The article highlights phytoremediation as a promising pollution mitigation strategy, but significant flaws undermine its credibility. Methodological transparency is lacking, with case studies and plant-based techniques like phytodegradation relying on generalizations without robust data. Claims of economic and ecological benefits are unsupported by lifecycle assessments or cost analyses, while statistical models lack validation through error bars or replicates. Citations often reference outdated or tangentially relevant studies, weakening key arguments. Assertions about advanced technologies like genetic engineering and nanotechnology are speculative, with insufficient empirical support. Selective comparisons and unverified mechanisms further undermine reliability, making the conclusions appear biased and overstated.
