Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PHYTOREMEDIATION OF INORGANICS: REALISM AND SYNERGIES

Dickinson, Nicholas M., Baker, Alan J.M., Doronila, Augustine, Laidlaw, Scott, Reeves, Roger D.·2009·International Journal of Phytoremediation

Abstract

There are very few practical demonstrations of the phytoextraction of metals and metalloids from soils and sediments beyond small-scale and short-term trials. The two approaches used have been based on using 1) hyperaccumulator species, such as Thlaspi caerulescens (Pb, Zn, Cd, Ni), Alyssum spp. (Ni, Co), and Pteris vittata (As) or 2) fast-growing plants, such as Salix and Populus spp. that accumulate above-average concentrations of only a smaller number of the more mobile trace elements (Cd, Zn, B). Until we have advanced much more along the pathway of genetic isolation and transfer of hyperaccumulator traits into productive plants, there is a high risk in marketing either approach as a technology or stand-alone solution to clean up contaminated land. There are particular uncertainties over the longer-term effectiveness of phytoextraction and associated environmental issues. Marginally contaminated agricultural soils provide the most likely land use where phytoextraction can be used as a polishing technology. An alternative and more useful practical approach in many situations currently would be to give more attention to crops selected for phytoexclusion: selecting crops that do not translocate high concentrations of metals to edible parts. Soils of brownfield, urban, and industrial areas provide a large-scale opportunity to use phytoremediation, but the focus here should be on the more realistic possibilities of risk-managed phytostabilization and monitored natural attenuation. We argue that the wider practical applications of phytoremediation are too often overlooked. There is huge scope for cross-cutting other environmental agenda, with synergies that involve the recovery and provision of services from degraded landscapes and contaminated soils. An additional focus on biomass energy, improved biodiversity, watershed management, soil protection, carbon sequestration, and improved soil health is required for the justification and advancement of phytotechnologies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15226510802378368

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Dickinson, N. M., Baker, A. J. M., Doronila, A., Laidlaw, S., & Reeves, R. D.
Venue
International Journal of Phytoremediation
Published
2009-02
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
97-114
ISSN
  • 1522-6514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7879
OpenAlex
W2080937197
Cited by
278
References
11
FWCI
12.50
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: PHYTOREMEDIATION OF INORGANICS: REALISM AND SYNERGIES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15226510802378368
The paper
Dickinson, N. M., Baker, A. J. M., Doronila, A., Laidlaw, S., & Reeves, R. D. (2009). PHYTOREMEDIATION OF INORGANICS: REALISM AND SYNERGIES. International Journal of Phytoremediation. https://doi.org/10.1080/15226510802378368

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.