ArticleToxics2021
Metagenomic Analysis for Evaluating Change in Bacterial Diversity in TPH-Contaminated Soil after Soil Remediation.
Article in Toxics, 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.
- Molecular Monitoring in Soil Bioremediation: From Genetic Potential to Verified Pathway Operation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Biodegradation of Benzo(a)pyrene in Contaminated Soil: Plant and Microorganism Contributions from Isotope Tracing.Toxics · 2025Article
- Metagenomics: An Effective Approach for Exploring Microbial Diversity and Functions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Soil washing and landfarming processes are widely used to remediate total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)-contaminated soil, but the impact of these processes on soil bacteria is not well understood. Four different states of soil (uncontaminated soil (control), TPH-contaminated soil (CS), after soil washing (SW), and landfarming (LF)) were collected from a soil remediation facility to investigate the impact of TPH and soil remediation processes on soil bacterial populations by metagenomic analysis. Results showed that TPH contamination reduced the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) number and alpha diversity of soil bacteria. Compared to SW and LF remediation techniques, LF increased more bacterial richness and diversity than SW, indicating that LF is a more effective technique for TPH remediation in terms of microbial recovery. Among different bacterial species, Proteobacteria were the most abundant in all soil groups followed by Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, and Firmicutes. For each soil group, the distribution pattern of the Proteobacteria class was different. The most abundant classed were Alphaproteobacteria (16.56%) in uncontaminated soils, Deltaproteobacteria (34%) in TPH-contaminated soils, Betaproteobacteria (24%) in soil washing, and Gammaproteobacteria (24%) in landfarming, respectively. TPH-degrading bacteria were detected from soil washing (23%) and TPH-contaminated soils (21%) and decreased to 12% in landfarming soil. These results suggest that soil pollution can change the diversity of microbial groups and different remediation techniques have varied effective ranges for recovering bacterial communities and diversity. In conclusion, the landfarming process of TPH remediation is more advantageous than soil washing from the perspective of bacterial ecology.
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.