Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28843788›Full record

ArticleJournal of virological methods2017

Concentration and quantification of somatic and F+ coliphages from recreational waters.

Brian R McMinn, Emma M Huff, Eric R Rhodes, Asja Korajkic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of virological methods, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Detection ofFood and waterborne parasitology · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2019
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Brian R McMinnNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, United States.
Emma M HuffNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, United States.
Eric R RhodesNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, United States.
Asja KorajkicNational Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, United States. Electronic address: korajkic.asja@epa.gov.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Somatic and F+ coliphages are promising alternative fecal indicators, but current detection methods are hindered by lower levels of coliphages in surface waters compared to traditional bacterial fecal indicators. We evaluated the ability of dead-end hollow fiber ultrafiltration (D- HFUF) and single agar layer (SAL) procedure to concentrate and enumerate coliphages from 1L and 10L volumes of ambient surface waters (lake, river, marine), river water with varying turbidities (3.74-118.7 NTU), and a simulated combined sewer overflow (CSO) event. Percentage recoveries for surface waters were 40-79% (somatic) and 35-94% (F+). The method performed equally well in all three matrices at 1L volumes, but percent recoveries were significantly higher in marine waters at 10L volumes when compared to freshwater. Percent recoveries at 1L and 10L were similar, except in river water where recoveries were significantly lower at higher volume. In highly turbid waters, D-HFUF-SAL had a recovery range of 25-77% (somatic) and 21-80% (F+). The method produced detectable levels of coliphages in diluted wastewater and in unspiked surface waters, emphasizing its applicability to CSO events and highlighting its utility in recovery of low coliphage densities from surface waters. Thus D-HFUF-SAL is a good candidate method for routine water quality monitoring of coliphages.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyAgarColiphagesEnvironmental MonitoringFecesFresh WaterRiversSeawaterUltrafiltrationWastewaterAgarWastewaterBacteriophagesColiphagesRecreational waterUltrafiltrationWastewater

Identifiers

PMID28843788
PMCPMC6084438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.