Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41610183›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026

Beibei Gao, Rhea Braun, Derek Wu, Roseanne M Ford

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Beibei GaoDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-5978-6805
Rhea BraunDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, United States.
Derek WuDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, United States.
Roseanne M FordDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6763-3927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemotactic bacteria have the potential to enhance the bioremediation of nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) pollutants by preferentially migrating toward contaminant sources. Although groundwater flow has been shown to influence bacterial chemotaxis, its quantitative influence on intrinsic motility parameters governing chemotactic strategies remains unresolved. Using a T-shaped microfluidic device, mimicking a NAPL droplet trapped within a pore throat, we show that chemotactic bacteria exhibited greater retention near the NAPL interface at low fluid velocities (0.5 m/d and 1 m/d; corresponding wall shear rates of 0.58 and 1.16 s

Indexed as

ChemotaxisNaphthalenesPseudomonas putidaWaternaphthaleneNaphthalenesWaterAgent-Based model (ABM)ChemotaxisContinuum modelMicrofluidicsNonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL)Reversal frequencyShear flow

Identifiers

PMID41610183
PMCPMC12895519

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.