↓ Skip to main content

Cadmium (Cd) Localization in Tissues of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and Its Phytoremediation Potential for Cd-Contaminated Soils

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Cadmium (Cd) Localization in Tissues of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and Its Phytoremediation Potential for Cd-Contaminated Soils
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00128-015-1662-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhifan Chen, Ye Zhao, Lidong Fan, Liteng Xing, Yujie Yang

Abstract

Phytoremediation using economically valuable, large biomass, non-edible plants is a promising method for metal-contaminated soils. This study investigated cotton's tolerance for Cd and remediation potential through analyzing Cd bioaccumulation and localization in plant organs under different soil Cd levels. Results showed cotton presents good tolerance when soil Cd concentration ≤20.26 mg kg(-1). Cotton had good Cd accumulation ability under low soil Cd levels (<1.26 mg kg(-1)), with a TF value (the ratio of Cd concentration in stem to root) above 1. Energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis indicated cotton leaf transpiration played a key role in extracting soil Cd, while roots and stems were the main compartments of Cd storage. Cd complexation to other organic constituents in root and stem cell sap could be a primary detoxifying strategy. Therefore, cotton is a potential candidate for 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Engineering 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 17 40%
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 16 November 2015.
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
#202,985
of 278,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#24
of 56 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 278,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 53% of its contemporaries.