ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2015
Evaluation of foam surfactant for foam-flushing technique in remediation of DDT-contaminated soil using data envelopment analysis method.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2015. 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.
- Optimum conditions of zero-valent iron nanoparticle stabilized foam application for diesel-contaminated soil remediation involving three major soil types.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With an aim to select the most appropriate foaming surfactant for remediation of DDT-contaminated soil by foam-flushing technique, the performances of nonionic and anionic surfactant in several aspects were observed in this study. SDS had the best foam static characteristic among the four experimental surfactants. The solubilizing ability for DDT followed the order of Tween80 > TX100 > SDS > Brij35. The adsorption loss of SDS onto soil was the lowest. The order of desorption efficiency for DDT followed as TX-100 > Tween80 > Brij35 > SDS. Based on these experimental investigations, the overall performances of foaming surfactants were evaluated by data envelopment analysis method. The results indicated that SDS was the optimal alternative for remediation of DDT-contaminated soil by foam-flushing technique. This conclusion was reached with the consideration of the cost, foam static characteristic, surfactant adsorption loss, solubilizing ability, and desorption efficiency of surfactant for DDT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25226831What 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.