Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30397754›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2019

Environmental risk assessment of psychoactive drugs in the aquatic environment.

Deivisson L Cunha, Maíra P Mendes, Marcia Marques

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Z-Drugs in the Environment: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sensory-Motor Perturbations in Larval Zebrafish (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Deivisson L CunhaDepartment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), R. São Francisco Xavier, 524, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil. deivisson_cunha@uerj.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7777-5002
Maíra P MendesToxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 44 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, S7N 5B3, Canada.
Marcia MarquesDepartment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), R. São Francisco Xavier, 524, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil.
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

Lacrimal Gland Repair Using Progenitor CellsR01EY026202 · NEI · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI MAKARENKOVA, HELEN P. · 2016 to 2025
$5.2M
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 308335/2017-1Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro E-16/202.994/2015Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro FAPERJ:E-26/202.261/2018 and E-26/202.262/2018Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Inov-UERJ
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The consumption of psychoactive pharmaceuticals has increased worldwide, and wastewater treatment plants are not able to eliminate them from the effluent. An extensive review was carried out to assess the environmental risk (ERA model) based on secondary data about potential impacts on non-target organisms of seven psychoactive drugs consumed worldwide (alprazolam, bromazepam, citalopram, clonazepam, diazepam, lorazepam, and oxazepam). Risk quotients (RQs) were calculated according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on ERA of Medicinal Products For Human Use based on (i) the predicted and measured environmental concentrations (PEC and MEC, respectively) of the psychoactive drug in surface water, groundwater, and wastewater effluent and (ii) the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) derived from ecotoxicological assays or ECOSAR software. Furthermore, this study reviews and discusses non-standardized ecotoxicity assays, such as sublethal and behavioral effects on different organisms. In total, 903 MEC entries of psychoactive drugs and 162 data on ecotoxicological assays were gathered from the literature survey addressing behavioral effects (115), acute/chronic effects (35), and sublethal effects (12). Citalopram and diazepam were the only substances that are likely to pose an environmental risk (RQ > 1) to surface waters. Even though there is considerable amount of data on behavioral effects of psychoactive drugs to aquatic species, results are currently not integrated into the EMA risk assessment framework. The large amount of data on psychoactive drug concentrations and effects on non-target organisms collected, interpreted, and discussed in the present study should be used as a baseline for future improvement of ERA strategies.

Indexed as

EcotoxicologyEnvironmental MonitoringGroundwaterHumansPsychotropic DrugsRisk AssessmentWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalPsychotropic DrugsWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalAquatic environmentBehavioral toxicologyEnvironmental risk assessmentMeasured environmental concentration (MEC)Predicted environmental concentration (PEC)Psychoactive drugs

Identifiers

PMID30397754
OpenAlexW2899677432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.