4.2 Article

Microbiological quality of drinking water of urban and rural communities, Brazil

期刊

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 232-236

出版社

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102003000200011

关键词

water analysis; water pollution; water quality control; water microbiological characteristics enterobacteriaceae; rural zones; urban zones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the microbiological quality of treated and untreated water samples came from urban and rural communities and to examine the relationship between coliforms occurrence and average water temperature, and a comparison of the rainfall levels. Methods A sample of 3,073 untreated and treated (chlorinated) water from taps (1,594), reservoir used to store treated water (1,033), spring water (96) and private well (350) collected for routine testing between 1996 and 1999 was analyzed by the multiple dilution tube methods used to detect the most probable number of total and fecal coliforms. These samples were obtained in the region of Maringa, state of Parana, Brazil. Results The highest numbers water samples contaminated by TC (83%) and FC (48%) were found in the untreated water. TC and FC in samples taken from reservoirs used to store treated water was higher than that from taps midway along distribution lines. Among the treated water samples examined, coliform bacteria were found in 171 of the 1,033 sampling reservoirs. Conclusions Insufficient treatment or regrowth is suggested by the observation that more than 17% of these treated potable water contained coliform. TC and FC positive samples appear to be similar and seasonally influenced in treated water. Two different periods must be considered for the occurrence of both TC and FC positive samples: (i) a warm-weather period (September-March) with high percentage of contaminated samples; and (ii) cold-weather period (April-August) were they are lower. Both TC and TF positive samples declined with the decreased of water temperature.

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

4.2
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