Cadmium accumulation by durum wheat roots in ligand-buffered hydroponic culture: uptake of Cdligand complexes or enhanced diffusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to test the free ion model of Cd phytoavailability in solutions where the dissolved free ion was buffered by SO 4 or EDTA and to examine if Cd 2+ diffusion to roots might be limiting to its accumulation in roots. At similar Cd 2+ activities, solutions that contained EDTA or a higher nominal SO 4 concentration (with SO 4 supplied as K 2 SO 4 , and more total Cd) resulted in greater accumulation of Cd by roots than predicted by the Cd 2+ activity. These solutions were predicted using MINEQL + (chemical speciation software) to contain greater concentrations of Cd complexes (CdEDTA 2 or CdSO 0 4 (aq) ) in solution; when SO 4 was supplied by MgSO 4 , the increase in Mg 2+ suppressed enhanced accumulation of Cd. Estimates of diffusion of Cd to the roots through the boundary layer and flux of Cd across the root surface, for this study, were similar in magnitude across the range of solution Cd concentrations studied, particularly when Cd uptake was assumed to occur at the root tips only. We conclude that CdEDTA 2 and CdSO 0 4 (aq) could have alleviated this diffusion limitation by buffering Cd 2+ at the root surface and (or) been taken up directly as a complex.Key words: bioavailability, cadmium, EDTA, SO 4 , durum wheat, speciation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".