Escherichia coli and fecal-coliform bacteria as indicators of recreational water quality
24
Citation
18
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended that Escherichia coli (E. coli) be used in place of fecal-coliform bacteria in State recreational water-quality standards as an indicator of fecal contamination. This announcement followed an epidemiological study in which E. coli concentration was shown to be a better predictor of swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness than fecal-coliform concentration. Water-resource managers from Ohio have decided to collect information specific to their waters and decide whether to use E. coli or fecal-coliform bacteria as the basis for State recreational water-quality standards. If one indicator is a better predictor of recreational water quality than the other and if the relation between the two indicators is variable, then the indicator providing the most accurate measure of recreational water quality should be used in water-quality standards. Water-quality studies of the variability of concentrations of E. coli to fecal-coliform bacteria have shown that (1) concentrations of the two indicators are positively correlated, (2) E. coli to fecal-coliform ratios differ considerably from site to site, and (3) the E. coli criteria recommended by USEPA may be more difficult to meet than current (1992) fecal-coliform standards. In this study, a statistical analysis was done on concentrations of E. coli and fecal-coliform bacteria in water samples collected by two government agencies in Ohio-- the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). Data were organized initially into five data sets for statistical analysis: (1) Cuyahoga River, (2) Olentangy River, (3) Scioto River, (4) Ohio River at Anderson Ferry, and (5) Ohio River at Cincinnati Water Works and Tanners Creek. The USGS collected the data in sets 1, 2, and 3, whereas ORSANCO collected the data in sets 4 and 5. The relation of E. coli to fecal-coliform concentration was investigated by use of linear-regression analysis and analysis of covariance. Log-transformed E. coli and fecal-coliform concentrations were highly correlated in all data sets (r-values ranged from 0.929 to 0.984). Linear regression analysis on USGS and ORSANCO data sets showed that concentration of E. coli could be predicted from fecal-coliform concentration (coefficients of determination (R2) ranged from 0.863 to 0.970). Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that the predictive equations among the three USGS data sets and two ORSANCO data sets were not significantly different and that the data could be pooled into two large data sets, one for USGS data and one for ORSANCO data. However, results of ANCOVA indicated that USGS and ORSANCO data could not be pooled into one large data set. Predictions of E. coli concentrations calculated for USGS And ORSANCO regression relations, based on fecal-coliform concentrations set to equal Ohio water-quality standards, further showed the differences in E. coli to fecal-coliform relations among data sets. For USGS data, a predicted geometric mean of 176 col/100 mL (number of colonies per 100 milliliters) was greater than the current geometric-mean E. coli standard for bathing water of 126 col/100mL. In contrast, for ORSANCO data, the predicted geometric mean of 101 col/100 mL was less than the current E. coli standard. The risk of illness associated with predicted E. coli concentrations for USGS and ORSANCO data was evaluated by use of the USEPA regression equation that predicts swimming-related gastroenteritis rates from E. coli concentrations.1 The predicted geometric-mean E. coli concentrations for bathing water of 176 col/100 mL for USGS data and 101 col/100 mL for ORSANCO data would allow 9.4 and 7.1 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers, respectively. This prediction compares well with the illness rate of 8 individuals per 1,000 swimmers estimated by the USEPA for an E. coli concentration of 126 col/100 mL. Therefore, theKeywords:
Indicator bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Indicator organism
Introduction. The increasing bacterial contamination of water bodies requires an increase in water quality control’s reliability to ensure epidemic safety against waterborne infections. Therefore, researchers in both Russia and Europe came to the conclusion that it is necessary to search for indicator microorganisms that can more accurately suggest the presence of pathogens. microorganisms in water than traditional indicators. The aim of the study was to justify the introduction of indicator indices of fecal contamination “generalized coliform bacteria” and Escherichia coli to assess the safety of drinking water Material and methods. The article provides an analysis of domestic and international regulatory documents and literary materials regulating the quality of drinking water in terms of sanitary and microbiological indicators and assessment criteria. The results of many years of experimental and field research carried out by research organizations and practical organizations of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare are presented. Results. On the territory of Russia, “general coliform bacteria,” is one of the indicator indices chosen according to the fermentation of lactose, determine the safety of drinking water. The water does not take into account pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella, Shigella) and a number of lactose-negative opportunistic bacteria, causative agents of intestinal infections. The study of microorganisms isolated from the feces of patients confirms the frequency of occurrence of lactose-negative microorganisms to varying from 20 to 100% of strains. With an annual trend towards a decrease in the percentage of non-standard drinking water samples in terms of microbiological indices, general intestinal infections (GII) of unknown etiology increase, i.e. risk of GII. If the quality of drinking water does not correspond to thermotolerant coliform bacteria (TCB), 95% of samples contain E. coli. Therefore, the determination of E. coli more reliably indicates the intake of fresh fecal contamination and provides efficiency in taking measures to eliminate an unfavorable situation than TCB. Conclusion. Reasons are given for the introduction of more reliable microbiological indicators of water safety control, such as - “generalized coliform bacteria” with the preservation of the abbreviation GCB, combining both lactose-positive and lactose-negative bacteria, determined by the sign of glucose fermentation, negative oxidase test and negative stain according to Gram and E. coli as an indicator of recent faecal contamination, which will allow the assessment of water quality for a wide range of bacteria of the order Enterobacterials, corresponding to the modern taxonomy of Enterobacteriaceae NCBI, will ensure harmonization with international requirements and the safety of drinking water for the population.
Indicator bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Waterborne diseases
Indicator organism
Cite
Citations (6)
Indicator organism
Coliform bacteria
Isolation
Indicator bacteria
Pathogenic bacteria
Cite
Citations (45)
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Pathogenic bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Waterborne diseases
Cite
Citations (26)
Coliform bacteria
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Cite
Citations (0)
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Clostridium perfringens
Coliform bacteria
Cite
Citations (28)
Preface. Microbial water quality: Introduction. The evolution of sanitary science. Waterborne outbreaks. Public health significance. Sources of waterborne disease. Risk assemssment. Legislation governing microbial water quality. Conclusions. Indicator organisms and the 'coliform concept': The origins of indicator organisms. The development of coliform as indicator organisms. Coliforms as indicators of water quality. The relevance of coliforms and faecal coliforms as faecal indicators in tropical conditions. The use of faecal coliforms as opposed to total coliforms. Conclusions. Evaluation of standard methods for the enumeration of coliforms from drinking waters: The multiple tube method (most probable number method). The membrane filtration method. Conclusions. Alternative techniques for the isolation and enumeration of coliforms and E. coli from drinking water: The presence-absence technique. Defined substrate technology (enzyme detection methods). Rapid methods. Immunodiagnostic techniques. The use of gene probes and PCR to detect coliforms in water. Conclusions. Alernative indicator systems for water quality analysis: Faecal streptococci. The faecal coliform/faecal streptococci (FC/FS) ratio. Clostridia perfringens. Bacteriophage. Bifidobacteria. Rhodococcus spp. Heterotrophic plate count bacteria. Other indicator organisms. Alternative indicators for tropical environments. Chemical indicators. Conclusions. The significance of emerging pathogens on water quality assessment: Giardia lamblia. Cryptosporidium spp. Viruses. Bacteria. Conclusions. The future of the coliform index: Introduction. The Coliform Index today. Future action. Final analysis. References. Index.
Waterborne diseases
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Coliform bacteria
Clostridia
Cite
Citations (74)
Coliform bacteria
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Cite
Citations (37)
Indicator bacteria
Indicator organism
Coliform bacteria
Cite
Citations (0)
Coliforms are a group of bacteria that since the end of the 1900s’ have been used as an indicator for fecal contamination of water. With advances in microbiology in the 1900’s it became clear that the coliform group is large and varied group of bacteria and not ideal to use as indicator of waterborne pathogens. However, in lack of better indicator organisms for fecal pollution of water, it is still used. The aims of this study are to give an overview of water quality in the view of global goals, to identify coliform bacteria from water samples and to discuss the results in the light of new achievements in ongoing development of new identification methods. In this study coliforms from collected water samples have been identified and their presumed identity based on growth on chromogenic differential agar have been compared with 16S rDNA-sequencing. Out of 14 samples, 12 where confirmed to be coliforms by the 16S rDNA-sequencing. In addition to identify bacteria from water samples the different detection methods of coliforms are discussed. In relationship to the global goals, which aims to achieve universal access to safe and affordable drinking water by 2030, it is concluded that new, faster and cheaper methods are required to achieve universal basic WASH services by 2030. A suggestion on such a method is Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP).
Indicator bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Indicator organism
Cite
Citations (0)
In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommended that Escherichia coli (E. coli) be used in place of fecal-coliform bacteria in State recreational water-quality standards as an indicator of fecal contamination. This announcement followed an epidemiological study in which E. coli concentration was shown to be a better predictor of swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness than fecal-coliform concentration. Water-resource managers from Ohio have decided to collect information specific to their waters and decide whether to use E. coli or fecal-coliform bacteria as the basis for State recreational water-quality standards. If one indicator is a better predictor of recreational water quality than the other and if the relation between the two indicators is variable, then the indicator providing the most accurate measure of recreational water quality should be used in water-quality standards. Water-quality studies of the variability of concentrations of E. coli to fecal-coliform bacteria have shown that (1) concentrations of the two indicators are positively correlated, (2) E. coli to fecal-coliform ratios differ considerably from site to site, and (3) the E. coli criteria recommended by USEPA may be more difficult to meet than current (1992) fecal-coliform standards. In this study, a statistical analysis was done on concentrations of E. coli and fecal-coliform bacteria in water samples collected by two government agencies in Ohio-- the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). Data were organized initially into five data sets for statistical analysis: (1) Cuyahoga River, (2) Olentangy River, (3) Scioto River, (4) Ohio River at Anderson Ferry, and (5) Ohio River at Cincinnati Water Works and Tanners Creek. The USGS collected the data in sets 1, 2, and 3, whereas ORSANCO collected the data in sets 4 and 5. The relation of E. coli to fecal-coliform concentration was investigated by use of linear-regression analysis and analysis of covariance. Log-transformed E. coli and fecal-coliform concentrations were highly correlated in all data sets (r-values ranged from 0.929 to 0.984). Linear regression analysis on USGS and ORSANCO data sets showed that concentration of E. coli could be predicted from fecal-coliform concentration (coefficients of determination (R2) ranged from 0.863 to 0.970). Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that the predictive equations among the three USGS data sets and two ORSANCO data sets were not significantly different and that the data could be pooled into two large data sets, one for USGS data and one for ORSANCO data. However, results of ANCOVA indicated that USGS and ORSANCO data could not be pooled into one large data set. Predictions of E. coli concentrations calculated for USGS And ORSANCO regression relations, based on fecal-coliform concentrations set to equal Ohio water-quality standards, further showed the differences in E. coli to fecal-coliform relations among data sets. For USGS data, a predicted geometric mean of 176 col/100 mL (number of colonies per 100 milliliters) was greater than the current geometric-mean E. coli standard for bathing water of 126 col/100mL. In contrast, for ORSANCO data, the predicted geometric mean of 101 col/100 mL was less than the current E. coli standard. The risk of illness associated with predicted E. coli concentrations for USGS and ORSANCO data was evaluated by use of the USEPA regression equation that predicts swimming-related gastroenteritis rates from E. coli concentrations.1 The predicted geometric-mean E. coli concentrations for bathing water of 176 col/100 mL for USGS data and 101 col/100 mL for ORSANCO data would allow 9.4 and 7.1 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers, respectively. This prediction compares well with the illness rate of 8 individuals per 1,000 swimmers estimated by the USEPA for an E. coli concentration of 126 col/100 mL. Therefore, the
Indicator bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Indicator organism
Cite
Citations (24)