ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Garbage in garbage out: the contribution of our industrial advancement to wastewater degeneration.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-thermal obliteration of critically ranked carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and its resistance gene in a batch atmospheric plasma reactor.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024Article
- Stereoselective analysis of chiral pesticides: a review.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Review
- Microbial Diversity and Enzyme Activity as Indicators of Permethrin-Exposed Soil Health.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A five-year investigation of water quality and heavy metal mass flux of an industrially affected river.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Inactivation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistance genes in wastewater streams: Current challenges and future perspectives.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- The potentials of biofilm reactor as recourse for the recuperation of rare earth metals/elements from wastewater: a review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Natural water sources are habitually marred by insidious anthropogenic practices and municipal wastewater discharges that contain either of xenobiotic pollutants and their sometimes more toxic degradation products, or both. Although wastewater is considered as both a resource and a problem, as explained in this review, it is however daunting that, while the global village is still struggling to decipher the mode of proper handling, subsequent discharge and regulation of already established aromatic contaminants in wastewater, there emanates some more aggressive, stealth and sinister groups of compounds. It is quite ironic that majority of these compounds are the 'go through' consumables in our present society and have been suspected to pose several health risks to the aquatic ecosystem, eliciting unfavourable clinical manifestations in aquatic animals and humans, which has heightened the uncertainties conferred on freshwater use and consumption of some aquatic foods. This review therefore serves to give a brief account on the metamorphosis of approach in detection of aromatic pollutants and ultimately their implications along the trophic chains in the community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.