Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22272168›Full record

ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2012

A critical view of current state of phytotechnologies to remediate soils: still a promising tool?

Héctor M Conesa, Michael W H Evangelou, Brett H Robinson, Rainer Schulin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Keep and promote biodiversity at polluted sites under phytomanagement.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mining in New Caledonia: environmental stakes and restoration opportunities.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2015
    Article
  13. Phytoextraction from mine spoils: insights from New Caledonia.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2015
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Héctor M ConesaDepartamento de Ciencia y Tecnología Agraria, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 48-30203 Cartagena, Spain. hector.conesa@upct.es
Michael W H Evangelou
Brett H Robinson
Rainer Schulin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phytotechnologies are often shown as an emerging tool to remediate contaminated soils. Research in this field has resulted in many important findings relating to plant and soil sciences. However, there have been scant private and public investments and little commercial success with this technology. Here, we investigate the barriers to the adoption of phytotechnologies and determine whether it is still a fertile area for future research. The terminology used in phytotechnologies includes a confusing mish-mash of terms relating to concepts and processes increasing the difficulty of developing a unique commercial image. We argue that the commercial success of phytotechnologies depends on the generation of valuable biomass on contaminated land, rather than a pure remediation technique that may not compare favourably with the costs of inaction or alternative technologies. Valuable biomass includes timber, bioenergy, feedstock for pyrolosis, biofortified products, or ecologically important species.

Indexed as

Biodegradation, EnvironmentalEnvironmental PollutionPlantsSoilSoil PollutantsTechnology TransferSoilSoil Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID22272168
PMCPMC3259699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.