MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3166084624 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-12349

Investigating the fate of gold nanoparticles taken up by trees through leaf and root pathways

2021· article· en· W3166084624 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Ballikaya, Ivano Brunner, Claudia Cocozza, Rälf Kaegi, Marcus Schaub, Leonie Schönbeck, Brian Sinnet, Paolo Cherubini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeechScots pineFagus sylvaticaParticulatesPopulationPollutantChemistryForest ecologyEnvironmental chemistryBotanyHorticultureEcosystemBiologyPinus <genus>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial activities and human population growth have resulted in an unprecedented increase in the release of particulate matter (PM) into the environment. Incidental nanoparticles (NPs) as a byproduct of industrial processes and engineered NPs are being discharged into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Several studies on the impact of PM and NPs on human health have been conducted this century, but their effects on plants are poorly understood. What happens to them in forest ecosystems and trees has yet to be explored. The use of dendrochemistry to monitor air pollution is essential to provide past levels of contamination. Several studies have shown the ability of trees to accumulate pollutants into their annual rings, but the effect of particles at nano-scale is still largely unknown and their presence in tree rings unexplored. In July 2019, a greenhouse experiment was conducted in order a) to confirm the uptake and transport of NPs in trees, b) to determine the delivery efficiency of different NPs entry pathways (leaves and roots), and c) to investigate the influence of surface-charged NPs on their uptake and transport. The fate of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) was investigated in two tree species, European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). In the experiment, 40nm surface-charged AuNPs (positive, negative, and neutral AuNPs, hereafter referred to as treatments) were supplied once, separately to leaves and to roots. Twenty days after the treatment, Au concentration (mg kg-1) in leaves, stem and roots was determined by ICP-MS. In the leaf supply, Au concentrations were higher in leaves (98.3% and 99.2% on average, in beech and Scots pine respectively) and stems (1.4% and 0.45% on average) than in roots (0.3% and 0.35% on average). In the root supply, higher Au concentration was found in the roots (99.9 % on average in both species) than in the stems (0.1% on average in both species), whereas gold was not detected in the leaves. In the majority of cases, the measured Au was greater in beech than in Scots pine, probably due to their higher stomatal activity. AuNP concentrations among the treatments were significantly different (p value < 0.05), but distribution pattern in Scots pine were not discernible. In conclusion, AuNPs can be taken up by roots and leaves and transported to different compartments of trees. Different entry pathways influence the NP delivery within the plant tissues through transport mechanisms that are still unclear. It seems that NPs are allowed to move faster from the leaves through the phloem to the xylem and are further distributed throughout the plant system, including to the roots. The influence of surface-charged nanoparticles on their uptake and transport is not completely clear, and further research is needed in order to understand their behavior in trees. This study shows the potential of trees as proxies to monitor NPs in forest ecosystems. Using tree rings as spatiotemporal indicators of the impact of particles on the environment will help a quantitative risk assessment and management of atmospheric particulate matter and NPs concentrations in the environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeavy metals in environment→French-language works237,207→