ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018
An impact assessment for urban stormwater use.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiological characterization of stormwater in a high-income neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022Article
- Feasibility of rainwater harvesting for sustainable water management in urban areas of Egypt.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Assessment of surface water quality in Lushan: a world heritage sites in China.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Pollutant removal performance of an integrated system that combines a baffled vertical-flow wetland and a scenic water body.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stormwater has the potential to provide a non-potable water supply which requires less treatment than municipal wastewaters with the added benefit of reducing pollution and erosion issues in receiving water bodies. However, the adoption of stormwater collection and use as an accepted practice requires that the perceived risks, particularly those associated with public health, are addressed. This paper considers the human health concerns associated with stormwater quality when used for a range of non-potable applications using E. coli, a commonly found pollutant in urban stormwater which is also widely included in human health-based water quality standards and guidelines. Based on a source-pathway-receptor model, scores are allocated, on a scale of 0 to 5, to benchmark increasing the likelihoods of exposure to stormwater during different occupational and non-occupational applications and magnitude of impacts which may result. The impacts are assessed by comparing median stormwater E. coli levels with the reported guideline levels relating to different stormwater uses. Combination of the exposure and impact scores provides an overall risk score for each stormwater application. Low or medium risks are shown to be associated with most stormwater uses except for domestic car washing and occupational irrigation of edible raw food crops where the predicted highest levels of risk posed by median E. coli levels in stormwater necessitate the introduction of remedial actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29082472What 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.