Occurrence of norovirus in raw sewage – A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Eftim, Sorina E.; Hong, Tao; Soller, Jeffrey A.; Boehm, Alexandria B.; Warren, Isaac; Ichida, Audrey; Nappier, Sharon P.

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.017

Cited by 112 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure includes seasonal enteric virus influent data over the course of 1 year for WRRFs G, H, and I. Occurrence and variability of enteric viruses in raw influent corroborate other studies quantifying wastewater noroviruses and adenoviruses over similar time periods (e.g., Carducci & Verani, ; Eftim et al., ; Grøndahl‐Rosado, Yarovitsyna, Trettenes, Myrmel, & Robertson, ; Hata, Kitajima, & Katayama, ; Kitajima, Iker, Pepper, & Gerba, ). Compared to the bacterial and viral indicators, the enteric viruses showed greater variability over the course of the year, similar to the higher enteric virus variability as reported by Grøndahl‐Rosado et al.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities

Worley-Morse

Mann

Khunjar

et al. 2019

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A year‐long sampling campaign at nine water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) was conducted to assess the treatability and fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses. Influent concentrations of viral indicators (male‐specific and somatic coliphages) and bacterial indicators (Escherichia coli and enterococci) remained relatively constant, typically varying by one order of magnitude over the course of the year. Annual average bacterial indicator reduction ranged from 4.0 to 6.7 logs, and annual average viral indicator reduction ranged from 1.6 to 5.4 logs. Bacterial and viral indicator reduction depended on the WRRF's treatment processes, and bacterial indicator reduction was greater than viral indicator reduction for many processes. Viral reduction (adenovirus 41, norovirus GI, and norovirus GII) was more similar to viral indicator reduction than bacterial indicator reduction. Overall, this work suggests that viral indicator reduction in WRRFs is variable and depends on specific unit processes. Moreover, for the same unit treatment process, viral indicator reduction and bacterial indicator reduction can vary.Practitioner points A year‐long sampling campaign was conducted at nine water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs).The treatability and fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses were assessed.Viral indicator reduction in WRRFs is variable and depends on specific unit processes.For the same unit treatment process, viral indicator reduction and bacterial indicator reduction can vary.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities

Worley-Morse

Mann

Khunjar

et al. 2019

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent reviews [19,20] have addressed the occurrence of norovirus in wastewater. Bootstrapped estimates of norovirus (genogroups pooled) in raw sewage from North America gave a mean of 10 3.95 ± 10 1.10 gene copies per L [19].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bootstrapped estimates of norovirus (genogroups pooled) in raw sewage from North America gave a mean of 10 3.95 ± 10 1.10 gene copies per L [19]. Several authors report concentrations of Salmonella in raw wastewater [21,22,23] and a lognormal distribution was fit to pool datasets from the two studies where individual sample data were provided [22,23].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of Microbial Risk for Direct Potable Reuse and de Facto Reuse Treatment Schemes: The Impacts of Source Water Quality and Blending

Chaudhry

Hamilton

Haas

et al. 2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although reclaimed water for potable applications has many potential benefits, it poses concerns for chemical and microbial risks to consumers. We present a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) Monte Carlo framework to compare a de facto water reuse scenario (treated wastewater-impacted surface water) with four hypothetical Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) scenarios for Norovirus, Cryptosporidium, and Salmonella. Consumer microbial risks of surface source water quality (impacted by 0–100% treated wastewater effluent) were assessed. Additionally, we assessed risks for different blending ratios (0–100% surface water blended into advanced-treated DPR water) when source surface water consisted of 50% wastewater effluent. De facto reuse risks exceeded the yearly 10−4 infections risk benchmark while all modeled DPR risks were significantly lower. Contamination with 1% or more wastewater effluent in the source water, and blending 1% or more wastewater-impacted surface water into the advanced-treated DPR water drove the risk closer to the 10−4 benchmark. We demonstrate that de facto reuse by itself, or as an input into DPR, drives microbial risks more so than the advanced-treated DPR water. When applied using location-specific inputs, this framework can contribute to project design and public awareness campaigns to build legitimacy for DPR.

show abstract

“…The actual numbers of noroviruses in wastewater in some parts of Europe are known to be higher (> 10 7 genomic copies (GC)/L) (Rusiñol et al, 2015) than those considered in the guidelines used as a framework for elaboration of the JRC draft report. In a metaanalysis of wastewater from different countries in Europe, and other areas in the world, Eftim et al (2017) reported 10 5 GC/L in wastewater as an average value in Europe, which is one log higher than the average in North America. Several studies have reported peak levels of adenovirus and norovirus > 10 9 GC/L (Gerba et al, 2017).…”

Section: Answer To Tor3mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In the JRC draft report it is indicated that information is often not available on concentrations, dose-response relationships and disease burden for various waterborne pathogens in treated wastewater in Europe. However, the EFSA experts have identified various scientific papers addressing some of the most relevant pathogens (Montemayor et al, 2005;Levantesi et al, 2010;Rodríguez-Manzano et al, 2012;Rusiñol et al, 2015;Spanakos et al, 2015;Eftim et al, 2017). This should by no means be considered as an extensive literature search on the topic, but is given as an illustration that relevant data are available that address the previous point.…”

Section: Answer To Tor3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Request for scientific and technical assistance on proposed EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge

Allende

Cullerés

Llop

et al. 2017

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the request of the European Union Joint Research Centre, a Joint Research Centre draft report on European Union minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation was reviewed, to determine whether: the methodology used was appropriate, the defined food crop categories were appropriate, the proposed minimum quality requirements were sufficient, and any risks had been overlooked. The European Food Safety Authority recommends that: (1) a full description of the methodology used in reviewing and assessing the literature, regulations and guidelines is provided; (2) there is a separate category for feed crops and pasture; (3) there is explicit mention of the fact that the tolerable level of risk used in the World Health Organization guidelines is formally accepted by European risk managers, and that information is provided on the data supporting the impact of the minimum quality requirements on public and animal health; (4) relevant publications on concentrations, dose-response relationships and disease burden for all the waterborne pathogens in treated wastewater in Europe consulted for the elaboration of this document are explicitly referenced in the document; (5) the quantitative microbial risk assessment outputs used in the document are revised on the basis of more recent information and European data; (6) risk assessment studies should inform whether the applied treatment ensures a sufficient decrease/removal of the hazard(s); (7) full clarity is provided on why specific indicator organisms are recommended for assessing the probability of the presence of pathogens; (8) an inventory of hazards to animal health in urban wastewater, and an explanation of why the proposed minimum quality requirements are considered appropriate to protect animal health, are provided; (9) reasoning on the lack of minimum quality requirements for chemical contaminants is provided; and (10) critical discussion on the importance of the uptake and accumulation of chemical contaminants, including compounds of emerging concern and disinfectant by-products, and the possible consequences for human and animal health, is included.

show abstract

Occurrence of norovirus in raw sewage – A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Cited by 112 publications

References 43 publications

Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities

Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities

Drivers of Microbial Risk for Direct Potable Reuse and de Facto Reuse Treatment Schemes: The Impacts of Source Water Quality and Blending

Request for scientific and technical assistance on proposed EU minimum quality requirements for water reuse in agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About