7 Microbial Aspects
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Pathogens and Indicators in United States Class B Biosolids: National and Historic Distributions
Technical TECHNICALreports: W REPORTSaste Management Pathogens and Indicators in United States Class B Biosolids: National and Historic Distributions Ian L. Pepper* University of Arizona John P. Brooks USDA–ARS Ryan G. Sinclair Loma Linda University Patrick L. Gurian Drexel University Charles P. Gerba University of Arizona ewage sludge is defined as “the solid, semisolid, or liquid resi- This paper reports on a major study of the incidence of due generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a indicator organisms and pathogens found within Class B S biosolids within 21 samplings from 18 wastewater treatment treatment works.” In contrast, biosolids, as defined by a National plants across the United States. This is the first major study Research Council Committee (2002) that addressed the health of its kind since the promulgation of the USEPA Part 503 effects of biosolids, is the term given to the end product that Rule in 1993, and includes samples before and after the Part results from treatment of sewage sludge to meet the land-appli- 503 Rule was promulgated. National distributions collected cation standards of the USEPA Part 503 Rule (USEPA, 1993). between 2005 and 2008 show that the incidence of bacterial and viral pathogens in Class B mesophilic, anaerobically Depending on the level of treatment, two classes of biosol- digested biosolids were generally low with the exception of ids are produced: Class A biosolids (higher level of treatment- adenoviruses, which were more prevalent than enteric viruses. processes designed to further reduce pathogens), which contain No Ascaris ova were detected in any sample. In contrast, no detectable levels of pathogens in 4 g of dry solids; or Class B indicator organism numbers were uniformly high, regardless of biosolids (lower level of treatment-processes designed to reduce whether they were bacteria (fecal coliforms) or viruses (phage). -
Lesson 2 - Aquatic Indicator Organisms
Lesson 2 - Aquatic Indicator Organisms Authors: VOCABULARY Marysa Nicholson, Muhlenberg College Laurie Rosenberg, Muhlenberg College Abdomen – The back section of the body Ted Shaffer, Liberty High School behind the thorax in an arthropod. Grade Level: 5-8 Lesson Time: Two 50 minute sessions Appendages – Structures growing from the Suggested Class Structure: whole class body, such as arms and legs. lecture/slide presentation, small collaborative group work Carnivore – A meat eater. Subject Areas: Science Field guide – A manual for identifying natural objects, plants or animals in the field BACKGROUND Freshwater – Clean, unpolluted water See slide show text without salinity (as opposed to salt water) starting on page 41. Gill – In water-dwelling creatures, a breathing organ that extracts oxygen. GOAL Invertebrate – Animals without backbones. Students will learn the key characteristics of Examples include insects, worms, spiders, the general types of aquatic organisms. They crayfish and sowbugs. will gain the observation and identification skills to be able to use a key to aquatic Larva – Immature form of an animal that is organisms. They will develop an physically very different from the adult. understanding of why the presence of certain aquatic organisms indicate the ecological Organisms – A living thing. This term refers conditions of the habitat in which they are to all animals, plants, algae, bacteria, fungus found. and all one-celled creatures. Parasite – An organism that lives by getting OBJECTIVES benefit from the life processes of another The students shall: organism, usually doing hard to the organism from which it gets benefit. 1. List the three main types of aquatic indicator organisms and their Segmented – One of the constituent parts into characteristics. -
Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-By-Case Decision-Making
sustainability Review Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making Paul Vincelli Department of Plant Pathology, 207 Plant Science Building, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546, USA; [email protected] Academic Editor: Sean Clark Received: 22 March 2016; Accepted: 13 May 2016; Published: 20 May 2016 Abstract: Genetic engineering (GE) offers an expanding array of strategies for enhancing disease resistance of crop plants in sustainable ways, including the potential for reduced pesticide usage. Certain GE applications involve transgenesis, in some cases creating a metabolic pathway novel to the GE crop. In other cases, only cisgenessis is employed. In yet other cases, engineered genetic changes can be so minimal as to be indistinguishable from natural mutations. Thus, GE crops vary substantially and should be evaluated for risks, benefits, and social considerations on a case-by-case basis. Deployment of GE traits should be with an eye towards long-term sustainability; several options are discussed. Selected risks and concerns of GE are also considered, along with genome editing, a technology that greatly expands the capacity of molecular biologists to make more precise and targeted genetic edits. While GE is merely a suite of tools to supplement other breeding techniques, if wisely used, certain GE tools and applications can contribute to sustainability goals. Keywords: biotechnology; GMO (genetically modified organism) 1. Introduction and Background Disease management practices can contribute to sustainability by protecting crop yields, maintaining and improving profitability for crop producers, reducing losses along the distribution chain, and reducing the negative environmental impacts of diseases and their management. -
Global Burden of Norovirus and Prospects for Vaccine Development
Global Burden of Norovirus and Prospects for Vaccine Development Primary author Ben Lopman Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Contributors and Reviewers Robert Atmar, Baylor College of Medicine Ralph Baric, University of North Carolina Mary Estes, Baylor College of Medicine Kim Green, NIH; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Roger Glass, NIH; Fogarty International Center Aron Hall, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Miren Iturriza-Gómara, University of Liverpool Cherry Kang, Christian Medical College Bruce Lee, Johns Hopkins University Umesh Parashar, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mark Riddle, Naval Medical Research Center Jan Vinjé, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the US Department of Health and Human Services. This work was funded in part by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the CDC Foundation. GLOBAL BURDEN OF NOROVIRUS AND PROSPECTS FOR VACCINE DEVELOPMENT | 1 Table of Contents 1. Executive summary ....................................................................3 2. Burden of disease and epidemiology 7 a. Burden 7 i. Global burden and trends of diarrheal disease in children and adults 7 ii. The role of norovirus 8 b. Epidemiology 9 i. Early childhood infections 9 ii. Risk factors, modes and settings of transmission 10 iii. Chronic health consequences associated with norovirus infection? 11 c. Challenges in attributing disease to norovirus 12 3. Norovirus biology, diagnostics and their interpretation for field studies and clinical trials..15 a. Norovirus virology 15 i. Genetic diversity, evolution and related challenges for diagnosis 15 ii. -
Zoonotic Diseases Fact Sheet
ZOONOTIC DISEASES FACT SHEET s e ion ecie s n t n p is ms n e e s tio s g s m to a a o u t Rang s p t tme to e th n s n m c a s a ra y a re ho Di P Ge Ho T S Incub F T P Brucella (B. Infected animals Skin or mucous membrane High and protracted (extended) fever. 1-15 weeks Most commonly Antibiotic melitensis, B. (swine, cattle, goats, contact with infected Infection affects bone, heart, reported U.S. combination: abortus, B. suis, B. sheep, dogs) animals, their blood, tissue, gallbladder, kidney, spleen, and laboratory-associated streptomycina, Brucellosis* Bacteria canis ) and other body fluids causes highly disseminated lesions bacterial infection in tetracycline, and and abscess man sulfonamides Salmonella (S. Domestic (dogs, cats, Direct contact as well as Mild gastroenteritiis (diarrhea) to high 6 hours to 3 Fatality rate of 5-10% Antibiotic cholera-suis, S. monkeys, rodents, indirect consumption fever, severe headache, and spleen days combination: enteriditis, S. labor-atory rodents, (eggs, food vehicles using enlargement. May lead to focal chloramphenicol, typhymurium, S. rep-tiles [especially eggs, etc.). Human to infection in any organ or tissue of the neomycin, ampicillin Salmonellosis Bacteria typhi) turtles], chickens and human transmission also body) fish) and herd animals possible (cattle, chickens, pigs) All Shigella species Captive non-human Oral-fecal route Ranges from asymptomatic carrier to Varies by Highly infective. Low Intravenous fluids primates severe bacillary dysentery with high species. 16 number of organisms and electrolytes, fevers, weakness, severe abdominal hours to 7 capable of causing Antibiotics: ampicillin, cramps, prostration, edema of the days. -
African Meningitis Belt
WHO/EMC/BAC/98.3 Control of epidemic meningococcal disease. WHO practical guidelines. 2nd edition World Health Organization Emerging and other Communicable Diseases, Surveillance and Control This document has been downloaded from the WHO/EMC Web site. The original cover pages and lists of participants are not included. See http://www.who.int/emc for more information. © World Health Organization This document is not a formal publication of the World Health Organization (WHO), and all rights are reserved by the Organization. The document may, however, be freely reviewed, abstracted, reproduced and translated, in part or in whole, but not for sale nor for use in conjunction with commercial purposes. The views expressed in documents by named authors are solely the responsibility of those authors. The mention of specific companies or specific manufacturers' products does no imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................... i PREFACE ..................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1 1. MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................3 1.1 REVIEW OF EPIDEMICS SINCE THE 1970S .......................................................................................... 3 Geographical distribution -
Indices of Food Sanitary Quality and Sanitizers
Indices of food sanitary quality and sanitizers Dr Vandana Sharma PHD, science INTRODUCTION Food quality and safety are important consumer requirements. Indicator organisms can be employed to reflect the microbiological quality of foods relative to product shelf life or their safety from foodborne pathogens. In general, indicators are most often used to assess food sanitation. Three groups of microorganisms are commonly tested for and used as indicators of overall food quality and the hygienic conditions present during food processing, and, to a lesser extent, as a marker or index of the potential presence of pathogens (i.e. food safety): coliforms, Escherichia coli (E. coli; also a coliform) and Enterobacteriaceae. Microbiological indicator organisms can be used to monitor hygienic conditions in food production. The presence of specific bacteria, yeasts or molds is an indicator of poor hygiene and a potential microbiological contamination. Index Microorganisms ➢ Microbiological criteria for food safety which defines an appropriately selected microorganism as an index microorganisms suggest the possibility of a microbial hazard without actually testing for specific pathogens. ➢ Index organisms signal the increased likelihood of a pathogen originating from the same source as the index organism and thus serve a predictive function. ➢ Higher levels of index organisms may (in certain circumstances), correlate with a greater probability of an enteric pathogen(s) being present. ➢ The absence of the index organism does not always mean that the food is free from enteric pathogens. Indicator Microorganisms The presence of indicator microorganisms in foods can be used to: ➢ assess the adequacy of a heating process designed to inactivate vegetative bacteria, therefore indicating process failure or success; ➢ assess the hygienic status of the production environment and processing conditions; ➢ assess the risk of post-processing contamination; assess the overall quality of the food product. -
Chapter 2 Disease and Disease Transmission
DISEASE AND DISEASE TRANSMISSION Chapter 2 Disease and disease transmission An enormous variety of organisms exist, including some which can survive and even develop in the body of people or animals. If the organism can cause infection, it is an infectious agent. In this manual infectious agents which cause infection and illness are called pathogens. Diseases caused by pathogens, or the toxins they produce, are communicable or infectious diseases (45). In this manual these will be called disease and infection. This chapter presents the transmission cycle of disease with its different elements, and categorises the different infections related to WES. 2.1 Introduction to the transmission cycle of disease To be able to persist or live on, pathogens must be able to leave an infected host, survive transmission in the environment, enter a susceptible person or animal, and develop and/or multiply in the newly infected host. The transmission of pathogens from current to future host follows a repeating cycle. This cycle can be simple, with a direct transmission from current to future host, or complex, where transmission occurs through (multiple) intermediate hosts or vectors. This cycle is called the transmission cycle of disease, or transmission cycle. The transmission cycle has different elements: The pathogen: the organism causing the infection The host: the infected person or animal ‘carrying’ the pathogen The exit: the method the pathogen uses to leave the body of the host Transmission: how the pathogen is transferred from host to susceptible person or animal, which can include developmental stages in the environment, in intermediate hosts, or in vectors 7 CONTROLLING AND PREVENTING DISEASE The environment: the environment in which transmission of the pathogen takes place. -
Medicine in 18Th and 19Th Century Britain, 1700-1900
Medicine in 18th and 19th century Britain, 1700‐1900 The breakthroughs th 1798: Edward Jenner – The development of How had society changed to make medical What was behind the 19 C breakthroughs? Changing ideas of causes breakthroughs possible? vaccinations Jenner trained by leading surgeon who taught The first major breakthrough came with Louis Pasteur’s germ theory which he published in 1861. His later students to observe carefully and carry out own Proved vaccination prevented people catching smallpox, experiments proved that bacteria (also known as microbes or germs) cause diseases. However, this did not put an end The changes described in the Renaissance were experiments instead of relying on knowledge in one of the great killer diseases. Based on observation and to all earlier ideas. Belief that bad air was to blame continued, which is not surprising given the conditions in many the result of rapid changes in society, but they did books – Jenner followed these methods. scientific experiment. However, did not understand what industrial towns. In addition, Pasteur’s theory was a very general one until scientists begun to identify the individual also build on changes and ideas from earlier caused smallpox all how vaccination worked. At first dad bacteria which cause particular diseases. So, while this was one of the two most important breakthroughs in ideas centuries. The flushing toilet important late 19th C invention wants opposition to making vaccination compulsory by law about what causes disease and illness it did not revolutionise medicine immediately. Scientists and doctors where the 1500s Renaissance – flushing system sent waste instantly down into – overtime saved many people’s lives and wiped‐out first to be convinced of this theory, but it took time for most people to understand it. -
Bradford Hill Criteria for Causal Inference Based on a Presentation at the 2015 ANZEA Conference
Bradford Hill Criteria for Causal Inference Based on a presentation at the 2015 ANZEA Conference Julian King Director, Julian King & Associates – a member of the Kinnect Group www.julianking.co.nz | www.kinnect.co.nz 2015 We think we’re good at determining causality, but we suck at it One of the great At one level, this is an Unfortunately, though, the challenges in evaluation is everyday, common sense way we are wired does not determining whether the task. As a species we’ve predispose us to logical results we’re seeing are been making judgments thinking. We are inclined because of the program about causation for a to be led astray by all sorts we’re evaluating, some million years or so. of biases and heuristics. other influences out there in the big world, or random chance. The Kinnect Group www.kinnect.co.nz 2 Along came logic Eventually, after a very long time, we evolved into philosophers who invented formal logic. Thanks to scientific method, our species has recently triumphed to the extent that we now have cars that drive themselves and flying drones that deliver pizza (don’t confuse this with progress – we still suck at ethics but that’s a story for another day). 3 But we’re still not great at causation Over time, the rocket But deep down we’re still Such a rigid view is not science for dealing with biased, heuristical beings much use in the real causation has become and not very good at world, where there are all more sophisticated – a thinking things through. -
Chapter 1. Safe Drinking Water: an Ongoing Challenge
Chapter 1 SAFE DRINKING WATER: AN ONGOING CHALLENGE G.J. Medema, P. Payment, A. Dufour, W. Robertson, M. Waite, P. Hunter, R. Kirby and Y. Andersson 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Outbreaks of waterborne disease The microbiological quality of drinking water is a concern to consumers, water suppliers, regulators and public health authorities alike. The potential of drinking water to transport microbial pathogens to great numbers of people, causing subsequent illness, is well documented in countries at all levels of economic development. The outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in 1993 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the United States provides a good example. It was estimated that about 400 000 individuals suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms due, in a large proportion of cases, to Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite (MacKenzie et al., 1994), although subsequent reports suggest that this may be a significant overestimation (Hunter and Syed, 2001). More recent outbreaks have involved E. coli O157:H7, the most serious of which occurred in Walkerton, Ontario Canada in the spring of 2000 and resulted in six deaths and over 2 300 cases (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit, 2000). The number of outbreaks that has been reported throughout the world demonstrates that transmission of pathogens by drinking water remains a significant cause of illness. However, estimates of illness based solely on detected outbreaks is likely to underestimate the problem. A significant proportion of waterborne illness is likely to go undetected by the communicable disease surveillance and reporting systems. The symptoms of gastrointestinal illness (nausea, diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain) are usually mild and generally only last a few days to a week, and only a small percentage of those affected will see a doctor. -
Novel Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): a Case Control Study During the Outbreak in India
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.24.21261040; this version posted July 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Novel risk factors for Coronavirus disease-associated mucormycosis (CAM): a case control study during the outbreak in India Umang Arora1, Megha Priyadarshi1, Varidh Katiyar2, Manish Soneja1, Prerna Garg1, Ishan Gupta1,- Vishwesh Bharadiya1, Parul Berry1, Tamoghna Ghosh1, Lajjaben Patel1 , Radhika Sarda1, Shreya Garg3, Shubham Agarwal1, Veronica Arora4, Aishwarya Ramprasad1, Amit Kumar1, Rohit Kumar Garg1, Parul Kodan1, Neeraj Nischal1, Gagandeep Singh5, Pankaj Jorwal1, Arvind Kumar1, Upendra Baitha1, Ved Prakash Meena1, Animesh Ray1, Prayas Sethi1, , Immaculata Xess5, Naval Vikram1, Sanjeev Sinha1, Ashutosh Biswas1,Alok Thakar3, Sushma Bhatnagar6, Anjan Trikha7, Naveet Wig1 1Department of Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi, India 2Department of Neurosurgery, AIIMS, Delhi, India 3Department of Otolaryngology & Head-Neck Surgery, AIIMS, Delhi, India 4Department of Medical Genetics, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, India 5Department of Microbiology, AIIMS, Delhi, India 6Department of Onco-anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi, India 7Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, AIIMS, Delhi, India 1. Umang Arora, MD (Medicine), Junior Resident, Department of Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi, India. E-mail ID: [email protected] 2. Megha Priyadarshi, DM (Infectious disease), Junior Resident, Department of Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi, India. E-mail ID: [email protected] 3. Varidh Katiyar, MCh (Neurosurgery), Chief Resident, Department of Neurosurgery AIIMS, Delhi, India. E-mail ID: [email protected] 4.