DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Water for Protozoan Parasites Is Expensive – Why Not Use Indicator Organisms?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Water for Protozoan Parasites Is Expensive – Why Not Use Indicator Organisms? INNLEGG FRA MØTER I FORENINGEN Analysis of water for protozoan parasites is expensive – why not use indicator organisms? Av Lucy J. Robertson Lucy J. Robertson er professor i parasittologi ved Institutt for mattrygghet og infeksjonsbiologi, Norges miljø- og biovitenskapelige universitet. Innlegg på fagtreff i Norsk vannforening 4. ridium. Such analyses are not necessarily to november 2013. determine whether a contamination event has already happened, for by the time the analysis is Why analyse water samples for completed the water might well be already dis­ protozoan parasites? tributed to consumers, but also for a range of The protozoan parasites, Cryptosporidium spp. other reasons, including to be used for input to and Giardia duodenalis, have been associated risk assessment, to determine contamination with hundreds of waterborne outbreaks of sources in catchments, to assess whether suffi­ disease, some of which have involved hundreds cient barriers are in place to ensure safe supply or even thousands of individuals (see: Karanis et to consumers, and to follow up if an outbreak al, 2007; Baldersson and Karanis, 2011). In addi­ has occurred and to ensure that implemented tion to the direct medical issues, such outbreaks measures or barriers are working effectively. are also a substantial economic drain in terms of lost productivity, tracking down and addressing Standard Methods: the cause of the outbreak, and also in terms of why are they so expensive? possible treatment and hospitalization costs. Standard methods for analyzing water for proto­ Although countries with high endemic pre­ zoan parasites were first produced in around valence of these parasites and with poor infra­ 1980 in USA and have since been developed and structure regarding water supply and sewerage improved; the most commonly used Standard are perhaps more likely to experience outbreaks Methods today are US EPA Method 1623.1 (most of waterborne protozoan disease, it seems that updated version published in 2012 and developed no country can consider itself invulnerable, and from earlier versions) and ISO Method 15553 communitywide outbreaks of waterborne giar­ that was published in 2006. These Standard diasis and cryptosporidiosis have been reported Methods basically consist of 3 stages: concentra­ from Scandinavia in recent years (Robertson et tion (often by filtration), isolation (by immuno­ al, 2006; Robertson & Huang, 2012). Our aware­ magnetic separation – IMS), and detection (by ness of these outbreaks, as well as the fact that microscopy using specific fluorescent labels to the parasites are difficult to kill or remove from assist in identification). Each of these stages is water supplies, has led to the need for analyzing expensive – some of the filters recommended for water samples for both Giardia and Cryptospo- the first stage in the analysis cost approximately VANN I 01 2014 77 INNLEGG FRA MØTER I FORENINGEN 600 kr each (around 70 €); there is currently only ridium can infection humans, and at least one of a single company that supplies an IMS kit that is these, C. cuniculus commonly found in rabbits, suitable for isolating both Cryptosporidium has been associated with a waterborne outbreak oocysts and Giardia cysts, and the costs are usu­ (Chalmers et al, 2009), other species are of limi­ ally over 400 kr (around 50 €) per test, but may ted or negligible public health significance. be higher for more turbid water samples; and Similarly, with Giardia duodenalis, the species is although the fluorescent labels for detection are sub divided into different genotypes or Assembl­ not expensive, a fluorescence microscope for exa­ ages that are genetically distinct from each other mining the sample concentrates is, and such and also have different host­specificity. Thus, analyses are best performed by a properly trained only G. duodenalis isolates in Assemblage A or and well­experienced operator. Together, all B are infective to humans, but other genotypes these factors mean that the analysis of a single are commonly found in other animals; for water sample is likely to cost, at the very least, example cattle and sheep are often infected with around 4000 kr (480 €), and very probably more. G. duodenalis of genotype E that is not of public In addition, it is that the laboratory that under­ health significance. Therefore, identification of takes such analyses is established and respected species or genotype of parasites found in water in this field, with appropriate QC data, successful is also of relevance from a water safety perspec­ and regular participation in ring­testing, and, tive, but is an additional procedure and adds preferably, accreditation for the particular analy­ further to the cost of the analysis. tical method to be used. All these documentation and competence demonstration steps are expen­ The use of indicator organisms sive, and this cost will be passed onto the custo­ with respect to contamination mer providing the water sample. with Cryptosporidium and Giardia In addition, if parasites are detected, then the With analysis of water samples directly for Crypto- water supplier and consumer are likely to be sporidium and Giardia being so expensive, it is interested in whether the species or genotype is not surprising that the water industry has long infectious to humans, and thus of public health been searching for a more cheaply and readily significance. There are about 25 named species detected indicator organism that may provide of Cryptosporidium, of which two, C. parvum information on when contamination with proto­ and C. hominis, are most associated with human zoan parasites is likely to have occurred. The US infection, and one of which, C. parvum is of zoo­ EPA lists seven criteria to be fulfilled for notic importance, being a cause of diarrhoeal organisms that may be useful to use as indicator disease in various animals, particularly calves organisms for Cryptosporidium and Giardia, see and lambs. Although other species of Cryptospo- table 1. Criteria for indicator organisms for Cryptosporidium and Giardia 1. The organism should be present whenever Cryptosporidium/Giardia are present. 2. The organism should be useful for all types of water. 3. The organism should have a longer survival time than Cryptosporidium/Giardia. 4. The organism should not grow in water. 5. The organism should be found in warm-blooded animals’ intestines. 6. The testing method should be easy to perform. 7. The density of the indicator organism should have some direct relationship to the degree of pollution. Table 1. Criteria for indicator organisms for Cryptosporidium and Giardia. 78 VANN I 01 2014 INNLEGG FRA MØTER I FORENINGEN Finding an organism that fulfils all of these fulfil the first criterion in table 1, and therefore criteria is not easy. For example, Cryptospori- is not necessarily appropriate as indicator of dium oocysts are notoriously robust, surviving contamination or potential contamination with weeks or months in damp, cool conditions and Cryptosporidium and/or Giardia. also surviving exposure to various disinfectants In the paragraphs above, specific publications to which other microorganisms are susceptible. have been used to demonstrate reasons why Thus, many of the most common faecal indica­ there are currently no appropriate indicator tor organisms do not fulfill criterion number 3. organisms for Cryptosporidium and/or Giardia. For example, a study was conducted in Spain in However, consideration of more studies may which four water reclamation facilities were provide more convincing data. In a publication monitored over 2 years to determine the occur­ by Wu et al (2011), data were collected on the rence and concentrations of a set of microbial relationships between indicator organisms and indicators (total coliforms, Escherichia coli, ente­ pathogens (including Cryptosporidium and rococci, spores of sulphite reducing Clostridia, Giardia) published in scientific journals between somatic coliphages, and some phages), along 1970 and 2009 (over a 40 year period). These data with those of two pathogens, one of which was were then sorted, with only data retained where Cryptosporidium (Costan­Longares et al, 2008). the methods of statistical analysis, correlation The results obtained demonstrated that several coefficients and p­values were reported and regression models and discriminant functions where correlation analyses were not grouped that were able to predict both the presence and across water types. In addition, due to the low concentrations of enteroviruses. However, neither detection of pathogens in groundwaters and index functions nor a predictive relationship treated drinking waters, these data were exclu­ were observed between any of microbial indica­ ded from the study. This resulted in 92 data tors and viable Cryptosporidium oocysts (Cos­ points for Cryptosporidium and 59 for Giardia; tan­Longares et al, 2008). logistic regression analysis demonstrated that of Another potential indicator organism, which the 92 Cryptosporidium cases, 69 (75%) found no is also more robust than those used in the study correlation with indicators and only 23 (25%) of Costan­Longares et al, (2008) is Clostridium found a correlation, while for Giardia 40 cases perfringens, as the spores of this species of bac­ (68 %) were uncorrelated and 19 (32%) were cor­ teria are very robust and can withstand various related. Although C. perfringens, faecal coli­ environmental p ressures, including high tem­ forms and total coliforms were suggested as peratures.
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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking Water
    Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking Water IMPROVING APPROACHES AND METHODS Published on behalf of the World Health Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development by This book is one of a series of texts developed to support the development of microbial aspects in the third edition of WHO's Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality and to provide guidance to policy-makers, regulators and practitioners in aspects of planning and implementation. The other volumes include: • Protecting groundwater for health: managing the quality of drinking-water sources • Protecting surface water for health: managing the quality of drinking-water sources • Water quality and drinking-water treatment: the impact of treatment processes on microbial water quality and occurrence of pathogens and indicators in surface waters • Microbial water quality in piped distribution systems: a review of knowledge and practice • Managing water in the home: accelerating health gains from improved water quality • Water safety plans: managing public water supplies for safety Other texts of direct relevance include: From WHO • Water Quality: Guidelines, standards and health • Legionella and the prevention of legionellosis • A separate series of texts deals with emerging issues in water and infectious disease • Pathogenic mycobacteria in water • Hazard characterization for pathogens in food and water (WHO and FAO) • Quantifying public health risks in the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: a burden of disease approach From OECD • OECD Proceedings. Biotechnology for water use and conservation: The Mexico '96 Workshop (1997) • The price of water: trends in OECD countries (1999) • Molecular technologies for safe drinking water (1998) (available at http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M000014000/M00014623.pdf) • Drinking water and infectious disease: establishing the links (co-published by IWA, 2002) FOREWORD Inadequate drinking water supply and quality and poor sanitation are among the world’s major causes of preventable morbidity and mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Microbial Aspects
    7 Microbial aspects he greatest risk from microbes in water is associated with consumption of Tdrinking-water that is contaminated with human and animal excreta, although other sources and routes of exposure may also be significant. This chapter focuses on organisms for which there is evidence, from outbreak studies or from prospective studies in non-outbreak situations, of disease being caused by ingestion of drinking-water, inhalation of droplets or contact with drinking-water; and their control. 7.1 Microbial hazards associated with drinking-water Infectious diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites (e.g., proto- zoa and helminths) are the most common and widespread health risk associated with drinking-water. The public health burden is determined by the severity of the illness(es) associated with pathogens, their infectivity and the population exposed. Breakdown in water supply safety may lead to large-scale contamination and potentially to detectable disease outbreaks. Other breakdowns and low-level, poten- tially repeated contamination may lead to significant sporadic disease, but is unlikely to be associated with the drinking-water source by public health surveillance. Quantified risk assessment can assist in understanding and managing risks, espe- cially those associated with sporadic disease. 7.1.1 Waterborne infections The pathogens that may be transmitted through contaminated drinking-water are diverse. Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 provide general information on pathogens that are of relevance for drinking-water supply management. The spectrum changes in response to variables such as increases in human and animal populations, escalating use of wastewater, changes in lifestyles and medical interventions, population move- ment and travel and selective pressures for new pathogens and mutants or recombi- nations of existing pathogens.
    [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]
  • Assessment of the Extra-Enteric Behavior of Fecal Indicator Organisms in Ambient Waters
    Office of Water (4305T) December 2010 Assessment of the Extra-Enteric Behavior of Fecal Indicator Organisms in Ambient Waters Disclaimer Mention of commercial products, trade names, or services in this document or in the references and/or endnotes cited in this document does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. December 2010 i Acknowledgments Questions concerning this document should be addressed to the EPA Work Assignment Manager: John Ravenscroft USEPA Headquarters Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code: 4304T Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202-566-1101 Email: [email protected] Preparation of this document was conducted under EPA Contract EP-C-07-036 to Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc., a Tetra Tech Company. The following individuals contributed to the development of the report: Co-lead writer: Jeffrey Rosen Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Co-lead writer: Mark Gibson Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Co-lead writer: Timothy Bartrand Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alexis Castrovinci ICF International Jennifer Clancy Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Mary Clark ICF International Elizabeth Dederick ICF International Karen Fox Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Dean Gouveia ICF International Kelly Hammerle ICF International Jose Sobrinho Clancy Environmental Consultants, Inc. Laura Tuhela-Reuning ICF International Jennifer Welham ICF International December 2010 ii Contents DISCLAIMER
    [Show full text]
  • Sanitary Parasitology
    :+2(0&(+( ,QWHJUDWHG*XLGH7R 6DQLWDU\3DUDVLWRORJ\ :RUOG+HDOWK2UJDQL]DWLRQ 5HJLRQDO2I¿FHIRUWKH(DVWHUQ0HGLWHUUDQHDQ 5HJLRQDO&HQWUHIRU(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK$FWLYLWLHV $PPDQ±-RUGDQ WHO-EM/CEH/121/E INTEGRATED GUIDE TO SANITARY PARASITOLOGY World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Centre for Environmental Health Activities Amman – Jordan 2004 WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication Data WHO Regional Centre for Environmental Health Activities Integrated Guide to Sanitary Parasitology / WHO Regional Centre for Environmental Health Activities. p. 119 1. Sanitary parasitology – guidelines 2. Environmental health 3. Parasitic helminth 4. Water microbiology I. Title (ISBN 92-9021-386-8) [NLM Classification WA 671] © World Health Organization 2004 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from Distribution and Sales, World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, PO Box 7608, Nasr City, Cairo 11371, Egypt (tel: +202 670 2535, fax: +202 670 2492; email: [email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge EPA/625/R-92/013 Revised July2003
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Regulations and Technology Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge EPA/625/R-92/013 Revised July 2003 Environmental Regulations and Technology Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge (Including Domestic Septage) Under 40 CFR Part 503 This guidance was prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Center for Environmental Research Information Cincinnati, OH 45268 Recycled/Recyclable P rinted with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains a minimum of 50% pos t-consumerfiber content processe d chlorinefree. Notice This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. The process alternatives, trade names, or commercial products are only ex­ amples and are not endorsed or recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Other alternatives may exist or may be developed. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Microbial Water Quality
    INTRODUCTION TO INTRODUCTION MICROBIAL WATER QUALITY • General lab rules • Microbiology and Water Quality STEFAN WALSTON AND KELLEY RILEY • Measurements UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA • Pathogens vs. indicator microbes DEPT. OF SOIL, WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE • Sample collection • Analysis STEFAN WALSTON AND KELLEY RILEY UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA DEPT. OF SOIL, WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE LAB RULES LAB RULES CONTINUED • ABSOLUTELY NO eating, drinking, smoking, handling • Mouth pipetting prohibited. contact lenses or applying cosmetics • Wash your hands after removing gloves and before • Gloves must be worn at all times when working with leaving the lab. samples. • Work surfaces are decontaminated with 70% ethanol • Lab coats are worn while in the lab. before and after experiment. • Closed-toed shoes must be worn while in the lab, no • Sample containers, pipets, beakers, etc… are sandals allowed! decontaminated by autoclaving. • Eyewash station, shower and fire extinguisher outside • Report spills and accidents immediately to the lab Room 148. manager. WHAT IS MICROBIOLOGY? WATER QUALITY • the study of microscopic organisms, which are • Water quality is a term used to describe the chemical, defined as any living organism that is either a single biological, and physical characteristics of water. cell (unicellular), a cell cluster, or has no cells at all (acellular) • Water quality is not simply "good" or "bad", but usually is applied to its allotted use. For example, water quality may refer to water for agriculture, reclamation, and • Microbiology is a broad term which includes irrigation. virology, mycology, parasitology, bacteriology, immunology and other branches. • Chemical tests have been developed to determine water quality. • A microbiologist is a specialist in microbiology and • There are many factors that can affect water quality these related topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Hazards
    CHAPTER 3 MMicrobialicrobial hhazardsazards variety of microorganisms can be found in swimming pools and similar recre- A ational water environments, which may be introduced in a number of ways. In many cases, the risk of illness or infection has been linked to faecal contamina- tion of the water. The faecal contamination may be due to faeces released by bathers or a contaminated source water or, in outdoor pools, may be the result of direct animal contamination (e.g. from birds and rodents). Faecal matter is introduced into the water when a person has an accidental faecal release – AFR (through the release of formed stool or diarrhoea into the water) or residual faecal material on swimmers’ bodies is washed into the pool (CDC, 2001a). Many of the outbreaks related to swimming pools would have been prevented or reduced if the pool had been well managed. Non-faecal human shedding (e.g. from vomit, mucus, saliva or skin) in the swim- ming pool or similar recreational water environments is a potential source of patho- genic organisms. Infected users can directly contaminate pool or hot tub waters and the surfaces of objects or materials at a facility with pathogens (notably viruses or fungi), which may lead to skin infections in other patrons who come in contact with the contaminated water or surfaces. ‘Opportunistic pathogens’ (notably bacteria) can also be shed from users and transmitted via surfaces and contaminated water. Some bacteria, most notably non-faecally-derived bacteria (see Section 3.4), may accumulate in biofi lms and present an infection hazard. In addition, certain free- living aquatic bacteria and amoebae can grow in pool, natural spa or hot tub waters, in pool or hot tub components or facilities (including heating, ventilation and air- conditioning [HVAC] systems) or on other wet surfaces within the facility to a point at which some of them may cause a variety of respiratory, dermal or central nervous system infections or diseases.
    [Show full text]