Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29460251›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018

Comparison of emerging contaminants in receiving waters downstream of a conventional wastewater treatment plant and a forest-water reuse system.

Andrew D McEachran, Melanie L Hedgespeth, Seth R Newton, Rebecca McMahen, Mark Strynar, Damian Shea, Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

7 authors.

Andrew D McEachranDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. admceach@ncsu.edu.
Melanie L HedgespethDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Seth R NewtonNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27711, USA.
Rebecca McMahenOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27711, USA.
Mark StrynarNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27711, USA.
Damian SheaDepartment of Biological Sciences, College of Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Elizabeth Guthrie NicholsDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.

Funding

STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS OF FLOW AND TRANSPORT PHENOMENAP42ES005948 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FRY, REBECCA · 1992 to 2017
$45.4M
UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Intramural EPA EPA999999NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES005948NIEHS NIH HHS P42ES005948University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill P30ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forest-water reuse (FWR) systems treat municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewaters via land application to forest soils. Previous studies have shown that both large-scale conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and FWR systems do not completely remove many contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) before release of treated wastewater. To better characterize CECs and potential for increased implementation of FWR systems, FWR systems need to be directly compared to conventional WWTPs. In this study, both a quantitative, targeted analysis and a nontargeted analysis were utilized to better understand how CECs release to waterways from an FWR system compared to a conventional treatment system. Quantitatively, greater concentrations and total mass load of CECs was exhibited downstream of the conventional WWTP compared to the FWR. Average summed concentrations of 33 targeted CECs downstream of the conventional system were ~ 1000 ng/L and downstream of the FWR were ~ 30 ng/L. From a nontargeted chemical standpoint, more tentatively identified chemicals were present, and at a greater relative abundance, downstream of the conventional system as well. Frequently occurring contaminants included phthalates, pharmaceuticals, and industrial chemicals. These data indicate that FWR systems represent a sustainable wastewater treatment alternative and that emerging contaminant release to waterways was lower at a FWR system than a conventional WWTP.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringAgricultural IrrigationForestryNorth CarolinaWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalContaminants of emerging concern (CECs)Forest-water reuseNontargeted analysisSurface waterWastewaterWater reuse

Identifiers

PMID29460251
PMCPMC6739829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.