Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27752444›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental sciences Europe2016

Dioxin in the Elbe river basin: policy and science under the water framework directive 2000-2015 and toward 2021.

Ulrich Förstner, Henner Hollert, Markus Brinkmann, Kathrin Eichbaum, Roland Weber, Wim Salomons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental sciences Europe, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Life cycle of PCBs and contamination of the environment and of food products from animal origin.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Ulrich FörstnerInstitute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, University of Technology Hamburg-Harburg, Eissendorfer Street, 21071 Hamburg, Germany.
Henner HollertDepartment of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Markus BrinkmannDepartment of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Kathrin EichbaumDepartment of Ecosystem Analysis, Institute for Environmental Research, ABBt - Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Roland WeberPOPs Environmental Consulting, Lindenfirststrasse 23, 73527 Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany.
Wim SalomonsKromme Elleboog 21, 9751 RB, Haren, Groningen Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A critical review of the last 25 years of dioxin policy in the Elbe river catchment is presented along seven main theses of the River Basin Community (RBC)-Elbe background document "Pollutants" for the Management Plan 2016-2021. In this period, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/-furans (PCDD/Fs) and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl-PCBs) will play a major role: (i) as new priority substances for which environmental quality standards (EQSs) need to be derived (Directive 2013/39/EC); (ii) in the search for innovative solutions in sediment remediation (i.e., respecting the influence of mechanical processes; Flood Risk Directive 2007/60/EC); and (iii) as indicators at the land-sea interface (Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC). In the Elbe river catchment, aspects of policy and science are closely connected, which became particularly obvious in a classic example of dioxin hot spot contamination, the case of the Spittelwasser creek. Here, the "source-first principle" of the first cycle of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) had to be confirmed in a controversy on the dioxin hot spots with Saxony-Anhalt's Agency for Contaminated Sites (LAF). At the Spittelwasser site, the move from "inside the creek" to "along the river banks" goes parallel to a general paradigm shift in retrospective risk assessment frameworks and remediation techniques for organic chemicals (Ortega-Calvo et al. 2015). With respect to dioxin, large-scale stabilization applying activated carbon additions is particularly promising. Another important aspect is the assessment of the ecotoxicology of dioxins and dl- PCBs in context of sediment mobility and flood risk assessment, which has been studied in the project framework FloodSearch. Currently, the quality goals of the WFD to reach a "good chemical status" are not met in many catchment areas because substances such as mercury do and others probably will (PCDD/Fs and dl-PCB) exceed biota-EQS values catchment area-wide. So far, relating biota-EQS values to sediment-EQSs is not possible. To overcome these limitations, the DioRAMA project was initiated, which has led to improved approaches for the assessment of dioxin-contaminated sediment using in vitro bioassays and to a robust dataset on the interrelation between dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in sediments and biota.

Indexed as

Activated carbonBiota-EQSBitterfeld regionChemical statusDredged materialsFlood risksMarine strategyNGOsRBC ElbeSediment management concept

Identifiers

PMID27752444
PMCPMC5044960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.