The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal–Contaminated Soils: Natural Hyperaccumulation versus Chemically Enhanced Phytoextraction
Abstract
A pot experiment was conducted to compare two strategies of phytoremediation: natural phytoextraction using the Zn and Cd hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens J. Presl & C. Presl versus chemically enhanced phytoextraction using maize (Zea mays L.) treated with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The study used an industrially contaminated soil and an agricultural soil contaminated with metals from sewage sludge. Three crops of T. caerulescens grown over 391 d removed more than 8 mg kg−1 Cd and 200 mg kg−1 Zn from the industrially contaminated soil, representing 43 and 7% of the two metals in the soil. In contrast, the high concentration of Cu in the agricultural soil severely reduced the growth of T. caerulescens, thus limiting its phytoextraction potential. The EDTA treatment greatly increased the solubility of heavy metals in both soils, but this did not result in a large increase in metal concentrations in the maize shoots. Phytoextraction of Cd and Zn by maize + EDTA was much smaller than that by T. caerulescens from the industrially contaminated soil, and was either smaller (Cd) or similar (Zn) from the agricultural soil. After EDTA treatment, soluble heavy metals in soil pore water occurred mainly as metal–EDTA complexes, which were persistent for several weeks. High concentrations of heavy metals in soil pore water after EDTA treatment could pose an environmental risk in the form of ground water contamination.
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
Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications
Ali, H., Khan, E., & Sajad, M. A. (2013) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075 · Cited by 3,961
Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: how and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting
Rascio, N., & Navari-Izzo, F. (2011) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.08.016 · Cited by 2,012
A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils
Khalid, S., Shahid, M., Niazi, N. K., Murtaza, B., Bibi, I., & Dumat, C. (2017) · Journal of Geochemical Exploration · doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2016.11.021 · Cited by 1,356
Heavy Metal Polluted Soils: Effect on Plants and Bioremediation Methods
Chibuike, G. U., & Obiora, S. C. (2014) · Applied and Environmental Soil Science · doi:10.1155/2014/752708 · Cited by 1,164
Evangelou, M. W. H., Ebel, M., & Schaeffer, A. (2007) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.01.062 · Cited by 632
Metadata
- Authors
- Lombi, E., Zhao, F. J., Dunham, S. J., & McGrath, S. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Quality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1919-1926
- ISSN
- 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2537
- OpenAlex
- W2265451138
- Cited by
- 650
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.86
- 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 Heavy Metal–Contaminated Soils: Natural Hyperaccumulation versus Chemically Enhanced Phytoextraction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/jeq2001.1919
- The paper
- Lombi, E., Zhao, F. J., Dunham, S. J., & McGrath, S. P. (2001). Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal–Contaminated Soils: Natural Hyperaccumulation versus Chemically Enhanced Phytoextraction. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.1919
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.