Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22594441›Full record

ArticleChemistry Central journal2012

Common plants as alternative analytical tools to monitor heavy metals in soil.

Daniela Malizia, Antonella Giuliano, Giancarlo Ortaggi, Andrea Masotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemistry Central journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Circular Economy Approach to Restoring Soil Substrate Ameliorated by Sewage Sludge with Amendments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Heavy Metals Bioindication Potential of the Common WeedsMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Daniela MaliziaChemistry Department, Sapienza University of Rome, P,le A,Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy. andrea.masotti@uniroma1.it.
Antonella Giuliano
Giancarlo Ortaggi
Andrea Masotti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHerbaceous plants are common vegetal species generally exposed, for a limited period of time, to bioavailable environmental pollutants. Heavy metals contamination is the most common form of environmental pollution. Herbaceous plants have never been used as natural bioindicators of environmental pollution, in particular to monitor the amount of heavy metals in soil. In this study, we aimed at assessing the usefulness of using three herbaceous plants (Plantago major L., Taraxacum officinale L. and Urtica dioica L.) and one leguminous (Trifolium pratense L.) as alternative indicators to evaluate soil pollution by heavy metals.

resultsWe employed Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) to assess the concentration of selected heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mn, Pb, Cr and Pd) in soil and plants and we employed statistical analyses to describe the linear correlation between the accumulation of some heavy metals and selected vegetal species. We found that the leaves of Taraxacum officinale L. and Trifolium pratense L. can accumulate Cu in a linearly dependent manner with Urtica dioica L. representing the vegetal species accumulating the highest fraction of Pb.

conclusionsIn this study we demonstrated that common plants can be used as an alternative analytical tool for monitoring selected heavy metals in soil.

Identifiers

PMID22594441
PMCPMC3395142

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.