2010
DOI: 10.1007/s11368-010-0267-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation on soil contamination at recently inundated and non-inundated sites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The dioxin-like effectiveness (bio-TEQs) of the sediment samples from the Karlskopf was high compared with other studies in different central European river systems, as assessed by the fuzzy logic classification system of Keiter et al (2009). Higher bio-TEQs were detected only in samples from Sigmaringen (Danube 2) and in one sample of inundated foreland of the Rhine (Rhine 3) (Wölz et al 2011) (see Fig. 6).…”
Section: Comparative Toxicity Evaluation and Longitudinal Gradientmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The dioxin-like effectiveness (bio-TEQs) of the sediment samples from the Karlskopf was high compared with other studies in different central European river systems, as assessed by the fuzzy logic classification system of Keiter et al (2009). Higher bio-TEQs were detected only in samples from Sigmaringen (Danube 2) and in one sample of inundated foreland of the Rhine (Rhine 3) (Wölz et al 2011) (see Fig. 6).…”
Section: Comparative Toxicity Evaluation and Longitudinal Gradientmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Several studies were able to show a link of soil contamination in retention areas and extreme flood events Umlauf et al 2005;Wölz et al 2011). Wölz et al (2011) reported on the biological effects (EROD assay) in soils of the inundated foreland and the non-inundated hinterland of the Rhine. We anticipate that also in the present study, soil environments are exposed to river-borne contaminants arising from flood events.…”
Section: Comparative Toxicity Evaluation and Longitudinal Gradientmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the highly conserved structure of the genetic material, it is possible to use a wide variety of species in genotoxicity tests; currently, the most widespread methods for the routine tests are based on the use of indicator bacteria and also basidiomycetes fungi, plants, insects and cultured mammalian cells or even laboratory animals for mutagenicity tests. According to the literature, the Ames test is the most widely used in genotoxicity evaluations of soils and leachate (Claxton et al, 2010;Wölz et al, 2011). This test, also known as Salmonella/microsome, consists, basically, in the employment of strains of the auxotrophic bacteria Salmonella typhimurium, i.e., deficient in the synthesis of the aminoacid histidine; the strains of these cells are unable to grow in minimum medium, where the mutagenic compounds are able to restore the synthesis capacity of this aminoacid, thus, the mutagenic expression corresponds to the growth of the colony in a minimum culture medium and it can be easily detected by counting the colonies (Umbuzeiro & Vargas, 2003).…”
Section: Genotoxicity Biomarkersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spiked sediment of experiment 3 had a moderate mean bio-TEQ value (855 pg g −1 SEQ) and EROD-inducing potential compared to findings of Wölz et al (2008Wölz et al ( , 2011, who determined a bio-TEQ value of 1,900 pg g −1 for River Elbe sediments and bio-TEQ values between 1,160 and 6,640 pg g −1 in suspended particulate matter samples from the River Rhine. Hollert et al (2002) reported an EROD induction potential of 1,767 pg g −1 for sediments from a small creek (Forellenbach) in BadenWürttemberg, Germany, which is heavily contaminated with PAHs.…”
Section: Erod Induction Potentialmentioning
confidence: 62%