4.3 Article

Reduction of Pathogenic and Indicator Viruses at a Drinking Water Treatment Plant in Southern Louisiana, USA

期刊

FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIROLOGY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 269-273

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12560-020-09436-y

关键词

Aichi virus 1; crAssphage; Drinking water treatment plant; Indicator virus; Pepper mild mottle virus; Tobacco mosaic virus

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JP17H03332]
  2. Board of Regents [LEQSF (2018-21)-rd-a-21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monthly sampling was conducted at a drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) in Southern Louisiana, USA from March 2017 to February 2018 to determine the prevalence and reduction efficiency of pathogenic and indicator viruses. Water samples were collected from the DWTP at three different treatment stages (raw, secondary-treated, and chlorinated drinking water) and subjected to quantification of seven pathogenic viruses and three indicator viruses [pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV), tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), and crAssphage] based on quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Among the seven pathogenic viruses tested, only Aichi virus 1 (AiV-1) (7/12, 58%) and noroviruses of genogroup II (NoVs-GII) (2/12, 17%) were detected in the raw water samples. CrAssphage had the highest positive ratio at 78% (28/36), and its concentrations were significantly higher than those of the other indicator viruses for all three water types (P < 0.05). The reduction ratios of AiV-1 (0.7 +/- 0.5 log(10);n = 7) during the whole treatment process were the lowest among the tested viruses, followed by crAssphage (1.1 +/- 1.9 log(10);n = 9), TMV (1.3 +/- 0.9 log(10);n = 8), PMMoV (1.7 +/- 0.8 log(10);n = 12), and NoVs-GII (3.1 +/- 0.1 log(10);n = 2). Considering the high abundance and relatively low reduction, crAssphage was judged to be an appropriate process indicator during drinking water treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the reduction of crAssphage and TMV during drinking water treatment.

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

4.3
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