Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T16:04:28.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the Efficacy of the First Water System for Emergency Hospital Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Sharon C. Long  and
Jeremy Olstadt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: The First Water Responder B package water treatment device was evaluated for its ability to reduce the levels of spiked indicators and pathogens (Escherichia coli, MS2 coliphage, murine adenovirus, and Cryptosporidium oocysts) in a surface water to partially evaluate its appropriateness to be used to provide safe drinking water to hospitals during emergency situations.

Methods: Lake water was collected in 50-L carboys and spiked with selected indicators and pathogens (E coli, MS2 coliphage, murine adenovirus, and Cryptosporidium oocysts) at 2 different spike levels (low and high). This water was treated using the First Water Responder B, and the microorganisms were enumerated before and after treatment using US Environmental Protection Agency and Standard Methods. Microbial removal efficiencies were compared with Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.

Results:E coli spikes ranged from 2.9 to 1059 colony-forming units (CFU)/100 mL with removals to below detection limits (1 CFU/100 mL) to 2.8 CFU/100 mL or 0.98 to 3.5 log10 reductions. MS2 coliphage spikes ranged from 3 plaque-forming units (PFU) to 837 PFU/100 mL with removals to below detection limits (1 PFU/100 mL) to 11.7 PFU/100 mL or 0.65 to 1.9 log10 reductions. Murine adenovirus spikes ranged from 203 to 8410 most probable number (MPN) of infectious units/100 mL with removals to below detection limits (23 MPN infectious units/100 mL) to 1370 MPN infectious units/100 mL or 0.79 to >1.2 log10 reductions. Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst spikes ranged from 52 to 853 oocysts per liter with removals to below detection limits (<1 oocyst per liter) to 0.3 oocysts per liter or >2.2 to 3.4 log10 reductions.

Conclusions: Although the First Water system could remove a significant portion of the spiked organisms, it is recommended that this point-of-use system be coupled with chemical disinfection in a multiple-barrier approach to provide water of the highest reasonably achievable quality for hospital use in emergency situations.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:29-36)

Keywords

water pollutionwater purificationmurine adenovirusviral infectionsbacterial infectionsenvironmental pollutionwater supplyhospitalsdeveloping countriespublic health preparednesswater microbiologydrinking water at point-of-useE. coliMS2 coliphageadenovirusCryptosporidium parvum
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.US Environmental Protection Agency. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2). http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/index.html. Accessed December 19, 2008.Google Scholar
2.Schaub, SA, Gerba, CP.Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers. In Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. EPA/600/9-88/012. Cincinnati, OH: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1988.Google Scholar
3.US Environmental Protection Agency. Protocol for equipment verification testing for inactivation of microbiological contaminants.03/9204/EPADWCTR. http://www.nsf.org/business/drinking_water_systems_center/pdf/finalprotocoltps_microinact.pdf. Published January 2003. Accessed January 18, 2011.Google Scholar
4.Long, SC, Mahar, EJ, Pei, R, Arango, C, Shafer, E.Development of Source-Specific Indicator Organisms for Drinking Water. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation; 2002.Google Scholar
5.Rees, PLS, Long, SC, Baker, R.Development of Event-Based Pathogen Monitoring Strategies for Watersheds. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation; 2006.Google Scholar
6.American Public Health Association, American Water Works Assocation, Water Environment Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.21st ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2005.Google Scholar
7.US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 200.7: Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry;1994.Google Scholar
8.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Chapter NR 149. Laboratory Certification and Registration; 2008.Google Scholar
9.He, J-W, Jiang, SC.Quantification of enterococci and human adenoviruses in environmental samples by real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71 (5):2250–2255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Assavasilavasukul, P, Lau, BL, Harrington, GW, Hoffman, RM, Borchardt, MA.Effect of pathogen concentrations on removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia by conventional drinking water treatment. Water Res. 2008;42 (10-11):2678–2690.Google Scholar
11.US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 1603: Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Water by Membrane Filtration Using Modified Membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar (Modified mTEC). EPA-821-R-04-025; 2005.Google Scholar
12.US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 1602: Male-Specific (F+) and Somatic Coliphage in Water by Single Agar Layer (SAL) Procedure. EPA 821-R-01-029; 2001.Google Scholar
13.US Environmental Protection Agency. Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA. EPA 815-R-05-002; 2005.Google Scholar
14.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Chapter NR 102. Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters; 1997.Google Scholar
15.The Lower Fox River Watershed Monitoring Program. Accessed December 19, 2008. http://www.uwgb.edu/watershed.Google Scholar
16.Drinking water; national primary drinking water regulations; filtration, disinfection, turbidity, Giardia lamblia, viruses, Legionella, and heterotrophic bacteria. Final rule. Fed Regist. 1989;54 (124):27286.Google Scholar
17.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/publications/under/alkhardn.htm. Accessed December 19, 2008.Google Scholar
18.Scherer, BM, Miner, JR, Moore, JA, Buckhouse, JC.Indicator bacterial survival in stream sediments. J Environ Qual. 1992;21:591–595.Google Scholar
19.Ferguson, CM, Coote, BG, Ashbolt, NJ, Stevenson, IM.Relationships between indicators, pathogens, and water quality in an estuarine system. Water Research. 1996;30 (9):2045–2054.Google Scholar
20.LeChevallier, MW.Coliform regrowth in drinking water: a review. J AWWA. 1990;82:74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Bouteleux, C, Saby, S, Tozza, D.Escherichia coli behavior in the presence of organic matter released by algae exposed to water treatment chemicals. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71 (2):734–740.Google Scholar
22.Ashbolt, NJ, Grohmann, GS, Kueh, CSW.Significance of specific bacterial pathogens in the assessment of polluted receiving waters of Sydney, Australia. Water Sci Technol. 1993;27:449.Google Scholar
23.Toranzos, GA, McFeters, GA.Detection of indicator microorganisms in environmental freshwaters and drinking waters. In: Hurst CJ, Knudsen GR, McInerney MJ, eds, et al. Manual of Environmental Microbiology. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1997:184-194.Google Scholar
24.National primary drinking water regulations: total coliform rule. Final rule. Fed Regist. 1989;54 (124):27544–27568.Google Scholar
25.Sobsey, MD, Battigelli, DA, Handzel, TR, Schwabb, KJ.Male-Specific Coliphages as Indicators of Viral Contamination of Drinking Water. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation; 1995.Google Scholar
26.International Association on Water Pollution Research & Control (IAWPRC). Bacteriophages as model viruses in water quality control. Water Res. 1991;25 (5):529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Donnison, AM, Ross, CM.Somatic and F-specific coliphages in New Zealand waste treatment lagoons. Water Res. 1995;29 (4):1105–1110.Google Scholar
28.Long, SC, Sobsey, MD.A comparison of the survival of F+RNA and F+DNA coliphages in lake water microcosms. J Water Health. 2004;2 (1):15–22.Google Scholar
29.National primary drinking water regulations: ground water rule. Fed Regist. 2006;71 (216):65575–65660.Google Scholar
30.Yates, MV, Malley, J, Rochelle, P.Effect of adenovirus resistance on UV disinfection requirements: A report on the state of adenovirus science. J AWWA. 2006;98:93–106.Google Scholar
31.Meng, QS, Gerba, CP.Comparative inactivation of enteric adenoviruses, poliovirus and coliphages by ultraviolet irradiation. Water Res. 1996;30 (11):2665–2668.Google Scholar
32.Gerba, CP, Gramos, DM, Nwachuku, N.Comparative inactivation of enteroviruses and adenovirus 2 by UV light. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68 (10):5167–5169.Google Scholar
33.Jiang, SC.Human adenoviruses in water: occurrence and health implications: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40 (23):7132–7140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Crabtree, KD, Gerba, CP, Rose, JB, Haas, CN.Waterborne adenovirus: a risk assessment. Water Sci Technol. 1997;35:1–6.Google Scholar
35.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Parasites. http://www.cdc.gov/NCIDOD/DPD/parasites/cryptosporidiosis/factsht_cryptosporidiosis.htm. Accessed April 16, 2008.Google Scholar
36.Eliot, M, Fabiszewski, A, Chuang, P.Bench-scale investigation of the performance of an intermittently operated, household-scale slow sand filter against pathogen surrogates: media type, filter cleaning and idle time. Presented at: Sustainable and Safe Drinking Water in Developing and Developed Countries: Where Science Meets Policy; November 5–6, 2008; Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
37.Kallman, E, Smith, JA, Oyanedel-Craver, V.Field evaluation of locally produced silver-impregnated ceramic filters for point-of-use water purification in San Mateo Ixtatan, Guatemala. Presented at: Sustainable and Safe Drinking Water in Developing and Developed Countries: Where Science Meets Policy; November 5–6, 2008; Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
38.Miles, SL, Gerba, CP, Pepper, IL, Reynolds, KA.Point-of-Use drinking water devices for assessing microbial contamination in finished water and distribution systems. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43 (5):1425–1429.Google Scholar
39.Peter-Varbanets, M, Zurbrügg, C, Swartz, C, Pronk, W.Decentralized systems for potable water and the potential of membrane technology. Water Res. 2009;43 (2):245–265.Google Scholar
40.Heim, A, Ebnet, C, Harste, G, Pring-Akerblom, P.Rapid and quantitative detection of human adenovirus DNA by real-time PCR. J Med Virol. 2003;70 (2):228–239.Google Scholar