ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2014
A national reconnaissance for selected organic micropollutants in sediments on French territory.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pesticide transformation products: a potential new source of interest for drinking water.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To collect a large data set regarding the occurrence of organic substances in sediment, this study presents the examination of 20 micropollutants, as a national survey. The list of target compounds contains two alkylphenols, three polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) not commonly included in monitoring programmes, six pesticides or metabolites, five pharmaceutical compounds, two hormones, one UV filter and bisphenol A. The selective and sensitive analytical methods, based on quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) sample preparation followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC-ToF-MS), allow the quantification at limits comprised between 0.5 and 23 ng/g, depending on the compound. The paper summarizes the analytical results from 154 sampling points. Of the 20 target compounds, 9 were determined at least once, and the sediments contained a maximum of 7 substances. The most frequently detected were PAHs (frequency, 77 %; max., 1,400 ng/g). The pharmaceutical compounds, hormones and pesticides were rarely detected in the samples; the most frequently detected was carbamazepine (frequency, 6 %; max., 31 ng/g). In some cases, the levels of PAHs and bisphenol A exceed the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24888621What 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.