ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2019
In situ resuspension rate monitoring method in the littoral zone with multi-ecotypes of a shallow wind-disturbed lake.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019. 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.
- Characterization of odorants in contrasting ecotypes of Lake Taihu: algae-dominated versus macrophyte-dominated zones.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sediment resuspension has been recognized as a crucial internal process in aquatic ecosystems. However, there is still a lack of reliable measuring methods due to the complex hydrodynamic conditions in large shallow eutrophic lakes. In this study, sequential sediment traps (SST) and instantaneous multiple point (IMP) methods were compared at 6 sites located in the littoral zone of Zhushan Bay in Lake Taihu. Results show that the average resuspension rates (RRs) estimated using the IMP method at sites 1 to 6 were 266.39, 272.79, 235.17, 254.95, 392.25, and 483.85 g·m
Indexed as
Identifiers
30659484What 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.