ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2015
Using pre-screening methods for an effective and reliable site characterization at megasites.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phytoscreening the homes of pregnant residents for volatile organic compounds: a pilot study in metro Detroit.Frontiers in environmental health · 2026Article
- Decontamination of Petroleum-Contaminated Soils Using The Electrochemical Technique: Remediation Degree and Energy Consumption.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Phytoforensics: Trees as bioindicators of potential indoor exposure via vapor intrusion.PloS one · 2018Article
- Analyzing tree cores to detect petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater at a former landfill site in the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, eastern Canadian subarctic.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper illustrates the usefulness of pre-screening methods for an effective characterization of polluted sites. We applied a sequence of site characterization methods to a former Soviet military airbase with likely fuel and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) contamination in shallow groundwater and subsoil. The methods were (i) phytoscreening with tree cores; (ii) soil gas measurements for CH4, O2, and photoionization detector (PID); (iii) direct-push with membrane interface probe (MIP) and laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) sensors; (iv) direct-push sampling; and (v) sampling from soil and from groundwater monitoring wells. Phytoscreening and soil gas measurements are rapid and inexpensive pre-screening methods. Both indicated subsurface pollution and hot spots successfully. The direct-push sensors yielded 3D information about the extension and the volume of the subsurface plume. This study also expanded the applicability of tree coring to BTEX compounds and tested the use of high-resolution direct-push sensors for light hydrocarbons. Comparison of screening results to results from conventional soil and groundwater sampling yielded in most cases high rank correlation and confirmed the findings. The large-scale application of non- or low-invasive pre-screening can be of help in directing and focusing the subsequent, more expensive investigation methods. The rapid pre-screening methods also yielded useful information about potential remediation methods. Overall, we see several benefits of a stepwise screening and site characterization scheme, which we propose in conclusion.
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.