Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054151›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Time since faecal deposition influences mobilisation of culturable E. coli and intestinal enterococci from deer, goose and dairy cow faeces.

Emmanuel O Afolabi, Richard S Quilliam, David M Oliver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Persistence ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Emmanuel O AfolabiFaculty of Natural Sciences, Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Richard S QuilliamFaculty of Natural Sciences, Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
David M OliverFaculty of Natural Sciences, Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobilisation is a term used to describe the supply of a pollutant from its environmental source, e.g., soil or faeces, into a hydrological transfer pathway. The overarching aim of this study was to determine, using a laboratory-based approach, whether faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) are hydrologically mobilised in different quantities from a typical agricultural, wildlife and wildfowl source, namely dairy cattle, red deer and greylag goose faeces. The mobilisation of FIB from fresh and ageing faeces under two contrasting temperatures was determined, with significant differences in the concentrations of both E. coli and intestinal enterococci lost from all faecal sources. FIB mobilisation from these faecal matrices followed the order of dairy cow > goose > deer (greatest to least, expressed as a proportion of the total FIB present). Significant changes in mobilisation rates from faecal sources over time were also recorded and this was influenced by the temperature at which the faecal material had aged over the course of the 12-day study. Characterising how indicators of waterborne pathogens are mobilised in the environment is of fundamental importance to inform models and risk assessments and develop effective strategies for reducing microbial pollution in catchment drainage waters and associated downstream impacts. Our findings add quantitative evidence to support the understanding of FIB mobilisation potential from three important faecal sources in the environment.

Indexed as

DeerEnterococcusAnimalsBacteriaCattleEnvironmental MonitoringEscherichia coliFecesFemaleGeeseWater Microbiology

Identifiers

PMID36054151
PMCPMC9439212

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.