A Carducci1, M Verani, R Battistini. 1. Biology Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. acarducci@biologia.unipi.it
Abstract
AIMS: Legionella contamination of industrial cooling towers has been identified as the cause of sporadic cases and outbreaks of legionellosis among people living nearby. To evaluate and control Legionella contamination in industrial cooling tower water, microbiological monitoring was carried out to determine the effectiveness of the following different disinfection treatments: (i) continuous chlorine concentration of 0.01 ppm and monthly chlorine shock dosing (5 ppm) on a single cooling tower; (ii) continuous chlorine concentration of 0.4 ppm and monthly shock of biocide P3 FERROCID 8580 (BKG Water Solution) on seven towers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Legionella spp. and total bacterial count (TBC) were determined 3 days before and after each shock dose. Both strategies demonstrated that when chlorine was maintained at low levels, the Legionella count grew to levels above 10(4) CFU l(-1) while TBC still remained above 10(8 )CFU l(-1). Chlorine shock dosing was able to eliminate bacterial contamination, but only for 10-15 days. Biocide shock dosing was also insufficient to control the problem when the disinfectant concentration was administered at only one point in the plant and at the concentration of 30 ppm. On the other hand, when at a biocide concentration of 30 or 50 ppm was distributed throughout a number of points, depending on the plant hydrodynamics, Legionella counts decreased significantly and often remained below the warning limit. Moreover, the contamination of water entering the plant and the presence of sediment were also important factors for Legionella growth. CONCLUSIONS: For effective decontamination of outdoor industrial cooling towers, disinfectants should be distributed in a targeted way, taking into account the possible sources of contamination. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The data of the research permitted to modify the procedure of disinfection for better reduce the water and aerosol contamination and consequently the exposure risk.
AIMS: Legionella contamination of industrial cooling towers has been identified as the cause of sporadic cases and outbreaks of legionellosis among people living nearby. To evaluate and control Legionella contamination in industrial cooling tower water, microbiological monitoring was carried out to determine the effectiveness of the following different disinfection treatments: (i) continuous chlorine concentration of 0.01 ppm and monthly chlorine shock dosing (5 ppm) on a single cooling tower; (ii) continuous chlorine concentration of 0.4 ppm and monthly shock of biocide P3 FERROCID 8580 (BKG Water Solution) on seven towers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Legionella spp. and total bacterial count (TBC) were determined 3 days before and after each shock dose. Both strategies demonstrated that when chlorine was maintained at low levels, the Legionella count grew to levels above 10(4) CFU l(-1) while TBC still remained above 10(8 )CFU l(-1). Chlorine shock dosing was able to eliminate bacterial contamination, but only for 10-15 days. Biocide shock dosing was also insufficient to control the problem when the disinfectant concentration was administered at only one point in the plant and at the concentration of 30 ppm. On the other hand, when at a biocide concentration of 30 or 50 ppm was distributed throughout a number of points, depending on the plant hydrodynamics, Legionella counts decreased significantly and often remained below the warning limit. Moreover, the contamination of water entering the plant and the presence of sediment were also important factors for Legionella growth. CONCLUSIONS: For effective decontamination of outdoor industrial cooling towers, disinfectants should be distributed in a targeted way, taking into account the possible sources of contamination. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The data of the research permitted to modify the procedure of disinfection for better reduce the water and aerosol contamination and consequently the exposure risk.