In this study, the microbiological quality of roof-harvested rainwater was assessed by monitoring the concentrations of Escherichia coli, enterococci, Clostridium perfringens, and Bacteroides spp. in rainwater obtained from tanks in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Samples were also tested using real-time PCR (with SYBR Green I dye) for the presence of potential pathogenic microorganisms. Of the 27 rainwater samples tested, 17 (63%), 21 (78%), 13 (48%), and 24 (89%) were positive for E. coli, enterococci, C. perfringens, and Bacteroides spp., respectively. Of the 27 samples, 11 (41%), 7 (26%), 4 (15%), 3 (11%), and 1 (4%) were PCR positive for the Campylobacter coli ceuE gene, the Legionella pneumophila mip gene, the Aeromonas hydrophila lip gene, the Salmonella invA gene, and the Campylobacter jejuni mapA gene. Of the 21 samples tested, 4 (19%) were positive for the Giardia lamblia ␤-giardin gene. The binary logistic regression model indicated a positive correlation (P < 0.02) between the presence/absence of enterococci and A. hydrophila. In contrast, the presence/ absence of the remaining potential pathogens did not correlate with traditional fecal indicators. The poor correlation between fecal indicators and potential pathogens suggested that fecal indicators may not be adequate to assess the microbiological quality of rainwater and consequent health risk.

Roof-harvested rainwater (RHRW) has been considered an effective alternative water source for drinking and various nonpotable uses in a number of countries throughout the world. The most significant issue in relation to using untreated RHRW for drinking or other potable uses, however, is the potential public health risks associated with microbial pathogens. This paper reviews the available research reporting on the microbial quality of RHRW and provides insight on the capacity of fecal indicator bacteria to monitor health risks and disease outbreaks associated with the consumption of untreated RHRW. Several zoonotic bacterial and protozoan pathogens were detected in individual and communal rainwater systems. The majority of the studies reported in the literature assessed the quality of rainwater on the basis of the presence or absence of specific pathogens, with little information available regarding the actual numbers of such pathogens. In addition, no information is available concerning the ongoing prevalence of different pathogens in RHRW over time. The published data suggest that the microbial quality of RHRW should be considered less than that expected for potable water and that the commonly used indicators may not be suitable to indicate the presence of pathogens in RHRW. Several case control studies established potential links between gastroenteritis and consumption of untreated RHRW. Therefore, health risks assessment models, such as those using Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment, should be used to manage and mitigate health risks associated with drinking and nonpotable uses of RHRW.

A total of 214 rainwater samples from 82 tanks were collected in urban Southeast Queensland (SEQ) in Australia and analyzed for the presence and numbers of zoonotic bacterial and protozoal pathogens using binary PCR and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) analysis was used to quantify the risk of infection associated with the exposure to potential pathogens from roof-harvested rainwater used as potable or nonpotable water. Of the 214 samples tested, 10.7%, 9.8%, 5.6%, and 0.4% were positive for the Salmonella invA, Giardia lamblia ␤-giardin, Legionella pneumophila mip, and Campylobacter jejuni mapA genes, respectively. Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst wall protein (COWP) could not be detected. The estimated numbers of Salmonella, G. lamblia, and L. pneumophila organisms ranged from 6.5 ؋ 10 1 to 3.8 ؋ 10 2 cells, 0.6 ؋ 10 0 to 3.6 ؋ 10 0 cysts, and 6.0 ؋ 10 1 to 1.7 ؋ 10 2 cells per 1,000 ml of water, respectively. Six risk scenarios were considered for exposure to Salmonella spp., G. lamblia, and L. pneumophila. For Salmonella spp. and G. lamblia, these scenarios were (i) liquid ingestion due to drinking of rainwater on a daily basis, (ii) accidental liquid ingestion due to hosing twice a week, (iii) aerosol ingestion due to showering on a daily basis, and (iv) aerosol ingestion due to hosing twice a week. For L. pneumophila, these scenarios were (i) aerosol inhalation due to showering on a daily basis and (ii) aerosol inhalation due to hosing twice a week. The risk of infection from Salmonella spp., G. lamblia, and L. pneumophila associated with the use of rainwater for showering and garden hosing was calculated to be well below the threshold value of one extra infection per 10,000 persons per year in urban SEQ. However, the risk of infection from ingesting Salmonella spp. and G. lamblia via drinking exceeded this threshold value and indicated that if undisinfected rainwater is ingested by drinking, then the incidences of the gastrointestinal diseases salmonellosis and giardiasis are expected to range from 9.8 ؋ 10 0 to 5.4 ؋ 10

The study aimed to evaluate the suitability of Escherichia coli, enterococci, and Clostridium perfringens for assessing the microbiological quality of roof-harvested rainwater and assessing whether the concentrations of these faecal indicators can be used to predict the presence or absence of specific zoonotic bacterial or protozoan pathogens. From a total of 100 samples tested, 58%, 83%, and 46% of samples were found to be positive for, respectively, E. coli, enterococci, and Clostridium perfringens spores, as determined by traditional culture-based methods. Additionally, in the samples tested, 7%, 19%, 1%, 8%, 17%, and 15% were PCR positive for Aeromonas hydrophila lip, Campylobacter coli ceuE, Campylobacter jejuni mapA, Legionella pneumophila mip, Salmonella invA, and Giardia lamblia beta-giardin genes, respectively. However, none of the samples was positive for E. coli O157 lipopolysaccharide, verocytotoxin 1, and verocytotoxin 2 and Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst wall protein genes. The presence or absence of these potential pathogens did not correlate with any of the faecal indicator bacterial concentrations as determined by a binary logistic regression model. The roof-harvested rainwater samples tested in this study appeared to be of poor microbiological quality, and no significant correlation was found between the concentration of faecal indicators and pathogenic microorganisms. The use of faecal indicator bacteria raises questions regarding their reliability in assessing the microbiological quality of water and particularly their poor correlation with pathogenic microorganisms. The presence of one or more zoonotic pathogens suggests that the microbiological analysis of water should be performed and that appropriate treatment measures should be undertaken, especially in tanks where the water is used for drinking.