ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Mass balance of metals during the phytoremediation process using Noccaea caerulescens: a pot study.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sorghum and Hemp Responses to Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganism Inoculation in Metal-Contaminated Dredged Sediment: A System-Level Assessment Under Environmentally Relevant Outdoor Pot Conditions.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Effects of magnetically treated Sedum alfredii seeds on the dissolved organic matter characteristics of Cd-contaminated soil during phytoextraction.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are two widely used methods to estimate the time taken for phytoremediation for the removal of the target pollutants, i.e., using the data of metal uptake by the harvested parts of the selected plant or using the decrement in average element content between the beginning and end of the remediation. The latter not only depends on sampling points but is also determined by sampling time because even if the soil is initially perfectly homogenized, plant growth itself heterogenizes the soil as time goes by. In this study, phytoremediation was tested on one homogenized soil obtained from various soil samples taken within an e-waste dismantling and recycling site, and the remediation time for different points of bulk and rhizosphere soil was estimated using the two methods. Phytoremediation efficiency, as assessed by the change in soil metal concentrations over 100 days, widely varied depending on which of the six soil compartments of the pot was sampled, and the standard deviations of Cd, Zn, Pb, and Cu increased as the experiment proceeded, indicating the inaccuracy of this method. When applied to rhizosphere soil, this method led to a large overestimation of phytoremediation efficiency for Cd and Zn, which was 81- and 77-fold that was obtained by measuring the actual amount of metals taken up by Noccaea caerulescens. The significant difference between the two methods indicated that the blended soil became heterogeneous during the phytoremediation process because the species extracted metals from different soil parts, manifested by the variation in the metal content. The gap between these two estimation methods decreased when the soil was mixed thoroughly at the end of the experiment. This work shows that calculating the metal decontamination efficiency based on the measurement of the actual amount of metal taken by the plant is more robust than estimating it based on the evolution of soil metal concentration over time. In addition, our study reveals that using N. caerulescens may not be appropriate in Pb- or Cu-polluted soil, since this species mobilized these metals but did not extract them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33063210What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.