Feasibility of Using Phytoextraction to Remediate a Compost-Based Soil Contaminated with Cadmium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse and in-situ field experiments were used to determine the potential for phytoextraction to remediate soil contaminated with Cd from municipal solid waste (MSW) and sewage sludge (SS) compost application at a Peterborough (Canada) site. For the greenhouse experiment, one native (Chenopodium album) and three naturalized (Poa compressa, Brassica juncea, Helianthus annuus) plant species were planted in soil containing no detectable Cd (<1.0 μg·g(-1)), and soil from the site containing low (5.0 ± 0.3 μg·g(-1) Cd), and high (16.5 ± 1.2 μg⋅g(-1) Cd) Cd concentrations. Plant uptake was low (root BAFs ≤0.5) for all species except P. compressa in the low Cd treatment (BAF 1.0). Only B. juncea accumulated Cd in its shoots, though uptake was low (BAF ≤0.3). For the field experiment, B. juncea was planted in-situ in areas of low and high Cd concentrations. Brassica juncea Cd uptake was low (root and shoot BAFs <0.2) in both treatments. Sequential extraction analysis indicated that Cd is retained primarily by low bioavailability soil fractions, and phytoextraction is therefore not feasible at this site. Though low Cd bioavailability has negative implications for Cd phytoextraction from MSW/SS compost-based soils, it may limit receptor exposure to Cd sufficiently to eliminate the potential for risk at this site.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".