↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. as an Efficient and Well Adapted Phytoremediation Tool for Cd Polluted Soils

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Identification of Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. as an Efficient and Well Adapted Phytoremediation Tool for Cd Polluted Soils
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00128-017-2094-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mayank Varun, Clement O. Ogunkunle, Rohan D’Souza, Paulo Favas, Manoj Paul

Abstract

A pot experiment was carried out to assess Cd uptake and accumulation efficiency of Sesbania sesban. Plants were grown in soil spiked with 25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 mg/kg Cd. After 120 days, plants were harvested and analyzed for Cd content. A steady increase in Cd accumulation with increasing metal concentration in soil was observed for all treatments. Accumulation of Cd was greatest in roots (86.7 ± 6.3 mg/kg), followed by stem (18.59 ± 1.9 mg/kg), and leaf (3.16 ± 1.1 mg/kg). Chlorophyll content declined with increasing Cd concentration, while proline and protein content increased as compared to control. At higher Cd levels, root, shoot length, and biomass were all significantly reduced (p ≤ 0.001). An increase in total protein along with greater A250/A280 value suggested an increase in metal-protein complexes. Considering the rapid growth, high biomass, accumulation efficiency, and adaptive properties, this plant could be used as a valuable tool for the phytoremediation of Cd contaminated soils.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 12 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Unspecified 2 9%
Environmental Science 2 9%
Chemistry 2 9%
Unknown 13 57%
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 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#19,611,252
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,914
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,575
of 314,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#16
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 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 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 314,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.