Cited by 622Heavy metals in environmentHeavy Metals in PlantsHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity

Lead phytoextraction: species variation in lead uptake and translocation

Open access
HUANG, J. W., CUNNINGHAM, S. D.·1996·New Phytologist

Abstract

summary: Lead transport has been characterized in corn (Zea mays L. cv. Fiesta) and ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), and the Pb phytoextraction efficiency of these species has been compared with that of Tritiaim aestivum, Thlaspi rotundifolium, Thlaspi caerulescens and Brassica juncea, using both nutrient solutions and Pb‐contaminated soils. Our results demonstrated that plant species differ significantly in Pb uptake and translocation. In short term (60 min) experiments, Pb uptake by ragweed roots was threefold higher than that by corn roots. After 2 wk of Pb (100/yM) exposure in hydroponics, root‐Pb concentration was 24000 mg kg−1 for ragweed and 4900 mg kg−1 for corn. In contrast to root‐Pb concentration, shoot‐Pb concentration was significantly higher in corn (560 mg kg−1) than in ragweed (30 mg kg‐1). At an external Pb concentration of 20/IM, corn concentrated Pb in shoots by 90‐fold, and ragweed concentrated Pb in shoots by 20‐fold over the solution Pb concentration. Of the 11 species/cultivars tested using both nutrient solutions and Pb‐contaminated soils, corn accumulated the highest shoot‐Pb concentration. Using this corn cultivar, we investigated the role of synthetic chelates in Pb phytoextraction. Addition of HEDTA (2.0 g kg−1 soil) to a Pb‐contaminated soil (total soil Pb 2500 mg kg−1) resulted in a surge of Pb accumulation in corn. The shoot Pb‐concentration was increased from 40 mg kg−1 for the control (‐HEDTA) to 10600 mg kg−1 for the HEDTA‐treated soil. To our knowledge, this is the highest shoot Pb concentration reported in the literature for plants grown on Pb‐contaminated soils. Our results suggest that in combination with sou amendment, some agronomic crops, such as corn, might be used for the clean‐up of Pb‐contaminated soil.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01147.x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HUANG, J. W., & CUNNINGHAM, S. D.
Affiliations
DuPont (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
HUANG, J. W.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-09
Volume
134
Issue
1
Pages
75-84
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2011685469
Cited by
622
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 25
FWCI
13.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
New Phytologist (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Agricultural Research Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Heavy Metals in Plants
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Keywords
lead phytoextraction, lead uptake, lead translocation, maize, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Thlaspi caerulescens, Brassica juncea, HEDTA, lead-contaminated soil, phytoremediation

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