Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36078629›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Current Progress in Natural Degradation and Enhanced Removal Techniques of Antibiotics in the Environment: A Review.

Shimei Zheng, Yandong Wang, Cuihong Chen, Xiaojing Zhou, Ying Liu, Jinmei Yang, Qijin Geng, Gang Chen, Yongzhen Ding, Fengxia Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. A floatable TiORSC advances · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Shimei ZhengCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5890-5975
Yandong WangDepartment of Pediatrics, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang 261041, China.
Cuihong ChenCollege of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China.
Xiaojing ZhouCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.
Ying LiuCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.
Jinmei YangCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.
Qijin GengCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.
Gang ChenCollege of Chemistry and Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Weifang University, Weifang 261061, China.
Yongzhen DingAgro-Environmental Protection Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tianjin 300191, China.
Fengxia YangAgro-Environmental Protection Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tianjin 300191, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotics are used extensively throughout the world and their presence in the environment has caused serious pollution. This review summarizes natural methods and enhanced technologies that have been developed for antibiotic degradation. In the natural environment, antibiotics can be degraded by photolysis, hydrolysis, and biodegradation, but the rate and extent of degradation are limited. Recently, developed enhanced techniques utilize biological, chemical, or physicochemical principles for antibiotic removal. These techniques include traditional biological methods, adsorption methods, membrane treatment, advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), constructed wetlands (CWs), microalgae treatment, and microbial electrochemical systems (such as microbial fuel cells, MFCs). These techniques have both advantages and disadvantages and, to overcome disadvantages associated with individual techniques, hybrid techniques have been developed and have shown significant potential for antibiotic removal. Hybrids include combinations of the electrochemical method with AOPs, CWs with MFCs, microalgal treatment with activated sludge, and AOPs with MFCs. Considering the complexity of antibiotic pollution and the characteristics of currently used removal technologies, it is apparent that hybrid methods are better choices for dealing with antibiotic contaminants.

Indexed as

MicroalgaeWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsSewageWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterWetlandsAnti-Bacterial AgentsSewageWastewaterWater Pollutants, Chemicaladvanced oxidation processesantibioticsbiodegradationconstructed wetlandenhanced removalhybrid technologymembrane filtrationmicrobial electrochemical systems

Identifiers

PMID36078629
PMCPMC9518397

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.