ArticleWater, air, and soil pollution2020
Comparing Extraction Methods for Biomarker Steroid Characterisation from Soil and Slurry.
Article in Water, air, and soil pollution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint removal of pollutants from sulfide ore flotation wastewater using composite oily sludge-based adsorbents.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Synthesis of a novel magnetic biochar composite enhanced with polyaniline for high-performance adsorption of heavy metals: focus on Hg(ii) and Cu(ii).RSC advances · 2025Article
- Yolk-shell smart polymer microgels and their hybrids: fundamentals and applications.RSC advances · 2024Review
- Experimental and computational study of metal oxide nanoparticles for the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants: a review.RSC advances · 2023Review
- Heavy metal pollution in the aquatic environment: efficient and low-cost removal approaches to eliminate their toxicity: a review.RSC advances · 2023Review
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
Clean water is a precious resource, and policies/programmes are implemented worldwide to protect and/or improve water quality. Faecal pollution can be a key contributor to water quality decline causing eutrophication through nutrient enrichment and pathogenic contamination. The robust sourcing of faecal pollutants is important to be able to target the appropriate sector and to engage managers. Biomarker technology has the potential for source confirmation, by using, for example the biomarker suite of steroids. Steroids have been used in the differentiation of human and animal faeces; however, there is no unequivocal extraction technique. Some of the methods used include (i) Soxhlet extraction, (ii) Bligh and Dyer (BD) extraction, and (iii) accelerated solvent extraction (ASE). The less costly and time intensive technique of ASE is particularly attractive, but a current research gap concerns further comparisons regarding ASE lipid extraction from soils/slurries compared with the more traditional Soxhlet and BD extractions. Accordingly, a randomised complete block experiment was implemented to assess differences between the three extraction methods, differences between the different sample types, and the interactions between these two factors. Following GC-MS, it was found that there was no significant difference between the results of the steroid extraction methods, regardless of the type of sample used, for the quantity of each steroid extracted. It was concluded that ASE could be used confidently instead of the more established steroid extraction methods, thereby delivering time and cost savings.
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.