On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper

  • Olivier PourretEmail author
  • Jean-Claude Bollinger
  • Eric D. van Hullebusch
Trend Editorial


There have been numerous environmental geochemistry studies using chemical, geological, ecological, and toxicological methods but each of these fields requires more subject specialist rigour than has generally been applied so far. Field-specific terminology has been misused and the resulting interpretations rendered inaccurate. In this paper, we propose a series of suggestions, based on our experience as teachers, researchers, reviewers, and editorial board members, to help authors to avoid pitfalls. Many scientific inaccuracies continue to be unchecked and are repeatedly republished by the scientific community. These recommendations should help our colleagues and editorial board members, as well as reviewers, to avoid the numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions currently in circulation and establish a trend towards greater rigour in scientific writing.


Speciation Fractionation Modelling Ecotoxicology Risk assessment Ecology 


In recent times, there has been a notable public loss of trust in scientists, especially in the field of climate change (Trevors and Saier 2011; Briggs et al. 2011). But why has such a shift in public attitudes towards science taken place, in a time when scientists are expected, more than ever, to conduct their research responsibly and with full rigour?

There are many examples of significant misconduct, such as (among others) the citation of non-contributing authors (Fong and Wilhite 2017; McNutt et al. 2018; Petersen et al. 2019; Smith et al. 2019; Wilhite et al. 2019; Sweedler 2019; Chawla 2019) and the absence of citation that is due (Garfield 1980; Trevors and Saier 2008). The general public has become increasingly aware of what constitutes good scientific practice and the performance of scientists is under its scrutiny (Koch 2016; Goldman et al. 2017; Record 2017). To resolve this and meet the exacting standards we set ourselves, environmental studies must be irreproachable (Zoller 2000; Antoniadis et al. 2019; Voulvoulis and Burgman 2019). Multidisciplinary groups of researchers, that may have different ways of communicating their science, must work together to ensure good practice and well-communicated, meaningful results.

Environmental geochemistry is inherently an interdisciplinary academic field. It attempts to explain how life affects, and is affected by, the disturbed biogeochemical cycles of major and trace elements within the Earth critical zone (Amundson et al. 2007; Brantley et al. 2007; Chorover et al. 2007; Field et al. 2015). It studies environmental problems, and how these might be solved (Botkin and Keller 2014). Environmental geochemistry involves chemistry, physics, climatology, ecology, geology, microbiology, soil science, and toxicology (Ali and Khan 2017; Filella 2014; Lichtfouse et al. 2012; Stumm et al. 1983). It can also include sociology and economics (Fig. 1). It has the power to excite great public strength of feeling (Sedlak 2016), and is, therefore, subject to heated political debate that sometimes ignores scientific information (Carroll et al. 2017).
Fig. 1

Treemap of the 25 most prevalent field research areas (out of 91) of articles published in 2018 in Environmental Science and Pollution Research (source Web of Science, data accessed on 03/06/2019)

The integration of perspectives from researchers, policy makers, and industrial representatives is essential for successful characterisation and remediation of hazardous anthropogenic contaminations (Sawyer 1979). Effective interdisciplinary collaboration requires respect for, and a rational balance of, scientific and engineering expertise (Balmford 2013). However, several multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary studies (among them papers published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research) used chemical, geological, ecological or toxicological methods (Fig. 2), but not as rigorously as specialist researchers would in each of the separate fields. Indeed, the field-specific terminology is often loosely adopted and imprecise, which leads to equally imprecise interpretation of the results (Casadevall and Fang 2016; Hofseth 2018). Scientists need to use technical language. Without it, environmental geochemistry would not exist as a discipline. It is the responsibility of scientists to select the correct tone and technical content, and to make sure that jargon (unnecessary and extraneous use of technical terms) is not used when communicating with others.
Fig. 2

Word cloud of keywords used in Environmental Science and Pollution Research in 2018 (source from Scopus, data accessed on 03/06/2019)

Many articles (see below) have been written, but a global guideline, dedicated simultaneously to teachers, researchers, reviewers, and editorial board members working in environmental geochemistry, is missing. Therefore, we present the following critical views, based on our own experience, with a special emphasis on our main research field, i.e. environmental soil and water geochemistry.

Material and analytical methods

The robustness of research methods in environmental geochemistry studies is of major concern. Specific terminology is often not accurate, which raises questions about the methodology and instils doubt about the interpretation of results, as exemplified below.

Naming chemical compounds, whether organic or inorganic, is essential to success in chemistry. Some basic rules, established by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), should be followed when naming chemical compounds (Favre and Powell 2014; Connelly et al. 2005). The term ‘heavy metals’ should be avoided, as recently emphasised by Pourret and Bollinger (2018) and by Pourret (2018) and references therein (Fig. 3). This should be replaced by ‘trace elements/metals’ or by ‘potentially toxic elements/metals’. Although of wide use, the terms ‘normality’ or ‘molarity’, and their symbols N and M, should preferably be avoided (NIST 2004). Researchers should consider amount-of-substance concentration of the considered chemical element or species (more commonly called concentration), and its symbol c with SI unit mol/m3 (or a related acceptable unit) or molality of solute (symbol m and SI unit mol/kg).
Fig. 3

Cartoon illustrating the misused term “heavy metal” (artwork from Dr. Justin Larrouzée)

Chemical fractionation is a concept often confused with speciation of elements, and mostly with speciation analysis and chemical species (see “Ecological behaviour”). Indeed, chemical speciation must be distinguished from chemical fractionation, and a guideline may be found in Templeton et al. (2000). Chemical species may be categorised according to the isotopic composition of the considered element, its oxidation and electronic states, and its complex and molecular structure. Such description of the kind of chemical species has been recently discussed by Lespes et al. (2016).

When a paper is concerned with various steps within adsorption studies, we strongly suggest that authors refer to the recent critical review on this subject, written by Tran et al. (2017). Although we do not agree with all their comments, one can find here most of the issues we have encountered in several published papers.

The following points concerning adsorption data treatment should be considered:
  1. (i)

    Thermodynamic calculations: Please remember that in thermodynamic equations you can only take the logarithm of the equilibrium constant as a dimensionless parameter.

  2. (ii)

    Kinetics and/or isotherm models: Non-linear regression is more appropriate for obtaining parameters of kinetic models and isotherm models than linear regression (Limousin et al. 2007).

  3. (iii)

    In the special case of metal studies, we would like to draw attention to another point: the pH changes will often lead to (partial) precipitation of insoluble metal (hydr)oxides, carbonates or phosphates, and this is also to be expected during separation of adsorbed metals by filtration or centrifugation (e.g. up to 93% of (hydr)oxide form was filtered out even at low metal concentration; Haas et al. 2019).

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for analytical data are often poorly described in many papers. Authors should, of course, add information about the number of replicated experiments (including preparation of the material, when this is the case) and analysis, and the corresponding standard deviation. Then, all numerical data (text and tables) should only display the correct number of significant digits (rounded value). However, the standard deviation (value ± standard deviation), and, in all figures, the experimental data points, should contain their respective error bars. Moreover, there are several authoritative and detailed documents on various aspects of reference materials (RM), together with some internationally recognised definitions. Reference materials are an important tool for realising measurement quality and are used for method validation, calibration, uncertainty estimation, internal QC and external QA (i.e. proficiency testing) purposes (e.g. Quevauviller et al. 1997). Measurement validity can be assured when using:
  1. (i)

    validated methods and appropriate equipment;

  2. (ii)

    qualified and competent staff;

  3. (iii)

    comparability with measurements made in other laboratories (traceability and measurement uncertainty);

  4. (iv)

    independent evidence of performance (proficiency testing);

  5. (v)

    well-defined QC and QA procedures (third party accreditation is preferable).


Different types of RM are necessary for different functions. For instance, a certified RM is mandatory for method validation, whereas a working level RM is more appropriate for QC. More detailed guidance on the QA of chemical measurements, including cover of RM, calibration, QC, and validation, is provided by the joint CITAC/Eurachem Guide (Barwick 2016). Other advice is provided on using proper terminology in analytical geochemistry in papers by Sverdrup (1996), Potts (2012) and Wiedenbeck (2017).

We strongly recommend the provision of raw data in tabular form (as an appendix or on a repository). Indeed, an Open Data movement has recently taken off around the concept of ‘FAIR’—where data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (Wilkinson et al. 2016, 2018). These data can be used by those wishing to use modelling, and above all, it allows for greater transparency of the data used in the research (Piwowar 2011).

Environmental quality benchmarks, such as water quality guidelines, include indications for evaluating the possible damage from chemicals, physical, and/or biological stressors: they are useful but not perfect tools (Chapman 2018) as well as not always being adapted to the context of the studied case.

Sample description

When a specific study location is involved, authors should provide a readable map with precise coordinates in the correct format, as well as information on the geology of the area (type of rocks and/or soil types). When providing this, it is essential to consider the recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks (Le Maitre et al. 2002) and the British Geological Survey’s rock classification of sediments and sedimentary and metamorphic rocks (Hallsworth and Knox 1999; Robertson 1999). Also, the difference between natural and anthropogenic trace metals contents in soils needs to be properly reported in scientific publications for assessing soil contamination (Baize and Sterckeman 2001; Desaules 2012; Dung et al. 2013; Matschullat et al. 2000; Zhao et al. 2007).

Nearly 40 years ago, Kretz (1983) proposed a systematised list of abbreviations for rock-forming minerals and mineral components. Its logical simplicity has led to wide recognition among authors and editors who were eager to accept an approved set of mineral symbols to save space in text, tables, and figures (e.g. Gth for goethite). This list was updated by Whitney and Evans (2010). If a native element occurs in nature, mineral abbreviations should not coincide with atomic symbols (e.g. Asp and not As for arsenopyrite, Cal and not Ca for calcite).

Effective communication in the geosciences requires consistent use of stratigraphic nomenclature, especially divisions of geologic time. We recommend the use of the latest version of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (Cohen et al. 2013) with the correct use of epoch, period, era, or aeon, instead of a local name. Some further semantics can be found about the Anthropocene in Zalasiewicz et al. (2010, 2011). From a pedological point of view, a ‘soil’ is a complete ecosystem including living species; therefore, we strongly suggest using ‘soil sample’ and referring to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB 2014). Some variations may exist between scientific communities, especially regarding weathering and regolith. Indeed, regolith science evolved from older disciplines, mainly geology and soil science, so ‘younger’ sciences rely on the terms from these disciplines, not always understanding them in detail or using them accurately (Eggleton 2001).

Ecological behaviour

Unlike organic molecules, whose natural attenuation is a well-known process (Alexander 2000), metallic elements, not undergoing microbial or chemical degradation, are persistent in the ecosystems of which they are often natural components. Several soil constituents, such as clays, Fe-, Al-, or Mn-(hydr)oxides, and organic matter, can bind or adsorb metals (Bradl 2004). Therefore, the accumulation of metals in soils can generate ecological risks for plants and other organisms growing in them, and in turn, for human health through the food chain (Nagajyoti et al. 2010). It is, therefore, important to be able to analyse and understand the chemical behaviour and mobility of inorganic contaminants in polluted soils and how they lead to contamination of water bodies. It is also of interest to evaluate the feasibility of various remediation processes, for example with selective leaching reagents and/or with the use of metal-hyperaccumulating plants (Bhargava et al. 2012; Ali et al. 2013; Gaur et al. 2014; Ferraro et al. 2016; Lange et al. 2017). More information on hyperaccumulating plants may be found in Reeves et al. (2018), van der Ent et al. (2013) and Krämer (2010), although plants’ status is presently somewhat unclear due to issues with contamination by soil particles (Faucon et al. 2007).

Among the important constituents of natural geochemical systems, organic matter (also known as humic substances), whether dissolved or not, is not a unique and pure chemical species (Aiken et al. 1985; Lehmann and Kleber 2015; Myneni 2019), but a mixture of molecules with various structures and molar mass, depending on their origin (animal and/or vegetal decomposition) (Piccolo 2002; Sutton and Sposito 2005). These organic compounds can react with light, chemicals, or microbial species, and mainly bind metallic species (Lipczynska-Kochany 2018).

For the evaluation of ecological risks, the determination of the total metal amount is not highly relevant, though it is necessary to determine metal speciation, which has been recognised for many years as the parameter against which to assess metal bioavailability in soils (Smolders et al. 2003; Crans 2017). Definitions of bioavailability and bioaccessibility can be found in Semple et al. (2004), even if they are complicated to delineate. It gives information about the potential for the release and migration of contaminants and toxicity processes (Rüdel et al. 2015). Therefore, when performing risk assessment studies, it is necessary to determine both the bioavailability and the fractionation of metals in the different soil chemical phases (Nolan et al. 2003).

To further understand metal behaviour (including mobility), many studies used selective and/or sequential extraction. Among the huge literature on that subject, the seminal paper by Tessier et al. (1979) or the BCR method (Ure et al. 1993) are often cited. However, such methods are very specific, and authors really need to justify the choice of their method (Ure 1996; Filgueiras et al. 2002; van der Ent et al. 2019). Indeed, if we consider the case of EDTA as extractant, the estimation of metal availability using the EDTA extraction methods are identified to be more appropriate for high metal concentrations (Peters 1999), which is not applicable for every environmental sample. For instance, only a small range of single chemical extractants (e.g. EDTA, CaCl2) have been used to relate plant cobalt (Co) uptake with an operationally defined available concentration of extracted Co (Collins and Kinsela 2011). Moreover, acetic acid-EDTA extractable fraction is an enhanced predictor of Co bioavailability in contaminated soils (Faucon et al. 2007). EDTA is often considered to extract primarily organically bound trace elements from soil and not only elements non-specifically adsorbed on the exchange complex (Albanese 2008; Rupa and Shukla 1999). Eventually, extraction should be compared with modelling (e.g. Cui and Weng 2015; Pourret et al. 2015) or with other techniques such as DGT (diffusive gradients in thin-films technique) to be validated (e.g. Bravin et al. 2010).

Moreover, these studies are generally carried out on artificially contaminated soils (e.g. Zapusek and Lestan 2009; Lange et al. 2016): both the nature and the amount of metallic element(s) can be simultaneously controlled. The effects of added metal elements are commonly studied just after the contamination. However, metallic element sorption in soils evolves during long periods of time ranging from days to decades (Ma et al. 2006). During this process, named ‘ageing’ or ‘aging’, the speciation, the bioavailability and the fractionation of metals, change. Consequently, the results, based on soil samples freshly spiked with metallic solutions, and assessing ecotoxic effects, may not be relevant (Alexander 2000; Renella et al. 2002; Davies et al. 2003). This represents a serious drawback for risk assessment studies related to older contaminated sites.

When lawyers working for (inter)national regulating agencies define concentration limits for potentially toxic substances (Antoniadis et al. 2019), they are balancing between risks and profits for environmental protection, including human health, and the ‘best available technologies not entailing excessive cost’ (a.k.a. ‘BATNEEC’). Furthermore, as proposed by Chapman (2002), in order to avoid all these drawbacks, authors should compare bioaccumulation testing with toxicity testing.

Ecological risk assessment

For risk assessment studies, environmental toxicology is often considered, e.g. single-species testing for screening purposes. However, ecotoxicology is more relevant than ecological toxicology in tests, test species, and exposures (Bost and Sanchez 2018; de Souza Machado et al. 2019; Hitchcock et al. 2018). It is, therefore, required for predicting real effects and for site-specific assessments, e.g. use of biomarkers (Forbes et al. 2006), or of microbial toxicology (Ghiglione et al. 2016). During the last 30 years, ecotoxicology and ecology have shown similar developmental trends; such as closer cooperation between those disciplines, which has benefited them both (Chapman 2002; Bradbury et al. 2004; Rohr et al. 2016). Ecology can be integrated into toxicology: either distinctly, by providing information on pre-selected test species; or as part of test species choice; the latter being preferable. General guidelines for serious and chronic testing, and criteria for species choice, differ between environmental toxicology and ecotoxicology. An overall framework has been proposed by Chapman (2002), based on ecological risk assessment, for combining ecology and toxicology for decision-making. Moreover, the pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organisation are reviewed by Rohr et al. (2016).

The terms ‘dose-response’ or ‘dose-effect’ are often used to describe the causal links between biological effects and exposure. This use of the term ‘dose’ in aquatic toxicology comes from mammalian toxicology (Nikinmaa and Schlenk 2010; Duffus 2003; Chapman 2002). Indeed, when a compound is delivered to an animal, the term ‘dose’ designates the amount of this compound entering the animal. A lethal dose (often designated as LD50) is also used to describe the dose of a compound that kills 50% of the exposed population. Importantly, when animals are treated through inhalation, the term is modified to ‘concentration’ that affects 50% of the population. This distinction is because when animals are exposed to air, the dose is not known, only the total concentration in the air is measured. A comparable situation occurs for aquatic organisms: whenever an organism is exposed to a compound in water, only the total concentration of this compound in water is known. Thus, the main difference between ‘dose’ and ‘concentration’ is that the ‘dose’ of a compound is rarely known in an aquatic organism even if the chemical compound is measured within the organism. This uncertainty is primarily due to whether the compound is bioavailable to a specific molecular target within the organism. Therefore, it is imperative to use the proper terminology ‘concentration-response’ or ‘concentration-dependent’ when dealing with aquatic organisms (Nikinmaa and Schlenk 2010).

As highlighted by Hooton (1987), a major difference exists between ‘toxin’ and ‘toxicant’. This distinction is that (i) a ‘toxin’ is a poisonous substance produced by a biological organism such as a microbe, animal or plant (Duffus 2003); (ii) a ‘toxicant’ is a compound that is not naturally occurring and its entry into the environment is of human origin. Moreover, metals do not originate from biological sources, they are thus considered toxicants. The term ‘xenobiotic’ should be used when a doubt exists; it includes both toxin and toxicant if the compound is not naturally occurring to the environment (Nikinmaa and Schlenk 2010).

Geochemical modelling

As reviewed by Nordstrom (2012), modelling has become so prevalent that many researchers cannot imagine publishing results without using models. However, the use of computer codes to execute calculations has led to a distinction between code and model. This type of controversy regarding model validation has brought into question what we mean by a ‘model’ and by ‘validation’ (Bair 1994). The common significance of validation may be common in engineering practice and seems useful in legal practice. It is, however, divergent to scientific practice. It brings into question our understanding of science and how it can best be applied to environmental studies (Nordstrom 2012).

Moreover, most studies using models are based on laboratory experiments with very simplified systems, such as a metal nitrate salt in pure water. But real-world systems are, of course, more complicated. To add value to such work, the authors should firstly study the competition and influence of some other anions and cations, and then they should thoroughly test some real samples containing their target species. Moreover, in studies about metal species, detailed speciation modelling (ECOSAT, MINFIT, MINTEQ, PHREEQC, WHAM, …) is required in order to have a better insight into the behaviour of such systems. The abovementioned are chemical equilibrium models used to predict metal speciation and metal bioavailability in environmental systems. Special attention must be paid to the choice of equilibrium constants (Hummel et al. 2019). However, users should bear in mind that environmental systems are always dynamic and rarely at equilibrium, even if some reactions are relatively fast (e.g. metal complexation to organic or inorganic ligands in water (Di Bonito et al. 2018)); in this case, the implementation of the so-called ‘Biotic Ligand Model (BLM)’ can be useful (Rüdel et al. 2015). When sediments are considered, a combination of several tests and criteria should also be assessed (Alves et al. 2018).

We are often concerned with the nature of salt (commonly seen as a neutral electrolyte) selected for the required ionic strength to be set, or in case of artificial contamination. Yet, how should one select the appropriate anion? From a chemist’s point of view, nitrate salts are probably the best choice, because they are always readily soluble, and they rarely form complexes, although soluble and with low stability constants (S̆tulíková 1991). But of course, nitrate ion has nutritional properties for plants and some biological effects for soil micro-organisms (Jacoby et al. 2017). Sodium nitrate is thus a better choice for ionic strength setting, but calcium chloride is normally selected when dealing with soil solution representativeness (Komárek et al. 2007). In this case, Ca(II) can favour the formation precipitated compounds with carbonate or phosphate species, and that chloride ions can form (in)soluble complexes with many metal cations such as Cu(II) or Pb(II).

Concluding remarks

Of course, we understand that several points in this position paper are already frequently published in many respected environmental science journals. In an extensive compilation of the top-cited articles published in environmental science journals, Khan and Ho (2012) analysed the papers published in 181 journals during the 1899–2010 period with regard to institution and country of origin, but they were also discussed according to their life span. They have found that between 1971 and 2002, 88 top-cited articles in environmental science were published, each with more than 500 total citations. Even though some of those often-cited articles are specifically on geochemistry, it should not mean that misunderstood scientific facts continue to be incorrectly repeated by researchers.

This Trend Editorial was intended to be constructive, not polemic. We sincerely hope that it will allow our colleagues as authors to avoid making mistakes or replicating misconceptions in their submitted papers. Moreover, we believe our thoughts can also be useful to editorial board members and reviewers of many environmental geochemistry journals.



We are grateful to Dr. Justin Larrouzée for drawing the original artwork in Fig. 3.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aiken GR, McKnight DM, Wershaw RL, MacCarthy P (1985) Humic substances in soil, sediment and water: geochemistry, isolation and characterization. Wiley Intersciences, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Albanese S (2008) Evaluation of the bioavailability of potentially harmful elements in urban soils through ammonium acetate–EDTA extraction: a case study in southern Italy. Geochemistry 8:49–57Google Scholar
  3. Alexander M (2000) Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34:4259–4265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali H, Khan E (2017) Environmental chemistry in the twenty-first century. Environ Chem Lett 15:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ali H, Khan E, Sajad MA (2013) Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere 91:869–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alves CM, Ferreira CMH, Soares HMVM (2018) Relation between different metal pollution criteria in sediments and its contribution on assessing toxicity. Chemosphere 208:390–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amundson R, Richter DD, Humphreys GS, Jobbágy EG, Gaillardet J (2007) Coupling between biota and earth materials in the critical zone. Elements 3:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antoniadis V, Shaheen SM, Levizou E, Shahid M, Niazi NK, Vithanage M, Ok YS, Bolan N, Rinklebe J (2019) A critical prospective analysis of the potential toxicity of trace element regulation limits in soils worldwide: are they protective concerning health risk assessment? - a review. Environ Int 127:819–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bair ES (1994) Model (in)validation – a view from the courtroom. Groundwater 32:530–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baize D, Sterckeman T (2001) Of the necessity of knowledge of the natural pedo-geochemical background content in the evaluation of the contamination of soils by trace elements. Sci Total Environ 264:127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balmford A (2013) Pollution, Politics, and Vultures. Science 339:653–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barwick V. (2016) Eurachem/CITAC guide: guide to quality in analytical chemistry: an aid to accreditation (3rd ed.). ISBN 978-0-948926-32-7. Available from Accessed 15 Nov 2019
  13. Bhargava A, Carmona FF, Bhargava M, Srivastava S (2012) Approaches for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals. J Environ Manag 105:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bost M, Sanchez W (2018) Ecotoxicology and toxicology: problems and decisions (Editorial). Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:2005–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Botkin DB, Keller EA (2014) Environmental science: Earth as a living planet, 9th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, p 688Google Scholar
  16. Bradbury SP, Feijtel TCJ, Leeuwen CJV (2004) Peer Reviewed: Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. Environ Sci Technol 38:463A–470ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bradl HB (2004) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soils and soils constituents. J Colloid Interface Sci 277:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brantley SL, Goldhaber MB, Ragnarsdottir KV (2007) Crossing disciplines and scales to understand the critical zone. Elements 3:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bravin MN, Michaud AM, Larabi B, Hinsinger P (2010) RHIZOtest: A plant-based biotest to account for rhizosphere processes when assessing copper bioavailability. Environ Pollut 158:3330–3337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Briggs WM, Soon W, Legates D, Carter RM (2011) A vaccine against arrogance. Water Air Soil Pollut 220:5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carroll C, Hartl B, Goldman GT, Rohlf DJ, Treves A, Kerr JT, Ritchie EG, Kingsford RT, Gibbs KE, Maron M, Watson JEM (2017) Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes. Conserv Biol 31:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Casadevall A, Fang FC (2016) Rigorous Science: a How-To Guide. mBio 7(6):e01902–e01916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chapman PM (2002) Mistakes made/lessons learned. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:891–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chapman PM (2018) Environmental quality benchmarks—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:3043–3046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chawla DS (2019) Elsevier probes dodgy citations. Nature 73:174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chorover J, Kretzschmar R, Garcia-Pichel F, Sparks DL (2007) Soil biogeochemical processes within the critical zone. Elements 3:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen KM, Finney SC, Gibbard PL, Fan J-X (2013) The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Episodes 35:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Collins RN, Kinsela AS (2011) Pedogenic factors and measurements of the plant uptake of cobalt. Plant Soil 339:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Connelly NG, Damhus T, Hartshorn RM, Hutton AT (2005) Nomenclature of inorganic chemistry - IUPAC recommendations 2005. RSC PublishingGoogle Scholar
  30. Crans DC (2017) Preface: Applications of speciation chemistry in a modern society. Coord Chem Rev 352:398–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cui Y, Weng L (2015) Interpretation of heavy metal speciation in sequential extraction using geochemical modelling. Environ Chem 12:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davies NA, Hodson ME, Black S (2003) The influence of time on lead toxicity and bioaccumulation determined by the OECD earthworm toxicity test. Environ Pollut 121:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Souza Machado AA, Wood CM, Werner Kloas W (2019) Novel concepts for novel entities: Updating ecotoxicology for a sustainable Anthropocene (Viewpoint). Environ Sci Technol 53:4680–4682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Desaules A (2012) Critical evaluation of soil contamination assessment methods for trace metals. Sci Total Environ 426:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Di Bonito M, Lofts S, Groenenberg JE (2018) Chapter 11 - Models of Geochemical Speciation: Structure and Applications A2 - Vivo, Benedetto De. In: Belkin HE, Lima A (eds) Environmental Geochemistry, Second edn, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp 237–305Google Scholar
  36. Duffus JH (2003) Toxicology of metals—science confused by poor use of terminology. Arch Environ Health 58:263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dung TTT, Cappuyns V, Swennen R, Phung NK (2013) From geochemical background determination to pollution assessment of heavy metals in sediments and soils. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 12:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eggleton R (2001) The regolith glossary. Surficial geology, soils and landscapes. CRC LEME, Perth, 144 p.Google Scholar
  39. Faucon M-P, Shutcha MN, Meerts P (2007) Revisiting copper and cobalt concentrations in supposed hyperaccumulators from SC Africa: influence of washing and metal concentrations in soil. Plant and Soil 301(1-2):29-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Favre HA, Powell WH (2014) Nomenclature of organic chemistry: IUPAC recommendations and preferred names 2013. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, p 1612Google Scholar
  41. Ferraro A, Fabbricino M, van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G, Pirozzi F (2016) Effect of soil/contamination characteristics and process operational conditions on aminopolycarboxylates enhanced soil washing for heavy metals removal: a review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 15(1):111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Field JP, Breshears DD, Law DJ, Villegas JC, López-Hoffman L, Brooks PD, Chorover J, Barron-Gafford GA, Gallery RE, Litvak ME, Lybrand RA, McIntosh JC, Meixner T, Niu G-Y, Papuga SA, Pelletier JD, Rasmussen CR, Troch PA (2015) Critical zone services: expanding context, constraints, and currency beyond ecosystem services. Vadose Zone J 14:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Filella M (2014) Environmental chemistry: a discipline standing on two shoulders. Environ Chem 11:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Filgueiras AV, Lavilla I, Bendicho C (2002) Chemical sequential extraction for metal partitioning in environmental solid samples. J Environ Monit 4(6):823–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fong EA, Wilhite AW (2017) Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE 12:e0187394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Forbes VE, Palmqvist A, Bach L (2006) The use and misuse of biomarkers in ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Garfield E (1980) From citation amnesia to bibliographic plagiarism. Curr Content #23:5–9Google Scholar
  48. Gaur N, Flora G, Yadav M, Tiwari A (2014) A review with recent advancements on bioremediation-based abolition of heavy metals. Environ Sci 16:180–193Google Scholar
  49. Ghiglione J-F, Martin-Laurent F, Pesce S (2016) Microbial ecotoxicology: an emerging discipline facing contemporary environmental threats (Editorial). Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:3981–3983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Goldman GT, Berman E, Halpern M, Johnson C, Kothari Y, Reed G, Rosenberg AA (2017) Ensuring scientific integrity in the Age of Trump. Science 355:696–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Haas S, Boschi V, Grannas A (2019) Metal sorption studies biased by filtration of insoluble metal oxides and hydroxides. Sci Total Environ 646:1433–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hallsworth CR, Knox R (1999) BGS rock classification scheme. Volume 3, classification of sediments and sedimentary rocks. British Geological Survey, Nottingham, p 24Google Scholar
  53. Hitchcock DJ, Andersen T, Varpe Ø, Borgå K (2018) Improving data reporting in ecotoxicological studies (Viewpoint). Environ Sci Technol 52:8061–8062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hofseth LJ (2018) Getting rigorous with scientific rigor. Carcinogenesis 39(1):21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hooton KA (1987) Words, words (Letter). Environ Sci Technol 21:1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hummel W, Filella M, Rowland D (2019) Review: Where to find equilibrium constants? Sci Total Environ 692:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. IUSS Working Group WRB (2014) World reference base for soil resources, World Soil Resources Reports 106. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  58. Jacoby R, Peukert M, Succurro A, Koprivova A, Kopriva S (2017) The role of soil microorganisms in plant mineral nutrition—current knowledge and future directions. Front Plant Sci 8:1617Google Scholar
  59. Khan MA, Ho Y-S (2012) Top-cited articles in environmental sciences: Merits and demerits of citation analysis. Sci Total Environ 431:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Koch W (2016) Ethics and chemistry: the role of learned societies, as exemplified by the German chemical societies. Toxicol Environ Chem 98:1060–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Komárek M, Tlustoš P, Száková J, Chrastný V (2007) The role of chloride salts in chemically enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals from a contaminated agricultural soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 78:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Krämer U (2010) Metal hyperaccumulation in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:517–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kretz R (1983) Symbols for rock-forming minerals. Am Mineral 68:277–279Google Scholar
  64. Lange B, Pourret O, Meerts P, Jitaru P, Cancès B, Grison C, Faucon M-P (2016) Copper and cobalt mobility in soil and accumulation in a metallophyte as influenced by experimental manipulation of soil chemical factors. Chemosphere 146:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lange B, van der Ent A, Baker AJM, Echevarria G, Mahy G, Malaisse F, Meerts P, Pourret O, Verbruggen N, Faucon M-P (2017) Copper and cobalt accumulation in plants: a critical assessment of the current state of knowledge. New Phytol 213:537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Le Maitre RW, Streckeisen A, Zanettin B (2002) Igneous rocks: IUGS classification and glossary: recommendations of the International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 256Google Scholar
  67. Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lespes G, Zuliani T, Schaumlöffel D (2016) Need for revisiting the terminology about speciation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:15767–15770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lichtfouse E, Schwarzbauer J, Robert D (2012) Social chemistry. Environ Chem Lett 10:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Limousin G, Gaudet JP, Charlet L, Szenknect S, Barthès V, Krimissa M (2007) Sorption isotherms: a review on physical bases, modeling and measurement. Appl Geochem 22:249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lipczynska-Kochany E (2018) Effect of climate change on humic substances and associated impacts on the quality of surface water and groundwater: a review. Sci Total Environ 640-641:1548–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ma Y, Lombi E, Oliver IW, Nolan AL, McLaughlin MJ (2006) Long-term aging of copper added to soils. Environ Sci Technol 40:6310–6317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Matschullat J, Ottenstein R, Reimann C (2000) Geochemical background – can we calculate it? Environ Geol 39:990–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Hall Jamieson K, Kiermer V, Marcus E, Kline Pope B, Schekman R, Swaminathan S, Stang PJ, Verma IM (2018) Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:2557–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Myneni SCB (2019) Chemistry of natural organic matter—the next step: commentary on a humic substances debate. J Environ Qual 48:233–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 8:199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nikinmaa M, Schlenk D (2010) Uses of phrases. Aquat Toxicol 97:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. NIST (2004) SI Unit rules and style conventions. (accessed 15 Nov 2019).
  79. Nolan AL, Lombi E, McLaughlin MJ (2003) Metal bioaccumulation and toxicity in soils; why bother with speciation? Aust J Chem 56:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nordstrom KD (2012) Models, validation, and applied geochemistry: issues in science, communication, and philosophy. Appl Geochem 27:1899–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Peters RW (1999) Chelant extraction of heavy metals from contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 66:151–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Petersen AM, Pan RK, Pammolli F, Fortunato S (2019) Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation. Res Policy 48:1855–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Piccolo A (2002) The supramolecular structure of humic substances: a novel understanding of humus chemistry and implications in soil science. Adv Agro 75:57–134Google Scholar
  84. Piwowar HA (2011) Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE 6:e18657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Potts PJ (2012) Glossary of analytical and metrological terms from the international vocabulary of metrology (2008). Geostand Geoanal Res 36:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pourret O (2018) On the necessity of banning the term “heavy metal” from the scientific literature. Sustainability 10:2879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pourret O, Bollinger J-C (2018) “Heavy metal” - what to do now: to use or not to use? Sci Total Environ 610:419–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pourret O, Lange B, Houben D, Colinet G, Shutcha M, Faucon MP (2015) Modeling of cobalt and copper speciation in metalliferous soils from Katanga (Democratic Republic of Congo). J Geochem Explor 149:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Quevauviller P, Rauret G, López-Sánchez JF, Rubio R, Ure A, Muntau H (1997) Certification of trace metal extractable contents in a sediment reference material (CRM 601) following a three-step sequential extraction procedure. Sci Total Environ 205:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Record NR (2017) A People's Science. Limnol Oceanogr Bull 26:36–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Reeves RD, Baker AJM, Jaffré T, Erskine PD, Echevarria G, van der Ent A (2018) A global database for plants that hyperaccumulate metal and metalloid trace elements. New Phytol 218:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Renella G, Chaudri AM, Brookes PC (2002) Fresh additions of heavy metals do not model long-term effects on microbial biomass and activity. Soil Biol Biochem 34:121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Robertson SJ (1999) BGS rock classification scheme. Volume 2, classification of metamorphic rocks. British Geological Survey, Nottingham, p 26Google Scholar
  94. Rohr JR, Salice CJ, Nisbet RM (2016) The pros and cons of ecological risk assessment based on data from different levels of biological organization. Crit Rev Toxicol 46:756–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rüdel H, Díaz Muñiz C, Garelick H, Kandile NG, Miller BW, Pantoja Munoz L, Peijnenburg WJGM, Purchase D, Shevah Y, van Sprang P, Vijver M, Vink JPM (2015) Consideration of the bioavailability of metal/metalloid species in freshwaters: Experiences regarding the implementation of biotic ligand model-based approaches in risk assessment frameworks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:7405–7742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rupa TR, Shukla LM (1999) Comparison of four extractants and chemical fractions for assessing available zinc and copper in soils of India. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 30:2579–2591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sawyer FG (1979) An overview: impact of environmental regulations. Water Air Soil Pollut 12:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sedlak D (2016) A picture worth 250 million words (and counting). Environ Sci Technol 50:2745–2746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Semple KT, Doick KJ, Jones KC, Burauel P, Craven A, Harms H (2004) Defining bioavailability and bioaccessibility of contaminated soil and sediment is complicated. Environ Sci Technol 38(12):228A–231ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Paul-Hus A, Shi M, Resnik DB (2019) Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Sci Eng Ethics (in the press)Google Scholar
  101. Smolders E, McGrath SP, Lombi E, Karman CC, Bernhard R, Cools D, Van den Brande K, van Os B, Walrave N (2003) Comparison of toxicity of zinc for soil microbial processes between laboratory-contaminated and polluted field soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2592–2598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. S̆tulíková M (1991) Is nitrate really an inert electrolyte?: A brief review. Talanta 38:805–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stumm W, Schwarzenbach R, Sigg L (1983) From environmental analytical chemistry to ecotoxicology—a plea for more concepts and less monitoring and testing. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 22:380–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sutton R, Sposito G (2005) Molecular structure in soil humic substances: the new view. Environ Sci Technol 39:9009–9015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sverdrup H (1996) Geochemistry, the key to understanding environmental chemistry. Sci Total Environ 183:67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sweedler JV (2019) The evolving world of scientific publications: from unethical behaviors to new mandates from funding agencies (Editorial). Anal Chem 91:1673–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Templeton DM, Ariese F, Cornelis R, Danielsson L-G, Muntau H, Van Leeuwen HP, Lobinski R (2000) Guidelines for terms related to chemical speciation and fractionation of elements. Definitions, structural aspects, and methodological approaches. Pure Appl Chem 72:1453–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tessier A, Campbell PGC, Bisson M (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal Chem 51:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tran HN, You S-J, Hosseini-Bandegharaei A, Chao H-P (2017) Mistakes and inconsistencies regarding adsorption of contaminants from aqueous solutions: a critical review. Water Res 120:88–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Trevors JT, Saier MH Jr (2011) A vaccine against ignorance? Water Air Soil Pollut 220:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Trevors JT, Saier MH Jr (2008) Corruption and fraud in science (Editorial). Water Air Soil Pollut 189:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ure AM (1996) Single extraction schemes for soil analysis and related applications. Sci Total Environ 178:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ure AM, Quevauviller P, Muntau H, Griepink B (1993) Speciation of heavy metals in soils and sediments. An account of the improvement and harmonization of extraction techniques undertaken under the auspices of the BCR of the Commission of the European Communities. Int J Environ Anal Chem 51:135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. van der Ent A, Baker AJM, Reeves RD, Pollard AJ, Schat H (2013) Hyperaccumulators of metal and metalloid trace elements: facts and fiction. Plant Soil 362:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. van der Ent A, Nkrumah PN, Tibbett M, Echevarria G (2019) Evaluating soil extraction methods for chemical characterization of ultramafic soils in Kinabalu Park (Malaysia). J Geochem Explor 196:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Voulvoulis N, Burgman MA (2019) The contrasting roles of science and technology in environmental challenges. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 49:1079–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Whitney DL, Evans BW (2010) Abbreviations for names of rock-forming minerals. Am Mineral 95:185–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wiedenbeck M (2017) Proper terminology in analytical geochemistry. Elements 13(6):446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wilhite A, Fong EA, Wilhite S (2019) The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Res Policy 48:1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J-W, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J, Brookes AJ, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo CT, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AJG, Groth P, Goble C, Grethe JS, Heringa J, ’t Hoen PAC, Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher SJ, Martone ME, Mons A, Packer AL, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P, Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone S-A, Schultes E, Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz MA, Thompson M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J, Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wilkinson, M.D., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Doorn, P., Bonino da Silva Santos, L.O., Dumontier, M. (2018) A design framework and exemplar metrics for FAIRness. Sci Data, 5: 180118.Google Scholar
  122. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Steffen W, Crutzen P (2010) The New World of the Anthropocene. Environ Sci Technol 44:2228–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Haywood A, Ellis M (2011) The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369:835–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zapusek U, Lestan D (2009) Fractionation, mobility and bio-accessibility of Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb and Ni in aged artificial soil mixtures. Geoderma 154:164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zhao FJ, McGrath SP, Merrington G (2007) Estimates of ambient background concentrations of trace metals in soils for risk assessment. Environ Pollut 148:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zoller U (2000) Environmental chemistry: The disciplinary/correction - transdisciplinary/prevention paradigm shift (Editorial). Environ Sci Pollut Res 7:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UniLaSalle, AGHYLEBeauvais cedexFrance
  2. 2.Université de Limoges, PEREINE, Faculté des Sciences et TechniquesLimogesFrance
  3. 3.IHE Delft, Institute for Water EducationDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Université de Paris, Institut de physique du globe de Paris, CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations