ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2013
Analysis of selected biomonitors to evaluate the suitability for their complementary use in monitoring trace element atmospheric deposition.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the possibility of using deciduous tree bark as a biomonitor of heavy metal pollution of atmospheric aerosol.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Biomonitoring of atmospheric pollution: a novel approach for the evaluation of natural and anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric aerosol particles.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017Article
- Human contribution to trace elements in urban areas as measured in holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) bark.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biomonitoring properties of oak tree bark compared with the epiphytic moss Hypnum cupressiforme and the influence of the tree bark, as its growth substrate, on the content of heavy metals in moss were investigated. Samples of the epiphytic moss H. cupressiforme and oak tree bark (Quercus spp.) were collected in Eastern Romania at a total of 44 sampling sites. Parallel moss and bark samples were collected from the same sides of the trunk circumference. V, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, and Bi were determined by ICP-MS. Principal component analysis was used to identify possible sources of metals in bark and moss. Six factors explaining 87 % of the total variance in the data set were chosen. The main factors represent long-range atmospheric transport of elements (Zn, Cd, (Pb), Bi, (Mo), (Tl)), local emissions from industrial sources (As, Cr, Ni, V), road traffic (Pb, Zn) and agricultural activities (Cu, (Zn)). The element concentrations in moss and bark samples are of the same order of magnitude. For almost all the elements, higher concentrations were obtained in moss. Significant correlations between concentrations in moss and bark samples were obtained for 7 of the 13 elements: V, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, In, and Bi, all typical anthropogenic pollutants. The use of tree bark for monitoring purposes might be an alternative in areas where there is a scarcity of mosses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.