ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Performance comparison of different types of constructed wetlands for the removal of pharmaceuticals and their transformation products: a review.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Removal of Common Wastewater-Derived Trace Organic Contaminants in Vertical-Flow Constructed Wetlands Amended with Fe(III)-EDTA.ACS environmental Au · 2025Article
- Review
- Persistent Trace Organic Contaminants Are Transformed Rapidly under Sulfate- and Fe(III)-Reducing Conditions in a Nature-Based Subsurface Water Treatment System.Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Pharmaceutical compound removal efficiency by a small constructed wetland located in south Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Editorial: Advanced Bioremediation Technologies and Processes for the Treatment of Synthetic Organic Compounds.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive and critical comparison of four types of constructed wetlands (CWs): free water surface CW (FWSCW), vertical flow CW (VFCW), horizontal flow CW (HFCW), and hybrid CW (HCW) for the removal of 29 pharmaceuticals (PhCs) and 19 transformation products (TPs) using a global data compiled for 247 CWs reported in 63 peer-reviewed journal papers. Biodegradation (aerobic being more efficient than anaerobic) is the major removal mechanism for 16 out of 29 PhCs besides the influence of other processes (e.g., adsorption/sorption, plant uptake, and photodegradation). The HCW performed better followed by VFCW, HFCW, and FWSCW. The comparatively better removal in HCW might be due to the coexistence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions and longer hydraulic retention time considering more than one compartment enhances the removal of PhCs (e.g., diclofenac, acetaminophen, sulfamethoxazole, sulfapyridine, trimethoprim, and atenolol), which are removed under both conditions and adsorption/sorption processes. The augmentation in dissolved oxygen by the application of artificial aeration improved the removal of PhCs, which are degraded under aerobic conditions. Furthermore, the better performance of aerated CWs could be due to the establishment of various microenvironments with different physicochemical conditions (aerobic and anaerobic), which facilitated the contribution of both aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways in the removal of PhCs. The removal of some of the PhCs takes place by the formation of their TPs and the nature of these TPs (persistent or non-biodegradable/biodegradable) plays a major role in their removal process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32157544What 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.