Paper · 2020 · Agronomy

Foliar Application of Humic-Stabilized Nanoferrihydrite Resulted in an Increase in the Content of Iron in Wheat Leaves

Mariya M. Zimbovskaya; Alexander Yu. Polyakov; Dmitry S. Volkov; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
29
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The objective of this study was to synthesize iron (hydr)oxide nanoparticles (IONPs) stabilized by humic substances, and to estimate the feasibility of their use for foliar application on iron deficient plants. The IONPs were synthesized by rapid hydrolysis of iron(III) nitrate in a solution of potassium humate. The iron speciation and nanoparticle morphologies were characterized using X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy, and Mössbauer spectroscopy. The obtained sample of IONPs was applied at concentrations of 1- and 10-mM Fe, and 0.2% urea was used as an adjuvant. Wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L. cv. L15) were used for the iron uptake test. For both of the concentrations tested, spraying the nanoparticles resulted in a 70–75% higher iron content in wheat leaves compared to ferric ammonium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Fe-EDTA). The synergistic effect of humic substances acting as a surfactant seemed to promote an increase in the iron uptake of the ferrihydrite nanoparticles compared to the aqueous Fe-EDTA solution used in this study. We concluded that humic-stabilized IONPs are much better suited to foliar application as compared to soil amendment when applied as a source of iron for plants. This is because humic substances act as a capping agent for nanoparticles and the surfactants enhance iron penetration into the leaf.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spraying humic-stabilized nanoferrihydrite raised iron content in wheat leaves by 70–75% compared with Fe-EDTA at both tested concentrations.

Material
Triticum aestivum L. cv. L15e1
Treatment
spraying the nanoparticlese2
Outcome
iron content in wheat leavese2
Direction
highere2
Value
70–75%e2
Qualifier
1- and 10-mM Fee0
Comparator
ferric ammonium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Fe-EDTA)e2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“For both of the concentrations tested, spraying the nanoparticles resulted in a 70–75% higher iron content in wheat leaves compared to ferric ammonium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Fe-EDTA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–868 · show in text ↑
e1

“Wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L. cv. L15) were used for the iron uptake test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–666 · show in text ↑
e0

“The obtained sample of IONPs was applied at concentrations of 1- and 10-mM Fe, and 0.2% urea was used as an adjuvant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–586 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic substances acting as a surfactant may promote greater iron uptake from ferrihydrite nanoparticles than from Fe-EDTA in wheat.

Compound
humic substancese3
Outcome
increase in the iron uptake of the ferrihydrite nanoparticlese3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L. cv. L15) were used for the iron uptake test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–666 · show in text ↑
e3

“The synergistic effect of humic substances acting as a surfactant seemed to promote an increase in the iron uptake of the ferrihydrite nanoparticles compared to the aqueous Fe-EDTA solution”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 870–1059 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Humic substances capping the nanoparticles and their surfactant action may enhance iron penetration into the wheat leaf.

Compound
humic substancese4
Outcome
iron penetration into the leafe4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L. cv. L15) were used for the iron uptake test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–666 · show in text ↑
e4

“humic substances act as a capping agent for nanoparticles and the surfactants enhance iron penetration into the leaf”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1257–1373 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Humic-stabilized iron oxide nanoparticles are better suited to foliar than to soil application as an iron source for plants.

Taxon
plantsViridiplantaee5
Outcome
much better suited to foliar application as compared to soil amendmente5

Verbatim

e5

“We concluded that humic-stabilized IONPs are much better suited to foliar application as compared to soil amendment when applied as a source of iron for plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1239 · show in text ↑

nanoparticle · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 101 positive, 4 negative or no effect

100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

101 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

275 papers: 257 positive, 18 negative or no effect

256 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

271 papers more in this group

See all 275 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.