2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Viral, bacterial, and protozoan pathogens and fecal markers in wells supplying groundwater to public water systems in Minnesota, USA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
50
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
50
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Private wells completed in fractured Silurian dolomite in Ontario, Canada (11 wells), and fractured bedrock in Pennsylvania, USA (5 wells), had microbes of fecal origin in 45% and 100%, respectively (Allen et al 2017;Murphy et al 2020). Ninety-six percent of public wells tested in Minnesota, USA, for similar types and number of fecal organisms were positive (Stokdyk et al 2020), and, as in the present study, Cryptosporidium was the most frequently detected pathogen, suggesting it is more common in groundwater than previously thought (Stokdyk et al 2019). Last, in a comprehensive review of groundwater studies conducted in Canada and the United States, Hynds et al (2014a) reported that of 12,616 public and private wells tested, at least one enteric pathogen was detected in 15%.…”
Section: Microbial Source Tracking and Pathogen Occurrencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Private wells completed in fractured Silurian dolomite in Ontario, Canada (11 wells), and fractured bedrock in Pennsylvania, USA (5 wells), had microbes of fecal origin in 45% and 100%, respectively (Allen et al 2017;Murphy et al 2020). Ninety-six percent of public wells tested in Minnesota, USA, for similar types and number of fecal organisms were positive (Stokdyk et al 2020), and, as in the present study, Cryptosporidium was the most frequently detected pathogen, suggesting it is more common in groundwater than previously thought (Stokdyk et al 2019). Last, in a comprehensive review of groundwater studies conducted in Canada and the United States, Hynds et al (2014a) reported that of 12,616 public and private wells tested, at least one enteric pathogen was detected in 15%.…”
Section: Microbial Source Tracking and Pathogen Occurrencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, values for protozoan pathogens (all Cryptosporidium types and G. duodenalis) were extrapolated from published comparisons of qPCR and immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) measurements collected in groundwater from Minnesota (Stokdyk et al 2019(Stokdyk et al , 2020. Finally, the value of H for adenovirus was based on Kundu et al (2013) because it is the most widely used value in the QMRA literature.…”
Section: Exposure Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 60 (0, 470) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 60 (0, 470) Giardia duodenalis 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 10) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 0) 0 (0, 40) 0 ( 0 consideration in the current QMRA. QMRAs that rely on published pathogen measurements may misrepresent risk or etiologies because some pathogens are underrepresented in the groundwater literature (Stokdyk et al 2019(Stokdyk et al , 2020. Because the expected etiologies for waterborne AGI have implications for water management, like treatment and mitigation strategies, sitespecific exposure assessments can contribute to efficient and effective groundwater management.…”
Section: Total By Pathogen Pathogenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Well selection produced a sample of wells that represented the five main aquifer types (sand and gravel, sandstone, crystalline rocks, carbonate rocks, and mixed rocks) and a range of geologic sensitivities of all public wells statewide. 21 , 22 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Campylobacter jejuni was detected once but excluded because it was not quantified. 22 Rotavirus A was detected but excluded because the qPCR assay could not distinguish wild-type rotavirus from vaccine shed in stool, and Cryptosporidium andersoni was detected but excluded because no dose–response model exists for it. We did not estimate risk for pathogens that were not analyzed and/or detected, consistent with our emphasis on using site-specific hazard and exposure assessments.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%