Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29611125›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018

Experimental assessment and validation of quantification methods for cellulose content in municipal wastewater and sludge.

Medhavi Gupta, Dang Ho, Domenico Santoro, Elena Torfs, Julie Doucet, Peter A Vanrolleghem, George Nakhla

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Medhavi GuptaDepartment of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Western University, Spencer Engineering Building #3037, London, Ontario, N6A 5B9, Canada. mgupta55@uwo.ca.
Dang HoTrojan Technologies, London, Ontario, N5V 4T7, Canada.
Domenico SantoroTrojan Technologies, London, Ontario, N5V 4T7, Canada.
Elena TorfsmodelEAU, Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Julie DoucetmodelEAU, Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Peter A VanrolleghemmodelEAU, Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
George NakhlaDepartment of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Western University, Spencer Engineering Building #3037, London, Ontario, N6A 5B9, Canada. gnakhla@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6807-129X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellulose, mostly in the form of toilet paper, forms a major component of the particulates in raw municipal wastewater, which could lead to significant consequences due to the potential accumulation of cellulosic fibers and slow biodegradability. Despite the sparse reports on cellulose content and degradation in wastewater and sludge, an accurate and validated method for its quantification in such matrices does not exist. In this paper, four different methods were compared including dilute acid hydrolysis, concentrated acid hydrolysis, enzymatic hydrolysis, and the Schweitzer reagent method. The Schweitzer reagent method, applied to municipal wastewater and sludge, was found to be a very robust and reliable quantification method in light of its reproducibility, accuracy, and ideal (100%) recovery. The determination of cellulose content is critical to understand its fate in wastewater treatment plants as well as improve sludge management and enhance resource recovery.

Indexed as

Biodegradation, EnvironmentalCelluloseHydrolysisReproducibility of ResultsSewageWastewaterCelluloseSewageWastewaterCelluloseResource recoverySchweitzer reagentSludgeToilet paperWastewater

Identifiers

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.