ArticleEnvironmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)2025
Comparing conventional and phytoscreening methods to detect subsurface chemical contaminants: A test case of volatile organic compounds in an urban setting.
Article in Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developmental exposure to ethylbenzene: Elucidating the effects of volatile organic compounds on phenotypic and transcriptomic endpoints using zebrafish (Danio rerio).Journal of hazardous materials · 2026Article
- Phytoscreening the homes of pregnant residents for volatile organic compounds: a pilot study in metro Detroit.Frontiers in environmental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The nationwide prevalence of brownfields, with often unknown types and quantities of subsurface chemical contaminants, highlights the need for rapid, cost-effective, and noninvasive methods to reduce routes of exposure. In post-industrial cities such as Detroit, Michigan, anthropogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs), known to negatively impact human health, are typically detected at brownfields through conventional methods, e.g. screening soil, and groundwater. Recently, the method of phytoscreening-the chemical analysis of plant tissues to provide evidence for belowground contamination-has become a viable alternative to conventional methods. However, few studies have been designed to directly compare conventional and plant-based methods of detecting VOCs. To fill this knowledge gap, we sampled and compared the concentration of six VOCs including BTEX, PCE, and TCE detected in conventional media (soil, soil vapor, groundwater, sewer vapor) and different plant tissue (tree core, leaf, root, shoot) at two brownfields sites in Detroit: an abandoned gas station with a leaking underground storage tank, and a former dry cleaning facility. Our results suggest that the concentrations of VOCs detected in plants are similar to or in some cases greater than conventional methods and can differ across the growing season. For example, leaves and roots detected, on average, a higher concentration of VOCs compared to shoots and tree cores, however, TCE and PCE were generally in higher concentrations in soil and soil vapor. Moreover, the frequency at which conventional versus phytoscreening methods failed to detect VOCs was similar at one site and higher at another, suggesting that phytoscreening may yield fewer non-detects at known sites of contamination. While additional work is needed to understand the relationship between concentrations of VOCs detected in soil versus co-located plant samples, our results suggest that phytoscreening may be a viable and reliable method to detect belowground chemical contaminants while reducing screening times and cost, and increasing access to private property.
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.