ArticleScientific reports2025
Effects and differences of various concentration techniques on the evolution of therapeutic components in Lushan geothermal water.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hot springs are significant geothermal resources characterized by their high mineral content and therapeutic value. This study aims to preserve the therapeutic element value of the Lushan hot springs in Jiangxi, China. Laboratory batch experiments, microstructural characterization, and hydrogeochemical modeling were employed to investigate the effects and differences of various concentration techniques under different environmental parameters on the evolution of therapeutic components in hot spring water. The key findings are as follows: Fluoride (F) concentrations in the hot spring water, along with elevated levels of iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) observed at sampling point S2, exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water quality standards. Among the tested methods, atmospheric evaporation at 100 °C and pH = 4 demonstrated the highest concentration efficiency. Although freeze concentration achieved its best performance under - 8 °C and pH = 6, its overall efficiency was still lower than that of atmospheric evaporation. However, freeze concentration requires low energy consumption and short processing cycles, making it a promising research direction for future hot spring concentration techniques.The evolution of potentially toxic elements revealed that arsenic (As) concentrations decreased during freeze concentration and remained below standard values at a freezing rate of 93.75%. In contrast, concentrations of chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), and lead (Pb) exceeded permissible limits during atmospheric evaporation.SEM-EDS results showed differences in the microstructure of solid precipitates obtained from the two concentration methods. XPS analysis indicated that freeze concentration led to greater precipitation of potassium (K) and calcium (Ca) compared to atmospheric evaporation.PHREEQC simulations demonstrated that therapeutic components such as fluoride (F), lithium (Li), and strontium (Sr) primarily existed as single ions under both concentration methods, while silicon (Si) predominantly occurred as soluble SiO
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.