Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816279›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Recycling of wet grinding industry effluent using effective Microorganisms™ (EM).

Lavanya Velmurugan, Kannan Dorai Pandian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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.

Lavanya VelmuruganResearch Centre, Department of Botany, Thiagarajar College, 139-140, Kamarajar Salai, Teppakulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, 625009, India.
Kannan Dorai PandianResearch Centre, Department of Botany, Thiagarajar College, 139-140, Kamarajar Salai, Teppakulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, 625009, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A considerable volume of effluent released from the food processing industries, after the extensive use in the products manufacturing and industrial process. Effluents, either without treatment or with improper treatment, released out from the industries would severely damage the environment and human health. An investigation was done by recycling the effluent samples, collected from the wet grinding industry, Madurai, India, which was determined with an acidic pH (5.93), high turbidity (160.78 NTU), high BOD (62.4 mg/l) and COD (274.38 mg/l) and a significantly higher quantity of starch (115.81 mg/l). Biological wastewater treatment method was chosen in this experiment on the basis of the biodegradability index of effluent (3.21-10.75). The main goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of wastewater treatment in a prototype STP utilizing the Effective Micro-organisms™ Consortium application. The US EPA International Water Quality Standards and the Water Quality Index were used to compare the water quality of the recycled effluent with and without the EM application. The effluent from the EM consortium treatment was found to have acceptable levels of pH (7.38), salinity (1.94 ppt) and Conductivity (4.05 mS); and a declining trend found in TDS (1.81 ppt), BOD (24.4 mg/l) and COD (148.83 mg/l) level when the effluent treated using EM. Removal effectiveness of EM significant reduce in the treated effluents starch (85.15%), sulphate (78.42), phosphate (79.60), nitrogen (65.54%), and turbidity (82.73%) level were observed. Which was shown to be comparatively better than employing without EM treatment. This research substantially intends to the best practices, towards sustainable industries through Cleaner Production Mechanism.

Indexed as

Contaminants removal efficiencyEffluent recyclingIdli dosai batter industry effluentWater quality indexWater quality standards

Identifiers

PMID36816279
PMCPMC9932453

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.