| Title |
Comparison of arsenic uptake ability of barnyard grass and rice species for arsenic phytoremediation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10661-014-4101-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Razia Sultana, Katsuichiro Kobayashi, Ki-Hyun Kim |
| Abstract |
In this research, the relative performance in arsenic (As) remediation was evaluated among some barnyard grass and rice species under hydroponic conditions. To this end, four barnyard grass varieties and two rice species were selected and tested for their remediation potential of arsenic. The plants were grown for 2 weeks in As-rich solutions up to 10 mg As L(-1) to measure their tolerance to As and their uptake capabilities. Among the varieties of plants tested in all treatment types, BR-29 rice absorbed the highest amount of As in the root, while Nipponbare translocated the maximum amount of As in the shoot. Himetainubie barnyard grass produced the highest biomass, irrespective of the quantity of As in the solution. In all As-treated solutions, the maximum uptake of As was found in BR-29 followed by Choto shama and Himetainubie. In contrast, while the bioaccumulation factor was found to be the highest in Nipponbare followed by BR-29 and Himetainubie. The results suggest that both Choto shama and Himetainubie barnyard grass varieties should exhibit a great potential for As removal, while BR-29 and Nipponbare rice species are the best option for arsenic phytoremediation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 5 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,344,332
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#237
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,376
of 262,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 262,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.