ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2015
Identifying avian sources of faecal contamination using sterol analysis.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sewage and Organic Pollution Compounds in Nairobi River Urban Sediments Characterized by Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FT-ICR-MS).Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2024Article
- Multicentury perspective assessing the sustainability of the historical harvest of seaducks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Faecal biomarkers can distinguish specific mammalian species in modern and past environments.PloS one · 2019Article
- Sterols and stanols as novel tracers of waterbird population dynamics in freshwater ponds.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discrimination of the source of faecal pollution in water bodies is an important step in the assessment and mitigation of public health risk. One tool for faecal source tracking is the analysis of faecal sterols which are present in faeces of animals in a range of distinctive ratios. Published ratios are able to discriminate between human and herbivore mammal faecal inputs but are of less value for identifying pollution from wildfowl, which can be a common cause of elevated bacterial indicators in rivers and streams. In this study, the sterol profiles of 50 avian-derived faecal specimens (seagulls, ducks and chickens) were examined alongside those of 57 ruminant faeces and previously published sterol profiles of human wastewater, chicken effluent and animal meatwork effluent. Two novel sterol ratios were identified as specific to avian faecal scats, which, when incorporated into a decision tree with human and herbivore mammal indicative ratios, were able to identify sterols from avian-polluted waterways. For samples where the sterol profile was not consistent with herbivore mammal or human pollution, avian pollution is indicated when the ratio of 24-ethylcholestanol/(24-ethylcholestanol + 24-ethylcoprostanol + 24-ethylepicoprostanol) is ≥0.4 (avian ratio 1) and the ratio of cholestanol/(cholestanol + coprostanol + epicoprostanol) is ≥0.5 (avian ratio 2). When avian pollution is indicated, further confirmation by targeted PCR specific markers can be employed if greater confidence in the pollution source is required. A 66% concordance between sterol ratios and current avian PCR markers was achieved when 56 water samples from polluted waterways were analysed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26370196What 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.