ArticlePloS one2017
Integrating running water monitoring tools with the Micro Biological Survey (MBS) method to improve water quality assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The MBS microbial rapid detection system for rapid detection of major pathogenic bacteria in feed: comparison with plate counting method.BMC microbiology · 2022Article
- Application of the Micro Biological Survey analytical method for the determination of bacterial load in cow raw milk.Italian journal of food safety · 2020Article
- Field application of the Micro Biological Survey method for the assessment of the microbiological safety of different water sources in Tanzania.Journal of public health in Africa · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Running water habitats are among the most altered aquatic systems by human activities driving an increase in the organic components and the associated bacterial load as well. To contribute in improving the monitoring activities in running waters, here we tested the validity of the new Micro Biological Survey (MBS) method to specifically assess the bacterial load in running waters focusing on Total Viable Counts (at 22°C and 37°C) and Escherichia coli (at 44°C) in order to propose a new prognostic tool for watercourses. MBS method is an alternative colorimetric method for counting bacterial load in water and food samples that is easy to use and leads to a reliable and simple interpretation of results, being also faster and less expensive than traditional methods. Then, we compared MBS with the traditionally used reference method for the bacterial load, and with the most used biotic index for Italian watercourses based on the benthic invertebrates: the Extended Biotic Index (EBI). The last comparison was performed to validate the use of MBS in biomonitoring activities since the benthic invertebrate multi-species assemblage (and then EBI) alter own structure mainly depending on the organic component variation. During the first part of the study, the assessment of both linearity (regressions among bacterial concentrations) and accuracy (significant correlation between a measured value and a value used as reference) confirmed the validity of the MBS method. Second, the linear regressions between the three investigated microbial parameters vs. both physical-chemical descriptors and EBI, revealed the usefulness of MBS as a valid tool for routine microbiological analyses involved in rapid and easy field monitoring activities. This represents the first attempt to evaluate the river microbial status by exploiting the innovative MBS on running waters to propose it as new valuable monitoring tool in the biomonitoring field.
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.