ReviewEnvironmental geochemistry and health2021
Assessment of geochemical modeling applications and research hot spots-a year in review.
Review in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in ecotoxicological research using planarians: a comprehensive review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026Review
- Potentially toxic elements in groundwater: a hotspot research topic in environmental science and pollution research.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geochemical modeling has been employed in several fields of science and engineering in recent years. This review seeks to provide an overview of case studies that applied geochemical modeling in the 2019 year, which includes over 250 articles. This review is intended to inform new users on the possibilities that geochemical modeling brings, while also informing existing and past users on its latest developments. The survey of studies was conducted with an emphasis on the modeling techniques, the objective of studies, the prevalent simulated variables and the use of specific software packages. The analysis showed that geochemical modeling is still predominantly employed in experimental projects and in the form of equilibrium modeling. PHREEQC and Visual MINTEQ were recognized as the most popular software packages for simulating a wide range of processes, using equilibrium or other geochemical modeling forms. The study of fluid-rock interactions and pollution and remediation processes can be regarded as the principal geochemical modeling objectives, constituting 37% and 36% of the reviewed studies, respectively. Focusing on fluid-rock interactions, hydrogeochemical processes, carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery have been the main topics examined with geochemical modeling. Assessments of the toxicity of metals in terms of leachate and mobilization, as well as their removal from soil and water systems, have been major topics investigated with the aid of geochemical modeling in terms of pollution and remediation research. It was found that the scholars benefit from geochemical modeling in their research both as a main technique and as an accessory tool. Saturation index, elemental concentration and speciation, mineral mass and composition and pH were among the most common variables modeled in reviewed studies. Geochemical modeling has gained a wider user base in recent years, and many research groups have used it in consecutive studies to deepen knowledge. However, much potential for further dissemination still remains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33651264What 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.