Cited by 129Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsWastewater Treatment and ReuseUrban Stormwater Management Solutions

Impact of on-site, small and large scale wastewater treatment facilities on levels and fate of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, artificial sweeteners, pesticides, and perfluoroalkyl substances in recipient waters

Open access
Gago-Ferrero, Pablo, Gros, Meritxell, Ahrens, Lutz, Wiberg, Karin·2017·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

One of the main risks associated with effluents from both wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and on-site sewage treatment facilities (OSSFs) is the release of micropollutants (MPs) in receiving water bodies. However, the impact of MPs present in the effluents of OSSFs in the aquatic environment has not been studied so far. The current study evaluates the impact of the effluents of OSSFs and small-to-large scale WWTPs on natural waters. The discharge of 74 MPs was assessed including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, artificial sweeteners and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The sampling was carried out within a Swedish catchment and included three sites that are exclusively affected by OSSFs and other sites that are mainly affected by WWTPs or a mixture of sources (7 sites, 28 samples). Results show that although OSSFs serve a much smaller total number of people, the MPs emitted from OSSFs reached the aquatic environment in significant quantities (concentrations of >150ngL-1 of ∑MPs). The composition profiles for sites affected by WWTPs were similar and were dominated by sucralose (27% of the ∑MPs), caffeine (27% of the ∑MPs), lamotrigine (10% of the ∑MPs), desvenlafaxine (5% of the ∑MPs), and diclofenac (4% of the ∑MPs). In contrast, the sites affected by OSSFs showed high variability, exhibiting a different profile from those affected by WWTPs and also from each other, demonstrating that OSSFs are not homogeneous sources of MPs. Some specific compounds, such as diethyltoluamide (DEET) and caffeine, were proportionally much more important at sites affected by OSSFs than at sites affected by WWTPs (representing a much higher percentage of the ∑MPs in the OSSFs). In contrast, PFASs did not show high concentration variation among the different sampling sites and the composition profiles were relatively similar, indicating that these substances follow different routes of entry into the aquatic environment.

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.2017.05.258

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Previous findings show low variability in PFAS concentrations across this stream.

    “This aligns with previous findings, showing low variability in PFAS concentrations across this stream (Gago-Ferrero et al., 2017).”

    From Stormwater discharges affect PFAS occurrence, concentrations, and spatial distribution in water and bottom sediment of urban streams (2025) · cites this paper as Gago-Ferrero et al., 2017

    Section 3.1 reports that total PFAS concentrations differed less among sampling locations than concentrations of other micropollutants, supporting the idea of relatively low spatial variability. The study sampled a Swedish catchment spanning tributaries, a river and a lake, however, so it does not establish low variability across the particular stream described in the citing sentence. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wastewater treatment plants are relevant input sources of PFAS in the aquatic environment.

    “Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are relevant input sources of PFASin the aquatic environment as they receive waste from residential, commercial, and industrial facilities (Paul et al., 2008; Gago-Ferrero et al., 2017).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gago-Ferrero, P., Gros, M., Ahrens, L., & Wiberg, K.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Gago-Ferrero, Pablo
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
601-602
Pages
1289-1297
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2623369654
Cited by
129
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (216-2012-2101)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
Keywords
micropollutants, wastewater treatment plants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, artificial sweeteners, pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, wastewater discharge, sucralose, caffeine, lamotrigine, diclofenac, DEET

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