Phytoextraction: an assessment of biogeochemical and economic viability

By B. Robinson, José Enrique Fernández, P. Madejón, T. Marañón, J. Murillo, S. Green, B. Clothier. Plant and Soil, 2003

192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Phytoremediation and hyperaccumulator plants (2005, background): “However, phytoremediation costs at least ten times less than traditional methods of excavation and removal (Schnoor 1997), and if an additional economic incentive were present (not only an environmental benefit) such as phytomining or forestry, then phytoremediation would be viewed as economically v”
Comprehending crystalline β-carotene accumulation by comparing engineered cell models and the natural carotenoid-rich system of citrus (2011, unknown): “The latter are interesting plants for their potential use in phytoremediation or phytomining (McGrath et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2003a; Chaney et al., 2007).”
Metallophores and Trace Metal Biogeochemistry (2015, background): “Although phytoextraction is attractive because of the relatively low cost and the lack of site disturbance (Tack and Meers 2010), significant barriers exist to its implementation, including the slow rate of the extraction process (Robinson et al. 2003; Van Nevel et al. 2007).”
ARSENIC PHYTOEXTRACTION AND HYPERACCUMULATION BY FERN SPECIES (2006, background): “Several comprehensive reviews on phytoremediation and phytoextraction have been recently published (Salt et al., 1998; Robinson et al., 2003; Arthur et al., 2005; Ouyang, 2002).”