The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water‐suspended nanoparticles
Abstract
Penetration rates of foliar‐applied polar solutes are highly variable and the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood. The contribution of stomata especially, is still a matter of debate. Thus, the size exclusion limits of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway, its variability and its transport capacity have been investigated. The size exclusion limits were analyzed by studying the penetration of water‐suspended hydrophilic particles of two different sizes (43 nm or 1.1 μm diameter) into leaves of Vicia faba (L.). To avoid agglutination of the particles, plants were kept in water‐saturated atmosphere. Penetration of the larger particles was never detected, whereas after 2 to 9 days, the smaller particles occasionally penetrated the leaf interior through stomatal pores. Permeability of stomata to Na 2‐fluorescein along the leaf blade of Allium porrum (L.) was highly variable and not correlated with the position on the leaf. When evaporated residues of the foliar‐applied solutions were rewetted repeatedly, approximately 60% of the previously penetrated stomata were penetrated again. The average rate constant of penetration of an individual stoma was in the same order of magnitude as typical rate constants reported for the cuticular pathway. The observed sparseness of stomatal penetration together with its high lateral variability but local and temporal persistency was taken as evidence that stomata contributing to uptake differ from non‐penetrated ones in the wettability of their guard cell cuticle. These results show that the stomatal pathway is highly capacitive because of its large size exclusion limit above 10 nm and its high transport velocity, but at the same time the high variability renders this pathway largely unpredictable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Schwab, F., Zhai, G., Kern, M., Turner, A., Schnoor, J. L., & Wiesner, M. R. (2016) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2015.1048326 · Cited by 872
Nanoparticle-Based Sustainable Agriculture and Food Science: Recent Advances and Future Outlook
Mittal, D., Kaur, G., Singh, P., Yadav, K., & Ali, S. A. (2020) · Frontiers in Nanotechnology · doi:10.3389/fnano.2020.579954 · Cited by 788
Emerging contaminants: A One Health perspective
Wang, F., Xiang, L., Sze-Yin Leung, K., Elsner, M., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Pan, B., Sun, H., An, T., Ying, G., et al. (2024) · The Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100612 · Cited by 639
Nanoparticles in Plants: Uptake, Transport and Physiological Activity in Leaf and Root
Wang, X., Xie, H., Wang, P., & Yin, H. (2023) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma16083097 · Cited by 518
Larue, C., Castillo-Michel, H., Sobanska, S., Cécillon, L., Bureau, S., Barthès, V., Ouerdane, L., Carrière, M., & Sarret, G. (2014) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.10.053 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Eichert, T., Kurtz, A., Steiner, U., & Goldbach, H. E.
- Venue
- Physiologia Plantarum
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-13
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 151-160
- ISSN
- 0031-9317 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3054
- OpenAlex
- W2080884244
- Cited by
- 709
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water‐suspended nanoparticles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01135.x
- The paper
- Eichert, T., Kurtz, A., Steiner, U., & Goldbach, H. E. (2008). Size exclusion limits and lateral heterogeneity of the stomatal foliar uptake pathway for aqueous solutes and water‐suspended nanoparticles. Physiologia Plantarum. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01135.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.