ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Microbial fuel cell assisted nitrate nitrogen removal using cow manure and soil.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. 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.
- Microbial electrochemistry for bioremediation.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2020Review
- Impacts of electron donor and acceptor on the performance of electrotrophic denitrification.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017Article
- Simultaneous sulfide removal, nitrification, and electricity generation in a microbial fuel cell equipped with an oxic cathode.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are emerging wastewater treatment systems with a proven potential for denitrification. In this study, we have developed a high-rate denitrifying MFC. The anode consisted of cow manure and fruit waste and the cathode consisted of cow manure and soil. The initial chemical oxygen demand (COD)/nitrate nitrogen (NO3 (-)-N) was varied from 2 to 40 at the cathode while keeping the anode ratio fixed at 100. NO3 (-)-N removal rate of 7.1 ± 0.9 kg NO3 (-)-N/m(3) net cathodic compartment (NCC)/day was achieved at cathode COD/NO3 (-)-N ratio 7.31 with the current density of 190 ± 9.1 mA/m(2) and power density of 31.92 ± 4 mW/m(2) of electrode surface area. We achieved an open-circuit voltage (OCV) of 410 ± 20 mV at initial cathodic NO3 (-)-N of 0.345 g/l. The cathode COD/NO3 (-)-N ratio had a significant influence on MFC's OCV and nitrate removal rate. Lower OCV (<150 mV) and NO3 (-)-N removal rates were observed at COD/NO3 (-)-N ratio >12 and <7. Experiments done at different cathode pH values indicated that the optimum pH for denitrification was 7. Under optimized biochemical conditions, nitrate removal rate of 6.5 kg NO3 (-)-N/m(3) net cathodic compartment (NCC)/day and power density of 210 mW/m(2) were achieved in a low resistance MFC. The present study thus demonstrates the utility of MFCs for the treatment of high nitrate wastes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26755171What 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.