4.6 Article

Human adenoviruses and coliphages in urban runoff-impacted coastal waters of Southern California

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 179-184

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.1.179-184.2001

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A nested-PCR method was used to detect the occurrence of human adenovirus in coastal waters of Southern California. Twenty- to forty-liter water samples were collected from 12 beach locations from Malibu to the border of Mexico between February and March 1999. All sampling sites were located at mouths of major rivers and creeks. Two ultrafiltration concentration methods, tangential flow filtration (TFF) and vortex how filtration (VFF), were compared using six environmental samples. Human adenoviruses were detected in 4 of the 12 samples tested after nucleic acid extraction of VFF concentrates. The most probable number of adenoviral genomes ranged from 880 to 7,500 per liter of water. Coliphages were detected at all sites, with the concentration varying from 5.3 to 3332 PFU/liter of water. F-specific coliphages were found at 5 of the 12 sites, with the concentration ranging from 5.5 to 300 PFU/liter. The presence of human adenovirus was not significantly correlated with the concentration of coliphage (r = 0.32) but was significantly correlated (r = 0.99) with F-specific coliphage. The bacterial indicators (total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci) were found to exceed California recreational water quality daily limits at 5 of the 12 sites. However, this excess of bacterial indicators did not correlate with the presence of human adenoviruses in coastal waters. The results of this study call for both a reevaluation of our current recreational water quality standards to reflect the viral quality of recreational waters and monitoring of recreational waters for human viruses on a regular basis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available