ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2017
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation in tap water contaminated by
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for surface cleaning of COVID-19 in healthcare settings: A review.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Fungal photoinactivation doses for UV radiation and visible light-a data collection.AIMS microbiology · 2024Review
- Sensitivity Analysis ofPathogens & immunity · 2024Article
- Article
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
We investigated the effect of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVI) from a low-pressure mercury lamp on several pathogenic Aspergillus spp. including A. flavipes, A. flavus, A. fumigatus, A. glaucus, A. nidulans, A. niger, A. terreus, A. ustus and A. versicolor suspended in tap water under laboratory-scale conditions. It was shown that within 10 s of exposure, time species such as A. glaucus, A. niudulans and A. ustus were completely inactivated, while 40 s were needed for the elimination of all the species tested. A. flavus and A. niger were found to be less susceptible than other species. Based on these results we conclude that UV disinfection could effectively inactivate Aspergillus spp. in tap water. Such disinfection could be used to reduce potential exposure of high-risk patients to fungal aerosols, particularly in hospital settings, where point-of-use (POU) UV light devices could be installed to provide safe water at a very low cost.
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.