ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2026
The cost of removing pollutants from water using magnetic nanoadsorbents.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regeneration and Recyclability of Magnetic Nanomaterials for Multi-Cycle Water Treatment: Toward Circular Adsorption-Desorption Systems.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- ZnO-modified activated carbon derived from rambutan (RSC advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) have enhanced the removal of pollutants from water to circumvent the drastic effects on the environment and living organisms. Despite their extensive application in water remediation studies, little is known about their cost analysis. This study comprehensively and critically discussed the different techniques utilised to evaluate the cost analysis of magnetic nanoadsorbents. Fifty-five research articles were selected after employing a systematic inclusion and exclusion criterion. In the studied research articles, about 76% employed the cost of adsorbent preparation economic evaluation method, 15% utilised the cost of adsorption per volume of sample, and 9% of the studies used the cost of adsorption per gram of adsorbate. The study highlighted methodological heterogeneity in cost analysis and identified gaps and challenges in standardising the cost evaluation techniques, which prevent accurate comparison. Moreover, this study demonstrated that the adsorption cost can be significantly reduced by regenerating the adsorbent; for instance, in one study, the cost was reduced from 0.38 to 0.038 USD due to ten-fold reusability of the adsorbent. A worked example demonstrated ways to accurately determine costs and significantly reduce the costs of treating contaminants from water. This included employing the adsorption cost method, incorporating easily accessible waste materials to MNPs, selecting less energy-intensive synthetic techniques, preparing stable materials to ensure reusability, and using industrial-scale costs. As this is an emerging area of research, this study provides a standardised, step-by-step framework for estimating the costs of pollutant removal from water systems, with relevance to policymakers and real-world industrial applications. Clinical trial number: not applicable.
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.