Root cadmium desorption methods and their evaluation with compartmental modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Desorption of plant roots is often employed in studies of plant physiology and nutrition; however, there have been few studies on the validity of desorption procedures. • Branched and in-line kinetic models with five compartments - cadmium (Cd)-chelate, Cd(2+), root apoplast, root symplast and vacuole - were developed to evaluate the efficacy of diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) and CaCl(2) methods for the desorption of Cd from roots of durum wheat seedlings. Solution Cd(2+) could exchange with apoplast and symplast Cd simultaneously in the branched model and sequentially in the in-line model. • A 10-min desorption with 1 × 10(-6 )M DTPA at room temperature or cold (0°C) 5 × 10(-3) M CaCl(2) was required to achieve 99% recovery of apoplast-bound (109)Cd when experimental results were interpreted with the branched model. However, when the same data sets were analysed with the in-line model, only partial desorption was achieved. Arguments are presented that suggest that the branched model is correct. • It is suggested that compartmental modeling is a suitable tool for the study of plant root uptake and desorption kinetics, and that there are advantages over more commonly used calculation procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".