Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of anthracene in tea plants
Science of The Total Environment, ISSN: 0048-9697, Vol: 821, Page: 152905
2022
- 13Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- 13
- CrossRef1
- Captures19
- Readers19
- 19
Article Description
The origin of 9, 10-anthraquinone (AQ) contamination in tea remains unclear at present. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that AQ could be produced from the precursor anthracene in tea plantations. To test this hypothesis, the uptake, translocation, and transformation of anthracene in tea ( Camellia sinensis ) seedlings using hydroponic experimentation was investigated. Anthracene concentrations in tea tissues rose with increased anthracene exposure, which in the roots were significantly ( p < 0.05) higher than those in aboveground parts at the end of the exposure. These results indicated that anthracene tended to be adsorbed into tea seedling via the roots and accumulated largely within roots. The three main pathways of anthracene degradation in tea seedlings were suggested: oxygen was incorporated in the 9 th and 10 th positions of anthracene resulting in AQ (I) and anthrone (II), and naphthalene was formed by ring fission of anthracene via methylanthracene (III). The principal anthracene metabolites were AQ and anthrone. The concentrations of AQ, like anthrone, were markedly elevated in the roots than those in stems throughout the entire exposure period. Moreover, the translocation factors for anthracene and its primary metabolites AQ and anthrone from roots to stems were persistently lower than 0.1, demonstrating a poor translocation from roots to the aboveground regions. However, tea seedlings could take anthracene up from water and translocate it to the leaves. It was a possible risk for AQ contamination in tea leaves continuously exposed to anthracene for long periods of time because tea plants were perennial crops.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721079845; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152905; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85123680918&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35031356; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969721079845; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152905
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know