ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2022
In vitro cytotoxic assessment of e-waste-related chemical pollution in impacted soil matrix.
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. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- E-waste: mechanisms of toxicity and safety testing.FEBS open bio · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The environmental quality and toxicity of soil from some selected informal e-waste sites in West Africa was assessed on PLHC-1 liver cells. In addition, toxicity mechanisms such as apoptosis, necrosis and necroptosis were analysed in order to determine the effect of the actual chemical mixture present in the e-waste soil matrix. The investigation revealed that although e-waste soil extracts (polar and non-polar) and elutriates were significantly cytotoxic at the tested concentration (16 mg soil EQ/ml), PLHC-1 cell viability was not reduced below 50%. The non-polar extracts were more toxic compared to polar extracts and elutriates. The cytotoxic potency of soil from the informal e-waste-recycling sites ranged in this order: Alaba > Godome-Kouhounou > Agbogblosie. The study revealed that all e-waste soil extracts and elutriates induced significant (P < 0.01) PLHC-1 cell death by apoptosis and necrosis; however, cell death by apoptosis was higher compared to that by necrosis. The results indicated that except for non-polar extracts (N4, B4 and G4) from open burning areas that induced significant (P < 0.01) PLHC-1 cell death by necroptosis, other extracts and elutriates could not cause cell death by necroptosis. The study has demonstrated that soils from the Alaba e-waste site in Lagos could be more toxic than soils from Godome-Kouhounou (Cotonou) and Agbogblosie (Accra) e-waste sites and further highlighted open burning as an informal e-waste-handling method with greater negative impact on soil quality in the e-waste sites. The study emphasizes the urgent need for regulatory agencies to introduce regular residue-monitoring programmes in order to forestall the adverse effects of soil pollution episodes in the e-waste sites.
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.