The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current environmental risk assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment?
Open accessAbstract
In this study, exposure and ecotoxicity data of six human pharmaceuticals (carbamazepine, clofibric acid, diclofenac, ofloxacin, propranolol, and sulfamethoxazole) were collected, including our own experimental data and literature data. From this data collection, the two-tiered European draft guideline on the environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals was tested. Measured environmental concentrations in effluents from France and in effluents and surface waters from Germany were compared to the predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) in both countries. In a similar manner, predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs) derived from acute data and PNECs derived from chronic data were estimated for each pharmaceutical and corresponding PEC/PNEC ratios then were compared in both countries. Globally, results demonstrated that all environmental concentrations (predicted or measured) for each considered pharmaceutical exceeded the 10-ng/L cutoff value, which requires the implementation of the second-tier assessment based on ecotoxicity data. Moreover, the six pharmaceuticals showed a relatively limited acute toxicity, and carbamazepine and propranolol were inaccurately identified as having negligible risks under the current European draft procedure. Such results lead to discussion of the actual procedure on pharmaceuticals, especially on the need of appropriate ecotoxicity tests.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B., & Buxton, H. T. (2002) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es011055j · Cited by 7,953
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change?
Daughton, C. G., & Ternes, T. A. (1999) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.99107s6907 · Cited by 4,705
Occurrence of drugs in German sewage treatment plants and rivers
Ternes, T. A. (1998) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/s0043-1354(98)00099-2 · Cited by 3,425
Occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceutical substances in the environment- A review
Halling-Sørensen, B., Nors Nielsen, S., Lanzky, P. F., Ingerslev, F., Holten Lützhøft, H. C., & Jørgensen, S. E. (1998) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/s0045-6535(97)00354-8 · Cited by 3,285
Occurrence of Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environment
Hirsch, R., Ternes, T., Haberer, K., & Kratz, K.-L. (1999) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/s0048-9697(98)00337-4 · Cited by 2,140 · cited 1×
“Amount in kg/year in Germany (1995) [40,41] 80,000 16,000 Pharmacokinetic excretion rate [40,41] 1–2% unchanged 90% as conjugates (from clofibrate) Total removal via STPs [40] 7% 51%”
BackgroundA framework for prioritizing fragrance materials for aquatic risk assessment
Salvito, D. T., Senna, R. J., & Federle, T. W. (2002) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.5620210627 · Cited by 1,891
Pharmaceuticals in STP effluents and their solar photodegradation in aquatic environment
Andreozzi, R., Raffaele, M., & Nicklas, P. (2003) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/s0045-6535(02)00769-5 · Cited by 1,312
Removal of Pharmaceuticals during Drinking Water Treatment
Ternes, T. A., Meisenheimer, M., McDowell, D., Sacher, F., Brauch, H.-J., Haist-Gulde, B., Preuss, G., Wilme, U., & Zulei-Seibert, N. (2002) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es015757k · Cited by 1,293
Tixier, C., Singer, H. P., Oellers, S., & Müller, S. R. (2003) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es025834r · Cited by 962
Ferrari, B., Paxéus, N., Giudice, R. L., Pollio, A., & Garric, J. (2003) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/s0147-6513(02)00082-9 · Cited by 861
Self-citation
Cited by
Ecotoxicology of human pharmaceuticals
Fent, K., Weston, A. A., & Caminada, D. (2006) · Aquatic Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2005.09.009 · Cited by 3,223
Petrie, B., Barden, R., & Kasprzyk-Hordern, B. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.053 · Cited by 2,614
Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., & Zambello, E. (2012) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.028 · Cited by 2,183
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the freshwater aquatic environment
Ebele, A. J., Abou-Elwafa Abdallah, M., & Harrad, S. (2017) · Emerging Contaminants · doi:10.1016/j.emcon.2016.12.004 · Cited by 2,023
Farré, M. L., Pérez, S., Kantiani, L., & Barceló, D. (2008) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2008.09.010 · Cited by 1,009
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrari, B., Mons, R., Vollat, B., Fraysse, B., Paxēaus, N., Giudice, R. L., Pollio, A., & Garric, J.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1344-1354
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W2080883474
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 16.55
- 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: Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current environmental risk assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/03-246
- The paper
- Ferrari, B., Mons, R., Vollat, B., Fraysse, B., Paxēaus, N., Giudice, R. L., Pollio, A., & Garric, J. (2004). Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current environmental risk assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/03-246
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.
