Phytoremediating a Wastewater-Irrigated Soil Contaminated with Toxic Metals: Comparing the Efficacies of Different Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A formidable challenge in suburban agriculture is the sustainability of soil health following the use of wastewater for irrigation. The wastewater irrigation likely toxifies the crop plants making them unconsumable. We used a multivariate, completely randomized design in a greenhouse, comparing the phytoextraction capacities of Brassica juncea, Eruca sativa, Brassica rapa, and Brassica napus—all grown on silt loam soil irrigated with industrial wastewater, canal water, and a 1:1 mixture, during 2018. The studied Brassica plants were generally closely efficient in remediating toxic metals found in wastewater irrigated soil. Substantial differences between Brassica and Eruca plants/parts were recorded. For example, B. napus had significantly higher metal extraction or accumulation compared to E. sativa for Zn (71%), Cu (69%), Fe (78%), Mn (79%), Cd (101%), Cr (57%), Ni (92%). and Pb (49%). While the water and plant were the main predictors of metal extraction or accumulation, an interaction between the main effects substantially contributed to Cu, Mn, and Fe extractions from soil and accumulations in plants. Significant correlations between biological accumulation coefficient and biological transfer coefficient for many metals further supported the metal extraction or accumulation efficiencies as: B. napus > B. juncea > B. rapa > E. sativa. Root-stem mobility index correlation with stem-leaf mobility index indicated the metal translocation along the root-stem-leaf continuum. Therefore, we suggest that these crops may not be used for human or animal consumption when grown with industrial wastewater of toxic metal concentrations ≥ permissible limits. Rather these plants may serve as effective remediators of toxic metal-polluted soil.
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) | 0.001 | 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".