| Literature DB >> 30551597 |
Asja Korajkic1, Brian R McMinn2, Valerie J Harwood3.
Abstract
Fecal pollution of recreational waters can cause scenic blight and pose a threat to public health, resulting in beach advisories and closures. Fecal indicator bacteria (total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, and enterococci), and alternative indicators of fecal pollution (Clostridium perfringens and bacteriophages) are routinely used in the assessment of sanitary quality of recreational waters. However, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), and alternative indicators are found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, and many other animals and therefore are considered general indicators of fecal pollution. As such, there is room for improvement in terms of their use for informing risk assessment and remediation strategies. Microbial source tracking (MST) genetic markers are closely associated with animal hosts and are used to identify fecal pollution sources. In this review, we examine 73 papers generated over 40 years that reported the relationship between at least one indicator and one pathogen group or species. Nearly half of the reports did not include statistical analysis, while the remainder were almost equally split between those that observed statistically significant relationships and those that did not. Statistical significance was reported less frequently in marine and brackish waters compared to freshwater, and the number of statistically significant relationships was considerably higher in freshwater (p < 0.0001). Overall, significant relationships were more commonly reported between FIB and pathogenic bacteria or protozoa, compared to pathogenic viruses (p: 0.0022⁻0.0005), and this was more pronounced in freshwater compared to marine. Statistically significant relationships were typically noted following wet weather events and at sites known to be impacted by recent fecal pollution. Among the studies that reported frequency of detection, FIB were detected most consistently, followed by alternative indicators. MST markers and the three pathogen groups were detected least frequently. This trend was mirrored by reported concentrations for each group of organisms (FIB > alternative indicators > MST markers > pathogens). Thus, while FIB, alternative indicators, and MST markers continue to be suitable indicators of fecal pollution, their relationship with waterborne pathogens, particularly viruses, is tenuous at best and influenced by many different factors such as frequency of detection, variable shedding rates, differential fate and transport characteristics, as well as a broad range of site-specific factors such as the potential for the presence of a complex mixture of multiple sources of fecal contamination and pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: fecal indicators; pathogens; recreational water; relationships
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30551597 PMCID: PMC6313479 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122842
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Documented relationships between various indicators and pathogens in freshwaters (n = 45), marine/brackish waters (n = 29) and swimming pools (n = 3).
Relationships between fecal indicator bacteria and various pathogens in freshwater.
| Indicator(s) 1 | Pathogen(s) 1 | Location | Relationship 2 | Comments | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Apies River and tributaries, South Africa | NR | All three pathogens frequently co-detected. | [ | |
|
| Sure River and tributaries, Luxembourg | [ | |||
|
| “Aohai See” Lake, China | No significant correlation. | All three pathogens frequently co-detected. | [ | |
|
| Avon River, New Zealand | All three pathogens frequently detected in samples where | [ | ||
|
| Canals connecting Rapipat and Rangsit canals, Thailand | NR | Highest levels of FIB and pathogens found in the most populated area. | [ | |
| Chicago area waterways system, various rivers and lakes, USA states | Stronger correlations between FIB and | Correlations generally stronger in samples not impacted by the wastewater effluent. | [ | ||
| Fecal coliforms e, | Pathogenic | St Joseph River and Galien River watersheds in Michigan and Indiana, USA | No significant correlation. | Two or more virulence genes frequently co-detected. | [ |
| Pathogenic | Various streams in Pennsylvania, USA | FIB correlated with all pathogens. | Samples exceeding recreational water quality guidelines more likely to contain pathogenic | [ | |
|
| Ao, Hong and Tao lakes in Beijing, China | No significant correlation. | [ | ||
| Total coliforms a, |
| Sauce Grande lagoon, Argentina | NR | [ | |
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms a | Human enteroviruses b, adenoviruses b | Altamaha River, USA | No significant correlation. | Viruses co-detected in 26% of samples. | [ |
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms a, | Msunduzi River, South Africa | NR | Presence of | [ | |
| Fecal coliforms e, | Pathogenic | Various rivers in Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, USA | Only eaeA gene positively correlated with FIB. | Multiple pathogenic genes co-detected in samples meeting and exceeding FIB guidelines. | [ |
| Enterococci e | Various ponds, rivers and creeks in Florida, USA | No significant correlation. | Enterococci and | [ | |
| Fecal coliforms e, enterococci e | Infectious enteroviruses a, total enteroviruses d, hepatitis A d, Norwalk I and II d, astroviruses d, rotaviruses d | Rivers in France | NR | Infectious enteroviruses were not detected in samples with elevated fecal coliforms concentrations. | [ |
| Total coliforms e | Hot spring recreational facilities, Taiwan | NR | Most samples failed to meet Taiwan CDC guidelines of 0 total coliforms per 100 mL. | [ | |
|
| Pathogenic | Various streams around Lake Miyajimanuma, Japan | No significant correlation. | Various pathogen genes frequently co-detected. | [ |
|
| Human adenovirus d, | Rivers in France | NR | Highest concentration of adenovirus found at two urban sites. | [ |
| Total coliforms e | Puzih River and two hot springs recreational facilities, Taiwan | [ | |||
| Human adenoviruses b,d, noroviruses GII b, and enteroviruses b | Danube, Berettyo, Koros and Tisza Rivers and two rivulets (Koloska and Keki), Hungary | NR | In ~1/3 of samples at least two viral targets were co-detected. | [ | |
| Transitional and inland waters, Portugal | Significant correlation commonly observed in waters classified as “poor” and “sufficient” but also seen in waters classified as “good” or “excellent” | Higher geometric mean of FIB in | [ | ||
| Total coliforms e, | Pathogenic | Sauce Chico River, El Belisario Stream and San Bernardo Stream, Argentina | NR | Shiga-toxin producing | [ |
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms e | Rotavirus b, human Adenovirus b, human Astrovirus b, Norovirus b | Rivers and streams, Brazil | No significant correlation. | Rotaviruses detected most frequently, followed by adenoviruses. | [ |
| Lake Ma Vallee, Democratic Republic of Congo | NR | Samples met European Directive 2006/7/CE for | [ | ||
|
| Pathogenic | Michigan, Superior, Huron and Erie lakes, USA | Beach seasonal mean | High degree of beach specific temporal variability in pathogenic gene concentrations. | [ |
| Fecal coliforms a | Pathogenic | La Paz River basin, Bolivia | The occurrence of pathogenic bacteria associated with fecal coliform densities. | Approximately 50% of pathogenic bacteria resistant to at least two antibiotics. | [ |
| Lake Parramatta, Australia | NR | Only | [ | ||
|
| River, lake ponds and a wadi in Netherlands | NR | [ | ||
| Fecal coliforms e, | Canals and lakes, Netherlands | NR | Arboviruses, hepatitis A and E viruses and | [ | |
| Total coliforms e |
| Puzih River and hot spring recreational areas, Taiwan | Total coliforms and | [ | |
| Shiga toxin genes d | Lake Erie and tributaries, USA | No significant correlation. | Abundance and distributions of shiga-toxin genes highly variable. | [ | |
| Lake Carroll, Tampa, FL | NR | Higher concentrations of indicators and more frequent pathogen detection following rain events. | [ | ||
|
| Human adenovirus d, human enterovirus d, Norovirus GI and GII d | Delaware Lake, Madison Lake and East Fork Lake, USA | No significant correlation. | Adenoviruses detected more frequently than enteroviruses, followed by noroviruses. | [ |
| River Ruhr and barrier lakes, Germany | NR | All sampling sites achieved “sufficient” bathing water quality for enterococci but not | [ | ||
| Geothermal pools, Iceland | NR | High concentrations of | [ | ||
| Prickett Creek, USA | NR | No correlation between | [ | ||
| Total coliforms e, fecal coliforms e, | South Nation River basin, Canada | Weak relationships, but mostly positive (except | The fraction of samples that contained an indicator when pathogen was detected was highest for the protozoan parasites. | [ | |
| Human adenoviruses b | Various rivers and lakes in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom | Concentrations of all indicators correlated with frequency of adenovirus detection. | > 50% of samples positive for adenovirus. | [ | |
| Adenoviruses d,f, norovirus GI b and GII b | Various rivers and lakes in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom | NR | Both viruses frequently detected in samples that met “good” water quality guidelines for both | [ | |
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms a, | Wanzhou watershed, China | Significant but weak correlations between indicators and | [ | ||
| Total coliforms a | Lake Tianjin, China | No significant correlation | Significant correlation between | [ |
1 Data reporting: most probable number (MPN) a, Presence/absence b, total (oo)cysts c, gene copies d, colony forming units (CFU) e, Integrated cell culture (ICC)/MPN PCR f. 2 NR (not reported).
Relationships between fecal indicator bacteria and various pathogens in brackish and marine waters.
| Indicator(s) 1 | Pathogen(s) 1 | Location | Relationship 2 | Comments | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fecal coliforms e, | Virginia Key Beach, Florida, USA | NR | When HPyV, | [ | |
| Fecal coliforms e, | Coastal Beaches, Miami Dade County, Florida, USA | NR | When enterococci levels by qPCR and CS exceeded MDL, | [ | |
| Enterococci e | Coastal beaches, Venezuela | No significant correlation. | Presence of | [ | |
| Saronicos Gulf, Athens, Greece | Enterococci but not | Pathogens detected in waters of “good” and “excellent” quality. | [ | ||
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms a | Canals around Galveston Bay, TX, USA | NR | [ | ||
| Enterococci a | Maryland, US Chesapeake Bay, USA | Correlations observed especially apparent with high bather numbers in water. | [ | ||
| Enterococci a,d, | Malibu beach, California USA | NR | No indicator used had a significant correlation with GI illness in swimmers or any reference pathogen. | [ | |
| Enterococci e | Florida, Quietwater Beach, USA | No significant correlation. | Enterococci co-detected with pathogenic | [ | |
| Estuaries, Melbourne Australia | No significant correlation. | Changes in FIB concentrations associated with changes in temperature, flow, humidity and rainfall. | [ | ||
| Total coliforms e, fecal coliforms e, | Adenoviruses a | Southern California coastal waters, USA | No significant correlation. | 5 of 12 sites, FIB exceeded CA recreational water quality limits. | [ |
| Total coliforms e, fecal coliforms e, enterococci e | Adenoviruses b, enteroviruses b, hepatitis A b | Rivers and creeks in California, USA | No significant correlation. | FIB and viral pathogen detection associated with storm events. | [ |
| Total coliforms a, fecal coliforms a, enterococci a | Enterovirus b, adenoviruses b | Newport Bay, California, USA | No significant correlation | FIB concentrations showed strong seasonal pattern, associated with winter storms | [ |
| Fecal coliforms e, | Ben T. Davis and Bahia beaches, Florida, USA | NR | [ | ||
| Fecal coliforms e, enterococci e | Sarasota Bay, Florida, USA | NR | FIB co-detected with all samples positive for enteric pathogens. | [ | |
| Coastal Waters, Portugal | Levels of FIB correlated with presence of | [ | |||
| Fecal coliforms e | Adenovirus b | Hillsborough River and St. Johns River, Florida, USA | Presence of adenovirus strongly correlated with concentrations of all three FIB. | Samples collected in waters with known human fecal pollution, all FIB exceeded regulatory standards. | [ |
| Adenovirus b | Hillsborough River, FL | All FIB concentrations exceeded regulatory standards in samples. | [ | ||
| Enterococci e, fecal coliforms e, | Adenovirus b | Avalon and Doheny Beaches, California | No significant correlation. | FIB concentrations frequently exceeded recreational water quality guidelines. | [ |
| Total coliforms e, | Enteroviruses e | Coastal beaches, Barcelona, Spain | NR | All samples with elevated FIB levels also had high levels of somatic and F-specific phage present. | [ |
| Enterococci e, fecal coliforms a, | Enterovirus a, | St. Lucie Estuary, Florida, USA | No significant correlation. | Viruses detected in samples where FIB levels were within regulatory limits. | [ |
| Enterococci a,d | Adenovirus b, Norovirus d, | Coastal beaches, Florida, USA | NR | FIB and pathogens co-detected | [ |
| Enterococci e | Chesapeake, Bay, MD, USA | NR | Enterococci were co-detected with | [ | |
| Enterococci e | Chesapeake, Bay MD, USA | NR | Enterococci were co-detected with | [ | |
| Total coliforms e, fecal coliforms e, | Hepatitis A b, Norovirus GI b | Coastal beaches, Lisbon, Portugal | No significant correlation. | All samples considered “good” quality based on local recreational water quality guidelines. | [ |
| Enterococci a,e |
| Coastal beaches, Miami, Florida, USA | NR | [ | |
| Hawaii streams, USA | Detection of at least one pathogens occurred in 21 of 22 streams tested. | [ | |||
| Fecal coliforms e, enterococci e | Enteroviruses b | Florida Keys, Florida, USA | NR | Enterovirus co-detected with fecal coliforms, enterococci. | [ |
| Human Adenovirus b | Coastal beaches in Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom | No significant correlation. | FIB levels significantly lower in seawater than in freshwater samples. | [ | |
| Human adenovirus b norovirus b GI and GII | Coastal beaches in Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom | NR | Beaches considered “clean” based on FIB levels were positive for both adenovirus and noroviruses. | [ |
1 Data reporting: most probable number (MPN) a, Presence/absence b, total (oo)cysts c, gene copies d, colony forming units or plaque forming units (CFU/PFU) e, Integrated cell culture (ICC)/MPN PCR f. 2 NR (not reported).
Relationship of alternative indicators of fecal pollution and pathogens in freshwater and marine/brackish waters.
| Indicator(s) 1 | Pathogen(s) 1 | Location | Relationship 2 | Comments | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Avon River, Christchurch, New Zealand | F-RNA more strongly correlated with all three pathogens than | F-RNA concentrations typically higher than | [ | ||
| Somatic coliphage e | Infectious enteroviruses a, total enteroviruses d, hepatitis Ad, Norwalk I and II d, astroviruses d, rotaviruses d | Rivers in France | No significant correlation. | Enterovirus genomes and somatic coliphage frequently co-detected. | [ |
|
| Human adenovirus d, | Rivers in France | NR | Highest concentration of protozoan parasites and | [ |
| Somatic and F+ coliphage e | Noroviruses f, rotaviruses f, infectious reoviruses and enteroviruses a | Maas and Waal Rivers, Netherlands | NR | Both coliphages and all viruses co-detected in all samples. | [ |
| Somatic and F+ coliphage e | Noroviruses d, adenoviruses d, astroviruses d, rotaviruses d | Marine Reservoir and tributaries, Singapore | F+ coliphage positively correlated with norovirus concentrations. | Higher statistical correlation observed between enteric viruses than between enteric viruses and coliphages. | [ |
|
| Lake Parramatta, Australia | NR | No | [ | |
| Somatic and F+ coliphages e | Canals and lakes, Netherlands | NR | Somatic coliphage detected more frequently and at higher concentrations compared to F+ coliphage. | [ | |
|
| River Ruhr and barrier lakes, Germany | NR | Concentrations typically lower and less variable compared to the FIB. | [ | |
|
| South Nation River basin, Canada | Positive, but weak relationships with pathogens. | Correlations with FIB were also weak but positive. | [ | |
| Somatic coliphage e | Human adenoviruses b | Various rivers and lakes in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom | Concentrations of somatic coliphage correlated with frequency of adenovirus detection. | FIB showed better correlation with adenovirus than somatic coliphage. | [ |
|
| |||||
|
| Virginia Key Beach, Florida, USA | NR | Higher concentrations in high tide samples as opposed to low tide. | [ | |
| Coastal Beaches, Miami Dade County, Florida, USA | NR | High levels of | [ | ||
|
| Coastal beaches, Venezuela | No significant correlation. | Detection of | [ | |
| F+ coliphage e | Malibu beach, California USA | F+ coliphage had strong association with MRSA and | F+ coliphage had strong association with GI illness. | [ | |
| Docklands, South Yarra and Abbotsford estuaries, Melbourne Australia | NR | Positive correlation between the presence of | [ | ||
| Somatic e and F+ coliphage e | Adenoviruses a | Southern California coastal waters, USA | Presence of adenovirus was significantly correlated with F-specific coliphage. | No correlation between two coliphage types. | [ |
| Somatic e and F+ coliphage e | Adenoviruses b, enteroviruses b, hepatitis A b | Rivers and creeks in California, USA | No significant correlation. | Somatic coliphages detected more frequently than F+. | [ |
| F+ coliphage a | Enterovirus b, adenoviruses b | Newport Bay, California, USA | No significant correlation. | Peak concentrations of FIB and F+ coliphage associated with winter storms. | [ |
| Sarasota Bay, Florida, USA | NR | Alternative indicators for co-detected in samples positive for enteric pathogens. | [ | ||
| Somatic e and F+ coliphage e, phages infecting | Enteroviruses e | Coastal Waters, Portugal | NR | Enteroviruses were co-detected with FIB. | [ |
| Somatic e and | Enterovirusa, | St. Lucie Estuary, Florida, USA | No significant correlation. | Somatic coliphage concentrations higher than F+ coliphage. | [ |
| Hawaii streams, USA | Concentrations of | [ | |||
| Enteroviruses b | Florida Keys, Florida, USA | NR | Enteroviruses co-detected with | [ | |
| Somatic coliphage e | Human Adenovirus b | Coastal beaches in Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom | No significant correlation. | Somatic coliphage concentrations lower than FIB. | [ |
1 Data reporting: most probable number (MPN) a, Presence/absence b, total (oo)cysts c, gene copies d, colony forming units or plaque forming units (CFU/PFU) e, Integrated cell culture (ICC)/MPN (RT)PCR f. 2 NR (not reported).
Relationships between MST markers and various pathogens in in freshwater and marine/brackish waters.
| MST marker 1 | Pathogens 1 | Location | Relationship 2 | Comments | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Pathogenic | Various streams in Pennsylvania, USA | No significant correlation. | All MST markers detected more frequently in samples exceeding recreational water quality guidelines. | [ | |
|
| Pathogenic | Various rivers in Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, USA | No significant correlation. | [ | |
| HPyV a, | Various ponds, rivers and creeks in Florida, USA | No significant correlation. | [ | ||
| Human adenovirus c, human enterovirus c, Norovirus GI and GII c, porcine sapovirus c | Delaware Lake, Madison Lake and East Fork Lake, USA | No significant correlation. | [ | ||
| Lake Carroll, Tampa, FL | No significant correlation. | Higher concentrations of indicators and more frequent pathogen detection following rain events. | [ | ||
| Bac32F a, CF128 a, CF193 a, HF134 a, HF183 a, PF163 a | Little Bow and Oldman Rivers, Canada | Positive relationship between detection of Bac32F and all pathogens. | Bac32F detected most frequently, followed by CF128/193, PF163 and HF183/134 | [ | |
| HPyV c, HF183 c, AllBac c | Prickett Creek, USA | NR | [ | ||
|
| Infectious enteric viruses a | Lake Michigan, USA | NR | Precipitation and turbidity positively correlated with viruses. | [ |
|
| |||||
| HPyV a, | Virginia Key Beach, Florida, USA | NR | HPyV, | [ | |
| HPyV a, | Coastal Beaches, Miami Dade County, Florida, USA | NR | During rain event, DogBac was co-detected with | [ | |
| HF183 c, | Coastal beaches, Venezuela | NR | The levels of (oo) cysts varied with the extent of sewage pollution and bather density. | [ | |
| GenBac3 c, HF183 a,c, BacHum-UCD c, | Malibu beach, California USA | NR | Human-associated MST markers were only predictive of illness at the site known to be impacted by human sewage from faulty infrastructure. | [ | |
| HPyV a, | Quietwater Beach, Florida, USA | No significant correlation. | In some instances, MST markers were co-detected with | [ | |
| Ben T. Davis and Bahia beaches, Florida, USA | NR | Coxsackie virus B4 and HPyVs were co-detected following a major sewage spill. | [ | ||
| HPyV c, HF183 c, | Adenovirus a | Hillsborough River and St. Johns River, Florida, USA | No significant correlation with HPyV, NR for HF183, | Adenovirus co-detected with HF183 and | [ |
| GenBac3 a, HPyVc, HF183 a, | Adenovirus a | Hillsborough River, St, Johns River, Ben T. Davis beach, Florida, USA | No significant relationship with HPyV, other MST markers NR | All FIB concentrations | [ |
| HPyV c, HF183 a, | Adenovirus a | Avalon and Doheny Beaches, California, USA | At Doheny Beach HPyV and HF183 presence correlated with adenovirus. | Adenovirus not detected at Avalon Beach, impacted by non-point source(s). | [ |
| PMMoV c, HF183 c, BacHum-UCD c, | Adenovirus a, Norovirus, | Coastal beaches, Florida, USA | NR | PMMoV co-occurred with FIB, other MST markers and pathogens. | [ |
| BacHum-UCD c, HF183 c, DogBac c, |
| Coastal beaches, Miami, Florida, USA | NR | Co-occurrence with | [ |
1 Data reporting: Presence/absence a, total (oo)cysts b, gene copies c, most probable number (MPN) d, colony forming units (CFU) e; 2 NR (not reported).
Figure 2Summary of epidemiological studies reporting on linkage between illness and various indicator types.
Frequency (%) of detection of microorganisms over all eligible studies (those that included data on individual observations). Detection frequency is expressed per study and for cumulative samples across all studies. Studies with least one sample positive for the organism were scored positive in the “per study” column.
| Organism | Detection Frequency per Study (%) and | Detection Frequency per Sample 2 | Detection Frequency per Study (%) and | Detection Frequency per Sample 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freshwater | Brackish/Marine | |||
|
| ||||
| Total coliforms (MPN) | 100% (4) | 100% (275) | N/A | N/A |
| Total coliforms (CFU) | 100% (3) | 97.2% (1988) | 100% (5) | 99.7% (317) |
| Fecal coliforms (MPN) | 100% (4) | 100% (147) | N/A | N/A |
| Fecal coliforms (CFU) | 100% (6) | 96.7% (1726) | 100% (11) | 98.3% (524) |
| 100% (8) | 97.7% (1846) | 100% (5) | 100% (55) | |
| 100% (10) | 90% (2530) | 100% (8) | 94.1% (406) | |
| 100% (5) | 89.6% (221) | N/A | N/A | |
| Enterococci (MPN) | 100% (2) | 81.7% (301) | 100% (5) | 61.7% (162) |
| Enterococci (CFU) | 100% (13) | 96.6% (2584) | 100% (13) | 97.6% (705) |
| Enterococci (Q) | 100% (2) | 100% (302) | 100% (3) | 100% (34) |
|
| ||||
| 100% (4) | 83.2% (1843) | 100% (5) | 61.6% (73) | |
| 100% (2) | 73.2% (56) | N/A | N/A | |
| Somatic coliphage (PFU) | 100% (4) | 85.5% (394) | 100% (1) | 100% (20) |
| F+ coliphage (PFU) | 100% (2) | 93.2% (73) | 100% (7) | 34.4% (90) |
| F- coliphage (PFU) | N/A | N/A | 100% (3) | 28% (25) |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 16.7% (12) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 30% (20) | |
|
| ||||
| GenBac3 (Q) | 100% (1) | 75% (8) | N/A | N/A |
| HF183 (E) | N/A | N/A | 100% (3) | 31.8% (255) |
| HF183 (Q) | N/A | N/A | 100% (4) | 25.5% (105) |
| BacHum-UCD (Q) | N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 95.45% (22) |
| HPyV (E) | 100% (1) | 0% (18) | 100% (4) | 51.08% (204) |
| HPyV (Q) | 100% (1) | 100% 98) | 100% (2) | 12.2% (255) |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 69.2% (13) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 26.7% (15) | |
| 100% (1) | 0% (18) | 100% (2) | 2.8% (255) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 100% (7) | |
| 100% (1) | 50.8% (65) | N/A | N/A | |
|
| 100% (1) | 92.3% (65) | N/A | N/A |
| 100% (3) | 6.2% (649) | 80% (5) | 19.12% (204) | |
| LTII (E) | 100% (1) | 7.4% (217) | N/A | N/A |
| STII (E) | 100% (1) | 4.6% (217) | N/A | N/A |
| DogBac (Q) | N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 86.7% (15) |
|
| ||||
| 100% (1) | 0.6% (823) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 13.4% (67) | 0% (1) | 0% (7) | |
| Pathogenic | 100% (4) | 53.7% (350) | N/A | N/A |
| Pathogenic | 100% (1) | 31.3% (32) | N/A | N/A |
| Pathogenic | 100% (4) | 7.9% (302) | N/A | N/A |
| Pathogenic | 100% (3) | 29.7% (350) | N/A | N/A |
| 100% (6) | 14% (1076) | 33% (3) | 8.7% (196) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 28.6% (7) | |
| 100% (4) | 27.3% (1188) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 44.6% (112) | 100% (2) | 70.4% (27) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 57.1% (7) | |
| 100% (1) | 37.5% (8) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (3) | 24.7% (1009) | 100% (1) | 30.9% (55) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 14.3% (7) | |
| 100% (3) | 81.3% (80) | 100% (1) | 18.2% (11) | |
| 100% (2) | 80.6% (191) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (2) | 39.6% (53) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 6.3% (48) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (2) | 14.5% (1148) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (2) | 41.9% (217) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 20% (30) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 18.7% (395) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (2) | 52.5% (1148) | N/A | N/A | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (2) | 44.4% (27) | |
| 100% (3) | 100% (248) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (2) | 34.4% (64) | N/A | N/A | |
|
| ||||
| Infectious enterovirus (MPN) | 100% (3) | 18.4% (158) | 100% (3) | 0% (27) |
| Enterovirus (E) | 100% (3) | 14.4% (222) | 100% (3) | 37.8% (45) |
| Enterovirus (Q) | 100% (4) | 29.1% (103) | 33% (3) | 14.8% (27) |
| Infectious reovirus (MPN) | 100% (1) | 21.9% (32) | N/A | N/A |
| Reovirus (Q) | 100% (1) | 100% (8) | N/A | N/A |
| Human adenovirus (MPN) | N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 0% (27) |
| Human adenovirus (E) | 100% (4) | 42.2% (1118) | 100% (6) | 16.5% (309) |
| Human adenovirus (Q) | 100% (5) | 40.7% (214) | 100% (1) | 33.3% (12) |
| Astrovirus (E) | 100% (1) | 15.4% (52) | N/A | N/A |
| Astrovirus (Q) | 100% (2) | 17.3% (133) | N/A | N/A |
| Norovirus (E) | 100% (3) | 29.5% (112) | 100% (1) | 27.3% (22) |
| Norovirus (Q) | 100% (1) | 100% (8) | 50% (2) | 26.3% (19) |
| Norovirus GI (Q) | 50% (4) | 7.5% (213) | N/A | N/A |
| Norovirus GII (Q) | 66.7% (3) | 16.2% (198) | N/A | N/A |
| Rotavirus (E) | 100% (3) | 18.4% (141) | N/A | N/A |
| Rotavirus (Q) | 66.7% (3) | 33.8% (142) | N/A | N/A |
| Hepatitis A (E) | N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 80% (10) |
| Hepatitis A (Q) | 100% (1) | 1.5% (68) | 0% (1) | 0% (12) |
| Bovine adenovirus (Q) | 100% (1) | 56.7% (30) | N/A | N/A |
|
| ||||
| 100% (1) | 24.6% (126) | N/A | N/A | |
| 100% (1) | 13.5% (126) | N/A | N/A | |
| 88.9% (9) | 36.5% (1456) | 60% (5) | 23.2% (112) | |
| N/A | N/A | 0% (1) | 0% (12) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 26.7% (15) | |
| 100% (8) | 63.7% (1426) | 80% (5) | 22.3% (112) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (2) | 16.7% (12) | |
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 33.3% (15) | |
|
| ||||
| N/A | N/A | 100% (1) | 45.4% (152) | |
1 MPN, most probable number; CFU, colony forming units; PFU, plaque forming units; E, end-point PCR; Q, qPCR; M, microscopy; 2 N/A, not available.
Figure 3Mean concentration of FIB, alternative indicators, MST markers, bacterial, viral and protozoan pathogens in freshwater. Error bars represent standard deviation (c, culture-based; Q, qPCR; m, microscopy).
Figure 4Mean concentration of FIB, alternative indicators, MST markers, bacterial, viral and protozoan pathogens in marine and brackish waters. Error bars represent standard deviation (c, culture-based; Q, qPCR; m, microscopy).
Concentrations of various indicators and pathogens from select studies in marine/brackish and freshwaters.
| Organism 1 | Range or Average per Study (log10 per 100 mL) 2,3 | Marine References 4 | Freshwater References 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Total coliforms (c) | 2.67–3.89 | N/A | [ |
| Fecal coliforms (c) | 0.93–5.39 | [ | [ |
| 0.59–3.51 | [ | [ | |
| 1.75–3.97 | N/A | [ | |
| Enterococci (c) | ND–3.62 | [ | [ |
| Enterococci (q) | 0.63–3.21 | [ | [ |
|
| |||
| 0.20–2.33 | [ | [ | |
| 0.35 | N/A | [ | |
| Somatic coliphage (c) | 0.61–3.29 | [ | [ |
| F-specific coliphage (c) | ND–2.76 | [ | [ |
|
| |||
| AllBac(q) | 0.93 | [ | [ |
| PMMoV (q) | ND | [ | N/A |
| HF183 (q) | ND–0.69 | N/A | [ |
| HBBac (q) | 0.72 | [ | N/A |
| HPyV (q) | 2.36 | N/A | [ |
| 0.06 | [ | N/A | |
| ND | [ | N/A | |
| DogBac (q) | 2.50 | [ | N/A |
|
| |||
| 1.05 | N/A | [ | |
| 0.74–2.29 | N/A | [ | |
| EHEC (q) | 0.13 | N/A | [ |
| ND–2.36 | [ | N/A | |
| 0.06–4.08 | N/A | [ | |
| 0.70–0.77 | [ | N/A | |
| 0.78 | N/A | [ | |
| 5.09 | N/A | [ | |
| Stx1 (q) | 0.03 | N/A | [ |
| Stx2 (q) | 0.03 | N/A | [ |
| 3.41 | N/A | [ | |
| 0.37–3.72 | N/A | N/A | |
| ND | N/A | [ | |
| 1.91–2.11 | [ | N/A | |
| 1.01 | [ | N/A | |
|
| |||
| Enterovirus (c) | ND–0.04 | [ | [ |
| Enterovirus (q) | ND–0.56 | [ | [ |
| Adenovirus (q) | 0.08–1.02 | N/A | [ |
| Astrovirus (q) | 1.48 | N/A | [ |
| Norovirus (q) | ND–1.40 | [ | [ |
| Norovirus GI (q) | ND–1.02 | N/A | [ |
| Norovirus GII (q) | 1.58 | N/A | [ |
| Rotavirus (q) | 1.41–1.53 | N/A | [ |
| Reovirus (c) | 0.18–0.31 | N/A | [ |
| Hepatitis A (q) | ND | [ | N/A |
|
| |||
| 0.12 | [ | N/A | |
| ND–1.93 | [ | [ | |
| ND–0.73 | [ | [ | |
1 c, culture; q, qPCR; m, microscopy. 2 Range is provided when more than one study measured a given parameter, while average per study is provided when a single study measured a given parameter. Units include: CFU, MPN, PFU, gene copies or total (oo)cysts. 3 ND, not detected; 4 N/A, not available.