ArticleJournal of environmental and public health2013
A qualitative survey of five antibiotics in a water treatment plant in central plateau of Iran.
Article in Journal of environmental and public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Research of Antibiotic Residues and Bacterial Strain's Antibiotic Resistance Profile in the Liquid Effluents Evacuated in Nature by Two CHUs and a Mixed WWTP of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Photodegradable Antimicrobial Agents: Synthesis and Mechanism of Degradation.The Journal of organic chemistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to survey a total of five common human and veterinary antibiotics based on SPE-LC-MS-MS technology in a water treatment plant at central plateau of Iran. Also two sampling techniques, passive and grab samplings, were compared in the detection of selected antibiotics. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn January to March 2012, grab and passive samples were taken from the influent and effluent of a water treatment plant. The samples were prepared using solid-phase extraction (SPE), and extracts were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS).
resultsThe results showed that enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline, and tylosin were not detected in none of the samples. However, ampicillin was detected in the grab and passive samples taken from the influent (source water) of the plant, and ciprofloxacin was detected in passive samples taken from the influent and effluent (finished water) of the plant.
conclusionThe results imply that passive sampling is a better approach than grab sampling for the investigation of antibiotics in aquatic environments. The presence of ampicillin and ciprofloxacin in source water and finished water of the water treatment plant may lead to potential emergence of resistant bacteria that should be considered in future studies.
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.