[Experimental study on the disinfection of wastewater by swept pulsed electromagnetic field].

Huan jing ke xue= Huanjing kexue · 2003 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitLow evidencePaper 3747

Study snapshot

PublicationHuan jing ke xue= Huanjing kexue · 2003

Study typeengineering

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

In this paper, an applicable swept pulsed equipment was developed to treat the domestic wastewater and the effect of swept pulsed electromagnetic field on disinfection was studied. It was found that the effect was obvious and the disinfection performance of electromagnetic field was increased with the increasing of the pH, the temperature, the treatment time and the bactericidal concentration. The experimental results showed that the amounts of total bacterium and coliform per milliliter were decreased from 7.2 x 10(6) to 2.2 x 10(4) and from 9.2 x 10(5) to 3.5 x 10(4) respectively after the treatment period of 4 h when the temperature was 25 degrees C and pH 9.0. Corresponding, the removal efficiency of total bacterium were 99.7% and 96.2%.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeengineering

Effect directionbenefit

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposure4 h

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A swept pulsed electromagnetic field treatment was reported to reduce bacterial loads in domestic wastewater. After 4 h at 25°C and pH 9.0, total bacteria decreased from 7.2×10^6 to 2.2×10^4 per mL and coliforms from 9.2×10^5 to 3.5×10^4 per mL; reported removal efficiencies were 99.7% and 96.2%, respectively. Disinfection performance increased with higher pH, temperature, treatment time, and bactericidal concentration.

Outcomes measured

wastewater disinfection performance
total bacterium count per mL
coliform count per mL
removal efficiency of total bacterium and coliform

Limitations

No electromagnetic field parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength, pulse characteristics) reported in the abstract
No sample size or replication details provided
No control/comparator described in the abstract
Outcome reporting limited to bacterial counts under selected conditions

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "engineering",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "swept pulsed electromagnetic field equipment (wastewater treatment)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "4 h"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "wastewater disinfection performance",
    "total bacterium count per mL",
    "coliform count per mL",
    "removal efficiency of total bacterium and coliform"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A swept pulsed electromagnetic field treatment was reported to reduce bacterial loads in domestic wastewater. After 4 h at 25°C and pH 9.0, total bacteria decreased from 7.2×10^6 to 2.2×10^4 per mL and coliforms from 9.2×10^5 to 3.5×10^4 per mL; reported removal efficiencies were 99.7% and 96.2%, respectively. Disinfection performance increased with higher pH, temperature, treatment time, and bactericidal concentration.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "No electromagnetic field parameters (e.g., frequency, field strength, pulse characteristics) reported in the abstract",
    "No sample size or replication details provided",
    "No control/comparator described in the abstract",
    "Outcome reporting limited to bacterial counts under selected conditions"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "swept pulsed electromagnetic field",
    "wastewater",
    "disinfection",
    "total bacteria",
    "coliform",
    "pH",
    "temperature",
    "treatment time"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 14719269

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library