The detection and identification of pathogens from water samples remain challenging due to variations in recovery rates and the cost of procedures. Ultrafiltration offers the possibility to concentrate viral, bacterial, and protozoan organisms in a single process by using size-exclusion-based filtration. In this study, two hollow-fiber ultrafilters with 50,000-molecular-weight cutoffs were evaluated to concentrate microorganisms from 2-and 10-liter water samples. When known quantities (10 5 to 10 6 CFU/liter) of two species of enteric bacteria were introduced and concentrated from 2 liters of sterile water, the addition of 0.1% Tween 80 increased Escherichia coli strain K-12 recoveries from 70 to 84% and Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis recoveries from 36 to 72%. An E. coli antibiotic-resistant strain, XL1-Blue, was recovered at a level (87%) similar to that for strain K-12 (96%) from 10 liters of sterile water. When E. coli XL1-Blue was introduced into 10 liters of nonsterile Rio Grande water with higher turbidity levels (23 to 29 nephelometric turbidity units) at two inoculum levels (9 ؋ 10 5 and 2.4 ؋ 10 3 per liter), the recovery efficiencies were 89 and 92%, respectively. The simultaneous addition of E. coli XL1-Blue (9 ؋ 10 5 CFU/liter), Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (10 oocysts/liter), phage T1 (10 5 PFU/liter), and phage PP7 (10 5 PFU/liter) to 10 liters of Rio Grande surface water resulted in mean recoveries of 96, 54, 59, and 46%, respectively. Using a variety of surface waters from around the United States, we obtained recovery efficiencies for bacteria and viruses that were similar to those observed with the Rio Grande samples, but recovery of Cryptosporidium oocysts was decreased, averaging 32% (the site of collection of these samples had previously been identified as problematic for oocyst recovery). Results indicate that the use of ultrafiltration for simultaneous recovery of bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens from variable surface waters is ready for field deployment.

The use of ultrafiltration as a concentration method to recover viruses from environmental waters was investigated. Two ultrafiltration systems (hollow fiber and tangential flow) in a large- (100 L) and small-scale (2 L) configuration were able to recover greater than 50% of multiple viruses (bacteriophage PP7 and T1 and poliovirus type 2) from varying water turbidities (10–157 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)) simultaneously. Mean recoveries (n = 3) in ground and surface water by the large-scale hollow fiber ultrafiltration system (100 L) were comparable to recoveries observed in the small-scale system (2 L). Recovery of seeded viruses in highly turbid waters from small-scale tangential flow (2 L) (screen and open channel) and hollow fiber ultrafilters (2 L) (small pilot) were greater than 70%. Clogging occurred in the hollow fiber pencil module and when particulate concentrations exceeded 1.6 g/L and 5.5 g/L (dry mass) in the screen and open channel filters, respectively. The small pilot module was able to filter all concentrates without clogging. The small pilot hollow fiber ultrafilter was used to test recovery of seeded viruses from surface waters from different geographical regions in 10-L volumes. Recoveries >70% were observed from all locations.Key words: ultrafiltration, waterborne virus detection, viral concentration.

Current methods to concentrate viruses from large volumes of water are prone to inconsistent results and are costly and complex procedurally. Ultrafiltration can utilize size exclusion rather than adsorption and (or) elution to concentrate viruses and, therefore, may offer greater flexibility in developing methods that can provide more consistent recoveries among different viruses and widely varying water conditions. Two small scale ultrafiltration systems (hollow fiber and tangential flow) were tested with a virus suspended in 2 L of reagent grade, tap, ground, or surface water. Three model viruses were used (bacteriophages PP7 and T1 and poliovirus) to compare and characterize the recovery of viruses with the two ultrafiltration systems. Pretreatment of the ultrafilters with blocking agents and the use of elution agents can serve to prevent viral adsorption to the filter surface or to elute bound virus and keep viral agents suspended in the retentate. The use of a blocking and elution step concentrated viruses (>60% recovery) from widely varying water qualities, including surface water, such that a single method can be used to efficiently concentrate viruses from all of the water types tested. Both ultrafiltration systems appear to be able to efficiently recover viruses; however, the hollow fiber systems provided slightly better results in the 2-L volumes tested.