Effect of Macro- and Micro-Plastics in Soil on Quantitative Phytochemicals in Different Part of Juvenile Lime Tree ( Cit
- PDF / 3,161,892 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 33 Downloads / 173 Views
RESEARCH PAPER
Effect of Macro‑ and Micro‑Plastics in Soil on Quantitative Phytochemicals in Different Part of Juvenile Lime Tree (Citrus aurantium) Christian Ebere Enyoh1 · Andrew Wirnkor Verla1 · Evelyn Ngozi Verla2 · Emmanuel Chinedu Enyoh3 Received: 5 June 2020 / Revised: 2 October 2020 / Accepted: 4 October 2020 © University of Tehran 2020
Abstract This study aimed at profiling the quantitative phytochemicals in different parts of juvenile C. aurantium cultivated on different plastic-treated clayey soils in a pot experiment under ambient field condition. Three plastic types, namely polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) with seven treatment pattern (single LDPE, PP, PS and mixture: LDPE + PP, LDPE + PS, PP + PS, LDPE + PP + PS) in soil matrix (1% w/w) were experimentally formulated for testing. After harvesting at 2, 4, 6 and 8 months, the tree was separated into three parts [i.e.aboveground (leaves, stem) and belowground (root)] and crude extracts of these parts were obtained with alcohol It was observed that phytochemical contents varied with prolong exposure and in different parts of juvenile C. aurantium. Greater negative effect was observed on the root biomass compared to the aerial biomass except for LDPE + PP (0.32) and LDPE + PS (0.76) in macro-size as revealed by the plastic biomass impact factor. Overall, LDPE showed the most negative effects while the least was shown by the plastic mixture of LDPE, PP and PS. Furthermore, microplastics showed greater negative effects compared to macroplastics. The treatments in some cases showed significant differences (p 5 cm), pieces of plastics were cut on a hard wooden board using sharp blades and scissors. After cutting, some pieces of plastic were randomly collected from each sort. To obtain Mi ( MA-PP > Ma-PP + PS > Ma-LDPE > MaLDPE + PS > Ma-LDPE + PP (Table 2). Similarly, the trend for microplastic treatment was Mi-LDPE + PP + PS > Control > Mi-PS > Mi-PP > Mi-PP + PS > Mi-LDPE + PS > MiLDPE > Mi-LDPE + PP (Fig. 1). There was no significant effect (p > 0.05, Table 3) of particle size on alkaloid content and also between the two particle sizes (Ma- vs. Mi-). In the stem part, only Ma-LDPE + PP + PS and MaLDPE + PP exhibited similar trends as the control while other treatments showed a slight increase except for MaLDPE which dropped from 0.40 ± 0.04 mg/g in 2nd month to 0.16 ± 0.04 mg/g in 8th month. However, all treatments had lower concentrations compared to the control (1.24 mg/g) throughout the study. The order of alkaloid content in the stem part based on the effect of size Ma- was LDPE + PP + PS > PP > PS > PP + PS > LDPE > LDPE + PP > LDPE + PS. In size Mi(Fig. 1), it was observed that all treatments showed alkaloid contents slightly dropped from months 2 to 8. The order of alkaloid content in the stem part based on the effect of size Mi was LDP E + PP + PS > PP > PS > PP + PS > LDPE + PP > LDPE > LDP E + PS. All treatments (Ma-/Mi-) showed low variations except in control, Mi-LDPE + PS and Mi-PS which were moderate. All tre
Data Loading...
