4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 106S-116S

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2000.tb05338.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Public health protection requires an indicator of fecal pollution. It is not necessary to analyse drinking water for all pathogens. Escherichia coli is found in all mammal faeces at concentrations of 10 log 9(-1), but it does not multiply appreciably in the environment. In the 1890s, it was chosen as the biological indicator of water treatment safety. Because of method deficiencies, E. coli surrogates such as the 'fecal coliform' and total coliforms tests were developed and became part of drinking water regulations. With the advent of the Defined Substrate Technology in the late 1980s, it became possible to analyse drinking water directly for E. coli (and, simultaneously, total coliforms) inexpensively and simply. Accordingly, E. coli was re-inserted in the drinking water regulations. E. roll survives in drinking water for between 4 and 12 weeks, depending on environmental conditions (temperature, microflora, etc.). Bacteria and viruses are approximately equally oxidant-sensitive, but parasites are less so. Under the conditions in distribution systems, E. coli will be much more long-lived. Therefore, under most circumstances it is possible to design a monitoring program that permits public health protection at a modest cost. Drinking water regulations currently require infrequent monitoring which may nor adequately detect intermittent contamination events; however, it is cost-effective to markedly increase testing with E. coli to better protect the public's health. Comparison with other practical candidate fecal indicators shows that E. coli is far superior overall.

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