4.4 Article

Performance of a small-scale wastewater treatment plant for removal of pathogenic protozoa (oo)cysts and indicator microorganisms

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 26, Pages 3492-3501

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2018.1480063

Keywords

Cryptosporidium; Giardia; sanitation; sewage; viability

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2010/07902-1, 2011/08653-8, 2012/5052]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/08653-8] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The protozoa Giardia and Cryptosporidium are associated with numerous outbreaks of waterborne diseases worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the concentration of Giardia spp. cysts, Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts, total coliforms, Escherichia coli and Clostridium perfringens in raw wastewater and their removals at UASB reactor, activated sludge system (operated conventionally and extended aeration) and slow sand filtration. Giardia spp. cysts were present in 100% and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts in 31.4% of the analysed wastewater samples. The UASB reactor followed by activated sludge system obtained approximately 2.0 log of removal for total coliforms and E. coli, whereas for C. perfringens and Giardia spp. cysts, it obtained 1 log. There was a high percentage of (oo)cysts still viable after secondary treatment, therefore, the risk of contamination of water courses and, consequently, for public health is considerable. However, after tertiary filtration, no (oo)cysts were found in any of the filtered effluent samples, being a good option for future reuse. Seasonal variations did not affect the concentrations and removals of microorganisms observed. Lack of correlations of concentrations of indicator microorganisms and (oo)cysts raise caveats and doubts regarding the true microbiological quality when using only indicator microorganisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available