Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18359827›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2008

Concentration of enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and noroviruses from drinking water by use of glass wool filters.

Elisabetta Lambertini, Susan K Spencer, Phillip D Bertz, Frank J Loge, Burney A Kieke, Mark A Borchardt

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Review of the Most Commonly Used Methods for Sample Collection in Environmental Surveillance of Poliovirus.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Elisabetta LambertiniDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA.
Susan K Spencer
Phillip D Bertz
Frank J Loge
Burney A Kieke
Mark A Borchardt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Available filtration methods to concentrate waterborne viruses are either too costly for studies requiring large numbers of samples, limited to small sample volumes, or not very portable for routine field applications. Sodocalcic glass wool filtration is a cost-effective and easy-to-use method to retain viruses, but its efficiency and reliability are not adequately understood. This study evaluated glass wool filter performance to concentrate the four viruses on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contaminant candidate list, i.e., coxsackievirus, echovirus, norovirus, and adenovirus, as well as poliovirus. Total virus numbers recovered were measured by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR); infectious polioviruses were quantified by integrated cell culture (ICC)-qRT-PCR. Recovery efficiencies averaged 70% for poliovirus, 14% for coxsackievirus B5, 19% for echovirus 18, 21% for adenovirus 41, and 29% for norovirus. Virus strain and water matrix affected recovery, with significant interaction between the two variables. Optimal recovery was obtained at pH 6.5. No evidence was found that water volume, filtration rate, and number of viruses seeded influenced recovery. The method was successful in detecting indigenous viruses in municipal wells in Wisconsin. Long-term continuous filtration retained viruses sufficiently for their detection for up to 16 days after seeding for qRT-PCR and up to 30 days for ICC-qRT-PCR. Glass wool filtration is suitable for large-volume samples (1,000 liters) collected at high filtration rates (4 liters min(-1)), and its low cost makes it advantageous for studies requiring large numbers of samples.

Indexed as

AdenoviridaeDNA, ViralEnterovirusFiltrationFresh WaterGlassHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationNorovirusPolymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityVirus CultivationWisconsinDNA, ViralRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID18359827
PMCPMC2394941

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.