ArticlePloS one2015
Effects of functionalized and raw multi-walled carbon nanotubes on soil bacterial community composition.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- BioCNT-TLS engineered systemic mobile resistome for sustainable crop protection.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- Bredigite-CNTs Reinforced Mg-Zn Bio-Composites to Enhance the Mechanical and Biological Properties for Biomedical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Implication of Wood-Derived Hierarchical Carbon Nanotubes for Micronutrient Delivery and Crop Biofortification.ACS omega · 2021Review
- Soybean Interaction with Engineered Nanomaterials: A Literature Review of Recent Data.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Extensive Overlap of Tropical Rainforest Bacterial Endophytes between Soil, Plant Parts, and Plant Species.Microbial ecology · 2018Article
- Contrasting effects of engineered carbon nanotubes on plants: a review.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2017Review
- Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017Review
- Carbon Nanomaterials in Agriculture: A Critical Review.Frontiers in plant science · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are widely used in industry, but their environmental impacts on soil microbial communities are poorly known. In this paper, we compare the effect of both raw and acid treated or functionalized (fCNTs) multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) on soil bacterial communities, applying different concentrations of MWCNTs (0 µg/g, 50 µg/g, 500 µg/g and 5000 µg/g) to a soil microcosm system. Soil DNA was extracted at 0, 2 and 8 weeks and the V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR-amplified and sequenced using paired-end Illumina bar-coded sequencing. The results show that bacterial diversity was not affected by either type of MWCNT. However, overall soil bacterial community composition, as illustrated by NMDS, was affected only by fMWCNT at high concentrations. This effect, detectable at 2 weeks, remained equally strong by 8 weeks. In the case of fMWCNTs, overall changes in relative abundance of the dominant phyla were also found. The stronger effect of fMWCNTs could be explained by their intrinsically acidic nature, as the soil pH was lower at higher concentrations of fMWCNTs. Overall, this study suggests that fMWCNTs may at least temporarily alter microbial community composition on the timescale of at least weeks to months. It appears, by contrast, that raw MWCNTs do not affect soil microbial community composition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.