4.6 Article

Impact of UV and Peracetic Acid Disinfection on the Prevalence of Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Uropathogenic Escherichia coli in Wastewater Effluents

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 12, 页码 3656-3666

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00418-14

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [STPGP 35117-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wastewater discharges may increase the populations of pathogens, including Escherichia coli, and of antimicrobial-resistant strains in receiving waters. This study investigated the impact of UV and peracetic acid (PAA) disinfection on the prevalence of virulence and antimicrobial resistance genes in uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC), the most abundant E. coli pathotype in municipal wastewaters. Laboratory disinfection experiments were conducted on wastewater treated by physicochemical, activated sludge, or biofiltration processes; 1,766 E. coli isolates were obtained for the evaluation. The target disinfection level was 200 CFU/100 ml, resulting in UV and PAA doses of 7 to 30 mJ/cm(2) and 0.9 to 2.0 mg/liter, respectively. The proportions of UPECs were reduced in all samples after disinfection, with an average reduction by UV of 55% (range, 22% to 80%) and by PAA of 52% (range, 11% to 100%). Analysis of urovirulence genes revealed that the decline in the UPEC populations was not associated with any particular virulence factor. A positive association was found between the occurrence of urovirulence and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). However, the changes in the prevalence of ARGs in potential UPECs were different following disinfection, i.e., UV appears to have had no effect, while PAA significantly reduced the ARG levels. Thus, this study showed that both UV and PAA disinfections reduced the proportion of UPECs and that PAA disinfection also reduced the proportion of antimicrobial resistance gene-carrying UPEC pathotypes in municipal wastewaters.

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

4.6
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