ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2022
Assessing the potential toxicity of paint industry effluents to aquatic organisms using the whole effluent testing (WET) approach.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Point source effluent discharges from industries are major sources of pollutants in aquatic ecosystems. In this study, the whole effluent testing approach was used to assess the toxicity of paint industry effluents to fish. Effluents were collected from three paint industries at point of discharge into the environment. Bioassay procedures were used to assess the toxicity of the effluents to fish. Effluent B was the most acutely toxic to the fish with a 96 h LC
Indexed as
Identifiers
35149936What 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.