The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Status, progress and challenges of phytoremediation - An African scenario
Abstract
Environmental pollution occasioned by artisanal activities and technical failures at exploration sites has affected mostly oil producing and other mineral resources mining regions in developed and developing nations. As conventional techniques of remediation seem to be progressively unreliable and inefficient, contaminated land management experts have adopted a plant-based technology described as 'phytoremediation' for effective detoxification and removal of contaminants in substrate environmental media (soil and sediment). This technique, has gained public acceptance because of its aesthetic, eco-friendly, solar energy driven and low cost attributes. With complexity of environmental pollution in Africa, identification of appropriate remediation approach that deliver net environmental benefit and economic profit to the society is vital, while also focusing on the exploitation of plants genetic tools for more clarity on phyto tolerance, uptake and translocation of pollutants. In this article, we reviewed the status, progress and challenges of phytoremediation in selected African countries (South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, Egypt and Ghana), the ecological impact of the pollutants, phytoremediation strategies and the possible plants of choice. Besides highlighting the support roles played by soil fauna and flora, the fate of harvested biomass/dieback and its future prospects are also discussed. We further explored the factors challenging phytoremediation progress in Africa, amidst its promising potentials and applicability for sustainable ecosystem management paradigm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal contaminated soils
Wong, M. H. (2003) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/s0045-6535(02)00232-1 · Cited by 1,059
Cited by
Bala, S., Garg, D., Thirumalesh, B. V., Sharma, M., Sridhar, K., Inbaraj, B. S., & Tripathi, M. (2022) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics10080484 · Cited by 763
Erdoğan, S., Çakar, N. D., Ulucak, R., Danish, & Kassouri, Y. (2021) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2137 · Cited by 293
Techno-economic analysis of phytoremediation: A strategic rethinking
Wang, J., & Aghajani Delavar, M. (2023) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165949 · Cited by 143
Rhizoremediation – A promising tool for the removal of soil contaminants: A review
Saravanan, A., Jeevanantham, S., Narayanan, V. A., Kumar, P. S., Yaashikaa, P. R., & Muthu, C. M. M. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2019.103543 · Cited by 109
Aghili, S., & Golzary, A. (2023) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2023.103241 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Odoh, C. K., Zabbey, N., Sam, K., & Eze, C. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 237
- Pages
- 365-378
- ISSN
- 0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2915369304
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Status, progress and challenges of phytoremediation - An African scenario. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.090
- The paper
- Odoh, C. K., Zabbey, N., Sam, K., & Eze, C. N. (2019). Status, progress and challenges of phytoremediation - An African scenario. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.090
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.