Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924801›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Evaluation of Ozone Removal by Spent Coffee Grounds.

Pei-Fu Hsieh, Tsrong-Yi Wen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Pei-Fu HsiehDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No 43, Sec 4, Keelung Rd, Taipei, 106, Taiwan.
Tsrong-Yi WenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No 43, Sec 4, Keelung Rd, Taipei, 106, Taiwan. tywen@mail.ntust.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Activated carbon is the most known material used to adsorb ozone. Activating carbonaceous materials by ozonation is commonly used to produce activated carbon, however, requiring sophisticated skills and professional equipment. This paper presents a reversed idea: to adsorb ozone using an unactivated carbonaceous material, coffee. Three powder adsorbents are presented: fresh coffee (unactivated), spent coffee grounds (unactivated), and activated carbon (commercially available). The test is conducted by measuring and comparing the ozone concentration in an ozone-supplied chamber with or without the ozone adsorbent. The results show that, at the specific conditions, the peak ozone concentration is lowered by 38% to 56% when the chamber has the activated carbon. At the same conditions, the peak ozone concentration is lowered by 25% to 43% when the chamber has the coffee powders (either fresh or spent). The elemental analysis demonstrates that the oxygen content after the ozone adsorption increases by 20%, 14.4%, and 34.5% for the fresh coffee, the spent coffee grounds, and the activated carbon, respectively. The characteristic analysis (the Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, the thermogravimetric, and the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller) suggests that the unactivated coffee is not porous, however, contains various organic compounds that could react with and consume ozone.

Indexed as

AdsorptionCharcoalCoffeeKineticsOzoneWaste ProductsCharcoalCoffeeOzoneWaste Products

Identifiers

PMID31924801
PMCPMC6954194

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.