AIM: To investigate the potential health hazard from infectious viruses where coliphages, or viruses by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), have been detected in groundwater. Two aspects were investigated: the relationship between infectivity and detection by PCR and the stability of coliphage compared to human viruses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Virus decay (1 year) and detection (2 years) studies were undertaken on groundwater at 12 degrees C. The order of virus stability from most to least stable in groundwater, based on first-order inactivation, was: coliphage PhiX174 (0.5 d(-1)) > adenovirus 2 > coliphage PRD1 > poliovirus 3 > coxsackie virus B1 (0.13 d(-1)). The order for PCR results was: norovirus genotype II > adenovirus > norovirus genotype I > enterovirus. CONCLUSIONS: Enterovirus and adenovirus detection by PCR and the duration of infectivity in groundwater followed similar trends over the time period studied. Adenovirus might be a better method for assessing groundwater contamination than using enterovirus; norovirus detection would provide information on a significant human health hazard. Bacteriophage is a good alternative indicator. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: PCR is a useful tool for identifying the health hazard from faecal contamination in groundwater where conditions are conducive to the survival of viruses and their nucleic acid.
AIM: To investigate the potential health hazard from infectious viruses where coliphages, or viruses by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), have been detected in groundwater. Two aspects were investigated: the relationship between infectivity and detection by PCR and the stability of coliphage compared to human viruses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Virus decay (1 year) and detection (2 years) studies were undertaken on groundwater at 12 degrees C. The order of virus stability from most to least stable in groundwater, based on first-order inactivation, was: coliphage PhiX174 (0.5 d(-1)) > adenovirus 2 > coliphage PRD1 > poliovirus 3 > coxsackie virus B1 (0.13 d(-1)). The order for PCR results was: norovirus genotype II > adenovirus > norovirus genotype I > enterovirus. CONCLUSIONS: Enterovirus and adenovirus detection by PCR and the duration of infectivity in groundwater followed similar trends over the time period studied. Adenovirus might be a better method for assessing groundwater contamination than using enterovirus; norovirus detection would provide information on a significant human health hazard. Bacteriophage is a good alternative indicator. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: PCR is a useful tool for identifying the health hazard from faecal contamination in groundwater where conditions are conducive to the survival of viruses and their nucleic acid.
Authors: J E Matthews; B W Dickey; R D Miller; J R Felzer; B P Dawson; A S Lee; J J Rocks; J Kiel; J S Montes; C L Moe; J N S Eisenberg; J S Leon Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Scot R Seitz; Juan S Leon; Kellogg J Schwab; G Marshall Lyon; Melissa Dowd; Marisa McDaniels; Gwen Abdulhafid; Marina L Fernandez; Lisa C Lindesmith; Ralph S Baric; Christine L Moe Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Abd el-Shafey I Ahmed; Gabriel Cavalli; Michael E Bushell; John N Wardell; Steve Pedley; Katarina Charles; John N Hay Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Hugo D Silva; Gislaine Fongaro; Marco T A Garcíazapata; Arthur T O Melo; Elisângela P Silveira-Lacerda; Karla M S de Faria; Carlos E Anunciação Journal: Food Environ Virol Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 2.778