Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38897327›Full record

ArticleChemosphere2024

Impacts of phosphorus amendments on legacy soil contamination from lead-based paint on a California, USA university campus.

Julia Madsen, Zoe Dascalos, Kristina Ramsey, Freddie Mayer, Connie Wong, Zach Raposo, Rachel Hunter, Mac Reinhart, Alexandra Carlson, Austin Catlin and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chemosphere, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Julia MadsenNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Zoe DascalosNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Kristina RamseyNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Freddie MayerNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Connie WongNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Zach RaposoNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Rachel HunterNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Mac ReinhartNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Alexandra CarlsonNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Austin CatlinNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Tanner MihelicNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Zoe PfahlerNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Alec CarrollNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Kyle AngelichNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Craig StublerNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Dennis SunDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Aaron BettsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA. Electronic address: Betts.Aaron@epa.gov.
Chip AppelNatural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA. Electronic address: cappel@calpoly.edu.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lead (Pb) is one of the most common heavy metal urban soil contaminants with well-known toxicity to humans. This incubation study (2-159 d) compared the ability of bone meal (BM), potassium hydrogen phosphate (KP), and triple superphosphate (TSP), at phosphorus:lead (P:Pb) molar ratios of 7.5:1, 15:1, and 22.5:1, to reduce bioaccessible Pb in soil contaminated by Pb-based paint relative to control soil to which no P amendment was added. Soil pH and Mehlich 3 bioaccessible Pb and P were measured as a function of incubation time and amount and type of P amendment. XAS assessed Pb speciation after 30 and 159 d of incubation. The greatest reductions in bioaccessible Pb at 159 d were measured for TSP at the 7.5:1 and 15:1 P:Pb molar ratios. The 7.5:1 KP treatment was the only other treatment with significant reductions in bioaccessible Pb compared to the control soil. It is unclear why greater reductions of bioaccessible Pb occurred with lower P additions, but it strongly suggests that the amount of P added was not a controlling factor in reducing bioaccessible Pb. This was further supported because Pb-phosphates were not detected in any samples using XAS. The most notable difference in the effect of TSP versus other amendments was the reduction in pH. However, the relationship between increasing TSP additions, resulting in decreasing pH and decreasing Pb bioaccessibility was not consistent. The 22.5:1 P:Pb TSP treatment had the lowest pH but did not significantly reduce bioaccessible Pb compared to the control soil. The 7.5:1 and 15:1 P:Pb TSP treatments significantly reduced bioaccessible Pb relative to the control and had significantly higher pH than the 22.5:1 P:Pb treatment. Clearly, impacts of P additions and soil pH on Pb bioaccessibility require further investigation to decipher mechanisms governing Pb speciation in Pb-based paint contaminated soils.

Indexed as

LeadPaintPhosphorusSoilSoil PollutantsBiological ProductsCaliforniaDiphosphatesEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMineralsPhosphatesPotassium CompoundsUniversitiesBiological Productsbone mealDiphosphatesLeadMineralsPhosphatesPhosphorusPotassium Compoundspotassium phosphateSoilSoil PollutantssuperphosphateBioaccessibleContaminationImmobilizationLeadPhosphorusRemediation

Identifiers

PMID38897327
PMCPMC11441423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.