Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25850737›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2015

In situ remediation technologies for mercury-contaminated soil.

Feng He, Jie Gao, Eric Pierce, P J Strong, Hailong Wang, Liyuan Liang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mercury (Hg) Contaminated Sites in Kazakhstan: Review of Current Cases and Site Remediation Responses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mercury content in agricultural soils (Vojvodina Province, Serbia).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Sustainable remediation of mercury contaminated soils by thermal desorption.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016
    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

6 authors.

Feng HeCollege of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, 310014, Zhejiang, China, fenghe@zjut.edu.cn.
Jie Gao
Eric Pierce
P J Strong
Hailong Wang
Liyuan Liang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mercury from anthropogenic activities is a pollutant that poses significant risks to humans and the environment. In soils, mercury remediation can be technically challenging and costly, depending on the subsurface mercury distribution, the types of mercury species, and the regulatory requirements. This paper introduces the chemistry of mercury and its implications for in situ mercury remediation, which is followed by a detailed discussion of several in situ Hg remediation technologies in terms of applicability, cost, advantages, and disadvantages. The effect of Hg speciation on remediation performance, as well as Hg transformation during different remediation processes, was detailed. Thermal desorption, electrokinetic, and soil flushing/washing treatments are removal technologies that mobilize and capture insoluble Hg species, while containment, solidification/stabilization, and vitrification immobilize Hg by converting it to less soluble forms. Two emerging technologies, phytoremediation and nanotechnology, are also discussed in this review.

Indexed as

MercurySoil PollutantsEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationMercurySoil 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.