Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 585

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

Screening of Human Antibiotic Substances and Determination of Weekly Mass Flows in Five Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden

Lindberg, Richard H., Wennberg, Patrik, Johansson, Magnus I., Tysklind, Mats, Andersson, Barbro A. V.·2005·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Twelve antibiotic substances for human use, including trimethoprim and representatives of the fluoroquinolone (FQ), sulfonamide (SA), penicillin (PE), cephalosporin (CE), nitroimidazole (NI), tetracycline (TC), and macrolide (MA) groups, were subjected to a screening study at five Swedish sewage treatment plants (STPs) during one week in 2002 and one week in 2003. The analytes were extracted from raw sewage water, final effluent, and sludge by solid-phase extraction (SPE) or liquid-solid extraction (as appropriate) and then identified and quantified by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The mostfrequently detected antibiotics in the matrices considered in this study were norfloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, and doxycycline. The other analytes were only detected in a few samples. Analysis of the weekly mass flows through each STP showed that FQs were partly eliminated from the water during sewage water treatment and the highest amounts of these substances were found in sludge. Sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim were mainly found in raw sewage water and final effluent, but these substances had balancing mass flows, indicating that they too can withstand sewage water treatment. The mass flow patterns for doxycycline were more complex, with high amounts occurring in sludge in some cases, suggesting thatthe behavior of this analyte may be more strongly influenced by the treatment process and other variables at individual STPs. The environmental load (the sum of the amounts in the final effluent and sludge) normalized to the number of inhabitants in the catchment area of each investigated STP compared with theoretical predictions based on consumption data (in parentheses) showed good correlations: norfloxacin, 0.8 (0.9); ofloxacin, 0.3 (0.2); ciprofloxacin, 1.3 (3.5); sulfamethoxazole, 0.2 (0.4); trimethoprim, 1.1 (1.0); and doxycycline, 0.7 (0.4) mg per person per week. The results show that reasonably accurate predictions of environmental load of these antibiotics can be time-effectively derived from consumption data without additional measurements.

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 · 10.1021/es048143z

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 585

Metadata

Authors
Lindberg, R. H., Wennberg, P., Johansson, M. I., Tysklind, M., & Andersson, B. A. V.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2005-04-02
Volume
39
Issue
10
Pages
3421-3429
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2094482270
Cited by
585
References
1
FWCI
28.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Screening of Human Antibiotic Substances and Determination of Weekly Mass Flows in Five Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es048143z
The paper
Lindberg, R. H., Wennberg, P., Johansson, M. I., Tysklind, M., & Andersson, B. A. V. (2005). Screening of Human Antibiotic Substances and Determination of Weekly Mass Flows in Five Sewage Treatment Plants in Sweden. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es048143z

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.