Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34693239›Full record

ReviewWater research X2021

State of the art of urine treatment technologies: A critical review.

Tove A Larsen, Michel E Riechmann, Kai M Udert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Water research X, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Operation and clogging mechanisms of a refurbished vertical flow filter treating urine-derived wastewater.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Treatment techniques and resource recovery of source-separated urine: a bibliometric analysis and literature review.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Tove A LarsenEawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Michel E RiechmannEawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Kai M UdertEawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 15 years, urine treatment technologies have developed from lab studies of a few pioneers to an interesting innovation, attracting attention from a growing number of process engineers. In this broad review, we present literature from more than a decade on biological, physical-chemical and electrochemical urine treatment processes. Like in the first review on urine treatment from 2006, we categorize the technologies according to the following objectives: stabilization, volume reduction, targeted N-recovery, targeted P-recovery, nutrient removal, sanitization, and handling of organic micropollutants. We add energy recovery as a new objective, because extensive work has been done on electrochemical energy harvesting, especially with bio-electrochemical systems. Our review reveals that biological processes are a good choice for urine stabilization. They have the advantage of little demand for chemicals and energy. Due to instabilities, however, they are not suited for bathroom applications and they cannot provide the desired volume reduction on their own. A number of physical-chemical treatment technologies are applicable at bathroom scale and can provide the necessary volume reduction, but only with a steady supply of chemicals and often with high demand for energy and maintenance. Electrochemical processes is a recent, but rapidly growing field, which could give rise to exciting technologies at bathroom scale, although energy production might only be interesting for niche applications. The review includes a qualitative assessment of all unit processes. A quantitative comparison of treatment performance was not the goal of the study and could anyway only be done for complete treatment trains. An important next step in urine technology research and development will be the combination of unit processes to set up and test robust treatment trains. We hope that the present review will help guide these efforts to accelerate the development towards a mature technology with pilot scale and eventually full-scale implementations.

Indexed as

Energy ProductionEnvironmental ProtectionNitrogen RecoveryPharmaceutical RemovalPhosphorus RecoveryVolume Reduction

Identifiers

PMID34693239
PMCPMC8517923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.