ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2019
Enhanced rhizoremediation of crude oil-contaminated mangrove swamp soil using two wetland plants (Phragmites australis and Eichhornia crassipes).
Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative studies of enhanced rhizoremediation with biostimulation and bioaugmentation techniques in remediation of oil-contaminated mangrove environment were investigated. Contaminated soils at 7190 mg/kg of oil were subjected to the following treatments: soil (S), soil + oil (SO), soil + oil + fertilizer (NPK) (SOF), soil + oil + fertilizer + microorganisms (SOFM), soil + oil + fertilizer + microorganisms + solarization (SOFMS) (triplicates): two sets planted with P. australis, E. crassipes, and one unplanted. These were studied comparatively for 120 days for culturable (aerobic, mesophilic) heterotrophic and hydrocarbon-utilizing microbial populations, and soil residual TPH. Results showed culturable heterotrophic and hydrocarbon-utilizing microbial populations and TPH loss in planted soils were consistently higher than those in unplanted receiving corresponding treatments (P ˂ 0.05). There were 44.4, 71.8, 74.7, and 67.5, and 50.5, 71.8, 82.3, and 71.8% reduction in residual TPH in soil planted with P. australis and E. crassipes respectively for treatments PSO, PSOF, PSOFM, and PSOFMS as against 20.0, 62.6, 67.5, and 67.5% losses in SO, SOF, SOFM, and SOFMS. Treatments PSOFM and SFOM recorded the highest TPH loss with daily residual TPH loss in the order as follows: E. crassipes (49.20 mg/kg/day) ˃ P. australis (44.64 mg/kg/day) ˃ unplanted soil (40.32 mg/kg/day). Enhanced rhizoremediation was more effective than biostimulation and bioaugmentation techniques.
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.