ArticleMembranes2021
Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment-Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing.
Article in Membranes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Two pilot trials of powdered activated carbon (PAC)/(coagulation)/ceramic microfiltration were conducted to compare continuous 10-12 mg/L PAC inline dosing with 8-10 mg/L dosing to a 2 h-contact tank. Two low turbidity/low natural organic matter (NOM, total organic carbon <2 mg C/L) surface waters spiked with 7.2-10.3 µg/L total-pesticides were tested and the dosing options were compared towards operational performance, average removal of pesticides and NOM and costs. Removal differences between the two PAC dosing options depended on pesticides' amenability to adsorption and NOM characteristics (254 nm absorbance, A254). Waters containing low A254-absorbing NOM and only pesticides amenable to adsorption showed very high removals (all pesticides ≥93%) and no significant differences between the two PAC dosing options. Waters containing higher A254-absorbing NOM and high loads of pesticides less amenable to adsorption (dimethoate, bentazone) required higher inline PAC dose. Those or more severe conditions may require PAC doses higher than tested to comply with the Drinking Water Directive limits for pesticides. Cost analysis showed PAC inline dosing is more cost-effective than PAC dosing to the contact tank when identical PAC dose is sufficient or when the doses are low, even if 50% higher for inline dosing, and the plant is small.
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.