↓ Skip to main content

Copper uptake by Eichhornia crassipes exposed at high level concentrations

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Pollution Research, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Copper uptake by Eichhornia crassipes exposed at high level concentrations
Published in
Environmental Science & Pollution Research, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11356-014-3972-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eliana Melignani, Laura Isabel de Cabo, Ana María Faggi

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the growth of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and its ability to accumulate Cu from polluted water with high Cu concentrations and a mixture of other contaminants under short-term exposure, in order to use this species for the remediation of highly contaminated sites. Two hydroponic experiments were performed under greenhouse conditions for 7 days. One of them consisted of growing water hyacinth in Hoagland solution supplemented with 15 or 25 mg Cu/L and a control. The other one contained water hyacinth growing in polluted river water supplemented with 15 mg Cu/L and a control. Cu was accumulated principally in roots. The maximum Cu concentration was 23,387.2 mg/kg dw in the treatment of 25 mg Cu/L in Hoagland solution. Cu translocation from roots to leaves was low. The mixture of 15 mg Cu/L with polluted water did not appear to have toxic effects on the water hyacinth. This plant showed a remarkable uptake capacity under elevated Cu concentrations in a mixture of pollutants similar to pure industrial effluents in a short time of exposure. This result has not been reported before, to our knowledge. This species is suitable for phytoremediation of waters subject to discharge of mixed industrial effluents containing elevated Cu concentrations (≥15 mg Cu/L), as well as nutrient-rich domestic wastewaters.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 7 39%
Unspecified 5 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 11%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%

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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#11,577,206
of 13,029,326 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Pollution Research
#2,527
of 3,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,858
of 293,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Pollution Research
#92
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,029,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,584 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 293,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.