wastewater treatment process (Ueda and Horan, 2000; Schijven
et al., 2003). In this study, we used MS-2 bacteriophage as an
indicator of virus removal. The average removal, during the first
experimental period, of polioviruswas 2.54 (0.6) log10, which was
higher than the average log removal of MS-2 bacteriophage (1.85
0.25 log). A comparable result was obtained in the repeat experiment,
while the average log removal were 3.34 (0.11) and
2.1 (0.44), respectively. The removal efficiencies in our study
are comparable with previously reported work (Zhang and
Farahbakhsh, 2007).
wastewater treatment process (Ueda and Horan, 2000; Schijvenet al., 2003). In this study, we used MS-2 bacteriophage as anindicator of virus removal. The average removal, during the firstexperimental period, of polioviruswas 2.54 ( 0.6) log10, which washigher than the average log removal of MS-2 bacteriophage (1.850.25 log). A comparable result was obtained in the repeat experiment,while the average log removal were 3.34 ( 0.11) and2.1 ( 0.44), respectively. The removal efficiencies in our studyare comparable with previously reported work (Zhang andFarahbakhsh, 2007).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..

Wastewater treatment process (Ueda, and Horan 2000; Schijven.Et al, 2003). In this study we used, MS-2 bacteriophage as an.Indicator of virus removal. The, average removal during the first.Experimental period of polioviruswas, 2.54 (0.6), log10 which was.Higher than the average log removal of MS-2 bacteriophage (1.85.0.25 log). A comparable result was obtained in the, repeat experimentWhile the average log removal were 3.34 (0.11 and.)2.1 (0.44), respectively. The removal efficiencies in our study.Are comparable with previously reported work (Zhang and.Farahbakhsh, the 2007).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
