The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Presence and distribution of wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water
Abstract
Three sites in the Front Range of Colorado, USA, were monitored from May through September 2003 to assess the presence and distribution of pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water derived from urban wastewater. Soil cores were collected monthly, and 19 pharmaceuticals, all of which were detected during the present study, were measured in 5-cm increments of the 30-cm cores. Samples of reclaimed water were analyzed three times during the study to assess the input of pharmaceuticals. Samples collected before the onset of irrigation in 2003 contained numerous pharmaceuticals, likely resulting from the previous year's irrigation. Several of the selected pharmaceuticals increased in total soil concentration at one or more of the sites. The four most commonly detected pharmaceuticals were erythromycin, carbamazepine, fluoxetine, and diphenhydramine. Typical concentrations of the individual pharmaceuticals observed were low (0.02–15 μg/kg dry soil). The existence of subsurface maximum concentrations and detectable concentrations at the lowest sampled soil depth might indicate interactions of soil components with pharmaceuticals during leaching through the vadose zone. Nevertheless, the present study demonstrates that reclaimed-water irrigation results in soil pharmaceutical concentrations that vary through the irrigation season and that some compounds persist for months after irrigation.
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Stackelberg, P. E., Gibs, J., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Zaugg, S. D., & Lippincott, R. L. (2007) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.01.095 · Cited by 749
Self-citationChristou, A., Agüera, A., Bayona, J. M., Cytryn, E., Fotopoulos, V., Lambropoulou, D., Manaia, C. M., Michael, C., Revitt, M., Schröder, P., et al. (2017) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.004 · Cited by 590
Salt-affected soils, reclamation, carbon dynamics, and biochar: a review
Amini, S., Ghadiri, H., Chen, C., & Marschner, P. (2016) · Journal of Soils and Sediments · doi:10.1007/s11368-015-1293-1 · Cited by 420
Xu, J., Wu, L., & Chang, A. C. (2009) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.063 · Cited by 396
Uptake of human pharmaceuticals by plants grown under hydroponic conditions
Herklotz, P. A., Gurung, P., Vanden Heuvel, B., & Kinney, C. A. (2010) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.12.048 · Cited by 329
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E. T., Werner, S. L., & Cahill, J. D.
- Venue
- Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 317-326
- ISSN
- 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8618
- OpenAlex
- W1967060740
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.78
- 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: Presence and distribution of wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1897/05-187r.1
- The paper
- Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E. T., Werner, S. L., & Cahill, J. D. (2006). Presence and distribution of wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1897/05-187r.1
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.