Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of pollution indices for the assessment of heavy metal in Brisbane River sediment

Open access
Duodu, Godfred Odame, Goonetilleke, Ashantha, Ayoko, Godwin A.·2016·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Estuarine environment is complex and receives different contaminants from numerous sources that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. The distribution, source, contamination and ecological risk status of heavy metals in sediment of Brisbane River, Australia were investigated. Sediment samples were analysed for major and minor elements using LA-ICP-MS. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis identified three main sources of metals in the samples: marine sand intrusion, mixed lithogenic and sand intrusion as well as transport related. To overcome inherent deficiencies in using a single index, a range of sediment quality indices, including contamination factor, enrichment factor, index of geo-accumulation, modified degree of contamination, pollution index and modified pollution index were utilised to ascertain the sediment quality. Generally, the sediment is deemed to be "slightly" to "heavily" polluted. A further comparison with the Australian Sediment Quality Guidelines indicated that Ag, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn had the potential to rarely cause biological effects while Hg could frequently cause biological effects. Application of potential ecological risk index (RI) revealed that the sediment poses moderate to considerable ecological risk. However, RI could not account for the complex sediment behaviour because it uses a simple contamination factor. Consequently, a modified ecological risk index (MRI) employing enrichment factor is proposed. This provides a more reliable understanding of whole sediment behaviour and classified the ecological risk of the sediment as moderate to very high. The results demonstrate the need for further investigation into heavy metal speciation and bioavailability in the sediment to ascertain the degree of toxicity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.008

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Duodu, G. O., Goonetilleke, A., & Ayoko, G. A.
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
219
Pages
1077-1091
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2507159821
Cited by
401
References
31
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of pollution indices for the assessment of heavy metal in Brisbane River sediment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.008
The paper
Duodu, G. O., Goonetilleke, A., & Ayoko, G. A. (2016). Comparison of pollution indices for the assessment of heavy metal in Brisbane River sediment. Environmental Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.