Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39735431›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

Comparison of activated sludge and virus interactions in aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors.

Jinfan Zhang, Jie Zhang, Daisuke Sano, Rong Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jinfan ZhangShaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi'an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi'an 710055, P.R. China.
Jie ZhangShaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi'an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi'an 710055, P.R. China.
Daisuke SanoDepartment of Civil and Environment Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba 606-06, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan.
Rong ChenShaanxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi'an University Architecture and Technology, No. 13 Yanta Road, Xi'an 710055, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are effective sewage treatment technologies, yet the differences in virus removal efficiency between aerobic (AeMBR) and anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR), remain inadequately understood. This study compared the virus removal efficiency of AeMBR and AnMBR, focusing on the interactions between aerobic (AeS) and anaerobic (AnS) activated sludge and viruses in the sewage treatment process. Results showed average log removal values (LRVs) for MS2 of 2.53 ± 0.54 in AeMBR and 1.64 ± 0.90 in AnMBR due to the higher virus inactivation in the aerobic mixed liquor. The virus concentration in AnS was greater than in AeS, consistent with the predictions from the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. Soluble extracellular polymeric substances (S-EPS) were key to virus adsorption in AeS, while tightly bound EPS (TB-EPS) were significant in AnS. Additionally, more fluorescent substances in AnS contributed to virus adsorption, while more functional groups in AeS offered adsorption sites.

Indexed as

Applied microbiologyBiological waste treatmentWater resources engineering

Identifiers

PMID39735431
PMCPMC11681883

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.