ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2015
Microbial removals by a novel biofilter water treatment system.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2015. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Broad Diversity of Fungi in Hospital Water.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2020Article
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
Two point-of-use drinking water treatment systems designed using a carbon filter and foam material as a possible alternative to traditional biosand systems were evaluated for removal of bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. Two configurations were tested: the foam material was positioned vertically around the carbon filter in the sleeve unit or horizontally in the disk unit. The filtration systems were challenged with Cryptosporidium parvum, Raoultella terrigena, and bacteriophages P22 and MS2 before and after biofilm development to determine average log reduction (ALR) for each organism and the role of the biofilm. There was no significant difference in performance between the two designs, and both designs showed significant levels of removal (at least 4 log10 reduction in viruses, 6 log10 for protozoa, and 8 log10 for bacteria). Removal levels meet or exceeded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for microbial purifiers. Exploratory test results suggested that mature biofilm formation contributed 1-2 log10 reductions. Future work is recommended to determine field viability.
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.