Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21487648›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2011

Sediment contact test with Potamopyrgus antipodarum in effect-directed analyses-challenges and opportunities.

Claudia Schmitt, Christian Vogt, Miroslav Machala, Eric de Deckere

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Claudia SchmittEcosystem Management Research Group, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium. claudia.schmitt@ua.ac.be
Christian Vogt
Miroslav Machala
Eric de Deckere

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and scopeEffect-directed analysis is increasingly used for the identification of key toxicants in environmental samples and there is a growing need for in vivo biotests as diagnostic tools. Within this study, we performed an in vivo sediment contact test, applicable on both native field samples and their extracts or fractions, in order to be able to compare the results from both field and laboratory studies. MATERIAL AND

methodsA sediment contact test with the prosobranch snail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum, was carried out on extracts and fractions of field sediments from three European river basins. The results were compared with previous results of the native field samples.

resultsIn contrast to the native sediments, the extracts of the samples led to an overall decrease in reproduction. Even the chosen reference sites had an adverse effect on the snails' reproduction. It appeared that a higher bioavailability in the organic extracts, together with a changing composition of compounds could have lead to this change in effects. The fractionation of the extracts partly led to a more differentiated picture, but the resolution was not high enough to see any distinct effects on the snails' reproduction. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionOur results highlight the importance of the use of in vivo biotests and point out the relevance of bioavailability in native sediments. For further fractionation studies, a more realistic extraction procedure, together with a higher resolution fractionation, would be appropriate in order to separate individual bioavailable compounds more efficient.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringAnimalsGastropodaGeologic SedimentsReproductionRiversWater PollutantsWater Pollutants

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.