Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 796

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Open access
Margot, Jonas, Kienle, Cornelia, Magnet, Anoÿs, Weil, Mirco, Rossi, Luca, de Alencastro, Luiz Felippe, Abegglen, Christian, Thonney, Denis, Chèvre, Nathalie, Schärer, Michael, Barry, D.A.·2013·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Many organic micropollutants present in wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides, are poorly removed in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). To reduce the release of these substances into the aquatic environment, advanced wastewater treatments are necessary. In this context, two large-scale pilot advanced treatments were tested in parallel over more than one year at the municipal WWTP of Lausanne, Switzerland. The treatments were: i) oxidation by ozone followed by sand filtration (SF) and ii) powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption followed by either ultrafiltration (UF) or sand filtration. More than 70 potentially problematic substances (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drug metabolites and other common chemicals) were regularly measured at different stages of treatment. Additionally, several ecotoxicological tests such as the Yeast Estrogen Screen, a combined algae bioassay and a fish early life stage test were performed to evaluate effluent toxicity. Both treatments significantly improved the effluent quality. Micropollutants were removed on average over 80% compared with raw wastewater, with an average ozone dose of 5.7 mg O3 l(-1) or a PAC dose between 10 and 20 mg l(-1). Depending on the chemical properties of the substances (presence of electron-rich moieties, charge and hydrophobicity), either ozone or PAC performed better. Both advanced treatments led to a clear reduction in toxicity of the effluents, with PAC-UF performing slightly better overall. As both treatments had, on average, relatively similar efficiency, further criteria relevant to their implementation were considered, including local constraints (e.g., safety, sludge disposal, disinfection), operational feasibility and cost. For sensitive receiving waters (drinking water resources or recreational waters), the PAC-UF treatment, despite its current higher cost, was considered to be the most suitable option, enabling good removal of most micropollutants and macropollutants without forming problematic by-products, the strongest decrease in toxicity and a total disinfection of the effluent.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.034

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 796

Metadata

Authors
Margot, J., Kienle, C., Magnet, A., Weil, M., Rossi, L., de Alencastro, L. F., Abegglen, C., Thonney, D., Chèvre, N., Schärer, M., & Barry, D. A.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
461-462
Pages
480-498
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142815439
Cited by
796
References
1
FWCI
42.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.034
The paper
Margot, J., Kienle, C., Magnet, A., Weil, M., Rossi, L., de Alencastro, L. F., Abegglen, C., Thonney, D., Chèvre, N., Schärer, M., & Barry, D. A. (2013). Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon? Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.034

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.