Water -- Virus removal.
Committee ChairGerba, Charles P.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractNucleic acid hybridization (gene probe) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques have been used to detect viral nucleic acid in water. However, gene probe and PCR may not distinguish between infectious and noninfectious viruses. This study evaluated the ability of gene probe to detect viable poliovirus 1 (polio 1), from sterile and nonsterile groundwater, and the ability of PCR to detect infectious human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) from tap and wastewater. The plaque forming (BGM cells), and the tissue culture infectious dose fifty (TCID₅₀) (PLC/PRF/5 cells) procedures were used to detect infectious polio 1 and HIV-1, respectively. Detection of polio 1 by gene probe and cell culture was similar in nonsterile water and in filter sterilized water, but not in autoclaved water. These results suggest that in some natural waters, detection of polio 1 by gene probe may correlate to detection by cell culture procedures. Although detection of infectious HIV-1 by cell culture decreased gradually, until no virus could be found, detection by PCR remained positive throughout the study. Therefore, it was concluded that the use of PCR to assess the risk associated to the presence of HIV-1 in polluted waters, may not be adequate. The enteric adenovirus types 40 (Ead 40) and 41 (Ead 41) are considered the second most important cause of viral gastroenteritis in children, but their role as waterborne pathogens is uncertain. This study compared the survival of Ead 40 and Ead 41 with polio 1, and hepatitis A virus (HAV) in different types of water. The Enteric adenoviruses survived longer in tap and sea water than either polio 1 or HAV, but only slightly better in wastewater. These results suggest that the enteric adenoviruses may survive for prolonged periods in water, representing a potential route of transmission. This study evaluated also the concentration of Ead 40 by the filter adsorption-elution method. With negatively-charged filters, recovery efficiencies of 22, 36, and 38% were obtained from secondary sewage, tap and sea water, respectively. Using electropositive filters, Ead 40 was recovered from tap water with an efficiency of 26.5%. These results show that Ead 40 can be concentrated, from water, with an efficiency comparable to that of other enteric viruses.
Degree ProgramMicrobiology and Immunology