ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2026
Assessing drinking water treatment efficiency using passive sampling and cell-based bioassays.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) are designed to protect public health; however, residual contaminants may persist after treatment and elicit biological effects that are not fully covered by routine chemical monitoring. Methods: In this study, we combined Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Samplers (POCIS) with in vitro bioassays to evaluate residual biological activity in raw and treated water from six full-scale DWTPs in the Czech Republic. POCIS were deployed at raw- and treated-water points to collect extracts representing mixtures of polar and semi-polar contaminants under realistic exposure conditions. These extracts were evaluated using transcriptional responses in the RTL-W1 rainbow trout cell line and receptor-mediated yeast bioassays specific for estrogenic and progestogenic activity. Results: Among the evaluated biomarkers, gene expression of CYP1A was the most strongly and reliably induced, indicating the presence of AhR-active substances in raw water and, in several cases, incomplete removal of these substances during treatment. In contrast, genes related to phase II detoxification, cell stress, and oxidative stress (GST, HSP, and Nrf2) responded weakly, suggesting a predominantly receptor-mediated mechanism of action rather than generalized cytotoxicity. Estrogenic activity was detected in all raw waters but was below detection limits in all treated waters, indicating efficient removal of estrogenic substances during treatment. Progestogenic activity was not detectable. Discussion: This study highlights the importance of effect-directed analysis for assessing the efficiency of drinking water treatment processes and confirms the suitability of passive sampling combined with bioassays for identifying treatment-resistant bioactivities.
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.