Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38726145›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment - Guidance for systematic future research.

Uwe Hübner, Stephanie Spahr, Holger Lutze, Arne Wieland, Steffen Rüting, Wolfgang Gernjak, Jannis Wenk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Advances in Physicochemical and Biological Treatment of Textile Wastewater: An Applied Review of Methods, Technologies, and Costs.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2026
    Review
  12. Fenton and Photo-Fenton Degradation of Chlorpyrifos Using α-MnInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors.

Uwe HübnerChair of Urban Water Systems Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Am Coulombwall 3, 85748, Garching, Germany.
Stephanie SpahrLeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Müggelseedamm 301, 12587, Berlin, Germany.
Holger LutzeDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute IWAR, Chair of Environmental Analytics and Pollutants, Technical University of Darmstadt, Franziska-Braun-Straße 7, 64287, Darmstadt, Germany.
Arne WielandXylem Services GmbH, Boschstraße 4-14, 32051, Herford, Germany.
Steffen RütingXylem Services GmbH, Boschstraße 4-14, 32051, Herford, Germany.
Wolfgang GernjakCatalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), 17003, Girona, Spain.
Jannis WenkUniversity of Bath, Department of Chemical Engineering and Water Innovation & Research Centre (WIRC@Bath), Bath, BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are a growing research field with a large variety of different process variants and materials being tested at laboratory scale. However, despite extensive research in recent years and decades, many variants have not been transitioned to pilot- and full-scale operation. One major concern are the inconsistent experimental approaches applied across different studies that impede identification, comparison, and upscaling of the most promising AOPs. The aim of this tutorial review is to streamline future studies on the development of new solutions and materials for advanced oxidation by providing guidance for comparable and scalable oxidation experiments. We discuss recent developments in catalytic, ozone-based, radiation-driven, and other AOPs, and outline future perspectives and research needs. Since standardized experimental procedures are not available for most AOPs, we propose basic rules and key parameters for lab-scale evaluation of new AOPs including selection of suitable probe compounds and scavengers for the measurement of (major) reactive species. A two-phase approach to assess new AOP concepts is proposed, consisting of (i) basic research and proof-of-concept (technology readiness levels (TRL) 1-3), followed by (ii) process development in the intended water matrix including a cost comparison with an established process, applying comparable and scalable parameters such as UV fluence or ozone consumption (TRL 3-5). Subsequent demonstration of the new process (TRL 6-7) is briefly discussed, too. Finally, we highlight important research tools for a thorough mechanistic process evaluation and risk assessment including screening for transformation products that should be based on chemical logic and combined with complementary tools (mass balance, chemical calculations).

Indexed as

Advanced oxidation processesExperimental designProbe compoundsTrace organic chemicalsWater treatment

Identifiers

PMID38726145
PMCPMC11079112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.