ArticleFrontiers in public health2021
Investigation and Systematic Risk Assessment in a Typical Contaminated Site of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A total of 214 sampling sites of a hazardous waste disposal center were surveyed in a two-stage pollution investigation, including soil boreholes and groundwater monitoring wells. Results showed that chemical oxygen demand (COD) (4.00-2930.00 mg/L), fluoride (0.07-9.08 mg/L), chromium (0.12-1.20 μg/L), nickel (0.15-459.00 μg/L), lead (0.10-10.20 μg/L), cadmium (Cd) (0.05-16.40 μg/L), and beryllium (0.06-3.48 μg/L) were detected in groundwater samples. For soils, Cd in soil (78.7 mg/kg) exceeded the risk screening value (65 mg/kg) for soil contamination of the second type of development land (GB36600-2018), and there remained the risk of leakage in the landfill detection investigation. Then, a health risk assessment was carried out. Based on the definitions of the groundwater exposure pathway (HJ 25.3-2019) and the pollution investigation of groundwater, the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks of groundwater were generally considered to be negligible. The carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic risk of the concerned pollutant in soil for risk assessment (Cd) under the condition of reutilization exceeded the corresponding acceptable levels (1E-06 and 1). The (non-)carcinogenic risk of Cd mainly came from oral intake of soil and inhalation of soil particles under two conditions of reutilization and non-utilization, so on-site workers and surrounding residents should be properly protected from the mouth and nose to minimize the intake of pollutants from the soil and soil particles. The area of soil contaminated by Cd was about 630.58 m
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.