ArticleFood and environmental virology2015
Removal of Surrogate Bacteriophages and Enteric Viruses from Seeded Environmental Waters Using a Semi-technical Ultrafiltration Unit.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retention of Virus Versus Surrogate, by Ultrafiltration in Seawater: Case Study of Norovirus Versus Tulane.Food and environmental virology · 2024Review
- Technical evaluation and optimization of a mobile septage treatment unit.Journal of environmental management · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experiments to determine the removal of viruses in different types of water (surface water from two reservoirs for drinking water treatment, treated groundwater and groundwater contaminated with either 5 or 30 % of wastewater) by ultrafiltration were performed with a semi-technical ultrafiltration unit. Concentrations of human adenoviruses (HAdVs), murine norovirus (MNV), and the bacteriophages MS2, ΦX174 and PRD1 were measured in the feed water and the filtrate, and log removal values were calculated. Bacteria added to the feed water were not detected in the filtrates. In contrast, in most cases viruses and bacteriophages were still present in the filtrates: log removal values were in the range of 1.4-6.3 depending on virus sizes and water qualities. Best removals were observed with bacteriophage PRD1 and HAdVs, followed by MNV and phages MS2 and ΦX174. Virus size, however, was not the only criterion for efficient removal. In diluted wastewater as compared to drinking water and uncontaminated environmental waters, virus removal was clearly higher for all viruses, most likely due to higher membrane fouling. For quality assessment purposes of membrane filtration efficiencies with regard to the elimination of human viruses the small bacteriophages MS2 and ΦX174 should be used as conservative viral indicators.
Identifiers
25786890What 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.