| Literature DB >> 22829792 |
Emmanuel E Odjadjare1, Etinosa O Igbinosa, Raphael Mordi, Bright Igere, Clara L Igeleke, Anthony I Okoh.
Abstract
The final effluents of three (Alice, Dimbaza, and East London) wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were evaluated to determine their physicochemical quality and prevalence of multiple antibiotics resistant (MAR) Pseudomonas species, between August 2007 and July 2008. The annual mean total Pseudomonas count (TPC) was 1.20 × 10(4) (cfu/100 mL), 1.08 × 10(4) (cfu/100 mL), and 2.66 × 10(4) (cfu/100 mL), for the Alice, Dimbaza, and East London WWTPs respectively. The effluents were generally compliant with recommended limits for pH, temperature, TDS, DO, nitrite and nitrate; but fell short of target standards for turbidity, COD, and phosphate. The tested isolates were highly sensitive to gentamicin (100%), ofloxacin (100%), clindamycin (90%), erythromycin (90%) and nitrofurantoin (80%); whereas high resistance was observed against the penicillins (90-100%), rifampin (90%), sulphamethoxazole (90%) and the cephems (70%). MAR index ranged between 0.26 and 0.58. The study demonstrated that MAR Pseudomonas species were quite prevalent in the final effluents of WWTPs in South Africa; and this can lead to serious health risk for communities that depend on the effluent-receiving waters for sundry purposes.Entities:
Keywords: Pseudomonas; antibiogram; multiple-antibiotic-resistance; wastewater effluent
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22829792 PMCID: PMC3397366 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9062092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Seasonal distribution of physicochemical parameters of treated wastewater effluents from the three studied plants.
| Seasons | Sampling Site | pH | Temperature (°C) | Turbidity (NTU) | a TDS (mg/L) | b DO (mg/L) | c COD (mg/L) | NO3− (mg/L) | NO2− (mg/L) | PO43− (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | d AL | 6.8 ± 0.32 | 20 ± 2.22 | 3.6 ± 2.10 | 162 ± 13 | 4.9 ± 1.52 | 57 ± 21 | 11.3 ± 1.0 | 0.29 ± 0.14 | 3.50 ± 0.88 |
| e DMB | 7.3 ± 0.44 | 19 ± 0.74 | 17.6 ± 15.7 | 148 ± 9 | 5.1 ± 0.06 | 25 ± 8 | 1.4 ± 0.78 | 0.1 ± 0.015 | 0.91 ± 0.15 | |
| f EL | 7.1 ± 0.20 | 20 ± 1.17 | 12.5 ± 2.53 | 372 ± 26 | 5.4 ± 0.13 | 68 ± 0 | 3.8 ± 3.21 | 2.4 ± 3.82 | 0.38 ± 0.08 | |
| Summer | d AL | 7.3 ± 1.9 | 24 ± 3.36 | 12.2 ± 9 | 132 ± 10 | 5.7 ± 4.07 | 323 ± 457 | 8.1 ± 2.15 | 0.21 ± 0.12 | 1.88 ± 0.53 |
| e DMB | 7.0 ± 0.12 | 21 ± 1.28 | 8.2 ± 1.81 | 128 ± 14 | 4.9 ± 0.30 | 330 ± 523 | 5.9 ± 0.61 | 0.37 ± 0.09 | 2.83 ± 0.85 | |
| f EL | 7.2 ± 0.19 | 24 ± 0.95 | 4.10 ± 1.75 | 367 ± 80 | 4.2 ± 0.19 | 462 ± 599 | 6.5 ± 0.28 | 0.21 ± 0.15 | 0.32 ± 0.13 | |
| Autumn | d AL | 6.4 ± 0.28 | 24 ± 1.66 | 7.39 ± 3 | 140 ± 8 | 4.9 ± 0.65 | 78 ± 59 | 12.7 ± 5.45 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 1.31 ± 0.91 |
| e DMB | 7.1 ± 0.34 | 21 ± 2.27 | 8.7 ± 3.21 | 115 ± 0.51 | 4.8 ± 0.34 | 37 ± 11 | 5.9 ± 1.17 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 2.97 ± 1.6 | |
| f EL | 7.5 ± 0.17 | 25 ± 1.77 | 3.8 ± 1.10 | 470 ± 232 | 3.9 ± 0.98 | 48 ± 29 | 3.4 ± 3.0 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.37 ± 0.31 | |
| Winter | d AL | 6.0 ± 0.55 | 15 ± 2.02 | 3.51 ± 1.4 | 142 ± 9 | 4.6 ± 1.68 | 50 ± 31 | 9.3 ± 6.51 | 0.22 ± 0.17 | 1.39 ± 2.15 |
| e DMB | 6.9 ± 0.21 | 17 ± 2.21 | 10.5 ± 2.49 | 117 ± 6 | 5.3 ± 0.75 | 78 ± 57 | 2.2 ± 2.05 | 0.34 ± 0.28 | 1.25 ± 2.08 | |
| f EL | 6.8 ± 0.10 | 20 ± 2.03 | 5.6 ± 0.42 | 387 ± 17 | 4.3 ± 0.50 | 53 ± 31 | 5.6 ± 1.85 | 0.73 ± 0.40 | 0.29 ± 0.13 | |
| RecommendedTarget Limits | g 6–9 | g ≤25 | g 0–1;h ≤5 | g 0–450 | i ≥5 | j 30 | g 6; j 1–5 | g 0–6; k <0.5 | k 0.005 | |
Legend: a Total Dissolved Solids; b Dissolved Oxygen; c Chemical Oxygen Demand; d Alice wastewater treatment plant; e Dimbaza wastewater treatment plant; f East London wastewater treatment plant; g Target limit for domestic water uses in South Africa [25]; h Target limit for effluent to be discharged into surface waters [26]; i Target limit for the support of aquatic life [27]; j Target limit for effluent to be discharged into the environment [28]; k Target limit that would reduce eutrophication in aquatic ecosystems [29].
Figure 1Chlorine residual regime of the final treated effluents from the three wastewater treatment plants sampled.
Figure 2Total Pseudomonas count in the treated final effluents.
Antibiogram of randomly selected Pseudomonas isolates from the final effluents of the three wastewater treatment plants.
| Antibiotics Class | Antibiotics | Number of isolates (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Intermediate | Resistant | ||
| Penicillins | Penicillin G | 0(0) | 0(0) | 10(100) |
| Ampicillin | 0(0) | 1(10) | 9(90) | |
| Oxacillin | 0(0) | 0(0) | 10(100) | |
| Cephems | Cefotaxime | 1(10) | 2(20) | 7(70) |
| Cefepime | 3(30) | 0(0) | 7(70) | |
| Cephalothin | 0(0) | 3(30) | 7(70) | |
| Folate Pathway Inhibitors | Sulphamethoxazole | 0(0) | 1(10) | 9(90) |
| Ansamycins | Rifampin | 0(0) | 1(10) | 9(90) |
| Quinolones | Nalidixic acid | 1(10) | 7(70) | 2(20) |
| β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations | a Ampicillin/sulbactam | 1(10) | 5(50) | 3(30) |
| Phenicols | Chloramphenicol | 4(40) | 5(50) | 1(10) |
| Tetracyclines | Tetracycline | 5(50) | 4(40) | 1(10) |
| Minocycline | 2(20) | 6(60) | 2(20) | |
| Aminoglycosides | Gentamicin | 10(100) | 0(0) | 0(0) |
| Fluoroquinolones | Ofloxacin | 10(100) | 0(0) | 0(0) |
| Macrolides | Erythromycin | 9(90) | 1(10) | 0(0) |
| Glycopeptides | Vancomycin | 1(10) | 6(60) | 3(30) |
| Nitrofurantoins | Nitrofurantoin | 8(80) | 1(10) | 1(10) |
| Lincosamides | Clindamycin | 9(90) | 0(0) | 1(10) |
a Ampicillin-sulbactam profile was not determined for one isolate; hence 9 were reported.
Multiple antibiotics resistance (MAR) of the Pseudomonas isolates.
| Isolates Code | Organism Identity | Antibiotics | MAR Index |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | AMP, CEP, CHL, CLI, MINO, NAL, NIT, OXA, PEN, RIF,SMX, TET, VAN, SAM | 0.74 | |
| AL 1 |
| CEP, CHL, CLI, NIT, OXA, PEN, SMX, VAN | 0.42 |
| AL 2 |
| AMP, CTX, CPM, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX, SAM | 0.42 |
| DB 1 |
| AMP, CTX, CEP, CPM, NAL, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX, TET, VAN | 0.58 |
| DB 2 |
| AMP, CTX, CEP, CPM, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX | 0.42 |
| EL 1 |
| AMP, CTX, OXA, PEN, RIF | 0.26 |
| EL 2 |
| AMP, CEP, CPM, NAL, OXA, PEN, SMX, VAN, SAM | 0.47 |
| EL 3 |
| AMP, CTX, CEP, CPM, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX | 0.42 |
| EL 4 |
| AMP, MINO, NAL, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX | 0.37 |
| EL 5 |
| AMP, CTX, CEP, CPM, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX, SAM | 0.47 |
| EL 6 |
| AMP, CTX, CEP, CPM, OXA, PEN, RIF, SMX | 0.42 |
Legend: AMP—Ampicillin; CEP—Cephalothin; CHL—Chloramphenicol; CLI—Clindamycin; MINO—Minocycline; NAL—Nalidixic Acid; NIT—Nitrofurantoin; OXA—Oxacillin; PEN—Penicillin G; RIF—Rifampin; SMX—Sulphamethoxazole; TET—Tetracyclin; VAN—Vancomycin; SAM—Ampicillin-Sulbactam; CTX—Cefotaxime; CPM—Cefepime.