4.7 Review

Microbiological safety of natural mineral water

Journal

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY REVIEWS
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 207-222

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2002.tb00611.x

Keywords

natural mineral water; risk assessment; indicator of fecal contamination; starvation-survival; waterborne disease; viable but non-culturable bacterium

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Natural mineral water originates from groundwater, an oligotrophic ecosystem where the level of organic matter is low and of a very limited bioavailability. The bacterial populations that evolve in these ecosystems are heterotrophic and in starvation-survival state resulting from an insufficient amount of nutrients; for this reason they enter a viable but non-culturable state. After bottling, the number of viable counts increases, rapidly, attaining 10(4)-10(5) colony-forming units ml(-1) within 3-7 days. These bacterial communities, identified by culture or with specific probes, are primarily aerobic, saprophytic, Gram-negative rods. Groundwater sources for natural mineral waters are selected such that they are not vulnerable to fecal contamination. Ecological data, especially the diversity and physiological properties of bacterial communities, are essential together with epidemiological studies in order to perform a risk analysis for natural mineral waters. On a continuing basis, the management of microbial risks has to rely on assessment of the heterotrophic plate count and, more specially, on detection of marker organisms, i.e. the classic fecal contamination indicators that have to be absent, and vulnerability indicators for which the occurrence should be as low as possible. It is also recommended to search regularly, but not routinely, for viral and protozoan pathogens. (C) 2002 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available