ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Study of pollutant accumulation characteristics and microbial community impact at three bioretention facilities.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Plant Species and De-Icing Salt on Microbial Communities in Bioretention.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Three local plants adapt to ecological restoration of abandoned lead-zinc mines through assembly of rhizosphere bacterial communities.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Pollutant accumulation and microbial community evolution in rain gardens with different drainage types at field scale.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
In this paper, three bioretention facilities (BT, RG1-A, and RG1-B) were selected for on-site testing and experimental analysis. Of which, BT is a roadside bioretention tank with layered filler, while RG1-A and RG1-B are rain gardens with conventional filler (Bioretention soil media, BSM) and modified filler (BSM+10% Water treatment residuals,WTR), respectively. The effect of pollutant accumulation on the soil microbial community structure in the facilities, and the risk of heavy metal contamination over several years of bioretention facility operation were studied. Results showed that the water quality pollutant load reduction in BT was fluctuating. This is related to the poor water quality of road stormwater flowing into BT and the facility filler. Because RG1-B uses modified filler, RG1-B was more effective than RG1-A in regulating water quality and quantity; the changes in soil physical and chemical properties in BT, RG1-A, and RG1-B were influenced by external factors. Next, BT was at high risk of heavy metal contamination than other facilities. The microbial community structure of the facility had the following characteristics: at the phylum level, Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum in the bioretention facility, accounting for 29-45%; and at the genus level, Blastocatella was the dominant phylum, and the relative abundance in situ was higher than that in the bioretention facility. The results of the correlation analysis combining filler environmental factors and microbial community structure indicated that SMC was a highly influential factor among the three facilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33847886What 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.