ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2025
Evaluating the potential of phytoextraction on waste-to-energy bottom ash-a review.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Waste-to-energy produces district heating and electricity and generates bottom ash. This ash contains valuable chemically bound metals and current methods for extracting them face significant challenges, prompting the need for alternative methods such as phytoextraction. This review evaluates the potential of using phytoextraction on sorted and aged bottom ash to recover metals and enhance the usability of the MIBA residue in new applications. The focus is on the minor elements Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni and Co. A list of suitable terrestrial plants is suggested based on their ability to grow in the Nordic climate and the presence of the metals of interest. A further evaluation using qualitative multicriteria analysis (MCA) based on selected criteria, i.e. biomass, extraction capacity, metal diversity, perennial or annual growth, and accumulation above ground or in roots was performed. More than 100 different plants were reviewed for their suitability for MIBA phytoextraction, with 13 plants identified as the most promising. Among the selected plants, Sesbania drummondii scored the highest, followed by Salix alba and Salix viminalis. All these plants are perennial and can extract multiple metals; Salix exhibits lower to moderate extraction efficiency but compensates for this with high biomass and rapid growth compared to other plants with higher extraction capacity. In conclusion, the study shows the potential use of phytoextraction as a method to treat MIBA. However, further cultivation experiments are necessary to evaluate its efficiency. This review provides valuable information for designing such research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.