ArticleJournal of virological methods2026
Evaluation of dead-end hollowfiber ultrafilter options for enumerating somatic and F+ coliphage in ambient waters and wastewater.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coliphage are viral indicators of fecal contamination in water while acting as possible proxies for enteric viral pathogens. Depending on contamination levels, coliphage could be present at concentrations necessitating the use of concentrating filters. Hollow-fiber ultrafilters (HFUF) such as Asahi Kasei Rexeed have successfully concentrated coliphage in a dead-end setup (D-HFUF) from environmental waters and are recommended within United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 1642. Asahi Kasei Rexeed are not available within the United States, so replacement filters need to be identified. Additionally, coliphage methods lack recommendations for sample holding times to prevent variability in coliphage concentrations between sample collection and analysis. We compared HFUFs, the Fresenius F160NRE and the Elisio-15H, to the Asahi Kasei Rexeed 15S to determine their efficacy in recovering somatic and F+ coliphage from river, lake, marine, and wastewater. A 2 L volume of each matrix (river, lake, marine, and final effluent [n = 10 each]), were concentrated using D-HFUF for each filter brand with coliphage enumerated using the single agar layer (SAL) assay. There was no significant difference in performance between the three filters regardless of sample matrix (p > 0.05). To establish sample holding times, each water matrix (stored at 4ºC) was analyzed on a weekly basis for endogenous coliphage. In wastewater, significant decay occurred within 48 h of collection (P value range: 0.0175-0.0006), while in other matrices, coliphages were stable ≥ 6 days. In this study, we identified replacement HFUFs and pertinent information regarding sample holding times for coliphage monitoring efforts moving forward.
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.