| Literature DB >> 35061779 |
Hemali H Oza1,2, Eleanor B Holmes2, Emily S Bailey3, Collin K Coleman2, Mark D Sobsey2.
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 2.1 billion people lack access to safely managed water. Cloth filtration is often employed in rural and developing communities of South Asia for point-of-use water treatment, but bacteria and viruses are too small for efficient removal by this filtration method. Chitosan is a biodegradable, cationic, organic polymer derived from the chemical treatment of chitin that acts as a coagulant and flocculant of contaminant of microbes and other particles in water, thereby facilitating filtration of microbes. This research 1) evaluated the use of chitosan acetate as a pre-treatment coagulation-flocculation process followed by cloth filtration for microbial reductions and 2) assessed floc particle size under three stirring conditions. E. coli KO11 bacteria and MS2 coliphage virus removals were quantified using culture-based methods. Chitosan acetate coagulation-flocculation pre-treatment of water, followed by cloth filtration, met or exceeded the protective (2-star) WHO performance levels for bacteria (2 log10 reduction) and viruses (3 log10 reduction), and filtrate turbidity was consistently reduced to < 1 NTU, meeting United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and WHO targets.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35061779 PMCID: PMC8782320 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262341
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Mean LRVs and their 95% confidence limits (as bar whiskers) by test microbe, test water, stirring condition, and sampling point.
(A) E. coli KO11 bacterial LRVs in raw water; (B) E. coli KO11 bacterial LRVs in raw water + 1% pasteurized sewage; (C) MS2 bacteriophage LRVs in raw water; (D) MS2 bacteriophage LRVs in raw water + 1% pasteurized sewage.
Comparisons of estimated mean differences in average LRVs of E. coli KO11 and MS2 coliphage after controlling for selected parameters in linear regressions.
| Comparison Parameters | Est. LRV Mean Diff. | Std. Error | Pr(>|t|) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ParameterA (LRVA) > ParameterB (LRVB) | ||||||
|
| Stirring Conditions | |||||
| Intermediate (2.5) | Minimal (2.1) | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.0024 | ||
| Intermediate (2.5) | Standard (2.2) | 0.28 | 0.10 | 0.0064 | ||
| Standard (2.2) | Minimal (2.1) | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.74 | ||
| Treatment Stage | ||||||
| Pre-treatment Alone (1.1) | Filtration Alone (0.1) | 1.01 | 0.11 | < 1.0 × 10−5
| ||
| Pre-treatment & Filtration (3.4) | Filtration Alone (0.1) | 3.32 | 0.11 | < 1.0 × 10−5
| ||
|
| Stirring Conditions | |||||
| Intermediate (2.3) | Minimal (2.2) | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.34 | ||
| Intermediate (2.3) | Standard (2.3) | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.73 | ||
| Standard (2.3) | Minimal (2.2) | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.54 | ||
| Treatment Stage | ||||||
| Pre-treatment Alone (1.8) | Filtration Alone (0.2) | 1.61 | 0.13 | < 1.0 × 10−5
| ||
| Pre-treatment & Filtration (3.4) | Filtration Alone (0.2) | 3.21 | 0.13 | < 1.0 × 10−5
| ||
1Using linear regressions, the estimated LRV mean difference was calculated for two parameters—stirring conditions and treatment stages. First, after controlling for water sample type (i.e., sewage and non-sewage amended samples) and treatment stage, estimated LRV mean differences among stirring conditions were calculated for E. coli KO11 and MS2 coliphage, separately. Second, after controlling for water sample type and stirring conditions, estimated LRV mean differences among treatment stages (i.e., Pre-treatment Alone and Pre-treatment & Filtration vs. Filtration Alone) were calculated for E. coli KO11 and MS2 coliphage, separately. Additional linear regression findings can be found in the supporting information under S8 Table in S1 File. LRVs listed next to the parameter were calculated by pooling all LRV results associated with the parameter by microbe type, E. coli KO11 and MS2; LRVs as averages are by parameter and were calculated separately.
** α = 0.010; 99% confidence-level.
*** α < 1.0 × 10−5; > 99.999% confidence-level.
Fig 2Average median floc size measurements for three stirring conditions and two challenge water types over the coagulation-flocculation sedimentation process.