ArticleFood and environmental virology2024
Implementation of a Sensitive Method to Assess High Virus Retention Performance of Low-Pressure Reverse Osmosis Process.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2024. 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
Human enteric viruses are important etiological agents of waterborne diseases. Environmental waters are usually contaminated with low virus concentration requiring large concentration factors for effective detection by (RT)-qPCR. Low-pressure reverse osmosis is often used to remove water contaminants, but very few studies focused on the effective virus removal of reverse osmosis treatment with feed concentrations as close as possible to environmental concentrations and principally relied on theoretical virus removal. The very low viral concentrations usually reported in the permeates (i.e. at least 5 log of removal rate) mean that very large volumes of water need to be analysed to have sufficient sensitivity and assess the process efficiency. This study evaluates two methods for the concentration of adenoviruses, enteroviruses and MS2 bacteriophages at different viral concentrations in large (< 200 L) and very large (> 200 L) volumes. The first method is composed of two ultrafiltration membranes with low-molecular weight cut-offs while the second method primarily relies on adsorption and elution phases using electropositive-charged filters. The recovery rates were assessed for both methods. For the ultrafiltration-based protocol, recovery rates were similar for each virus studied: 80% on average at high virus concentrations (10
Indexed as
Identifiers
38085424What 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.