Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12839786›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2003

Optimization of a reusable hollow-fiber ultrafilter for simultaneous concentration of enteric bacteria, protozoa, and viruses from water.

Hugo A Morales-Morales, Guadalupe Vidal, John Olszewski, Channah M Rock, Debanjana Dasgupta, Kevin H Oshima, Geoffrey B Smith

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Prevalence, Distribution, and Diversity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Quantification of Protozoa and Viruses from Small Water Volumes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hugo A Morales-MoralesBiology Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Guadalupe Vidal
John Olszewski
Channah M Rock
Debanjana Dasgupta
Kevin H Oshima
Geoffrey B Smith
New Mexico State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detection and identification of pathogens from water samples remain challenging due to variations in recovery rates and the cost of procedures. Ultrafiltration offers the possibility to concentrate viral, bacterial, and protozoan organisms in a single process by using size-exclusion-based filtration. In this study, two hollow-fiber ultrafilters with 50,000-molecular-weight cutoffs were evaluated to concentrate microorganisms from 2- and 10-liter water samples. When known quantities (10(5) to 10(6) CFU/liter) of two species of enteric bacteria were introduced and concentrated from 2 liters of sterile water, the addition of 0.1% Tween 80 increased Escherichia coli strain K-12 recoveries from 70 to 84% and Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis recoveries from 36 to 72%. An E. coli antibiotic-resistant strain, XL1-Blue, was recovered at a level (87%) similar to that for strain K-12 (96%) from 10 liters of sterile water. When E. coli XL1-Blue was introduced into 10 liters of nonsterile Rio Grande water with higher turbidity levels (23 to 29 nephelometric turbidity units) at two inoculum levels (9 x 10(5) and 2.4 x 10(3) per liter), the recovery efficiencies were 89 and 92%, respectively. The simultaneous addition of E. coli XL1-Blue (9 x 10(5) CFU/liter), Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (10 oocysts/liter), phage T1 (10(5) PFU/liter), and phage PP7 (10(5) PFU/liter) to 10 liters of Rio Grande surface water resulted in mean recoveries of 96, 54, 59, and 46%, respectively. Using a variety of surface waters from around the United States, we obtained recovery efficiencies for bacteria and viruses that were similar to those observed with the Rio Grande samples, but recovery of Cryptosporidium oocysts was decreased, averaging 32% (the site of collection of these samples had previously been identified as problematic for oocyst recovery). Results indicate that the use of ultrafiltration for simultaneous recovery of bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens from variable surface waters is ready for field deployment.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriophagesCryptosporidium parvumEscherichia coliFresh WaterMicropore FiltersUltrafiltrationWater Supply

Identifiers

PMID12839786
PMCPMC165154
OpenAlexW2156326506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.