Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28815369›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017

Suspended particulate matter collection methods influence the quantification of polycyclic aromatic compounds in the river system.

Fayez Abuhelou, Laurence Mansuy-Huault, Catherine Lorgeoux, Delphine Catteloin, Valéry Collin, Allan Bauer, Hussein Jaafar Kanbar, Renaud Gley, Luc Manceau, Fabien Thomas and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  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

11 authors.

Fayez AbuhelouUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Laurence Mansuy-HuaultUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. laurence.huault@univ-lorraine.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7160-7243
Catherine LorgeouxUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, CREGU, GeoRessources lab, UMR7359, 54506, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Delphine CatteloinUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, CREGU, GeoRessources lab, UMR7359, 54506, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Valéry CollinUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Allan BauerUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Hussein Jaafar KanbarUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Renaud GleyUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Luc ManceauUniversité de Lorraine, LOTerr (Laboratoire d'Observation des Territoires), UFR SHS-Metz, Ile du Saulcy, 57045, Metz Cedex 01, France.
Fabien ThomasUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Emmanuelle Montargès-PelletierUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LTER Zone Atelier Moselle, LIEC (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux), UMR7360, 54500, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-14-CE01-0019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we compared the influence of two different collection methods, filtration (FT) and continuous flow field centrifugation (CFC), on the concentration and the distribution of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in suspended particulate matter (SPM) occurring in river waters. SPM samples were collected simultaneously with FT and CFC from a river during six sampling campaigns over 2 years, covering different hydrological contexts. SPM samples were analyzed to determine the concentration of PACs including 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 11 oxygenated PACs (O-PACs), and 5 nitrogen PACs (N-PACs). Results showed significant differences between the two separation methods. In half of the sampling campaigns, PAC concentrations differed from a factor 2 to 30 comparing FT and CFC-collected SPMs. The PAC distributions were also affected by the separation method. FT-collected SPM were enriched in 2-3 ring PACs whereas CFC-collected SPM had PAC distributions dominated by medium to high molecular weight compounds typical of combustion processes. This could be explained by distinct cut-off threshold of the two separation methods and strongly suggested the retention of colloidal and/or fine matter on glass-fiber filters particularly enriched in low molecular PACs. These differences between FT and CFC were not systematic but rather enhanced by high water flow rates.

Indexed as

ChinaEnvironmental MonitoringGeologic SedimentsParticulate MatterPolycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsRiversWater MovementsWater Pollutants, ChemicalParticulate MatterPolycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsWater Pollutants, ChemicalContinuous flow centrifugeFiltrationPolycyclic aromatic compoundsSuspended particulate matter

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.