ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Performance Comparison of Different Constructed Wetlands Designs for the Removal of Personal Care Products.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Removal of pharmaceutical active compounds in multi-module biochar filter (MmBF) for post-septic tank treatment.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2025Article
- Removal of pharmaceutical contaminants from hospital wastewater using constructed wetlands: a review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024Review
- Performance Efficiency of Conventional Treatment Plants and Constructed Wetlands towards Reduction of Antibiotic Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 research investigates the performance of four types of constructed wetlands (CWs): free water surface CW (FWSCW), horizontal flow CW (HFCW), vertical flow CW (VFCW), and hybrid CW (HCW) for the removal of 20 personal care products (PCPs), based on secondary data compiled for 137 CWs reported in 39 peer reviewed journal papers. In spite of considerable variation in the re-moval efficiency of PCPs, CWs prove to be a promising treatment technology. The average removal efficiency of 15 widely studied PCPs ranged from 9.0% to 84%. Although CWs effectively reduced the environmental risks caused by many PCPs, triclosan was still classified under high risk category based on effluent concentration. Five other PCPs were classified under medium risk category (triclocarban > methylparaben > galaxolide > oxybenzone > methyl dihydrojasmonate). In most of the examined PCPs, adsorption and/or sorption is the most common removal mechanism followed by biodegradation and plant uptake. The comparatively better performance of HCW followed by VFCW, HFCW, and FWSCW might be due to the co-existence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions, and longer hydraulic retention time enhancing the removal of PCPs (e.g., triclosan, methyl dihydro-jasmonate, galaxolide, tonalide, and oxybenzone), which are removed under both conditions and by adsorption/sorption processes.
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.