Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:17555958rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1135796lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0025552lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0036861lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0750852lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0699857lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2700441lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205430lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1516240lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:issue6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:dateCreated2008-1-9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:abstractTextWaste products such as biosolids and wood wastes have been frequently used in container production of plants. The use of biosolids in agriculture is a beneficial mean of recycling the by-products of waste-water treatment. However, care must be taken to avoid environmental or human health problems via run-off and leaching. The objective of this work is to compare the retention capacity of cadmium, lead, zinc and nitrate between pine bark (PB) and coconut fibre (F) when mixed with increasing amounts of composted sewage sludge (CSS) (0%, 15% and 30% (v/v)). Substrates were packed into leaching columns and irrigated with deionised water every 2 days. Leachates were collected during 1 month, and nitrate, Zn, Cd, Pb, EC and pH were monitored along the experiment. PB columns leached lower amount of nitrate than the coconut fibre ones. The same trend was observed for Zn, Cd and Pb. It could be said, that in order to minimize the environmental risks of using sewage sludges our results indicate that it is preferred to mix the sludge with pine bark instead than with coconut husk.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:issn0960-8524lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GuerreroFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Hernández-Apa...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:volume99lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:pagination1544-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17555958...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:year2008lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:articleTitleComparison between pine bark and coconut husk sorption capacity of metals and nitrate when mixed with sewage sludge.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:affiliationAgricultural Chemistry Department, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Francisco Tomás y Valiente 7, 28049, Madrid, Spain. lourdes.hernandez@uam.eslld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17555958pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed