SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Literature Review: Evaluation of Drug Removal Techniques in Municipal and Hospital Wastewater.
Synthesis 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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Adsorptive removal of methylene blue and pharmaceutical effluents using biosynthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mitigating the environmental effects of healthcare: the role of the endocrinologist.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2025Review
- Facile fabrication of novel magnetic chitosan@Ag-MWCN nanocomposite for the adsorptive removal of ciprofloxacin from aqueous solutions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of QuEChERS extraction and LC-MS/MS for determination of pharmaceuticals in sewage sludges sampled across the Czech Republic.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2024Article
- Antibiotic Residues and Resistance in Three Wastewater Treatment Plants in Romania.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- EuMikrochimica acta · 2024Article
- Efficiency of Diclofenac Removal Using Activated Sludge in a Dynamic System (SBR Reactor) with Variable Parameters of pH, Concentration, and Sludge Oxygenation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An Overview of the Impact of Pharmaceuticals on Aquatic Microbial Communities.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination processes that limit their applicability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the best techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals from municipal and hospital wastewater. For this, a non-experimental, descriptive, qualitative-quantitative design was used, corresponding to a systematic review without meta-analysis. Based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 open-access articles were selected from the Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect databases. The results showed that high concentrations of analgesics such as naproxen (1.37 mg/L) and antibiotics such as norfloxacin (0.561 mg/L) are frequently found in wastewater and that techniques such as reverse osmosis, ozonation, and activated sludge have the best removal efficiency, achieving values of 99%. It was concluded that reverse osmosis is one of the most efficient techniques for eliminating ofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and diclofenac from municipal wastewater, with removal rates ranging from 96 to 99.9%, while for hospital wastewater the activated sludge technique proved to be efficient, eliminating analgesics and antibiotics in the range of 41-99%.
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.