ReviewApplied microbiology and biotechnology2023
Quantification of hydrolysis activity in a biological wastewater treatment context.
Review in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews currently available methods for hydrolysis activity monitoring of the most commonly encountered enzyme categories in biological wastewater treatment. While highlighting the relevant methods for protein, lipid, carbohydrate, organic phosphate, and ester hydrolysis, the discussion of their pros and cons is predominantly aimed at revealing the relevance of the to-be-hydrolyzed substrates that are used in the methods. These "substrates" should mimic the proteins, lipids, or other polymers that are present in the wastewater and are in the reviewed methods (i) real substrates (i.e., naturally present in the wastewater), (ii) chromogenic substrates, or (iii) fluorogenic substrates. We conclude that exploiting relevant substrates such as casein or starch, containing fluorophores, has the highest potential for meaningful high throughput hydrolysis quantification and that lipase activity monitoring is still cumbersome. Monitoring the hydrolysis activity in biological wastewater treatment systems is an underdeveloped area. With this review, which aims at providing a condensed and practice-oriented overview, we hope to facilitate the start or continuation of such monitoring. This monitoring will only grow in importance, given the transition from wastewater treatment plants towards water resource recovery facilities. KEY POINTS: • Colorimetric-based methods are vulnerable to sludge matrix interference. • Bonds in p-nitrophenol-based methods are not representative for the targeted substrates. • Direct methods with relevant/real substrates are preferred. • Fluorophore-containing (real) substrates enable high throughput screening.
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.