ArticleFood and environmental virology2021
Coliphages as Indicators for the Microbial Quality of Treated Wastewater Effluents.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- High prevalence of tomato brown rugose fruit virus in domestic wastewater as a potential viral indicator for treatment systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of a Sensitive Method to Assess High Virus Retention Performance of Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis Process.Food and environmental virology · 2024Article
- Integrated full-scale solar CPC/UV-LED-filtration system as a tertiary treatment in a conventional WWTP for agricultural reuse purposes.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wastewater effluents are a reliable water source for non-potable water reuse including unrestricted crop irrigation in arid regions suffering from water scarcity. This study was performed to develop and optimize a procedure to concentrate coliphages from 100 L of treated effluent. Moreover, the reduction of coliphages by filtration and disinfection by either chlorine or UV was compared with that of fecal coliform (FC). The adsorption efficiency of MS2 and Qβ coliphages by the NanoCeram filter was similar and reached 99.8%. Elution efficiency of MS2 coliphage from the NanoCeram filters by a solution of 1% NaPP and 0.05 M glycine, pH 9.5, was 74 ± 9.5%. The highest reconcentration efficiency of MS2 and Qβ coliphages was obtained with polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation and reached 76 ± 28% and 90 ± 11%, respectively. In comparison, the reconcentration efficiency of organic flocculation was 0% and 1.3% for Qβ and MS2 coliphages, respectively. The overall recovery efficiency of MS2 coliphages from 100 L tertiary effluent was 57 ± 1.5%. Poor reduction was observed for coliphages compared to FC by filtration and chlorine disinfection although; the reduction of FC, as measured by cultivation, was satisfactory and within the guidelines for unrestricted irrigation. High correlation between the reduction of FC and coliphages was recorded for tertiary effluent disinfected by UV irradiation. Monitoring the microbial quality of tertiary effluent using qPCR for the enumeration of FC was found unsuitable, because DNA levels were unaffected by the treatment processes. The results of this study demonstrated that monitoring the microbial quality of tertiary effluent by FC may not reflect the health risks encountered by the application of these effluents and the addition of coliphages to the monitoring programs may allow for accurate assessment of the health risks introduced by the application of tertiary effluent.
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.