ArticleBMC microbiology2016
Comparative analysis of solar pasteurization versus solar disinfection for the treatment of harvested rainwater.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Water Treatment for Wilderness, International Travel, and Austere Situations: 2024 Update.Wilderness & environmental medicine · 2024Guideline
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous pathogens and opportunistic pathogens have been detected in harvested rainwater. Developing countries, in particular, require time- and cost-effective treatment strategies to improve the quality of this water source. The primary aim of the current study was thus to compare solar pasteurization (SOPAS; 70 to 79 °C; 80 to 89 °C; and ≥90 °C) to solar disinfection (SODIS; 6 and 8 hrs) for their efficiency in reducing the level of microbial contamination in harvested rainwater. The chemical quality (anions and cations) of the SOPAS and SODIS treated and untreated rainwater samples were also monitored.
resultsWhile the anion concentrations in all the samples were within drinking water guidelines, the concentrations of lead (Pb) and nickel (Ni) exceeded the guidelines in all the SOPAS samples. Additionally, the iron (Fe) concentrations in both the SODIS 6 and 8 hr samples were above the drinking water guidelines. A >99% reduction in Escherichia coli and heterotrophic bacteria counts was then obtained in the SOPAS and SODIS samples. Ethidium monoazide bromide quantitative polymerase chain reaction (EMA-qPCR) analysis revealed a 94.70% reduction in viable Legionella copy numbers in the SOPAS samples, while SODIS after 6 and 8 hrs yielded a 50.60% and 75.22% decrease, respectively. Similarly, a 99.61% reduction in viable Pseudomonas copy numbers was observed after SOPAS treatment, while SODIS after 6 and 8 hrs yielded a 47.27% and 58.31% decrease, respectively.
conclusionWhile both the SOPAS and SODIS systems reduced the indicator counts to below the detection limit, EMA-qPCR analysis indicated that SOPAS treatment yielded a 2- and 3-log reduction in viable Legionella and Pseudomonas copy numbers, respectively. Additionally, SODIS after 8 hrs yielded a 2-log and 1-log reduction in Legionella and Pseudomonas copy numbers, respectively and could be considered as an alternative, cost-effective treatment method for harvested rainwater.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.