ArticleCurrent microbiology2010
Biological remediation of groundwater containing both nitrate and atrazine.
Article in Current microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coupling of bio-PRB and enclosed in-well aeration system for remediation of nitrobenzene and aniline in groundwater.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
- Atrazine removal from aqueous solutions using submerged biological aerated filter.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2013Article
- Removing hexazinone from groundwater with microbial bioreactors.Current microbiology · 2012Article
- Studies on removing sulfachloropyridazine from groundwater with microbial bioreactors.Current microbiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to its high usage, mobility, and recalcitrant nature, atrazine is a common groundwater contaminant. Moreover, groundwaters that are contaminated with atrazine often contain nitrate as well. Nitrate interferes with the biological degradation of atrazine and makes it more difficult to use in situ biological methods to remediate atrazine contaminated groundwater. To solve this problem we used two reactors in sequence as models of in situ biobarriers; the first was a vegetable-oil-based denitrifying biobarrier and the second an aerobic reactor that oxygenated the denitrifying reactor's effluent. The reactors were inoculated with an atrazine-degrading microbial consortium and supplied with water containing 5 mg l(-1) nitrate-N and 3 mg l(-1) atrazine. Our hypothesis was that the denitrifying barrier would remove nitrate from the flowing water and that the downstream reaction would remove atrazine. Our hypothesis proved correct; the two reactor system removed 99.9% of the atrazine during the final 30 weeks of the study. The denitrifying barrier removed approximately 98% of the nitrate and approximately 30% of the atrazine while the aerobic reactor removed approximately 70% of the initial atrazine. The system continued to work when the amount of nitrate-N in the influent water was increased to 50 mg l(-1). A mercury poisoning study blocked the degradation of atrazine indicating that biological processes were involved. An in situ denitrifying barrier coupled with an air injection system or other oxygenation process might be used to remove both nitrate and atrazine from contaminated groundwater or to protect groundwater from an atrazine spill.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.