4.6 Article

High sensitivity of children to swim ming-associated gastrointestinal illness - Results using a rapid assay of recreational water quality

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 375-383

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318169cc87

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Culture-based methods of monitoring fecal pollution in recreational waters require 24 to 48 hours to obtain results. This delay leads to potentially inaccurate management decisions regarding beach safety. We evaluated the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) as a faster method to assess recreational water quality and predict swimming-associated illnesses. Methods: We enrolled visitors at 4 freshwater Great Lakes beaches, and contacted them 10 to 12 days later to ask about health symptoms experienced since the visit. Water at the beaches was polluted by point sources that carried treated sewage. We tested water samples daily for Enterococcus using QPCR and membrane filtration (EPA Method 1600). Results: We completed 21,015 interviews and tested 1359 water samples. Enterococcus QPCR cell equivalents (CEs) were positively associated with swimming-associated gastrointestinal (GI) illness (adjusted odds ratio per I log,, QPCR CE = 1.26; 95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.51). The association between GI illness and QPCR CE was stronger among children aged 10 years and below (1.69; 1.24-2.30). Nonenteric illnesses were not consistently associated with Enterococcus QPCR CE exposure, although rash and earache occurred more frequently among swimmers. Enterococcus QPCR CE exposure was more strongly associated with GI illness than Enterococcus measured by membrane filtration. Conclusions: Measurement of the indicator bacteria Enterococci in recreational water using a rapid QPCR method predicted swimming-associated GI illness at freshwater beaches polluted by sewage discharge. Children at 10 years or younger were at greater risk for GI illness following exposure.

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