MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410435925 · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138644

Artificial sweeteners in wastewater treatment plants: A systematic review of global occurrence, distribution, removal, and degradation pathways

2025· review· en· W4410435925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jibin Li, Xuan Li, Yi Li, Huan Liu, Qilin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hazardous Materials · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilAustralian Research CouncilAustralian Academy of Science
KeywordsArtificial SweetenerDegradation (telecommunications)WastewaterSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceWaste managementDistribution (mathematics)ChemistryBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringFood scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of artificial sweeteners in foods, drinks, and pharmaceuticals has led to rising concentrations in wastewater, with specific sweeteners raising concerns due to demonstrated toxicological risks to ecosystems and humans. To date, a comprehensive summary of the occurrence, distribution, and removal status of artificial sweeteners in wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is lacking, making it difficult to evaluate the associated risks and environmental impacts. We conducted a systematic review of scientific literature and grey literature with rigorous screening covering 24 countries and 6 continents. Globally, sucralose, acesulfame, saccharin, and cyclamate are prevalent artificial sweeteners in WWTP, with concentrations of 0.6-303.0 µg/L in influent and 0.1-81.2 µg/L in effluent. Sucralose showed obvious increasing concentrations over time in wastewater in the United States and Canada, with an increase of 5.6-5.7 µg/L·y in influent and 4.7-5.5 µg/L·y in effluent. Summer wastewater usually contains 11.1-33.3 % higher concentrations of artificial sweeteners than other seasons. Saccharin and cyclamate are the most easily removable sweeteners (>90.0 % removal) in WWTP, followed by acesulfame (25.0-70.1 %) and sucralose (-10.0-10.0 %). Wastewater treatment processes with longer HRT and more diverse microbial communities showed better performance in sucralose removal, while processes with aerobic conditions showed better performance in acesulfame and saccharin removal than anaerobic processes. Increasing trends for persistent sucralose and acesulfame removal have been observed globally, suggesting potential microbial evolution/adaptation. This review contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the spatiotemporal distribution and ever-evolving biodegradation of artificial sweeteners in WWTP, providing future perspectives and potential policy requirements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hazardous MaterialsSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207