Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326678›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2024

Spent coffee grounds as a suitable alternative to standard soil in ecotoxicological tests.

Luís André Mendes, Jorge Domínguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Luís André MendesGEA (Grupo de Ecoloxía Animal), Universidade de Vigo, 36310, Vigo, Spain. luisandre.limagamamendes@uvigo.gal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4573-8290
Jorge DomínguezGEA (Grupo de Ecoloxía Animal), Universidade de Vigo, 36310, Vigo, Spain.

Funding

Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia ED431C 2022/07H2020 Environment 101003954Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa IPL/2021/PLASCOGEN_ESTeSLMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2021-124265OB-100Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación TED2021-129437B-100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eisenia andrei is considered in OECD and ISO guidelines to be a suitable replacement for Eisenia fetida in ecotoxicological assays. This suggests that other alternative materials and methods could also be used in standard procedures for toxicity testing. The guidelines also favor using less time-consuming procedures and reducing costs and other limitations to ecotoxicological assessments. In recent years, spent coffee grounds (SCG) have been used to produce vermicompost and biochar and as an additive to organic fertilizers. In addition, the physicochemical characteristics of SCG indicate that the material is a suitable substrate for earthworms, with the organisms performing as well as in natural soil. In the present study, a battery of ecotoxicological tests was established with unwashed and washed SCG and a natural reference soil (LUFA 2.2). The test substrates were spiked with different concentrations of silver nitrate. Survival and reproduction of the earthworm E. andrei were assessed under different conditions, along with substrate basal respiration (SBR) as a proxy for microbial activity. Seedling emergence and the germination index of Lepidium sativum were also determined, following standard guidelines. Exposure to silver nitrate had similar effects on earthworm survival and reproduction, as the estimated effective concentrations (EC

Indexed as

OligochaetaSoil PollutantsAnimalsCoffeeEcotoxicologySilver NitrateSoilCoffeeSilver NitrateSoilSoil PollutantsCircular economyEarthwormsEcotoxicologyOrganic matterStandard guidelines

Identifiers

PMID38326678
PMCPMC10894160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.