ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
A Comparative Analyses of Granulometry, Mineral Composition and Major and Trace Element Concentrations in Soils Commonly Ingested by Humans.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geochemical and mineralogical composition of geophagic materials from Baringo town, Kenyan Rift Valley and their possible health effects on the consumers.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2021Article
- Review of the nature of some geophagic materials and their potential health effects on pregnant women: some examples from Africa.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2019Review
- An analysis of human exposure to trace elements from deliberate soil ingestion and associated health risks.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the granulometric properties, mineralogical composition and concentrations of major and trace element oxides of commonly ingested soils (geophagic soil) collected from different countries with a view of understanding how varied they may be in these properties and to understand the possible health implications of ingesting them. Soil samples were collected from three different countries (South Africa, Swaziland and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)) and their granulometric properties, concentrations of major and trace element oxides as well as mineralogical composition determined. Differences were observed in the granulometric properties of geophagic soil from the three different countries with most of them having <20% clay content. The soils also showed varied degrees of weathering with values of Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA) and Chemical Index of Weathering (CIW) being between 60% and 99.9% respectively. The mineral assemblages of the soils from South Africa and Swaziland were dominated by the primary minerals quartz and feldspar whereas soils from DRC had more of kaolinite, a secondary mineral than primary minerals. Soils from DRC were associated with silt, clay, Al2O3, and CIA unlike most samples from South Africa which were associated with SiO2, sand, K2O, CaO, and MgO. The soils from Swaziland were closely associated with silt, H2O and Fe2O3(t). These associations reflect the mineralogy of the samples. These soils are not likely to serve as nutrient supplements because of the low concentrations of the nutrient elements contained. The coarse texture of the samples may also result in dental destruction during mastication. Sieving of the soils before ingestion to remove coarse particles is recommended to reduce the potential health threat associated with the ingestion of coarse-textured soils.
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.