ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017
Biological and analytical techniques used for detection of polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Review 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Feasibility of SERS-Active Porous Ag Substrates for the Effective Detection of Pyrene in Water.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A new approach for reducing pollutants level: a longitudinal cohort study of physical exercises in young people.BMC public health · 2022Article
- A sensor array for the discrimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using conjugated polymers and the inner filter effect.Chemical science · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contain two or more fused benzene rings that are considered as cosmo-pollutants ubiquitously found in the environment. The identification and monitoring of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are of great interests for rapid and on-site detection. Therefore, many analytical and biological techniques have been proposed for the qualitative and quantitative assessments of PAHs. Non-biological analytical techniques such as infrared, Raman, and fluorescence spectroscopies are commonly exploited as non-destructive techniques while gas chromatography (GC) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with multiple detectors are extensively employed for the separation and detection of an analyte. Even though spectroscopy and chromatography are more accurate, convenient, and feasible techniques, often, these methods are expensive and sophisticated which require high maintenance cost. On the other hand, biological approaches, i.e., immunoassay, PCR, and microarray, offer comprehensive high-throughput specificity and sensitivity for a similar analyte. Biosensor- and immunoassay-mediated detections of PAHs have opened up new avenues in terms of low cost, rapid determination, and higher sensitivity. In this review, we have discussed the strengths and limitations of biological and analytical techniques that were explored for precise evaluation and were trusted at both the legislation and research levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29032529What 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.