ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Phyto-genotoxicity assessment of different associations between sludges from Water and Sewage Treatment Plants, before and after the bioremediation process.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioherbicidal and cytogenotoxic potential of nanoemulsions containing essential oils from Piper amalago and Piper dilatatum.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Poly(butylene adipate-ACS omega · 2025Article
- Multi-taxon trends and the application of genotoxic biomarkers in the analysis of effluents from sewage treatment plant.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Herbicide and Cytogenotoxic Activity of Inclusion Complexes ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Water Treatment Plants (WTP) and Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) generate residues known as sludge (WS and SS, respectively). SS and WS present some positive characteristics for reuse in agriculture. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, using the Allium cepa test, the effectiveness of the bioremediation process in the detoxification of SS and WS sludges. In this study, the phytotoxic, cytotoxic, genotoxic, and mutagenic potentials of pure sludge samples (WS and SS) were evaluated, as well as the association of these two sludges with soil (S), before and after the bioremediation process. In the T0 period (before undergoing bioremediation), the SS, SS + S, and SS + WS samples totally inhibited the germination of A. cepa, proving the high phytotoxic potential of these samples. For the T1 period (after 6 months of bioremediation), phytotoxicity was observed for the SS, SS + S, SS + WS, and SS + WS + S samples, but there was not a complete inhibition of germination and radicles growth, allowing the evaluation of the other parameters (cytogenotoxic and mutagenic potential). No cytotoxicity was observed for any sample, both in T0 and T1. As for the genotoxicity parameter, a significant result was observed for the pure WS sample in T0 and for all samples in T1, when compared to NC. The genotoxic alteration most found in meristematic cells exposed to treatments was of binucleated cells. Mutagenic potential was also observed for samples of WS and WS + S in T0. From this study, we can conclude that, after six months of bioremediation, despite the SS phytotoxicity being reduced, all samples were genotoxic to the A. cepa organism test.
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.