ArticleEnvironmental management2017
Pollution Assessment of the Biobío River (Chile): Prioritization of Substances of Concern Under an Ecotoxicological Approach.
Article in Environmental management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Physiological Biomarkers Responses in Wild Fish Exposed to the Anthropogenic Gradient in the Biobío River, South-Central Chile.Environmental management · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The water demand for human activities is rapidly increasing in developing countries. Under these circumstances, preserving aquatic ecosystems should be a priority which requires the development of quality criteria. In this study we perform a preliminary prioritization of the risky substances based on reported ecotoxicological studies and guidelines for the Biobío watershed (Central Chile). Our specific aims are (1) reviewing the scientific information on the aquatic pollution of this watershed, (2) determining the presence and concentration of potential toxic substances in water, sediment and effluents, (3) searching for quality criteria developed by other countries for the selected substances and (4) prioritizing the most risky substances by means of deterministic ecotoxicological risk assessment. We found that paper and mill industries were the main sources of point pollution, while forestry and agriculture were mostly responsible for non-point pollution. The most risky organic substances in the water column were pentachlorophenol and heptachlor, while the most relevant inorganic ones were aluminum, copper, unionized ammonia and mercury. The most risky organic and inorganic substances in the sediment were phenanthrene and mercury, respectively. Our review highlights that an important effort has been done to monitor pollution in the Biobío watershed. However there are emerging pollutants and banned compounds-especially in sediments-that require to be monitored. We suggest that site-specific water quality criteria and sediment quality criteria should be developed for the Biobío watershed, considering the toxicity of mixtures of chemicals to endemic species, and the high natural background level of aluminum in the Biobío.
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.