4.2 Article

Fecal indicators and bacterial pathogens in bottled water from Dhaka, Bangladesh

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 97-103

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA MICROBIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/S1517-83822013005000026

关键词

bottled water; fecal indicator bacteria; quantitative PCR; bacterial pathogens; public health risk

资金

  1. Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forty-six bottled water samples representing 16 brands from Dhaka, Bangladesh were tested for the numbers of total coliforms, fecal indicator bacteria (i.e., thermotolerant Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp.) and potential bacterial pathogens (i.e., Aeromonas hydrophila, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp.). Among the 16 brands tested, 14 (86%), ten (63%) and seven (44%) were positive for total coliforms, E. coli and Enterococcus spp., respectively. Additionally, a further nine (56%), eight (50%), six (37%), and four (25%) brands were PCR positive for A. hydrophila lip, P. aeruginosa ETA, Salmonella spp. invA, and Shigella spp. ipaH genes, respectively. The numbers of bacterial pathogens in bottled water samples ranged from 28 +/- 12 to 600 +/- 45 (A. hydrophila lip gene), 180 +/- 40 to 900 +/- 200 (Salmonella spp. invA gene), 180 +/- 40 to 1,300 +/- 400 (P. aeruginosa ETA gene) genomic units per L of water. Shigella spp. ipaH gene was not quantifiable. Discrepancies were observed in terms of the occurrence of fecal indicators and bacterial pathogens. No correlations were observed between fecal indicators numbers and presence/absence of A. hydrophila lip (p = 0.245), Salmonella spp. invA (p = 0.433), Shigella spp. ipaH gene (p = 0.078), and P. aeruginosa ETA (p = 0.059) genes. Our results suggest that microbiological quality of bottled waters sold in Dhaka, Bangladesh is highly variable. To protect public health, stringent quality control is recommended for the bottled water industry in Bangladesh.

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