Cited by 579Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsWater Quality and Pollution Assessment

Urban contribution of pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants to streams during differing flow conditions

KOLPIN, D, SKOPEC, M, MEYER, M, FURLONG, E, ZAUGG, S·2004·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

During 2001, 76 water samples were collected upstream and downstream of select towns and cities in Iowa during high-, normal- and low-flow conditions to determine the contribution of urban centers to concentrations of pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants (OWCs) in streams under varying flow conditions. The towns ranged in population from approximately 2000 to 200,000. Overall, one or more OWCs were detected in 98.7% of the samples collected, with 62 of the 105 compounds being found. The most frequently detected compounds were metolachlor (pesticide), cholesterol (plant and animal sterol), caffeine (stimulant), beta-sitosterol (plant sterol) and 1,7-dimethylxanthine (caffeine degradate). The number of OWCs detected decreased as streamflow increased from low- (51 compounds detected) to normal- (28) to high-flow (24) conditions. Antibiotics and other prescription drugs were only frequently detected during low-flow conditions. During low-flow conditions, 15 compounds (out of the 23) and ten compound groups (out of 11) detected in more than 10% of the streams sampled had significantly greater concentrations in samples collected downstream than in those collected upstream of the urban centers. Conversely, no significant differences in the concentrations were found during high-flow conditions. Thus, the urban contribution of OWCs to streams became progressively muted as streamflow increased.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.01.015

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KOLPIN, D., SKOPEC, M., MEYER, M., FURLONG, E., & ZAUGG, S.
Affiliations
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Iowa Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
KOLPIN, D
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07-26
Volume
328
Issue
1-3
Pages
119-130
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980686360
Cited by
579
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 35
FWCI
31.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
Keywords
pharmaceuticals, urban rivers, urban runoff, metolachlor, cholesterol, β-sitosterol, caffeine, 1,7-dimethylxanthine, antibiotics, prescription drugs, Iowa streams
MeSH terms
Chromatography, Liquid, Cities, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Environmental Monitoring, Iowa, Mass Spectrometry, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Rivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review