4.8 Article

Virus Reduction during Advanced Bardenpho and Conventional Wastewater Treatment Processes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 17, 页码 9524-9532

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01384

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pima County Wastewater: Member University of Arizona Water and Environmental Technology Center
  2. Water Sustain ability Program (WSP) Graduate Fellowship
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [1361505] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigated wastewater treatment for the removal of 11 different virus types (pepper mild mottle virus; Aichi virus; genogroup I, II, and IV noroviruses; enterovirus; sapovirus; group-A rotavirus; adenovirus; and JC and BK polyomaviruses) by two wastewater treatment facilities utilizing advanced Bardenpho technology and compared the results with conventional treatment processes. To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing full-scale treatment processes that all received sewage influent from the same region. The incidence of viruses in wastewater was assessed with respect to absolute abundance, occurrence, and reduction in monthly samples collected throughout a 12 month period in southern Arizona. Samples were concentrated via an electronegative filter method and quantified using TaqMan-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Results suggest that Plant D, utilizing an advanced Bardenpho process as secondary treatment, effectively reduced pathogenic viruses better than facilities using conventional processes. However, the absence of cell-culture assays did not allow an accurate assessment of infective viruses. On the basis of these data, the Aichi virus is suggested as a conservative viral marker for adequate wastewater treatment, as it most often showed the best correlation coefficients to viral pathogens, was always detected at higher concentrations, and may overestimate the potential virus risk.

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

4.8
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