Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Seasonal Variations in Airborne Particulate Matter on Asthma-Related Airway Inflammation in Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Use of a Sampling Area-Adjusted Adenosine Triphosphate Bioluminescence Assay Based on Digital Image Quantification to Assess the Cleanliness of Hospital Surfaces
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph13060577
ijerph-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

Effects of Cerium and Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles in Soil on the Nutrient Composition of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Kernels

by
Filip Pošćić
*,
Alessandro Mattiello
,
Guido Fellet
,
Fabiano Miceli
and
Luca Marchiol
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Via Delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(6), 577; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060577
Submission received: 1 April 2016 / Revised: 31 May 2016 / Accepted: 6 June 2016 / Published: 9 June 2016
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The implications of metal nanoparticles (MeNPs) are still unknown for many food crops. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of cerium oxide (nCeO2) and titanium oxide (nTiO2) nanoparticles in soil at 0, 500 and 1000 mg·kg−1 on the nutritional parameters of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) kernels. Mineral nutrients, amylose, β-glucans, amino acid and crude protein (CP) concentrations were measured in kernels. Whole flour samples were analyzed by ICP-AES/MS, HPLC and Elemental CHNS Analyzer. Results showed that Ce and Ti accumulation under MeNPs treatments did not differ from the control treatment. However, nCeO2 and nTiO2 had an impact on composition and nutritional quality of barley kernels in contrasting ways. Both MeNPs left β-glucans unaffected but reduced amylose content by approximately 21%. Most amino acids and CP increased. Among amino acids, lysine followed by proline saw the largest increase (51% and 37%, respectively). Potassium and S were both negatively impacted by MeNPs, while B was only affected by 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1. On the contrary Zn and Mn concentrations were improved by 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1, and Ca by both nTiO2 treatments. Generally, our findings demonstrated that kernels are negatively affected by nCeO2 while nTiO2 can potentially have beneficial effects. However, both MeNPs have the potential to negatively impact malt and feed production.

1. Introduction

Nanotechnology is expected to be in widespread use by 2020, promoting a market of three trillion dollars’ worth of nanotechnology-based products with six million workers [1]. The applications of nanotechnologies in medicine, consumer goods, heavy industry, information and communication technologies, electronic devices, and environmentally friendly energy systems are developing at a much faster pace than our knowledge of their impact [2]. Several questions have been raised about the fate of nanomaterials (defined as materials with at least one dimension between 1 and 100 nm) [3] used in the agro-environment and those resulting from uncontrolled or accidental flows such as metal nanoparticles (MeNPs). For this reason, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as well as many countries adhering to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), recognized the need for early research to fill the existing gaps in knowledge on the toxicity of nanoparticles, their bioaccumulation, oral exposure and risks of ingestion by target organisms, which are the key factors needed for risk assessment of nanomaterials [4,5].
Human diets obtain minerals primarily from grains. However, uptake of nutrients by plant roots is affected by abiotic and biotic stressors and so is the mineral storage in plant organs [6]. It is therefore appropriate to examine whether MeNPs in soil are able to influence mineral accumulation in the grains of food crops. Vascular plants and especially crops are of concern as they could be exposed to risks from MeNPs bioaccumulation and their subsequent entry into the food chain [7,8]. The effects of MeNPs on plants will depend, among other things, on the soil type and plant species [9], and indeed contrasting results are reported among dicot and monocot plants [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. It is therefore crucial to investigate the impact of MeNPs on crops.
Cerium oxide (nCeO2) and titanium oxide (nTiO2) nanoparticles are both included in the list of engineered nanomaterials with priority for immediate testing [17]. A number of papers report data collected in the course of short experiments exposing plants to nCeO2 or nTiO2 conducted on seedlings in petri-dishes [18,19,20,21], in hydroponic solutions or perlite-containing pots [11,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], and in nutrient medium in agar [29,30]. Other scientists worked on experiments in pots with plants being sprayed with nTiO2 on leaves [31,32,33,34,35]. Lastly, Wang et al. [36] and the Gardea-Torresdey group published research on the effects of nCeO2 and nTiO2 on the yields of different plant species in soil experiments [11,15,16].
This paper reports the observations of barley (Horedum vulgare L.) kernels produced by plants grown in nCeO2 or nTiO2 amended soil. Barley is among the world’s most important crops, being the fourth cereal after maize, rice and wheat for global grain production in 2013 [37]. Due to its adaptation, N uptake and utilization efficiency (NUtE), barley is cultivated on more than 49 million hectares [37,38]. It has relevant economic importance for animal feed, malting and brewing and is an important food in some parts of the world [37].
The main aims of our experiment were to: (i) evaluate the bioaccumulation of Ce and Ti in kernels; (ii) verify the mineral nutrients content in kernels compared to that in control plants; and (iii) monitor the changes, if any, in seed quality parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Characterization

The soil used in our pot experiment was collected from the top 40 cm of an agricultural field at the University of Udine, Italy (46°04′53″ N, 13°12′34″ E). The soil was air dried and sieved through a 2-mm sieve. For the soil characterization, samples (5 replicates) were oven-dried at 40 °C for 48 h. The samples were then analyzed according to Pansu and Gautheyrou [39] for particle size distribution (Bouyoucos hydrometer method), pH (potentiometric measurements in a 1 to 2.5 of soil and Milli-Q® water suspension), electrical conductivity (EC, conductometric measurements in a 1 to 5 of soil and Milli-Q® water suspension), cation exchange capacity (CEC), available P (sodium bicarbonate extractable P at pH 8.5, Olsen method) and equivalent carbonate (calcimeter method). Total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) contents were determined through an Elemental CHNS Analyzer (Vario Micro Cube, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany) using up to 10 mg of finely ground soil. Carbonates from the soil were previously removed by adding drops of hydrochloric acid (18%). The soil was classified as sandy clay loam and its characteristics are reported in Table 1.

2.2. Nanoparticles Characteristics

Cerium(IV) oxide (nCeO2) and titanium(IV) oxide anatase (nTiO2) nanoparticles were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Milwaukee, WI, USA) (ID product 544841 and 637254, respectively), which described them as having mean diameters of <25 nm (BET). Previous characterization showed that nCeO2 and nTiO2 are of different shapes, mainly rhombus and disks, with an average size ±SE of 22.7 ± 1.3 nm and 24.1 ± 0.7 nm (TEM). The specific surface area of nCeO2 and nTiO2 resulted as being 46.1 m2·g−1 and 61.6 m2·g−1 (BET), respectively. The size distribution of the nanoparticle powders by AFM and in aqueous metrics by DCS, zeta potential and size in aqueous metrics by DLS have been reported previously [40].

2.3. Plant Growth and Yield Parameters

Nanoparticles were added to the soil before sowing [40]. Four mixtures of soil were prepared with nCeO2 or nTiO2 at 500 and 1000 mg MeNPs·kg−1. The control treatment received no MeNPs. Five polyethylene pots (4 L each) were prepared per treatment (for a total of 25 pots). The range of concentrations (0, 500, and 1000 mg MeNPs·kg−1) was chosen considering that nanomaterial content in soil is expected to grow in the future due to anthropic activities [41]. Similar concentrations are also reported in numerous articles dealing with nanoparticles interaction with higher plants [42].
A greenhouse experiment was initiated at the experimental farm of the University of Udine (Italy) on 9 April 2014. Seeds of a two-row spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L., var. Tunika) obtained from S.I.S. S.p.A. (San Lazzaro di Savena, Bologna, Italy) were sown in pots [40]. More details regarding the experimental design, soil, and greenhouse conditions were reported in a previous paper [40].
All seeds germinated and pots were watered to maintain the soil at 60% of water holding capacity (WHC). During growth pots were individually weighed and watered on a weekly basis to compensate for evapotranspiration. At Zadoks growth stage 92 (Ripening, kernel is hard and can no longer be dented by thumb-nail) [43], kernels were harvested, counted and weighed for 100-kernels weight and grain yield estimation. Flag leaf area was measured using a LI-3100C Area Meter (Li-Cor Corporation, Lincoln, NE, USA). Kernels from the main shoot were then separated for the analyses described below. A subsample of kernels was oven-dried at 105 °C for 48 h for ICP-AES analysis while for the other analyses kernels were oven-dried at 60 °C for 48 h and ground to fine powder.

2.4. Amylose and β-Glucans Concentrations Analysis

Amylose and β-glucans concentrations were determined using the enzyme-specific amylose/amylopectin kit and the mixed linkage β-glucans assay kit, both from Megazyme (Megazyme International Ltd., Bray, Ireland).

2.5. Amino Acid and Crude Protein Analysis

Acid hydrolysis with HCl at 110 °C for 22–24 h was used for total amino acids except for sulfur amino acids and tryptophan. For sulfur amino acids, performic acid oxidation for 16 h followed by acid hydrolysis with HCl was used. For tryptophan, alkaline hydrolysis with sodium hydroxide was performed at 100 °C for 4 h. After extraction, samples were derivatized at 55 °C for 10 min with 20 μL of AccQ-Fluor reagent (6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate) and injected in HPLC [44]. All reagents were of HPLC grade. Amino acids analysis was performed using a LC 200 Perkin Elmer pump fitted with an ISS-100 auto sampler (20 µL loop) and a fluorimetric detector (Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT, USA), λ excitation of 250 nm and λ emission of 395 nm. Separation was achieved by using one AccQ-Tag amino acid analysis column (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA) and one Waters pre-column filter. The column was thermostatted at 37 °C and the flow rate was 800 μL·min−1 [45]. Mobile phase A consisted of acetate-phosphate aqueous buffer, mobile phase B was acetonitrile 100% and eluent phase C was Milli-Q® water. l-α-amino-n-butyric acid was used as internal standard. For the analysis of cysteine, methionine and tryptophan it was necessary on some occasions to mix two or three samples to obtain sufficient material for analysis.
Total N content was determined through an Elemental CHNS Analyzer (Vario Micro Cube, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany) using up to 2.5 mg of finely ground samples. Lastly, crude protein (CP) was estimated by multiplying the nitrogen content by 5.45 [46].

2.6. Element Concentrations Analysis

About 300 mg of material were digested in 10 mL of a 1 to 4 (v/v) mixture of 37% (v/v) HCl (99.999% trace metals basis, Sigma-Aldrich) and 67% (v/v) HNO3 (RS superpure for trace analysis, Carlo Erba Reagents, Cornaredo, Italy) in Teflon cylinders for 10 min at 175 °C in a microwave oven (CEM, MARS Xpress, Matthews, NC, USA). After mineralization plant extracts were filtered (0.45 μm PTFE) and diluted. Total B, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, and Zn contents were determined by an ICP-AES (Vista MPX, Varian Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) with an internal standard solution of Y. Total Ce and Ti contents were determined by an ICP-MS (Aurora M90, Bruker, Bremen, Germany) with an internal standard solution of 72Ge and 89Y. The accuracy of the analytical procedure adopted for ICP-AES analysis was checked by running standard solutions every 20 samples. Quality control for both ICP-AES and ICP-MS was performed using reagent blank samples, and triplicate readings for each sample. Certified standard reference material (tomato leaves 1573a from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) was treated as the samples (n = 3). The recovery of the elements in the standard material was on average 97% of the certified values with an RSD average of 1.3%. Method detection limits in ICP-AES were: 160 μg·L−1, 56 μg·L−1, 4 μg·L−1, 10 μg·L−1, 21 μg·L−1, 77 μg·L−1, 110 μg·L−1, 3 μg·L−1, 54 μg·L−1, 8 μg·L−1, 31 μg·L−1, 5 μg·L−1 and 6 μg·L−1 for Ca, Ce, Cu, B, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Ti and Zn respectively. Method detection limit in ICP-MS was 1 μg·L−1 for both Ce and Ti.
Total S content was determined through an Elemental CHNS Analyzer (Vario Micro Cube, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany) using up to 2.5 mg of finely ground samples.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The experiment was set up as a completely randomized design and pots were randomly reallocated each week. Each analysis consisted of five replicates per treatment, unless otherwise stated. Two-way mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) [47] was performed for all the data after verification of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) [47] and homogeneity of the variance (Hartley’s Fmax-test) [47]. The multiple comparisons of means were based on the minimum significant difference (MSD) method obtained from the T statistic for equal replicates or from the T’ statistic for not equal replicates in the case of cysteine, methionine and tryptophan analysis [47]. Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients and significance were calculated between Ce or Ti content in kernels and all the other measured parameters [47].

3. Results

3.1. Barley Biometric and Yield Parameters

Flag leaf area and 100-kernels weight were unaffected by the presence of cerium oxide (nCeO2) and titanium oxide (nTiO2) nanoparticles in the soil (Table 2). However, a reduction in flag leaf area and an increase in 100-kernels weight can be discerned under nCeO2 treatments but this is hidden by a high SE. Instead, nanoparticles treatments affected plants in terms of kernel quantity and grain yield, but the dose-responses are unclear for these traits (Table 2). In both nCeO2 and nTiO2 treatments the 500 mg·kg−1 level impaired kernel quantity and plant grain yield compared to the control; conversely, the 1000 mg·kg−1 treatments did not cause any significant limitation and, although not significant, there was a beneficial effect from the 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment (Table 2).

3.2. Amylose and β-Glucans Concentrations in Kernels

The effects of nCeO2 and nTiO2 on amylose and β-glucans concentrations in barley kernels are displayed in Table 3. On the whole, metal nanoparticles (MeNPs) treatments had a marked effect on starch composition, as the amylose concentration significantly decreased (till 21% on average) compared to the control. However, there were no specific responses across the different MeNPs treatments. No significant differences were found in β-glucans concentration between control and MeNPs-treated plants.

3.3. Amino Acids Concentrations in Kernels

The effects of nCeO2 and nTiO2 in the soil on amino acid concentration and crude protein (CP) in kernels are displayed in Table 4. Overall, glutamic acid, proline and leucine were the most abundant amino acids in kernels with concentration ranges of 32–43, 15–21 and 9–12 mg·g−1 respectively (Table 4).
More in detail, nCeO2 and nTiO2 did not significantly modify concentrations of arginine and tryptophan but significantly and similarly increased cysteine, glutamic acid lysine and proline concentrations in all treatments with respect to the control. Aspartic acid concentration was unaffected at 500 mg·kg−1 of both nCeO2 and nTiO2 while significantly and similarly increased at 1000 mg·kg−1 of both nCeO2 and nTiO2.
The other amino acid responses varied depending on which MeNPs were added to the soil. In particular, nCeO2 treatments did not modify concentrations of alanine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, serine, tyrosine and valine. On the contrary, methionine and threonine concentrations significantly increased only at the highest nCeO2 treatment. Both nTiO2 treatments significantly increased alanine, glycine, isoleucine, leucine, methionine, threonine, tyrosine and valine concentrations. Conversely, only the highest nTiO2 treatment significantly increased histidine, phenylalanine and serine concentrations. However, in most amino acids the highest concentration was consistently measured at 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment.
Finally, CP in kernels was significantly increased by approximately 19% in MeNPs-treated plants compared to the control (Table 4).

3.4. Ce and Ti Concentrations in Kernels

The effects of nCeO2 and nTiO2 in the soil on Ce and Ti concentrations in barley kernels are displayed in Table 5. We did not observe significant differences among the treatments for Ce and Ti concentrations in kernels as the SE of means were high (on average 45% of the mean). Nevertheless, a similar mean and a nearly homogeneous SE among treatments for Ce concentrations indicate that there were no differences among treatments. With regard to Ti, similar observations can be made except for the 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment that had the highest mean but also a relatively high SE. Thus, although not significantly different, at the 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment an enhancement of Ti can be envisaged with respect to the other treatments.

3.5. Nutrient Elements Concentrations in Kernels

Cerium oxide nanoparticles (nCeO2) treatments did not significantly modify several macro-nutrient concentrations (Ca, Mg, and P), Na (a beneficial nutrient) (Table 6) and all micronutrients except B (Table 7). Of the affected macro-nutrients, K was significantly lowered by both nCeO2 treatments, while S only by 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1 treatment. Under 1000 mg nCeO2 treatment, B concentration was significantly lowered by approximately 62% compared to the control.
Regarding nTiO2 treatments, Ca was significantly increased and S significantly lowered by both nTiO2 treatments, while K was lowered only by 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 (Table 6). Among micronutrients, only Mn and Zn reached significantly higher concentrations at 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 but not at 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment (Table 7).
In all the treatments the Na/K ratio was unaffected while the Na/Ca ratio was significantly affected by both nTiO2 treatments (Table 6).

3.6. Pearson’s Product–Moment Correlation

Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficients showed that only Mn (r = 0.859, df = 13, p < 0.001) concentration was positively and significantly correlated with Ce concentration in kernels from different concentrations of nCeO2 in soil. On the contrary, there were no significant correlations between Ti concentration in kernels and all the other measured parameters under nTiO2 treatments.

4. Discussion

4.1. Barley Biometric and Yield Parameters

There could be a parallel effect on source and sink organs in nCeO2 treated plants: the apparent reduction in flag leaf area is tentatively mirrored by a severe drop in sinks volume (kernel quantity). The severe reduction in kernel quantity under the 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1 treatment (and to a lesser extent under the 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1 treatment), is associated with an increase in 100-kernel weight, but the compensation is not sufficient and the resulting plant grain yield was negatively affected. Our results are partially in agreement with those obtained by Rico et al. [16], who observed a reduced spike production in barley. Remarkably, these authors observed that plants exposed to 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1 did not form grains [16].

4.2. Amylose and β-Glucans in Kernels

Starch is the main carbohydrate in barley, accounting for approximately 65% to 75% of the grain dry weight. Amylose and amylopectin are the two components of starch. Barley types can be classified as normal (25%–27% amylose), waxy (below 5% amylose) and high-amylose (>35% amylose) [48]. The barley material used (cv. Tunika) was released as a two-row spring barley, and marketed in Italy for malt or feed production, as its high-amylose and moderate β-glucans traits are functional for both purposes. In general, the high-amylose trait in cereals is connected to resistant starch, which in turn has a positive role in human nutrition [49]. Amylose content has been tagged as the most sensitive parameter to heat stress in Japonica rice, maize and wheat [50], while there was no conclusive evidence for consistent changes in amylose content in barley grains exposed to high temperatures [51]. However, there was a decrease of amylose as a response to abiotic stress in our barley experiment.
Consistently with our results, Rico et al. [10] observed a lowered starch content in grain from rice treated with 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1 although significantly only in two of the three analyzed varieties. Conversely, Zhao et al. [14] did not observe significant differences in starch content in cucumber fruit. However, as well as analyzing a different species, they determined starch content in the whole cucumber fruit and not separated for skin, pulp and seeds [14].
Finally, as there were no significant differences in β-glucans concentration between control and MeNPs-treated plants, we hypothesize that MeNPs uptake has a limited impact on cell wall deposition in barley endosperm.

4.3. Amino Acids in Kernels

Our data on amino acid composition are consistent with other barley kernel composition studies [52,53]. In general, a total of 18 amino acids have been identified in barley proteins: with respect to animal growth requirements, lysine and threonine are the first and second most limiting amino acids, with methionine and tryptophan in third and fourth positions, respectively [53]. Since lysine is the first limiting amino acid in cereal grain protein, an increase in its level results in improved nutritional quality. However, high lysine strains and mutants (as Hiproly barley, found in the world barley collection in 1969) have been found to be associated with lower grain weight, and reduced yields.
A positive correlation between proline in leaves and plant stress is supported by a large body of data. Besides acting as an excellent osmolyte, proline plays different roles during stress, as a metal chelator, an antioxidative defense molecule and a signaling molecule [54]. An overproduction of proline, which in turn imparts stress tolerance by maintaining cell turgor or osmotic balance, is a common observation in stressful environments. We did not follow proline in leaf tissues, but MeNP-treated plants added on average 37% more proline in kernels compared to controls, which is the second largest increase, after the 51% increase in lysine. Metal nanoparticles (MeNP) treatments therefore probably operate as abiotic stressors on barley plants, and the observed proline increase in kernels could be related to the in-season proline evolution in green tissues. Contrasting results were reported by Rico et al. [13,16] for different amino acids in both barley and wheat exposed to nCeO2·kg−1.
Taking into account that MeNPs caused a decrease in grain yield per plant (−25%) comparable to the increase in CP (19%) compared to the control, the increased CP concentration could be due to less CP dilution by a reduced carbohydrate accumulation in MeNPs-treated plants.
From a different standpoint, the increased CP is in line with the increased total amino acids concentrations under MeNP treatments, on average 23% higher than in controls. Apart from tryptophan, similar effects were observed for each amino acid separately. Indeed, the magnitude of CP, total amino acids and single amino acid concentrations in MeNP treatments were comparable.

4.4. Ce and Ti in Kernels

As reported in our previous studies in vitro [21] and in kernels from shoots other than the main one [40], we did not observe significant differences among the treatments for Ce and Ti concentrations. This is in agreement with authors who studied different species under nCeO2 [13,15,19], or under nTiO2 exposure in soil [55]. It could be due to high data variation among replicates within treatments, but as the data overlapped a great deal among treatments, we are confident there is no enhanced Ce translocation into kernels under nanoparticle treatments compared to the control. An enhancement of Ti translocation under 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment is instead notable. However, our results suggest that translocation of manufactured nCeO2 and nTiO2 (at least of nominal sizes of 25 nm) into barley kernels is hardly possible. Unfortunately, we were unable to test this hypothesis under TEM-EDAX analysis. In fact, due to the very hard seed coat, we were unable to cut kernels into slices, as required for TEM-EDAX analysis. Thus, additional efforts are needed to determine the content and distribution of Ce and Ti in the kernels. However, other authors observed that nCeO2 treatments largely increased Ce concentration in fruits and seeds of different species [10,36,56] including barley [16]. The contrasting data reported in barley by Rico et al. [16] can be explained by the different physical-chemical properties of the nanoparticles used in the two studies as discussed in more detail below in Section 4.5. A root to fruit translocation of nTiO2 was also observed in cucumber after plant exposure to nTiO2 in soil [57].

4.5. Nutrient Elements in Kernels

Potassium is the most abundant cation in cytoplasm, actively maintaining osmotic potential and stabilizing pH between 7 and 8, the optimum range for most enzyme activities. As it is also necessary for protein synthesis and other metabolic processes [6], its reduction at both nCeO2 levels and at 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1 treatment could have a negative impact on enzyme activities (and kernel quality).
Sulfur is a structural constituent of coenzymes and secondary plant products containing amino acids cysteine and methionine and can also act as a functional group directly involved in metabolic reactions [6]. Therefore the reduction in S that occurred at both nTiO2 treatments could theoretically affect glutathione synthesis and the antioxidant capacity of kernels. However, the expected reduction in cysteine and methionine was not observed; in fact, they were enhanced (Table 4). We speculate that even if S translocation to the kernels was lowered, the small amount of available S was nonetheless effectively directed to protein synthesis, avoiding its use for other purposes.
Boron is involved in a number of metabolic pathways and the severe reduction in B concentration could indicate a restricted permeation of B due to nCeO2 presence.
Cerium oxide nanoparticles interfered with Mn, demonstrating a tendency for Mn accumulation at increasing levels of Ce in kernels as demonstrated by a significant Pearson’s product-moment correlation. With respect to the few published articles about Ce correlation with other elements in grains of barley and other species, we did not find any evidence of correlation between other elements and Ce [10,13,16].
Other authors reported contrasting data and data only partially in agreement with our results. For example, similarly to our results, Rico et al. [10] observed no changes in concentrations of most of the nutrients in grain from three rice varieties grown in soil with 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1 compared to the control. Notable exceptions regarded Al, Fe, K, Na and S, which responded differently in the three analyzed varieties, indicating not only a dose effect but also a variety response. Also, wheat grown in soil exposed to nCeO2 concentrations lower than 500 mg·kg−1 showed no change in kernel nutrients except for S and Mn which had an inverse hormetic response [13].
Rico et al. [16] observed significant increases in both macro- and micro-nutrients in grains from barley plants exposed to nCeO2 at different levels, which is in disagreement with our observations. Peralta-Videa et al. [12] reported no effects on S and K content in pods from soybean plants grown at nCeO2 treatments similar to ours. Aluminum, Na and Ca concentrations in soybean pods were negatively affected, while Cu and P were increased at 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1 treatment [12]. Different results were also obtained by Zhao et al. [14], who analyzed mineral content of cucumber fruit from plants grown at comparable nCeO2 concentrations to ours. These authors did not observe significant differences in any element concentration between treated and control plants; the exceptions were Mo that decreased at both treatments and Mg that had a hormetic response [14]. Finally, under nCeO2 treatments comparable to ours, significant increases of K and Mn were observed in undeveloped corn cobs but not in developed ones [15].
Contrary to nCeO2, scant results are available about the effects of plants grown in soil containing nTiO2. Only Servin et al. [57] reported data from a full mineral analysis of cucumber fruit. They added nTiO2 to soil at concentrations from 250 to 750 mg nTiO2·kg−1 [57]. There was no substantial effect on macro- and micro-nutrients in fruits, apart from P and K, in which a hormetic effect was detected [57]. Instead, and in agreement with our results, Klingenfuss [55] reported no significant differences in P concentrations in wheat grains after exposure of plants in soil with a range of nTiO2 varying from 1 to 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1. Unfortunately, Klingenfuss did not report the concentrations of other nutrients [55]. However, these results can indicate a species-specific response and possibly diverse effects on mineral concentrations in eudicots and monocots, with the latter being more affected.
The high levels of Ca in both kernels and vegetative tissues such as roots and shoots [40] could be linked to the higher yield grain under nTiO2 treatments. Calcium is a messenger between environmental factors and plant responses in terms of growth and development [6]. nTiO2 (or the released ionic form) could potentially have a beneficial effect enhancing absorption and translocation of Ca [58]. Moreover, other authors showed that seeds immersed in nTiO2 solution and sprayed with nTiO2 over shoots could enhance plant growth through several mechanisms including the enhancement of photosynthesis, enzyme activity and even by a supposed new N2 fixation mechanism in the air [32,33,34,35,59]. However, in our experiment we included nTiO2 in the soil and the observed benefits could be explained by translocation of at least minimum amounts of nTiO2 in shoots.
The Na/K and Na/Ca ratios are useful indicators of plant response to stress and can also indicate kernels quality. The unaffected Na/K ratio indicates no major metabolic disorders [60]. On the contrary the Na/Ca ratio was reduced by 2.4-fold on average in both nTiO2 treatments, which suggests an increased competitive inhibition between absorption of Na and Ca that can possibly mitigate eventually harmful effects of Ti—similarly to what was observed for rice under nCeO2 exposure [10]. Alternatively, as Na concentrations did not change significantly from the control whereas Ca concentrations increased significantly under nTiO2 treatments, this could be due to a beneficial effect of nTiO2 that can enhance Ca absorption and translocation as observed above. Curiously, this is not the case for nCeO2, although other authors reported a reduction in the Na/Ca ratio for rice grains after exposure of plants to nCeO2 in soil [10]. In kernels under nTiO2 treatments, the reduction in Na/Ca ratio and increased concentration of Ca can be beneficial for human nutrition on the one hand, but can negatively affect the eating quality of kernels on the other.
A separate comment needs to be made about the contrasting data reported in the only barley full life cycle study performed [16]. Besides the fact that the authors cultivated another variety of barley in a different soil, the contrasting results obtained from our experiments and also supported by the low Ce quantity found in kernels from shoots other than the main one [40] can tentatively be explained by different nCeO2 sizes (8 nm vs. 22.7 nm) and the methodology used to apply MeNPs to the soil. In fact, Rico et al. [16] sonicated a nCeO2 solution prior to diluting it in soil and mixing, thus possibly making nCeO2 more bioavailable. It is also possible that a larger quantity of ionic Ce, toxic to plants [28,30], was released in soil by nCeO2 in the experiment by Rico et al. [16] which is supported by their larger BET surface area (93.8 vs. 46.1 m2·g−1).

5. Conclusions

Among the metal nanoparticle (MeNP) treatments, some significant effects (on kernel numbers, 100-kernel weight, and Zn and Mn concentrations) were visible only at lower concentrations and not at higher concentrations (hormetic response). Different nanoparticles can therefore positively or negatively influence different nutritional values. Although the observed differences between 500 and 1000 mg·kg−1 MeNP treatments might be due to MeNP interactions (agglomeration and/or association) with soil constituents, this hypothesis remains to be tested at higher concentrations. Indeed, toxicity of MeNPs could be closely related to their chemical composition, structure, particle size and surface area. Substantial research is needed on MeNP size, their physico-chemical characteristics and their interactions with soil components.
Both MeNPs had a negative impact on the amylose content of kernels, with a reduction in grain yield. This was associated with an increase in crude protein (CP) and most amino acids. Interestingly, lysine, the essential and largely deficient amino acid in cereal grains, showed the largest percentage increase.
In terms of MeNPs impact on barley food production, our data are far from being exhaustive; however, a possible negative impact on kernel energy content, K and S concentrations might be counterbalanced by CP and lysine increase. Moreover, nTiO2 treatments also increased Ca, Mg and Zn kernel concentrations.
Our findings demonstrate that cerium oxide nanoparticles (nCeO2) and nTiO2 act differently on the nutritional quality of barley kernels. Generally, barley kernels were found to be more negatively affected by nCeO2, while nTiO2 can potentially have a beneficial effect. This study provides the first proof that nCeO2 and nTiO2 nanoparticles can have significant and contrasting impacts on the composition and nutritional value of barley kernels.

Acknowledgments

This research was in part supported by Research Grant No. 64 dd. 08-09.2014 (RANDOLPH—Relazioni tra nanoparticelle metalliche e piante superiori) from Department of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Udine (Italy). We would like to thank Giorgio Angelo Lucchini (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences—Production, Landscape, Agro-energy, University of Milan, Italy) for ICP-MS analysis, Barbara Piani (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Udine, Italy) for HPLC analysis, Marta Fontana (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Udine, Italy) for CHNS, amylose and β-glucans analysis, Anastasios Papadiamantis (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Facility for Environmental Nanoscience Analysis and Characterization, University of Birmingham, UK) for technical assistance in the use of BET, and Iseult Lynch (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Facility for Environmental Nanoscience Analysis and Characterization, University of Birmingham, UK) for providing nanoparticles characterization facilities.

Author Contributions

Luca Marchiol, Guido Fellet and Fabiano Miceli conceived and designed the experiments; Alessandro Mattiello, Guido Fellet and Filip Pošćić performed the experiments; Filip Pošćić analyzed the data; Filip Pošćić, Fabiano Miceli and Luca Marchiol wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Roco, M.C. The long view of nanotechnology development: The national nanotechnology initiative at 10 years. In Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: Retrospective and Outlook, 1st ed.; Roco, M.C., Mirkin, C.A., Hersam, M.C., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nadeau, S.; Bouchard, M.; Debia, M.; DeMarcellis-Warin, N.; Hallé, S.; Songmene, V.; Therrien, M.-C.; Wilkinson, K.; Ateme-Nguema, B.; Dufour, G.; et al. ÉquiNanos: Innovative team for nanoparticle risk management. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2013, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. International Organization for Standardization. Nanotechnologies-Vocabulary-Part 1: Core Terms; (ISO) ISO/TS 80004-1:2010(en); International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gruère, G.P. Implications of nanotechnology growth in food and agriculture in OECD countries. Food Policy 2012, 37, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Takeuchi, M.T.; Kojima, M.; Luetzow, M. State of the art on the initiatives and activities relevant to risk assessment and risk management of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhu, H.; Han, J.; Xiao, J.Q.; Jin, Y. Uptake, translocation, and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by pumpkin plants. J. Environ. Monit. 2008, 10, 713–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Miralles, P.; Church, T.L.; Harris, A.T. Toxicity, uptake, and translocation of engineered nanomaterials in vascular plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 9224–9239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Zhao, L.J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Hong, J.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Transport and retention behavior of ZnO nanoparticles in two natural soils: Effect of surface coating and soil composition. J. Nano Res. 2012, 17, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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] [PubMed]
  11. Schwabe, F.; Schulin, R.; Limbach, L.K.; Stark, W.; Bürge, D.; Nowack, B. Influence of two types of organic matter on interaction of CeO2 nanoparticles with plants in hydroponic culture. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 512–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Zhao, L.; Diaz, B.C.; Ge, Y.; Priester, J.H.; Holden, P.A.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Cerium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles alter the nutritional value of soil cultivated soybean plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 80, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rico, C.M.; Lee, S.C.; Rubenecia, R.; Mukherjee, A.; Hong, J.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Cerium oxide nanoparticles impact yield and modify nutritional parameters in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 9669–9675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhao, L.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Rico, C.M.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Sun, Y.; Niu, G.; Servin, A.; Nunez, J.E.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles change the nutritional qualities of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 2752–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhao, L.; Sun, Y.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Hong, J.; Majumdar, S.; Niu, G.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Monitoring the environmental effects of CeO2 and ZnO nanoparticles through the life cycle of corn (Zea mays) plants and in situ μ-XRF mapping of nutrients in kernels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 2921–2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rico, C.M.; Barrios, A.C.; Tan, W.; Rubenecia, R.; Lee, S.C.; Varela-Ramirez, A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Physiological and biochemical response of soil-grown barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to cerium oxide nanoparticles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2015, 22, 10551–10558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. List of Manufactured Nanomaterials and List of Endpoints for Phase One of the Sponsorship Programme for the Testing on Manufactured Nanomaterials: Revision. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2010)46&doclanguage=en (accessed on 20 October 2015).
  18. López-Moreno, M.L.; de la Rosa, G.; Hernández-Viezcas, J.A.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Botez, C.E.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7315–7320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. López-Moreno, M.L.; de La Rosa, G.; Hernández-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] [PubMed]
  20. Gomez-Garay, A.; Pintos, B.; Manzanera, J.A.; Lobo, C.; Villalobos, N.; Martín, L. Uptake of CeO2 nanoparticles and its effect on growth of Medicago arborea in vitro plantlets. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2014, 161, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mattiello, A.; Filippi, A.; Pošćić, F.; Musetti, R.; Salvatici, M.C.; Giordano, C.; Vischi, M.; Bertolini, A.; Marchiol, L. Evidence of phytotoxicity and genotoxicity in Hordeum vulgare L. exposed to CeO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 01043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hong, F.; Zhou, J.; Liu, C.; Yang, F.; Wu, C.; Zheng, L.; Yang, P. Effect of nano-TiO2 on photochemical reaction of chloroplasts of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 105, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zheng, L.; Hong, F.; Lu, S.; Liu, C. Effect of nano-TiO2 on strength of naturally aged seeds and growth of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 104, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Asli, S.; Neumann, M. Colloidal suspensions of clay or titanium dioxide nanoparticles can inhibit leaf growth and transpiration via physical effects on root water transport. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhang, Z.; He, X.; Zhang, H.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, P.; Ding, Y.; Zhao, Y. Uptake and distribution of ceria nanoparticles in cucumber plants. Metallomics 2011, 3, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Larue, C.; Laurette, J.; Herlin-Boime, N.; Khodja, H.; Fayard, B.; Flank, A.M.; Brisset, F.; Carriere, M. Accumulation, translocation and impact of TiO2 nanoparticles in wheat (Triticum aestivum spp.): Influence of diameter and crystal phase. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 431, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Jacob, D.L.; Borchardt, J.D.; Navaratnam, L.; Otte, M.L.; Bezbaruah, A.N. Uptake and translocation of Ti from nanoparticles in crops and wetland plants. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2013, 15, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zhang, W.; Ebbs, S.D.; Musante, C.; White, J.C.; Gao, C.; Ma, X. Uptake and accumulation of bulk and nanosized cerium oxide particles and ionic cerium by radish (Raphanus sativus L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Dehkourdi, E.H.; Mosavi, M. Effect of anatase nanoparticles (TiO2) on parsley seed germination (Petroselinum crispum) in vitro. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2013, 155, 283–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cui, D.; Zhang, P.; Ma, Y.; He, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z. Effect of cerium oxide nanoparticles on asparagus lettuce cultured in an agar medium. Environ. Sci. Nano 2014, 1, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hong, F.; Yang, F.; Liu, C.; Gao, Q.; Won, Z.; Gu, F.; Wu, C.; Ma, Z.; Zhou, J.; Yang, P. Influences of nano-TiO2 on the chloroplast aging of spinach under light. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2005, 104, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gao, F.; Hong, F.; Liu, C.; Zheng, L.; Su, M.; Wu, X.; Yang, F.; Wu, C.; Yang, P. Mechanism of nano-anatase TiO2 on promoting photosynthetic carbon reaction of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2006, 111, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, F.; Liu, C.; Gao, F.; Su, M.; Wu, X.; Zheng, L.; Hong, F.; Yang, P. The improvement of spinach growth by nano-anatase TiO2 treatment is related to nitrogen photoreduction. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2007, 119, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gao, F.; Liu, C.; Qu, C.; Zheng, L.; Yang, F.; Su, M.; Hong, F. Was improvement of spinach growth by nano-TiO2 treatment related to the changes of Rubisco activase? Biometals 2008, 21, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ling, M.; Chao, L.; Chun, Q.; Si, Y.; Jie, L.; Feng, G.; Fa, H. Rubisco activase mRNA expression in spinach: Modulation by nanoanatase treatment. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2008, 122, 168–178. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, Q.; Ma, X.; Zhang, W.; Pei, H.; Chen, Y. The impact of cerium oxide nanoparticles on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its implications for food safety. Metallomics 2012, 4, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E (accessed on 20 October 2015).
  38. Delogu, G.; Cattivelli, L.; Pecchioni, N.; De Falcis, D.; Maggiore, T.; Stanca, A.M. Uptake and agronomic efficiency of nitrogen in winter barley and winter wheat. Eur. J. Agron. 1998, 9, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pansu, M.; Gautheyrou, J. Handbook of Soil Analysis: Mineralogical, Organic and Inorganic Methods, 1st ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Sun, T.Y.; Bornhöft, N.A.; Hungerbühler, K.; Nowack, B. Dynamic probabilistic modeling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4701–4711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Du, W.; Tan, W.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; Ji, R.; Yin, Y.; Guo, H. Interaction of metal oxide nanoparticles with higher terrestrial plants: Physiological and biochemical aspects. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zadoks, J.C.; Chang, T.T.; Konzak, C.F. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 1974, 14, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bosch, L.; Alegria, A.; Farrè, R. Application of the 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate (AQC) reagent to the RP-HPLC determination of amino acids in infant foods. J. Chromatogr. B 2006, 831, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Liu, H.J.; Chang, B.Y.; Yan, H.W.; Yu, F.H.; Lu, X.X. Determination of amino acids in food and feed by derivatization with 6-aminoquinolyl-N-hydroxysuccinimidyl carbamate and reversed-phase liquid chromatographic separation. J. AOAC Int. 1995, 78, 736–744. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mariotti, F.; Tomé, D.; Mirand, P.P. Converting nitrogen into protein-beyond 6.25 and Jones’ factors. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 4th ed.; WH Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Shu, X.; Rasmussen, S.K. Quantification of amylose, amylopectin, and β-glucan in search for genes controlling the three major quality traits in barley by genome-wide association studies. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 00197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Berry, C.S. Resistant starch: Formation and measurement of starch that survives exhaustive digestion with amylolytic enzymes during the determination of dietary fibre. J. Cereal Sci. 1986, 4, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Beckles, D.B.; Thitisaksul, M. How environmental stress affects starch composition and functionality in cereal endosperm. Starch-Stärke 2014, 65, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kiseleva, V.I.; Tester, R.F.; Wasserman, L.A.; Krivandin, A.V.; Popov, A.A.; Yuryev, V.P. Influence of growth temperature on the structure and thermodynamic parameters of barley starches. Carbohyd. Polym. 2013, 51, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pomeranz, Y.; Robbins, G.S.; Smith, R.T.; Craddock, J.C.; Gilbertson, J.T. Protein content and amino acid composition of barleys from the world collection. Cereal Chem. 1976, 53, 497–504. [Google Scholar]
  53. Newman, R.K.; Newman, C.W. Barley for Food and Health: Science, Technology and Products; Wiley Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hayat, S.; Hayat, Q.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Wani, A.S.; Pichtel, J.; Ahmad, A. Role of proline under changing environments. Plant. Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 1456–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Klingenfuss, F. Testing of TiO2 Nanoparticles on Wheat and Microorganisms in a Soil Microcosm. Master’s Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  56. Priester, J.H.; Ge, Y.; Mielke, R.E.; Horst, A.M.; Cole Moritz, S.; 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, E2451–E2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Servin, A.D.; Morales, M.I.; Castillo-Michel, H.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Munoz, B.; Zhao, L.; Nunez, J.E.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Synchrotron verification of TiO2 accumulation in cucumber fruit: A possible pathway of TiO2 nanoparticle transfer from soil into the food chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11592–11598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Alcaraz-Lopez, C.; Botia, M.; Alcaraz, C.F.; Riquelme, F. Effects of foliar sprays containing calcium, magnesium and titanium on plum (Prunus domestica L.) fruit quality. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160, 1441–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Su, M.; Liu, H.; Liu, C.; Qu, C.; Zheng, L.; Hong, F. Promotion of nano-anatase TiO2 on the spectral responses and photochemical activities of D1/D2/Cyt b559 complex of spinach. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2009, 72, 1112–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Brady, C.J.; Gibson, T.S.; Barlow, E.W.R.; Speirs, J.; Wyn Jones, R.G. Salt-tolerance in plants. I. Ions, compatible organic solutes and the stability of plant ribosomes. Plant Cell Environ. 1984, 7, 571–578. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of soil used in this study (n = 5).
Table 1. Characteristics of soil used in this study (n = 5).
ParameterMean ± SE
Clay (%)26.0 ± 0.0
Silt (%)6.4 ± 0.4
Sand (%)67.6 ± 0.4
pH7.44 ± 0.01
EC (μS·cm−1) at 25 °C1235 ± 194
CEC (cmol·kg−1 dw)13.87 ± 0.30
Available P (μg·g−1 dw)61.3 ± 8.4
Total carbonate (g·kg−1)72.0 ± 14.3
Total organic C (%)2.22 ± 0.27
Total N (%)0.17 ± 0.01
Table
Table 2. Biometric and yield parameters of barley plants in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 2. Biometric and yield parameters of barley plants in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
TreatmentFlag Leaf Area (cm2)Kernels (n·plant−1)Grain Yield (g·plant−1)100-Kernels Weight (g)
Control13.36 ± 1.10 a 1117.0 ± 13.2 a4.4 ± 0.6 a3.76 ± 0.19 ab
500 mg nCeO2·kg−110.75 ± 2.21 a53.2 ± 6.0 b2.4 ± 0.3 b4.60 ± 0.08 a
1000 mg nCeO2·kg−110.55 ± 2.98 a90.6 ± 7.5 ab3.7 ± 0.3 ab4.13 ± 0.31 ab
500 mg nTiO2·kg−115.43 ± 2.79 a66.2 ± 10.6 b2.1 ± 0.4 b3.04 ± 0.26 b
1000 mg nTiO2·kg−114.31 ± 1.75 a129.8 ± 18.3 a5.1 ± 0.6 a4.04 ± 0.37 ab
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T test) for each yield parameter separately.
Table
Table 3. β-Glucans and amylose concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 3. β-Glucans and amylose concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Treatmentβ-Glucans (% dw)Amylose (% dw)
Control5.10 ± 0.19 a 152.14 ± 1.34 a
500 mg nCeO2·kg−14.80 ± 0.19 a43.85 ± 2.10 b
1000 mg nCeO2·kg−14.52 ± 0.11 a39.74 ± 1.19 b
500 mg nTiO2·kg−14.54 ± 0.13 a39.59 ± 2.08 b
1000 mg nTiO2·kg−14.94 ± 0.17 a41.49 ± 1.65 b
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T test) for each element separately.
Table
Table 4. Amino acid (mg·g−1) and crude protein (CP, %) concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 4. Amino acid (mg·g−1) and crude protein (CP, %) concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
ParameterControl500 mg nCeO2·kg−11000 mg nCeO2·kg−1500 mg nTiO2·kg−11000 mg nTiO2·kg−1
Alanine5.65 ± 0.23 c 16.06 ± 0.12 bc6.71 ± 0.31 ac7.35 ± 0.47 a6.75 ± 0.07 ab
Arginine7.55 ± 0.59 a8.72 ± 0.33 a8.51 ± 0.32 a9.26 ± 0.25 a9.12 ± 0.37 a
Aspartic acid7.18 ± 0.30 b8.28 ± 0.35 ab8.50 ± 0.37 a8.58 ± 0.29 ab9.09 ± 0.22 a
Cysteine 26.85 ± 0.06 b8.70 ± 0.17 a8.04 ± 0.15 a8.07 ± 0.00 a8.42 ± 0.16 a
Glutamic acid31.98 ± 1.60 b38.97 ± 2.10 a39.79 ± 1.08 a40.75 ± 1.67 a43.05 ± 0.82 a
Glycine5.98 ± 0.20 c6.07 ± 0.24 c6.79 ± 0.29 bc7.74 ± 0.13 ab8.01 ± 0.19 a
Histidine3.14 ± 0.23 b3.54 ± 0.19 ab3.46 ± 0.15 ab3.66 ± 0.08 ab3.89 ± 0.08 a
Isoleucine5.29 ± 0.21 b6.03 ± 0.29 ab6.02 ± 0.20 ab6.42 ± 0.16 a6.77 ± 0.11 a
Leucine9.40 ± 0.33 b10.78 ± 0.52 ab10.81 ± 0.31 ab11.24 ± 0.36 a11.70 ± 0.19 a
Lysine3.67 ± 0.14 c5.02 ± 0.23 b5.34 ± 0.21 ab5.85 ± 0.15 ab5.98 ± 0.20 a
Methionine2.39 ± 0.06 b2.72 ± 0.11 ab2.87 ± 0.09 a3.08 ± 0.00 a3.00 ± 0.09 a
Phenylalanine7.48 ± 0.42 b8.68 ± 0.53 ab8.66 ± 0.22 ab9.12 ± 0.29 ab9.37 ± 0.20 a
Proline14.85 ± 0.75 b19.23 ± 1.29 a20.16 ± 0.55 a20.44 ± 1.36 a21.44 ± 0.63 a
Serine5.84 ± 0.24 b6.57 ± 0.38 ab6.71 ± 0.16 ab6.78 ± 0.16 ab6.84 ± 0.08 a
Threonine4.31 ± 0.14 c4.70 ± 0.22 bc5.12 ± 0.14 ab5.11 ± 0.16 ab5.35 ± 0.04 a
Tryptophan1.15 ± 0.30 a0.89 ± 0.19 a0.94 ± 0.26 a0.53 ± 0.00 a0.74 ± 0.08 a
Tyrosine3.36 ± 0.19 b3.39 ± 0.18 b3.78 ± 0.16 ab4.34 ± 0.09 a4.22 ± 0.16 a
Valine7.04 ± 0.22 b7.80 ± 0.35 ab7.80 ± 0.24 ab8.29 ± 0.29 a8.68 ± 0.18 a
Total133.22 ± 5.01 b155.98 ± 6.81 a160.17 ± 4.01 a166.58 ± 4.77 a172.46 ± 2.36 a
CP12.08 ± 0.45 b13.34 ± 0.65 ab14.55 ± 0.30 a14.30 ± 0.64 a15.17 ± 0.30 a
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5 except for cysteine, methionine and tryptophan were n = 2 or 3). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T or T’ test) for each amino acid separately; 2 Cysteine is expressed as cysteic acid.
Table
Table 5. Cerium and titanium concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 5. Cerium and titanium concentration in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
TreatmentCe (mg·kg−1 dw)Ti (mg·kg−1 dw)
Control0.50 ± 0.20 a 12.19 ± 1.19 a
500 mg nCeO2·kg−11.03 ± 0.84 a1.27 ± 0.29 a
1000 mg nCeO2·kg−10.70 ± 0.37 a0.85 ± 0.12 a
500 mg nTiO2·kg−11.08 ± 0.54 a1.70 ± 0.53 a
1000 mg nTiO2·kg−11.16 ± 0.61 a8.72 ± 4.76 a
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T test) for each element separately.
Table
Table 6. Concentration of macro-nutrients, Na, and Na/K and Na/Ca ratios in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 6. Concentration of macro-nutrients, Na, and Na/K and Na/Ca ratios in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (Control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
TreatmentCa (mg·kg−1 dw)K (mg·kg−1 dw)Mg (mg·kg−1 dw)Na (mg·kg−1 dw)P (mg·kg−1 dw)S (mg·kg−1 dw)Na/KNa/Ca
Control377 ± 21 c 14570 ± 105 a1881 ± 59 a187 ± 22 a4549 ± 335 a4758 ± 199 a0.04 ± 0.01 a0.50 ± 0.05 a
500 mg nCeO2·kg−1387 ± 11 bc3792 ± 82 b1756 ± 22 a150 ± 31 a4519 ± 110 a4162 ± 266 ab0.04 ± 0.01 a0.38 ± 0.07 ab
1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1426 ± 19 bc3755 ± 75 b1765 ± 57 a133 ± 18 a4511 ± 312 a3620 ± 144 bc0.04 ± 0.01 a0.32 ± 0.05 ab
500 mg nTiO2·kg−1661 ± 81 a4187 ± 157 ab1983 ± 124 a152 ± 17 a4867 ± 234 a3148 ± 80 c0.04 ± 0.01 a0.24 ± 0.04 b
1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1543 ± 8 ab3762 ± 77 b1736 ± 39 a95 ± 26 a4359 ± 314 a3194 ± 220 c0.03 ± 0.01 a0.18 ± 0.05 b
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T test) for each element separately.
Table
Table 7. Concentration of micro-nutrients in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
Table 7. Concentration of micro-nutrients in barley kernels at ripening from main shoot grown in soil treated with none (control), 500 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 1000 mg nCeO2·kg−1, 500 mg nTiO2·kg−1 and 1000 mg nTiO2·kg−1.
TreatmentB (mg·kg−1 dw)Cu (mg·kg−1 dw)Fe (mg·kg−1 dw)Mn (mg·kg−1 dw)Ni (mg·kg−1 dw)Zn (mg·kg−1 dw)
Control8.64 ± 1.02 ab 18.91 ± 1.33 a38.81 ± 6.51 a18.80 ± 0.64 b0.44 ± 0.14 a55.74 ± 5.36 b
500 mg nCeO2·kg−115.12 ± 4.73 a8.01 ± 0.80 a37.52 ± 2.61 a21.87 ± 1.17 ab0.34 ± 0.07 a54.07 ± 2.55 b
1000 mg nCeO2·kg−13.32 ± 1.37 b6.99 ± 0.31 a28.49 ± 1.67 a19.84 ± 0.68 b0.39 ± 0.04 a56.69 ± 1.18 b
500 mg nTiO2·kg−18.01 ± 1.70 ab7.52 ± 1.16 a34.25 ± 2.17 a25.10 ± 1.06 a0.75 ± 0.17 a69.63 ± 2.61 a
1000 mg nTiO2·kg−16.02 ± 1.58 ab8.24 ± 0.28 a38.35 ± 4.47 a21.59 ± 1.23 ab0.32 ± 0.08 a59.59 ± 1.34 ab
1 Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p ≤ 0.05, T test) for each element separately.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pošćić, F.; Mattiello, A.; Fellet, G.; Miceli, F.; Marchiol, L. Effects of Cerium and Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles in Soil on the Nutrient Composition of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Kernels. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060577

AMA Style

Pošćić F, Mattiello A, Fellet G, Miceli F, Marchiol L. Effects of Cerium and Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles in Soil on the Nutrient Composition of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Kernels. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016; 13(6):577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060577

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pošćić, Filip, Alessandro Mattiello, Guido Fellet, Fabiano Miceli, and Luca Marchiol. 2016. "Effects of Cerium and Titanium Oxide Nanoparticles in Soil on the Nutrient Composition of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Kernels" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 6: 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060577

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