<table><caption>**Table 10.** Comparative summary of representative studies evaluating phytotoxicity before and after photocatalytic treatment of effluents.</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Pollutant Type/Matrix</th><th>Photocatalytic System</th><th>Plant or Bioassay</th><th>Distinct Findings (Beyond Narrative)</th><th>Ecotoxicological Outcome</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[132,193]</td><td>Real textile effluent (dyes, surfactants, auxiliaries)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> and TiO<sub>2</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> under UV (up to 6 h)</td><td>Lactuca sativa (germination, root growth)</td><td>Identified intermediate aromatic acids and peroxides responsible for early toxicity spikes; full TOC reduction > 70% restored normal germination.</td><td>Transient ↑ toxicity → full detoxification with extended irradiation</td></tr><tr><td>[134,195]</td><td>Pharmaceutical mixture (atenolol, chlorpromazine, metronidazole)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> (UV 365 nm, 8–16 h)</td><td>Spirodela polyrrhiza (growth rate, chlorophyll a content)</td><td>Demonstrated correlation between dissolved organic carbon (DOC) decrease and frond regrowth; photosynthetic recovery lagged 2–3 h behind DOC removal.</td><td>Progressive ↓ toxicity proportional to DOC/mineralization</td></tr><tr><td>[55,135]</td><td>Real industrial & municipal effluents</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub>, ZnO, g-C<sub>3</sub>N<sub>4</sub> (various reactors)</td><td>Review of multi-species assays</td><td>Highlighted disparity between > 90% chemical removal and < 50% toxicity reduction; proposed multi-endpoint testing to detect latent TPs.</td><td>Variable detoxification depending on TP persistence</td></tr><tr><td>[136,196]</td><td>Natural stream water with contaminants</td><td>Solar TiO<sub>2</sub> photocatalysis</td><td>Lactuca sativa (root elongation)</td><td>Quantified residual hydrogen peroxide accumulation affecting seed viability during mid-treatment; complete mineralization eliminated effect.</td><td>↓ toxicity after complete mineralization</td></tr><tr><td>[137,197]</td><td>Pharmaceutical-laden secondary effluent</td><td>Coupled bio-solar photocatalysis</td><td>Mixed aquatic plant assays</td><td>Noted synergy between biological pre-treatment and photocatalysis lowering TP formation rate; toxicity curve fitted to logistic decay model (R<sup>2</sup> > 0.9).</td><td>Gradual detoxification with hybrid process</td></tr><tr><td>[56,138]</td><td>Sulfonamide antibiotics (lab scale)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> UV + aerobic biodegradation</td><td>Microbial/mechanistic analysis</td><td>Identified sulfone/nitro-intermediates persisting post-photolysis; complete mineralization after bio-polishing confirmed by TOC < 5%.</td><td>Effective detoxification only after combined process</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease; TOC = total organic carbon; DOC = dissolved organic carbon. Arrows (↑, →, ↓) denote qualitative directional trends (increase or decrease) in parameters such as sorption strength, mobility, persistence, or biodegradability, as inferred from comparative analyses, correlations, or multi-condition experiments reported in the cited studies. The “—” symbol indicates that a given parameter was not explicitly measured, not reported, or not the primary focus of the referenced study. This notation does not imply absence of the process, but rather reflects data unavailability or study scope limitations.

## 6.2. Quantitative Analysis—Magnitude and Direction of Toxicity Change (Reduction, Persistence, Enhancement)

Quantitative evaluation of phytotoxicity variation before and after photocatalytic treatment provides a clearer understanding of the extent and consistency of detoxification across pollutant classes, catalysts, and bioassays. The magnitude of toxicity change can be expressed as the ratio between biological response metrics (e.g., germination rate,
relative root length, frond number, or growth rate) for treated versus untreated effluents, allowing for the direction of change, as reduction, persistence, or enhancement, to be objectively established.

Across available studies, most photocatalytic treatments yield toxicity reductions between 50 and 100%, depending on the degree of mineralization and reactor configuration [148,206]. In the textile effluent study by Garcia et al. (2009), *Lactuca sativa* root elongation increased by approximately 70% compared with the untreated control after 6 h of TiO₂ irradiation, correlating with TOC reduction exceeding 65% [132,193]. Conversely, samples withdrawn after only 2 h exhibited a transient 25% inhibition increase, attributed to short-lived peroxidic intermediates. For pharmaceutical mixtures, Krakowiak et al. (2021) reported a complete reversal of growth inhibition in *Spirodela polyrrhiza* after 16 h of photocatalysis, equivalent to a 100% detoxification efficiency relative to untreated mixtures that initially suppressed growth by 90% [134,195].

When comparing real effluents, Rueda-Márquez et al. (2020) found that the average reduction in toxicity among multiple case studies ranged between 40 and 85%, with marked variability linked to water matrix complexity and transformation product (TP) persistence [55,135]. Similar patterns were observed in solar-driven systems, where Stella et al. (2022) quantified a twofold improvement in lettuce root growth after complete mineralization [136,196], while intermediate samples remained inhibitory, confirming that detoxification follows a non-linear trend with treatment time. In hybrid bio-photocatalytic systems, Aliste et al. (2024) observed a gradual decrease in overall toxicity of 60–90% across sequential stages, emphasizing the kinetic synergy between biological pre-treatment and photodegradation in minimizing TP accumulation [137,197].

Nevertheless, several datasets reveal cases of toxicity persistence or even enhancement during incomplete photocatalysis. For sulfonamides, Madej-Knysak et al. (2024) showed that partial oxidation generated nitro- and sulfone-intermediates with 20–40% higher residual ecotoxicity than parent compounds, only eliminated after coupling with aerobic biodegradation [56,138]. These findings indicate that the direction of toxicity change depends not solely on pollutant removal efficiency but also on TP reactivity, redox properties, and stability in water or soil environments.

Overall, quantitative analyses confirm that photocatalytic detoxification is effective but not linear: toxicity typically decreases sharply after 60–80% mineralization, with diminishing returns or persistence observed below that threshold. Complete detoxification corresponds to near-total mineralization (TOC < 10%) or integration with a secondary biological polishing step. Thus, numerical indicators of toxicity reduction, expressed as percent inhibition decrease or endpoint recovery are essential to distinguish between true detoxification and apparent pollutant removal, ensuring a robust ecotoxicological assessment of photocatalytically treated effluents prior to agricultural reuse.

To better illustrate the variability in phytotoxicity outcomes across different photocatalytic systems and effluent types, Table 11 presents a quantitative synthesis of reported studies comparing biological responses before and after treatment.
<table><caption>**Table 11.** Quantitative summary of phytotoxicity change following photocatalytic treatment of different effluents.</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Pollutant/ Matrix</th><th>Photocatalytic System</th><th>Plant Bioassay</th><th>% TOC/DOC Removal</th><th>% Change in Phytotoxicity</th><th>Direction of Change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[132,193]</td><td>Textile effluent (dyes, surfactants)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> and TiO<sub>2</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> (UV, 6 h)</td><td>Lactuca sativa (root elongation)</td><td>≈65–80% TOC removal</td><td>≈70% toxicity reduction after 6 h; transient + 25% inhibition after 2 h</td><td>↓ after complete treatment; transient ↑ early stage</td></tr><tr><td>[134,195]</td><td>Pharmaceutical mixture (atenolol, chlorpromazine, metronidazole)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> (UV 365 nm, 8–16 h)</td><td>Spirodela polyrrhiza (growth, frond number)</td><td>≈90% DOC removal after 16 h</td><td>≈100% detoxification; initial 90% inhibition reversed after 16 h</td><td>↓ toxicity with time/ mineralization</td></tr><tr><td>[55,135]</td><td>Municipal/ industrial real effluents</td><td>Various photocatalysts (TiO<sub>2</sub>, ZnO, g-C<sub>3</sub>N<sub>4</sub>)</td><td>Multiple plant species (reviewed data)</td><td>40–90% pollutant removal (average)</td><td>40–85% reduction in toxicity (varies by effluent type)</td><td>↓ moderate to high reduction; variable persistence</td></tr><tr><td>[136,196]</td><td>Contaminated stream water</td><td>Solar TiO<sub>2</sub> (optimized vs. incomplete)</td><td>Lactuca sativa (root elongation)</td><td>≈80–95% TOC removal (complete mineralization)</td><td>≈50–100% toxicity reduction; 2 × root length vs. untreated</td><td>↓ significant reduction after full mineralization</td></tr><tr><td>[137,197]</td><td>Pharmaceutical-laden secondary effluent</td><td>Coupled biological + solar photocatalysis</td><td>Mixed aquatic plants (growth assays)</td><td>≥85% organic carbon removal</td><td>60–90% decrease in toxicity across treatment stages</td><td>↓ gradual detoxification</td></tr><tr><td>[56,138]</td><td>Sulfonamides (sulfamethoxazole, sulfadiazine)</td><td>TiO<sub>2</sub> (UV) + aerobic biodegradation</td><td>Mechanistic/microbial endpoints</td><td>≈95% TOC removal (after bio-polishing)</td><td>20–40% higher toxicity during partial oxidation; full detox after biodegradation</td><td>↑ transient toxicity → ↓ final detoxification</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease; TOC = total organic carbon; DOC = dissolved organic carbon. Arrows (↑, ↓) are used to indicate the direction of change in phytotoxicity following photocatalytic treatment, based on quantitative comparisons of biological endpoints before and after treatment. Combined notations (e.g., ↑ → ↓) are used where studies explicitly report non-linear toxicity evolution, with initial toxicity enhancement followed by detoxification upon extended treatment or higher mineralization levels.

Table 11 highlights the magnitude and direction of toxicity change, ranging from transient enhancement during partial oxidation to substantial or complete detoxification upon advanced mineralization. By linking toxicity variation with parameters such as total organic carbon (TOC) or dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal, it provides a clearer picture of how treatment efficiency, pollutant matrix, and process configuration jointly influence ecotoxicological outcomes. These data reinforce that true detoxification correlates more closely with mineralization completeness and transformation product degradation than with pollutant disappearance alone.

### 6.3. Factors Influencing Detoxification Outcomes—Catalyst Type, Water Matrix, Soil Conditions

The efficiency of photocatalytic detoxification and the subsequent reduction in phytotoxicity depend strongly on catalyst characteristics, composition of the treated matrix, and post-treatment soil conditions. These interconnected factors govern the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), transformation product (TP) profiles, and pollutant bioavailability in plant-soil systems.

Catalyst type and modification play a crucial role in determining detoxification outcomes. Traditional photocatalysts such as TiO<sub>2</sub> and ZnO are well established for degrading pharmaceuticals and dyes, yet their efficiency under real conditions varies with crystallinity, surface area, and bandgap energy. Studies indicate that anatase-phase TiO<sub>2</sub>
typically achieves the highest mineralization rates, correlating with substantial reductions in phytotoxicity [134,195]. Doping with non-metals (e.g., N, C, S) or metals (e.g., Fe, Cu, Ag) can enhance visible-light absorption and suppress recombination of photogenerated charge carriers, but may also alter degradation pathways, sometimes producing persistent intermediates that sustain residual toxicity [55,135]. Similarly, heterojunction composites such as TiO₂/g-C₃N₄ or ZnO/CuO have shown higher degradation efficiencies and faster disappearance of reactive aromatic intermediates, leading to improved detoxification compared with pristine catalysts [55,56,135,138].

The composition of the water matrix substantially influences the apparent detoxification performance. Natural organic matter, bicarbonates, and suspended solids can act as ROS scavengers, reducing the oxidation rate and thereby delaying pollutant mineralization [136,196]. Conversely, the presence of nitrate or chloride ions can modify reaction kinetics and promote the formation of halogenated or nitro-aromatic by-products, sometimes more toxic than the parent compounds [132,193]. Photocatalytic studies on real industrial and municipal effluents reveal that high chemical complexity often results in lower detoxification efficiency (40–85%) compared with single-compound systems, primarily because of matrix interferences and limited light penetration [55,135]. Thus, interpreting toxicity trends in real matrices requires simultaneous monitoring of degradation intermediates and assessing potential synergistic effects among pollutants.

Following treatment, soil conditions determine the persistence, mobility, and eventual impact of residual pollutants and their transformation products. Soil pH, redox potential, and organic matter content modulate adsorption-desorption equilibria and influence plant uptake potential. For instance, alkaline soils may accelerate degradation of acidic intermediates, enhancing detoxification, whereas high organic content can increase pollutant retention, prolonging exposure to plant roots and rhizosphere microorganisms [137,197]. Experiments involving irrigation with photocatalytically treated wastewater indicate that soils with higher microbial activity can further attenuate low-level residues, achieving combined chemical and biological detoxification. Conversely, soils with low buffering capacity or high salinity can amplify stress responses even when waterborne pollutant concentrations are reduced [56,138].

Figure 15 illustrates the overall process and key factors governing detoxification outcomes following photocatalytic treatment of contaminated effluents. The schematic integrates the main stages, from pollutant-laden wastewater undergoing photocatalysis under UV or solar irradiation to the subsequent interactions of treated effluents with soil-plant systems. It highlights how catalyst characteristics (composition, morphology, and modifications), water matrix complexity (presence of ions, natural organic matter, and turbidity), and soil conditions (pH, organic matter, and microbial activity) collectively shape the magnitude and direction of toxicity changes. Arrows representing pathways of toxicity reduction, persistence, or enhancement emphasize the need to consider both treatment efficiency and post-application environmental dynamics when evaluating photocatalytic detoxification performance.

Overall, detoxification outcomes reflect the synergistic effects of catalyst functionality, matrix composition, and soil reactivity. Optimizing these parameters, by selecting efficient visible-light catalysts, minimizing matrix interference, and ensuring favorable soil redox and pH conditions, enhances the sustainability of photocatalytically treated effluents for reuse in agricultural or ecological applications.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Process schematic illustrating the influence of catalyst type, water matrix composition, and soil conditions on detoxification outcomes after photocatalytic treatment. The diagram shows the transition from pollutant-containing wastewater through photocatalytic degradation to treated effluents interacting with soil-plant systems, highlighting pathways leading to toxicity reduction, persistence, or enhancement depending on process and environmental factors.</figcaption></figure>

### 6.4. Relevance for Agricultural Reuse—Safe Limits for Irrigation and Soil Application

Safe reuse of treated effluents in agriculture relies on two complementary pillars: (i) compliance with reclaimed-water quality criteria that primarily address microbial risks, and (ii) agronomic/soil-protection thresholds that prevent salinity, sodicity, or specific-ion toxicity. In the EU framework, reclaimed water for crop irrigation is categorized into Classes A–D, with *E. coli* limits of ≤10, ≤100, ≤1000 and ≤10,000 cfu 100 mL⁻¹, respectively; Class A also includes BOD₅ ≤ 10 mg L⁻¹, TSS ≤ 10 mg L⁻¹, turbidity ≤ 5 NTU, and preventive criteria for *Legionella* spp. (≤1000 cfu L⁻¹ when aerosolization risk) and helminth eggs (≤1 egg L⁻¹ for fodder/pastures) [147,149,207,208]. WHO's risk-based guidance converges on health-based targets using *E. coli* and helminth reduction, operationalized through multiple barriers and validation monitoring [150,209]. In the U.S., the EPA reuse guidance aligns reclaimed-water classes to end-use risk, combining microbial targets with performance- and monitoring-based controls [151,210]. ISO 16075 provides design-to-operation guidance for irrigation projects using treated wastewater, embedding risk management, fit-for-purpose treatment, and irrigation-method controls [152,211].

For agricultural users, several additional parameters are essential for evaluating the suitability of photocatalytically treated wastewater for irrigation. These include: (i) residual concentrations of pharmaceuticals, dyes, and their major transformation products; (ii) total organic carbon (TOC) and specific UV absorbance (SUVA) as indicators of remaining reactive intermediates; (iii) phytotoxicity endpoints such as germination inhibition or root elongation reduction; (iv) residual oxidants or catalyst particles originating from the treatment process; and (v) soil-water quality parameters such as electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, and nutrient balance. For crops irrigated through sprinkler systems, a short pre-harvest interval of 3–7 days limits the presence of surface residues, especially in leafy vegetables.

To complement the regulatory and agronomic overview, Figure 16 provides a visual synthesis of the integrated framework governing the safe agricultural reuse of photocatalytically treated effluents. It illustrates how treatment processes, quality assessment modules, and international guidelines interact to ensure environmental and crop safety. The diagram links the photocatalysis stage with subsequent microbial, chemical, agronomic, and toxicity evaluations, showing how these are aligned under global frameworks such as EU Regulation 2020/741, WHO and USEPA guidelines, ISO 16075, and FAO water quality standards [149–152,208–211]. This integrative perspective highlights the need for multi-
criteria validation, combining conventional water-quality indicators with bioassays and soil compatibility assessments before treated effluents can be safely reused for irrigation or soil application.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Conceptual framework illustrating the pathway from photocatalytic treatment of wastewater to its safe agricultural reuse (EQS—Environmental Quality Standards; EU—European Union; WHO—World Health Organization; USEPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency; ISO—International Organization for Standardization; FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).</figcaption></figure>

From an agronomic perspective, safe application depends on classical irrigation-water quality criteria that protect soil function and crop performance. FAO guidelines set indicative thresholds for electrical conductivity (salinity hazard), sodium adsorption ratio (infiltration hazard), and specific ions such as Cl⁻, Na⁺ and B, which directly affect plant growth and soil structure [153,212]. These criteria remain essential for reclaimed water because advanced oxidation or photocatalysis does not alter salinity or major-ion composition. Where soil application of biosolids is relevant, the EU Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC constrains heavy metals in sludge and in receiving soils to prevent long-term accumulation; however, it sets no numeric limits for pharmaceuticals or dyes [154,155,213,214]. For chemical pollutants in surface waters, Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) under the Water Framework Directive regulate priority substances, but few pharmaceuticals/dyes are covered, and EQS do not directly translate to irrigation-water reuse [154,213]. For photocatalytically treated effluents, the regulatory picture is clear on microbes and conventional parameters, while trace organics (parent compounds and transformation products, TPs) lack harmonized numeric limits in irrigation reuse. European Commission (2020) and Joint Research Center (2017) position these under project-level risk management, with monitoring plans tailored to local crops, irrigation methods, and exposure pathways [147,149,207,208]. In practice, fitness for agricultural reuse rests on demonstrating: (1) compliance with the reclaimed-water class suitable for the crop category and irrigation method [147,203], and (2) agronomic compatibility per FAO thresholds for salinity, sodicity, and specific ions [153,212]. Because photocatalysis can temporarily increase phytotoxicity if treatment is incomplete, effect-based verification (plant bioassays alongside chemistry) provides an extra margin of safety before irrigation or soil application [147,150,151,207,209,210].
Key takeaways for agricultural reuse: microbial safety targets (*E. coli*, helminths, *Legionella*) and conventional quality metrics are established at EU/WHO/EPA level; salinity and ion hazards are addressed by FAO agronomic thresholds; micropollutants and TPs are managed via risk assessments and monitoring plans linked to use class, crop, and site conditions rather than fixed numeric limits [147,149–151,153,207–210,212].

Table 12 marks the principal international frameworks and regulatory guidelines governing the safe reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture. It consolidates the key microbiological, chemical, and agronomic criteria defined by major organizations, including the European Union, WHO, USEPA, ISO, and FAO, as well as soil-protection limits under the EU Sewage Sludge Directive. By presenting these standards side by side, the Table highlights both the convergence of global approaches, focusing on microbial safety and soil protection and their complementary scope, ranging from risk-based public health targets to agronomic and environmental quality thresholds essential for long-term soil-plant sustainability.

<table><caption>**Table 12.** Comparative overview of international standards and guidelines for the safe reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture.</caption><thead><tr><td>Focus</td><td>Main Parameters/Limits</td><td>Application Scope</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Microbial safety for irrigation water (Classes A-D)</td><td><i>E. coli</i> ≤ 10–10,000 cfu/100 mL; BOD<sub>5</sub> ≤ 10 mg L<sup>-1</sup>; TSS ≤ 10 mg L<sup>-1</sup>; Turbidity ≤ 5 NTU; Legionella ≤ 1000 cfu/L (aerosol risk)</td><td>Crop irrigation, aquifer recharge</td><td>[147,149,207,208]</td></tr><tr><td>Health-based targets for reuse</td><td><i>E. coli</i> reduction ≥ 6–7 log units; Helminth eggs ≤ 1/L</td><td>Global risk-based approach</td><td>[150,209]</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-based water reuse guidance</td><td><i>E. coli</i>, enteric viruses, helminths; turbidity and residual chlorine control</td><td>Crop and landscape irrigation</td><td>[37,47,151,210]</td></tr><tr><td>Design and operation of reuse systems</td><td>Fit-for-purpose quality; microbiological and chemical validation</td><td>Design standards for irrigation reuse</td><td>[152,211]</td></tr><tr><td>Agronomic and soil protection criteria</td><td>EC < 3 dS/m; SAR < 9; Cl<sup>-</sup> < 140 mg/L; B < 0.7 mg/L</td><td>Crop productivity and soil structure</td><td>[153,212]</td></tr><tr><td>Soil protection from heavy metals</td><td>Cd ≤ 3 mg/kg; Pb ≤ 750 mg/kg; Zn ≤ 2500 mg/kg; Cu ≤ 1000 mg/kg</td><td>Sludge reuse in agriculture</td><td>[154,213]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: EC—electrical conductivity; SAR—sodium adsorption ratio; NTU—nephelometric turbidity unit.

For agricultural users, additional parameters relevant for crop and soil safety include: (i) residual concentrations of pharmaceuticals, dyes, and major transformation products; (ii) total organic carbon (TOC) and specific UV absorbance (SUVA) as indicators of reactive intermediates; (iii) phytotoxicity bioassays such as germination or root-elongation tests; (iv) residual oxidants or catalyst particles; and (v) electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, and nutrient balance. For leafy vegetables irrigated with reclaimed water, a short pre-harvest interval of 3–7 days limits the presence of surface residues, particularly under sprinkler irrigation [18,24,28,119,147,182,207].
# 7. Implications for Plant-Soil Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

## 7.1. Pollutant Accumulation and Soil Functioning—Enzyme Activities, Nutrient Cycling, and Microbial Balance

Residual contaminants and transformation products (TPs) that reach soils via treated effluents can alter core soil functions even when aqueous phytotoxicity appears attenuated. Incompletely mineralized organics, including pharmaceutical residues and their TPs, partition to soil colloids and organic matter, changing bioavailability and exposure windows for microbes and enzymes that drive C-N-P cycling [56,138,156,215]. Field and mesocosm evidence indicates that reclaimed/treated wastewater irrigation (TWW) reshapes soil microbiomes and functional potential, with the direction and magnitude of effects governed by water chemistry (salinity, nutrients, trace organics) and soil context (texture, pH, SOC) [157,158,216,217].

* Soil enzyme activities

Dehydrogenase, urease, and phosphatases are widely used integrators of microbial oxidative and hydrolytic capacity. Short-term TWW inputs can stimulate enzyme activities via nutrient and labile-C subsidies, while elevated salinity, metals, or reactive TPs may suppress activities, as patterns that meta-analyses and controlled studies now quantify [21,23,157,216]. For example, in reclaimed-water trials, increased hydrolytic activity co-occurred with higher mineral N availability, yet sites with long TWW histories showed shifts toward stress-tolerant taxa and reduced redox enzyme signals when salinity and metal loads accumulated. These outcomes underscore the need to interpret enzyme datasets alongside drivers such as EC/SAR and TP profiles, following harmonized SOPs for sampling and assay conditions [21,23,157,159,216,218].

* Nutrient cycling

TWW commonly elevates inorganic N and P in soils, accelerating short-term mineralization and plant uptake; however, concomitant changes in microbial community structure can modulate nitrification/denitrification and organophosphorus turnover, with feedbacks on N-use efficiency and P availability [157,158,216,217]. Where residual pharmaceuticals persist, selective inhibition of nitrifiers and phosphatases has been reported, consistent with enzyme-level responses and community shifts [138,156,198,215].

Analytical advances now enable multi-residual tracking of >40 pharmaceutical classes across soil-plant-biota compartments, supporting tighter linkage of mass balances to process indicators [160,161,219,220].

* Microbial balance and community structure

High-resolution sequencing shows irrigation-water quality as a primary architect of soil microbiomes across arid and semi-arid systems: saline and wastewater sources select for halotolerant or pollutant-resistant clades (e.g., *Actinobacteria*, *Firmicutes*), while reducing sensitive taxa and altering evenness, with measurable consequences for enzyme profiles [158,217].

Long-term TWW sites exhibit increased heavy-metal resistance determinants and distinct community assemblies, indicating sustained selection pressures that can decouple enzyme potential from short-term nutrient subsidies [21,23].

* Role of transformation products

Photocatalysis reduces parent loads but may transiently generate bioactive TPs (e.g., sulfonamide sulfones/nitro-derivatives) that retain or exceed baseline bioactivity until further mineralized or biopolished; such intermediates are detectable in soils receiving residuals and can modulate microbial function [56,138,156,215]. Hence, functional ver-
ification should accompany chemical endpoints when validating treated effluents for land application.

* Assessment implications

Robust risk evaluation benefits from a triad of (i) standardized enzyme assays (de-hydrogenase, urease, phosphatases, catalase), (ii) microbial community profiling and resistance markers, and (iii) nutrient balance indicators (mineral N, Olsen-P) interpreted with EC/SAR and multi-residual analytics [157,159,161,216,218,220].

Together, these lines of evidence distinguish benign nutrient subsidies from stressor-
driven functional impairment, guiding management of treated (including photocatalytically
treated) effluent reuse in soil-plant systems [21,23,158,217].

7.2. Risk Assessment Framework—PEC/PNEC Ratios, Hazard Quotients for Parent and Transformation Products

Environmental risk for contaminants introduced via treated or reclaimed waters is commonly characterized using the ratio of predicted (or measured) exposure to effect thresholds: the hazard quotient HQ = PEC/PNEC, where PEC is the predicted environmental concentration (or a representative measured concentration, MEC) and PNEC is the predicted no-effect concentration derived from ecotoxicity data with appropriate assessment factors [162,163,221,222].

For pharmaceuticals and other micropollutants, PNECs are typically obtained from chronic no-observed-effect concentrations (NOECs) or effect concentrations (EC10/EC20) for algae, crustaceans and fish, applying assessment factors in a tiered manner and adopting the most sensitive trophic-level value for risk characterization [162,164,221,223]. Where chronic data are lacking, acute-to-chronic extrapolation or read-across may be used with higher assessment factors, while mixture risk is addressed by summing substance-specific HQs to obtain a mixture risk quotient, ΣHQ [165,224].

For reclaimed water and irrigation scenarios, exposure estimation should reflect local use patterns. Surface-water PECs downstream of discharges can be estimated using effluent concentrations and realistic dilution, while soil PECs under irrigation can be calculated from application rates, irrigation frequency, degradation, and sorption (partitioning) in the soil compartment; spatially referenced exposure models now integrate per-capita wastewater flows and plant-specific loads to refine PECs at catchment scales [6,161,166,225,226]. When monitoring data are available, MECs may replace model PECs, but must represent relevant exposure windows for biota [163,222].

Transformation products (TPs) formed during treatment (including photocatalysis) can materially affect risk outcomes. The revised EMA guideline explicitly considers total residue concepts and TPs in the environmental risk assessment for medicinal products, recommending targeted analysis where TPs are persistent or bioactive [162,221]. Empirical work shows that certain pharmaceutical TPs can retain or exceed parent toxicity, under-scoring the need to derive TP-specific PNECs or apply read-across supplemented by quan-titative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) estimates when data are scarce [6,56,138]. In screening and prioritization of reclaimed-water contaminants for produce safety, re-cent initiatives combine PEC/PNEC with occurrence data and uptake potential to select monitoring lists and refine mixture assessments [167,168,227,228].

For decision-making, HQ < 1 suggests low concern for individual substances; values ≥ 1 trigger refinement (better exposure data, chronic effect data, site-specific dilution or degradation, and consideration of bioassay-based effect screening). At mixture level, ΣHQ ≥ 1 indicates potential additive risk and prioritizes drivers for management [165,224]. Uncertainties should be documented, including representativeness of PEC/MEC, variability in treatment performance (and TP profiles), and cross-compartment transport to soils
and crops [6,163,222]. Integrating PEC/PNEC with effect-based tools (e.g., algal growth inhibition, daphnid reproduction, plant bioassays) provides a robust weight-of-evidence to confirm that parent and TP risks are controlled before agricultural application.

Quantitative environmental risk assessment for contaminants originating from treated or reclaimed waters relies on the integration of exposure estimation and effect thresholds across environmental compartments. In this framework, the ratio between predicted (or measured) environmental concentrations and predicted no-effect concentrations (PEC/PNEC) provides a consistent metric for evaluating the likelihood of adverse effects. This ratio, commonly expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), serves as a screening tool to identify substances or mixtures that may require further evaluation or mitigation. The methodology is grounded in standardized procedures adopted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and it has been adapted for complex matrices such as reclaimed wastewater, soils, and irrigation systems [153,162,165,212,221,224].

Table 13 summarizes the principal equations, assumptions, and key parameters employed in PEC and PNEC derivation and in HQ calculation for both parent pollutants and their transformation products. It outlines the hierarchy of assessment, from basic risk quotient screening to mixture-level cumulative assessment, and provides analytical expressions for exposure estimation in surface waters and soils under irrigation scenarios.

<table><caption>**Table 13.** Summary of equations and parameters for PEC, PNEC, and hazard quotient (HQ) derivation for parent compounds and transformation products.</caption><thead><tr><th>Component</th><th>Equation/Description</th><th>Key Parameters and Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Risk metric</td><td>HQ = PEC/PNEC<br>ΣHQ = Σ<sub>i</sub> (PEC<sub>i</sub>/PNEC<sub>i</sub>)</td><td>HQ &lt; 1 = low concern; HQ ≥ 1 = refinement required (improved data, site specifics, or bioassays).</td></tr><tr><td>P nec derivation</td><td>PNEC = NOEC/AF</td><td>AF: 10 (≥3 chronic taxa); 50–100 (1–2 chronic taxa); 1000 (acute data only). Use read-across or QSAR for TPs with high AF (≥1000).</td></tr><tr><td>PEC surface water</td><td>PECsw = Ceff/DF<br>or (Ceff × Qeff)/(Qriver + Qeff)</td><td>Ceff = effluent concentration (µg L<sup>-1</sup>); DF = dilution factor (5–20); Qeff, Qriver = flow rates. Use 90th percentile MECs for screening.</td></tr><tr><td>PEC soil (Irrigation)</td><td>PECsoil,init ≈ [Cw × I]/[zmix × ρb]<br>PECsoil,TWA ≈ [Cw × I × N]/[zmix × ρb] × [1 − e<sup>-kT</sup>]/(kT)</td><td>Cw = water concentration (µg L<sup>-1</sup>); I = irrigation (1 mm = 1 L m<sup>-2</sup>); zmix = 0.05–0.20 m; ρb = 1.3–1.6 kg L<sup>-1</sup>; k = ln2/DT50.</td></tr><tr><td>Crop Exposure (Soil → Plant)</td><td>PECplant ≈ UF × Cpw</td><td>Cpw = porewater conc. (µg L<sup>-1</sup>) ≈ PECsoil/Kd; UF = uptake factor (e.g., TSCF for leafy crops).</td></tr><tr><td>Transformation Products (TPs)</td><td>HQTP = PECTP/PNECTP</td><td>Derive PNECTP from QSAR or read-across using AF ≥ 1000; include in ΣHQ to capture mixture risk.</td></tr><tr><td>Uncertainty and Verification</td><td>—</td><td>Evaluate Ceff/MEC representativeness, DF, soil depth, TP formation; pair PEC/PNEC with effect-based bioassays for confirmation.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 13 also shows how transformation products (TPs) are integrated into the risk framework and stresses the importance of incorporating site-specific parameters, degrada-
tion rates, and bioassay validation to ensure reliable characterization of potential ecological risks associated with photocatalytically treated effluents [8,18,67,169–172,229–233].

### 7.3. Food Chain and Crop Safety Concerns—Accumulation in Edible Tissues

Evidence from controlled and field-proximal studies shows that a subset of pharmaceuticals and other micropollutants can enter edible plant parts after irrigation with reclaimed or treated wastewater, biosolids, or amended soils, with accumulation magnitudes governed by compound properties (pKa, logKow, ionization at rhizosphere pH), plant physiology (transpiration rate, lipid content), and growth stage [6,168,228]. Broadly, ionizable, moderately polar compounds with appreciable transpiration stream concentration factors (TSCFs) display greater leafward translocation, while strong sorption to soils or root cell walls constrains movement into harvestable tissues [168,169,228,229]. Compound-specific case studies reinforce these patterns: carbamazepine, poorly degraded and relatively mobile, accumulates in leafy vegetables, with within-plant partitioning biased toward lower leaves and measurable growth effects at higher exposure levels [173,174,234,235]. Multi-pharmaceutical exposure experiments with lettuce quantify bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and reveal that mixture composition and concentration strongly shape uptake and tissue burdens, even when single-compound behavior would predict low accumulation [160,219].

Analytical advances now support simultaneous determination of parents and key metabolites directly in edible tissues, reducing underestimation from parent-only monitoring [161,175,220,236]. Such measurements are crucial because transformation products (TPs) generated during wastewater treatment or within plant tissues can retain bioactivity and contribute to the aggregate dietary burden [228]. In risk terms, current frameworks increasingly integrate crop residue data (µg kg⁻¹ fresh weight), BCFs, and consumption scenarios with PEC<sub>plant</sub>/PNEC<sub>diet</sub> or human health margin-of-exposure calculations to prioritize substances for refined monitoring [6,168,228].

While typical concentrations in market-ready produce are often low to very low (frequently non-detect to low µg kg⁻¹), exceedances occur under high-load or persistent-compound scenarios, underscoring the value of (i) treatment completeness, (ii) fit-for-purpose reuse classes, and (iii) effect-based and chemical verification prior to harvest [6,168,228]. Overall, the weight of recent evidence supports targeted, compound-specific management, focusing on persistent, mobile, bioactive APIs and their metabolites, combined with multi-residual analytics in edible tissues to secure food-chain safety where reclaimed water is used in agriculture [6,168,175,228,236]. To illustrate crop-specific variability in pharmaceutical accumulation, Table 14 compiles recent data on concentration ranges, uptake factors, and the dominant physicochemical and physiological determinants [16,45,62,86,102,174,176,235].

### 7.4. Long-Term Ecological Impacts—Persistence and Cumulative Exposure in Soils

Repeated applications of treated or reclaimed wastewater can lead to progressive soil loading by persistent parent compounds and transformation products (TPs), creating multi-seasonal exposure that differs markedly from single-dose ecotoxicity tests. Field and landscape studies show that long histories of irrigation with secondary or reclaimed effluents alter soil physicochemical properties and select for resistant microbial traits, indicating legacy effects that accumulate over 5–25 years [21,23,148,206].

Such legacy arises because many pharmaceuticals exhibit slow dissipation and appreciable sorption; so, net mass in the upper soil horizons increases when seasonal inputs exceed losses by degradation, plant uptake, leaching, and erosion. Reviews and catchment syntheses corroborate that compounds like carbamazepine (CBZ) and select antibiotics
persist through conventional treatment and can persist in receiving soils, thereby acting as sentinel markers of long-term exposure [177,237].

<table><caption>**Table 14.** Reported accumulation ranges of pharmaceuticals in edible crops and key drivers of uptake.</caption><thead><tr><td>Crop Type</td><td>Reported Concentration Range in Edible Tissue <sup>1</sup></td><td>Typical BCF/TSCF or Uptake Factor</td><td>Key Physicochemical or Crop Drivers</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leafy vegetables (e.g., Lactuca sativa, spinach)</td><td>Up to ~0.1–5 µg kg<sup>-1</sup> fresh weight; frequently low ng kg<sup>-1</sup> for many compounds; higher for persistent APIs such as carbamazepine and diclofenac [16,175,236]</td><td>BCF ≈ 0.1–1 (for moderately mobile compounds)</td><td>High transpiration and direct foliar contact; weak ionisation favours xylem transport.</td></tr><tr><td>Fruiting crops (e.g., tomato, cucumber)</td><td>Typically tens-hundreds ng kg<sup>-1</sup>; some persistent compounds (e.g., carbamazepine) up to ~0.2–0.5 µg kg<sup>-1</sup> under repeated irrigation [16,173,234].</td><td>TSCF or UF~0.01–0.1</td><td>Lower transpiration, fruit cuticle barrier, longer growth cycle limits systemic translocation.</td></tr><tr><td>Root/tuber crops (e.g., carrot, potato)</td><td>Usually <100 ng kg<sup>-1</sup>; <50 ng kg<sup>-1</sup> for most APIs under field conditions [45,86,175,236]</td><td>BCF~0.01–0.1</td><td>Direct contact with soil; strong sorption and vacuolar sequestration reduce upward movement.</td></tr><tr><td>Grain/cereal crops (e.g., wheat, maize)</td><td>Often a few ng kg<sup>-1</sup> to non-detect levels for most pharmaceuticals [6,174,235]</td><td>BCF < 0.01</td><td>Low transpiration rate and limited xylem transport to reproductive tissues.</td></tr></tbody></table>

The soil-plant system modulates this persistence through sorption-desorption dynamics, rhizosphere pH and redox conditions, and microbiome functions, which together govern whether residues remain sequestered or mobilize into porewater [172,233]. Controlled greenhouse work tracking CBZ and its metabolites demonstrates that TPs can form and persist within the soil-plant continuum, sometimes decoupling apparent parent removal from true detoxification; metabolite signals can remain in soil while plant tissue burdens fluctuate with growth stage and water regime [178,238]. In long-term reclaimed-water systems, soil microbial communities also shift: studies report changes in bacterial community composition and functional potential, with evidence for enrichment of stress-tolerant clades and resistance determinants under sustained inputs [21,23,148,206]. These microbial reorganizations may influence nutrient cycling and resilience, potentially reinforcing the persistence of certain residues via altered enzymatic capacities and carbon use efficiency.

Cumulative exposure extends beyond single compounds: multi-residual mixtures from repeated irrigation, sludge co-applications, or shallow groundwater recirculation can maintain low but chronic porewater concentrations, sustaining mixture pressures on soil biota [172,177,233,237]. Of particular concern is the co-occurrence of pharmaceuticals with metals and salts, which can co-select for resistance traits and affect biodegradation pathways, thereby indirectly enhancing chemical persistence [21,23]. Recent work tracing antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) across irrigated systems indicates that agricultural soils can accumulate and transfer ARGs along the plant pathway (e.g., to rice tissues), implying that long-term reclaimed-water use necessitates genetic as well as chemical monitoring [179,239].

<footnote n="1">¹ Ranges approximate, derived from recent greenhouse and field studies; actual values depend on compound properties, irrigation history, soil type, and crop physiology.</footnote>
Methodologically, long-term risk characterization benefits from time-integrated monitoring (soil and porewater), multi-residual analytics for parents and TPs, and process indicators (e.g., microbial community structure, resistance markers) combined with mass-balance modeling to distinguish accumulation from steady-state conditions. Emerging frameworks link plant-level accumulation models with soil fate to quantify dietary relevance and to prioritize substances for mitigation or for polishing steps that limit TP carry-over [6]. Together, these findings underline that ecological risk under long-term reuse is shaped by persistence-input balance and by soil system feedbacks; ensuring environmental safety therefore requires verification beyond parent removal, with explicit attention to TP persistence, mixture exposures, and soil functional endpoints [6,21,23,148,172,177–180,206,233,237–240].

To support comprehensive evaluation of persistence and cumulative exposure risks under long-term wastewater reuse, a set of integrated monitoring indicators is increasingly applied to track both chemical and biological dimensions of soil system responses. These indicators encompass concentration-based measures of parent compounds and transformation products (TPs), soil accumulation profiles, microbial and enzymatic biomarkers, and resistance determinants that together provide a multi-layered picture of soil health and contaminant behavior. They also bridge laboratory-scale studies and field monitoring by combining analytical chemistry, molecular ecology, and modeling approaches to assess whether residues are accumulating, transforming, or reaching steady-state conditions.

Table 15 summarizes the principal categories of monitoring indicators, the parameters and methods commonly employed, and their interpretive roles in identifying persistence, transformation, and ecological functional shifts in soils exposed to long-term irrigation with treated or reclaimed wastewater.

<table><caption>**Table 15.** Key monitoring indicators and metrics for assessing long-term persistence and cumulative exposure of pharmaceuticals and transformation products (TPs) in soils under treated wastewater reuse.</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator Category</td><td>Parameter/Metric</td><td>Analytical or Methodological Approach</td><td>Purpose/ Interpretation</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chemical persistence</td><td>Time-weighted mean concentrations of parent compounds and TPs in soil porewater (ng L<sup>-1</sup>–µg L<sup>-1</sup> range)</td><td>Passive samplers (PES), periodic LC-MS/MS campaigns</td><td>Assess temporal accumulation and potential for groundwater migration</td><td>[172,177,233,237]</td></tr><tr><td>Soil accumulation</td><td>Residue mass balance (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> soil), depth profiles</td><td>Soil core sampling, solvent extraction + LC-MS/MS</td><td>Quantify vertical persistence and sorption to upper horizons</td><td>[148,178,206,238]</td></tr><tr><td>Transformation product tracking</td><td>Parent/TP ratio and metabolite identification</td><td>Target/non-target HRMS, suspect screening</td><td>Evaluate incomplete mineralization or secondary formation of TPs</td><td>[172,177,233,237]</td></tr><tr><td>Microbial community integrity</td><td>Shannon diversity index, functional gene abundance</td><td>16S rRNA and metagenomic sequencing</td><td>Detect structural or functional shifts due to chronic exposure</td><td>[21,23,148,206]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 15. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator Category</td><td>Parameter/Metric</td><td>Analytical or Methodological Approach</td><td>Purpose/ Interpretation</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Resistance indicators</td><td>Abundance of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), mobile genetic elements</td><td>qPCR, metagenomics, plasmid profiling</td><td>Assess co-selection effects under wastewater-derived pressure</td><td>[179,239]</td></tr><tr><td>Soil enzyme activity</td><td>Dehydrogenase, phosphatase, urease activities (µmol product g<sup>-1</sup> h<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>Colorimetric enzymatic assays</td><td>Evaluate microbial metabolic capacity and nutrient cycling disruption</td><td>[21,23,172,233]</td></tr><tr><td>Model-based exposure</td><td>Modeled PEC_soil, half-life (DT<sub>50</sub>), cumulative hazard index (HQsum)</td><td>Multimedia fate or crop-soil coupling models (e.g., SimpleBox, Trapp framework)</td><td>Quantify persistence-input balance and risk thresholds over time</td><td>[6,179,180,239,240]</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 8. Knowledge Gaps and Future Perspectives

Despite significant advances in understanding the ecotoxicological implications of emerging drug and dye pollutants, several critical knowledge gaps persist, limiting a full assessment of their long-term environmental impacts. One of the most evident limitations lies in the scarcity of soil-based phytotoxicity studies involving photocatalytically treated effluents. Most available data derive from aqueous bioassays or hydroponic tests that, while informative, do not adequately reflect the complex interactions between pollutants, soil constituents, and plant roots under field conditions. The absence of such soil-specific assessments constrains our ability to predict plant uptake, persistence, and potential risks associated with repeated irrigation using treated wastewater.

Another important gap concerns the limited understanding of soil-microbiota interactions following photocatalytic treatment. Although photocatalysis can effectively degrade parent pollutants, its influence on soil microbial communities exposed to transformation products (TPs) remains poorly characterized. Microbial assemblages play a central role in nutrient cycling, organic matter turnover, and pollutant attenuation; yet, the response of microbial taxa and functional genes to residual TPs or partial mineralization products is still insufficiently documented. Addressing this gap requires long-term microcosm and field studies integrating metagenomic and enzymatic analyses to evaluate both structural and functional shifts in soil biota.

A further challenge lies in the lack of standardized analytical methodologies for detecting and quantifying transformation products in soil matrices. While modern high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) enables non-target screening, differences in sample extraction, cleanup protocols, and identification criteria hinder comparability across studies. Establishing harmonized analytical workflows and reference materials would greatly enhance reproducibility and facilitate cross-study interpretation of TP behavior, bioavailability, and toxicity.

Looking ahead, the integration of omics-based tools and predictive modeling approaches holds promise for improving mechanistic understanding and risk forecasting. Genomic, transcriptomic, and metabolomic analyses can reveal subtle stress responses in plants and microbes exposed to complex pollutant mixtures, while modeling frameworks such as PEC/PNEC and hazard quotient analyses can support the extrapolation
of laboratory data to real-field scenarios. Combining these tools can yield a systems-level perspective linking molecular effects to ecological outcomes.

Finally, there is growing recognition that coupling photocatalysis with biological polishing processes, such as constructed wetlands, biofiltration, or aerobic biodegradation offers a practical route to achieve complete detoxification. Such hybrid systems capitalize on the oxidative breakdown achieved by photocatalysis and the metabolic versatility of microorganisms to degrade residual intermediates, ensuring both chemical and ecological safety.

Despite significant progress in characterizing photocatalytic transformation pathways, several important knowledge gaps remain that limit reliable environmental risk evaluation. First, the long-term implications of chronic, low-dose exposure to TPs require systematic investigation, particularly under conditions of repeated irrigation where persistent intermediates may accumulate in soil or plant tissues across successive growth cycles. The consequences of such cumulative exposure remain largely unknown. Second, the response and adaptation of soil microbial communities to recurrent TP inputs warrant deeper study; shifts in microbiome structure or function could influence nutrient cycling, soil health, and secondary pollutant transformation, yet current evidence is fragmentary. Third, the field lacks standardized and high-throughput ecotoxicological assays specifically suited for complex effluents containing TP mixtures, limiting comparability across studies and constraining regulatory assessment. Finally, there is a pressing need for integrated chemical-ecotoxicological screening frameworks that combine advanced TP characterization with plant- and soil-relevant bioassays to capture mixture-level effects and identify hazard-driving intermediates. Together, these gaps highlight key research directions necessary to develop photocatalytic processes that are both efficient and protective of terrestrial ecosystems under agricultural reuse scenarios.

Bridging these knowledge gaps will require interdisciplinary collaboration between environmental chemists, microbiologists, plant scientists, and engineers. Developing integrated experimental and modeling frameworks that encompass chemical fate, biological responses, and system-level feedbacks will be essential to ensure that photocatalytic technologies deliver truly sustainable solutions for wastewater treatment and agricultural reuse.

## 9. Conclusions

The present review provides an integrated perspective on the ecotoxicological behavior of pharmaceuticals and synthetic dyes in soil-plant systems, emphasizing the comparative effects observed before and after photocatalytic wastewater treatment. These emerging contaminants exhibit a wide spectrum of persistence and toxicity, influenced by their physicochemical characteristics, soil organic matter content, pH, redox potential, and plant uptake mechanisms. Their continuous input through treated effluents or biosolid applications contributes to the gradual enrichment of surface soils, altering enzymatic activity, nutrient cycling, and microbial community composition. Such disruptions can cascade through the plant-soil interface, affecting plant metabolism, biomass accumulation, and, ultimately, crop quality and food safety.

Photocatalytic oxidation processes, particularly those based on TiO₂ and its modified composites, have shown high potential to degrade a broad range of persistent organic pollutants under solar or artificial irradiation. When properly optimized, these systems achieve near-complete mineralization of complex organic molecules, leading to significant reductions in phytotoxicity and soil biohazard. Nonetheless, this review highlights that incomplete or suboptimal photocatalytic treatment can yield transformation products (TPs) of intermediate toxicity, some of which remain bioactive or even more persistent than the
parent compounds. Consequently, the relationship between chemical removal efficiency and biological safety is not always linear, underlining the need for toxicity-based validation alongside conventional analytical monitoring.

Comparative assessments between untreated and photocatalytically treated effluents demonstrate that detoxification generally progresses with increased irradiation time and higher degrees of mineralization. Still, the persistence of certain pollutants and their metabolites necessitates caution when reusing treated water for irrigation. Long-term exposure studies reveal that cumulative inputs can influence soil physicochemical structure and biodiversity, reinforcing the need to evaluate not only acute phytotoxicity but also chronic, sub-lethal, and mixture effects under realistic environmental conditions.

From a management standpoint, integrating photocatalytic technologies with biological post-treatments or natural attenuation strategies appears to be the most sustainable path forward. This hybrid approach can minimize the formation of stable intermediates and enhance overall detoxification. Moreover, harmonized monitoring frameworks that combine chemical, biological, and modeling tools, such as PEC/PNEC and hazard quotient analyses, are essential to ensure that reclaimed water meets safety standards for agricultural reuse and soil protection.

Future research should focus on developing scalable photocatalytic materials with improved solar-light utilization, durability, and selectivity, as well as on quantifying long-term ecological outcomes in field conditions. Expanding omics-based investigations of microbial and plant responses could also deepen the understanding of the mechanisms underlying adaptation and resilience to emerging pollutants.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is essential to evaluate the environmental and economic sustainability of photocatalytic and hybrid treatment configurations, ensuring that improved effluent quality does not shift impacts to other environmental compartments.

Photocatalytic wastewater treatment represents a transformative step toward sustainable pollution control and circular water reuse. However, its full environmental benefit depends on coupling technological innovation with ecotoxicological validation, ensuring that treated waters not only meet chemical quality criteria but also safeguard the functional integrity of soil-plant ecosystems and the broader environment.

**Author Contributions:** M.P.: Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing—Original Draft; L.F.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing—Original Draft; M.G.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Writing—Review and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Data Availability Statement:** No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors acknowledge the use of OpenAI's ChatGPT-5 (subscription version) for support in refining the English phrasing of selected sections of this manuscript, enhancing the visual presentation of several figures, and assisting in the organization and formatting of the reference list.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## References

1. Wilkinson, J.L.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Kolpin, D.W.; Leung, K.M.Y.; Lai, R.W.S.; Galban-Malagond, C.; Adelle, A.D.; Mondonf, J.; Metiang, M.; Marchant, R.A.; et al. Pharmaceutical pollution of the world's rivers. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **2022**, *119*, e2113947119.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Ehalt Macedo, H.; Sumpter, J.P.; Richmond, E.; Khan, U.; Klein, E.Y. Antibiotics in the Global River System Arising from Human Activities. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **2025**, *4*, pgaf096. [CrossRef]
3. Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency). Entry and Occurrence of Human Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. 17 December 2024. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/ (accessed on 4 November 2025).

4. Pérez-Lucas, G.; Navarro, S. How Pharmaceutical Residues Occur, Behave, and Affect the Soil Environment. *J. Xenobiotics* **2024**, *14*, 1343–1377. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5. Ben Mordechay, E.; Mordehay, V.; Tarchitzky, J.; Chefetz, B. Pharmaceuticals in Edible Crops Irrigated with Reclaimed Wastewater: Evidence From a Large Survey in Israel. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2021**, *416*, 126184. [CrossRef]

6. Nightingale, J.; Trapp, S.; Garduño-Jiménez, A.; Carter, L. A Framework to assess Pharmaceutical Accumulation in Crops Irrigated with Treated Wastewater. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2025**, *493*, 138297. [CrossRef]

7. Obijianya, C.C.; Yakamercan, E.; Karimi, M.; Veluru, S.; Simko, I. Agricultural Irrigation using treated wastewater: Challenges and Opportunities. *Water* **2025**, *17*, 2083. [CrossRef]

8. Kumar, M.; Singh, R.; Bhat, S.V.; Kumar, R. Environmental Risks of Textile Dyes and Photocatalytic Materials for Sustainable Treatment: Current Status and Future Directions. *Discov. Environ.* **2025**, *3*, 132. [CrossRef]

9. Yaseen, D.A.; Scholz, M. Shallow Pond Systems Planted with Lemna minor Treating Azo Dyes. *Ecol. Eng.* **2016**, *94*, 295–305. [CrossRef]

10. Periyasamy, A.P. Recent Advances in the Remediation of Textile-Dye-Containing Wastewater: Prioritizing Human Health and Sustainable Wastewater Treatment. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 495. [CrossRef]

11. Carter, L.J.; Chefetz, B.; Abdeen, Z.; Boxall, A.B.A. Emerging Investigator Series: Towards a Framework for Establishing the Impacts of Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater Irrigation Systems on Agro-Ecosystems and Human Health. *Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts* **2019**, *21*, 605. [CrossRef]

12. Mosharaf, M.K.; Gomes, R.L.; Cook, S.; Alam, M.S.; Rasmusssen, A. Wastewater Reuse and Pharmaceutical Pollution in Agriculture: Uptake, Transport, Accumulation and Metabolism of Pharmaceutical Pollutants within Plants. *Chemosphere* **2024**, *364*, 143055. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Bolesta, W.; Głodniok, M.; Styszko, K. From Sewage Sludge to the Soil—Transfer of Pharmaceuticals: A Review. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2022**, *19*, 10246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Zheng, W.; Guo, M. Soil-Plant Transfer of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs). *Curr. Pollut. Rep.* **2021**, *7*, 510–523. [CrossRef]

15. Hassan, J.; Rajib, M.M.R.; Sarker, U.; Akter, M.; Khan, M.N.E.A.; Khandaker, S.; Khalid, F.; Rahman, G.K.M.M.; Ercisli, S.; Muresan, C.C.; et al. Optimizing Textile Dyeing Wastewater for Tomato Irrigation Through Physiochemical, Plant Nutrient Uses and Pollution Load Index of Irrigated Soil. *Sci. Rep.* **2022**, *12*, 10088. [CrossRef]

16. Mininni, A.N.; Pietrafesa, A.; Calabritto, M.; Di Biase, R.; Brunetti, G.; De Mastro, F.; Murgolo, S.; De Ceglie, C.; Salerno, C.; Dichio, B. Uptake and translocation of pharmaceutically active compounds by olive tree (Olea europaea L.) irrigated with treated municipal wastewater. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2024**, *15*, 1382595. [CrossRef]

17. Chen, G.; Dong, W.; Wang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, F.; Wang, F.; Nieto-Delgado, C. Carbamazepine Degradation by Visible-Light-Driven Photocatalyst Ag3PO4/GO: Mechanism and Pathway. *Environ. Sci. Ecotech.* **2022**, *9*, 100143. [CrossRef]

18. Nwachukwu, B.C.; Babalola, O.O. Metagenomics: A Tool for Exploring Key Microbiome with the Potentials for Improving Sustainable Agriculture. *Front. Sustain. Food Syst.* **2022**, *6*, 886987. [CrossRef]

19. Gavrilescu, M. Water, Soil, and Plants Interactions in a Threatened Environment. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2746. [CrossRef]

20. Pashaei, R.; Zahedipour-Sheshglani, P.; Dzingelevičienė, R.; Abbasi, S.; Rees, R.M. Effects of Pharmaceuticals on the Nitrogen Cycle in Water and Soil: A Review. *Environ. Monit. Assess.* **2022**, *194*, 105. [CrossRef]

21. Vasilachi, I.C.; Asiminicesei, D.M.; Fertu, D.I.; Gavrilescu, M. Occurrence and Fate of Emerging Pollutants in Water Environment and Options for Their Removal. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 181. [CrossRef]

22. Asiminicesei, D.-M.; Fertu, D.I.; Gavrilescu, M. Impact of Heavy Metal Pollution in the Environment on the Metabolic Profile of Medicinal Plants and Their Therapeutic Potential. *Plants* **2024**, *13*, 913. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23. Yagoubi, A.; Giannakis, S.; Chamekh, A.; Kharbech, O.; Chouari, R. Influence of Decades-Long Irrigation with Secondary Treated Wastewater on Soil Microbial Diversity, Resistome Dynamics, and Antibiotrophy Development. *Heliyon* **2024**, *10*, e39666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24. Trotta, V.; Baaloudj, O.; Brienza, M. Risks Associated with Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture: Investigating the Effects of Contaminants in Soil, Plants, and Insects. *Front. Environ. Sci.* **2024**, *12*, 1358842. [CrossRef]

25. Vasilachi-Mitoseru, I.-C.; Stoleru, V.; Gavrilescu, M. Integrated Assessment of Pb(II) and Cu(II) Metal Ion Phytotoxicity on *Medicago sativa* L., *Triticum aestivum* L., and *Zea mays* L. Plants: Insights into Germination Inhibition, Seedling Development, and Ecosystem Health. *Plants* **2023**, *12*, 3754. [CrossRef]

26. Garduño-Jimenez, A.-L.; Carter, L.J. Insights into Mode of Action Mediated Responses Following Pharmaceutical Uptake and Accumulation in Plants. *Front. Agron.* **2024**, *5*, 1293555. [CrossRef]

27. Filote, C.; Ros, M.; Hlihor, R.M.; Cozma, P.; Simion, I.M.; Apostol, M.; Gavrilescu, M. Sustainable Application of Biosorption and Bioaccumulation of Persistent Pollutants in Wastewater Treatment: Current Practice. *Processes* **2021**, *9*, 1696. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, Q.; Song, Y.; An, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zhong, G. Soil Microorganisms: Their Role in Enhancing Crop Nutrition and Health. *Diversity* **2024**, *16*, 734. [CrossRef]

29. Khasawneh, O.F.S.; Palaniandy, P. Occurrence and Removal of Pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment plants. *Process. Saf. Environ. Prot.* **2021**, *150*, 532–556. [CrossRef]

30. Samarasinghe, L.V.; Muthukumaran, S.; Baskaran, S. Recent Advances in Visible Light-Activated Photocatalysts for Degradation of Dyes: A Comprehensive Review. *Chemosphere* **2024**, *349*, 140818. [CrossRef]

31. Gavrilescu, M.; Demnerová, K.; Aamand, J.; Agathos, S.; Fava, F. Emerging Pollutants in the Environment: Present and future Challenges in Biomonitoring, Ecological Risks and Bioremediation. *New Biotechnol.* **2015**, *32*, 147–156. [CrossRef]

32. Morosini, C.; Poste, E.; Mostachetti, M.; Torretta, V. Pharmaceuticals in Water Cycle: A Review on Risk Assessment and Wastewater and Sludge Treatment. *Environ. Eng. Manag. J.* **2020**, *19*, 1339–1378. [CrossRef]

33. Lucas, M.S.; Peres, J.A.; Li Puma, G. Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water and Wastewater Treatment. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 1309. [CrossRef]

34. Yang, M.; Ye, L.; Du, B.; Meng, W.; Liu, W.; Su, G. Comprehensive Screening and Occurrence-Removal Assessment of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Wastewater Treatment Plants using High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. *Environ. Pollut.* **2025**, *386*, 127201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

35. Mary Ealias, A.; Meda, G.; Tanzil, K. Recent Progress in Sustainable Treatment Technologies for the Removal of Emerging Contaminants from Wastewater: A Review on Occurrence, Global Status and Impact on Biota. *Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.* **2024**, *262*, 16. [CrossRef]

36. Yang, Y.; Ok, Y.S.; Kim, K.-H.; Kwon, E.E.; Tsang, Y.F. Occurrences and Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in Drinking Water and Water/Sewage Treatment Plants: A Review. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2017**, *596–597*, 303–320. [CrossRef]

37. Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.-H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, H. Comprehensive Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in Typical Highly Urbanized Regions across China. *Environ Pollut.* **2015**, *204*, 223–232. [CrossRef]

38. Tao, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, L.; Li, R. Recent Advances and Perspectives for Solar-Driven Water Splitting using Particulate Photocatalysts. *Chem. Soc. Rev.* **2022**, *51*, 3561–3608. [CrossRef]

39. Zhang, Y.; Xiong, S.; Sathiyaseelan, A.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Jin, T.; Wang, M.H. Recent Advances in Photocatalytic Nanomaterials for Environmental Remediation: Strategies, Mechanisms, and Future Directions. *Chemosphere* **2024**, *364*, 143142. [CrossRef]

40. Paiu, M.; Lutic, D.; Favier, L.; Gavrilescu, M. Heterogeneous Photocatalysis for Advanced Water Treatment: Materials, Mechanisms, Reactor Configurations, and Emerging Applications. *Appl. Sci.* **2025**, *15*, 5681. [CrossRef]

41. Hübner, U.; Spahr, S.; Lutze, H.; Wieland, A.; Rüting, S.; Gernjak, W.; Wenk, J. Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water and Wastewater Treatment–Guidance for Systematic Future Research. *Heliyon* **2024**, *10*, e30402. [CrossRef]

42. Paiu, M.; Favier, L.; Gavrilescu, M. Photocatalytic Approaches to Treating Mixtures of Emerging Organic Pollutants in Aquatic Environments. *Environ. Eng. Manag. J.* **2025**, *24*, 745–791. [CrossRef]

43. Paiu, M.; Favier, L.; Lutic, D.; Hlihor, R.M.; Sergentu, D.C.; Alonzo, V.; Gavrilescu, M. First Insight on the Effective Removal of Pentoxifylline Drug Under Visible-Light-Driven Irradiation with ZnO Catalyst Obtained Via Precipitation. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2025**, *386*, 125420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

44. Larsson, D.G.J. Pollution from Drug Manufacturing: Review and Perspectives. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B* **2014**, *369*, 20130571. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

45. Chauhan, A.; Agnihotri, S.; Vasundhara, M. Enhanced Solar Light-Driven Photocatalysis of Norfloxacin using Fe-doped TiO₂: RSM Optimization, DFT Simulations, and Toxicity Study. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2024**, *31*, 47991–48013. [CrossRef]

46. WHO. Guidance on Wastewater and Solid Waste Management for Manufacturing of Antibiotics. 2024. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240097254 (accessed on 14 November 2025).

47. USEPA. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2025. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/eg/pharmaceutical-manufacturing-effluent-guidelines (accessed on 4 November 2025).

48. Rosen, R. Mass Spectrometry for Monitoring Micropollutants in Water. *Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.* **2007**, *18*, 246–251. [CrossRef]

49. Hernández, F.; Fabregat-Safont, D.; Campos-Mañas, M.; Quintana, J.B. Efficient Validation Strategies in Environmental Analytical Chemistry: A Focus on Organic Micropollutants in Water Samples. *Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem.* **2023**, *16*, 401–428. [CrossRef]

50. Helmus, R.; Bagdonaite, I.; de Voogt, P.; van Wezel, A.P.; ter Laak, T.L. Comprehensive Mass Spectrometry Workflows to Systematically Elucidate Transformation Processes of Organic Micropollutants: A Case Study on the Photodegradation of Four Pharmaceuticals. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2025**, *59*, 3723–3736. [CrossRef]

51. Arcanjo, G.S.; Mounteer, A.H.; Bellato, C.R.; da Silva, L.M.M.; Dias, S.H.B.; da Silva, P.R. Heterogeneous Photocatalysis using TiO₂ Modified with Hydrotalcite and Iron Oxide under UV-Visible Irradiation for Color and Toxicity Reduction in Secondary Textile Mill Effluent. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2018**, *211*, 154–163. [CrossRef]
52. Sponza, D.T.; Oztekin, R. Effect of Sonication Assisted by Titanium Dioxide and Ferrous Ions on Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Toxicity Removals from a Petrochemical Industry Wastewater in Turkey. *J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.* **2010**, *85*, 913-925.
[CrossRef]

53. Li, J.; Huang, H.; Yang, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Q. Contamination Remediation and Risk Assessment of Four Typical Long-Residual Herbicides: A Timely Review. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2025**, *997*, 180169. [CrossRef]

54. Gonzaga, I.M.D.; Almeida, C.V.S.; Mascaro, L.H. A Critical Review of Photo-Based Advanced Oxidation Processes to Pharmaceutical Degradation. *Catalysts* **2023**, *13*, 221. [CrossRef]

55. Rueda-Márquez, J.J.; Levchuk, I.; Fernández-Ibáñez, P.; Sillanpää, M. A Critical Review on Application of Photocatalysis for Toxicity Reduction of Real Wastewaters. *J. Clean. Prod.* **2020**, *258*, 120694. [CrossRef]

56. Madej-Knysak, D.; Adamek, E.; Baran, W. Biodegradation of Photocatalytic Degradation Products of Sulfonamides: Kinetics and Identification of Intermediates. *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* **2024**, *25*, 6688. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

57. Zollinger, H. *Color Chemistry: Syntheses, Properties, and Applications of Organic Dyes and Pigments*, 3rd ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003.

58. Robinson, T.; McMullan, G.; Marchant, R.; Nigam, P. Remediation of Dyes in Textile Effluent: A Critical Review. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2001**, *77*, 247-255. [CrossRef]

59. Forgacs, E.; Cserháti, T.; Oros, G. Removal of Synthetic Dyes from Wastewaters: A Review. *Environ. Int.* **2004**, *30*, 953-971.
[CrossRef]

60. Saratale, R.G.; Saratale, G.D.; Chang, J.S.; Govindwar, S.P. Bacterial Decolorization and Degradation of Azo Dyes: A Review. *J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng.* **2011**, *42*, 138-157. [CrossRef]

61. Pinheiro, H.M.; Touraud, E.; Thomas, O. Aromatic Amines from Azo Dye Reduction: Toxicity, Reactivity and Environmental Impacts. *Dye. Pigment.* **2004**, *63*, 121-139. [CrossRef]

62. Saeed, M.; Muneer, M.; Haq, A.U.; Akram, N. Photocatalysis: An Effective Tool for Photodegradation of Dyes—A Review. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2022**, *29*, 293-311. [CrossRef]

63. Sahu, A.; Poler, J.C. Removal and Degradation of Dyes from Textile Industry Wastewater: Benchmarking Recent Advancements, Toxicity Assessment and Cost Analysis of Treatment Processes. *J. Environ. Chem. Eng.* **2024**, *12*, 113754. [CrossRef]

64. Buck, S.T.G.; Bettanin, F.; Orestes, E.; Homem-de-Mello, P.; Imasato, H.; Viana, R.B.; da Silva, A.B. Photodynamic Efficiency of Xanthene Dyes and Their Phototoxicity against a Carcinoma Cell Line: A Computational and Experimental Study. *J. Chem.* **2017**, *7365263*. [CrossRef]

65. Pishgar, M.; Gharanjig, K.; Yazdanshenas, M.E.; Farizadeh, K.; Rashidi, A. Photophysical Properties of a Novel Xanthene Dye. *Prog. Color Colorants Coat.* **2022**, *15*, 87-96.

66. Abu-Hussien, S.H.; Hemdan, B.A.; Alzahrani, O.M.; Alswat, A.S.; Alatawi, F.A.; Alenezi, M.A.; Darwish, D.B.E.; Bafhaid, H.S.; Mahmoud, S.F.; Ibrahim, M.F.M.; et al. Microbial Degradation, Spectral Analysis and Toxicological Assessment of MalachiteGreen Dye by Streptomyces exfoliatus. *Molecules* **2022**, *27*, 6456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

67. Wilayat, S.; Fazil, P.; Khan, J.A.; Zada, A.; Ali Shah, M.I.; Al-Anazi, A.; Shah, N.S.; Han, C.; Ateeq, M. Degradation of malachite green by UV/H₂O₂ and UV/H₂O₂/Fe²⁺ processes: Kinetics and mechanism. *Front. Chem.* **2024**, *12*, 1467438. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

68. Aus der Beek, T.; Weber, F.A.; Bergmann, A.; Hickmann, S.; Ebert, I.; Hein, A.; Küster, A. Pharmaceuticals in the Environment—Global Occurrences and Perspectives. *Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* **2016**, *35*, 823-835. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

69. Hughes, S.R.; Kay, P.; Brown, L.E. Global Synthesis and Critical Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Data Sets Collected from River Systems. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2013**, *47*, 661-677. [CrossRef]

70. Chefetz, B.; Mualem, T.; Ben-Ari, J. Sorption and Mobility of Pharmaceutical Compounds in Soil Irrigated with reclaimed Wastewater. *Chemosphere* **2008**, *73*, 1335-1343. [CrossRef]

71. Ziylan, A.; Ince, N.H. The Occurrence and Fate of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Pharmaceuticals in Sewage and Fresh Water: Treatability by Conventional and Non-Conventional Processes. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2011**, *187*, 24-36. [CrossRef]

72. Carvalho, I.T.; Santos, L. Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environments: A Review of the European Scenario. *Environ. Int.* **2016**, *94*, 736-757. [CrossRef]

73. Grenni, P.; Ancona, P.; Barra Caracciolo, A. Ecological Effects of Antibiotics on Natural Ecosystems: A Review. *Microchem. J.* **2018**, *136*, 25-39. [CrossRef]

74. Monteiro, S.C.; Boxall, A.B. Occurrence and Fate of Human Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. *Review. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.* **2010**, *202*, 53-154. [CrossRef]

75. Wei, W.; Zhu, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Dong, Y.; Ni, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Wu, X.; Zheng, Q.; et al. Rapid Degradation of Carbamazepine in Wastewater Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge-Assisted Fe3+/Sodium Sulfite Oxidation. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 10544. [CrossRef]
76. Beltrán, E.M.; Pablos, M.V.; Torija, C.F.; Porcel, M.A.; González-Doncel, M. Uptake of Atenolol, Carbamazepine and Triclosan by Crops Irrigated with Reclaimed Water in a Mediterranean Scenario. *Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.* **2020**, *191*, 110171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

77. Fabbri, E.; Franzellitti, S. Human Pharmaceuticals in the Marine Environment: Focus on Exposure and Biological Effects in Animal Species. *Environ. Toxicol. Chem.* **2015**, *35*, 799–812. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

78. Salinas, A.; Rahman, M.S. Exposure to Metoprolol and Propranolol Mixtures on Biochemical, Immunohistochemical, and Molecular Alterations in the American oyster, *Crassostrea virginica*. *Toxicol. Rep.* **2025**, *14*, 101979. [CrossRef]

79. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. European Union Strategic Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment. COM(2019) 128 Final. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0128 (accessed on 14 November 2025).

80. Boxall, A.B.A.; Rudd, M.A.; Brooks, B.W.; Caldwell, D.J.; Choi, K.; Hickmann, S.; Innes, E.; Ostapyk, K.; Staveley, J.P.; Verslycke, T.; et al. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: What Are the Big Questions? *Environ. Health Perspect.* **2012**, *120*, 1221–1229. [CrossRef]

81. Wu, C.; Spongberg, A.L.; Witter, J.D.; Fang, M. Uptake of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products by Soybean Plants from Soils Applied with Biosolids. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2013**, *444*, 31–36. [CrossRef]

82. Chaber-Jarlachowicz, P.; Gworek, B.; Kalinowski, R. Removal Efficiency of Pharmaceuticals during the Wastewater Treatment Process: Emission and Environmental Risk Assessment. *PLoS ONE* **2025**, *20*, e0331211. [CrossRef]

83. Li, Z.; He, H.; Ding, J.; Zhang, Z.; Leng, Y.; Liao, M.; Xiong, W. Effects of Three Antibiotics on Nitrogen-Cycling Bacteria in Sediment of Aquaculture Water. *Water* **2024**, *16*, 1256. [CrossRef]

84. Park, J.; Kim, C.; Hong, Y.; Lee, W.; Chung, H.; Jeong, D.-H.; Kim, H. Distribution and Removal of Pharmaceuticals in Liquid and Solid Phases in the Unit Processes of Sewage Treatment Plants. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2020**, *17*, 687. [CrossRef]

85. Peter, L. Fundamental Aspects of Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting at Semiconductor Electrodes. *Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.* **2021**, *31*, 100505. [CrossRef]

86. Santos, G.O.S.; Goulart, L.A.; Cordeiro-Junior, P.J.M.; Sánchez-Montes, I.; Lanza, M.R.V. Pharmaceutical Contaminants: Ecotoxicological Aspects and Recent Advances in Oxidation Technologies for their Removal in Aqueous Matrices. *J. Environ. Chem. Eng.* **2022**, *10*, 108932. [CrossRef]

87. Alhalabi, A.M.; Meetani, M.A.; Shabib, A.; Maraqa, M.A. Sorption of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds to Soils: A Review. *Environ. Sci. Eur.* **2024**, *36*, 161. [CrossRef]

88. Habimana, E.; Sauvé, S. A Review of Properties, Occurrence, Fate, and Transportation Mechanisms of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Sewage Sludge, Biosolids, Soils, and Dust. *Front. Environ. Chem.* **2025**, *3*, 1547596. [CrossRef]

89. Bondarenko, S.; Gan, J.; Ernst, F.; Green, R.; Baird, J.; McCullough, M. Leaching of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Turfgrass Soils during Recycled Water Irrigation. *J. Environ. Qual.* **2012**, *41*, 1268–1274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

90. Zhu, H.; Zheng, B.; Zhong, W.; Xu, J.; Nie, W.; Sun, Y.; Guan, Z. Infiltration and Leaching Characteristics of Soils with Different Texture under Irrigation. *Agronomy* **2024**, *14*, 553. [CrossRef]

91. Kusumlata; Ambade, B.; Kumar, A.; Gautam, S. Sustainable Solutions: Reviewing the Future of Textile Dye Contaminant Removal with Emerging Biological Treatments. *Linnol. Rev.* **2024**, *24*, 126–149. [CrossRef]

92. De Mastro, F.; Brunetti, G.; Cocozza, C.; Murgolo, S.; Mascolo, G.; Salerno, C.; Ruta, C.; De Mastro, G. Dynamics of Pharmaceuticals in the Soil-Plant System: A Case Study on Mycorrhizal Artichoke. *Soil Syst.* **2025**, *9*, 51. [CrossRef]

93. Strawn, D.G. Sorption Mechanisms of Chemicals in Soils. *Soil Syst.* **2021**, *5*, 13. [CrossRef]

94. Santos, L.H.; Lima, D.L.D.; Freire, C. Pharmaceutical Contamination in Edible Plants Grown on Soils Amended with Reclaimed Water, Biosolids and Manure: A Review. *Clean Technol. Environ. Policy* **2025**, *27*, 41–58. [CrossRef]

95. Chiu, Y.-H.; Chang, T.F.M.; Chen, C.-Y.; Sone, M.; Hsu, Y.-J. Mechanistic Insights into Photodegradation of Organic Dyes Using Heterostructure Photocatalysts. *Catalysts* **2019**, *9*, 430. [CrossRef]

96. Anand, U.; Adelodun, B.; Cabreros, C.; Kumar, P.; Suresh, S.; Dey, A.; Ballesteros, F., Jr.; Bontempi, E. Occurrence, Transformation, Bioaccumulation, Risk and Analysis of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products from wastewater: A review. *Environ. Chem. Lett.* **2022**, *20*, 3883–3904. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

97. Pasket, A.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Krzmarzick, M.; Gustafson, J.E.; Deng, S. Clay Content Played a Key Role Governing Sorption of Ciprofloxacin in Soil. *Front. Soil Sci.* **2022**, *2*, 814924. [CrossRef]

98. Li, Y.; Zhuang, J.; Essington, M.E.; Chen, X. Polarity Dependence of Transport of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products through Birnessite-Coated Porous Media. *Front. Environ. Sci.* **2021**, *9*, 793587. [CrossRef]

99. Zhang, W.; Tang, X.; Thiele-Bruhn, S. Interaction of Pig Manure-Derived DOM with Pharmaceuticals in Soil Systems. *Environ. Geochem. Health* **2021**, *43*, 3859–3875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

100. Allam, K.; Gourai, K.; El Bouari, A.; Belhorma, B.; Bih, L. Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Raw and Activated Clay. *J. Mater. Environ. Sci.* **2018**, *9*, 1880–1887.
101. González-Naranjo, V.; Boltes, K. Toxicity of ibuprofen and perfluorooctanoic acid for risk assessment of mixtures in aquatic and terrestrial environments. *Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2014**, *11*, 1743–1750. [CrossRef]

102. Wei, H.; Tang, M.; Xu, X. Mechanism of uptake, accumulation, transport, metabolism and phytotoxic effects of pharmaceuticals and personal care products within plants: A review. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2023**, *892*, 164413. [CrossRef]

103. Lu, Y.; Han, H.; Jiang, C.; Liu, H.; Wang, Z.; Chai, Y.; Zhang, X.; Qiu, J.; Chen, H. Uptake, Accumulation, Translocation and Transformation of Seneciphylline (Sp) and Seneciphylline-N-Oxide (SpNO) by *Camellia sinensis* L. *Environ. Int.* **2023**, *188*, 108765. [CrossRef]

104. Fu, Q.; Malchi, T.; Carter, L.J.; Li, H.; Gan, J.; Chefetz, B. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products: From Wastewater Treatment into Agro-Food Systems. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2019**, *53*, 14083–14090. [CrossRef]

105. Al-Farsi, R.S.; Ahmed, M.; Al-Busaidi, A.; Choudri, B.S. Translocation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) into plant tissues: A review. *Emerg. Contam.* **2017**, *3*, 132–137. [CrossRef]

106. Zhong, J.; Wei, H.; Xie, J.-X.; Wu, Y.-H.; Tang, B.; Zou, Q.; Guo, P.-R.; Chen, Z.-L. Uptake, subcellular distribution, and fate of tetracycline in two wetland plants supplemented with microbial agents: Effect and mechanism. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2024**, *364*, 121428. [CrossRef]

107. Keerthanan, S.; Jayasinghe, C.; Biswas, J.K.; Vithanage, M. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in the Environment: Plant Uptake, Translocation, Bioaccumulation, and Human Health Risks. *Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Tec.* **2021**, *51*, 1221–1258. [CrossRef]

108. Matich, E.K.; Chavez Soria, N.G.; Aga, D.S.; Atilla-Gokcumen, G.E. Applications of Metabolomics in Assessing Ecological Effects of Emerging Contaminants and Pollutants on Plants. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2019**, *373*, 527–535. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

109. Badolati, N.; Masselli, R.; Maisto, M.; Di Minno, A.; Tenore, G.C.; Stornaiuolo, M.; Novellino, E. Genotoxicity Assessment of Three Nutraceuticals Containing Natural Antioxidants Extracted from Agri-Food Waste Biomasses. *Foods* **2020**, *9*, 1461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

110. Müller, F.; Masemola, L.; Britz, E.; Ngcobo, N.; Modiba, S.; Cyster, L.; Samuels, I.; Cupido, C.; Raitt, L. Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth Responses to Drought Stress in Annual Medicago L. and Trifolium L. Forages. *Agronomy* **2022**, *12*, 2960. [CrossRef]

111. Jamiu, W.; Oseni, T.O.; Ibrahim, I.A. Phytotoxicity and Health Risk Assessment of *Corchorus olitorius* L. (Jute) Irrigated with Textile Dyes and Effluents from Itoku Local Dyeing Industry in Ogun State, Nigeria. *J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage.* **2025**, *29*, 1941–1950. [CrossRef]

112. Rahman, M.A.; Rayhan, M.Y.H.; Chowdhury, M.A.H.; Mohiuddin, K.M.; Chowdhury, M.A.K. Phytotoxic Effect of Synthetic Dye Effluents on Seed Germination and Early Growth of Red Amaranth. *Fundam. Appl. Agric.* **2018**, *3*, 480–490. [CrossRef]

113. Vicidomini, C.; Palumbo, R.; Moccia, M.; Roviello, G.N. Oxidative Processes and Xenobiotic Metabolism in Plants: Mechanisms of Defense and Potential Therapeutic Implications. *J. Xenobiot.* **2024**, *14*, 1541–1569. [CrossRef]

114. Higazy, D.; Ahmed, M.N.; Ciofu, O. The Impact of Antioxidant-Ciprofloxacin Combinations on the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance in *Pseudomonas aeruginosa* Biofilms. *npj Biofilms Microbiomes* **2024**, *10*, 156. [CrossRef]

115. Biel-Maeso, M.; Baena-Nogueras, R.M.; Corada-Fernández, C.; Lara-Martín, P.A. Occurrence, Distribution and Environmental Risk of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds (PhACs) in Coastal and Ocean Waters from the Gulf of Cadiz (SW Spain). *Sci. Total Environ.* **2018**, *612*, 649–659. [CrossRef]

116. Tiwari, A.; Tiwari, N.; Tiwari, U. Assessing the Phytotoxicity of Emerging Pollutants on Vegetable Crops Grown with Sewage Effluent. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2025**, *989*, 179865. [CrossRef]

117. Dubey, A.; Malla, M.A.; Vimal, S.R.; Kumar, A.; Prasad, S.M.; Khan, M.L. Plant-microbiome engineering: Synergistic microbial partners for crop health and sustainability. *Plant Growth Regul.* **2025**. [CrossRef]

118. Soufi, L.; Kampouris, I.D.; Lüneberg, K.; Heyde, B.J.; Pulami, D.; Glaeser, S.P.; Siebe, C.; Siemens, J.; Smalla, K.; Grohmann, E.; et al. Wastewater-borne pollutants influenced antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements in the soil without affecting the bacterial community composition in a changing wastewater irrigation system. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2025**, *494*, 138680. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

119. Negreanu, Y.; Pasternak, Z.; Jurkevitch, E.; Cytryn, E. Impact of Treated Wastewater Irrigation on Antibiotic Resistance in Agricultural Soils and Crops. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2012**, *46*, 4800–4808. [CrossRef]

120. Aragaw, T.A. A review of dye biodegradation in textile wastewater, challenges due to wastewater characteristics, and the potential of alkaliphiles. *J. Hazard. Mater. Adv.* **2024**, *16*, 100493. [CrossRef]

121. Khongthaw, B.; Chauhan, P.K.; Chishty, N.; Kumar, D.; Velmurugan, A.; Singh, A.; Bhtoya, R.; Devi, N.; Nene, A.; Sadeghzade, S.; et al. Aqueous Phase Textile Dye Degradation by Microbes and Nanoparticles: A Review. *Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.* **2024**, *2024*, 8845873. [CrossRef]

122. Sacristán, C.; Guerrero, M.; Sánchez, S.; Rodríguez, A.; García, R.M.; Ewbank, A.C.; Gros, M.; Rodríguez-Mozaz, S.; Martínez, I.M.; Guasch, L.; et al. Comparison of Oxytetracycline and Sulfamethazine Effects on Crops and Wild Species: Species-Sensitive Distributions and ECx Values. *Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.* **2025**, *88*, 97–109. [CrossRef]
123. Parus, A.; Lisiecka, N.; Klozinski, A.; Zembrzuska, J. Do Microplastics in Soil Influence the Bioavailability of Sulfamethoxazole to Plants? *Plants* **2025**, *14*, 1639. [CrossRef]

124. Dikšaitytė, A.; Kacienė, G.; Miškelytė, D.; Januškaitienė, I. Exacerbated Toxicity of Sulfamethoxazole in Growth and Photosynthetic Performance of Hordeum vulgare under Future Climate Scenario. *Environ. Res.* **2025**, *282*, 122041. [CrossRef]

125. Ren, J.; Lu, H.; Lu, S.; Huang, Z. Impacts of Sulfamethoxazole Stress on Vegetable Growth and Rhizosphere Bacteria Composition and Resistance Genes. *Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.* **2024**, *12*, 1303670. [CrossRef]

126. Ai, T.; Yao, S.; Yu, Y.; Peng, K.; Jin, L.; Zhu, X.; Zhou, H.; Huang, J.; Sun, J.; Zhu, L. Transformation Process and Phytotoxicity of Sulfamethoxazole and N4-acetyl-sulfamethoxazole in Rice. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2024**, *918*, 170857. [CrossRef]

127. Moorthy, A.K.; Rathi, B.G.; Shukla, S.P.; Kumar, K.; Bharti, V.S. Acute Toxicity of Textile Dye Methylene Blue on Growth and Metabolism of Selected Freshwater Microalgae. *Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.* **2021**, *82*, 103552. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

128. Biczak, R.; Kierasinska, J.; Jamrozik, W.; Pawłowska, B. Response of Maize (Zea mays L.) to Soil Contamination with Diclofenac, Ibuprofen and Ampicillin and Mixtures of These Drugs. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 5698. [CrossRef]

129. Zezulka, S.; Kummerová, M.; Oravec, M.; Babula, P. Investigating the Phytotoxic Effects of Binary Mixtures of Diclofenac and Paracetamol on Duckweed-Synergistic or Antagonistic Interaction? *Environ. Pollut.* **2025**, *387*, 127295. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

130. Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Duan, D.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, C.; Cai, W.; Zhao, Z. Environmental Impacts and Biological Technologies Toward Sustainable Treatment of Textile Dyeing Wastewater: A Review. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 10867. [CrossRef]

131. Haciosmanoglu, G.G.; Arenas, M.; Mejías, C.; Martín, J.; Santos, J.L.; Aparicio, I.; Alonso, E. Adsorption of Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics from Water and Wastewater by Colemanite. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2023**, *20*, 2646. [CrossRef]

132. Adeyemo, A.A.; Adeoye, I.O.; Bello, O.S. Adsorption of Dyes Using Different Types of Clay: A Review. *Appl. Water. Sci.* **2017**, *7*, 543–568. [CrossRef]

133. Vulava, V.M.; Cory, W.C.; Murphey, V.L.; Ulmer, C.Z. Sorption, photodegradation, and chemical transformation of naproxen and ibuprofen in soils and water. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2016**, *565*, 1063–1070. [CrossRef]

134. Iyyappan, J.; Gaddala, B.; Gnanasekaran, R.; Gopinath, M.; Yuvaraj, D.; Kumar, V. Critical Review on Wastewater Treatment using Photo Catalytic Advanced Oxidation Process: Role of Photocatalytic Materials, Reactor Design and Kinetics. *Environ. Eng.* **2024**, *9*, 100599. [CrossRef]

135. Anandhi, G.; Iyapparaja, M. Photocatalytic Degradation of Drugs and Dyes Using a Machine Learning Approach. *RSC Adv.* **2024**, *14*, 9003–9019. [CrossRef]

136. Pei, J.; Li, H.; Yu, D.; Zhang, D. g-C3N4-Based Heterojunction for Enhanced Photocatalytic Performance: A Review of Fabrications, Applications, and Perspectives. *Catalysts* **2024**, *14*, 825. [CrossRef]

137. Al-Hawary, S.I.S.; Jabbar, H.S.; Hadrawi, S.K.; Alawsi, T.; Abdulelah, F.M.; Altimari, U.S.; Kareem, S.H.; Alawady, A.H.R.; Alsaalamy, A.H.; Mustafa, Y.F. Removal of Malachite Green and Congo Red from Aqueous Media Using Graphite Carbon Nitride (g-c3n4): A Review. *Environ. Eng. Manag.* **J. 2024**, *23*, 1607–1627. [CrossRef]

138. Zammouri, L.; Aboulaich, A.; Capoen, B.; Bouazaoui, M.; Sarakha, M.; Stitou, M.; Mahiou, R. Enhancement under UV-visible and visible light of the ZnO photocatalytic activity for the antibiotic removal from aqueous media using Ce-doped Lu₃Al₅O₁₂ nanoparticles. *Mater. Res. Bull.* **2018**, *106*, 162–169. [CrossRef]

139. Liu, H.-L.; Zhang, Y.; Lv, X.-X.; Cui, M.-S.; Cui, K.-P.; Dai, Z.-L.; Wang, B.; Weerasooriya, R.; Chen, X. Efficient Degradation of Sulfamethoxazole by Diatomite-Supported Hydroxyl-Modified UIO-66 Photocatalyst after Calcination. *Nanomaterials* **2023**, *13*, 3116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

140. Suman, T.-Y.; Kim, S.-Y.; Yeom, D.-H.; Jeon, J. Transformation Products of Emerging Pollutants Explored Using Non-Target Screening: Perspective in the Transformation Pathway and Toxicity Mechanism—A Review. *Toxics* **2022**, *10*, 54. [CrossRef]

141. Herrera-Melián, J.A.; Martín-Rodríguez, A.J.; Ortega-Méndez, A.; Araña, J.; Doña-Rodríguez, J.M.; Pérez-Peña, J. Degradation and Detoxification of 4-Nitrophenol by Advanced Oxidation Technologies and Bench-Scale Constructed Wetlands. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2012**, *105*, 53–60. [CrossRef]

142. Yaseen, D.A.; Scholz, M. Textile Dye Wastewater Characteristics and Constituents of Synthetic Effluents: A Critical Review. *Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2019**, *16*, 1193–1226. [CrossRef]

143. Baran, W.; Sochacka, J.; Wardas, W. Toxicity and Biodegradability of Sulfonamides and Products of Their Photocatalytic Degradation in Aqueous Solutions. *Chemosphere* **2006**, *65*, 1295–1299. [CrossRef]

144. Andronic, L.; Vlădescu, A.; Enesca, A. Synthesis, Characterisation, Photocatalytic Activity and Aquatic Toxicity Evaluation of TiO₂ nanoparticles. *Nanomaterials* **2021**, *11*, 3197. [CrossRef]

145. Lim, S.-L.; Chu, W.-L.; Phang, S.-M. Use of *Chlorella vulgaris* for bioremediation of textile wastewater. *Bioresour. Technol.* **2010**, *101*, 7314–7322. [CrossRef]

146. Khezrianjoo, S.; Revanasiddappa, H.D. Eco-Toxicological and Kinetic Evaluation of TiO₂ and ZnO Nanophotocatalysts for the Degradation of an Azo Dye (Food Black 1) Under UV Light. *Catalysts* **2019**, *9*, 871. [CrossRef]

147. Alaghmandfard, A.; Ghandi, K. A Comprehensive Review of Graphitic Carbon Nitride (g-C₃N₄)-based Photocatalysts: Materials, Modifications and Applications. *Materials* **2022**, *15*, 4023.
148. Paiu, M.; Favier, L.; Lutic, D.; Hlihor, R.-M.; Gavrilescu, M. Visible-Light Photocatalytic Degradation of Tartrazine Using ZnO Nanoparticles: Preliminary Phytotoxicity Investigations on Treated Solutions. *Bul. Institutului Politeh. Din Iași Secția Chim. și Ing. Chim.* **2024**, *70*, 35–47. [CrossRef]

149. Kumari, H.; Singh, A.; Shukla, S.K.; Kumar, A.; Chauhan, G. A Review on Photocatalysis Used for Wastewater Treatment. *Sustain. Chem. Pharm.* **2023**, *25*, 100671.

150. Moreira, A.J.; Pereira, L.; Almeida, A.; Silva, A.M.T. Photocatalytic Degradation of Environmental Contaminants. *Catalysts* **2025**, *15*, 643. [CrossRef]

151. Goh, J.W.; Xiong, Y.; Wu, W.; Huang, Z.; Ong, S.L.; Hu, J.Y. Degradation of Carbamazepine by HF-Free-Synthesized MIL-101(Cr)@Anatase TiO₂ Composite under UV-A Irradiation: Degradation Mechanism, Wastewater Matrix Effect, and Degradation Pathway. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 3964. [CrossRef]

152. Pang, X.; Chen, C.; Ji, H.; Che, Y.; Ma, W.; Zhao, J. Unraveling the Photocatalytic Mechanisms on TiO₂ Surfaces Using the Oxygen-18 Isotopic Label Technique. *Molecules* **2014**, *19*, 16291–16311. [CrossRef]

153. Kumar, J.E.; Sahoo, M.K. A Review on Effect of Operational Parameters for the Degradation of Azo Dyes by some Advanced Oxidation Processes. *Sustain. Chem. Environ.* **2025**, *11*, 100274. [CrossRef]

154. Alberini, A.; Fornaro, T.; García-Florentino, C.; Biczysko, M.; Poblacion, I.; Aramendia, J.; Madariaga, J.M.; Poggiali, G.; Vicente-Retortillo, Á.; Benison, K.C.; et al. Investigating the Stability of Aromatic Carboxylic Acids in Hydrated Magnesium Sulfate under UV Irradiation to Assist Detection of Organics on Mars. *Sci. Rep.* **2024**, *14*, 15945. [CrossRef]

155. Schollée, J.E.; Bourgin, M.; von Gunten, U.; McArdell, C.S.; Hollender, J. Non-Target Screening to Trace Ozonation Transformation Products in a Wastewater Treatment Train Including Different Post-Treatments. *Water Res.* **2018**, *142*, 267–278. [CrossRef]

156. Hollender, J.; Schymanski, E.L.; Singer, H.P.; Ferguson, L. Nontarget Screening with High Resolution Mass Spectrometry in the Environment: Ready to Go? *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2017**, *51*, 11505–11512. [CrossRef]

157. Duarte, C.; Di Lorenzo, T.; Reboleira, A.S.P.S. Environmental Risk of Diclofenac in European Groundwaters and Implications for Environmental Quality Standards. *Sci. Rep.* **2024**, *14*, 20689. [CrossRef]

158. Nosek, K.; Zhao, D. Transformation Products of Diclofenac: Formation, Occurrence, and toxicity implication in the Aquatic Environment. *Water Res.* **2024**, *266*, 122388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

159. Carvalho, R.N.; Ceriani, L.; Ippolito, A.; Lettieri, T. Development of the First Watch List Under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive. JCR Technical Report, 2015, European Union, Joint Research Center. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/101376 (accessed on 19 November 2025).

160. Hernandez-Zamora, M.; Cruz-Castillo, L.M.; Martinez-Jeronimo, L.; Martinez-Jeronimo, F. Diclofenac Produces Diverse Toxic Effects on Aquatic Organisms of Different Trophic Levels, Including Microalgae, Cladocerans, and Fish. *Water* **2025**, *17*, 1489. [CrossRef]

161. Leverett, D.; Merrington, G.; Crane, M.; Ryan, J.; Wilson, I. Environmental Quality Standards for Diclofenac Derived under the European Water Framework Directive: 1. Aquatic Organisms. *Environ. Sci. Eur.* **2021**, *33*, 133. [CrossRef]

162. Trognon, J.; Albasi, C.; Choubert, J.-C. A critical review on the pathways of carbamazepine transformation products in oxidative wastewater treatment processes. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2024**, *912*, 169040. [CrossRef]

163. Tak, S.; Tiwari, A.; Vellanki, B.P. Identification of Emerging Contaminants and their Transformation Products in a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)-Based Drinking Water Treatment Plant around River Yamuna in India. *Environ. Monit. Assess.* **2020**, *192*, 365. [CrossRef]

164. Srivastava, S.; Sinha, R.; Roy, D. Toxicological Effects of Malachite Green. *Aquat. Toxicol.* **2004**, *66*, 319–329. [CrossRef]

165. Yakamercan, E.; Obijianya, C.C.; Jayakrishnan, U.; Aygun, A.; Velluru, S.; Karimi, M.; Terapalli, A.; Simsek, H. A Critical Review of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Reclaimed Wastewater: Implications for Agricultural Irrigation. *Water Conserv. Sci. Eng.* **2025**, *10*, 112. [CrossRef]

166. Sun, Y.; Madureira, J.; Justino, G.C.; Cabo Verde, S.; Chmielewska-Śmietanko, D.; Sudlitz, M.; Bulka, S.; Chajduk, E.; Mróz, A.; Wang, S.; et al. Diclofenac Degradation in Aqueous Solution Using Electron Beam Irradiation and Combined with Nanobubbling. *Appl. Sci.* **2024**, *14*, 6028. [CrossRef]

167. Escher, B.I.; Fenner, K. Recent Advances in Environmental Risk Assessment of Transformation Products. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2011**, *45*, 3835–3847. [CrossRef]

168. Magdalane, C.M.; Kaviyarasu, K.; Vijaya, J.J.; Jayakumar, C.; Maaza, M.; Jeyaraj, B. Photocatalytic Degradation Effect of Malachite Green and Catalytic Hydrogenation by UV-Illuminated CeO₂/CdO Multilayered Nanoplatelet Arrays: Investigation of Antifungal and Antimicrobial Activities. *J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol.* **2017**, *169*, 110–123. [CrossRef]

169. Kusvuran, E.; Gulnaz, O.; Samil, A.; Yildirim, O. Decolorization of Malachite Green, Decolorization Kinetics and Stoichiometry of Ozone-Malachite Green and Removal of Antibacterial Activity with Ozonation Processes. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2011**, *186*, 133–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
170. Daneshvar, N.; Aber, S.; Seyed Dorraji, M.S.; Khataee, A.R.; Rasoulifard, M.H. Photocatalytic Degradation of the Insecticide Diazinon in the Presence of Prepared Nanocrystalline ZnO Powders Under Irradiation of UV-C Light. *Sep. Purif. Technol.* **2007**, *58*, 91–98. [CrossRef]

171. Gao, M.; Li, M.; Wang, S.; Lu, X. Land Degradation Affects Soil Microbial Properties, Organic Matter Composition, and Maize Yield. *Agronomy* **2024**, *14*, 1348. [CrossRef]

172. Praus, P.; Gavlova, A.; Hrba, J.; Schmidtova, K.; Bedna, P. Photocatalytic Degradation and Transformation of Pharmaceuticals using Exfoliated Metal-Free g-C₃N₄. *iScience* **2025**, *28*, 113899. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

173. Ellepola, N.; Viera, T.; Patidar, P.L.; Rubasinghege, G. Fate, Transformation and Toxicological Implications of Environmental Diclofenac: Role of Mineralogy and Solar Flux. *Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.* **2022**, *246*, 114138. [CrossRef]

174. Nihemaiti, M.; Huynh, N.; Mailler, R.; Mèche-Ananit, P.; Rocher, V.; Barhdadi, R.; Moilleron, R.; Le Roux, J. High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Screening of Wastewater Effluent for Micropollutants and Their Transformation Products during Disinfection with Performic Acid. *ACS EST Water* **2022**, *2*, 1225–1233. [CrossRef]

175. Huang, Z.; Liu, H. Insights into the Pathways, Intermediates, Influence Factors and Toxicological Properties in the Degradation of Tetracycline by TiO₂-Based Photocatalysts. *J. Environ. Chem. Eng.* **2023**, *11*, 110587. [CrossRef]

176. Mendoza-Grimon, V.; Fernandez-Vera, J.R.; Hernandez-Moreno, J.M.; Guedes-Alonso, R.; Estévez, E.; Palacios-Diaz, M.D.P. Soil and Water Management Factors That Affect Plant Uptake of Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 1886. [CrossRef]

177. Dudziak, S.; Bielan, Z.; Kubica, P.; Zielińska-Jurek, A. Optimization of Carbamazepine Photodegradation on Defective TiO₂-Based Magnetic Photocatalyst. *J. Environ. Chem. Eng.* **2021**, *9*, 105782. [CrossRef]

178. Mussa, Z.H.; Al-Qaim, F.F. Quantification of 10,11-dihydro-10-hydroxy carbamazepine and 10,11-epoxycarbamazepine as the main by-products in the electrochemical degradation of carbamazepine. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2022**, *29*, 62447–62457. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

179. Andino-Enríquez, M.A.; Fabbri, D.; Vione Calza, P. Photoinduced Transformation Pathways of the Sulfonamide Antibiotic Sulfamethoxazole, Relevant to Sunlit Surface Waters. *Environ. Pollut.* **2025**, *384*, 126947. [CrossRef]

180. Khushi Siri, C.N.; Shoukat Ali, R.A.; Latha, M.S.; Betageri, V.S.; Byadagi, K.S. A Reflection of Literature Reports on Synthesis, Spectral Studies, Multilateral Applications of Azo Dyes. *Results Chem.* **2025**, *18*, 102878. [CrossRef]

181. Khalik, W.F.; Ho, L.N.; Ong, S.A.; Wong, Y.S.; Yusoff, N.A.; Lee, S.L. Revealing the influences of functional groups in azo dyes on the degradation efficiency and power output in solar photocatalytic fuel cell. *J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng.* **2020**, *18*, 769–777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

182. Haleem, A.; Ullah, M.; Rehman, S.U.; Shah, A.; Farooq, M.; Saeed, T.; Ullah, I.; Li, H. In-Depth Photocatalytic Degradation Mechanism of the Extensively Used Dyes Malachite Green, Methylene Blue, Congo Red, and Rhodamine B via Covalent Organic Framework-Based Photocatalysts. *Water* **2024**, *16*, 1588. [CrossRef]

183. Shi, J.; Jiang, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, L.; Nian, K.; Long, T. Production of Higher Toxic Intermediates of Organic Pollutants during Chemical Oxidation Processes: A Review. *Arab. J. Chem.* **2023**, *16*, 104856. [CrossRef]

184. Pérez-Estrada, L.A.; Agüera, A.; Hernando, M.D.; Malato, S.; Fernández-Alba, A.R. Photodegradation of Malachite Green under Natural Sunlight Irradiation: Kinetic and Toxicity of the Transformation Products. *Chemosphere* **2008**, *70*, 2068–2075. [CrossRef]

185. Ge, L.; Zhang, P.; Halsall, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, C.E.; Li, J.; Sun, H.; Yao, Z. The Importance of Reactive Oxygen Species on the Aqueous Phototransformation of Sulfonamide Antibiotics: Kinetics, Pathways, and Comparisons with Direct Photolysis. *Water Res.* **2019**, *149*, 243–250. [CrossRef]

186. Löffler, P.; Escher, B.I.; Baduel, C.; Virta, M.P.; Lai, F.Y. Antimicrobial Transformation Products in the Aquatic Environment: Global Occurrence, Ecotoxicological Risks, and Potential of Antibiotic Resistance. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **2023**, *57*, 9474–9494. [CrossRef]

187. Adamek, E.; Masternak, E.; Sapińska, D.; Baran, W. Degradation of the Selected Antibiotic in an Aqueous Solution by the Fenton Process: Kinetics, Products and Ecotoxicity. *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* **2022**, *23*, 15676. [CrossRef]

188. Abou Zeid, S.; Leprince-Wang, Y. Advancements in ZnO-Based Photocatalysts for Water Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. *ZnO-based photocatalysts for water treatment, including toxicity assessment and removal of pharmaceuticals/pesticides*. *Crystals* **2024**, *14*, 611. [CrossRef]

189. Malvar, J.L.; Santos, J.L.; Martín, J.; Aparicio, I.; Alonso, E. Approach to the Dynamic of Carbamazepine and Its Main Metabolites in Soil Contamination through the Reuse of Wastewater and Sewage Sludge. *Molecules* **2020**, *25*, 5306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

190. Rao, M.J.; Duan, M.; Ikram, M.; Zheng, B. ROS Regulation and Antioxidant Responses in Plants Under Air Pollution: Molecular Signaling, Metabolic Adaptation, and Biotechnological Solutions. *Antioxidants* **2025**, *14*, 907. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

191. Sahabuddin, L. Development of Cobalt Nickel Doped TiO₂ Nanowires as Efficient Photocatalysts for Removal of Tartrazine Dyes. *J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA* **2024**, *6*, 3064–3071. [CrossRef]

192. Kodešová, R.; Švecová, H.; Klement, A.; Fer, M.; Nikodem, A.; Fedorova, G.; Rieznyk, O.; Kočárek, M.; Sadchenko, A.; Chroňáková, A.; et al. Contamination of Water, Soil, and Plants by Micropollutants from Reclaimed Wastewater and Sludge from a Wastewater Treatment Plant. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2024**, *907*, 167965. [CrossRef]
193. Garcia, J.C.; Simionato, J.I.; de Cinque Almeida, V.; Palácio, S.M.; Rossi, F.L.; Schneider, M.V.; de Souza, N.E. Evolutive Follow-up of the Photocatalytic Degradation of Real Textile Effluents in TiO₂ and TiO₂/H₂O₂ Systems and Their Toxic Effects on *Lactuca sativa* Seedlings. *J. Braz. Chem. Soc.* **2009**, *20*, 1589–1597. [CrossRef]

194. Teixeira, L.M.; de Souza, G.M.; Fernandes, S.A.; Rodrigues Rocha, E.M. Evaluation of the acute phytotoxicity of photo-treated textile effluents using *Lactuca sativa* seeds. *Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Ambient.* **2024**, *49*, 1861. [CrossRef]

195. Krakowiak, R.; Musial, J.; Bakun, P.; Spychała, M.; Czarczynska-Goslinska, B.; Mlynarczyk, D.T.; Koczorowski, T.; Sobotta, Ł.; Stanisz, B.; Goslinski, T. Titanium Dioxide-Based Photocatalysts for Degradation of Emerging Contaminants including Pharmaceutical Pollutants. *Appl. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 8674. [CrossRef]

196. Stella, A.; Coria, D.; Alvarez, J.; Muñoz, V. Study of La Candelaria Streams Water Photocatalysis: Optimization and Biotoxicity Evaluation by *Lactuca sativa* Bioassay. *Res. Square* **2022**, 1–23. [CrossRef]

197. Aliste, M.; Hernández, V.; El Aatik, A.; Pérez-Lucas, G.; Fenoll, J.; Navarro, S. Coupled Bio-Solar Photocatalytic Treatment for Reclamation of Water Polluted with Pharmaceuticals—Ecotoxicity Evolution during Treatment. *Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.* **2024**, *287*, 117291. [CrossRef]

198. Espinoza, J.; Cabrera, E.V.; Stahl, U.; Correa-Abril, J. Kinetic and Equilibrium Analysis of Tartrazine Photocatalytic Degradation Using Iron-Doped Biochar from *Theobroma cacao* L. Husk via Microwave-Assisted Pyrolysis. *Chem. Proc.* **2024**, *16*, 52. [CrossRef]

199. Jari, Y.; Najid, N.; Necibi, M.K.; Gourich, B.; Vial, C.; Elhalil, A.; Kaur, P.; Mohdeb, I.; Park, Y.; Hwang, Y.; et al. A comprehensive review on TiO2-based heterogeneous photocatalytic technologies for emerging pollutants removal from water and wastewater: From engineering aspects to modeling approaches. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2025**, 373, 123703. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

200. Srivastava, S.K. Recent Advances in Removal of Pharmaceutical Pollutants in Wastewater using Metal Oxides and Carbonaceous Materials as Photocatalysts: A Review. *RSC Appl. Interfaces* **2024**, *1*, 340–429. [CrossRef]

201. He, D.; Qu, J. Photocatalytic Degradation of Emerging Contaminants. *Toxics* **2025**, *13*, 80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

202. Thakur, S.; Ojha, A.; Kansal, S.K.; Gupta, N.K.; Swart, H.C.; Cho, J.; Kuznetsov, A.Y.; Sun, S.; Prakash, J. Advances in powder nano-photocatalysts as pollutant removal and as emerging contaminants in water: Analysis of pros and cons on health and environment. *Adv. Powder Mater.* **2024**, *3*, 100233. [CrossRef]

203. Bouhajeb, O.; Hammami, R.; Megriche, A.; Özacar, M. Boosting Photocatalytic Efficiency of MAPbCl3/TiO2/SiO2 Heterostructure with Mn Doping for Tartrazine Degradation. *Mater. Sci. Eng. B* **2026**, 323, 118732. [CrossRef]

204. Hassan, F.; Talami, B.; Almansba, A.; Bonnet, P.; Caperaa, C.; Dalhatou, S.; Kane, A.; Zeghioud, H. Photocatalytic Degradation of Tartrazine and Naphthol Blue Black Binary Mixture with the TiO₂ Nanosphere under Visible Light: Box-Behnken Experimental Design Optimization and Salt Effect. *ChemEngineering* **2024**, *8*, 50. [CrossRef]

205. Zarzzeka, C.; Goldoni, J.; Lenzi, G.G.; Bagatini, M.D.; Colpini, L.M.S. Photocatalytic Action of Ag/TiO₂ Nanoparticles to Emerging Pollutants Degradation: A Comprehensive Review. *Sustain. Chem. Pharm.* **2024**, *8*, 100177. [CrossRef]

206. Ali, F.D.; Ammar, S.H.; Rashed, M.K.; Jabbar, Z.H.; Hadi, H.J. Boosting visible-light-promoted photodegradation of norfloxacin by S-doped g-C₃_3N₄_44 grafted by NiS as robust photocatalytic heterojunctions. *J. Mol. Struct.* **2024**, *1312*, 138611. [CrossRef]

207. Alcalde-Sanz, L.; Gawlik, B.M. *Minimum Quality Requirements for Water Reuse in Agricultural Irrigation and Aquifer Recharge*; Towards a Legal Instrument on Water Reuse at EU Level; EUR 28962 EN; European Commission, Joint Research Center, Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017.

208. European Union (EU). *Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Minimum Requirements for Water Reuse*; Official Journal of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.

209. WHO. *Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater in Agriculture*; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241546859 (accessed on 19 November 2025).

210. USEPA. 2012 *Guidelines for Water Reuse*; EPA/600/R-12/618; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/waterreuse/guidelines-water-reuse (accessed on 19 November 2025).

211. *ISO 16075*; Guidelines for Treated Wastewater Use for Irrigation. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020–2023. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/73482.html (accessed on 18 November 2025).

212. Ayers, R.S.; Westcot, D.W. *Water Quality for Agriculture*; FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Paper 29 Rev. 1; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1985. Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/t0234e/t0234e00.htm (accessed on 18 November 2025).

213. European Union (EU). *Directive 2008/105/EC on Environmental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy* (consolidated text, as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU); Official Journal of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008/2013.

214. IEEP. *Manual of European Environmental Policy—Disposal of Sewage Sludge*; Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK; Brussels, Belgium, 2014. Available online: https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6.10_Disposal_of_sewage_sludge_-_final.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2025).

215. Stando, K.; Wilk, J.; Jakóbik-Kolon, A.; Felis, E.; Bajkacz, S. Application of UHPLC-MS/MS to Monitor Sulfonamides and Their Transformation Products in Soils in Silesia, Poland. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2023**, *30*, 112922–112942. [CrossRef]
216. Mola, M.; Kougias, P.G.; Statiris, E.; Papadopoulou, P.; Malamis, S.; Monokrousos, N. Short-Term Effect of Reclaimed Water Irrigation on Soil Health, Plant Growth and the Composition of Soil Microbial Communities. *Sci. Total Environ.* **2024**, *949*, 175107.
[CrossRef]

217. Abdelkader, M.S.; Abdalla, S.; Abdelrahman, A.A.; Amin, I.A.; Ramadan, M.; Salah, M. Irrigation Water Quality Shapes Soil Microbiomes: A 16S rRNA-Based Biogeographic Study in Arid Ecosystems. *Sci. Rep.* **2025**, *15*, 28460. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

218. Carvalho Mendes, I.; Cerrados, E. *Standard Operating Procedure for Soil Enzyme Activities*. β-Glucosidases, Arylsulfatase, N-Acetyl-β-Glucosaminidase, Dehydrogenase, Phosphomonoesterases; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2025. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c2eea5c9-65db-42bd-9eca-0579507dd694/content (accessed on 19 November 2025).

219. Mravcová, L.; Syslová, K.; Vávrová, M.; Koutník, I.; Rehůřková, I.; Kalina, J.; Golovko, O.; Škulcová, A.; Horký, P.; Křesinová, Z.; et al. Optimization and Validation of Multiresidual Extraction for the Determination of Pharmaceuticals in Soil, Lettuce and Earthworms by LC-MS/MS. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **2024**, *31*, 33120–33140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

220. Mravcová, L.; Jašek, V.; Hamplová, M.; Navrkalová, J.; Amrichová, A.; Zlámalová Gargosšová, H.; Fucčík, J. Assessing Lettuce Exposure to a Multipharmaceutical Mixture under Hydroponic Conditions: Findings through LC-ESI-TQ Analysis and Ecotoxicological Assessments. *ACS Omega* **2024**, *9*, 49707–49718. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

221. EMA. *Guideline on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Medicinal Products for Human Use (Revision 1)*; European Medicines Agency: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-environmental-risk-assessment-medicinal-products-human-use-revision-1_en.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2025).

222. Ryu, H.-D.; Kim, J.-H.; Han, H.; Park, J.-H.; Kim, Y.S. Ecological Risk Assessment and Sustainable Management of Pollutants in Hydroponic Wastewater from Plant Factories. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 7688. [CrossRef]

223. Zinken, J.F.; Pasmooij, A.M.G.; Ederveen, A.G.H.; Hoekman, J.; Bloem, L.T. Environmental risk assessment in the EU regulation of medicines for human use: An analysis of stakeholder perspectives on its current and future role. *Drug Discov. Today* **2024**, *29*, 104213. [CrossRef]

224. Finckh, S.; Beckers, L.-M.; Busch, W.; Carmona, E.; Dulio, V.; Kramer, L.; Krauss, M.; Posthuma, L.; Schulze, T.; Slootweg, T.; et al. A Risk Based Assessment Approach for Chemical Mixtures from Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluents. *Environ. Int.* **2022**, *164*, 107234. [CrossRef]

225. Faunce, K.E.; Barber, L.B.; Keefe, S.H.; Jasmann, J.R.; Rapp, J.L. Wastewater reuse and predicted ecological risk posed by contaminant mixtures in Potomac River watershed streams. *J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.* **2023**, *59*, 779–802. [CrossRef]

226. Csiszar, S.A.; Vitale, C.M.; Vamshi, R.; Carmona, E.; Dulio, V.; Kramer, L.; Krauss, M.; Posthuma, L.; Schulze, T.; Slootweg, T.; et al. Spatially Referenced Environmental Exposure Model for Down-the-Drain Substance Emissions across European Rivers for Aquatic Safety Assessments. *Integr. Environ. Asses. Manag.* **2025**, vjaf119. [CrossRef]

227. Castaño-Trias, M.; Rodríguez-Mozaz, S.; Verlicchi, P.; Buttiglieri, G. Selection of Pharmaceuticals of Concern in Reclaimed Water for Crop Irrigation in the Mediterranean Area. *J. Hazard. Mater.* **2024**, *466*, 133538. [CrossRef]

228. Earl, K.; Sleight, H.; Ashfield, N.; Boxall, A.B.A. Are Pharmaceutical Residues in Crops a Threat to Human Health? *J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A* **2024**, *87*, 773–791. [CrossRef]

229. Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Gao, T.; Gao, Z.; Lai, C.W.; Xiang, P.; Yang, F. Global Distribution, Ecotoxicity, and Treatment Technologies of Emerging Contaminants in Aquatic Environments: A Recent Five-Year Review. *Toxics* **2025**, *13*, 616. [CrossRef]

230. Nelson, K.; Mecha, A.C.; Samuel, H.M.; Suliman, Z.A. Recent Trends in the Application of Photocatalytic Membranes in Removal of Emerging Organic Contaminants in Wastewater. *Processes* **2025**, *13*, 163. [CrossRef]

231. Munyengabe, A.; Banda, M.F.; Augustyn, W. Predicting plant uptake of potential contaminants of emerging concerns using machine learning models (2018–2025): A global review. *Results Eng. 2025*, *27*, 106050. [CrossRef]

232. Li, X.; Shen, X.; Jiang, W.; Xi, Y.; Li, X. Comprehensive Review of Emerging Contaminants: Detection Technologies, Environmental Impact, and Management Strategies. *Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.* **2024**, *278*, 116420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

233. Denora, M.; Mehmeti, A.; Candido, V.; Brunetti, G.; De Mastro, F.; Murgolo, S.; De Ceglie, C.; Gatta, G.; Giuliani, M.M.; Fiorentino, C.; et al. Fate of Emerging Contaminants in the Soil-Plant System: A Study on Durum Wheat Irrigated with Treated Municipal Wastewater. *Front. Soil Sci.* **2024**, *4*, 1448016. [CrossRef]

234. Yao, S.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, N.; Chen, T.; Zhang, S.; Yu, Z.; Wang, H. Accumulation and Subcellular Distribution Patterns of Carbamazepine in Hydroponic Vegetables. *Biology* **2025**, *14*, 343. [CrossRef]

235. Stamm, E.R.; Coldren, C.; Williams, C.; Simpson, C. Uptake, Partitioning, and Accumulation of High and Low Rates of Carbamazepine in Hydroponically Grown Lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. capitata). *Plants* **2025**, *14*, 2165. [CrossRef]

236. Mejías, C.; Arenas, M.; Martín, J.; Santos, J.L.; Aparicio, I.; Alonso, E. Multiclass Analysis for the Determination of Pharmaceuticals and Their Main Metabolites in Leafy and Root Vegetables. *Molecules* **2024**, *29*, 3471. [CrossRef]

237. Wada, O.Z.; Olawade, D.B. Recent Occurrence of Pharmaceuticals in Freshwater, Emerging Treatment Technologies, and Future Considerations: A Review. *Chemosphere* **2025**, *374*, 144153. [CrossRef]
238. De Mastro, F.; Traversa, A.; Cocozza, C.; Cacace, C.; Provenzano, M.R.; Vona, D.; Sannino, F.; Brunetti, G. Fate of Carbamazepine and Its Metabolites in a Soil-Aromatic Plant System. *Soil Syst.* **2024**, *8*, 83. [CrossRef]

239. Xu, M.; Wang, F.; Stedtfeld, R.D.; Fu, Y.; Xiang, L.; Sheng, H.; Li, Z.; Hashsham, S.A.; Jiang, X.; Tiedje, J.M. Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance Genes from Soil to Rice in Paddy Field. *Environ. Int.* **2024**, *191*, 108956. [CrossRef]

240. Wang, J.; Zhu, M.; Sun, A.; Yuan, R.; Chen, H.; Zhou, B. The Influence Mechanism of Dissolved Organic Matter on the Photocatalytic Oxidation of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products. *Molecules* **2025**, *30*, 2266. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.