4.1 Article

Characterization of the bacterial community in shower water before and after chlorination

Journal

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 233-243

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2017.189

Keywords

bacterial population; characterization; chlorine resistance; grey water

Funding

  1. EFRO - Europees Fonds voor Regionale Ontwikkeling
  2. GO - Gelderland & Overijssel, Gebundelde Innovatiekracht

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bathers release bacteria in swimming pool water, but little is known about the fate of these bacteria and potential risks they might cause. Therefore, shower water was characterized and subjected to chlorination to identify the more chlorine-resistant bacteria that might survive in a chlorinated swimming pool and therefore could form a potential health risk. The total community before and after chlorination (1 mg Cl-2 L-1 for 30 s) was characterized. More than 99% of the bacteria in the shower water were Gram-negative. The dominant bacterial families with a relative abundance of >= 10% of the total (non-chlorinated and chlorinated) communities were Flavobacteriaceae (24-21%), Xanthomonadaceae (23-24%), Moraxellaceae (12-11%) and Pseudomonadaceae (10-22%). The relative abundance of Pseudomonadaceae increased after chlorination and increased even more with longer contact times at 1 mg Cl-2 L-1. Therefore, Pseudomonadaceae were suggested to be relatively more chlorine resistant than the other identified bacteria. To determine which bacteria could survive chlorination causing a potential health risk, the relative abundance of the intact cell community was characterized before and after chlorination. The dominant bacterial families in the intact community (non-chlorinated and chlorinated) were Xanthomonadaceae (21-17%) and Moraxellaceae (48-57%). Moraxellaceae were therefore more chlorine resistant than the other identified intact bacteria present.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available