ArticlePeerJ2023
Water lettuce (
Article in PeerJ, 2023. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aquatic plants play a crucial role in nature-based wastewater treatment and provide a promising substrate for renewable energy production using anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. This study aimed to examine the contaminant removal from AD effluent by water lettuce (WL) and produce biogas from WL biomass co-digested with pig dung (PD) in a farm-scale biogas digester. Methods: The first experiment used styrofoam boxes containing husbandry AD effluent. WLs were initially arranged in 50%, 25%, 12.5%, and 0% surface coverage. Each treatment was conducted in five replicates under natural conditions. In the second experiment, WL biomass was co-digested with PD into an existing anaerobic digester to examine biogas production on a farm scale. Results: Over 30 days, the treatment efficiency of TSS, BOD5, COD, TKN, and TP in the effluent was 93.75-97.66%, 76.63-82.56%, 76.78-82.89%, 61.75-63.75%, and 89.00-89.57%, respectively. Higher WL coverage increased the pollutant elimination potential. The WL biomass doubled after 12 days for all treatments. In the farm-scale biogas production, the biogas yield varied between 190.6 and 292.9 L kg VS Conclusions: WL removed AD effluent nutrients effectively through a phytoremediation system and generated significant biomass for renewable energy production in a farm-scale model.
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.