ReviewEnvironmental science & technology2023
Passive Sampling-Based versus Conventional-Based Metrics for Evaluating Remediation Efficacy at Contaminated Sediment Sites: A Review.
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.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating ex situ biomimetic extraction analyses into contaminated sediment assessment and management decisions.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2025Article
- Sediment Toxicity Tests: A Critical Review of Their use in Environmental Regulations.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2024Review
- Quantitative thermodynamic exposure assessment of PCBs available to sandworms (Environmental science. Processes & impacts · 2024Article
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
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
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.