Skip to main content
. 2023 Dec 8;31(2):2377–2393. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-31354-2

Table 5.

Comparison of the effectiveness of EM activity concerning selected microbiological and physicochemical parameters of water, based on a literature review

Parameter (unit) Before EM After EM % difference References
CBN (CFU·mL−1) 290 83.5  − 71.21% Sitarek et al. (2017)
16771 8981  − 46.45% This study
FEN (CFU·mL−1) 462.5 91  − 80.32% Sitarek et al. (2017)
1191 531  − 55.46% This study
pH (-) 8.37 8.67 3.59% Sitarek et al. (2017)
7.231 7.301 0.98% This study
EC (μS/cm) 388 311.5  − 19.72% Dondajewska et al. (2019)
2071 2091 0.97% This study
NO3–N (mg·L−1) - -  − 34.50% Li et al. (2020)
0.5151 0.4611  − 10.43% This study
TN (mg·L−1) 3.68 3.75 1.81% Dondajewska et al. (2019)
4.50 3.30  − 26.67% Park et al. (2016)
- -  − 21.37% Li et al. (2020)
- -  − 57.36% Zhao et al. (2013)
3.841 3.421  − 10.94% This study
PO4–P (mg·L−1) 0.11 0.055  − 50.00% Dondajewska et al. (2019)
0.0631 0.0471  − 25.40% This study
TP (mg·L−1) 0.19 0.16  − 17.24% Dondajewska et al. (2019)
0.27 0.17  − 38.27% Sitarek et al. (2017)
0.55 0.23  − 58.18% Park et al. (2016)
- -  − 13.74% Li et al. (2020)
- -  − 86.87% Zhao et al. (2013)
0.251 0.141  − 45.08% This study
DO (mg·L−1) 9.8 9.6  − 2.04% Dondajewska et al. (2019)
7.891 8.291 5.07% This study

1Value for the series directly before and after EM application