Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 14671–14675 | Cite as

Fecal contamination of wastewater treatment plants in Portugal

  • Manuela Oliveira
  • Isa Serrano
  • Sofia Van Harten
  • Lucinda J. Bessa
  • Fernando Bernardo
  • Paulo Martins da Costa
Short Research and Discussion Article

Abstract

Reutilization of effluents from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) for non-potable applications is increasing due to the reduction of sustainable water resources. These products mostly come from municipal WWTP and also from slaughterhouses effluents. The microbiological certification of these products is mandatory before their discharge into the environment. This study evaluates if the treatment applied in WWTP to municipal waters or to poultry slaughterhouse effluents distributed over the Portuguese continental territory is efficient in reducing the microbiological risk associated with the reutilization of those wastewaters and sludges. Fecal indicators Escherichia coli and enterococci were evaluated in 42 and 24 wastewater samples from 14 municipal WWTP and 8 poultry slaughterhouse treatment plants, respectively, by the conventional culture method and a rapid Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technique. Bacterial enumeration in inflow water from most WWTP was rather high (generally >105 cells/ml), for both E. coli and Enterococcus spp., and the bacterial quantification by FISH was generally higher than enumeration by the conventional culture method. In both types of treatment plants studied, bacterial load from effluents and sludges was not statistically different from the inflows, indicating that the treatment applied seems to be equally unable to reduce the microbiological load of the effluents. These findings may jeopardize the safe reuse of treated wastewaters in agriculture and the quality of the water environment. Therefore, products like water, sewage sludge, and biosolids originated from the municipal and slaughterhouse WWTP studied should not be reutilized, and effluents treatment should be urgently reviewed.

Keywords

Agriculture Contamination Effluents Enterococcus spp. Escherichia coli FISH Wastewater treatment plant Water reuse 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank to CIISA (“Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar em Sanidade Animal”) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine/University of Lisbon and FCT (“Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia”) for funding (Project UID/CVT/00276/2013).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Burch MD (2008) Effective doses, guidelines & regulations. Adv Exp Med Biol 619:831–853. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75865-7_36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr RM, Blumenthal UJ, Mara DD (2004) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater in agriculture: revisiting WHO guidelines. Water Sci Technol 50:31–38Google Scholar
  3. da Costa PM, Oliveira M, Bica A, Vaz-Pires P, Bernardo F (2007) Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli isolated from poultry feed and feed ingredients. Vet Microbiol 120:122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dick LK, Stelzer EA, Bertke EE, Fong DL, Stoeckel DM (2010) Relative decay of Bacteroidales microbial source tracking markers and cultivated Escherichia coli in freshwater microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:3255–3262. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02636-09 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domig KJ, Mayer HK, Kneifel W (2003) Methods used for the isolation, enumeration, characterisation and identification of Enterococcus spp. 1. Media for isolation and enumeration. Int J Food Microbiol 88:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dubreuil JD (2012) The whole Shebang: the gastrointestinal tract, Escherichia coli enterotoxins and secretion. Curr Issues Mol Biol 14:71–82Google Scholar
  7. Fisher K, Phillips C (2009) The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology 155:1749–1757. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.026385-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hendricks R, Pool EJ (2012) The effectiveness of sewage treatment processes to remove faecal pathogens and antibiotic residues. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 47:289–297. doi: 10.1080/10934529.2012.637432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodson RE, Dustman WA, Garg RP, Moran MA (1995) In situ PCR for visualization of microscale distribution of specific genes and gene products in prokaryotic communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:4074–4082Google Scholar
  10. Marcogliese DJ et al (2015) Effects of a major municipal effluent on the St. Lawrence River: a case study. Ambio 44:257–274. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0577-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Prasse C, Stalter D, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Oehlmann J, Ternes TA (2015) Spoilt for choice: a critical review on the chemical and biological assessment of current wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res 87:237–270. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Romano V, Pasquale V, Krovacek K, Mauri F, Demarta A, Dumontet S (2012) Toxigenic Clostridium difficile PCR ribotypes from wastewater treatment plants in southern Switzerland. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:6643–6646. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01379-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salem IB, Ouardani I, Hassine M, Aouni M (2011) Bacteriological and physico-chemical assessment of wastewater in different region of Tunisia: impact on human health. BMC Res Notes 4:144. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shanahan EF, Roiko A, Tindale NW, Thomas MP, Walpole R, Kurtboke DI (2010) Evaluation of pathogen removal in a solar sludge drying facility using microbial indicators. Int J Environ Res Public Health 7:565–582. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7020565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Elsas JD, Semenov AV, Costa R, Trevors JT (2011) Survival of Escherichia coli in the environment: fundamental and public health aspects. ISME J 5:173–183. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuela Oliveira
    • 1
  • Isa Serrano
    • 1
  • Sofia Van Harten
    • 1
  • Lucinda J. Bessa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fernando Bernardo
    • 1
  • Paulo Martins da Costa
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.CIISA/Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade de LisboaPolo Universitário da AjudaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.ICBAS - Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel SalazarUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.CIIMAR, Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e AmbientalPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations