Citation: Hayet Houmani, Francisco J Corpas. Differential responses to salt-induced oxidative stress in three phylogenetically related plant species: Arabidopsis thaliana (glycophyte), Thellungiella salsuginea and Cakile maritima (halophytes). Involvement of ROS and NO in the control of K+/Na+ homeostasis[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(3): 380-397. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.3.380
[1] | Rasheed Atif, Fawad Inam . Influence of macro-topography on mechanical performance of 0.5 wt% nanoclay/multi-layer graphene-epoxy nanocomposites. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(4): 1294-1308. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1294 |
[2] | Mohd Shahneel Saharudin, Rasheed Atif, Syafawati Hasbi, Muhammad Naguib Ahmad Nazri, Nur Ubaidah Saidin, Yusof Abdullah . Synergistic effects of halloysite and carbon nanotubes (HNTs + CNTs) on the mechanical properties of epoxy nanocomposites. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(6): 900-910. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.900 |
[3] | Suman Chhetri, Pranab Samanta, Naresh Chandra Murmu, Suneel Kumar Srivastava, Tapas Kuila . Electromagnetic interference shielding and thermal properties of non-covalently functionalized reduced graphene oxide/epoxy composites. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(1): 61-74. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.1.61 |
[4] | Vishanth Uppu, Kunal Mishra, Libin K. Babu, Ranji Vaidyanathan . Understanding the influence of graphene and nonclay on the microcracks developed at cryogenic temperature. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(4): 559-566. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.4.559 |
[5] | Nilesh Shahapure, Dattaji Shinde, Ajit Kelkar . Atomistic modeling and molecular dynamic simulation of polymer nanocomposites for thermal and mechanical property characterization: A review. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(2): 249-287. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023014 |
[6] | Rong Ming Lin . Elastic Buckling Behaviour of General Multi-Layered Graphene Sheets. AIMS Materials Science, 2015, 2(2): 61-78. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2015.2.61 |
[7] | Paul Plachinda, David Evans, Raj Solanki . Electrical properties of covalently functionalized graphene. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(2): 340-362. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.2.340 |
[8] | Hendra Suherman, Irmayani . Optimization of compression moulding parameters of multiwall carbon nanotube/synthetic graphite/epoxy nanocomposites with respect to electrical conductivity. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(4): 621-634. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.4.621 |
[9] | Elena Kossovich . Theoretical study of chitosan-graphene and other chitosan-based nanocomposites stability. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(2): 317-327. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.2.317 |
[10] | Ahmed Ali Farhan Ogaili, Ehsan S. Al-Ameen, Mohammed Salman Kadhim, Muhanad Nazar Mustafa . Evaluation of mechanical and electrical properties of GFRP composite strengthened with hybrid nanomaterial fillers. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(1): 93-102. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.1.93 |
The polymer matrix composites (PMCs) are commonly used in construction, automotive, and aerospace mainly because of high strength to weight ratio [1]. In PMCs, thermosetting epoxy is the most commonly used matrix [2]. The damage tolerance and fracture toughness of epoxy can be enhanced with the incorporation of (nano-) fillers such as metallic oxides [3,4,5], clays [6,7,8], carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [9,10,11], and other carbonaceous materials [12,13,14,15,16]. Various theoretical and computational approaches have been employed to explore the effect of graphene as reinforcement on the performance of polymer nanocomposites including but not limited to, quantum mechanical-based methods [17], Continuum Mechanics (CM) [18], Molecular Mechanics (MM) [19], Molecular Dynamics (MD) [20], atomistic modeling [21], Density Functional Theory (DFT) [22], and multiscale modeling [23]. The mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties of graphene based polymer nanocomposites have widely been studied. Cao [24] has reviewed the atomistic studies on the mechanical properties of graphene and Allegra et al. [25] have reviewed the modeling of polymer nanocomposites reinforced with spherical nanoparticles or statistically isotropic aggregates. The high strength and stiffness of graphene significantly improve the mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites. Cho et al. studied the mechanical properties of graphene-epoxy nanocomposites with a combination of MM and Mori-Tanaka Method (MTM) [26]. Hamdia et al. [27] used five different sensitivity analysis (SA) methods to study the influence of uncertainty input parameters on the fracture toughness of polymer clay nanocomposites (PNCs). The SA methods include, (1) PAWN, (2) EFAST, (3) Sobol, (4) Regionalized Sensitivity Analysis, and (5) Standardized Regression Coefficient methods. They reported that all methods showed that stiffness of clay, radius of curvature, and aspect ratio have marginal influence on the output with different ranking position. The stiffness of matrix was the most influential parameter, followed by concentration of clay and fracture energy of the polymer matrix.
When nano-fillers are introduced in polymers, the fracture pattern significantly changes due to the deflection of advancing cracks with strong nano-fillers. The topography of fractured surfaces can provide information about the dispersion state of nano-fillers and interfacial interactions. There are two main classifications of topography measurement methods: non-contact techniques, such as focus-follow method, and contact techniques, such as stylus method [28]. Non-contact techniques have found more applications than contact techniques. In case of fragile surfaces, non-contact techniques are especially preferred as damage to surface may occur if contacted. In both the classifications, the parameter definitions remain the same. The results obtained by two techniques are also alike. The non-contact techniques do not only keep the surface under examination intact, but also the topography can be measured easily and quickly. However, these techniques have certain limitations. For example, those regions of surface which are not in the line of sight may not be detected by some non-contact techniques resulting in artefacts. In addition, due to the non-uniform intensity of light, the focus lens may follow the surface inaccurately resulting in the erroneous results. Furthermore, as there is no external agency to interact with the surface, the topography results will be exactly the replica of the surface under examination. At one side, it is an advantage. On the other hand, it may produce artifacts in the results. For example, if the surface contains contaminations, such as dirt, the contaminations will appear in topography profile. This effect may be well pronounced at nano-scale. Therefore, the samples should be prepared meticulously for non-contact techniques.
The influence of topographical features is momentous both at micro and macro levels [29,30]. For example, Karger-Kocsis et al. [31] have rightly reported that hierarchical and hairy fillers have high surface area and capillary wetting by the polymers that can significantly improve the interfacial interactions and result in a concomitant enhancement in the mechanical properties. In addition, various attributes of the polymers can be studied from the fractography analysis of the samples [32]. The topography also becomes very important when the polymers are applied in tribological applications [33]. It is because the cracks in most of the cases originate from the surfaces [34]. The topography plays a crucial part especially in the presence of surface notches as they generate triaxial state of stress in the presence of which the polymers show a marked degradation in mechanical properties, especially when the polymers are thermosetting such as epoxy. Although micro-and nano-scale topography of polymers and polymer nanocomposites have been discussed in detail, however, the influence of macro-topography on mechanical properties of polymers has been overlooked, especially to correlate the fracture patterns with the topography of samples before fracture takes place.
In current work, multi-layered graphene (MLG)/nanoclay-epoxy nanocomposites of three different types were produced: (1) 0.5 wt% MLG-EP, (2) 0.5 wt% nanoclay-EP, and (3) 0.25 wt% MLG-0.25 wt% nanoclay-EP. The maximum enhancement in mechanical properties was recorded in 0.25 wt% MLG-0.25 wt% nanoclay-EP nanocomposites, especially when treated with 1200P abrasive paper. The second highest improvement in mechanical properties was observed in case of 0.5 wt% MLG-EP nanocomposites. However, in case of 0.5 wt% nanoclay-EP, least improvement in mechanical properties was observed. It can be attributed to the interfacial interactions and presence of agglomerates that cause stress concentration and concomitant degradation of mechanical properties [35]. The fractography analysis of the samples revealed that nano-fillers significantly influence the fracture patterns. In addition, a careful examination of the topographical features of the fractured surfaces suggests that the dispersion state of the fillers, interfacial interactions, and presence of any agglomerates of filler can be estimated based on the surface parameters such as maximum surface roughness (Rz or Rmax), surface roughness average (Ra), and root mean square parameter of roughness (Rq). For example, a high value of Rz (with low Ra value) with deep crater and/or trenches indicates the presence of filler agglomerates and concomitant poor mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites. Similarly, a relatively high surface roughness average with low Rz value indicates uniform dispersion of the filler and simultaneously improved mechanical properties. However, it was observed that waviness average parameter (Wa) does not have any relation with the weight fraction, dispersion state, or agglomeration of the filler.
MLG (99.2% purity, 80 m2/g specific surface area, 4.5 µm average lateral size, 12 nm average thickness) used was purchased from Graphene Supermarket, USA. Halloysite nanoclay was used as second filler and purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. The diameter of nanoclay is between 30-70 nm with length 1-4 µm and has a tube-like morphology. The density of halloysite nanoclay is 2.53 g/cm3 and surface area is 64 m2/g. The epoxy and hardeners used were based on bisphenol A-epichlorohydrin and dimethylbenzylamine isophorone diamine, respectively. The resin was purchased from Polyfibre, UK. The densities of liquid epoxy and hardener were~1.3 g/cm3 and~1.1 g/cm3, respectively.
The nano-filler was dispersed in the hardener using tip sonicator (Model VC 750, Vibra-cell, USA, 750 W, 250 kHz). Although the sonication was carried out at room temperature, however, temperature of the system rose due to high energy vibration produced by tip sonicator. The resins were vacuum degassed in separate beakers for 30 min. Then, the resins were mixed manually for 10 min. The mixing ratio (by weight) of hardener:epoxy was 1:2. The mixture was again degassed for 15 min. The samples were cast in silicone molds. Two-step curing was carried out: room temperature for 6 h and post-curing at 80°C for 6 h. The top and bottom surfaces of each sample were treated with abrasive papers for 1 min on rotating wheels at rotational speed of 150 rpm.
An Infinite focus Alicona G4 optical microscope was employed to measure topography. The working principle of the microscope is focus-follow method which is a non-contact method. ASTM Standard D792 (Equations 1 and 2) was used to measure densification. The densities of water, hardener, and epoxy were 0.9975, 1.1, and 1.3 g/cm3, respectively. Vickers microhardness was measured using Buehler Micromet II hardness tester (200 g, 10 s). Universal Testing Machine (Instron Model 3382) was used to conduct tensile test (ASTM D638, 4 mm thickness, Type-V geometry, 0.5 mm/min), three-point bending test (ASTM D790, 3×12.7×48 mm, 1.0 mm/min), and mode-I fracture toughness test (ASTM D5045, 36×6×3 mm, crack length 3 mm, 0.5 mm/min, Equations 3-5). ASTM standard D 6110 was used to measure Charpy impact toughness (specimen dimensions 64×12.7×3.2 mm with V-notch of 45°, 2.5 mm depth and 0.25 mm tip of radius) using Equation 6. The weight of impactor head was 400 g and length of impactor arm was 0.4 m.
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
The mechanical properties have been summarized in Table 1. The values indicate that from the three compositions made with five surface conditions for each composition, the best combination of mechanical performance can be achieved in case of 0.25 wt% MLG-0.25 wt% nanoclay-EP nanocomposites processed with 1200P abrasive paper.
Sr. | Properties | As-cast | Velvet cloth | 1200P | 320P | 60P |
1 | Densification (%) | 99.4 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.32 | 99.3 ± 0.35 | 99.3 ± 0.38 | 99.1 ± 0.4 |
99.3 ± 0.4 | 99.4 ± 0.30 | 99.5 ± 0.33 | 99.2 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.33 | ||
99.4 ± 0.25 | 99.4 ± 0.42 | 99.3 ± 0.45 | 99.3 ± 0.36 | 99.1 ± 0.28 | ||
2 | Microhardness (HV) | 359 ± 15.2 | 372.1 ± 10.2 | 395.4 ± 11.8 | 335 ± 18.6 | 298 ± 21.7 |
330.3 ± 21.6 | 362.9 ± 18.3 | 383.8 ± 9.0 | 328.5 ± 18.1 | 312.2 ± 31.4 | ||
364.9 ± 21.2 | 378 ± 19.2 | 401.3 ± 18.8 | 340.9 ± 18.6 | 303.9 ± 21.7 | ||
3 | Young’s modulus (MPa) | 828.5 ± 29.5 | 839.8 ± 24.5 | 864.1 ± 28.5 | 792 ± 35.9 | 784.9 ± 42.6 |
747.1 ± 22.1 | 780.3 ± 17.6 | 799.6 ± 23.6 | 741.1 ± 28.9 | 710.2 ± 33.8 | ||
852.5 ± 18.9 | 863.8 ± 16.8 | 888 ± 19.5 | 816 ± 23.4 | 808.9 ± 28.6 | ||
4 | UTS (MPa) | 64.1 ± 1.5 | 66.5 ± 2.1 | 72.6 ± 1.6 | 59.6 ± 1.8 | 55.2 ± 2.5 |
52.8 ± 1.1 | 56.6 ± 1.2 | 62.9 ± 1.3 | 52.3 ± 2.1 | 50.3 ± 3.6 | ||
68 ± 1.2 | 70.3 ± 1.7 | 76.5 ± 1.9 | 63.5 ± 2.9 | 59.1 ± 3.1 | ||
5 | Tensile strain (%) | 7.9 ± 1.1 | 7.1 ± 0.9 | 7.2 ± 1.6 | 8.8 ± 1.2 | 9 ± 2.1 |
10 ± 0.9 | 10.1 ± 0.8 | 11.1 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 1.1 | 14.7 ± 1.8 | ||
7.7 ± 0.8 | 6.9 ± 0.9 | 7 ± 0.7 | 8.6 ± 1.3 | 8.8 ± 1.8 | ||
6 | Flex. Modulus (MPa) | 799 ± 38.3 | 887.1 ± 25.3 | 897.3 ± 30.5 | 862.9 ± 33.5 | 652.9 ± 42.6 |
734.4 ± 32.7 | 833.8 ± 22.5 | 860.1 ± 33.4 | 816.4 ± 34.4 | 624.7 ± 43.4 | ||
832 ± 31.4 | 920.1 ± 26.2 | 930.3 ± 31.4 | 895.8 ± 37.5 | 685.9 ± 32.6 | ||
7 | Flex. Strength (MPa) | 78.7 ± 6.9 | 81.5 ± 3.8 | 89.9 ± 2.9 | 75.6 ± 4.6 | 73.6 ± 8.3 |
66.8 ± 5.3 | 73.9 ± 4.5 | 85.1 ± 4.4 | 71.9 ± 6.6 | 62.9 ± 8.7 | ||
81.7 ± 3.5 | 84.5 ± 3.1 | 92.9 ± 2.6 | 80.1 ± 8.5 | 79.7 ± 10.7 | ||
8 | Flex. Strain (%) | 5.8 ± 0.06 | 5.8 ± 0.29 | 5.9 ± 0.31 | 6.2 ± 0.49 | 6.9 ± 0.4 |
6.7 ± 0.08 | 6.6 ± 0.12 | 6.3 ± 0.13 | 6.9 ± 0.21 | 7.7 ± 0.29 | ||
5.5 ± 0.05 | 5.5 ± 0.08 | 5.6 ± 0.09 | 5.9 ± 0.12 | 6.6 ± 0.19 | ||
9 | K1C (MPa·m1/2) | 1.12 ± 0.1 | 1.14 ± 0.15 | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.13 ± 0.1 | 1.12 ± 0.1 |
0.88 ± 0.08 | 0.78 ± 0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.11 | 0.84 ± 0.13 | 0.83 ± 0.17 | ||
1.14 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 1.16 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.13 | ||
10 | G1C (J/m2) | 341.5 ± 51.5 | 546.6 ± 42.3 | 620.5 ± 47.9 | 684.7 ± 62.8 | 759.6 ± 69.8 |
311.2 ± 31.6 | 521.3 ± 26.3 | 589.2 ± 22.3 | 637.1 ± 41.5 | 744.3 ± 48.6 | ||
365.4 ± 29.3 | 570.6 ± 28.6 | 644.5 ± 22.6 | 708.6 ± 38.9 | 783.6 ± 43.4 | ||
11 | Charpy (kJ/m2) | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 1.45 ± 0.1 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 1.24 ± 0.12 | 1.21 ± 0.2 |
1.22 ± 0.11 | 1.42 ± 0.09 | 1.33 ± 0.09 | 1.15 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.17 | ||
1.35 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.08 | 1.61 ± 0.1 | 1.28 ± 0.13 | 1.25 ± 0.19 |
The fractography surfaces of 0.5 wt% MLG-EP nanocomposites are shown in Figure 1.
The monolithic epoxy shows straight bamboo-like fracture pattern indicating the occurrence of typical epoxy brittle fracture. However, with the incorporation of carbonaceous reinforcements, the cracks are rebounded resulting in non-linear and parabolic fracture patterns [36]. This was the reason that no specific orientation of crack propagation was observed in 3PBT specimens reinforced with MLG. The fracture became coarser when the samples were treated with 1200P abrasive paper and velvet cloth while trenches and straight and flat fracture patterns were observed when the samples were treated with 60P and 320P abrasive papers. The fracture patterns of K1C specimens differ from those of 3PBT specimens in a way that fracture was originated from the notch tip as the tip generated high levels of stress concentration. As the displacement rate is relatively low in K1C testing, the surface notches showed a significant impact on the topography of fracture surfaces. However, the influence of surface notches and topographical features on fracture patterns was marginalized in case of Charpy impact testing where the samples were suddenly impacted at the back of the notch by a heavy and pointed hammer. Sheer and straight fracture patterns were observed in Charpy impact specimens and fracture took place right from the tip of notch.
The fractography surfaces of 0.5 wt% nanoclay-EP nanocomposites are shown in Figure 2.
Overall, a coarser topography of fractured surfaces was observed in 0.5 wt% MLG-EP samples than in 0.5 wt% nanoclay-EP samples. No specific orientation of crack propagation was recorded in 3PBT specimens reinforced with nanoclay. As in case of 0.5 wt% MLG-EP samples, the fracture patterns of K1C specimens of 0.5 wt% nanoclay-EP samples differ from those of 3PBT specimens in a way that fracture was originated from the notch tip as the tip generated high levels of stress concentration. As the displacement rate is relatively low in K1C testing, nanoclay also showed a significant impact on the topography of fracture surfaces. However, the influence of nanoclay on fracture patterns was marginalized in case of Charpy impact testing where the samples were suddenly impacted at the back of the notch by a heavy and pointed hammer. Sheer and straight fracture patterns were observed in Charpy impact specimens and fracture took place right from the tip of notch. The fractography surfaces of 0.25 wt% MLG-0.25 wt% nanoclay-EP nanocomposites are shown in Figure 3. Overall, the coarsest topography of fractured surfaces was observed in case of 0.25 wt% MLG-0.25 wt% nanoclay-EP nanocomposites. The details of topographical features are further discussed below.
The topographical features of fracture surfaces of tensile specimen of 0.5 wt% MLG/nanoclay-EP nanocomposites are shown in Figure 4-6. The surface waviness (Figure 4-6ii) and Gaussian distribution (Figure 4-6iv) did not show a specific trend of change with the abrasive papers. It can be attributed to the multiple factors affecting the fracture pattern such as surface notches, MLG/nanoclay distribution, orientation, and interfacial interactions. Usually a specific pattern is observed in waviness due to wobbling of machining tool. On the contrary to Wa, a specific variation in surface roughness (Figure 4-6iii) was observed. The surface roughness of as-cast 0.5 wt% MLG/nanoclay-EP nanocomposites varied between±6 µm with the presence of deep crests and troughs. With the treatment with the velvet cloth, the surface roughness changed slightly which became pronounced in samples treated with 1200P abrasive paper. However, in case of samples treated with 60P and 320P abrasive papers, deep trenches can be observed in roughness patterns (Figure 4-6diii and Figure 4-6eiii) that may be attributed to the presence of large notches. The trenches can also be observed in the surface profiles (Figure 4-6dv and Figure 4-6ev).
The topographical features are summarized in Figure 7. This Rz comes from the ravines formed due to brittle fracture in the thermoset. The Rz values were significantly decreased by the incorporation of nano-fillers. As ravines present in monolithic epoxy are removed with the incorporation of nano-fillers due to the diversion of advancing cracks, therefore, a decrease in Rz indicates a uniform dispersion of fillers and deflection of the cracks. In addition, an increase in mechanical properties with the incorporation of nano-fillers further corroborates the uniform dispersion of nano-fillers and energy dissipation at deflection of cracks. The variation in Rz value is in accord with the change in the mechanical properties. Therefore, Rz can be an indicator of the dispersion state of filler.
Apart from Rz, Ra is another important parameter to consider. The decrease in Ra with increasing Rz may seem contradicting however can be explained on the basis of observed fractured patterns and surface roughness charts. When treated with 1200P abrasive paper and velvet cloth, no crater was formed due to which lower Rz value was observed. In addition, cracks were deflected quite sharply resulting in sudden variation in surface roughness thereby increasing the Ra value. On the contrary, when treated with 60P and 320P abrasive papers, deep notches were present that caused fracture and increased Rz due to crater formation. However, once cracks formed, it could not deflect much and rest of the fractured surface remained flat thereby decreasing the Ra value. Therefore, a high value of Ra (with low Rz value) can be on indicator of smoother samples surfaces, absence of agglomerates and uniform dispersion of nano-fillers. On the other hand, a low value of Ra (with high Rz value) indicates the presence of deep surface notches, agglomerates, and non-uniform dispersion of nano-fillers. A similar trend was observed in Rq values as in Ra values. However, no specific trend was observed in surface waviness and may not be indicative of dispersion state of nano-fillers and topographical features.
The relationship between dispersion state and nature of crack advancement is schematically shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8(a) is a schematic of poorly dispersed agglomerated graphene in epoxy matrix. As graphene sheets have stress concentration factor associated with them, (micro-) cracks are generated around the graphene agglomerates. These (micro-) cracks may propagate under the application of external load and may lead to fracture. If there is a pre-existing crack in the matrix, it will propagate when load is applied. If the crack faces the agglomerate, it will either be restrained by the agglomerate or detour/bifurcate to circumvent the agglomerate in case of higher loads. However, as graphene is present in the form of agglomerates, a major portion of the epoxy matrix is not reinforced at all. Therefore, crack can easily propagate through the brittle epoxy until fracture occurs. This is possibly the reason why poorly dispersed graphene was not found efficient in improving the fracture toughness of epoxy [37]. This poor dispersion does not only degrade the mechanical properties but also the influence can be observed in case of fractured surfaces. The advancing cracks do not deflect frequently and follow a linear path. Therefore, relatively lower Ra values were observed in case of nanoclay where low mechanical properties were recorded. On the contrary, if graphene is uniformly dispersed, it would be difficult for the crack to move. Figure 8(b) shows a schematic diagram for an ideal situation in which graphene of nearly same dimensions is homogeneously dispersed into epoxy matrix. In this case, as sheet size is relatively smaller than that of graphene agglomerate, the stress concentration factor associated with them is benign and there is almost no (micro-) cracking around individual graphene sheets. If there is a pre-existing crack in the matrix and it starts propagating under the influence of external load, it has to come across graphene sheets at each step. If the external load is high enough, each crack will split into multiple sub-cracks. There is required energy at each division and sub-division of crack to generate new surfaces. Therefore, extensive energy will be dissipated before the crack covers long displacement from its initial position to cause fracture. This will significantly improve the fracture toughness of the epoxy. Therefore, uniformly dispersed graphene is preferred to improve the fracture toughness of the epoxy-graphene nanocomposites. This uniform dispersion does not only improve the mechanical properties but also the influence can be observed in case of fractured surfaces. The advancing cracks is deflected frequently and follow a tortuous path. Therefore, a relatively higher Ra values were observed in case of MLG and MLG-nanoclay nanocomposites where improved mechanical properties were recorded.
In conclusion, the topographical features of fractured patterns of polymer nanocomposites can be used to approximate the dispersion state, interfacial interactions, and presence of agglomerates, and overall influence of the incorporation of fillers on the mechanical properties of produced nanocomposites. The highest mechanical properties were recorded in case of MLG-nanoclay-EP nanocomposites. A high value of Ra (with low Rz value) can be on indicator of smoother samples surfaces, absence of agglomerates and uniform dispersion of nano-fillers. On the other hand, a low value of Ra (with high Rz value) indicates the presence of deep surface notches, agglomerates, and non-uniform dispersion of nano-fillers. A similar trend was observed in Rq values as in Ra values. However, no specific trend was observed in surface waviness and may not be indicative of dispersion state of nano-fillers and topographical features.
The authors would like to thank the Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering, Northumbria University, UK for the provision of research facilities, without which the analysis of relevant data was not possible.
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Kader MA, Lindberg S (2010) Cytosolic calcium and pH signaling in plants under salinity stress. Plant Signal Behav 5: 233–238. doi: 10.4161/psb.5.3.10740
![]() |
[2] |
Wang Y, Wu WH (2013) Potassium transport and signaling in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64: 451–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120153
![]() |
[3] |
Munns R, James RA, Läuchli A (2006) Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J Exp Bot 57: 1025–1043. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj100
![]() |
[4] |
Kader MA (2010) Cytosolic calcium and pH signaling in plants under salinity stress. Plant Signal Behav. 5: 233–238. doi: 10.4161/psb.5.3.10740
![]() |
[5] |
Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA, Zhu JK, et al. (2000). Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 51: 463–499. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.463
![]() |
[6] |
Tester M, Davenport R (2003) Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Ann Bot 91: 503–527. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcg058
![]() |
[7] | Newell N (2013) Review: Effects of Soil Salinity on Plant Growth. Plant Physiol. |
[8] | Shabala S, Pottosin II (2010) Potassium and potassium-permeable channels in plant salt tolerance. Signal Commun Plants 2010: 87–110. |
[9] |
Jiang C, Belfield EJ, Cao Y, et al. (2013) An Arabidopsis Soil-Salinity-Tolerance Mutation Confers Ethylene-Mediated Enhancement of Sodium/Potassium homeostasis. Plant Cell 25: 3535–3552. doi: 10.1105/tpc.113.115659
![]() |
[10] |
Zhu JK (2003) Regulation of ion homeostasis under salt stress. Curr Opin Plant Biol 6: 441–445. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(03)00085-2
![]() |
[11] |
Rubio F, Gassmann W, Schroeder JI (1995) Sodium-driven potassium uptake by the plant potassium transporter HKT1 and mutations conferring salt tolerance. Science 270: 1660–1663. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5242.1660
![]() |
[12] |
Uozumi N, Kim EJ, Rubio F, et al. (2000) The Arabidopsis HKT1 Gene Homolog Mediates Inward Na+ Currents in Xenopus laevis Oocytes and Na+ Uptake in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Plant Physiol 122: 1249–1259. doi: 10.1104/pp.122.4.1249
![]() |
[13] |
Venema K, Quintero FJ, Pardo JM, et al. (2002) The Arabidopsis Na+/H+ exchanger AtNHX1 catalyzes low affinity Na+ and K+ transport in reconstituted liposomes. J Biol Chem 277: 2413–2418. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M105043200
![]() |
[14] |
Maathuis FJM (2009) Physiological functions of mineral macronutrients. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12: 250–258. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.04.003
![]() |
[15] |
Santa-Maria GE, Rubio F, Dubcovsky J, et al. (1997) The HAK1 gene of barley is a member of a large gene family and encodes a high-affinity potassium transporter. The Plant Cell 9: 2281–2289. doi: 10.1105/tpc.9.12.2281
![]() |
[16] | Fu HH, Luan S (1998) AtKuP1: a dual-affinity K+ transporter from Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10: 63–73. |
[17] |
Nieves-Cordones M, Aleman F, MartinezV, et al. (2010) The Arabidopsis thaliana HAK5 K+ transporter is required for plant growth and K+ acquisition from low K+ solutions under saline conditions. Mol Plant 3: 326–333. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp102
![]() |
[18] |
Rubio F, Santa-Maria GE, Rodríguez-Navarro A (2000) Cloning of Arabidopsis and barley cDNAs encoding HAK potassium transporters in root and shoot cells. Physiol Plant 109: 34–43. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2000.100106.x
![]() |
[19] |
Qi Z, Hampton CR, Shin R, et al. (2008) The high affinity K+ transporter AtHAK5 plays a physiological role in planta at very low K+ concentrations and provides a caesium uptake pathway in Arabidopsis. J Exp Bot 59: 595–607. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm330
![]() |
[20] |
Gorham J, Bridgers J. Dubcovsky J, et al. (1997) Genetic analysis and physiology of a trait for enhanced K+/Na+ discrimination in Wheat. New Phytol 137: 109–116. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00825.x
![]() |
[21] |
Horie T, Sugawara M, Okada T, et al. (2011) Rice sodium-insensitive potassium transporter, OsHAK5, confers increased salt tolerance in tobacco BY2 cells. J Biosci Bioeng 111: 346–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.10.014
![]() |
[22] | Alemán F, Caballero F, Ródenas R et al. (2014) The F130S point mutation in the Arabidopsis high affinity K+ transporter AtHAK5 increases K+ over Na+ and Cs+ selectivity and confers Na+ and Cs+ tolerance to yeast under heterologous expression. Front Plant Sci 5: 430. |
[23] |
Shabala S, CuinTA (2008) Potassium transport and plant salt tolerance. Physiol Plant 133: 651–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.01008.x
![]() |
[24] |
Haro R, Bañuelos MA, Rodriguez‐Navarro A (2010) High‐affinity sodium uptake in land plants. Plant Cell Physiol 51: 68–79. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcp168
![]() |
[25] |
Kronzucker HJ, Britto DT (2011) Sodium transport in plants: A critical review. New Phytol 189: 54–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03540.x
![]() |
[26] |
Kronzucker HJ, Coskun D, Schulze LM et al. (2013) Sodium as nutrient and toxicant. Plant Soil 369: 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1801-2
![]() |
[27] |
Adams E, Shin R (2014) Transport, signaling, and homeostasis of potassium and sodium in plants. J Integr Plant Biol 56: 231–249. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12159
![]() |
[28] |
Demidchik V, Maathuis FJM (2007) Physiological roles of nonselective cation channels in plants: from salt stress to signalling and development. New Phytol 175: 387–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02128.x
![]() |
[29] |
Sun J, Dai S, Wang R, et al. (2009) Calcium mediates root K+/Na+ homeostasis in poplar species differing in salt tolerance. Tree Physiol 29: 1175–1186. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpp048
![]() |
[30] |
Gattward JN, Almeida AA, Souza JO, et al. (2012) Sodium‐potassium synergism in Theobroma cacao: Stimulation of photosynthesis, water‐use efficiency and mineral nutrition. Physiol Plant 146: 350–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01621.x
![]() |
[31] | Schulze LM, Britto DT, Li M, et al. (2012) A pharmacological analysis of high-affinity sodium transport in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): a 24Na+/42K+ study. J Exp Bot 63: 2479–2489. |
[32] |
Zhu JK (2002) Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 53: 247–273. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329
![]() |
[33] |
Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59: 651–681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
![]() |
[34] | Jayakannan M, Bose J, Babourina O, et al. (2013) Salicylic acid improves salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis by restoring membrane potential and preventing salt-induced K+ loss via a GORK channel. J Exp Bot 64: 2255–2268. |
[35] |
Römheld V, Kirkby E (2010) Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil 335: 155–180. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1
![]() |
[36] |
Debez A, Ben Rejeb K, Ghars MA, et al. (2013) Ecophysiological and genomic analysis of salt tolerance of Cakile maritima. Environ Exp Bot 92: 64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.12.002
![]() |
[37] |
Zhu JK, Liu J, Xiong L (1998) Genetic analysis of salt tolerance in Arabidopsis: Evidence for a critical role to potassium nutrition. Plant Cell 10: 1181–1191. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.7.1181
![]() |
[38] | Keutgen AJ, Pawelzik E (2008) Impacts of NaCl stress on plant growth and mineral nutrient assimilation in two cultivars of strawberry. Environ Exp Bot 65: 170–176. |
[39] | Bassil E, Coku A, Blumwald E (2012) Cellular ion homeostasis: emerging roles of intracellular NHX Na+/H+ antiporters in plant growth and development. J Exp Bot 63: 5727–5740. |
[40] |
Maathuis FJM, Amtmann A (1999) K+ nutrition and Na+ toxicity: The basis of cellular K+/Na+ ratios. Ann Bot 84: 123–133. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1999.0912
![]() |
[41] |
Flowers TJ, Galal HK, Bromham L (2010) Evolution of halophytes: multiple origins of salt tolerance in land plants. Funct Plant Biol 37: 604–612. doi: 10.1071/FP09269
![]() |
[42] |
Ali Z, Park HC, Ali A, et al. (2012) TsHKT1;2, a HKT1 Homolog from the Extremophile Arabidopsis Relative Thellungiella salsuginea, Shows K+ Specificity in the Presence of NaCl. Plant Physiol 158: 1463–1474. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.193110
![]() |
[43] | Wang M, Zheng Q, Shen Q, et al. (2013) The Critical Role of Potassium in Plant Stress Response. Int J Mol Sci14: 7370–7390. |
[44] | Smith A, Jain A, Deal R, et al. (2010). Histone H2A.Z regulates the expression of several classes of phosphate starvation response genes, but not as a transcriptional activator. Plant Physiol 152: 217–225. |
[45] |
Ardie SW, Liu S, Takano T (2010) Expression of the AKT1-type K+ channel gene from Puccinellia tenuiflora, PutAKT1, enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep 29: 865–874. doi: 10.1007/s00299-010-0872-2
![]() |
[46] |
Coskun D, Britto DT, Li MY, et al. (2013) Capacity and plasticity of potassium channels and high-affinity transporters in roots of barley and Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 162: 496–511. doi: 10.1104/pp.113.215913
![]() |
[47] |
Sussman MR (1994) Molecular analysis of protein in the plant plasma membrane. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 45: 211–234. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.45.060194.001235
![]() |
[48] | Blumwald E, Aharon GS, Apse MP (2000) Sodium transport in plant cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1465: 140–151. |
[49] | Gaxiola RA, Rao R, Sherman A, et al. (1999) The Arabidopsis thaliana proton transporters AtNhx1 and Avp1 can function in cation detoxification in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1480–1485. |
[50] |
Deinlein U, Stephan AB, Horie T, et al. (2014). Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 19: 371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001
![]() |
[51] |
Tapken D, Hollmann M (2008) Arabidopsis thaliana glutamate receptor ion channel function demonstrated by ion pore transplantation. J Mol Biol 383: 36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2008.06.076
![]() |
[52] | Shabala S, Wu H, Bose J (2015) Salt stress sensing and early signalling events in plant roots: Current knowledge and hypothesis. Plant Sci 241: 109–119. |
[53] | Wegner, LH, De Boer AH (1997) Properties of two outward-rectifying channels in root xylem parenchyma cells suggest a role in K+ homeostasis and long-distance signaling. Plant Physiol 115: 1707–1719. |
[54] |
Gaymard F, Pilot G, Lacombe B, et al. (1998) Identification and disruption of a plant shaker-like outward channel involved in K+ release into the xylem sap. Cell 94: 647–655. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81606-2
![]() |
[55] |
Ren, Z.H, Gao JP, Li LG, et al. (2005) A rice quantitative trait locus for salt tolerance encodes a sodium transporter. Nat Genet 37: 1141–1146. doi: 10.1038/ng1643
![]() |
[56] |
Yang T, Zhang S, Hu Y, et al. (2014) The role of a potassium transporter OsHAK5 in potassium acquisition and transport from roots to shoots in rice at low potassium supply levels. Plant Physiol 166: 945–959. doi: 10.1104/pp.114.246520
![]() |
[57] |
Benito B, Garciadeblas B, Rodriguez-Navarro A (2012) HAK transporters from Physcomitrella patens and Yarrowia lipolytica mediate sodium uptake. Plant Cell Physiol 53: 1117–1123. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcs056
![]() |
[58] |
WU SJ, Ding L, Zhu JK (1996) SOS1, a genetic locus essential for salt tolerance and potassium acquisition. Plant Cell 8: 617–627. doi: 10.1105/tpc.8.4.617
![]() |
[59] |
Oh DH, Gong QQ, Ulanov A, et al. (2007) Sodium stress in the halophyte Thellungiella halophila and transcriptional changes in a thsos1-RNA interference line. J Integr Plant Biol 49: 1484–1496. doi: 10.1111/j.1672-9072.2007.00548.x
![]() |
[60] |
Ahn SJ, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2004) Expression of KT/KUP genes in Arabidopsis and the role of root hairs in K+ Uptake. Plant Physiol 134: 1135–1145. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.034660
![]() |
[61] |
Berthomieu P, Conéjéro G, Nublat A, et al. (2003) Functional analysis of AtHKT1 in Arabidopsis shows that Na+ recirculation by the phloem is crucial for salt tolerance. EMBO J 22: 2004–2014. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg207
![]() |
[62] | Ali A, Raddatz N, Aman R, et al. (2016) A Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Sodium Transporter HKT1 Associated with Plant Salt Tolerance. Plant Physiol. 171: 2112–2126. |
[63] |
Corratgé-Faillie C, Jabnoune M, Zimmermann S, et al. (2010) Potassium and sodium transport in non-animal cells: the Trk/Ktr/HKT transporter family. Cell Mol Life Sci 67: 2511–2532. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0317-7
![]() |
[64] |
Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, Martínez V, et al. (2011) Root K+ acquisition in plants: the Arabidopsis thaliana model. Plant Cell Physiol 52: 1603–1612. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcr096
![]() |
[65] | Nieves-Cordones M, Alemán F, Martínez V, et al. (2014) K+ uptake in plant roots. the systems involved, their regulation and parallels in other organisms. J Plant Physiol 171: 688–695. |
[66] |
Rubio F, Nieves-Cordones M, Alemán F, et al. (2008) Relative contribution of AtHAK5 and AtAKT1 to K+ uptake in the high-affinity range of concentrations. Physiol Plant 134: 598–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01168.x
![]() |
[67] |
Rubio F, Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, et al. (2010) Studies on Arabidopsis athak5, atakt1 double mutants disclose the range of concentrations at which AtHAK5, AtAKT1 and unknown systems mediate K+ uptake. Physiol Plant 139: 220–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2010.01354.x
![]() |
[68] |
PyoYJ, Gierth M, Schroeder JI, et al. (2010) High-Affinity K+ transport in Arabidopsis: AtHAK5 and AKT1 are vital for seedling establishment and postgermination growth under low-potassium conditions. Plant Physiol 153: 863–875. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.154369
![]() |
[69] |
Alemán F, Nieves-Cordones M, Martínez V, et al. (2009). Differential regulation of the HAK5 genes encoding the high-affinity K+ transporters of Thellungiella halophila and Arabidopsis thaliana. Environ Exp Bot 65: 263–269. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2008.09.011
![]() |
[70] |
Adams E, Abdollahi P, Shin R (2013) Cesium inhibits plant growth through Jasmonate signaling in Arabidopsis thaliana. Int J Mol Sci 14: 4545–4559. doi: 10.3390/ijms14034545
![]() |
[71] |
Sun Y, Kong X, Li C et al. (2015) Potassium retention under salt stress is associated with natural variation in salinity tolerance among Arabidopsis accessions. PLoS One 10: e0124032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124032
![]() |
[72] |
Rodríguez-Rosales MP, Jiang XJ, Gálvez FJ, et al. (2008) Overexpression of the tomato K+/H+ antiporter LeNHX2 confers salt tolerance by improving potassium compartmentalization. New Phytol 179: 366–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02461.x
![]() |
[73] | Leidi EO, Barragán V, Rubio L, et al. (2010) The AtNHX1 exchanger mediates potassium compartmentation in vacuoles of transgenic tomato. Plant J 61: 495–506. |
[74] |
Ghars MA, Parre E, Debez A, et al. (2008) Comparative salt tolerance analysis between Arabidopsis thaliana and Thellungiella halophila, with special emphasis on K+/Na+ selectivity and proline accumulation. J Plant Physiol 165: 588–599. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.05.014
![]() |
[75] |
Bailey CD, Koch MA, Mayer M, et al. (2006) Toward a global phylogeny of the Brassicaceae. Mol Biol Evol 23: 2142–2160. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl087
![]() |
[76] |
Debez A, Ben HK, Grigno C, et al. (2004) Salinity effects on germination, growth, and seed production of the halophyte Cakile maritime. Plant Soil 262: 179–189. doi: 10.1023/B:PLSO.0000037034.47247.67
![]() |
[77] |
Houmani H, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, Palma JM, et al. (2016). Modulation of superoxide dismutase (SOD) isozymes by organ development and high long-term salinity in the halophyte Cakile maritima. Protoplasma 253: 885–894. doi: 10.1007/s00709-015-0850-1
![]() |
[78] |
Debez A, Koyro HW, Grignon C, et al. (2008) Relationship between the photosynthetic activity and the performance of Cakile maritima after long-term salt treatment. Physiol Plantarum 133: 373–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01086.x
![]() |
[79] | Demidchik V, Tester M (2002) Sodium Fluxes through Nonselective Cation Channels in the Plasma Membrane of Protoplasts from Arabidopsis Roots. Plant Physiol 128: 379–387. |
[80] | Yadav S, Irfan M, Ahmad A, et al. (2011) Causes of salinity and plant manifestations to salt stress: A review. J Environ Biol 32: 667–685. |
[81] |
Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Hernández I, et al. (2014) A comparative study of the early osmotic, ionic, redox and hormonal signaling response in leaves and roots of two halophytes and a glycophyte to salinity. Planta 240: 1299–1317. doi: 10.1007/s00425-014-2154-7
![]() |
[82] |
Fan W, Zhang Z, Zhang Y (2009) Cloning and molecular characterization of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase gene regulated by high-salinity and drought in Sesuvium portulacastrum. Plant Cell Rep 28: 975–984. doi: 10.1007/s00299-009-0702-6
![]() |
[83] |
Debez A, Saadaoui D, Ramani B, et al. (2006). Leaf H+-ATPase activity and photosynthetic capacity of Cakile maritima under increasing salinity. Environ Exp Bot 57: 285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.009
![]() |
[84] |
Volkov V, Wang B, Dominy PJ, et al. (2004) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, possesses effective mechanisms to discriminate between potassium and sodium. Plant Cell Environ 27: 1–14. doi: 10.1046/j.0016-8025.2003.01116.x
![]() |
[85] |
Wang B, Davenport RJ, Volkov V, et al. (2006) Low unidirectional sodium influx into root cells restricts net sodium accumulation in Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana. J Exp Bot 57: 1161–1170. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj116
![]() |
[86] |
Wong CE, Li Y, Whitty BR, et al. (2005) Expressed sequence tags from the Yukon ecotype of Thellungiella reveal that gene expression in response to cold, drought and salinity shows little overlap. Plant Mol Biol 58: 561–574. doi: 10.1007/s11103-005-6163-6
![]() |
[87] |
Cuin TA, Betts SA, Chalmandrier R, et al. (2008). A root’s ability to retain K+ correlates with salt tolerance in wheat. J Exp Bot 59: 2697–2706. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ern128
![]() |
[88] |
Wang ZI, Li PH, Fredricksen M, et al. (2004) Expressed sequence tags from Thellungiella halophila, a new model to study plant salt-tolerance. Plant Sci 166: 609–616. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.10.030
![]() |
[89] |
Vera-Estrella R, Barkla BJ, Garcia-Ramirez L, et al. (2005) Salt stress in Thellungiella halophila activates Na+ transport mechanisms required for salinity tolerance. Plant Physiol 139: 1507–1517. doi: 10.1104/pp.105.067850
![]() |
[90] |
Volkov V, Amtmann A (2006) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, has specific root ion-channel features supporting K+ /Na+ homeostasis under salinity stress. Plant J 48: 342–353. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02876.x
![]() |
[91] | Volkov V, Wang B, Dominy PJ, et al. (2003) Thellungiella halophila, a salt-tolerant relative of Arabidopsis thaliana, possesses effective mechanisms to discriminate between potassium and sodium. Plant Cell Environ 27: 1–14. |
[92] | Kosová K, Prášil TI, Vítámvás P (2013) Protein contribution to plant salinity response and tolerance acquisition. Int J Mol Sci< 14: 6757–6789. |
[93] |
Maathuis FJM (2014) Sodium in plants: perception, signaling, and regulation of sodium fluxes. J Exp Bot 65: 849–858. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert326
![]() |
[94] | Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Cela J, et al. (2011) Early effects of salt stress on the physiological and oxidative status of Cakile maritima (halophyte) and Arabidopsis thaliana (glycophyte). Physiol Plant 142: 128–43. |
[95] |
Horie T, Hauser F, Schroeder JI (2009) HKT transporter-mediated salinity resistance mechanisms in Arabidopsis and monocot crop plants. Trends Plant Sci 14: 660–668. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.08.009
![]() |
[96] |
Rodríguez-Rosales MP, Gálvez FJ, Huertas R et al. (2009). Plant NHX cation/proton antiporters. Plant Signal Behav 4: 265–276. doi: 10.4161/psb.4.4.7919
![]() |
[97] |
Han M, Wu W, Wu WH, et al. (2016) Potassium Transporter KUP7 Is Involved in K(+) Acquisition and Translocation in Arabidopsis Root under K(+)-Limited Conditions. Mol Plant 9: 437–446. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2016.01.012
![]() |
[98] | Trono D, Laus MN, Soccio M, et al. (2015) Modulation of potassium channel activity in the balance of ROS and ATP production by durum wheat mitochondria-an amazing defense tool against hyperosmotic stress. Front Plant Sci 6: 1072. |
[99] |
Sun J, Wang MJ, Ding MQ et al. (2010) H2O2 and cytosolic Ca2+ signals triggered by the PM H+-coupled transport system mediate K+/Na+ homeostasis in NaCl-stressed Populus euphratica cells. Plant Cell Environ 33: 943–958. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02118.x
![]() |
[100] |
Jung JY, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2009) Ethylene mediates response and tolerance to potassium deprivation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 21: 607–621. doi: 10.1105/tpc.108.063099
![]() |
[101] |
Shin R, Schachtman DP (2004) Hydrogen peroxide mediates plant root cell response to nutrient deprivation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 8827–8832. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401707101
![]() |
[102] |
Garcia-Mata C, Wang J ,Gajdanowicz P, et al. (2010) A Minimal Cysteine Motif Required to Activate the SKOR K Channel of Arabidopsis by the Reactive Oxygen Species H2O2. J Biol Chem 285: 29286–29294. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.141176
![]() |
[103] | Ho CH, YF tsay (2010) Nitrate, ammonium, and potassium sensing and signaling. Curr Opin< Plant Biol 13: 604–610. |
[104] |
Kim MJ, Ciani S, Schachtman DP (2010) A peroxidase contributes to ROS production during Arabidopsis root response to potassium deficiency. Mol Plant 3: 420–427. doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp121
![]() |
[105] |
Alscher RG, Erturk N, Heath LS (2002) Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants. J Exp Bot 53: 1331–1341. doi: 10.1093/jexbot/53.372.1331
![]() |
[106] |
Tsugane K, Kobayashi K, Niwa Y, et al. (1999) A recessive Arabidopsis mutant that grows photoautotrophically under salt stress shows enhanced active oxygen detoxification. Plant Cell 11: 1195–1206. doi: 10.1105/tpc.11.7.1195
![]() |
[107] |
M’rah S, Ouerghi Z, Berthomieu C, et al. (2006) Effects of NaCl on the growth, ion accumulation and photosynthetic parameters of Thellungiella halophila. J Plant Physiol 163: 1022–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2005.07.015
![]() |
[108] |
Ellouzi H, Ben Hamed K, Asensi-Fabado MA, et al. (2013) Drought and cadmium may be as effective as salinity in conferring subsequent salt stress tolerance in Cakile maritima. Planta 237: 1311–1323. doi: 10.1007/s00425-013-1847-7
![]() |
[109] |
Ma L, Zhang H, Sun L, et al. (2012) NADPH oxidase AtrbohD and AtrbohF function in ROS-dependent regulation of Na+/K+homeostasis in Arabidopsis under salt stress. J Exp Bot 63: 305–317. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err280
![]() |
[110] |
Bose J, Rodrigomoreno A, Shabala S (2014) ROS homeostasis in halophytes in thecontext of salinity stress tolerance. J Exp Bot 65: 1241–1257. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert430
![]() |
[111] |
Corpas FJ, Barroso JB (2015) Nitric oxide from a "green" perspective. Nitric Oxide 45: 15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.niox.2015.01.007
![]() |
[112] |
Tanou G, Molassiotis A, Diamantidis G (2009) Hydrogen peroxide- and nitric oxide-induced systemic antioxidant prime-like activity under NaCl-stress and stress-free conditions in citrus plants. J Plant Physiol 166: 1904-1913. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.06.012
![]() |
[113] | Manai J, Kalai T, Gouia H, et al. (2014) Exogenous nitric oxide (NO) ameliorates salinity-induced oxidative stress in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 14: 433–446. |
[114] |
Crawford NM (2006) Mechanisms for nitric oxide synthesis in plants. J Exp Bot 57: 471–478. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj050
![]() |
[115] | Gupta B, Huang B (2014) Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Int J Genomics 2014: 727–740. |
[116] |
Xia J, Kong D, Xue S, et al. (2014) Nitric oxide negatively regulates AKT1-mediated potassium uptake through modulating vitamin B6 homeostasis in Arabidopsis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 16196–16201. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1417473111
![]() |
[117] | Zhao MG, Tian QY, Zhang WH (2007) Nitric oxide synthase-dependent nitric oxide production is associated with salt tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol< 144: 206–217. |
[118] |
Chen J, Xiong DY, Wang WH, et al. (2013) Nitric oxide mediates root K+/Na+ balance in a mangrove plant, Kandelia obovata, by enhancing the expression of AKT1-type K+ channel and Na+/H+ antiporter under high salinity. PLoS One 8: 71543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071543
![]() |
[119] |
Kliebenstein DJ, Monde RA, Last RL (1998) Superoxide dismutase in Arabidopsis: an eclectic enzyme family with disparate regulation and protein localization. Plant Physiol. 118: 637–650. doi: 10.1104/pp.118.2.637
![]() |
1. | Poornima Vijayan P, Aisha Tanvir, Miroslav Mrlik, Michal Urbanek, Mariam Al-Maadeed, TiO2 /Halloysite hybrid filler reinforced epoxy nanocomposites, 2018, 39, 02728397, E2426, 10.1002/pc.24731 | |
2. | Mohd Shahneel Saharudin, Jiacheng Wei, Islam Shyha, Fawad Inam, Environmental Stress Cracking Resistance of Halloysite Nanoclay-Polyester Nanocomposites, 2017, 05, 2331-4222, 389, 10.4236/wjet.2017.53033 |
Sr. | Properties | As-cast | Velvet cloth | 1200P | 320P | 60P |
1 | Densification (%) | 99.4 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.32 | 99.3 ± 0.35 | 99.3 ± 0.38 | 99.1 ± 0.4 |
99.3 ± 0.4 | 99.4 ± 0.30 | 99.5 ± 0.33 | 99.2 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.33 | ||
99.4 ± 0.25 | 99.4 ± 0.42 | 99.3 ± 0.45 | 99.3 ± 0.36 | 99.1 ± 0.28 | ||
2 | Microhardness (HV) | 359 ± 15.2 | 372.1 ± 10.2 | 395.4 ± 11.8 | 335 ± 18.6 | 298 ± 21.7 |
330.3 ± 21.6 | 362.9 ± 18.3 | 383.8 ± 9.0 | 328.5 ± 18.1 | 312.2 ± 31.4 | ||
364.9 ± 21.2 | 378 ± 19.2 | 401.3 ± 18.8 | 340.9 ± 18.6 | 303.9 ± 21.7 | ||
3 | Young’s modulus (MPa) | 828.5 ± 29.5 | 839.8 ± 24.5 | 864.1 ± 28.5 | 792 ± 35.9 | 784.9 ± 42.6 |
747.1 ± 22.1 | 780.3 ± 17.6 | 799.6 ± 23.6 | 741.1 ± 28.9 | 710.2 ± 33.8 | ||
852.5 ± 18.9 | 863.8 ± 16.8 | 888 ± 19.5 | 816 ± 23.4 | 808.9 ± 28.6 | ||
4 | UTS (MPa) | 64.1 ± 1.5 | 66.5 ± 2.1 | 72.6 ± 1.6 | 59.6 ± 1.8 | 55.2 ± 2.5 |
52.8 ± 1.1 | 56.6 ± 1.2 | 62.9 ± 1.3 | 52.3 ± 2.1 | 50.3 ± 3.6 | ||
68 ± 1.2 | 70.3 ± 1.7 | 76.5 ± 1.9 | 63.5 ± 2.9 | 59.1 ± 3.1 | ||
5 | Tensile strain (%) | 7.9 ± 1.1 | 7.1 ± 0.9 | 7.2 ± 1.6 | 8.8 ± 1.2 | 9 ± 2.1 |
10 ± 0.9 | 10.1 ± 0.8 | 11.1 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 1.1 | 14.7 ± 1.8 | ||
7.7 ± 0.8 | 6.9 ± 0.9 | 7 ± 0.7 | 8.6 ± 1.3 | 8.8 ± 1.8 | ||
6 | Flex. Modulus (MPa) | 799 ± 38.3 | 887.1 ± 25.3 | 897.3 ± 30.5 | 862.9 ± 33.5 | 652.9 ± 42.6 |
734.4 ± 32.7 | 833.8 ± 22.5 | 860.1 ± 33.4 | 816.4 ± 34.4 | 624.7 ± 43.4 | ||
832 ± 31.4 | 920.1 ± 26.2 | 930.3 ± 31.4 | 895.8 ± 37.5 | 685.9 ± 32.6 | ||
7 | Flex. Strength (MPa) | 78.7 ± 6.9 | 81.5 ± 3.8 | 89.9 ± 2.9 | 75.6 ± 4.6 | 73.6 ± 8.3 |
66.8 ± 5.3 | 73.9 ± 4.5 | 85.1 ± 4.4 | 71.9 ± 6.6 | 62.9 ± 8.7 | ||
81.7 ± 3.5 | 84.5 ± 3.1 | 92.9 ± 2.6 | 80.1 ± 8.5 | 79.7 ± 10.7 | ||
8 | Flex. Strain (%) | 5.8 ± 0.06 | 5.8 ± 0.29 | 5.9 ± 0.31 | 6.2 ± 0.49 | 6.9 ± 0.4 |
6.7 ± 0.08 | 6.6 ± 0.12 | 6.3 ± 0.13 | 6.9 ± 0.21 | 7.7 ± 0.29 | ||
5.5 ± 0.05 | 5.5 ± 0.08 | 5.6 ± 0.09 | 5.9 ± 0.12 | 6.6 ± 0.19 | ||
9 | K1C (MPa·m1/2) | 1.12 ± 0.1 | 1.14 ± 0.15 | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.13 ± 0.1 | 1.12 ± 0.1 |
0.88 ± 0.08 | 0.78 ± 0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.11 | 0.84 ± 0.13 | 0.83 ± 0.17 | ||
1.14 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 1.16 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.13 | ||
10 | G1C (J/m2) | 341.5 ± 51.5 | 546.6 ± 42.3 | 620.5 ± 47.9 | 684.7 ± 62.8 | 759.6 ± 69.8 |
311.2 ± 31.6 | 521.3 ± 26.3 | 589.2 ± 22.3 | 637.1 ± 41.5 | 744.3 ± 48.6 | ||
365.4 ± 29.3 | 570.6 ± 28.6 | 644.5 ± 22.6 | 708.6 ± 38.9 | 783.6 ± 43.4 | ||
11 | Charpy (kJ/m2) | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 1.45 ± 0.1 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 1.24 ± 0.12 | 1.21 ± 0.2 |
1.22 ± 0.11 | 1.42 ± 0.09 | 1.33 ± 0.09 | 1.15 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.17 | ||
1.35 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.08 | 1.61 ± 0.1 | 1.28 ± 0.13 | 1.25 ± 0.19 |
Sr. | Properties | As-cast | Velvet cloth | 1200P | 320P | 60P |
1 | Densification (%) | 99.4 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.32 | 99.3 ± 0.35 | 99.3 ± 0.38 | 99.1 ± 0.4 |
99.3 ± 0.4 | 99.4 ± 0.30 | 99.5 ± 0.33 | 99.2 ± 0.31 | 99.4 ± 0.33 | ||
99.4 ± 0.25 | 99.4 ± 0.42 | 99.3 ± 0.45 | 99.3 ± 0.36 | 99.1 ± 0.28 | ||
2 | Microhardness (HV) | 359 ± 15.2 | 372.1 ± 10.2 | 395.4 ± 11.8 | 335 ± 18.6 | 298 ± 21.7 |
330.3 ± 21.6 | 362.9 ± 18.3 | 383.8 ± 9.0 | 328.5 ± 18.1 | 312.2 ± 31.4 | ||
364.9 ± 21.2 | 378 ± 19.2 | 401.3 ± 18.8 | 340.9 ± 18.6 | 303.9 ± 21.7 | ||
3 | Young’s modulus (MPa) | 828.5 ± 29.5 | 839.8 ± 24.5 | 864.1 ± 28.5 | 792 ± 35.9 | 784.9 ± 42.6 |
747.1 ± 22.1 | 780.3 ± 17.6 | 799.6 ± 23.6 | 741.1 ± 28.9 | 710.2 ± 33.8 | ||
852.5 ± 18.9 | 863.8 ± 16.8 | 888 ± 19.5 | 816 ± 23.4 | 808.9 ± 28.6 | ||
4 | UTS (MPa) | 64.1 ± 1.5 | 66.5 ± 2.1 | 72.6 ± 1.6 | 59.6 ± 1.8 | 55.2 ± 2.5 |
52.8 ± 1.1 | 56.6 ± 1.2 | 62.9 ± 1.3 | 52.3 ± 2.1 | 50.3 ± 3.6 | ||
68 ± 1.2 | 70.3 ± 1.7 | 76.5 ± 1.9 | 63.5 ± 2.9 | 59.1 ± 3.1 | ||
5 | Tensile strain (%) | 7.9 ± 1.1 | 7.1 ± 0.9 | 7.2 ± 1.6 | 8.8 ± 1.2 | 9 ± 2.1 |
10 ± 0.9 | 10.1 ± 0.8 | 11.1 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 1.1 | 14.7 ± 1.8 | ||
7.7 ± 0.8 | 6.9 ± 0.9 | 7 ± 0.7 | 8.6 ± 1.3 | 8.8 ± 1.8 | ||
6 | Flex. Modulus (MPa) | 799 ± 38.3 | 887.1 ± 25.3 | 897.3 ± 30.5 | 862.9 ± 33.5 | 652.9 ± 42.6 |
734.4 ± 32.7 | 833.8 ± 22.5 | 860.1 ± 33.4 | 816.4 ± 34.4 | 624.7 ± 43.4 | ||
832 ± 31.4 | 920.1 ± 26.2 | 930.3 ± 31.4 | 895.8 ± 37.5 | 685.9 ± 32.6 | ||
7 | Flex. Strength (MPa) | 78.7 ± 6.9 | 81.5 ± 3.8 | 89.9 ± 2.9 | 75.6 ± 4.6 | 73.6 ± 8.3 |
66.8 ± 5.3 | 73.9 ± 4.5 | 85.1 ± 4.4 | 71.9 ± 6.6 | 62.9 ± 8.7 | ||
81.7 ± 3.5 | 84.5 ± 3.1 | 92.9 ± 2.6 | 80.1 ± 8.5 | 79.7 ± 10.7 | ||
8 | Flex. Strain (%) | 5.8 ± 0.06 | 5.8 ± 0.29 | 5.9 ± 0.31 | 6.2 ± 0.49 | 6.9 ± 0.4 |
6.7 ± 0.08 | 6.6 ± 0.12 | 6.3 ± 0.13 | 6.9 ± 0.21 | 7.7 ± 0.29 | ||
5.5 ± 0.05 | 5.5 ± 0.08 | 5.6 ± 0.09 | 5.9 ± 0.12 | 6.6 ± 0.19 | ||
9 | K1C (MPa·m1/2) | 1.12 ± 0.1 | 1.14 ± 0.15 | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.13 ± 0.1 | 1.12 ± 0.1 |
0.88 ± 0.08 | 0.78 ± 0.09 | 0.92 ± 0.11 | 0.84 ± 0.13 | 0.83 ± 0.17 | ||
1.14 ± 0.07 | 1.16 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 1.16 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.13 | ||
10 | G1C (J/m2) | 341.5 ± 51.5 | 546.6 ± 42.3 | 620.5 ± 47.9 | 684.7 ± 62.8 | 759.6 ± 69.8 |
311.2 ± 31.6 | 521.3 ± 26.3 | 589.2 ± 22.3 | 637.1 ± 41.5 | 744.3 ± 48.6 | ||
365.4 ± 29.3 | 570.6 ± 28.6 | 644.5 ± 22.6 | 708.6 ± 38.9 | 783.6 ± 43.4 | ||
11 | Charpy (kJ/m2) | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 1.45 ± 0.1 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 1.24 ± 0.12 | 1.21 ± 0.2 |
1.22 ± 0.11 | 1.42 ± 0.09 | 1.33 ± 0.09 | 1.15 ± 0.11 | 1.15 ± 0.17 | ||
1.35 ± 0.09 | 1.49 ± 0.08 | 1.61 ± 0.1 | 1.28 ± 0.13 | 1.25 ± 0.19 |