Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33447811›Full record

ReviewBiofilm2020

Potential biofilm control strategies for extended spaceflight missions.

Luis Zea, Robert J C McLean, Tony A Rook, Geoffrey Angle, D Layne Carter, Angela Delegard, Adrian Denvir, Robin Gerlach, Sridhar Gorti, Doug McIlwaine and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biofilm, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Payload Design and Evaluation ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cells · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Morphology ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Luis ZeaBioServe Space Technologies, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Robert J C McLeanTexas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA.
Tony A RookSherwin-Williams, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Geoffrey AngleNASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA.
D Layne CarterNASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Angela DelegardNCH Corporation, Irving, TX, USA.
Adrian DenvirNCH Corporation, Irving, TX, USA.
Robin GerlachCenter for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Sridhar GortiNASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Doug McIlwaineChem Treat, Inc., Richmond, VA, USA.
Mononita NurNASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Brent M PeytonCenter for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Philip S StewartCenter for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Paul SturmanCenter for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Yo Ann Velez JustinianoNASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilms, surface-adherent microbial communities, are associated with microbial fouling and corrosion in terrestrial water-distribution systems. Biofilms are also present in human spaceflight, particularly in the Water Recovery System (WRS) on the International Space Station (ISS). The WRS is comprised of the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) and the Water Processor Assembly (WPA) which together recycles wastewater from human urine and recovered humidity from the ISS atmosphere. These wastewaters and various process streams are continually inoculated with microorganisms primarily arising from the space crew microbiome. Biofilm-related fouling has been encountered and addressed in spacecraft in low Earth orbit, including ISS and the Russian Mir Space Station. However, planned future missions beyond low Earth orbit to the Moon and Mars present additional challenges, as resupplying spare parts or support materials would be impractical and the mission timeline would be in the order of years in the case of a mission to Mars. In addition, future missions are expected to include a period of dormancy in which the WRS would be unused for an extended duration. The concepts developed in this review arose from a workshop including NASA personnel and representatives with biofilm expertise from a wide range of industrial and academic backgrounds. Here, we address current strategies that are employed on Earth for biofilm control, including antifouling coatings and biocides and mechanisms for mitigating biofilm growth and damage. These ideas are presented in the context of their applicability to spaceflight and identify proposed new topics of biofilm control that need to be addressed in order to facilitate future extended, crewed, spaceflight missions.

Indexed as

BiofilmLife-supportMarsMoonSpacecraftWater

Identifiers

PMID33447811
PMCPMC7798464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.