Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37364241›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science & technology2023

Passive Sampling-Based versus Conventional-Based Metrics for Evaluating Remediation Efficacy at Contaminated Sediment Sites: A Review.

James S Grundy, Matthew K Lambert, Robert M Burgess

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James S GrundyOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM, Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5293-9747
Matthew K LambertU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OLEM, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, District of Columbia 20460, United States.
Robert M BurgessU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/CEMM, Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4504-5125
Environmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Passive sampling devices (PSDs) are increasingly used at contaminated sites to improve the characterization of contaminant transport and assessment of ecological and human health risk at sediment sites and to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial actions. The use of PSDs after full-scale remediation remains limited, however, in favor of evaluation based on conventional metrics, such as bulk sediment concentrations or bioaccumulation. This review has three overall aims: (1) identify sites where PSDs have been used to support cleanup efforts, (2) assess how PSD-derived remedial end points compare to conventional metrics, and (3) perform broad semiquantitative and selective quantitative concurrence analyses to evaluate the magnitude of agreement between metrics. Contaminated sediment remedies evaluated included capping, in situ amendment, dredging and monitored natural recovery (MNR). We identify and discuss 102 sites globally where PSDs were used to determine remedial efficacy resulting in over 130 peer-reviewed scientific publications and numerous technical reports and conference proceedings. The most common conventional metrics assessed alongside PSDs in the peer-reviewed literature were bioaccumulation (39%), bulk sediments (40%), toxicity (14%), porewater grab samples (16%), and water column grab samples (16%), while about 25% of studies used PSDs as the sole metric. In a semiquantitative concurrence analysis, the PSD-based metrics agreed with conventional metrics in about 68% of remedy assessments. A more quantitative analysis of reductions in bioaccumulation after remediation (i.e., remediation was successful) showed that decreases in uptake into PSDs agreed with decreases in bioaccumulation (within a factor of 2) 61% of the time. Given the relatively good agreement between conventional and PSD-based metrics, we propose several practices and areas for further study to enhance the utilization of PSDs throughout the remediation of contaminated sediment sites.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationWater Pollutants, ChemicalGeologic SedimentsHumansWater Pollutants, ChemicalContaminated sedimentsPassive samplingRemediationRemedy efficacySuperfund

Identifiers

PMID37364241
PMCPMC10404352
OpenAlexW4382049350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.