Efeitos de diferentes formulações comerciais de glyphosate sobre estirpes de Bradyrhizobium Effects of different glyphosate commercial formulations on Bradyrhizobium strains

O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar efeitos de formulações comerciais de glyphosate sobre estirpes de Bradyrhizobium, em condições de laboratório. As formulações foram aplicadas na concentração de 43,2 µg L-1 do equivalente ácido. As bactérias foram inoculadas em meio de cultura à base de manitol e extrato de levedura (YM). O efeito do herbicida no crescimento das estirpes de Bradyrhizobium foi avaliado mediante leitura da densidade ótica em espectrofotômetro. Avaliou-se o crescimento das estirpes de B. japonicum SEMIA 5079 e de B. elkanii SEMIA 5019 e SEMIA 587 sob efeito de nove formulações de glyphosate: Zapp Qi®, Roundup®, Roundup Multiação®, Roundup Transorb®, Roundup WG®, Trop®, Agrisato®, glyphosate técnico [padrão de N-(phosphonomethyl) glycina] e controle sem adição de herbicida (testemunha para as estirpes). Foram utilizadas seis repetições. Confeccionaram-se curvas de crescimento para cada estirpe. Pelos resultados, pôde-se observar que todas as formulações de glyphosate causaram efeitos diferenciados sobre as estirpes de Bradyrhizobium SEMIA 5019, SEMIA 5079 e SEMIA 587. Constatou-se que a formulação Zapp Qi foi a menos tóxica às estirpes de Bradyrhizobium avaliadas. A maior toxicidade foi observada para Roundup Transorb, que provocou reduções no crescimento acima de 94% para todas as estirpes de Bradyrhizobium estudadas. Não se observou correlação entre o tipo de sal - isopropilamina, amônio ou potássico, presentes na formulação herbicida - e o grau de inibição no crescimento das estirpes. SEMIA 587 foi a estirpe menos tolerante à maioria das formulações testadas, porém SEMIA 5019 foi a mais sensível ao glyphosate padrão, sem adição de sais ou de outros aditivos.<br>This work aimed to evaluate the effects of glyphosate commercial formulations on Bradyrhizobium strains under laboratory conditions. The formulations were applied in the concentration of 43.2 µg L-1 of the a.e. and the strains were inoculated in yeast extract manitol (YM). Herbicide effect on the growth of the Bradyrhizobium strains was assessed by optic density reading in a spectrophotometer. Twenty seven treatments arranged in a factorial design were evaluated and consisted of one strain of B. japonicum: SEMIA 5079; and two strains of B. elkanii: SEMIA 5019 and SEMIA 587, under the effect of nine glyphosate formulations: Zapp QI®, Roundup®, Roundup Multiação®, Roundup Transorb®, Roundup WG®, Trop®, Agrisato®, technical glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine] and control without herbicide addition (as the strain control treatment), with six replications. A growth curve was established for each strain. It could be observed that the different glyphosate formulations Zapp Qi, Roundup, Roundup Multiação, Roundup transorb, Roundup WG, Trop and Agrisato caused differentiated effects on the strains of Bradyrhizobium SEMIA 5019, SEMIA 5079 and SEMIA 587. It was verified that the Zapp Qi formulation was the least toxic to the strains. The highest toxicity was observed for Roundup Transorb, which reduced growth over 94% for all the strains assessed. Correlation was not observed among the type of salt, isopropylamine, ammonium or potassic, present in the formulation herbicides, and the toxicity degree to the strains. The strain SEMIA 587 was the least tolerant to most formulations while SEMIA 5019 was the most sensitive to the control treatment N- (phosphonomethyl) glycine, without salts or other additives

Carbon nanotubes

International audienceCarbon nanotubes (CNT s) are remarkable objects that once looked set to revolutionize the technological landscape in the near future. Since the 1990s and for twenty years thereafter, it was repeatedly claimed that tomorrow's society would be shaped by nanotube applications, just as silicon-based technologies dominate society today. Space elevators tethered by the strongest of cables, hydrogen-powered vehicles, artificial muscles: these were just a few of the technological marvels that we were told would be made possible by the science of carbon nanotubes. Of course, this prediction is still some way from becoming reality; most often the possibilities and potential have been evaluated, but actual technological development is facing the unforgiving rule that drives the transfer of a new material or a new device to market: profitability. New materials, even more so for nanomaterials, no matter how wonderful they are, have to be cheap to produce, constant in quality, easy to handle, and nontoxic. Those are the conditions for an industry to accept a change in its production lines to make them nanocompatible. Consider the example of fullerenes – molecules closely related to nanotubes. The anticipation that surrounded these molecules, first reported in 1985, resulted in the bestowment of a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1996. However, two decades later, very few fullerene applications have reached the market, suggesting that similarly enthusiastic predictions about nanotubes should be approached with caution, and so should it be with graphene, another member of the carbon nanoform family which joined the game in 2004, again acknowledged by a Nobel Prize in 2010. There is no denying, however, that the expectations surrounding carbon nanotubes are still high, because of specificities that make them special compared to fullerenes and graphene: their easiness of production, their dual molecule/nano-object nature, their unique aspect ratio, their robustness, the ability of their electronic structure to be given a gap, and their wide typology etc. Therefore, carbon nanotubes may provide the building blocks for further technological progress, enhancing our standard of living. In this chapter, we first describe the structures, syntheses, growth mechanisms, and properties of carbon nanotubes. Then we introduce nanotube-based materials, which comprise on the one hand those formed by reactions and associations of all-carbon nanotubes with foreign atoms, molecules and compounds, and on the other hand, composites, obtained by incorporating carbon nanotubes in various matrices. Finally, we will provide a list of applications currently on the market, while skipping the potentially endless and speculative list of possible applications

Carbon nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are remarkable objects that once looked set to revolutionize the technological landscape in the near future. Since the 1990s and for twenty years thereafter, it was repeatedly claimed that tomorrow’s society would be shaped by nanotube applications, just as silicon-based technologies dominate society today. Space elevators tethered by the strongest of cables, hydrogen-powered vehicles, artificial muscles: these were just a few of the technological marvels that we were told would be made possible by the science of carbon nanotubes. Of course, this prediction is still some way from becoming reality; most often the possibilities and potential have been evaluated, but actual technological development is facing the unforgiving rule that drives the transfer of a new material or a new device to market: profitability. New materials, even more so for nanomaterials, no matter how wonderful they are, have to be cheap to produce, constant in quality, easy to handle, and nontoxic. Those are the conditions for an industry to accept a change in its production lines to make them nanocompatible. Consider the example of fullerenes – molecules closely related to nanotubes. The anticipation that surrounded these molecules, first reported in 1985, resulted in the bestowment of a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1996. However, two decades later, very few fullerene applications have reached the market, suggesting that similarly enthusiastic predictions about nanotubes should be approached with caution, and so should it be with graphene, another member of the carbon nanoform family which joined the game in 2004, again acknowledged by a Nobel Prize in 2010. There is no denying, however, that the expectations surrounding carbon nanotubes are still high, because of specificities that make them special compared to fullerenes and graphene: their easiness of production, their dual molecule/nano-object nature, their unique aspect ratio, their robustness, the ability of their electronic structure to be given a gap, and their wide typology etc. Therefore, carbon nanotubes may provide the building blocks for further technological progress, enhancing our standard of living. In this chapter, we first describe the structures, syntheses, growth mechanisms, and properties of carbon nanotubes. Then we introduce nanotube-based materials, which comprise on the one hand those formed by reactions and associations of all carbon nanotubes with foreign atoms, molecules and compounds, and on the other hand, composites, obtained by incorporating carbon nanotubes in various matrices. Finally, we will provide a list of applications currently on the market, while skipping the potentially endless and speculative list of possible applications