ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Chemical and ecotoxicological assessment of sludge-based biosolids used for corn field fertilization.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluation of Potential Toxic Elements in Soils from Three Urban Areas Surrounding a Steel Industrial Zone.Toxics · 2025Article
- Physiological Response of Lettuce (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Human and ecotoxicological risk assessment of heavy metals in polymer post treatment sludge from Barekese Drinking Water Treatment Plant, Kumasi.Toxicology reports · 2024Article
- Valorization of Spirodela polyrrhiza biomass for the production of biofuels for distributed energy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Biosolid-Amended Soil Enhances Defense Responses in Tomato Based on Metagenomic Profile and Expression of Pathogenesis-Related Genes.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Environmental Toxicity Assessment: state of the art and future directions in a world of arising threats.Environmental science and pollution research international · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sludge-based biosolids can be used for crop fertilization and for soil enrichment with organic matter. The prerequisites for their application are laid out in 86/278/EEC which sets limits for metals of toxicological concern in the biosolid and in the recipient soil. In this context, three kinds of sludge-based biosolids from a municipal wastewater treatment plant were submitted to the leaching tests EN 12457-2 and ΝΕΝ 7341. The leachates were examined for their physicochemical, chemical, and ecotoxicological characteristics four times within a year. Even in the more aggressive metal leaching method (ΝΕΝ 7341), results were much lower than the limits set in Council Directive 86/278/EEC. Correlations were noted between numerous parameters and principal component analysis grouped them in 3 components explaining 76% of total variation. These leaching tests were also performed on soil-biosolid samples from another investigative research in which two of the three kinds of biosolids had been incorporated in corn fields at doses 0, 20, and 40 tn/ha. EN 12457-2 leaching tests indicated that Ni and Cd leaching was affected by biosolid incorporation in soil, in relation to the type of the receiving soil (clay or sand). The leachates from the soil-biosolid mixtures were practically not toxic for the organisms tested (D. magna, V. fischeri, higher plants). In summary the biosolids were considered of low environmental risk when utilized in the field. A detailed risk assessment encompassing both chemical and ecotoxicological analysis is necessary for integrated evaluation of biosolids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32424754What 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.