ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2024
Long-term impact of basin-wide wastewater management on faecal pollution levels along the entire Danube River.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Danube River is, at 2857 km, the second longest river in Europe and the most international river in the world with 19 countries in its catchment. Along the entire river, faecal pollution levels are mainly influenced by point-source emissions from treated and untreated sewage of municipal origin under base-flow conditions. In the past 2 decades, large investments in wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure were made in the European Union (EU) Member States located in the Danube River Basin (DRB). Overall, the share of population equivalents with appropriately biologically treated wastewater (without disinfection) has increased from 69% to more than 85%. The proportion of tertiary treatment has risen from 46 to 73%. In contrast, no comparable improvements of wastewater infrastructure took place in non-EU Member States in the middle and lower DRB, where a substantial amount of untreated wastewater is still directly discharged into the Danube River. Faecal pollution levels along the whole Danube River and the confluence sites of the most important tributaries were monitored during four Danube River expeditions, the Joint Danube Surveys (JDS). During all four surveys, the longitudinal patterns of faecal pollution were highly consistent, with generally lower levels in the upper section and elevated levels and major hotspots in the middle and lower sections of the Danube River. From 2001 to 2019, a significant decrease in faecal pollution levels could be observed in all three sections with average reduction rates between 72 and 86%. Despite this general improvement in microbiological water quality, no such decreases were observed for the highly polluted stretch in Central Serbia. Further improvements in microbiological water quality can be expected for the next decades on the basis of further investments in wastewater infrastructure in the EU Member States, in the middle and lower DRB. In the upper DRB, and due to the high compliance level as regards collection and treatment, improvements can further be achieved by upgrading sewage treatment plants with quaternary treatment steps as well as by preventing combined sewer overflows. The accession of the Western Balkan countries to the EU would also significantly boost investments in wastewater infrastructure and water quality improvements in the middle section of the Danube. Continuing whole-river expeditions such as the Joint Danube Surveys is highly recommended to monitor the developments in water quality in the future.
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.