Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33490051›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Challenges and Current Status of the Biological Treatment of PFAS-Contaminated Soils.

Esmaeil Shahsavari, Duncan Rouch, Leadin S Khudur, Duncan Thomas, Arturo Aburto-Medina, Andrew S Ball

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Esmaeil ShahsavariSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Duncan RouchSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Leadin S KhudurSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Duncan ThomasSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Arturo Aburto-MedinaSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Andrew S BallSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOCs) which are of current concern as they are linked to a myriad of adverse health effects in mammals. They can be found in drinking water, rivers, groundwater, wastewater, household dust, and soils. In this review, the current challenge and status of bioremediation of PFAs in soils was examined. While several technologies to remove PFAS from soil have been developed, including adsorption, filtration, thermal treatment, chemical oxidation/reduction and soil washing, these methods are expensive, impractical for

Indexed as

bacteriabioaccumulationbioremediationmycoremediationPFAS-contaminated soilsphytoremediation

Identifiers

PMID33490051
PMCPMC7817812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.