Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23247532›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2013

Alternative indicators for monitoring Cryptosporidium oocysts in reclaimed water.

M Agulló-Barceló, F Oliva, F Lucena

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

M Agulló-BarcelóDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Biology, Universitat de Barcelona, 643 Avinguda Diagonal, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
F Oliva
F Lucena

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the widespread use of reclaimed water all over the world, there is a clear need to optimise its management in order to guarantee water safety. Model microorganisms (with either indicator or index function) are commonly used to assess risks related to the presence of enteric pathogens in water. Samples from five water reclamation plants located in Northeastern Spain were analysed to validate the use of three model microorganisms (Escherichia coli, somatic coliphages and spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia) as surrogates of Cryptosporidium total or infectious oocysts (TOO and IOO, respectively) in reclaimed water. Probability plots, simple and multiple linear regression and discriminant analyses were performed to assess their relationships. Results show that the detection of E. coli alone is not useful to model either the behaviour or concentrations of Cryptosporidium. However, discriminant analyses showed a high rate of correctly classified samples (91.9%) when E. coli and somatic coliphages data were used together to predict the presence/absence of IOO. Spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia (SRC) showed parallel reduction patterns and high correlation values (r = 0.76) with reductions in TOO. Furthermore, simple regression analyses of SRC and TOO in reclaimed water showed high correlation values (r = 0.85). Therefore, at the treatment plants studied, SRC can be considered to have good indicator and index functions for TOO. From the point of view of health protection, the use of SRC together with E. coli (which is mandatory in the current Spanish regulations) would satisfy the need for improved reclaimed water management.

Indexed as

Water QualityClostridiumColiphagesCryptosporidiumEnvironmental MonitoringEscherichia coliLinear ModelsOocystsReproducibility of ResultsSeasonsSpainWastewaterWater MicrobiologyWater PollutantsWater PurificationWastewaterWater Pollutants

Identifiers

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.