, Zafar Rekhman, Igor Rzhepakovsky, Roman Kolesnikov, Svetlana Avanesyan, Anastasiya Blinova, Maxim Pirogov, and et al. 2024. "Effect of MnO2 Nanoparticles Stabilized with Cocamidopropyl Betaine on Germination and Development of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Seedlings" Nanomaterials 14, no. 11: 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano14110959

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