Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27236442›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016

Fecal contamination of wastewater treatment plants in Portugal.

Manuela Oliveira, Isa Serrano, Sofia Van Harten, Lucinda J Bessa, Fernando Bernardo, Paulo Martins da Costa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CharacterizingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Manuela OliveiraCIISA/Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de Lisboa, Polo Universitário da Ajuda, 1300-477, Lisbon, Portugal. moliveira@fmv.ulisboa.pt.
Isa SerranoCIISA/Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de Lisboa, Polo Universitário da Ajuda, 1300-477, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sofia Van HartenCIISA/Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de Lisboa, Polo Universitário da Ajuda, 1300-477, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lucinda J BessaICBAS - Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira n.° 228, 4050-313, Porto, Portugal.
Fernando BernardoCIISA/Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de Lisboa, Polo Universitário da Ajuda, 1300-477, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paulo Martins da CostaICBAS - Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira n.° 228, 4050-313, Porto, Portugal.
University of Lisbon · PTCentro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reutilization of effluents from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) for non-potable applications is increasing due to the reduction of sustainable water resources. These products mostly come from municipal WWTP and also from slaughterhouses effluents. The microbiological certification of these products is mandatory before their discharge into the environment. This study evaluates if the treatment applied in WWTP to municipal waters or to poultry slaughterhouse effluents distributed over the Portuguese continental territory is efficient in reducing the microbiological risk associated with the reutilization of those wastewaters and sludges. Fecal indicators Escherichia coli and enterococci were evaluated in 42 and 24 wastewater samples from 14 municipal WWTP and 8 poultry slaughterhouse treatment plants, respectively, by the conventional culture method and a rapid Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technique. Bacterial enumeration in inflow water from most WWTP was rather high (generally >10(5) cells/ml), for both E. coli and Enterococcus spp., and the bacterial quantification by FISH was generally higher than enumeration by the conventional culture method. In both types of treatment plants studied, bacterial load from effluents and sludges was not statistically different from the inflows, indicating that the treatment applied seems to be equally unable to reduce the microbiological load of the effluents. These findings may jeopardize the safe reuse of treated wastewaters in agriculture and the quality of the water environment. Therefore, products like water, sewage sludge, and biosolids originated from the municipal and slaughterhouse WWTP studied should not be reutilized, and effluents treatment should be urgently reviewed.

Indexed as

AbattoirsAgricultureAnimalsEnterococcusEscherichia coliFecesIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescencePortugalPoultrySewageWaste Disposal, FluidWastewaterSewageWastewaterAgricultureContaminationEffluentsEnterococcus spp.Escherichia coliFISHWastewater treatment plantWater reuse

Identifiers

PMID27236442
OpenAlexW2397229810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.