4.1 Article

Quantification of human norovirus GII, human adenovirus, and fecal indicator organisms in wastewater used for irrigation in Accra, Ghana

期刊

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 473-488

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2013.025

关键词

enteric viruses; human-specific Bacteroidales; QMRA; wastewater irrigation; WHO Guidelines

资金

  1. Center for Emerging and Neglected Diseases at the University of California, Berkeley
  2. Chang-Lin Tien Graduate Fellowship in the Environmental Sciences
  3. IWMI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is frequently used to estimate health risks associated with wastewater irrigation and requires pathogen concentration estimates as inputs. However, human pathogens, such as viruses, are rarely quantified in water samples, and simple relationships between fecal indicator bacteria and pathogen concentrations are used instead. To provide data that can be used to refine QMRA models of wastewater-fed agriculture in Accra, stream, drain, and waste stabilization pond waters used for irrigation were sampled and analyzed for concentrations of fecal indicator microorganisms (human-specific Bacteroidales, Escherichia coli, enterococci, thermotolerant coliform, and somatic and F+ coliphages) and two human viruses (adenovirus and norovirus genogroup II). E. coli concentrations in all samples exceeded limits suggested by the World Health Organization, and human-specific Bacteroidales was found in all but one sample, suggesting human fecal contamination. Human viruses were detected in 16 out of 20 samples, were quantified in 12, and contained 2-3 orders of magnitude more norovirus than predicted by norovirus to E. coli concentration ratios assumed in recent publications employing indicator-based QMRA. As wastewater irrigation can be beneficial for farmers and municipalities, these results should not discourage water reuse in agriculture, but provide motivation and targets for wastewater treatment before use on farms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据