Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24307344›Full record

ReviewIntegrated environmental assessment and management2014

Passive sampling methods for contaminated sediments: state of the science for organic contaminants.

Michael J Lydy, Peter F Landrum, Amy Mp Oen, Mayumi Allinson, Foppe Smedes, Amanda D Harwood, Huizhen Li, Keith A Maruya, Jingfu Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Michael J LydyCenter for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA.
Peter F Landrum
Amy Mp Oen
Mayumi Allinson
Foppe Smedes
Amanda D Harwood
Huizhen Li
Keith A Maruya
Jingfu Liu
Southern Illinois University Carbondale · USChinese Academy of Sciences · CNDeltares · NLNorwegian Geotechnical Institute · NOResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences · CNSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project · USUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript surveys the literature on passive sampler methods (PSMs) used in contaminated sediments to assess the chemical activity of organic contaminants. The chemical activity in turn dictates the reactivity and bioavailability of contaminants in sediment. Approaches to measure specific binding of compounds to sediment components, for example, amorphous carbon or specific types of reduced carbon, and the associated partition coefficients are difficult to determine, particularly for native sediment. Thus, the development of PSMs that represent the chemical activity of complex compound-sediment interactions, expressed as the freely dissolved contaminant concentration in porewater (Cfree ), offer a better proxy for endpoints of concern, such as reactivity, bioaccumulation, and toxicity. Passive sampling methods have estimated Cfree using both kinetic and equilibrium operating modes and used various polymers as the sorbing phase, for example, polydimethylsiloxane, polyethylene, and polyoxymethylene in various configurations, such as sheets, coated fibers, or vials containing thin films. These PSMs have been applied in laboratory exposures and field deployments covering a variety of spatial and temporal scales. A wide range of calibration conditions exist in the literature to estimate Cfree , but consensus values have not been established. The most critical criteria are the partition coefficient between water and the polymer phase and the equilibrium status of the sampler. In addition, the PSM must not appreciably deplete Cfree in the porewater. Some of the future challenges include establishing a standard approach for PSM measurements, correcting for nonequilibrium conditions, establishing guidance for selection and implementation of PSMs, and translating and applying data collected by PSMs.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringGeologic SedimentsOrganic ChemicalsWater Pollutants, ChemicalOrganic ChemicalsWater Pollutants, ChemicalBioavailabilityFreely dissolved aqueous concentrationOrganic contaminantsPassive sampling methodsSediment-associated contaminants

Identifiers

PMID24307344
PMCPMC4235472
OpenAlexW1795280515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.