DOCSLIB.ORG

Livestock Pathogens of Waterborne & Public Health Concern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Livestock Pathogens of Waterborne & Public Health Concern 1. Overview of pathogens and indicator bacteria of Ambient conditions and monitoring for livestock associated pathogens and indicators in CA concern. waterways 2. Indicator bacteria dynamics in runoff from E. coli rangeland and irrigated pasture. 3. Correlations between indicator bacteria and pathogens of concern. C. hild C. parvum Salmonella U.S. waterborne disease outbreaks causing gastroenteritis 1989 through 1996 Type of Agent No. Drinking Water organism outbreaks water recreation Protozoa Giardia duodenalis 27 18 9 Cryptosporidium 21 8 13 Bacteria E. coli O157:H7 11 3 8 Campylobacter jejuni 3 3 Salmonella 2 1 1 Pathogens and produce: rangeland runoff and irrigation water C. parvum E. coli Salmonella A decade of produce outbreaks traced back to CA Livestock Pathogens of Waterborne & Year Food Vehicle Pathogen Cases Public Health Concern: 1996 Mesclun lettuce E. coli O157:H7 61 Protozoa: “hard” to eliminate during water treatment, 1996 Unpasteurized apple juice E. coli O157:H7 70 low infectious dose, mild to moderate illness 1996-1998 Alfalfa or clover sprouts E. coli O157:H7 600 Cryptosporidium parvum (6 outbreaks) Salmonella Giardia duodenalis 2000-2001 Raw almonds Salmonella 168 Bacteria: “easy” to eliminate during water treatment, 2002 Romaine lettuce E. coli O157:H7 29 2002-2004 Raw almonds Salmonella 47 higher infectious dose, mild to serious illness 2003 Baby spinach E. coli O157:H7 16 pathogenic E. coli (e.g., Stx 1&2, O157:H7) 2006 Baby spinach E. coli O157:H7 205 Salmonella 2006 Iceberg lettuce E. coli O157:H7 77 Campylobacter 2006 Iceberg lettuce E. coli O157:H7 80 1 Indicator bacteria v. pathogens Ideal world: strong, reliable correlation between indicator bacteria and bovine pathogens in water total coliforms, fecal coliforms, indicator 100 E. coli, Enterococcus 75 Bacteria that when present in water indicate the 50 (oocysts / / L) (oocysts presence of fecal material and pathogens. / L) (oocysts 25 A standard is born C. parvum C. parvum 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 C. parvum E. Coli O157:H7 Salmonella indicator E. coli (cfu/100ml) Indicator Bacteria Standards: Surface Waters Indicator Bacteria: One Big Happy Family Fresh water standards exist for both “indicator” E. coli and fecal coliforms across CA: varies by water board total coliforms USEPA Recommends E. coli fecal coliforms 1. geometric mean <126 bacteria per 100 ml from 5+ samples in 30 indicator days E. coli 2. single grab samples should not exceed 235 bacteria per 100 ml E. coli: A malcontent in every family Beef cattle - indicator bacteria indicator E. coli Fecal coliforms: outbreak pathogenic strain 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 per Shiga-toxin E. coli gm feces – all classes Indicator E. coli: E. coli O157:H7 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 per gm feces – all classes. 2 Indicator dynamics in runoff from rangeland and Small watershed scale – annual rangelands irrigated pasture. Spatial Scale: Pasture to the watershed to the • Experimental watersheds Delta. HREC + + SFREC • HREC (7), SFREC (4) Temporal Scales: Runoff event to the water year. • Grazing and fire treatments Ramifications for monitoring and meeting water • 20 to 300 acres in size quality standards. SFREC – heavy grazing/rangeland – can observe an order of SFREC – heavy grazing/rangeland – can observe an significant Schubert Watershed Winter Storm Dec. 12-17, 2001 reductionWatershed in 4: concentration 2002 Winter Stormflow from start to end of rainfall season. magnitude300 acre catchmentor greater on UC-SFREC change in Sierra Nevadaduring foothill aoak storm woodlands, event. grazed by beef cattle 300 acre catchment on in Sierra Nevada annual range, winter graze, cow-calf, 500 lb/ac RDM 9 25,000 4 10,000 Streamflow (cfs) Streamflow (cfs) Fecal Colif. & E. coli (cfu/100 mL) E.coli (cfu/100ml) mL) E. coli (cfu/100 Fecal Colif. & 20,000 8,000 E.coli (cfu/100ml) 3 FC (cfu/100ml) 6 FC (cfu/100ml) 15,000 6,000 2 10,000 4,000 Streamflow (cfs) 3 Streamflow (cfs) Streamflow 1 5,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 3-Apr 9-Mar 2-Nov 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 28-Apr 17-Jan 11-Feb 27-Nov 22-Dec 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Two storms in mid December One rainfall-runoff season Valley and Foothill Irrigated Pastures HREC – observe variable differences between moderately grazedMean and generic non-grazed E. coli and watersheds, fecal coliform concentrations background from does 4 oak not = 0. woodland watersheds at UC-HREC near Hopland, CA during 2001 WY. Flood Irrigated Pasture Moderately grazed 3000 E. coli fecal coliform 2500 2000 Non-grazed since 1955 1500 1000 Concentration (cfu/100mL) Concentration 500 126 0 ABCD Watershed 3 E. coli Levels in Irrigated Pasture Tailwater E. coli Levels in Irrigated Pasture Tailwater A 7 hour irrigation event 8 Irrigation Events 1.6 80000 200000 Runoff tailwater 1.2 E. coli 60000 irrigation water 150000 0.8 40000 100000 (cfu/100ml) cfu/100ml grazing management E. coli 0.4 20000 E. coli 50000 Tailwater Runoff Rate (cfs) 0.0 0 0 07000900110013001500 Jun. Time of Day Sep. Two Year Survey of WQ in 24 California rangeland streams Indicator E. coli and FC concentrations were dependent Mean generic E. coli and fecal coliform concentration measured for 2 yearsupon on 24 rangeland watershed streams hydrologyacross California – (n=947 elevation samples) 2000 & 2001 + + 9,000 + Rainfall-RunoffRainfall-Runoff Snowmelt ~1000 grab samples under storm & Snowmelt and base flow conditions + + + + + 6,000 + + + E. coli + + 3,000 fecal coliform Concentration (cfu/100ml)Concentration 0 BFGHI KNQVXACEPTUDJLMORSW Stream : Indicator E. coli and FC concentrations were variable Delta Project: Mean monthly indicator bacteria concentrations across 14 coastal and 88 sites monitored once a month for two years acrossfoothill annual the water rangeland year streams on annual WY 2000-2001. range watersheds. Bacterial indicators: 12000 fecal coliforms, E. coli, Enterococcus fecal coliforms 10000 E. coli Bacterial pathogens: 8000 mobilization of in-stream sediment Salmonella, shigatoxin 1&2 E. coli, Campylobacter 6000 irrigated pasture return + cfu/100 mL environmental growth? 4000 2000 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 4 SAC Indicator E. coli 6/06-6/07, 12/07-11/08, n=1892 80% 70% of samples < 25 cfu 60% RIO VISTA 40% Frequency 20% 5% of samples > 235 cfu 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 STOCKTON STOCKTON E. coli (cfu / 100 ml) Unknown correlations between indicators and indicator pathogens livestock associated pathogens for CA watersheds. bacteria = in water 100 Ideal Correlation ? 75 50 (oocysts / / L) (oocysts (oocysts / / L) (oocysts 25 C. parvum C. parvum 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 indicator E. coli (cfu/100ml) Consider the shedding of pathogens and indicators in Annual Rangeland – SFREC & HREC 8 grazed rangeland watersheds – 2 years CA range and pasture cattle feces. Trace C. Parvum levels in <5% of ~600 stream samples 9 12,000 C. parvum in CA Indicator E. coli in CA range cattle range cattle Streamflow (cfs) E.coli (cfu/100ml) E. coli 100 6 8,000 cows and calves mL) (cfu/100 calves 100% 5-15% cows 100,000 – 1,000,000 / g 100,000 / g (cfs) Streamflow <1% 3 4,000 % infected 1-100 / g 0 4812+ 4812+ 0 0 cattle age (months) 11/2/01 11/27/01 12/22/01 1/17/02 2/11/02 3/9/02 4/3/02 4/28/02 5 UFRW and Bridgeport Valley: 2007-08 Graze Season (May – Oct) 2007-08 Pathogen monitoring Sample monthly: indicator E. coli and FC, C. parvum, Salmonella, UFRW and Bridgeport Valley E. Coli O157:H7, Campylobacter 102-116 water samples taken, May-Oct Sample a total 16 sites: entering and exiting irrigated agriculture areas indicator E. coli < 235 cfu/100 ml > 235 cfu/100 ml Irrigation, beef cattle grazing, hay production Crypto 8=Yes 5 of 75 (6%) 3 of 27 (11%) Salmonella 12=Yes 9 of 75 (12%) 3 of 27 (11%) Campy 0=Yes 0 of 75 (0%) 0 of 27 (0%) E. coli O157:H7 6=Yes 4 of 95 (4%) 2 of 21 (9%) 1,000 to 20,000 AU 1,500 to 32,000 ac irrigated SAC 2007-08 Pathogen monitoring SAC UFRW and Bridgeport Valley above meadow below meadow RIO Crypto 8=Yes 5 3 VISTA Salmonella 12=Yes 10 2 Campy 0=Yes 0 0 O157:H7 6=Yes 0 6 STOCKTON STOCKTON Delta pathogen – indicator monitoring Not so Ideal World: indicator E. coli concentrations not well correlated to Salmonella, C. parvum, etc. 955 water samples, 2006-07 1 indicator E. coli Mean Conc. < 235 cfu/100 ml > 235 cfu/100 ml (cfu/100mL) 0.5 Indicator E. coli 22 cfu 470 cfu Salmonella 0.30 MPN 0.25 MPN Salmonella 1,829 E. coli isolates from across these 955 samples 0 2 of 1,829 had Stx 1 (0.1%) 0 200 400 600 800 2 of 1,829 had Stx 2 (0.1%) indicator E. coli (cfu/100mL) 6 Possible Correlation at higher indicator levels? Summary 1000 • 800 Significant indicator bacteria associated with direct range and pasture runoff, 600 • Conc. reduction with increased spatial 400 scale: pasture>watershed>delta, 200 Pathogen (no. / 100 ml) 100 (no. / Pathogen Pathogen (no. / 100 ml) 100 (no. / Pathogen • Significant influence of watershed 0 hydrology and livestock management 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 on conc., Indicator bacteria (no. / 100 ml) Conc a ithin noff e ents (ho l ) Summary • We consistently find very low levels of pathogens in these waters, • Essentially non-existent correlations between pathogens and indicator bacteria in these waters, • Management opportunities do exist to reduce microbial pollutant loads from these systems next topic 7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restoring Bacteria-Impaired Waters a Toolkit to Help Local Stakeholders Identify and Eliminate Potential Pathogen Problems
    Restoring Bacteria-Impaired Waters A Toolkit to Help Local Stakeholders Identify and Eliminate Potential Pathogen Problems developed by the Water Quality Restoration Program Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Florida Department of Environmental Protection Version 3.0, August 2018 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 https://floridadep.gov Restoring Bacteria-Impaired Waters: A Toolkit to Help Local Stakeholders Identify and Eliminate Potential Pathogen Problems, July 2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Context ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Document Outline ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 DEP's Watershed Management Approach ................................................................................... 5 1.4 Coordinating with DEP ................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Recommended Approach ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 Understanding the Basin ............................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Causes of FIB Impairments
    [Show full text]
  • Loading and Attenuation of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Emigration Creek
    LOADING AND ATTENUATION OF FECAL INDICATOR BACTERIA IN EMIGRATION CREEK by Garrick Douglas Willden A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Utah May 2006 i Copyright © Garrick Douglas Willden 2006 All Rights Reserved ii iii ABSTRACT A two-part study was performed in Emigration Creek from June to October 2005 to determine the warm season loading and concentration variability of fecal- indicator bacteria and investigate the fate and transport of bacteria within Emigration Creek. Emigration Creek is a small mountain stream draining a 47-km2 urbanizing drainage basin into the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. The warm season monitoring component of the protocol involved measuring streamflow and collecting weekly grab samples from eight locations in the creek for 16 weeks and analyzing for bacteriological and chemical fecal-indicators including total coliform, E. coli, enterococci, nitrate, chloride, and ammonia. Samples were collected and flows were measured twice daily to capture diurnal variation of the concentrations and bacteria flux (the number of bacteria passing each sampling site in time). The bacterial fate and transport component of the study involved introducing a bacteria tracer into an upstream reach of the creek in early October and collecting samples downstream to monitor the bacteria breakthrough curve over a period of 2 days. The results of the warm season monitoring indicated that most of the sampling sites exceeded the Utah numeric water quality criteria for E. coli (new bacteriological criterion, 206 No./100mL) from July to mid August.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the US EPA “Review of Coliphages As Possible Indicators of Fecal Contamination for Ambient Water Quality”
    Comments on the US EPA “Review of Coliphages as Possible Indicators of Fecal Contamination for Ambient Water Quality” Prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Samuel Dorevitch, MD, MPH University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health February 15, 2016 1 Executive Summary Millions of people each year enjoy using beaches, lakes, and rivers for recreation. Disease- causing microbes – pathogens – found in surface waters can present a threat to public health, particularly as a cause of gastrointestinal illness. Viral pathogens have been difficult, costly, and time-consuming to measure in surface waters. In order to address the challenges of 1) estimating the likelihood of pathogen presence and pathogen concentration in surface waters, and 2) estimating the health risks of surface water recreation, “indicators” have been monitored in surface waters as an alternative to pathogens. For decades, fecal indicator bacteria, such as E. coli and enterococci bacteria have been monitored in surface waters to satisfy a variety of Clean Water Act requirements. Coliphage viruses – viruses that infect E. coli bacteria – have been evaluated as indicators of wastewater treatment efficacy, human fecal pollution of surface waters, pathogenic virus presence in surface waters, and human health risk. In April, 2015, the US EPA Office of Water published a review of coliphage virus as a potential indicator of pathogens in surface wasters. That publication, “Review of Coliphages as Possible Indicators of Fecal Contamination for Ambient Water Quality,” included reviews of research studies that evaluated coliphage measurements as predictors of health risks of water recreation and pathogen presence. The present document, prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), provides information from research papers that were not included in the EPA review as well as additional information from papers that were included in the EPA review.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Paper: Revisions to the Water Quality Standard for Bacteria
    Issue Paper: Revisions to the Water Quality Standard for Bacteria By: Aron Borok August 2016 Environmental Solutions/ Standards and Assessment 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-229-5050 800-452-4011 Fax: 503-229-5850 Contact: Aron Borok www.oregon.gov/DEQ DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and water. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Last updated: 8/22/16 By: Aron Borok This report prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 1-800-452-4011 www.oregon.gov/deq Contact: Aron Borok 503-229-5050 Documents can be provided upon request in an alternate format for individuals with disabilities or in a language other than English for people with limited English skills. To request a document in another format or language, call DEQ in Portland at 503-229-5696, or toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, ext. 5696; or email [email protected]. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ii I would like to acknowledge Debra Sturdevant for providing many excellent comments for this report and the project in general. I also would like to thank James McConnaghie for preparing draft designated use maps, as well as initial maps detailing shellfishing areas and salinity data. I also would like to acknowledge staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Agriculture Shellfish Programs and the Environmental Protection Agency Western Ecology Division for providing information and support related to shellfish distribution in Oregon.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecal Indicator 7.1 Bacteria
    FIB—1 FECAL INDICATOR 7.1 BACTERIA By Donna N. Myers, Donald M. Stoeckel, Rebecca N. Bushon, Donna S. Francy, and Amie M.G. Brady Page 7.1 Fecal indicator bacteria ..................................................... FIB–5 7.1.1 Sampling equipment and equipment sterilization procedures.................................................................... 10 7.1.1.A Autoclaving .................................................... 16 7.1.1.B Flame sterilization of the Hydrosol® field filtration unit .......................................... 18 7.1.1.C Sterilization of equipment by ultraviolet irradiation ....................................................... 20 7.1.1.D Sterilization of equipment with sodium hypochlorite.................................................... 20 7.1.2 Sample collection, preservation, storage, and holding times................................................................ 22 7.1.2.A Surface-water sample collection .................... 24 Depth- and-width-integrating methods........... 25 Point-sampling methods ................................. 26 7.1.2.B Ground-water sample collection..................... 28 Supply wells ................................................... 29 Monitoring wells ............................................ 30 7.1.2.C Bed-sediment sample collection..................... 34 7.1.2.D Sample preservation, storage, and holding times.................................................. 37 Chapter A7, Biological Indicators Fecal Indicator Bacteria, Version 2.0 (2/2007) 2—FIB 7.1.3 Identification
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Fecal Indicator Bacteria to Groundwater, Malibu Lagoon And
    Izbicki et al., Annals of Environmental Science / 2012, Vol 6, 35-86 SOURCES OF FECAL and as many as 12% of samples from nearby ocean beaches exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection INDICATOR BACTERIA TO Agency single sample enterococci standard for marine GROUNDWATER, MALIBU recreational water of 104 MPN per 100 mL. Human- associated Bacteroidales, an indicator of human-fecal LAGOON AND THE NEAR- contamination, were not detected in water from wells, SHORE OCEAN, MALIBU, Malibu Lagoon, or the near-shore ocean. Similarly, CALIFORNIA, USA microarray (PhyloChip) data show Bacteroidales and Fimicutes Operational Taxanomic Units (OTUs) 1* 2 present in OWTS were largely absent in groundwater; John A. Izbicki, Peter W. Swarzenski, in contrast, 50% of Bacteroidales and Fimicutes 1 Carmen A. Burton, Laurie C. Van OTUs present in the near-shore ocean were also DeWerfhorst,3 Patricia A. Holden,3 Eric A. present in gull feces. Terminal-Restriction Length Dubinsky4 Fragment Polymorphism (T-RFLP) and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) data showed that microbial 1 U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science communities in groundwater were different and less Center, 4165 Spruance Road, San Diego, CA 92123, abundant than communities in OWTS, Malibu USA Lagoon, or the near-shore ocean. However, organic 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal Marine Geology compounds indicative of wastewater (such as fecal Program, 400 Natural Bridges Dr. Santa Cruz, CA sterols, bisphenol-A and cosmetics) were present in 95060, USA groundwater having a high percentage of wastewater 3 University of California, Bren School of and were present in groundwater discharging to the Environmental Science & Management, 2400 Bren ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria in Surface Waters.Pdf
    WD-BB-14 2019 Bacteria in Surface Waters What are Coliform Bacteria? Coliform bacteria are a large assemblage of various species of bacteria that are linked together because of the ease of culturing as a single group. They include both fecal and non-fecal coliform bacterial sources. Fecal coliforms are bacteria that are found naturally in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. Fecal coliforms are sometimes pathogenic, as many are disease-causing species, though non-pathogenic species may be present too. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria may indicate contamination of the waterbody by human and/or animal fecal material. What is Escherichia coli? Escherichia coli, commonly called E. coli, is one of the most common species of fecal coliform bacteria. It is a normal component of the large intestines in humans and other warm-blooded animals, and it’s found in human sewage in high numbers. E. coli is used as an indicator organism for fecal contamination because it is easily cultured. If sewage is present in water, pathogenic or disease-causing organisms may also be present. What are Enterococci? Enterococci are another type of fecal bacteria which are a subgroup of the fecal streptococcus group. Enterococci have the ability to survive in saltwater and therefore are the chosen indicator organism for coastal beaches and shellfish harvesting areas. Why do we measure bacteria? Typhoid and cholera epidemics in the mid-19th century led to the discovery that certain gastro-intestinal diseases of humans are transmitted via water. The disease-causing organisms leave the infected individual via the feces, which can become discharged into surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence of Fecal-Indicator Bacteria And
    Occurrence of Fecal-Indicator Bacteria and Protocols for Identification of Fecal- Contamination Sources in Selected Reaches of the West Branch Brandywine Creek, Chester County, Pennsylvania by Peter J. Cinotto In cooperation with the Chester County Water Resources Authority and the Chester County Health Department Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5039 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey ii U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to repro- duce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Cinotto, P.J., 2005, Occurrence of fecal-indicator bacteria and protocols for identification of fecal-contamination sources in selected reaches of the West Branch Brandywine Creek, Chester County, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Sci- entific Investigations Report 2005-5039, 91 p. iii Contents Abstract. 1 Introduction . 3 Purpose and Scope . 4 Description of Study Area . 4 Coatesville Study Reach. 4 Wagontown Study Reach . 6 Previous Studies . 6 Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis . 11 Collection and Analysis of Bacteria Within the Water Column .
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Correlations Between Coliphages and Anthropogenic Viruses in the Massachusetts Bay Using Enrichment and ICC-Npcr Nicola A
    59 Q IWA Publishing 2005 Journal of Water and Health | 03.1 | 2005 Occurrence and correlations between coliphages and anthropogenic viruses in the Massachusetts Bay using enrichment and ICC-nPCR Nicola A. Ballester, Justin H. Fontaine and Aaron B. Margolin ABSTRACT We evaluated a two-step enrichment procedure to detect coliphages and an integrated cell culture- Nicola A. Ballester (corresponding author) Justin H. Fontaine nested polymerase chain reaction (ICC-nPCR) to detect human astrovirus, enteroviruses, rotavirus Aaron B. Margolin and adenovirus type 40 and 41 in marine water samples collected by the Massachusetts Water Department of Microbiology, University of New Hampshire, Resource Authority (MWRA). MWRA has been monitoring its receiving waters for coliphages, 35 Colovos Rd, ETB Hall Rm. 230, Durham, anthropogenic viruses and indicator bacteria in order to evaluate the impact of Boston’s Deer Island NH 03824, USA Sewage Treatment Plant discharge. Coliphages and enteric viruses were originally assayed using Tel: (603) 862-1172 single agar overlay and most probable number cell culture (MPN) methods, respectively. Reanalysis of Fax: (603) 862-3957 E-mail: [email protected] these samples for enteric viruses by ICC-nPCR demonstrated that 46% were positive for at least one virus compared with 23% with the MPN method. Use of the enrichment method showed a 47% increase in the detection of male specific and somatic coliphages compared with the single agar overlay method. Correlations between the presence of coliphages, enteric viruses and indicator bacteria were based on proximity to the treatment plant discharge, seasonal variations and site levels. The presence of enteric viruses was significantly correlated to coliphages but not to indicator bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring for Microbial Pathogens and Indicators
    Through the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program (NNPSMP), states monitor and evaluate a subset of watershed projects funded by the Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Control Program. The program has two major objectives: 1. To scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of watershed technologies designed to control nonpoint source pollution September 2013 Revised, originally published August 2013 2. To improve our understanding of nonpoint source pollution Donald W. Meals, Jon B. Harcum, and Steven A. Dressing. 2013. Monitoring for microbial pathogens and indicators. Tech Notes 9, NNPSMP Tech Notes is a series of publications that shares this unique September 2013. Developed for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research and monitoring effort. It offers guidance on data collection, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA, 29 p. Available online at https://www.epa. implementation of pollution control technologies, and monitoring design, gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/nonpoint-source-monitoring- as well as case studies that illustrate principles in action. technical-notes. Monitoring for Microbial Pathogens and Indicators Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2010 A 1993 outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in National Water Quality Assessment lists pathogens (including Milwaukee is the largest waterborne disease indicators) as the leading cause of impairment for rivers and outbreak ever reported in the U.S. An streams, the number two cause of wetland impairment, and the estimated 400,000 people were reported ill. High tributary flows into Lake Michigan third-ranked cause of impairments in the nation’s bays and estuaries because of rain and snow runoff may have (USEPA 2012b). Pathogens have been the focus of more than transported the parasites great distances 11,000 total maximum daily load (TMDL) determinations since into the lake from its watershed, and from there to the water plant intake.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecal Indicator 7.2 Viruses
    FIV—1 FECAL INDICATOR 7.2 + VIRUSES By R.N. Bushon Page 7.2 Fecal indicator viruses ................................................... FIV–3 7.2.1 Sampling equipment and equipment sterilization procedures.......................................... 5 7.2.2 Sample collection, preservation, transport, and holding times ................................................... 9 7.2.2.A Surface-water sample collection ............. 10 Depth-and-width-integrating methods.... 11 Hand-dip method...................................... 12 7.2.2.B Ground-water sample collection.............. 14 + Supply wells .............................................. 14 Monitoring wells ....................................... 15 7.2.2.C Sample preservation, transport, and holding times............................................. 19 7.2.3 Laboratory methods............................................... 20 7.2.3.A Single-agar layer method ......................... 20 7.2.3.B Two-step enrichment method .................. 21 7.2.4 Calculation and reporting of fecal indicator viruses ..................................................................... 23 + USGS TWRI Book 9–A7 (Third Edition) Fecal Indicator Viruses (11/2003) 2—FIV Tables 7.2-1. Equipment cleaning and sterilization + procedures................................................................... FIV–6 7.2-2. Summary of equipment for sample collection and procedures for sample preservation of fecal indicator viruses ................................................ 10 + Notes: References for section 7.2,
    [Show full text]
  • EPA's Recreational Water Quality Criteria
    OFFICE OF WATER 820-F-12-058 Recreational Water Quality Criteria NOTICES This document has been drafted and approved for publication by the Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and is approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. FOREWORD Under §304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) the Administrator of the EPA is directed to develop and publish water quality criteria (WQC) that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare that might be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including groundwater. CWA §304(a)(9) directs the Administrator to publish new or revised WQC for pathogens and pathogen indicators (including a revised list of testing methods, as appropriate), based on the results of the studies conducted under §104(v) of the CWA, for the purpose of protecting human health in coastal recreation waters. Coastal recreation waters (“coastal waters”) are defined under §502(21) of the CWA as the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated by a state for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities. This document includes WQC recommendations for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on the results of the studies conducted under §104(v) of the CWA for both coastal recreational waters and other waters designated for primary contact recreation (“non-coastal waters”).
    [Show full text]