was removed by

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was removed by" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate the agent or entity responsible for the removal of something in a passive construction. Example: "The outdated information was removed by the editor before publication."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

The laptop was removed by halftime.

The New York Times - Sports

Only the first video was removed by YouTube itself.

The Guardian

Product was removed by in situ stripping.

Bioresource Technology

The precipitate was removed by centrifugation.

Botanical Studies

Organic solvent was removed by dialysis method.

Nanoscale Research Letters

Residual plant debris was removed by centrifugation.

Rice

Water was removed by azeotropic distillation.

EJNMMI Research

Free PEI was removed by hyperfiltration.

Nanoscale Research Letters

Unreacted 2-IT was removed by dialysis.

Nanoscale Research Letters

The solvent was removed by rotary evaporation.

Chemistry Central Journal

Undissolved T0901317 was removed by filtration.

Nanoscale Research Letters

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was removed by", ensure the subject is clearly defined and the agent doing the removing is explicitly stated for clarity. For example, "The data was removed by the administrator." This avoids ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid using "was removed by" without specifying who or what performed the removal. A sentence like "The error was removed" is vague. Instead, specify: "The error was removed by the software update."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was removed by" functions as a passive construction, indicating that an action was performed on a subject by a specific agent. According to Ludwig, this construction is grammatically correct and commonly used. Examples show its versatility across different domains.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

Science

67%

News & Media

21%

Wiki

12%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Reference

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "was removed by" is a grammatically sound and frequently used passive construction that serves to indicate the agent responsible for an action of removal. According to Ludwig, the phrase is versatile and appropriate for various contexts, especially in science, news, and encyclopedic content. To enhance clarity, ensure the agent of removal is clearly stated. While the active voice is often more direct, the passive voice with "was removed by" is useful for emphasizing the object removed or the action itself.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was eliminated by

Focuses on the complete removal or eradication of something.

was taken away by

Emphasizes the act of physically taking something from a location.

was cleared out by

Focuses on a thorough and complete removal of items from a space.

was extracted by

Highlights a process of careful removal, often in a scientific context.

was gotten rid of by

Emphasizes the intention to eliminate something undesirable.

was displaced by

Indicates being moved or shifted out of position by something else.

was cleared by

Suggests a removal that makes something permissible or unobstructed.

was detached by

Highlights the separation of something from a larger entity.

was superseded by

Highlights the replacement of something with a newer or better alternative.

was ousted by

Suggests a forceful or contested removal, often from a position of power.

FAQs

How can I use "was removed by" in a sentence?

Use "was removed by" to show who or what caused something to be taken away or eliminated, like, "The outdated content "was removed by" the editor".

What are some alternatives to "was removed by"?

Alternatives include "was eliminated by", "was taken away by", or "was extracted by", depending on the specific nuance you want to convey.

Is it better to use active or passive voice with "was removed by"?

Using the active voice (e.g., "The editor removed the content") is often more direct and concise. However, the passive voice with ""was removed by"" is appropriate when you want to emphasize the object that was removed or the action itself, rather than the actor.

Which is correct: "was removed by" or "has been removed by"?

"Was removed by" indicates a past action, while "has been removed by" indicates a past action with present relevance or a continuing state resulting from that action. The choice depends on the context and the timeline you're describing.