Analysis of plant cuticles and their interactions with agrochemical surfactants using a 3D printed diffusion chamber.
3D printed labware
Commercial surfactants
Diffusion analysis
Plant cuticle membrane
Journal
Plant methods
ISSN: 1746-4811
Titre abrégé: Plant Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2023
01 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
14
09
2022
accepted:
20
02
2023
medline:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Decades of research is available on their effects of single component surfactant on active ingredient diffusion across plant cuticular membranes, but ingredient diffusion is rarely analysed in the presence of commercial surfactants. Also, diffusion studies require expensive or specialized apparatus the fabrication of which often requires skilled labour and specialized facilities. In this research we have addressed both problems where the effects of four commercially available surfactants on a known tracer molecule were investigated using a 3D printed customized diffusion chamber. As a proof-of-concept a customized 3D printed diffusion chamber was devised using two different thermoplastics and was successfully used in a range of diffusion tests . The effect of various solvents and surfactants on S. lycopersicum cuticular membrane indicated an increased rate of flux of tracer molecules across the membranes. This research has validated the application of 3D printing in diffusion sciences and demonstrated the flexibility and potential of this technique. Using a 3D printed diffusion apparatus, the effect of commercial surfactants on molecular diffusion through isolated plant membranes was studied. Further, we have included here the steps involved in material selection, design, fabrication, and post processing procedures for successful recreation of the chamber. The customizability and rapid production process of the 3D printing demonstrates the power of additive manufacturing in the design and use of customizable labware.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Decades of research is available on their effects of single component surfactant on active ingredient diffusion across plant cuticular membranes, but ingredient diffusion is rarely analysed in the presence of commercial surfactants. Also, diffusion studies require expensive or specialized apparatus the fabrication of which often requires skilled labour and specialized facilities. In this research we have addressed both problems where the effects of four commercially available surfactants on a known tracer molecule were investigated using a 3D printed customized diffusion chamber.
RESULTS
RESULTS
As a proof-of-concept a customized 3D printed diffusion chamber was devised using two different thermoplastics and was successfully used in a range of diffusion tests . The effect of various solvents and surfactants on S. lycopersicum cuticular membrane indicated an increased rate of flux of tracer molecules across the membranes. This research has validated the application of 3D printing in diffusion sciences and demonstrated the flexibility and potential of this technique.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Using a 3D printed diffusion apparatus, the effect of commercial surfactants on molecular diffusion through isolated plant membranes was studied. Further, we have included here the steps involved in material selection, design, fabrication, and post processing procedures for successful recreation of the chamber. The customizability and rapid production process of the 3D printing demonstrates the power of additive manufacturing in the design and use of customizable labware.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37005584
doi: 10.1186/s13007-023-00999-y
pii: 10.1186/s13007-023-00999-y
pmc: PMC10067233
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Aug 01;21(15):
pubmed: 32752176
J Vis Exp. 2012 Mar 30;(61):
pubmed: 22490984
Planta. 2005 Jan;220(3):474-85
pubmed: 15338307
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 15;11(8):e0155201
pubmed: 27525659
Langmuir. 2015 Mar 3;31(8):2304-9
pubmed: 25658859
Planta. 1976 Jan;128(2):113-26
pubmed: 24430686
J Agric Food Chem. 2013 Sep 18;61(37):8737-42
pubmed: 23964787
Plant J. 2009 Oct;60(2):378-85
pubmed: 19563439
Front Microbiol. 2011 Sep 29;2:197
pubmed: 22046169
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Jul 25;9:1088
pubmed: 30090108
Anal Chem. 2017 Jul 5;89(13):7053-7061
pubmed: 28628294
Plant Physiol. 1964 Jan;39(1):28-32
pubmed: 16655874
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0143636
pubmed: 26716448
J Microbiol Methods. 2019 Jul;162:8-15
pubmed: 31085208
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(11):2501-13
pubmed: 16829545
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Jun 25;12:663165
pubmed: 34249035
Plant Physiol. 1974 May;53(5):723-7
pubmed: 16658777
J Exp Bot. 2022 May 13;73(9):2799-2816
pubmed: 35560199
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005 Dec;16(12):1121-4
pubmed: 16362210
New Phytol. 2011 Mar;189(4):938-49
pubmed: 21374891
Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 24;12(1):1267
pubmed: 33627645
J Lab Autom. 2016 Aug;21(4):489-95
pubmed: 27197798
Nat Chem. 2012 Apr 15;4(5):349-54
pubmed: 22522253
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Mar 31;7:427
pubmed: 27066059
Plant Physiol. 1969 Apr;44(4):517-21
pubmed: 16657094