ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018
Disinfection and removal of human pathogenic bacteria in arctic waste stabilization ponds.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2018. 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.
- Bacterial Diversity of Marine Biofilm Communities in Terra Nova Bay (Antarctica) by Culture-Dependent and -Independent Approaches.Environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Asymptomatic Carriage ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Study of coliforms and Clostridium bacteria inactivation in wastewaters by a pilot photolysis process and by the maturation lagoons of a low-cost nature-based WWTP.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Monitoring Microbial Populations and Antibiotic Resistance Gene Enrichment Associated with Arctic Waste Stabilization Ponds.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2021Article
- Chemical and microbial characteristics of municipal drinking water supply systems in the Canadian Arctic.Environmental science and pollution research international · 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
Wastewater stabilization ponds (WSPs) are commonly used to treat municipal wastewater in Arctic Canada. The biological treatment in the WSPs is strongly influenced by climatic conditions. Currently, there is limited information about the removal of fecal and pathogenic bacteria during the short cool summer treatment season. With relevance to public health, the objectives of this paper were to determine if treatment in arctic WSPs resulted in the disinfection (i.e., removal of fecal indicator bacteria, Escherichia coli) and removal of selected human bacterial pathogens from the treated effluent. The treatment performance, with focus on microbial removal, was assessed for the one-cell WSP in Pond Inlet (Nunavut [NU]) and two-cell WSP in Clyde River (NU) over three consecutive (2012-2014) summer treatment seasons (late June-early September). The WSPs provided a primary disinfection treatment of the wastewater with a 2-3 Log removal of generic indicator E. coli. The bacterial pathogens Salmonella spp., pathogenic E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes, but not Campylobacter spp. and Helicobacter pylori, were detected in the untreated and treated wastewater, indicating that human pathogens were not reliably removed. Seasonal and annual variations in temperature significantly (p < 0.05) affected the disinfection efficiency. Improved disinfection and pathogen removal was observed for the two-cell system in Clyde River as compared to the one-cell system in Pond Inlet. A quantitative microbial risk assessment should be performed to determine if the release of low levels of human pathogens into the arctic environment poses a human health risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28353112What 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.