ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Comparative Exposure Assessment of Crops Grown by Urine-Derived Fertilizer and Crops Irrigated with Reclaimed Water.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine-derived fertilizers (UDFs) are a sustainable alternative to energy-intensive and environmentally damaging synthetic fertilizers; however, contaminant concerns must be addressed. Source-separated urine contains pharmaceutical compounds that could pose a risk to the environment and public health. While treatment technologies that address pharmaceutical contamination in UDF have been proposed, little is known about the exposure and risk to public health that UDF-fertilized crops pose. We assessed pharmaceutical uptake by lettuce exposed to UDF spiked with pharmaceuticals at two levels: the highest reported concentrations from the literature and at a level 10 times this amount to represent a worst-case scenario for UDF application. Between 0.00004% and 0.0002% of the applied pharmaceutical mass was taken up by lettuce. Exposure to pharmaceuticals through the consumption of UDF-fertilized crops is not significantly different from exposure through crops irrigated with reclaimed water (RW). Compared to therapeutic doses, the cumulative pharmaceutical ingestion associated with consuming UDF-fertilized vegetables every day over 70 years is up to 2.5% of the therapeutic dose of pharmaceuticals considered in this study. Our comparative exposure assessment reveals minimal exposures associated with the consumption of crops that are either fertilized by UDF or irrigated with RW, providing key insights for various stakeholders.
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.