ArticleCurrent microbiology2012
Removing hexazinone from groundwater with microbial bioreactors.
Article in Current microbiology, 2012. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pseudomonas kuykendallii sp. nov.: a novel γ-proteobacteria isolated from a hexazinone degrading bioreactor.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
Hexazinone, a triazine herbicide that is often detected as a ground and surface water contaminant, inhibits electron transport in photosynthetic organisms and is toxic to primary producers that serve as the base of the food chain. This laboratory study evaluated the ability of two types of microbial reactors, i.e., a vegetable oil-based nitrogen-limiting biobarrier and an aerobic slow sand filter, as methods for removing hexazinone from simulated groundwater. The N-limiting biobarriers degraded hexazinone, but did so with a 52 week incubation period and a removal efficiency that varied greatly among replicates, with one biobarrier showing a removal efficiency of ~95% and the other an efficiency of ~50%. More consistent degradation was obtained with the aerobic sand biobarriers. Four aerobic biobarriers were evaluated and all behaved in a similar manner degrading hexazinone with removal efficiencies of ~97%; challenging two of the aerobic biobarriers with large amounts of influent hexazinone showed that these barriers are capable of efficiently remediating large amounts (>100 mg L(-1)) of hexazinone at high efficiency. The remediation process was due to biological degradation rather than abiotic processes. The long lag phase observed in both types of reactors suggests that an acclimation process, where microorganisms capable of degrading hexazinone increased in numbers, was required. Also, the isolation of bacteria that show a positive growth response to the presence of hexazinone in their growth media suggests biological degradation.
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.