Lestari and Rosyidah compared lead accumulation and growth in two vegetable species grown in lead-amended soil and compost in Malang, Indonesia. Lead treatment reduced growth and the reported shoot-to-root translocation factors. The table supports a narrower interpretation than the paper’s broad phytoextraction conclusion: factors exceed one only in the controls.
Key numbers
The greenhouse experiment ran from April to July 2021. Table 3 (PDF p. 5) reports the following mean translocation factors. Its heading says ppm although the stated calculation is a ratio. C denotes Crassocephalum crepidioides and A denotes Amaranthus sp.; the source treatment labels are preserved.
| Treatment | Reported factor |
|---|---|
| C0 | 1.18 |
| C3 | 0.87 |
| C6 | 0.74 |
| A0 | 1.20 |
| A3 | 0.99 |
| A6 | 0.28 |
Tables 1–2 (PDF p. 3) provide all treatment-level height and leaf-area means at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 days after transplanting; the batch evidence register retains these 60 auxiliary growth observations separately from metal concentrations.
Methods (brief)
A randomized block greenhouse experiment used soil and compost mixed 1: 1, with lead added one week before transplanting. The text prints doses of 0.3 and 6 g per polybag, while treatment codes use C 3/A 3 and C 6/A 6. Lead in roots and shoots was measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The paper states three replicate blocks; the abstract says three sample plants per treatment and Methods says five. It describes means with standard errors and Duncan multiple-range testing, but does not supply exact numeric error bars for the figures.
Implications
This is experimental remediation and soil-to-plant pathway evidence. It does not characterize unamended market vegetables, quantify field-scale lead removal, or establish the suitability of harvested biomass for food. Increased root retention under treatment must remain distinct from successful removal of lead from soil.
Evidence Fitness: EF-3; experimental remediation evidence with source-internal inconsistencies. Tables support source-native growth and translocation observations, not ordinary product occurrence or a validated remediation recommendation.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
Table 3 is retained over conflicting prose values of 1.15 and 1.34 and the blanket claim that translocation factors exceed one. The 0.3-versus-3 treatment-dose ambiguity and three-versus-five plant count are unresolved source reporting discrepancies. Figures 1–3 have unlabelled bar heights; exact biomass, chlorophyll, lead concentration and error-bar values cannot be recovered without digitization or author data. No concentration basis or unit was invented for the lead figure. The microscopy-free AAS method does not establish lead speciation.
Matrix vocabulary extension: experimental-plant denotes greenhouse remediation plants; it is not a commercial food-occurrence row.
The preserved Library PDF is identified by RPHMI_1; SHA-256 03083cb77ff7d5232724eff6eba502ca7ce7e037f1943f26de48cdddfeb83a67. The byline, year and publication were verified in the PDF. DOI provenance and any publication-date differences are described above. Original access location: http://www.jeeng.net/pdf-151092-76624. Source-specific numeric observations, context dispositions, row-fit decisions and remaining gaps are preserved in the structured evidence record. No source value was converted across product, soil, water or experimental matrices during ingest.
Update history
No substantive edit history is available in this build. The full commit record is available in git.