ArticleParasitology research2016
Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum under laboratory conditions.
Article in Parasitology research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathogens on High-Touch Surfaces in an Arid Megacity: A Longitudinal Molecular Surveillance Study.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Mouse Models for Use in Cryptosporidium Infection Studies, Quantification of Parasite Burden Using Flow Cytometry, qPCR and Histopathology, and Confocal Imaging of Oocysts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Establishment of an in vitro co-infection model of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia duodenalis.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Metagenomic Profiling of Human Protozoan Parasites in Wastewater and Hospital Effluents.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2023Article
- Usefulness of Sunlight and Artificial UV Radiation Versus Chlorine for the Inactivation of Cryptosporidium Oocysts: An in Vivo Animal Study.Open access Macedonian journal of medical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate alternatives for inactivating Cryptosporidium parvum under experimental conditions. Disinfectants against this protozoan are usually based on cresols and often difficult to handle in laboratories. Four different substances (ethanol, denatured ethanol, sodium hypochlorite and peroxide) at different concentrations were tested for several exposure times (30 min, 2 h, 4 h, 12 h and 24 h). The results show an inactivation over 99% by using 10% H2O2 at an exposure time over 2 h as well as 3 and 6% NaOCl after 12 h of exposure. Furthermore, the ability of UV-C light to inactivate oocysts on smooth surfaces (e.g., laminar flow) was evaluated. To mimic laboratory conditions, oocysts were given on germ carriers. Best results (>99%) were achieved at an exposure time of 30 min (100.8 mJ/cm(2)).
Indexed as
Identifiers
26566617What 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.