Advertisement

Contributors to Faecal Water Contamination in Urban Environments

  • Lisa Paruch
  • Adam M. ParuchEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Water Science and Technology Library book series (WSTL, volume 86)

Abstract

Faecal contamination of water has both anthropogenic and zoogenic origins that can shade various point and nonpoint/diffuse sources of pollution. Due to the dual origin and number of sources of faecal contamination, there are immense challenges in the implementation of effective measures to protect water bodies from pollution that poses threats to human and environmental health. The main health threats refer to infections, illnesses and deaths caused by enteric pathogenic microbes, in particular those responsible for waterborne zoonoses. To detect and identify the origins and sources of faecal pollution simultaneously, various methods and indicators have been compiled into a comprehensive measuring toolbox. Molecular diagnostics using genetic markers derived from Bacteroidales 16S rRNA gene sequences are quite prevalent in the current methodological implementation for the identification of faecal contamination sources in water. For instance, a culture- and library-independent microbial source tracking toolbox combining micro- and molecular biology tests run as a three-step procedure has been implemented in Norway. Outcomes from the Norwegian studies have identified two general trends in dominance of contributors to faecal water contamination in urban environments. Firstly, there is a tendency of higher contributions from anthropogenic sources during the cold season. Secondly, the identification of the dominance of zoogenic sources in faecal water contamination during warm periods of the year.

Keywords

Bacteroidales Faecal indicator bacteria Gene markers Microbial source tracking Water pollution 

References

  1. Aftenposten (2013) Opp mot en million rotter i Oslo. https://www.aftenposten.no/osloby/i/212oy/Opp-mot-en-million-rotter-i-Oslo. Accessed 6 Aug 2017
  2. Ahmed W, Sritharan T, Palmer A, Sidhu JP, Toze S (2013) Evaluation of bovine feces-associated microbial source tracking markers and their correlations with fecal indicators and zoonotic pathogens in a Brisbane, Australia, reservoir. Appl Environ Microbiol 79(8):2682–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åström J, Pettersson TJ, Reischer GH, Norberg T, Hermansson M (2015) Incorporating expert judgments in utility evaluation of Bacteroidales qPCR assays for microbial source tracking in a drinking water source. Environ Sci Technol 49(3):1311–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bambic DG, Kildare-Hann BJ, Rajal VB, Sturm BS, Minton CB, Schriewer A, Wuertz S (2015) Spatial and hydrologic variation of Bacteroidales, adenovirus and enterovirus in a semi-arid wastewater effluent-impacted watershed. Water Res 15(75):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benskin CMcWH, Wilson K, Jones K, Hartley IR (2009) Bacterial pathogens in wild birds: a review of the frequency and effects of infection. Biol Rev 84:349–373.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00076.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Böhm ME, Huptas C, Krey VM, Scherer S (2015) Massive horizontal gene transfer, strictly vertical inheritance and ancient duplications differentially shape the evolution of Bacillus cereus enterotoxin operons hbl, cytK and nhe. BMC Evol Biol 10(15):246.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-015-0529-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolin C, Brown C, Rose J (2004) Emerging zoonotic diseases and water. In: Cotruvo J, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun GF, Fayer R, Gannonp VPJ (eds) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes, and control. WHO, London, UK, pp 21–26Google Scholar
  8. Carson CA, Shear BL, Ellersieck MR, Schnell JD (2003) Comparison of ribotyping and repetitive extragenic palindromic-PCR for identification of fecal Escherichia coli from humans and animals. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1836–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dick LK, Bernhard AE, Brodeur TJ, Santo Domingo JW, Simpson JM, Walters SP, Field KG (2005) Host distributions of uncultivated fecal Bacteroidales bacteria reveal genetic markers for fecal source identification. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(6):3184–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DN (2016) Dagens Nyheter, Råttinvasion i Stockholm—och de föredrar Östermalm. http://www.dn.se/sthlm/rattinvasion-i-stockholm-och-de-foredrar-ostermalm/. Accessed 21 Sept 2016
  11. Duran M, Yurtsever D, Dunaev T (2009) Choice of indicator organism and library size considerations for phenotypic microbial source tracking by FAME profiling. Water Sci Technol 60(10):2659–2668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edberg SC, Rice EW, Karlin RJ, Allen MJ (2000) Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection. Symp Ser Soc Appl Microbiol 29:106S–116SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farnleitner AH, Ryzinska-Paier G, Reischer GH, Burtscher MM, Knetsch S, Kirschner AKT, Dirnböck T, Kuschnig G, Mach LR, Sommer R (2010) Escherichia coli and enterococci are sensitive and reliable indicators for human, livestock and wildlife faecal pollution in alpine mountainous water resources. J Appl Microbiol 109:1599–1608Google Scholar
  14. Fettvett (2016) Rotterace i avløpsnettet. http://fettvett.no/rotterace.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2017
  15. Field KG (2004) Faecal source identification. In: Cotruvo J, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun GF, Fayer R, Gannonp VPJ (eds) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes, and control. WHO, London, UK, pp 349–366Google Scholar
  16. Field KG, Samadpour M (2007) Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm, and managing water quality. Water Res 41:3517–3538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerardi MH (2006) Wastewater bacteria. John Wiley and Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guenther S, Wuttke J, Bethe A, Vojtěch J, Schaufler K, Semmler T, Ulrich RG, Wieler LH, Ewers C (2013) Is fecal carriage of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in urban rats a risk for public health? Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57(5):2424–2425.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02321-12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagedorn C, Harwood VJ, Blanch A (2011) Microbial source tracking: methods, applications and case studies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrault L, Jarde E, Jeanneau L, Petitjean P (2014) Development of the analysis of fecal stanols in the oyster Crassostrea gigas and identification of fecal contamination in shellfish harvesting areas. Lipids 49(6):597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartel PG, Rodgers K, Moody GL, Hemmings SN, Fisher JA, McDonald JL (2008) Combining targeted sampling and fluorometry to identify human fecal contamination in a freshwater creek. J Water Health 6(1):105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harwood VJ, Staley C, Badgley BD, Borges K, Korajkic A (2014) Microbial source tracking markers for detection of fecal contamination in environmental waters: relationships between pathogens and human health outcomes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 38:1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IWFA (2017) Institute Water for Africa, Water and health. https://www.water-for-africa.org/en/health.html. Accessed 26 June 2017
  24. Kanarat S (2004) What are the criteria for determining whether a disease is zoonotic and water related? In: Cotruvo J, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun GF, Fayer R, Gannonp VPJ (eds) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes, and control. WHO, London, UK, pp 136–150Google Scholar
  25. Khatib LA, Tsai YL, Olson BH (2003) A biomarker for the identification of swine fecal pollution in water using the STII toxin gene from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 63(2):231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kobayashi A, Sano D, Okabe S (2013) Effects of temperature and predator on the persistence of host-specific Bacteroides-Prevotella genetic markers in water. Water Sci Technol 67(4):838–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamendella R, Santo Domingo JW, Yannarell AC, Ghosh S, Di Giovanni G, Mackie RI, Oerther DB (2009) Evaluation of swine-specific PCR assays used for fecal source tracking and analysis of molecular diversity of swine-specific “Bacteroidales” populations. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:5787–5796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Layton A, McKay L, Williams D, Garrett V, Gentry R, Sayler G (2006) Development of Bacteroides 16S rRNA gene TaqMan-based real-time PCR assays for estimation of total, human, and bovine fecal pollution in water. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(6):4214–4224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marotz CA, Zarrinpar A (2016) Treating obesity and metabolic syndrome with fecal microbiota transplantation. Yale J Biol Med 89(3):383–388Google Scholar
  30. McQuaig S, Griffith J, Harwood VJ (2012) Association of fecal indicator bacteria with human viruses and microbial source tracking markers at coastal beaches impacted by nonpoint source pollution. Appl Environ Microbiol 78(18):6423–6432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mieszkin S, Caprais MP, Le Mennec C, Le Goff M, Edge TA, Gourmelon M (2013) Identification of the origin of faecal contamination in estuarine oysters using Bacteroidales and F-specific RNA bacteriophage markers. J Appl Microbiol 115(3):897–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moe CL (2004) What are the criteria for determining whether a disease is zoonotic and water related? In: Cotruvo J, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun GF, Fayer R, Gannonp VPJ (eds) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes, and control. WHO, London, UK, pp 27–45Google Scholar
  33. Moyo SJ, Maselle SY, Matee MI, Langeland N, Mylvaganam H (2007) Identification of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli isolated from infants and children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. BMC Infect Dis 9(7):92.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-7-92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olivas Y, Faulkner BR (2008) Fecal source tracking by antibiotic resistance analysis on a watershed exhibiting low resistance. Environ Monit Assess 139:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paruch AM, Mæhlum T (2012) Specific features of Escherichia coli that distinguish it from coliform and thermotolerant coliform bacteria and define it as the most accurate indicator of faecal contamination in the environment. Ecol Indic 23:140–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paruch L, Paruch AM (2017) The importance of melting curve analysis in discriminating faecal and environmental Bacteroidales bacteria. Microbiol 86(4):536–538.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0026261717040117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paruch AM, Mæhlum T, Robertson L (2015a) Changes in microbial quality of irrigation water under different weather conditions in Southeast Norway. Environ Process 2:115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-014-0054-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paruch L, Paruch AM, Blankenberg A-GB, Bechmann M, Mæhlum T (2015b) Application of host-specific genetic markers for microbial source tracking of faecal water contamination in an agricultural catchment. Acta Agric Scand 65(S2):164–172Google Scholar
  39. Paruch AM, Paruch L, Mæhlum T (2017) Kildesporing av fekal vannforurensing med molekylærbiologiske metoder—Eksempler på undersøkelser i Norge (Source tracking of fecal water contamination by molecular biology methods—Examples of surveys in Norway). NIBIO Rapport 3/66, Aas, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  40. Pond K (2005) Water recreation and disease: plausibility of associated infections, acute effects, sequelae and mortality. WHO/IWA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Quigley EM (2013) Gut bacteria in health and disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 9(9):560–569Google Scholar
  42. Reischer GH, Kasper DC, Steinborn R, Farnleitner AH, Mach RL (2007) A quantitative real-time PCR assay for the highly sensitive and specific detection of human faecal influence in spring water from a large alpine catchment area. Lett Appl Microbiol 44(4):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheffe L (2007) Reducing risk of E. coli O157: H7 contamination. Nutrient Management Technical Note No 7. USDA, NRCS, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Schueler TR (2000) Microbes and urban watersheds: concentrations, sources, and pathways. In: Schueler TR, Holland HK (eds) The practice of watershed protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Md, pp 68–78Google Scholar
  45. Scott TM, Jenkins TM, Lukasik J, Rose JB (2005) Potential use of a host associated molecular marker in Enterococcus faecium as an index of human pollution. Environ Sci Technol 39(1):283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shahryari A, Nikaeen M, Khiadani Hajian M, Nabavi F, Hatamzadeh M, Hassanzadeh A (2014) Applicability of universal Bacteroidales genetic marker for microbial monitoring of drinking water sources in comparison to conventional indicators. Environ Monit Assess 186(11):7055–7062.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3910-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shanks OC, Atikovic E, Blackwood AD, Lu J, Noble RT, Santo Domingo J, Seifring S, Sivaganesan M, Huagland RA (2008) Quantitative PCR for detection and enumeration of genetic markers of bovine fecal pollution. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(3):745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith A, Sterba-Boatwright B, Mott J (2010) Novel application of a statistical technique, random forests in a bacterial source tracking study. Water Res 44(14):4067–4076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sowah RA, Habteselassie MY, Radcliffe DE, Bauske E, Risse M (2017) Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States. Water Res 108:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Staley ZR, Grabuski J, Sverko E, Edge TA (2016) Comparison of microbial and chemical source tracking markers to identify fecal contamination sources in Humber River (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and associated storm water outfalls. Appl Environ Microbiol 82(21):6357–6366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suresh K, Smith HV (2004) Tropical organisms in Asia/Africa/South America. In: Cotruvo J, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun GF, Fayer R, Gannonp VPJ (eds) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes, and control. WHO, London, UK, pp 93–112Google Scholar
  52. Tambalo DD, Fremaux B, Boa T, Yost CK (2012) Persistence of host-associated Bacteroidales gene markers and their quantitative detection in an urban and agricultural mixed prairie watershed. Water Res 46(9):2891–2904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tran NH, Gin KY, Ngo HH (2015) Fecal pollution source tracking toolbox for identification, evaluation and characterization of fecal contamination in receiving urban surface waters and groundwater. Sci Total Environ 15(538):38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. USEPA (2005) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Microbial source tracking guide document. Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/R-05/064, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Venegas C, Diez H, Blanch AR, Jofre J, Campos C (2015) Microbial source markers assessment in the Bogota River basin (Colombia). J Water Health 13(3):801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. WHO (2006) World Health Organization, Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. In: Wastewater and excreta use in aquaculture, vol 3. WHO Press, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  57. WHO (2011) World Health Organization, Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. WHO Press, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  58. WHO (2017) World Health Organization, Mortality and burden of disease from water and sanitation. http://www.who.int/gho/phe/water_sanitation/burden/en/index2.html. Accessed 26 June 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Environment and Natural ResourcesNIBIO—Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchAasNorway

Personalised recommendations