The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical Assessment of Chelant-Enhanced Metal Phytoextraction
Abstract
Chelant-enhanced phytoextraction has received a lot of attention in the past decade. In theory, this technique could cleanse metal polluted soils by solubilizing contaminating metals, allowing them to be taken up by plants that would subsequently be removed from the site. We review the processes of metal solubilization, uptake by plants, and leaching during chelant-enhanced phytoextraction. A large excess of chelant is required to solubilize the target metal due to the co-solubilization of Ca and Fe. Chelated metals are taken up via the apoplastic pathway. Disruption of the Casparian Band is required to achieve the high shoot concentrations needed for phytoextraction. Therefore, adding chelants to a soil increases not only the total dissolved metal concentration but also changes the primary route of plant metal-uptake from the symplastic to the apoplastic pathway. Depending on metal, plant species, and chelant concentration, significant increases in metal uptake are likely. Soil solution chelate concentrations of at least several mM are required to induce appreciable shoot concentrations. A simple calculation reveals that at such soil solution concentrations plants will remove only a small fraction of the solubilized metals. Leaching, exacerbated by preferential flow processes, is unavoidable. Chelant-enhanced phytoextraction is therefore limited to areas where the connection with groundwater has been broken, orwhere leaching is unimportant. Chelant-enhanced phytoextraction may nonetheless have a role in enhancing the uptake of essential trace metals. Such a role warrants further investigations into the use of biodegradable chelants such as ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS).
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
Lead phytoextraction: species variation in lead uptake and translocation
HUANG, J. W., & CUNNINGHAM, S. D. (1996) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01147.x · Cited by 622
Cited by
Schwab, F., Zhai, G., Kern, M., Turner, A., Schnoor, J. L., & Wiesner, M. R. (2016) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.3109/17435390.2015.1048326 · Cited by 872
Mani, D., & Kumar, C. (2014) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-013-0299-8 · Cited by 615
Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review
Ali, S., Abbas, Z., Rizwan, M., Zaheer, I., Yavaş, İ., Ünay, A., Abdel-DAIM, M., Bin-Jumah, M., Hasanuzzaman, M., & Kalderis, D. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12051927 · Cited by 466
Beesley, L., Inneh, O. S., Norton, G. J., Moreno-Jimenez, E., Pardo, T., Clemente, R., & Dawson, J. J. C. (2014) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.11.026 · Cited by 452
Trace element behaviour at the root–soil interface: Implications in phytoremediation
Kidd, P., Barceló, J., Bernal, M. P., Navari-Izzo, F., Poschenrieder, C., Shilev, S., Clemente, R., & Monterroso, C. (2009) · Environmental and Experimental Botany · doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.06.013 · Cited by 395
Metadata
- Authors
- Nowack, B., Schulin, R., & Robinson, B. H.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-08-08
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 5225-5232
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2092371482
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.91
- 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
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.