ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2010
Bacterial community diversity in paper mills processing recycled paper.
Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indigenous bacteria as an alternative for promoting recycled paper and cardboard mill wastewater treatment.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Characterizing bacterial communities in paper production-troublemakers revealed.MicrobiologyOpen · 2017Article
- Microbial diversity in sugarcane ethanol production in a Brazilian distillery using a culture-independent method.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2015Article
- Surface physicochemistry and ionic strength affects eDNA's role in bacterial adhesion to abiotic surfaces.PloS one · 2014Article
- Heterogeneity and spatial distribution of bacterial background contamination in pulp and process water of a paper mill.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paper mills processing recycled paper suffer from biofouling causing problems both in the mill and final product. The total bacterial community composition and identification of specific taxa in the process water and biofilms at the stock preparation and paper machine areas in a mill with recycled paper pulp was described by using a DNA-based approach. Process water in a similar mill was also analyzed to investigate if general trends can be found between mills and over time. Bacterial community profiles, analyzed by terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP), in process water showed that the dominant peaks in the profiles were similar between the two mills, although the overall composition was unique for each mill. When comparing process water and biofilm at different locations within one of the mills, we observed a separation according to location and sample type, with the biofilm from the paper machine being most different. 16S rRNA gene clone libraries were generated and 404 clones were screened by RFLP analysis. Grouping of RFLP patterns confirmed that the biofilm from the paper machine was most different. A total of 99 clones representing all RFLP patterns were analyzed, resulting in sequences recovered from nine bacterial phyla, including two candidate phyla. Bacteroidetes represented 45% and Actinobacteria 23% of all the clones. Sequences with similarity to organisms implicated in biofouling, like Chryseobacterium spp. and Brevundimonas spp., were recovered from all samples even though the mill had no process problems during sampling, suggesting that they are part of the natural paper mill community. Moreover, many sequences showed little homology to as yet uncultivated bacteria implying that paper mills are interesting for isolation of new organisms, as well as for bioprospecting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20544256What 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.