Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31729532›Full record

ReviewApplied microbiology and biotechnology2020

How to accurately assess surfactant biodegradation-impact of sorption on the validity of results.

Dorota Cierniak, Marta Woźniak-Karczewska, Anna Parus, Bogdan Wyrwas, Andreas P Loibner, Hermann J Heipieper, Łukasz Ławniczak, Łukasz Chrzanowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Alcohol ethoxysulfates (AES) in environmental matrices.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Review
  6. Influence of the MicroalgaFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

8 authors.

Dorota CierniakInstitute of Chemistry and Technical Electrochemistry, Poznan University of Technology, Bedrychowo 4, 60-965, Poznan, Poland.
Marta Woźniak-KarczewskaInstitute of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Pl. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 2, 60-965, Poznan, Poland.
Anna ParusInstitute of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Pl. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 2, 60-965, Poznan, Poland.
Bogdan WyrwasInstitute of Chemistry and Technical Electrochemistry, Poznan University of Technology, Bedrychowo 4, 60-965, Poznan, Poland.
Andreas P LoibnerIFA-Tulln, BOKU-University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 3430, Vienna, Tulln, Austria.
Hermann J HeipieperDepartment of Environmental Biotechnology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany.
Łukasz ŁawniczakInstitute of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Pl. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 2, 60-965, Poznan, Poland. lukasz.lawniczak@put.poznan.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9177-142X
Łukasz ChrzanowskiInstitute of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Pl. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 2, 60-965, Poznan, Poland.

Funding

Horizon 2020 633962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surfactants not only are widely used in biotechnological processes but also constitute significant contaminants of the modern world. Among many reports, there is a shortage of works which summarize the issue of surfactant sorption to biomass in a way that would elucidate the biological factors for analysts and analytical factors for microbiologists. The main factor, which is not as obvious as one would expect, is associated with the susceptibility of analytical approaches to errors resulting from incorrect handling of biomass. In case of several publications reviewed in the framework of this study, it was not possible to establish whether the decrease of the analytical signal observed by the authors actually resulted from biodegradation of the surfactant. This review emphasizes the necessity to consider the possibility of surfactant sorption to microbial cells, which may result in significant detection errors as well as conceptual inconsistency. In addition, a reference study regarding representative surfactants (cationic, anionic and non-ionic) as well as yeast, Gram-negative, Gram-positive bacteria, and activated sludge was provided to highlight the possible errors which may arise from disregarding sorption processes when determining degradation of surfactants. This particularly applies to systems which include ionic surfactants and activated sludge as sorption may account for 90% of the observed depletion of the surfactant. Therefore, a systematic approach was proposed in order to improve the credibility of the obtained results. Finally, the need to employ additional procedures was highlighted which may be required in order to verify that the decrease of surfactant concentration results from biodegradation processes.

Indexed as

BiomassAdsorptionBiodegradation, EnvironmentalIonsReproducibility of ResultsSewageSurface-Active AgentsIonsSewageSurface-Active AgentsActivated sludgeBacillus cereusBiodegradationPseudomonas putidaSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSorptionSurfactant

Identifiers

PMID31729532
PMCPMC6942571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.