4.8 Article

Inactivation of bacteria and viruses in human urine depending on temperature and dilution rate

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 15, 页码 4067-4074

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.06.014

关键词

Ammonia; Bacteriophages; Enterococcus spp.; inactivation; Pathogens; Salmonella spp.; Sanitisation; Temperature; Urine

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council Formas
  2. Swedish international Development Agency Research Council SAREC
  3. programme EcoSanRes
  4. Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Source separation and reuse of human urine can decrease the environmental pollution of recipient waters and reduce the need for artificial mineral fertilisers. However, the reuse of urine introduces another pathogen transmission route that needs to be managed. The inactivation of enteric pathogens and model organisms (Salmonella enterica subspecies I serovar Typhimurium (S. typhimurium), Enterococcus faecalis, bacteriophages S. typhimurium 28B, MS2 and phi x 174) by urine storage was studied at dilutions (urine:water) 1:0, 1:1 and 1:3 at temperatures 4, 14, 24 and 34 degrees C. A threshold concentration of ammonia was found at approximately 40 mM NH3 (e.g. 2.1 g NH3-N L-1 and pH 8.9 at 24 degrees C), below which all studied organisms, except Salmonella, persisted considerably longer irrespective of treatment temperature, showing that urine dilution rate is of great importance for pathogen inactivation. For Salmonella spp. no threshold level was found in these studies (15 mM NH3 lowest concentration studied). At temperatures below 20 degrees C, bacteriophage reduction was very slow. Therefore, urine stored at temperatures below 20 degrees C carries a high risk of containing viable viruses. The study indicated that the current recommended storage time for urine of 6 months at 20 degrees C or higher is safe for unrestricted use and could probably be shortened, especially for undiluted urine. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据