4.5 Article

Impact of Environmental Factors on Legionella Populations in Drinking Water

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 269-282

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens4020269

关键词

Legionella pneumophila; survival; drinking water; distribution system; temperature; biofilm

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Water and Environmental Technology Center at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
  2. National Science Foundation Bridge
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh [1361815] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine the impact of environmental factors on Legionella in drinking water distribution systems, the growth and survival of Legionella under various conditions was studied. When incubated in tap water at 4 degrees C, 25 degrees C, and 32 degrees C, L. pneumophila survival trends varied amongst the temperatures, with the stable populations maintained for months at 25 degrees C and 32 degrees C demonstrating that survival is possible at these temperatures for extended periods in oligotrophic conditions. After inoculating coupons of PVC, copper, brass, and cast iron, L. pneumophila colonized biofilms formed on each within days to a similar extent, with the exception of cast iron, which contained 1-log less Legionella after 90 days. L. pneumophila spiked in a model drinking water distribution system colonized the system within days. Chlorination of the system had a greater effect on biofilm-associated Legionella concentrations, with populations returning to pre-chlorination levels within six weeks. Biofilms sampled from drinking water meters collected from two areas within central Arizona were analyzed via PCR for the presence of Legionella. Occurrence in only one area indicates that environmental differences in water distribution systems may have an impact on the survival of Legionella. These results document the impact of different environmental conditions on the survival of Legionella in water.

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