ArticleEnvironmental geochemistry and health2020
Selection of priority management of rivers by assessing heavy metal pollution and ecological risk of surface sediments.
Article in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review about methods for supporting failure risks analysis in eco-assessment.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Review
- Distribution of metal contamination and grain size in the sediments of Nakdong River, Korea.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- Quantitative assessment of exposure of heavy metals in groundwater and soil on human health in Reasi district, Jammu and Kashmir.Environmental geochemistry and health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to select rivers of priority management through the assessment of heavy metal pollution of sediments. We investigated the distribution characteristics of heavy metals in surface sediments of the Nakdong River in South Korea and used various pollution indices to assess pollution risk and identify factors influencing pollution. The kriging method was used to determine heavy metal distribution. The pollution load index, potential ecological risk index, mean PEL quotient, and the Canada Council of Ministers of the Environment sediment quality index were used as sediment pollution assessment methods. The toxicity evaluation was performed on sites that appeared to be contaminated, by applying existing methods for assessing sediment pollution level and the national standards for evaluating the pollution level. The toxicity test was performed on Hyalella azteca, and a methodology for assessing sediment pollution level was proposed. Ecotoxicity was assessed at seven sites that were found to have heavy metal contaminants. The results showed that sites N1, N8, T28, and T29 were not toxic, while T8, T19, and T21 were. Thus, this study shows that high heavy metal pollution does not necessarily lead to a toxic environment. To assess sediment pollution, an additional assessment of toxicity should be made, along with assessments of existing sediment pollution. Our results demonstrate that streams showing high sediment pollution levels should be granted priority in management. The efforts should particularly focus on Cu at T8, Cr at T19, and Hg at T21.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30923981What 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.