ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Level of contamination in the feces of several species at major inland pollution sources in the drainage basin of Yeoja Bay, Republic of Korea.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic resistance in shellfish and major inland pollution sources in the drainage basin of Kamak Bay, Republic of Korea.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the levels of fecal contamination and the originating species of 12 major inland pollutants in the drainage basin of Yeoja Bay. The presence of the human-specific (HF183), ruminant-specific (BacR and Rum-2-Bac), pig-specific (Pig-Bac-2 and Pig-2-Bac), avian-specific (GFD), and gull-specific (Gull2) markers in water samples (n = 34) from 12 inland pollution sources around Yeoja Bay was analyzed. HF183 was detected in 97% of the water samples, and all major inland pollution sources were contaminated with human feces. BacR and Rum-2-Bac were detected in 94% and 11%, respectively, of the water samples. Pig-2-Bac was not detected in the inland pollution sources, but site L5 might be contaminated with swine feces. Gull2 was not detected, whereas GFD was detected in 26% of the water samples. This study highlights the utility of a MST toolbox approach for characterizing the water quality of inland pollution sources and identifying the feces producing species.
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.