Saturday, December 3, 2022
57.7 F
Oxnard
More

    Latest Posts

    Two Visions of America by Don Jans

    Editorial: Are Water Agencies Willing and Prepared to Test

    Response to: A Winning Solution for the City of Oxnard is a Win for Us All

    Depending on the level of treatment and thus the cost of delivered water, various contaminants and pathogens can be left in and ignored, or removed and acknowledged. Under some circumstances, the water can be considered as “legal” but that may still beg the issue of its being safe. This, then, bespeaks of a complex issue that bears much more discussion than allotted here.

    Removal of pathogens and their genes relates, in part, to the screen and membrane size to control pass through of things like antibiotic resistant genes and on the differences between indicator microbes and some of the contaminants. Some thought and discussion is warranted. Why this? First, the genes are designed small enough to be extruded through the bacterial pilus, the tube connecting to bacteria during coupling, a tube with in internal diameter of about 2 nanometers (2nm). A virus can squeeze through about 30nm. That takes the treatment train down to a fairly sophisticated level. The standard coliform bacteria, as used to test water, is about 2000nm long and about 500nm in diameter. This is why when one looks for antibiotic resistant genes, or that matter, virulence factors, as found in tertiary treated recycled water, it becomes obvious that this level of filtration is insufficient treatment. So, how small do we need to go? Probably down to reverse osmosis, hence high cost. Is the water being delivered going to be RO?

    Tests using the now antiquated standard coliform will not do. Tests on one of the most modern wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. showed an abundant output and release of antibiotic resistant genes. They are much more resistant to control than the indicator bacteria. And, tests on indicators fail to appreciate the stealth state of bacteria, known as the viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state. In the VBNC state, these bacteria—-the ones used for standard indicators—don’t show up on the state’s tests. So, the tests results can be false negatives. Further, while passing down the pipe, say toward the crop of leafy greens to be irrigated, these bacteria in the VBNC state can resuscitate and by the time they reach the sprinkler head, their numbers are off the charts——-not good. But, because they entered this stealth state, they could not be seen on the standard test.

    Thus, the way to be sure is testing where the water is used, not as it first leaves the treatment works because of VBNC, but at the sprinkler head or spigot. Well, some might say, “so what, these are only genes, not the pathogens”. But testing does show a resuscitation of the stunned bacteria if one bothers to check the end of the pipe. Through gene swapping, bacteria can, in a single gene transfer, become lethal pathogens. Unless the end of the pipe is tested turning your gut bacteria into pathogens can happen with a glass of water, or a leafy green irrigated with recycled water. The scientific literature has an abundance of papers on this.

    Are the water agencies and others proposing this willing to test for resistant bacteria and genes, especially at the end of the pipe?

    Dr Edo McGowan

    Previous article on GREAT


    Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

    - Advertisement -

    7 COMMENTS

    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Subscribe
    Notify of
    guest

    7 Comments
    Newest
    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    William Hicks
    William Hicks
    3 years ago

    I have taken Cal Poly’s Designer/Manager School of Irrigation program in the past at their San Luis Obispo Campus. Maybe you might bring insight to their program with the concerns you’ve mention regarding recycled water.

    William Hicks
    William Hicks
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Sheryl Hamlin

    IF effluent processed water is sent to spreading grounds to recharge aquifers, would that be an area where it can be “tested at the pipe”?

    AND, could exposure to sunlight improve the safety of said water?

    William Hicks
    William Hicks
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Sheryl Hamlin

    Thank you Mr. McGowan

    William Hicks
    William Hicks
    3 years ago

    Consumers both on human direct use of water and those using water for crops need to know, in a simpler manner, what it will take to make recycled safe for use.

    Measuring safety “at the pipe” would suggest to me that that would be too late if you either were about to drink said water or apply it to crops.

    Which brings up another subject….if the water is not used for crops or human ingestion, where does it go and what affect does that water have on the environment where it ends up at?

    Latest Posts

    advertisement

    Don't Miss

    Subscribe

    To receive the news in your inbox

    7
    0
    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
    ()
    x