ReviewJournal of environmental health science & engineering2024
Exposure to environmental pollutants: A mini-review on the application of wastewater-based epidemiology approach.
Review in Journal of environmental health science & engineering, 2024. 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.
- A unified liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric approach combining targeted and untargeted analyses for community exposure profiling in wastewater.Environment international · 2026Article
- Nicotine Degradation byMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Wastewater analysis of chemical markers of public health concern at small spatial scales: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is considered an innovative and promising tool for estimating community exposure to a wide range of chemical and biological compounds by analyzing wastewater. Despite scholars' interest in WBE studies, there are uncertainties and limitations associated with this approach. This current review focuses on the feasibility of the WBE approach in assessing environmental pollutants, including pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, bisphenols, and personal care products (PCPs). Limitations and challenges of WBE studies are initially discussed, and then future perspectives, gaps, and recommendations are presented in this review. One of the key limitations of this approach is the selection and identification of appropriate biomarkers in studies. Selecting biomarkers considering the basic requirements of a human exposure biomarker is the most important criterion for validating this new approach. Assessing the stability of biomarkers in wastewater is crucial for reliable comparisons of substance consumption in the population. However, directly analyzing wastewater does not provide a clear picture of biomarker stability. This uncertainty affects the reliability of temporal and spatial comparisons. Various uncertainties also arise from different steps involved in WBE. These uncertainties include sewage sampling, exogenous sources, analytical measurements, back-calculation, and estimation of the population under investigation. Further research is necessary to ensure that measured pollutant levels accurately reflect human excretion. Utilizing data from WBE can support healthcare policy in assessing exposure to environmental pollutants in the general population. Moreover, WBE seems to be a valuable tool for biomarkers that indicate healthy conditions, lifestyle, disease identification, and exposure to pollutants. Although this approach has the potential to serve as a biomonitoring tool in large communities, it is necessary to monitor more metabolites from wastewater to enhance future studies.
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.