A study of the effects of sodium alginate and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose on the growth of common duckweed (Lemna minor L.) Scientific paper
Main Article Content
Sodium alginate (ALG) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are two polysaccharides that have a wide range of applications, which could lead to accidental pollution of the environment, making the assessment of their potential ecotoxicity imperative. The present study assesses the effects of ALG and CMC on the growth response of common duckweed (Lemna minor L.). The results emphasize that both polysaccharides can be classified as practically nontoxic based on their EC50 values, with ALG having a relatively higher toxicity compared to CMC. It was also observed that high doses of 1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1 of the two polysaccharides produced growth inhibitory effects against common duckweed. The toxicity of biopolymers against common duckweed, measured as EC50 values, seems to be correlated to the hydrophobicity of the monomers building the polymer. The EC50 values increase linearly with increasing water solubility (log S) values and decrease linearly with the lipophilicity (log P) values.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
M. Fertah, A. Belfkira, M. Taourirte, F. Brouillette, Arab. J. Chem. 10 (2017) S3707 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.05.003)
I. W. Sutherland, in Biomaterials, D. Byrom, Ed., Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1991, p. 307 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11167-1_7)
K. I. Draget, G. S. Bræk, O. Smidsrød, Carbohydr. Polym. 25 (1994) 31 (https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8617(94)90159-7)
K. Y. Lee, D. J. Mooney, Prog. Polym. Sci. 37 (2012) 106 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.003)
E. Axpe, M. L. Oyen, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17 (2016) 1976 (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17121976)
B. Wang, Y. Wan, Y. Zheng, X. Lee, T. Liu, Z. Yu, J. Huang, Y. S. Ok, J. Chen, B. Gao, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2019) 318 (https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1547621)
A. Casaburi, Ú. Montoya Rojo, P. Cerrutti, A. Vázquez, M. L. Foresti, Food Hydrocoll. 75 (2018) 147 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.09.002)
F. Yaşar, H. Toğrul, N. Arslan, J. Food Eng. 81 (2007) 187 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.10.022)
H. Toğrul, N. Arslan, Carbohydr. Polym. 54 (2003) 73 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8617(03)00147-4)
M. T. Ghannam, M. N. Esmail, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 64 (1997) 289 (https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970411)64:2<289::AID-APP9>3.0.CO;2-N)
V. Kanikireddy, K. Varaprasad, T. Jayaramudu, C. Karthikeyan, R. Sadiku, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 164 (2020) 963 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.160)
B. V. Boros, V. Ostafe, Nanomaterials 10 (2020) 610 (https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10040610)
OECD 221, Lemna sp. Growth Inhibition Test (2006)
US EPA 850.4400, Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test Using Lemna spp (2012)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analysis Phase: Ecological Effects Characterization, In Technical Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA, Washington DC, 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/technical-overview-ecological-risk-assessment-0)
A. Daina, O. Michielin, V. Zoete, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 42717 (https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42717)
ACD/ChemSketch Freeware, version 2020.2.0, Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., Toronto, www.acdlabs.com (accessed 10.06.2021)
Ø. Hammer, D. A. Harper, P. D. Ryan, Palaeontol. Electron. 4 (2001) 9 (https://paleo.carleton.ca/2001_1/past/past.pdf)
B. V. Boros, N. I. Grau, V. Ostafe, Res. J. Agric. Sci. 51 (2019) 14 (https://www.rjas.ro/paper_detail/3065)
A. J. Harford, A. C. Hogan, D. R. Jones, R. A. van Dam, Water Res. 45 (2011) 6393 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.09.032).