ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2023
Microbial genome (Illumina MiSeq) sequencing of drinking water treatment residuals to evaluate compatibility with environmental applications.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 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, 3 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The clarification of drinking water leads to the production of large quantities of water treatment residuals (WTRs). DNA was extracted from six WTR samples collected from water treatment plants within the UK to compare their bacterial communities and examine whether factors such as coagulant usage (aluminium versus iron salt), the type of water source (reservoir or river), or leachable chemical composition influence these communities. Bacterial 16S variable region 4 (V4) was amplified and sequenced using Illumina MiSeq sequencing. The most abundant phyla in WTR samples were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria, and Firmicutes, collectively representing 92.77-97.8% of the total bacterial sequences. Statistical analysis of microbial profiles indicated that water source played a significant role in microbial community structure, diversity, and richness, however coagulant type did not. PERMANOVA analysis showed that no single chemical variable (pH, organic matter, or extractable element concentration) influenced microbial composition significantly; however, canonical correspondence analysis of WTR microbiomes yielded a model using all these variables that could be used to explain variations in microbial community structures of WTRs (p < 0.05). No common, potentially toxic cyanobacteria, or related pathogens of concern were found. Analysis with PICRUSt showed that WTRs all had similar predicted microbial functional profiles. Overall, the results indicate that WTRs analysed in this study are unlikely to pose any threat to soil microbial community structure when applied to land as a soil conditioner or enhancer and may help to enhance the soil microbial community.
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.