4.5 Article

Concentration of facultative pathogenic bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes during sewage treatment and in receiving rivers

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 74, 期 8, 页码 1753-1763

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2016.304

关键词

advanced sewage treatment technologies; antibiotic resistance genes; aquatic environment; fecal indicators; staphylococci; survival and growth

资金

  1. Federal Ministry for Education and Research BMBF [02WRS1281M]
  2. Ministry of Environment Baden-Wurttemberg
  3. Jedele Partner GmbH
  4. Okonsult GbR
  5. City of Ravensburg
  6. AZV Mariatal
  7. AV Unteres Schussental

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whereas the hygienic condition of drinking and bathing water by law must be monitored by culture-based methods, for quantification of microbes and antibiotic resistance in soil or the aquatic environment, often molecular genetic assays are used. For comparison of both methods, knowledge of their correlation is necessary. Therefore the population of total bacteria, Escherichia coli, enterococci and staphylococci during sewage treatment and in receiving river water was compared by agar plating and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays. In parallel, all samples were investigated for clinically relevant antibiotic resistance genes. Whereas plating and qPCR data for total bacteria correlated well in sewage after primary treatment, qPCR data of river water indicated higher cell numbers for E. coli. It is unknown if these cells are 'only' not growing under standard conditions or if they are dead. Corresponding to the amount of non-culturable cells, the 'breakpoints' for monitoring water quality should be adapted. The abundances of clinically relevant antibiotic resistance genes in river water were in the same order of magnitude or even higher than in treated sewage. For estimation of the health risk it is important to investigate which species carry respective genes and whether these genes are disseminated via gene transfer.

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

4.5
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