| Literature DB >> 31906972 |
Brian R McMinn1, Eric R Rhodes1, Emma M Huff1, Asja Korajkic2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sanitary quality of recreational waters worldwide is assessed using fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), such as Escherichia coli and enterococci. However, fate and transport characteristics of FIB in aquatic habitats can differ from those of viral pathogens which have been identified as main etiologic agents of recreational waterborne illness. Coliphages (bacteriophages infecting E. coli) are an attractive alternative to FIB because of their many morphological and structural similarities to viral pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: Adenovirus; Coliphage; Decay; Protozoa; Sunlight
Year: 2020 PMID: 31906972 PMCID: PMC6945520 DOI: 10.1186/s12985-019-1274-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virol J ISSN: 1743-422X Impact factor: 4.099
Log10 reduction values for somatic coliphage, F+ coliphage and adenovirus. Treatments: A (exposure to sunlight and indigenous microbiota including protozoa), B (exposure to only indigenous microbiota including protozoa), C (exposure to sunlight only), D (exposure to neither)
| Organism | Time point | Treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | ||
| Somatic | 1 | −0.10 ± 0.17 | −0.20 ± 0.09 | −0.09 ± 0.05 | −0.13 ± 0.13 |
| 3 | 1.17 ± 0.04 | 1.40 ± 0.12 | 0.81 ± 0.05 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | |
| 5 | 1.34 ± 0.17 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 1.66 ± 0.19 | 0.20 ± 0.13 | |
| 8 | 2.92 ± 0.39 | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 2.32 ± 0.20 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | |
| F+ | 1 | −0.06 ± 0.10 | −0.10 ± 0.21 | −0.08 ± 0.08 | 0.12 ± 0.18 |
| 3 | 1.62 ± 0.22 | 1.14 ± 0.17 | 0.88 ± 0.09 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | |
| 5 | 3.16 ± 0.11 | −0.06 ± 0.18 | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.29 ± 0.15 | |
| 8 | 4.48 ± 0.38 | 0.19 ± 0.05 | 1.17 ± 0.01 | 0.39 ± 0.15 | |
| Adenovirus | 1 | 0.81 ± 0.00 | 1.23a | 1.04 ± 0.51 | 0.99 ± 1.20 |
| 8 | 3.41 ± 0.19 | 1.00 ± 0.22 | 1.54 ± 0.24 | 1.11 ± 0.10 | |
aSingle sample
Fig. 1Effect of treatment variables on changes in somatic coliphage concentrations over time. Error bars represent standard deviation. Treatments: A (exposure to sunlight and indigenous microbiota including protozoa), B (exposure to only indigenous microbiota including protozoa), C (exposure to sunlight only), D (exposure to neither)
Fig. 2Effect of treatment variables on changes in F+ coliphage concentrations over time. Error bars represent standard deviation. Treatments: A (exposure to sunlight and indigenous microbiota including protozoa), B (exposure to only indigenous microbiota including protozoa), C (exposure to sunlight only), D (exposure to neither)
Fig. 3Effect of treatment variables on changes in adenovirus concentrations over time. Error bars represent standard deviation. Treatments: A (exposure to sunlight and indigenous microbiota including protozoa), B (exposure to only indigenous microbiota including protozoa), C (exposure to sunlight only), D (exposure to neither)
Two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test of treatment effects during each time point. Statistically significant values are bolded
| Organism | Time point (days) | Sun | Protozoa | Interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % contributiona | % contributiona | % contributiona | |||||
| Somatic | 1 | 0.3330 | 11.03 | 0.5509 | 4.027 | 0.6883 | 1.799 |
| 3 | 0.1793 | 1.045 | |||||
| 5 | 0.0793 | 1.552 | 0.1092 | 1.248 | |||
| 8 | 0.0796 | 0.9771 | |||||
| F+ | 1 | 0.3738 | 7.364 | 0.2977 | 10.3 | 0.2033 | 15.93 |
| 3 | 0.0917 | 8.448 | |||||
| 5 | |||||||
| 8 | |||||||
| Adenovirus | 1 | 0.7955 | 1.843 | 0.9957 | 0.0008 | 0.7477 | 2.853 |
| 8 | |||||||
aPercent contribution to variability in the dataset
All of the boldface entries in Table 2 are significant at an alpha level of 0.05