Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Uncertainties Associated with the Determination of Community Drug Use through the Measurement of Sewage Drug Biomarkers

Castiglioni, Sara, Bijlsma, Lubertus, Covaci, Adrian, Emke, Erik, Hernández, Félix, Reid, Malcolm, Ort, Christoph, Thomas, Kevin V., van Nuijs, Alexander L. N., de Voogt, Pim, Zuccato, Ettore·2013·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to integrally address the uncertainty associated with all the steps used to estimate community drug consumption through the chemical analysis of sewage biomarkers of illicit drugs. Uncertainty has been evaluated for sampling, chemical analysis, stability of drug biomarkers in sewage, back-calculation of drug use (specific case of cocaine), and estimation of population size in a catchment using data collected from a recent Europe-wide investigation and from the available literature. The quality of sampling protocols and analytical measurements has been evaluated by analyzing standardized questionnaires collected from 19 sewage treatments plants (STPs) and the results of an interlaboratory study (ILS), respectively. Extensive reviews of the available literature have been used to evaluate stability of drug biomarkers in sewage and the uncertainty related to back-calculation of cocaine use. Different methods for estimating population size in a catchment have been compared and the variability among the collected data was very high (7-55%). A reasonable strategy to reduce uncertainty was therefore to choose the most reliable estimation case by case. In the other cases, the highest uncertainties are related to the analysis of sewage drug biomarkers (uncertainty as relative standard deviation; RSD: 6-26% from ILS) and to the back-calculation of cocaine use (uncertainty; RSD: 26%). Uncertainty can be kept below 10% in the remaining steps, if specific requirements outlined in this work are considered. For each step, a best practice protocol has been suggested and discussed to reduce and keep to a minimum the uncertainty of the entire procedure and to improve the reliability of the estimates of drug use.

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/es302722f

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Castiglioni, S., Bijlsma, L., Covaci, A., Emke, E., Hernández, F., Reid, M., Ort, C., Thomas, K. V., van Nuijs, A. L. N., de Voogt, P., & Zuccato, E.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2013-02-05
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
1452-1460
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2060880041
Cited by
402
References
0
FWCI
12.84
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

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.