ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2019
Comparison of multi-criteria analysis methodologies for the prioritization of arsenic-contaminated sites in the southwest of China.
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.
- Environmental risk mapping of potential abandoned uranium mine contamination on the Navajo Nation, USA, using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis approach.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The issue of contaminated sites has been highlighted as an immediate priority in the 13th Five-Year Plan of China. Identification and prioritization of contaminated sites are of key importance for proposing effective strategies for the regional management of contaminated sites. In this study, three advanced multi-attribute methodologies, the risk-based priority methodology, the regional risk assessment methodology, and the dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA), were comparatively employed to screen contaminated sites in, Guangxi, Southwest of China. The results of the three prioritizations show that the highest ranking site identified by the three methods had great agreement. In regard to the screening attributers, while the risk-based prioritization methodology and regional risk assessment methodology allowed a high discrimination in the screening of contaminated sites associated with different attributes, such as farmland, residential areas, contaminant level, number of people, area, storage quality, site service life, and surrounding communities, the DRSA allowed the identification of contamination strength (CS) and contamination potential (CP).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30815813What 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.