Cited by 25Heavy metals in environmentMercury impact and mitigation studiesEnvironmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies

Phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated soil using three wild plant species and its effect on maize growth

Muddarisna, N., Krisnayanti, B.D., Utami, S.R., Handayanto, E.·2013·Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences

Abstract

In West Lombok- Indonesia, gold amalgamation tailings are commonly discharged to agricultural lands resulting in reduced maize yield in the area. Phytoremediation can represent a low-cost alternative to traditional techniques such as soil removal. This study was aimed to elucidate the potential of Lindernia crustacea (L.) F., Paspalum conjugatum L., and Cyperus kyllingia Endl., for phytoremediation of mercury-contaminated soils in conjunction with the ammonium thiosulphate to phytoextract mercury and its effect on maize growth. Each of the plant seedlings was planted in a plastic pot containing 15kg of mercury-contaminated soil for 9 weeks. Treatments tested were three plant species), and two rates of ammonium thiosulphate application, i.e. 0 and 8g / kg of soil. Ammonium thiosulphate was applied one week before harvesting the plants. At harvest (9 weeks) shoots and roots were analyzed for mercury concentration. The remaining soils in the pots were used to grow maize for 8 weeks. The results showed that on average, the addition of ammonium thiosulphate increased the accumulation of mercury in plant shoots and roots by 82% and 47%, respectively, compared to the media without addition of ammonium thiosulphate. In comparison to the control treatment, the average increase of dry weight of maize (shoot+root) grown on media previously remediated with three plant species with addition of ammonium thiosulphate was 40%, while that grown on media previously remediated with three plant species without addition of ammonium thiosulphate was 62%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12691/aees-1-3-1

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Muddarisna, N., Krisnayanti, B. D., Utami, S. R., & Handayanto, E.
Venue
Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Published
2013-05-20
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
27-32
ISSN
2328-3912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149001079
Cited by
24
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied ecology and environmental sciences/Applied ecology and environmental science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Mercury impact and mitigation studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
Keywords
phytoremediation, mercury-contaminated soil, Paspalum conjugatum, Cyperus kyllingia, ammonium thiosulphate, maize growth, heavy metal accumulation in plants, West Lombok

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