MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810170319 · doi:10.1139/er-2018-0023

Efficiency of microbially assisted phytoremediation of heavy-metal contaminated soils

2018· article· en· W2810170319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoremediationRhizosphereEnvironmental scienceBioremediationPhytoextraction processSoil waterBiomass (ecology)Environmental remediationMicroorganismSoil contaminationAgronomyContaminationBiologyHyperaccumulatorEcologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytoremediation is the bioremediation of contaminated soils and waters by using plants and their associated microorganisms. Phytoremediation of heavy metal (HM)-contaminated soils is based on immobilization of metals in rhizosphere soil and roots (phytostabilization) and on mobilization, uptake, and transfer of metals into the aboveground plant organs (phytoextraction). In this review, we aimed to (i) discuss the fundamentals, potential, and limitations of plant-associated microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) to increase the efficiency of phytostabilization and phytoextraction of HM-contaminated soils and (ii) describe promising developments and future challenges to expanding their use. Controlled inoculations of plants with growth-promoting microorganisms can significantly increase their root growth, biomass production, and stress tolerance in HM-contaminated soils. A serious weakness of phytoremediation in general is the usually high and difficult to measure expenditure of time for successful completion. The bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and the translocation factors (TFs) are among the most important measures of the efficiency of phytoremediation. However, an overview of BCFs and TFs for a variety of combinations of plants with defined associated microorganisms is lacking. Moreover, the joint evaluation of model systems would allow an improved cost–benefit calculation of microbial inoculations in phytoremediation systems. For this purpose, the use of in vitro model systems is considered to be preferable to field experiments due to the savings in time and costs and the control of environmental conditions. However, the transferability of in vitro data to field conditions is limited. Currently, attention is focused on the use of artificial neural networks, mainly to avoid formulating any complex relationships between soil inputs (e.g., soil amendments, pH, carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen contents, electrical conductivity, and dissolved organic carbon) and design outputs (e.g., BCFs and TFs) beforehand and because of the high accuracy of the obtained models. The controlled use of associated microorganisms to increase the efficiency of phytoremediation of HM, mainly using combinations of Brassica and Salix spp. and rhizobacteria at contaminated soils, is a promising possibility. A crucial future challenge for the expansion of their use will be to develop well-defined cost- and time-efficient tools for a credible prediction of their effectiveness on contaminated field sites.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it