Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39670086›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Assessing the impact of two conventional wastewater treatment plants on small streams with effect-based methods.

Catalina Trejos Delgado, Andrea Dombrowski, Jörg Oehlmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Catalina Trejos DelgadoDepartment Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andrea DombrowskiDepartment Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jörg OehlmannDepartment Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sixty percent of discrete surface water bodies in Europe do not meet the requirements for good ecological and chemical status and in Germany, the situation is even worse with over 90% of surface water bodies failing to meet the threshold. In addition to hydromorphological degradation, intensive land use and invasive species, chemical pollution is primarily considered to be responsible for the inadequate ecological status of the water bodies. As a quantitatively important source of micropollutants, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) represent an important entry path for chemical stressors. It is therefore important to analyze the effectiveness of the WWTPs in eliminating micropollutants and other chemical stressors to mitigate the negative impacts of the treated wastewater (WW) in aquatic ecosystems. Accordingly, in this study, we evaluated the impacts of two conventional, medium-sized WWTPs on their small receiving water systems in the southwestern region of Hessen in Germany during two sampling campaigns (spring and fall) using effect-based methods (EBM). We hypothesized that due to the insufficient elimination of micropollutants, a broad spectrum of toxic effects would be detected in conventionally treated WW and also in the receiving surface waters downstream the WWTPs. As EBMs a battery of

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringRiversWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsDaphniaGermanyWaste Disposal, FluidWater PurificationWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalActive monitoringBaseline toxicityDioxin-like activityEndocrine disruptionGammarus fossarumMutagenicityPotamopyrgus antipodarum

Identifiers

PMID39670086
PMCPMC11636737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.