ArticleCurrent microbiology2011
Studies on removing sulfachloropyridazine from groundwater with microbial bioreactors.
Article in Current microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Removing hexazinone from groundwater with microbial bioreactors.Current microbiology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sulfachloropyridazine (SCP), an antibiotic used in aquaculture and in animal husbandry, is a common contaminant in surface and groundwaters. Two types of microbial reactors were evaluated as methods for removing SCP from flowing water. One type of reactor evaluated was a nitrogen-limiting biobarrier; the other a slow-sand-filter. Results showed that the soybean oil-fed, nitrogen-limiting biobarrier was not very effective at removing SCP from flowing water. When supplied with flowing water containing 2.4 mg l(-1) SCP the nitrogen-limiting biobarrier removed ~0.6 mg l(-1) SCP or about 28% of that present. SCP removal by the nitrogen-limiting biobarrier may not have been biological as abiotic removal was not ruled out. More efficient biological removal was obtained with the slow-sand-filter which reduced the SCP levels from 2.35 to 0.048 mg l(-1), a removal efficiency of ~98%. High levels of nitrate nitrogen, 50 mg l(-1) N, did not interfere with the removal processes of either reactor suggesting that SCP was not being degraded as a microbial nitrogen source.
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.