ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Evaluating the ready biodegradability of two poorly water-soluble substances: comparative approach of bioavailability improvement methods (BIMs).
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 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing the biodegradability of difficult compounds: a future challenge for the OECD/ISO standardization.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Review
- A novel manometric test to assess inherent biodegradability of complex and non-soluble chemicals.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Biodegradable packaging materials conception based on starch and polylactic acid (PLA) reinforced with cellulose.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficulties encountered in estimating the biodegradation of poorly water-soluble substances are often linked to their limited bioavailability to microorganisms. Many original bioavailability improvement methods (BIMs) have been described, but no global approach was proposed for a standardized comparison of these. The latter would be a valuable tool as part of a wider strategy for evaluating poorly water-soluble substances. The purpose of this study was to define an evaluation strategy following the assessment of different BIMs adapted to poorly water-soluble substances with ready biodegradability tests. The study was performed with two poorly water-soluble chemicals-a solid, anthraquinone, and a liquid, isodecyl neopentanoate-and five BIMs were compared to the direct addition method (reference method), i.e., (i) ultrasonic dispersion, (ii) adsorption onto silica gel, (iii) dispersion using an emulsifier, (iv) dispersion with silicone oil, and (v) dispersion with emulsifier and silicone oil. A two-phase evaluation strategy of solid and liquid chemicals was developed involving the selection of the most relevant BIMs for enhancing the biodegradability of tested substances. A description is given of a BIM classification ratio (R BIM), which enables a comparison to be made between the different test chemical sample preparation methods used in the various tests. Thereby, using this comparison, the BIMs giving rise to the greatest biodegradability were ultrasonic dispersion and dispersion with silicone oil or with silicone oil and emulsifier for the tested solid chemical, adsorption onto silica gel, and ultrasonic dispersion for the liquid one.
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.