↓ Skip to main content

A comparative study on capability of different tree species in accumulating heavy metals from soil and ambient air

Overview of attention for article published in Chemosphere, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparative study on capability of different tree species in accumulating heavy metals from soil and ambient air
Published in
Chemosphere, January 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad Alahabadi, Mohammad Hassan Ehrampoush, Mohammad Miri, Hamideh Ebrahimi Aval, Samira Yousefzadeh, Hamid Reza Ghaffari, Ehsan Ahmadi, Parvaneh Talebi, Zeynab Abaszadeh Fathabadi, Fatemeh Babai, Ali Nikoonahad, Kiomars Sharafi, Ahmad Hosseini-Bandegharaei

Abstract

Heavy metals (HMs) in the urban environment can be bio-accumulated by plant tissues. The aim of this study was to compare fourteen different tree species in terms of their capability to accumulate four airborne and soilborne HMs including; zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd). Samplings were performed during spring, summer, and fall seasons. To compare bioaccumulation ability, bio-concentration factor (BCF), comprehensive bio-concentration index (CBCI), and metal accumulation index (MAI) were applied. Species with the highest accumulation for single metal which shown using BCF did not have the highest CBCI and MAI. Based on CBCI and MAI, Pinus eldarica (7.74), Wistaria sinensis (8.82), Morus alba (8.7), and Nigral morus (27.15) had the highest bioaccumulation capacity of HMs, respectively. Therefore, these species can be used for phytoextraction of HMs pollution and green and buffer zone in the urban.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 19%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 39 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 29 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Chemistry 8 7%
Engineering 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Chemosphere
#10,086
of 13,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,689
of 422,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemosphere
#91
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,455 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.