ArticlePloS one2018
Phytoforensics: Trees as bioindicators of potential indoor exposure via vapor intrusion.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phytoscreening the homes of pregnant residents for volatile organic compounds: a pilot study in metro Detroit.Frontiers in environmental health · 2026Article
- Comparing conventional and phytoscreening methods to detect subsurface chemical contaminants: A test case of volatile organic compounds in an urban setting.Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) via vapor intrusion (VI) is an emerging public health concern with notable detrimental impacts on public health. Phytoforensics, plant sampling to semi-quantitatively delineate subsurface contamination, provides a potential non-invasive screening approach to detect VI potential, and plant sampling is effective and also time- and cost-efficient. Existing VI assessment methods are time- and resource-intensive, invasive, and require access into residential and commercial buildings to drill holes through basement slabs to install sampling ports or require substantial equipment to install groundwater or soil vapor sampling outside the home. Tree-core samples collected in 2 days at the PCE Southeast Contamination Site in York, Nebraska were analyzed for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and results demonstrated positive correlations with groundwater, soil, soil-gas, sub-slab, and indoor-air samples collected over a 2-year period. Because tree-core samples were not collocated with other samples, interpolated surfaces of PCE concentrations were estimated so that comparisons could be made between pairs of data. Results indicate moderate to high correlation with average indoor-air and sub-slab PCE concentrations over long periods of time (months to years) to an interpolated tree-core PCE concentration surface, with Spearman's correlation coefficients (ρ) ranging from 0.31 to 0.53 that are comparable to the pairwise correlation between sub-slab and indoor-air PCE concentrations (ρ = 0.55, n = 89). Strong correlations between soil-gas, sub-slab, and indoor-air PCE concentrations and an interpolated tree-core PCE concentration surface indicate that trees are valid indicators of potential VI and human exposure to subsurface environment pollutants. The rapid and non-invasive nature of tree sampling are notable advantages: even with less than 60 trees in the vicinity of the source area, roughly 12 hours of tree-core sampling with minimal equipment at the PCE Southeast Contamination Site was sufficient to delineate vapor intrusion potential in the study area and offered comparable delineation to traditional sub-slab sampling performed at 140 properties over a period of approximately 2 years.
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.