4.3 Article

Virological Characterization of Roof-Harvested Rainwater of Densely Urbanized Low-Income Region

Journal

FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 412-420

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12560-021-09484-y

Keywords

Roof-harvested rainwater; Viruses; Urban water; Sanitation

Funding

  1. CNPq (National Council of Technological and Scientific Development)
  2. SVS-Ministry of Health [015/2015]
  3. PAEF 2-Instituto Oswaldo Cruz

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found a high risk of enteric viruses in roof-harvested rainwater, with the first flush diversion devices not effectively removing these viruses, indicating the need for additional treatment to reduce potential health risks.
Roof-harvested rainwater (RHRW) is considered relatively clean water, even though the possible presence of pathogens in the water may pose human health risks. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of enteric viruses in the first flush (10 mm) of RHRW from a densely populated and low-income urbanized region of Rio de Janeiro. One hundred samples (5 L) were collected from 10 rainfall events between April 2015 and March 2017. RNA and DNA viruses were concentrated using the skimmed milk flocculation method and analyzed using the TaqMan (R) quantitative RT-qPCR and qPCR. Human adenoviruses, noroviruses, rotaviruses A, and avian parvoviruses were detected in 54%, 31%, 12%, and 12% of the positive samples. JC polyomavirus, also targeted, was not detected. Virus concentrations ranged from 1.09 x 10(1) to 2.58 x 10(3) genome copies/Liter (GC/L). Partial nucleotide sequence confirmed the presence of HAdV type 41, norovirus genotype GII.4, and avian parvovirus 1. The results suggest that the first flush diversion devices may not adequately remove enteric virus from the rainwater. Additional treatment of RHRW is required to mitigate potential health risks from potable use of captured water.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available