Hydrogeology Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1057–1064 | Cite as

Influence of topsoil of pyroclastic origin on microbial contamination of groundwater in fractured carbonate aquifers

  • Gino Naclerio
  • Emma Petrella
  • Valentina Nerone
  • Vincenzo Allocca
  • Pantaleone De Vita
  • Fulvio Celico
Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The aim of the research was to analyse the influence of a topsoil of pyroclastic origin on microbial contamination of groundwater in a carbonate aquifer and verify the reliability of thermotolerant coliforms and fecal enterococci as bacterial indicators. The research was carried out through hydrogeological and microbiological monitoring at an experimental field site in Italy during two hydrologic years and through column tests in a laboratory. The taxonomic classification of fecal indicators detected in spring water samples was performed using API20 galleries. Fecal enterococci were also identified by means of 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The topsoil of pyroclastic origin significantly retains both thermotolerant coliforms and fecal enterococci. Results of column tests carried out in soil blocks collected randomly within the test site suggest that Escherichia coli was more retained than Enterococcus faecalis, even though this difference is statistically significant in only two out of six soil samples. Thus, a non-uniform difference in retention is expected at field scale. This suggestion is in agreement with the results of the microbiological monitoring. In fact, fecal enterococci were a more reliable indicator than thermotolerant coliforms for detecting contamination at both seasonal springs of the aquifer system, while no significant differences were observed at the perennial spring.

Keywords

Carbonate rocks Fractured rock Topsoil Microbial contamination 

Résumé

Le but de la recherche était l’analyse de l’influence de la couche superficielle d’un sol d’origine pyroclastique sur la contamination bactérienne dans un aquifère carbonaté et la vérification de la fiabilité des coliformes et des entérocoques fécaux thermotolèrants comme indicateurs bactériens. La recherche a été réalisée par le suivi hydrogéologique et bactériologique à l’emplacement d’un champ expérimental en Italie pendant deux années hydrologiques et par des essais sur colonne dans un laboratoire. La classification taxonomique des indicateurs fécaux détectés dans des échantillons d’eau de source a été réalisée en utilisant des galeries API20. Des entérocoques fécaux ont aussi été identifiés au moyen de l’analyse séquentielle des gènes 16S et rRNA. La couche superficielle du sol d’origine pyroclastique fixe de façon significative les coliformes thermotolérants et les entérocoques fécaux. Les résultats de tests sur colonne effectués sur des mottes de sol collectées au hasard sur le site test suggèrent qu’Escherichia coli était plus fixé qu’Enterococcus faecalis, même si cette différence n’a de signification statistiquement que dans seulement deux des six échantillons de sol. Ainsi, une différence non uniforme de la rétention est attendue à l’échelle du terrain. Cette suggestion est en accord avec les résultats du suivi microbiologique. En fait, les entérocoques fécaux ont été un indicateur plus fiable que les coliformes thermotolérants pour détecter une contamination aux deux sources saisonnières du système aquifère, alors qu’aucune différence significative n’a été observée aux sources pérennes.

Resumen

Los objetivos del trabajo han sido analizar la influencia de una cobertera de origen piroclástico en la contaminación del agua subterránea y verificar la fiabilidad de los coliformes termotolerantes y de los enterococos fecales como indicadores bacteriológicos. La investigación se llevó a cabo mediante monitorización hidrogeológica y microbiológica en una parcela experimental en Italia durante dos años hidrológicos y mediante ensayos de columna en laboratorio. La clasificación taxonómica de los indicadores fecales detectados en muestras de agua de manantial se realizó utilizando galerías API20. Los enterococos fecales también fueron identificados por medio de la secuenciación genética 16SrRNA. La parte superior del suelo de origen piroclástico retiene significantemente tanto los coliformes termotolerantes como los enterococos. Los resultados de los ensayos en columna realizados en bloques de suelo recogidos al azar dentro de la parcela sugieren que los Escherichia coli quedaron más retenidos que los Enterococcus faecalis, aunque esta diferencia es estadísticamente significativa sólo en dos de las seis muestras de suelo. Así, es esperable una diferencia en la retención no uniforme a escala de campo. Esta sugerencia concuerda con los resultados de la monitorización microbiológica. De hecho, los enterococos fecales fueron un indicador más fiable que los coliformes termotolerantes para detectar la contaminación en ambos manantiales estacionales del sistema acuífero, mientras que no se observaron diferencias significativas en la fuente continua.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the European Union (KATER II research program).

References

  1. Abbott S, Caughley B, Scott G (1993) Evaluation of Enterolert for the enumeration of enterococci in the marine environment. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 32:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allocca V, Celico F, Petrella E, Marzullo G, Naclerio G (2008) The role of land use and environmental factors on microbial pollution of mountainous limestone aquifers. Environ Geol (in press). DOI  10.1007/s00254-007-1002-5
  3. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (2006) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM D 2487, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker MW, Metge DW, Collins SA, Shapiro AM, Harvey RW (2003) Bacterial transport experiments in fractured crystalline bedrocks. Ground Water 41:682–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bitton G, Farrah SR, Ruskin RH, Butner J, Chou YJ (1983) Survival of pathogenic and indicator organisms in groundwater. Ground Water 21:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boutibonnes P, Giard JC, Hartke A, Thammavongs B, Auffray Y (1993) Characterization of the heat shock response in Enterococcus faecalis. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 64:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briancesco R, Bonadonna L (2005) An italian study on Cryptosporidium and Giardia in wastewater, fresh water and treated water. Environ Monit Assess 104:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Celico F, Celico P, De Vita P, Piscopo V (2000) Groundwater flow and protection in the Southern Apennines (Italy). Hydrogéologie 4:39–46Google Scholar
  10. Celico F, Musilli I, Naclerio G (2004a) The impacts of pasture and manure spreading on microbial groundwater quality in carbonate aquifers. Environ Geol 46:233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Celico F, Varcamonti M, Guida M, Naclerio G (2004b) Influence of precipitation and soil on transport of fecal enterococci in limestone aquifers. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:2843–2846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Celico F, Petrella E, Celico P (2006) Hydrogeological behaviour of some fault zones in a carbonate aquifer of southern Italy: an experimentally based model. Terra Nova 18:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Easton AD (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport CV, Sparrow EB, Gordon RC (1976) Fecal indicator bacteria persistence under natural conditions in an ice-covered river. Appl Environ Microbiol 32:527–536Google Scholar
  15. Devriese LA, Pot B, Collins MD (1993) Phenotypic identification of the genus Enterococcus and differentiation of phylogenetically distinct enterococcal species and species groups. J Appl Bacteriol 75:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dexter AR (1993) Heterogeneity of unsaturated, gravitational flow of water through beds of large particles. Water Resour Res 29:1859–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drogue C (1992) Hydrodynamics of karstic aquifers: experimental sites in the Mediterranean karst, southern France. In: Back W (ed) Hydrogeology of selected karst regions. Heise, Hannover, Germany, pp 133–149Google Scholar
  18. Dutka BJ (1973) Coliforms are an inadequate index of water quality. J Environ Health 36:39–46Google Scholar
  19. FAO (1988) Soil map of the world. Revised legend, World Soil Resources Report 60, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO (2006) Guidelines for soil description. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. Flahaut S, Hartke A, Giard JC, Benachour A, Boutibonnes P, Auffray Y (1996) Relationship between stress response towards bile salts, acid and heat treatment in Enterococcus faecalis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 138:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeze RA, Cherry AC (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Geldenhuys JC, Pretorius PD (1989) The occurrence of enteric viruses in polluted water, correlation to indicator organisms and factors influencing their number. Water Sci Technol 2:105–109Google Scholar
  24. Gleeson C, Gray N (1997) The coliform index and waterborne disease. Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Godfrey S, Watkins J, Toop K, Francis C (2006) Analysis of enterococci using portable testing equipment for developing countries: variance of Azide NutriDisk medium under variable time and temperature. Water Sci Technol 54:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanes NB, Fragala R (1967) Effect of seawater concentration on the survival of indicator bacteria. J Water Poll Control Fed 39:97–104Google Scholar
  27. Hardina CM, Fujioka RSW (1991) Soil: the environmental source of Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Hawaii’s streams. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 6:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harvey RW, Garabedian SP (1991) Use of colloid filtration theory in modeling movement of bacteria through a contaminated sandy aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 25:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kani J, Mills D (2000) Recommended methods for the analysis of recreational marine water to comply with AB 411. California Department of Health Services, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and Microbiological Disease Laboratory, Sacramento, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Keswick BH, Gerba CP, Secor SL, Cech I (1982) Survival of enteric viruses and indicator bacteria in groundwater. J Environ Sci Heal A 17:903–912Google Scholar
  31. Kinzelman J, Ng C, Jackson E, Gradus S, Bagley R (2003) Enterococci as indicators of Lake Michigan recreation water quality: comparison of two methodologies and their impacts on public health regulatory events. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krieg NR, Holt JG (1984) Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology, vol 1. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Mangin A (1975) Contribution à l’étude hydrodinamynamique des aquifers karstiques [Contribution to the study of hydrodynamics in karst aquifers]. PhD Thesis. Université de Dijon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. McFeters GA, Stuart DJ (1974) Comparative survival of indicator bacteria and enteric pathogens in well water. Appl Microbiol 27:823–829Google Scholar
  35. McMurry SW, Coyne MS, Perfect E (1998) Fecal coliforms transport through intact soil blocks amended with poultry manure. J Environ Qual 27:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pekdeger A, Matthess G (1983) Factors of bacteria and virus transport in groundwater. Environ Geol 5:49–52Google Scholar
  37. Personné JC, Poty F, Vaute L, Drogue C (1998) Survival, transport and dissemination of Escherichia coli and enterococci in a fissured environment: study of a flood in a karstic aquifer. J Appl Microbiol 84:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrella E, Capuano P, Celico F (2007) Unusual behaviour of epikarst in the Acqua dei Faggi carbonate aquifer (southern Italy). Terra Nova 19:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pronk M, Goldscheider N, Zopfi J (2006) Dynamics and interaction of organic carbon, turbidity and bacteria in a karst aquifer system. Hydrogeol J 14:473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rose JB, Darbin H, Gerba CP (1988) Correlation of protozoa, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, with water quality variables in a watershed. Water Sci Technol 20:271–276Google Scholar
  41. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. USDA (1979) Soil conservation service. Engineering Field Manual USDA, SCS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. WHO (2006) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 1st Addendum to 3rd edn., World Health Organization, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Wildenschild D, Jensen KH, Villholth K, Illangasekare TH (1994) A laboratory analysis of the effect of macropores on solute transport. Ground Water 32:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams PW (1983) The role of the subcutaneous zone in karst hydrology. J Hydrol 61:45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gino Naclerio
    • 1
  • Emma Petrella
    • 1
  • Valentina Nerone
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Allocca
    • 2
  • Pantaleone De Vita
    • 2
  • Fulvio Celico
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi del MoliseGroundwater Research CenterPesche (Is)Italy
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze della TerraUniversità degli Studi “Federico II”NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations