Water Resources Management

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 3635–3649 | Cite as

Variability of Intra-event Statistics for Multiple Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Urban Stormwater



Pathogens in surface waters continue to be a worldwide concern. The potential presence of pathogens is often identified through the use of fecal indicator bacteria such as fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci, each of which are still utilized worldwide depending on local regulations. Urban stormwater runoff has been shown to convey fecal indicator bacteria to surface waters; however, the fate and transport dynamics of these microbes in urban stormwater are not well established. This is particularly the case for intra-event (within event) processes. The intra-event characteristics of total suspended solids and three types of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci, were analysed for a watershed in Raleigh, NC, USA. FIB showed higher variability than TSS among intra-event characteristics such as normalized peak concentration, rate of change, and normalized concentration in the first 3 mm of rainfall (C3mm), but similar variability in concentrations throughout each storm. FIB intra-event statistics appear to be influenced by climate variables whereas total suspended sediments statistics are most influenced by hydrologic variables. Changes in intra-event total suspended concentrations were consistently well described by rainfall intensity, while FIB correlations with rainfall intensity were weaker and inconsistent between events. This study showed similar patterns of variability among the intra-event FIB statistics and comparable correlations to climatic and hydrologic variables between fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci. Thus, similar processes appear to influence the variability of all three indicator bacteria, suggesting that microbial models may be adaptable amongst various types of FIB.


Intra-event E. coli Enterococci Fecal coliform Urban stormwater Variability 



The writers would like to recognize the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources for funding this project, and thank Shawn Kennedy for his work installing monitoring equipment.


  1. Aladenola OO, Adeboye OB (2010) Assessing the potential for rainwater harvesting. Water Resour Manag 24(10):2129–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Salaymeh A, Al-Khatib IA, Arafat HA (2011) Towards sustainable water quality: management of rainwater harvesting cisterns in southern Palestine. Water Resour Manag 25(6):1721–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation (APHA, AWWA, and WEF) (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson KL, Whitlock JE, Harwood VJ (2005) Persistence and differential survival of fecal indicator bacteria in subtropical water and sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(6):3041–3048Google Scholar
  5. Bach PM, McCarthy DT, Deletic A (2010) Redefining the stormwater first flush phenomenon. Water Res 44(8):2487–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton GA, Pitt RE (2002) Stormwater effects handbook: a toolbox for watershed managers, scientists, and engineers. CRC Press, LLC., Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiew FHS, Peel MC, Western AW (2002) Application and testing of the simple rainfall-runoff model SimHyd. In: Singh VP, Frevert DK (eds) Mathematical models of small watershed hydrology and applications. Water Resources Publication, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow MF, Yusop Z, Toriman ME (2013) Level and transport pattern of faecal coliform bacteria from tropical urban catchments. Water Sci Technol 67(8):1822–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crane SR, Moore JA (1986) Modeling enteric bacterial dieoff: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 27:411–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan HP (1995) A review of urban stormwater quality processes. CRC for Catchment Hydrology, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  11. Eleria A, Vogel RM (2005) Predicting fecal coliform bacteria levels in the Charles River, Massachusetts, USA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41(5):1195–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferguson CM, Coote BG, Ashbolt NJ, Stevenson IM (1996) Relationships between indicators, pathogens, and water quality in an estuarine system. Water Res 30(9):2045–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson C, de Roda Husman AM, Altavilla N, Deere D, Ashbolt N (2003) Fate and transport of surface water pathogens in watersheds. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 33(3):299–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fries JS, Characklis GW, Noble RT (2006) Attachment of fecal indicator bacteria to particles in the Neuse River Estuary, N.C. J Environ Eng 132(10):1338–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hathaway JM, Hunt WF (2011) Evaluation of first flush for indicator bacteria and total suspended solids in urban stormwater runoff. Water Air Soil Pollut 217:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hathaway JM, Hunt WF, Simmons OD III (2010) Statistical evaluation of factors affecting indicator bacteria in urban storm-water runoff. J Environ Eng 136(12):1360–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hathaway JM, Hunt WF, Graves AK, Bass KL, Caldwell A (2011) Exploring fecal indicator bacteria in a constructed stormwater wetland. Water Sci Technol 63(11):2707–2712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hathaway JM, Tucker RS, Spooner JM, Hunt WF (2012) A traditional analysis of the first flush effect for nutrients in stormwater runoff from two small urban catchments. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(9):5903–5915Google Scholar
  19. He J, Valeo C, Chu A, Neumann NF (2010) Characteristics of suspended solids, microorganisms, and chemical water quality in event-based stormwater runoff from an urban residential area. Water Environ Res 82(12):2333–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jan C, Chang C, Lee M (2006) Discussion of ‘Design and calibration of a compound sharp-crested weir’ by J. Martinez, J. Reca, M.T. Morillas, and J.G. Lopez. J Hydraul Eng 132(8):868–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jewell TK, Adrian DD (1981) Development of improved stormwater quality models. J Environ Eng Div 107:957–974Google Scholar
  22. Line DE, White NM, Kirby-Smith WW, Potts JD (2008) Fecal coliform export from four coastal North Carolina areas. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44(3):606–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu A, Li D, Guan Y (2014) Understanding the role of urban road surface characteristics in influencing stormwater quality. Water Resour Manag 28:5217–5229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarthy DT (2009) A traditional first flush assessment of E. coli in urban stormwater runoff. Water Sci Technol 60(11):2749–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarthy DT, Mitchell VG, Deletic A, Diaper C (2007) Escherichia coli in urban stormwater: explaining their variability. Water Sci Technol 56(11):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarthy DT, Deletic A, Mitchell VG, Diaper C (2011) Development and testing of a model for Micro-Organism Prediction in Urban Stormwater (MOPUS). J Hydrol 409(1–2):236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy DT, Hathaway JM, Hunt WF, Deletic A (2012) Intra-event variability of Escherichia coli and total suspended solids in urban stormwater runoff. Water Res 46(20):6661–6670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell VG, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Hatt BE, McCarthy DT (2007) Achieving multiple benefits from stormwater harvesting. Water Sci Technol 55(4):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nnaji CC, Mama NC (2014) Preliminary assessment of rainwater harvesting potential in Nigeria: focus on flood mitigation and domestic water supply. Water Resour Manag 28:1907–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novotny V, Olem H (1994) Water quality prevention, identification and management of diffuse pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1054p Google Scholar
  31. Schoonover JE, Lockaby BG (2006) Land cover impacts on stream nutrients and fecal coliform in the lower piedmont of West Georgia. J Hydrol 331:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Selvakumar A, Borst M (2006) Variation of microorganism concentrations in urban stormwater runoff with land use and seasons. J Water Health 4(1):109–124Google Scholar
  33. Shen HW, Julien P (1993) Chapter 12: erosion and sediment transport. In: Maidment DR (ed) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc, USGoogle Scholar
  34. Sinton LW, Hall CH, Lynch PA, Davies-Colley RJ (2002) Sunlight inactivation of fecal indicator bacteria and bacteriophages from waste stabilization pond effluent in fresh and saline waters. Appl Environ Microbiol 68(3):1122–1131Google Scholar
  35. St Laurent J, Mazumder A (2014) Influence of seasonal and inter-annual hydro-meteorological variability on surface water fecal coliform concentration under varying land-use composition. Water Res 48:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Struck SD, Selvakumar A, Borst M (2008) Prediction of effluent quality from retention ponds and constructed wetlands for managing bacterial stressors in storm-water runoff. J Irrig Drain Eng 134(5):567–578Google Scholar
  37. Tsihrintzis VA, Hamid R (1997) Modeling and management of urban stormwater runoff quality: a review. Water Resour Manag 11:137–164Google Scholar
  38. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1986) Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria – 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2003) Bacterial water quality standards for recreational waters: status report. EPA-823-R-03-008. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Vaze J, Chiew FHS (2003) Comparative evaluation of urban storm water quality models. Water Resour Res 39:10Google Scholar
  41. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003) Guidelines for safe recreational water environments, volume 1: coastal and fresh waters. ISBN 92 4 154580 1. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. Yacub GP, Castric DA, Stadterman-Knauer KL, Tobin MJ, Blazina M, Heineman TN, Yee GY, Frazier L (2002) Evaluation of Colilert and Enterolert defined substrate methodology for wastewater applications. Water Environ Res 74(2):131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Young KD, Thackston EL (1999) Housing density and bacterial loading in urban streams. J Environ Eng 125:1177–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Environmental and Public Health Microbiology Laboratory, Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations