Premium
Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection
Author(s) -
Edberg S.C.,
Rice E.W.,
Karlin R.J.,
Allen M.J.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of applied microbiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.889
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1365-2672
pISSN - 1364-5072
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2000.tb05338.x
Subject(s) - escherichia coli , indicator bacteria , fecal coliform , indicator organism , feces , contamination , water pollution , public health , pollution , environmental science , water safety , biology , environmental health , water quality , microbiology and biotechnology , ecology , medicine , biochemistry , nursing , gene
SUMMARY Public health protection requires an indicator of fecal pollution. It is not necessary to analyse drinking water for all pathogens. Escherichia coli is found in all mammal faeces at concentrations of 10 log 9 −1 , but it does not multiply appreciably in the environment. In the 1890s, it was chosen as the biological indicator of water treatment safety. Because of method deficiencies, E. coli surrogates such as the ‘fecal coliform’ and total coliforms tests were developed and became part of drinking water regulations. With the advent of the Defined Substrate Technology in the late 1980s, it became possible to analyse drinking water directly for E. coli (and, simultaneously, total coliforms) inexpensively and simply. Accordingly, E. coli was re‐inserted in the drinking water regulations. E. coli survives in drinking water for between 4 and 12 weeks, depending on environmental conditions (temperature, microflora, etc.). Bacteria and viruses are approximately equally oxidant‐sensitive, but parasites are less so. Under the conditions in distribution systems, E. coli will be much more long‐lived. Therefore, under most circumstances it is possible to design a monitoring program that permits public health protection at a modest cost. Drinking water regulations currently require infrequent monitoring which may not adequately detect intermittent contamination events; however, it is cost‐effective to markedly increase testing with E. coli to better protect the public's health. Comparison with other practical candidate fecal indicators shows that E. coli is far superior overall.