ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Active and passive sampling for the assessment of hydrophilic organic contaminants in a river basin-ecotoxicological risk assessment.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of In Situ Methods-Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATT) and Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Sampler (POCIS) for the Collection and Concentration of Marine Biotoxins and Pharmaceuticals in Environmental Waters.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- "Modern agriculture" transfers many pesticides to watercourses: a case study of a representative rural catchment of southern Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Evaluating polar pesticide pollution with a combined approach: a survey of agricultural practices and POCIS passive samplers in a Tunisian lagoon watershed.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Risk estimation and annual fluxes of emerging contaminants from a Scottish priority catchment to the estuary and North Sea.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2018Article
- Study of persistent toxic pollutants in a river basin-ecotoxicological risk assessment.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a complementary approach for the evaluation of water quality in a river basin by employing active and passive sampling. Thirty-eight hydrophilic organic compounds (HpOCs) (organohalogen herbicides, organophosphorous pesticides, carbamate, triazine, urea, pharmaceuticals, phenols, and industrial chemicals) were studied in grab water samples and in passive samplers POCIS collected along Strymonas River, Northern Greece, at three sampling campaigns during the year 2013. Almost all the target compounds were detected at the periods of high rainfall intensity and/or low flow rate. The most frequently detected compounds were aminocarb, carbaryl, chlorfenviphos, chloropropham, 2,4-D, diflubenzuron, diuron, isoproturon, metolachlor, and salicylic acid. Bisphenol A and nonylphenol were also occasionally detected. The use of POCIS allowed the detection of more micropollutants than active sampling. Low discrepancy between the concentrations obtained from both samplings was observed, at least for compounds with >50 % detection frequency; thus, POCIS could be a valuable tool for the selection and monitoring of the most relevant HpOCs in the river basin. Results showed relatively low risk from the presence of HpOCs; however, the potential risk associated with micropollutants such as carbaryl, dinoseb, diuron, fenthion, isoproturon, metolachlor, nonylphenol, and salicylic acid should not be neglected.
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.