Response of duckweed to lead exposure: phytomining, bioindicators and bioremediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The ability of aquatic macrophytes to bioaccumulate toxic metals relative to the concentrations of these metals in wastewater has led to their use as phytoremediators. Lead (Pb) is among the most serious environmental contaminants. This study assesses the gibbous duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) as a bioaccumulator and bioindicator of Pb pollution. The plant recovery from a 12-d exposure period in terms of re-releases of Pb from its tissues, and recovery of pigmentation was monitored. Duckweed was exposed to Pb-contaminated water by adding PbCO 3 at concentrations from 10 to 100 mg/L. At 2-d intervals, bioaccumulation, contaminant removal efficiency, pigment content, and bleaching were assessed. The efficiency of Pb removal after 12 d reached nearly 50% at the lowest Pb treatment (10 mg/L), but decreased at higher levels of Pb up to 100 mg/L. The highest bioconcentration factors (BCF) were achieved at low Pb treatment of 10 mg/L, which increased from nearly 200 mg/L after 2 d, to 943 mg/L after 12 d of exposure. Recovery from bleaching was around 50% for all photosynthetic pigments in plants exposed to 10–40 mg/L concentrations of Pb. The response of duckweed to Pb treatment and recovery from stress suggest its possible use as biosensor or biomonitor of Pb pollution, considering that active uptake, rather than low concentration gradient, is driving the absorption of Pb from the water medium.
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) | 0.000 | 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".