Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26318179›Full record

ReviewEcotoxicology (London, England)2015

Impact of sludge deposition on biodiversity.

Sergio Manzetti, David van der Spoel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Sergio ManzettiUppsala Centre for Computational Chemistry, Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, Box 596, 75124, Uppsala, Sweden.
David van der SpoelUppsala Centre for Computational Chemistry, Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Uppsala University, Box 596, 75124, Uppsala, Sweden. david.vanderspoel@icm.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sludge deposition in the environment is carried out in several countries. It encompasses the dispersion of treated or untreated sludge in forests, marsh lands, open waters as well as estuarine systems resulting in the gradual accumulation of toxins and persistent organic compounds in the environment. Studies on the life cycle of compounds from sludge deposition and the consequences of deposition are few. Most reports focus rather on treatment-methods and approaches, legislative aspects as well as analytical evaluations of the chemical profiles of sludge. This paper reviews recent as well as some older studies on sludge deposition in forests and other ecosystems. From the literature covered it can be concluded that sludge deposition induces two detrimental effects on the environment: (1) raising of the levels of persistent toxins in soil, vegetation and wild life and (2) slow and long-termed biodiversity-reduction through the fertilizing nutrient pollution operating on the vegetation. Since recent studies show that eutrophication of the environment is a major threat to global biodiversity supplying additional nutrients through sludge-based fertilization seems imprudent. Toxins that accumulate in the vegetation are transferred to feeding herbivores and their predators, resulting in a reduced long-term survival chance of exposed species. We briefly review current legislation for sludge deposition and suggest alternative routes to handling this difficult class of waste.

Indexed as

BiodiversityFood ChainForestsSewageSoil PollutantsWaste Disposal, FluidWaste ManagementSewageSoil PollutantsBiodiversityHeavy metalPersistent organic compound

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.