Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582759›Full record

ReviewACS environmental Au2024

Recent Advances in Technologies for Phosphate Removal and Recovery: A Review.

Mallikarjuna N Nadagouda, Gaiven Varshney, Vikas Varshney, Charifa A Hejase

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS environmental Au, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role of sawdust Ca-biochar on the phosphate adsorption: an optimization through a 2Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Synthesis of La-FeRSC advances · 2026
    Article
  7. Mg(OH)ChemistryOpen · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors.

Mallikarjuna N NadagoudaCenter for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4800-4436
Gaiven VarshneyDepartment of Engineering Physics, Nuclear Expertise for Advanced Technology (NEAT) Center, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, United States.
Vikas VarshneyMaterials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-458X
Charifa A HejaseDepartment of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phosphorus is a nonrenewable resource, yet an essential nutrient in crop fertilizers that helps meet growing agricultural and food demands. As a limiting nutrient for primary producers, an excess amount of phosphorus entering water sources through agricultural runoff can lead to eutrophication events downstream. Therefore, to address global issues associated with the depletion of phosphate rock reserves and minimize the eutrophication of water bodies, numerous studies have investigated the removal and recovery of phosphates in usable forms using various chemical, physical, and biological methods. This review provides a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the literature, focusing on the widely employed adsorption and chemical precipitation for phosphate recovery from various wastewaters. Several experimental performance parameters including temperature, pH, coexisting ions (e.g., NO

Identifiers

PMID39582759
PMCPMC11583102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.