ReviewEnvironmental health insights2025
Scoping Review on Mitigating the Silent Threat of Toxic Industrial Waste: Eco-Rituals Strategies for Remediation and Ecosystem Restoration.
Review in Environmental health insights, 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.
- Isolation and molecular-proteomic characterization of metallothionein-producing heavy metal-resistant bacteria for industrial wastewater bioremediation.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Article
- Effects of foliar applied asparagine, glycine and citric acid on cadmium uptake and yield in wheat.PeerJ · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The problem of toxic industrial waste impacting soil and water quality remains a significant environmental threat, yet comprehensive solutions are lacking. This review addresses this gap by exploring the effects of industrial waste on ecosystems and proposing strategies for remediation. Its aim is to provide a thorough understanding of the issue and suggest actionable solutions to minimize environmental damage. Methods: A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were sourced from major academic databases, including Science Direct, Scopus, PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Springer Link, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. A total of 105 relevant articles were included based on strict eligibility criteria. The review process encompassed identification, screening, and eligibility checks, followed by data abstraction and analysis. Results: The scoping review highlights the severe impact of toxic industrial waste on soil and water quality, emphasizing pollutants such as heavy metals (cadmium, lead, chromium), organic contaminants, and excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). These pollutants degrade aquatic ecosystems, causing acidification, eutrophication, and oxygen depletion, leading to biodiversity loss and the mobilization of toxic metals. Soil health is similarly compromised, with heavy metal contamination reducing fertility and disrupting microbial communities essential for nutrient cycling. Mitigation strategies, including cleaner production technologies, effluent treatment, bioremediation, and phytoremediation, offer promising solutions. These eco-friendly approaches effectively reduce pollutants, restore ecosystems, and enhance environmental sustainability, thus mitigating the long-term risks posed by industrial waste on soil and water quality. Conclusions and recommendations: The findings confirm that toxic industrial waste is a critical environmental threat that impacts both aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial soils. Immediate action is necessary to address ecological degradation. Recommended strategies include banning harmful raw materials, pre-treatment of waste, riparian buffering, bioremediation, and stricter regulations to control pollution and safeguard ecosystems.
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.