4.8 Article

Human health risks for Legionella and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) from potable and non-potable uses of roof-harvested rainwater

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 288-303

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.004

关键词

Roof-harvested rainwater; Opportunistic pathogens; Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA); Legionella pneumophila; Mycobacterium avium complex

资金

  1. Fulbright-CSIRO Postgraduate scholarship - Australian-American Fulbright Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) of opportunistic pathogens Legionella pneumophila (LP) and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) was undertaken for various uses of roof-harvested rainwater (RHRW) reported in Queensland, Australia to identify appropriate usages and guide risk management practices. Risks from inhalation of aerosols due to showering, swimming in pools topped up with RHRW, use of a garden hose, car washing, and toilet flushing with RHRW were considered for LP while both ingestion (drinking, produce consumption, and accidental ingestion from various activities) and inhalation risks were considered f6r MAC. The drinking water route of exposure presented the greatest risks due to cervical lymphadenitis and disseminated infection health endpoints for children and immune compromised populations, respectively. It is therefore not recommended that these populations consume untreated rainwater. LP risks were up to 6 orders of magnitude higher than MAC risks for the inhalation route of exposure for all scenarios. Both inhalation and ingestion QMRA simulations support that While drinking, showering, and garden hosing with RHRW may present the highest risks, car washing and clothes washing could constitute appropriate uses of RHRW for all populations, and toilet flushing and consumption of lettuce irrigation with RHRW would be appropriate for non- immune compromised populations. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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