Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guideline Technical Document

Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guideline Technical Document
Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking
Water Quality
Guideline Technical Document
Enteric Viruses
Health Canada is the federal department ­responsible for helping the people of Canada
maintain and improve their health. We assess the safety of drugs and many consumer
products, help improve the safety of food, and provide information to Canadians to help
them make healthy decisions. We provide health services to First Nations people and to
Inuit communities. We work with the provinces to ensure our health care system serves
the needs of Canadians.
Published by authority of the Minister of Health.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
Enteric Viruses
is available on Internet at the following address:
www.healthcanada.gc.ca
Également disponible en français sous le titre :
Recommandations pour la qualité de l’eau potable au Canada : Document technique
Les virus entériques
This publication can be made available on request in a variety of alternative formats.
For further information or to obtain additional copies, please contact:
Publications
Health Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9
Tel.: 613-954-5995
Fax: 613-941-5366
Email: [email protected]
©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, ­
represented by the Minister of Health, 2011
This publication may be reproduced without p­ ermission
provided the source is fully a­ cknowledged.
Cat.: H129-6/2011E
ISBN: 978-1-100-19634-3
Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking
Water Quality
Guideline Technical Document
Enteric Viruses
Prepared by the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on
Drinking Water
of the
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on
Health and the Environment
Health Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
March, 2011
This document may be cited as follows:
Health Canada (2011). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical
Document — Enteric Viruses. Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Healthy Environments
and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. (Catalogue No H129-6/2011E).
The document was prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water
of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment.
Any questions or comments on this document may be directed to:
Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
269 Laurier Avenue West, Address Locator 4903D
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0K9
Tel.: 613-948-2566
Fax: 613-952-2574
E-mail: [email protected]
Other Guideline Technical Documents for the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
can be found on the following web page: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality
ii
Table of Contents
Part I. Overview and Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0
Guideline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1
Health effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2
Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4
Quantitative microbial risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.0
Application of the guideline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part II. Science and Technical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.0
Description and health effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1
Noroviruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2
Hepatitis viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1 HAV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2 HEV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3
Rotaviruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4
Enteroviruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5
Adenoviruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6
Astroviruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7
Potential emerging viruses in drinking water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.0
Sources and exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2
Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3
Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4
Waterborne illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5
Relationship to indicator organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5.1 Treated drinking water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5.2 Surface water sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5.3 Groundwater sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.0
Analytical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1
Detection of enteric viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.1 Sample concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2 Detection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2
Detection of viral indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.1 E. coli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.2 Total coliforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.3 Enterococci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ii
6.2.4
6.2.5
Clostridium perfringens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bacteriophages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.0
Treatment technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1
Municipal scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1.1 Level of treatment necessary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1.2 Physical removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1.2.1 Physical log removal credits for treatment barriers . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.3 Chemical disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.3.1 Water quality characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.3.2 CT concept for disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1.3.3 Chemical resistance of different viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.1.3.4 Disinfection by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1.4 Ultraviolet light disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1.4.1 UV resistance of viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1.5 Multi-disinfectant strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2
Residential scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.0
Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.1
Health-based targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.2
Acceptable levels of risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.3
Quantitative microbial risk assessment approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.3.1 Hazard identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.3.2 Exposure assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.3.3 Dose–response assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.3.4 Risk characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.4
International considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9.0
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.0
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A: List of acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix B: CT values for inactivation of viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix C: QMRA model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
iii
March 2011
Enteric Viruses in Drinking Water
Part I. Overview and Application
1.0
Guideline
The guideline for enteric viruses is a health-based treatment goal of a minimum 4-log
reduction (i.e., removal and/or inactivation) of enteric viruses. Depending on the source water
quality, a greater log reduction may be required. Methods currently available for the detection
of enteric viruses are not applicable for routine monitoring. Treatment technologies and
watershed or wellhead protection measures known to reduce the risk of waterborne illness
should be implemented and maintained if source water is subject to faecal contamination or if
enteric viruses have been responsible for past waterborne outbreaks.
2.0
Executive summary
Viruses are extremely small microorganisms that are incapable of replicating outside a
host cell. In general, viruses are host specific, which means that viruses that infect animals or
plants do not usually infect humans, although a small number of enteric viruses have been
detected in both humans and animals. Most viruses also infect only certain types of cells within a
host; consequently, the health effects associated with a viral infection vary widely. Viruses that
can multiply in the gastrointestinal tract of humans or animals are known as “enteric viruses.”
There are more than 140 enteric viruses known to infect humans.
Although there are methods capable of detecting and measuring viruses in drinking water,
they are not practical for routine monitoring in drinking water because of methodological and
interpretation limitations. The microbiological quality of drinking water continues to be verified
by relying on the monitoring of indicators, such as Escherichia coli. The presence of E. coli
indicates faecal contamination and the potential presence of enteric viruses. However,
the absence of E. coli does not necessarily mean that enteric viruses are also absent. Therefore,
E. coli monitoring needs to be used as part of a “source-to-tap” multi-barrier approach to protect
the quality of drinking water.
Health Canada recently completed its review of the health risks associated with enteric
viruses in drinking water. This Guideline Technical Document reviews and assesses identified
health risks associated with enteric viruses in drinking water. It evaluates new studies and
approaches and takes into consideration the methodological and interpretation limitations in
available methods for the detection of viruses in drinking water. From this review, the guideline
for enteric viruses in drinking water is established as a treatment goal of a minimum 4-log
reduction of enteric viruses.
2.1
Health effects
The human illnesses associated with enteric viruses are diverse. The main health effect
associated with enteric viruses is gastrointestinal illness. The incubation time and severity of
health effects are dependent on the specific virus responsible for the infection. In addition to
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
1
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
gastroenteritis, enteric viruses can cause serious acute illnesses, such as meningitis, poliomyelitus
and non-specific febrile illnesses. They have also been implicated in chronic diseases, such as
diabetes mellitus and chronic fatigue syndrome.
The seriousness of the health effects from a viral infection will depend on the specific
virus, as well as the characteristics of the individual affected (e.g., age, health status). In theory, a
single infectious virus particle can cause infection; however, it usually takes more than a single
particle. For many enteric viruses, the number of infectious virus particles needed to cause an
infection is presumed to be low.
2.2
Exposure
Enteric viruses cannot multiply in the environment, but they can survive longer in water
than most intestinal bacteria and are more infectious than most other microorganisms. Enteric
viruses are excreted in the faeces of infected individuals, and some enteric viruses can also be
excreted in urine.
Enteric viruses have been detected in surface water and groundwater sources. Recent
scientific data have also shown the presence of enteric viruses in groundwater that had been
considered less vulnerable to faecal contamination.
2.3
Treatment
The multi-barrier approach is the best approach to reduce enteric viruses and other
waterborne pathogens in drinking water. For these types of contaminants, the focus should be
on characterizing source water risks and ensuring that effective treatment barriers are in place
to achieve safe drinking water. Generally, minimum treatment of supplies derived from surface
water sources or groundwater under the direct influence of surface waters should include
adequate filtration (or technologies providing an equivalent log reduction credit) and
disinfection. Recent published information has shown the presence of enteric viruses in some
groundwater sources that were considered to be less vulnerable to faecal contamination (i.e.,
those not under the direct influence of surface waters). As a result, it is recommended to ensure
adequate treatment of all groundwaters to remove/inactivate enteric viruses, unless exempted by
the responsible authority.
Once the source water quality has been characterized, pathogen removal/inactivation
targets and effective treatment barriers can be established in order to achieve safe levels in the
finished drinking water. The removal of enteric viruses from raw water is complicated by their
small size and relative ease of passage through filtration barriers. However, viruses are
effectively inactivated through the application of various disinfection technologies, individually
or in combination, at relatively low dosages. In drinking water supplies with a distribution
system, a disinfectant residual should be maintained at all times.
2.4
Quantitative microbial risk assessment
Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) can be used as part of a multi-barrier
approach to help provide a better understanding of risk related to a water system. QMRA uses
source water quality data, treatment barrier information and pathogen-specific characteristics
to estimate the burden of disease associated with exposure to pathogenic microorganisms in a
drinking water source. Through this assessment, variations in source water quality and treatment
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
2
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
performance can be evaluated for their contribution to the overall risk. Such analysis can be used
to assess the adequacy of existing control measures or the requirement for additional treatment
barriers or optimization and help establish limits for critical control points.
Specific enteric viruses whose characteristics make them a good representative of all
similar pathogenic viruses are considered in QMRA; from these, a reference virus is selected.
Ideally, a reference virus will represent a worst-case combination of high occurrence, high
concentration and long survival time in source water, low removal and/or inactivation during
treatment, and a high pathogenicity for all age groups. If the reference virus is controlled, it is
assumed that all other similar viruses of concern are also controlled. Numerous enteric viruses
have been considered. As no single virus has all of the characteristics of an ideal reference virus,
this risk assessment incorporates key characteristics of rotavirus together with other enteric
viruses to better represent all enteric viruses of concern.
3.0
Application of the guideline
Note: Specific guidance related to the implementation of the drinking water guidelines
should be obtained from the appropriate drinking water authority in the affected jurisdiction.
Exposure to viruses should be limited by implementing a “source-to-tap” approach to
protect the quality of drinking water. This approach includes assessing the entire drinking water
system, from the source water through the treatment and distribution systems to the consumer.
Source water assessments should be part of routine vulnerability assessments and/or
sanitary surveys. They should include identifying potential sources of faecal contamination in the
watershed/aquifer that may impact the quality of the water. Groundwater sources should also be
assessed for their vulnerability to contamination. Risk factors may include the type of overlying
soil, the land uses surrounding the well and the condition/construction of the well. Sources of
human faecal matter, such as sewage treatment plant effluents, sewage lagoon discharges and
improperly maintained septic systems, have the potential to be significant sources of human
enteric viruses. Faecal matter from wildlife and other animals are not considered a significant
source of enteric viruses capable of causing illness in humans, since viruses are generally host
specific.
Assessments of water quality need to consider the “worst-case” scenario for that source
water. For example, there may be a short period of poor source water quality following a storm.
This short-term degradation in water quality may in fact embody most of the risk in a drinking
water system. Although routine monitoring of drinking water for enteric viruses is not practical,
collecting and analysing source water samples for enteric viruses can provide useful information
to help determine the level of treatment that should be in place to reduce the risk of illness from
enteric viruses. Source water samples are generally collected at a location that is representative of
the quality of the water supplying the drinking water system, such as at the intake of the water
treatment plant or, in the case of groundwater, close to the well. In many places, source water
sampling for enteric viruses may not be feasible. The potential risk of enteric viruses can be
estimated using information from the source water assessment along with the results of other
water quality parameters, such as indicator organisms, to provide information on the risk and/or
level of faecal contamination in the source water. Because all water quality assessments will have
a level of uncertainty associated with them, additional factors of safety during engineering and
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
3
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
design of the treatment plant or a greater log reduction than calculated using a QMRA approach
should be applied in order to ensure production of drinking water of an acceptable
microbiological quality.
The information obtained from source water assessments is a key component to carrying
out site-specific risk assessments. This information should be used along with treatment and
distribution system information to help assess risks from source to tap. This document suggests
the use of QMRA as a tool that can help provide a better understanding of the water system by
evaluating the impacts of variations in source water quality and treatment process performance
on the overall risk, including the potential impact of hazardous events, such as storms,
contamination events or the failure of a treatment barrier. The resulting analysis can be used to
assess the adequacy of existing control measures, to determine the need for additional treatment
barriers or for optimization and to help establish limits for critical control points.
A minimum 4-log reduction of enteric viruses is recommended for all water sources,
including groundwater sources. Recent published information has shown the presence of enteric
viruses in some groundwaters sources that were considered to be less vulnerable to faecal
contamination. A jurisdiction may allow a groundwater source to have less than the
recommended minimum 4-log reduction if the assessment of the drinking water system has
confirmed that the risk of enteric virus presence is minimal. In many source waters, particularly
surface water sources, a greater than 4-log reduction is necessary.
Reductions can be achieved through physical removal processes, such as filtration, and/or
by inactivation processes, such as disinfection. Generally, minimum treatment of supplies
derived from surface water sources or groundwater under the direct influence of surface waters
should include adequate filtration (or technologies providing an equivalent log reduction credit)
and disinfection. For groundwater sources (i.e., those not under the direct influence of surface
waters), it is recommended to ensure adequate treatment to remove/inactivate enteric viruses,
unless exempted by the responsible authority. The appropriate type and level of treatment should
take into account the potential fluctuations in water quality, including short-term water quality
degradation, and variability in treatment performance. Pilot testing or other optimization
processes may be useful for determining treatment variability. In systems with a distribution
system, a disinfectant residual should be maintained at all times.
As part of the multi-barrier approach, indicators that can be routinely monitored,
including turbidity, chlorine residual and organisms such as E. coli and total coliforms, should
be used to verify that the water has been adequately treated and is therefore of an acceptable
microbiological quality (see Guideline Technical Documents on E. coli, total coliforms, and
turbidity). These indicators can also be used for assessing the distribution system and to verify
that the microbiological quality of the water is being maintained through the distribution system
to the consumer’s tap.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
4
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Part II. Science and Technical Considerations
4.0
Description and health effects
Viruses range in size from 20 to 350 nm. They consist of a nucleic acid genome core
(either ribonucleic acid [RNA] or deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA]) surrounded by a protective
protein shell, called the capsid. Some viruses have a lipoprotein envelope surrounding the capsid;
these are referred to as enveloped viruses. Non-enveloped viruses lack this lipoprotein envelope.
Viruses can replicate only within a living host cell. Although the viral genome does encode for
viral structural proteins and other molecules necessary for replication, viruses must rely on the
host’s cell metabolism to synthesize these molecules.
Viral replication in the host cells results in the production of infective virions and
numerous incomplete particles that are non-infectious (Payment and Morin, 1990). The ratio
between physical virus particles and the actual number of infective virions ranges from 10:1 to
over 1000:1. In the context of waterborne diseases, a “virus” is thus defined as an infectious
“complete virus particle,” or “virion,” with its DNA or RNA core and protein coat as it exists
outside the cell. This would be the simplest form in which a virus can infect a host. Infective
virions released in the environment will degrade and lose their infectivity. They can still be seen
by electron microscopy or detected by molecular methods, but will have lost their potential for
infection.
In general, viruses are host specific. Therefore, viruses that infect humans do not usually
infect non-human hosts, such as animals or plants. The reverse is also true: viruses that infect
animals and viruses that infect plants do not usually infect humans, although a small number of
enteric viruses have been detected in both humans and animals. Most viruses also infect only
specific types of cells within a host. The types of susceptible cells are dependent on the virus, and
consequently the health effects associated with a viral infection vary widely, depending on where
susceptible cells are located in the body. In addition, viral infection can trigger immune responses
that result in non-specific symptoms. Viruses that can multiply in the gastrointestinal tract of
humans or animals are known as “enteric viruses.” Enteric viruses are excreted in the faeces of
infected individuals, and some enteric viruses can also be excreted in urine. These excreta can
contaminate water sources. Non-enteric viruses, such as respiratory viruses, are not considered
waterborne pathogens, as non-enteric viruses are not readily transmitted to water sources from
infected individuals.
More than 140 different serological types of enteric viruses known to infect humans
have been described (AWWA, 1999a; Taylor et al., 2001). The illnesses associated with enteric
viruses are diverse. In addition to gastroenteritis, enteric viruses can cause serious acute illnesses,
such as meningitis, poliomyelitis and non-specific febrile illnesses. They have also been
implicated in the aetiology of some chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and chronic
fatigue syndrome. Further information on the enteric viruses commonly associated with human
waterborne illnesses, including noroviruses, hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis E virus (HEV),
rotaviruses and enteroviruses, and on other viruses of potential concern is included below.
4.1
Noroviruses
Noroviruses are non-enveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses, 27–32 nm in diameter,
belonging to the family Caliciviridae. Noroviruses are currently subdivided into five genogroups
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
5
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
(GI, GII, GIII, GIV, GV), which are composed of 22 distinct genotypes. However, new norovirus
variants continue to be identified (Jiang et al., 1999). Genogroups GI and GII contain the
norovirus genotypes that are usually associated with human illnesses. For example, Norwalk
virus is included in the GI genogroup. Genogroup GIV has also been associated with human
illness, but much less frequently than the GI and GII genogroups (Bon et al., 2005). Although
most noroviruses appear to be host specific, there is some recent research showing human
norovirus GII variants isolated from farm animals (Mattison et al., 2007). Other genogroups,
such as GIII and GV, have been detected only in non-human hosts (Vinje et al., 2004).
Norovirus infections occur in infants, children and adults. The incubation period is
24–48 h (Kapikian et al., 1996; Chin, 2000). Health effects associated with norovirus infections
are self-limiting, typically lasting 24–48 h. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea,
abdominal pain and fever. In healthy individuals, the symptoms are generally highly unpleasant
but are not considered life threatening. In vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, illness is
considered more serious. Theoretically, a single infectious virus particle is sufficient to cause
infection, with or without disease symptoms. However, the median dose required to initiate
infection is usually more than a single infectious particle. For noroviruses, this dose is unknown,
but presumed to be low. Immunity to norovirus infection seems to be short-lived, on the order of
several months. After this period, individuals appear to become susceptible to the same strain of
virus again (Parrino et al., 1977). There is some research showing an inherent resistance in some
individuals to infection with noroviruses. It is thought that these individuals may lack a cell
surface receptor necessary for virus binding or may have a memory immune response that
prevents infection (Hutson et al., 2003; Lindesmith et al., 2003; Cheetham et al., 2007).
Noroviruses are shed in both faecal matter and vomitus from infected individuals and
can be transmitted through contaminated water. They are also easily spread by person-to-person
contact. Many of the cases of norovirus gastroenteritis have been associated with groups of
people living in a close environment, such as schools, recreational camps, institutions and cruise
ships. Infections with noroviruses show seasonality, with a peak in norovirus infections most
common during winter months (Mounts et al., 2000; Haramoto et al., 2005; Maunula et al., 2005;
Westrell et al., 2006b).
4.2
Hepatitis viruses
To date, six types of hepatitis viruses have been identified (A, B, C, D, E and G), but only
two types, hepatitis A (HAV) and hepatitis E (HEV), appear to be transmitted via the faecal–oral
route and therefore associated with waterborne transmission. Although HAV and HEV can both
result in the development of hepatitis, they are two distinct viruses.
4.2.1
HAV
HAV is a 27- to 32-nm non-enveloped, small, single-stranded RNA virus with an
icosahedral symmetry. HAV belongs to the Picornaviridae family and was originally placed
within the Enterovirus genus; however, because HAV has some unique genetic structural and
replication properties, this virus has been placed into a new genus, Hepatovirus, of which it is
the only member (Carter, 2005).
HAV infections, commonly known as infectious hepatitis, result in numerous symptoms,
including fever, malaise (fatigue), anorexia, nausea and abdominal discomfort, followed within
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
6
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
a few days by jaundice. HAV infection can also cause liver damage, resulting from the host’s
immune response to the infection of the hepatocytes by HAV. In some cases, the liver damage
can result in death. The incubation period of HAV infection is between 10 and 50 days, with an
average of approximately 28–30 days. The incubation period is inversely related to dose: the
greater the dose, the shorter the incubation period (Hollinger and Emerson, 2007). Theoretically,
a single infectious virus particle is sufficient to cause infection, with or without disease
symptoms. However, the median dose required to initiate infection is generally more than a
single infectious particle. The median dose for HAV is unknown, but is presumed to be low.
Infection with HAV occurs in both children and adults. Illness resulting from HAV
infection is usually self-limiting; however, the severity of the illness increases with age. For
example, minimal or no symptoms are seen in younger children (Yayli et al., 2002); however, in
a study looking at HAV cases in persons over 50 years of age, a case fatality rate 6-fold higher
than the average rate (average rate 0.3%) was observed (Fiore, 2004). The virus is excreted in the
faeces of infected persons for 3–10 days before the development of hepatitis symptoms, leading
to transmission via the faecal–oral route (Chin, 2000; Hollinger and Emerson, 2007). HAV is
also excreted in the urine of infected individuals (Giles et al., 1964; Hollinger and Emerson,
2007). Convalescence may be prolonged (8–10 weeks), and in some HAV cases, individuals
may experience relapses for 12 months or more (Carter, 2005).
4.2.2
HEV
HEV is a non-enveloped virus with a diameter of 30–34 nm and a single-stranded
polyadenylated RNA genome. HEV was initially placed in the family Caliciviridae; however,
based on its genomic organization and enzymatic capabilities, it has since been moved out of this
family and currently is not assigned to a family. However, it does belong to the genus Hepevirus
(Fauquet et al., 2005).
HEV infection, previously referred to as enterically transmitted non-A non-B hepatitis,
is clinically indistinguishable from HAV infection. Symptoms include malaise, anorexia,
abdominal pain, arthralgia, fever and jaundice. Theoretically, a single virus infectious particle
is sufficient to cause infection, with or without disease symptoms. However, the median dose
required to initiate infection is usually more than a single infectious particle. The median dose
for HEV is unknown. The incubation period for HEV varies from 14 to 63 days. HEV infection
usually resolves in 1–6 weeks after onset. Virions are shed in the faeces for a week or more after
the onset of symptoms (Percival et al., 2004). The illness is most often reported in young to
middle-aged adults (15–40 years old). The fatality rate is 0.5–3%, except in pregnant women, for
whom the fatality rate can approach 20–25% (Matson, 2004). Illnesses associated with HEV are
rare in developed countries, with most infections being linked to international travel. Although
most human enteric viruses do not have non-human reservoirs, HEV has been reported to be
zoonotic (transmitted from animals to humans, with non-human natural reservoirs) (AWWA,
1999a; Meng et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2000; Halbur et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2002).
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
7
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
4.3
Rotaviruses
Rotaviruses are non-enveloped, double-stranded RNA viruses approximately 70 nm
in diameter, belonging to the family Reoviridae. These viruses have been divided into six
serological groups, three of which (groups A, B and C) infect humans. Group A rotaviruses are
further divided into serotypes using characteristics of their outer surface proteins, VP7 and VP4.
There are 14 types of VP7 (termed G types) and approximately 20 types of VP4 (P types),
generating great antigenic diversity (Carter, 2005). Although most rotaviruses appear to be host
specific, there is some research indicating the potential for zoonotic transmission of rotaviruses
(Cook et al., 2004; Kang et al., 2005; Gabbay et al., 2008; Steyer et al., 2008); however, it occurs
infrequently.
In general, rotaviruses cause gastroenteritis, including vomiting and diarrhoea. Vomiting
can occur for up to 48 h prior to the onset of diarrhoea. The severity of the gastroenteritis can
range from mild, lasting for less than 24 h, to, in some instances, severe, which can be fatal. In
young children, extra-intestinal manifestations, such as respiratory symptoms and seizures can
occur and are due to the infection being systemic rather than localized to the jejunal mucosa
(Candy, 2007). The incubation period is about 4–7 days (Carter, 2005). The illness generally
lasts between 5 and 8 days. Theoretically, a single infectious virus particle is capable of causing
infection, although more than one infectious virus particle is generally required. The median
infectious dose for rotavirus is 5.597 (Haas et al., 1999). The virus is shed in extremely high
numbers from infected individuals, possibly as high as 109/g of stool. Some rotaviruses may also
produce a toxin protein that can induce diarrhoea during virus cell contact (Ball et al., 1996;
Zhang et al., 2000). This is unusual, as most viruses do not have toxin-like effects.
Group A rotavirus is endemic worldwide and is the most common and widespread
rotavirus group. Infections are referred to as infantile diarrhoea, winter diarrhoea, acute nonbacterial infectious gastroenteritis and acute viral gastroenteritis. Children 6 months to 2 years
of age, premature infants, the elderly and the immunocompromised are particularly prone to
more severe symptoms caused by infection with group A rotavirus. Group A rotavirus is the
leading cause of severe diarrhoea among infants and children and accounts for about half of the
cases requiring hospitalization, usually from dehydration. In the United States, approximately
3.5 million cases occur each year (Glass et al., 1996). Asymptomatic infections can occur in
adults, providing another means for the virus to be spread in the community. In temperate areas,
illness associated with rotavirus occurs primarily in the cooler months, whereas in the tropics, it
occurs throughout the year (Moe and Shirley, 1982; Nakajima et al., 2001; Estes and Kapikian,
2007). Illness associated with group B rotavirus, also called adult diarrhoea rotavirus, has been
limited mainly to China, where outbreaks of severe diarrhoea affecting thousands of persons have
been reported (Ramachandran et al., 1998). Group C rotavirus has been associated with rare and
sporadic cases of diarrhoea in children in many countries and regions, including North America
(Jiang et al., 1995). The first reported outbreaks occurred in Japan and England (Caul et al.,
1990; Hamano et al., 1999).
4.4
Enteroviruses
The enteroviruses are a large group of viruses belonging to the genus Enterovirus and the
Picornaviridae family. They are 20- to 30-nm non-enveloped, single-stranded RNA viruses with
an icosahedral symmetry. The members of this group that are associated with illness in humans
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
8
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
include the polioviruses (3 serotypes), coxsackieviruses A (23 serotypes) and B (6 serotypes),
echoviruses (31 serotypes) and numerous ungrouped enteroviruses (types 68–91) (Nwachuku and
Gerba, 2006). Further enterovirus serotypes continue to be identified.
The incubation period and the health effects associated with enterovirus infections are
varied. The incubation period for enteroviruses ranges from 2 to 35 days, with a median of
7–14 days. Many enterovirus infections are asymptomatic. However, when symptoms are
present, they can range in severity from mild to life threatening. Viraemia (i.e., passage in the
bloodstream) often occurs, providing transport for enteroviruses to various target organs and
resulting in a range of symptoms. Mild symptoms include fever, malaise, sore throat, vomiting,
rash and upper respiratory tract illnesses. Acute gastroenteritis is less common. The most serious
complications include meningitis, encephalitis, poliomyelitis, myocarditis and non-specific
febrile illnesses of newborns and young infants (Rotbart, 1995; Roivainen et al., 1998). Other
complications include myalgia, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hepatitis and conjunctivitis.
Enteroviruses have also been implicated in the aetiology of chronic diseases, such as
inflammatory myositis, dilated cardiomyopathy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, chronic fatigue
syndrome and post-poliomyelitis muscular atrophy (Pallansch and Roos, 2007; Chia and Chia,
2008). There is also some work that supports a link between enterovirus infection and the
development of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (Nairn et al., 1999; Lönnrot et al., 2000).
Although many enterovirus infections are asymptomatic, it is estimated that approximately 50%
of coxsackievirus A infections and 80% of coxsackievirus B infections result in illness (Cherry,
1992). Coxsackievirus B has also been reported to be the non-polio enterovirus that has most
often been associated with serious illness (Mena et al., 2003). Enterovirus infections are reported
to peak in summer and early fall (Nwachuku and Gerba, 2006; Pallansch and Roos, 2007).
Enteroviruses are endemic worldwide, but few water-related outbreaks have been
reported. The large number of serotypes, the usually benign nature of the infections and the fact
that they are highly transmissible in a community by personal contact probably explain why so
little is known of their transmission by the water route (Field et al., 1968; Lenaway et al., 1989;
Ikeda et al., 1993; Kee et al., 1994; Melnick, 1996; Jaykus, 2000; Lees, 2000; Amvrosieva et al.,
2001; Mena et al., 2003).
4.5
Adenoviruses
Adenoviruses are members of the Adenoviridae family. Members of this family include
70- to 100-nm non-enveloped icosahedral viruses containing double-stranded DNA. At present,
there are 51 serotypes of adenoviruses; about 30% of these are pathogenic in humans, most
causing upper respiratory tract infections (Carter, 2005; Wold and Horwitz, 2007). Serotypes
40 and 41 are the cause of the majority of adenovirus-related gastroenteritis. The majority of
waterborne isolates are types 40 and 41; however, other serotypes have also been isolated
(Van Heerden et al., 2005). Symptoms of adenovirus gastroenteritis include diarrhoea and
vomiting. The incubation period lasts 3–10 days, and illness may last a week (Carter, 2005).
Adenoviruses are a common cause of acute viral gastroenteritis in children (Nwachuku
and Gerba, 2006). Infections are generally confined to children under 5 years of age (FSA, 2000;
Lennon et al., 2007) and are rare in adults. The viral load in faeces of infected individuals is high
(~106 particles/g of faecal matter) (Jiang, 2006). This aids in transmission via the faecal–oral
route, either through direct contact with contaminated objects or through recreational water and,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
9
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
potentially, drinking water. In the past, adenoviruses have been implicated in drinking water
outbreaks, although they were not the main cause of the outbreaks (Kukkula et al., 1997; Divizia
et al., 2004). The main route of exposure to adenoviruses is not through drinking water.
4.6
Astroviruses
Astroviruses are members of the Astroviridae family. Astroviruses are divided into eight
serotypes (HAst1-8) that comprise two genogroups (A and B) capable of infecting humans
(Carter, 2005). Members of this family include 28- to 30-nm non-enveloped viruses containing
a single-stranded RNA. Astrovirus infection typically results in diarrhoea lasting 2–3 days, with
an initial incubation period of anywhere from 1 to 4 days. Infection generally results in milder
diarrhoea than that caused by rotavirus and does not lead to significant dehydration. Other
symptoms that have been recorded as a result of astrovirus infection include headache, malaise,
nausea, vomiting and mild fever (Percival et al., 2004; Méndez and Arias, 2007). Serotypes 1
and 2 are commonly acquired during childhood (Palombo and Bishop, 1996). The other
serotypes (4 and above) may not occur until adulthood (Carter, 2005). Outbreaks of astrovirus
in adults are infrequent, but do occur (Gray et al., 1987; Oishi et al., 1994; Caul, 1996). Healthy
individuals generally acquire good immunity to the disease, so reinfection is rare. Astrovirus
infections generally peak during winter and spring (Gofti-Laroche et al., 2003).
4.7
Potential emerging viruses in drinking water
Coronaviruses are members of the Coronaviridae family. Coronaviruses are enveloped,
single-strand RNA viruses. Coronaviruses are primarily respiratory pathogens; they are a
frequent cause of the common cold in both children and adults (McIntosh, 1970; Mäkelã, 1998).
In the past, coronaviruses have not been a concern for waterborne transmission. However, a new
coronavirus, the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has been detected
in faeces of infected patients. In one location during the SARS epidemic, sewage was suspected
as the vehicle of transmission (WHO, 2003). Although the SARS coronavirus is potentially
spread through the faecal–oral route, its major mode of transmission is person-to-person
contact through respiratory secretions. However, further research is still needed to understand
the persistence of this virus in the environment and, consequently, its potential transmission
through a waterborne route.
Other viruses that have the potential to be transmitted by the faecal–oral route include
parvoviruses, TT virus and JC virus. These viruses have all been detected in sewage (Vaidya et
al., 2002; Bofill-Mass and Girones, 2003; AWWA, 2006). JC virus is also excreted in urine. It is
important to note that new enteric viruses continue to be detected and recognized. These viruses
have been associated with illnesses in immunocompromised individuals, such as gastroenteritis,
respiratory illnesses and other more serious diseases, including progressive multifocal
leukoencephalopathy and colon cancer (AWWA, 2006). Although these viruses have been
detected in sewage, their transmission through water has not been documented.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
10
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
5.0
Sources and exposure
5.1
Sources
The main source of human enteric viruses in water is human faecal matter. Enteric
viruses are excreted in large numbers in the faeces of infected persons (both symptomatic and
asymptomatic). They are easily disseminated in the environment through faeces and are
transmissible to other individuals via the faecal–oral route. Infected individuals can excrete
over 1 billion (109) viruses/g of faeces. Some enteric viruses can also be excreted in urine from
infected individuals. The presence of these viruses in a human population is variable and reflects
current epidemic and endemic conditions (Fields et al., 1996). Sewage plant effluents, sewage
lagoon discharges, combined sewer overflows and septic tank leakage can be responsible for
contamination of water sources. Enteric virus concentrations have been reported to peak in
sewage samples during the autumn/winter, suggesting a possibly higher endemic rate of illness
during this time of year or better survival of enteric viruses at cold temperatures. Animals can
be a source of enteric viruses; however, the enteric viruses detected in animals generally do not
cause illnesses in humans (Cox et al., 2005), although there are some exceptions. As mentioned
above, one exception is HEV, which may have a non-human reservoir. To date, HEV has been
an issue in developing countries, and therefore most of the information on HEV occurrence in
water sources results from research in these countries. There is limited information on HEV
presence in water and sewage in developed countries (Clemente-Casares et al., 2003;
Kasorndorkbua et al., 2005). It is important to remember that person-to-person and foodborne
spread are also important mechanisms for transmission of enteric viruses.
Most of the enteric viruses described above, including noroviruses, rotaviruses, HAV,
HEV, enteroviruses, adenoviruses and astroviruses, have been detected in sewage, surface water
sources, groundwater sources and drinking water sources around the world, including Canada
(Subrahmanyan, 1977; Sattar, 1978; Sekla et al., 1980; Payment et al., 1984, 2000, 2001; Gerba
et al., 1985; Raphael et al., 1985a,b; Payment, 1989, 1991, 1993; Bloch et al., 1990; Payment
and Franco, 1993; Pina et al., 1998, 2001; AWWA, 1999a; Jothikumar et al., 2000; Scipioni et
al., 2000; Van Heerden et al., 2005; Locas et al., 2007). These studies report varying prevalence
and concentrations of enteric viruses; however, they cannot be readily compared, given the range
of detection methods used (Payment and Pintar, 2006). In general, the level of infectious enteric
virions in sewage ranges from 100 to 10 000 infectious units/L (Sano et al., 2004; Sedmak et al.,
2005; Geldreich et al., 1990). In contaminated surface water, levels of 1–100 infectious enteric
virions/L are common. In less polluted surface water, their numbers are closer to 1–10/100 L
(Gerba et al., 1985; Bloch et al., 1990; AWWA, 1999a; Jothikumar et al., 2000; Scipioni et al.,
2000; Pina et al., 2001; Dorner et al., 2007). Groundwater sources have been shown to have
between 0 and 200 infectious enteric virions/100 L, depending on the level of contamination;
however, most contaminated groundwater systems are thought to have very low levels
(< 2/100 L) (U.S. EPA, 2006a). These concentrations were generally obtained through targeted
studies, since water and wastewater sources are not routinely monitored for enteric viruses. It
should also be noted that the concentration of enteric viruses in a source water can have
significant temporal and spatial variability depending on whether the pollution source is
continuous or the result of a sudden influx of faecal contamination.
Contamination of water sources can occur through various routes, including wastewater
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
11
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
plant effluent, disposal of domestic wastewater or sludges on land, septic tank field effluents
and infiltration of surface water into groundwater aquifers (Bitton, 1999; Hurst et al., 2001).
Migration of enteric viruses into groundwater sources depends on the extent of virus retention
in the surrounding soils and their survival rate. For example, research on retention of particles
based on subsurface composition has shown that viruses tend to adsorb more strongly to clay
than to silt and sand particulate (Goyal and Gerba, 1979). It is important to note that adsorption
of viruses in the subsurface does not inactivate viruses, and adsorption is a reversible process,
dependent on the ionic characteristics of the percolating water (Bales et al., 1993). Therefore,
retained infectious viruses, if desorbed from soil, can potentially still contaminate water sources.
Many factors, including rainfall, temperature, hydraulic stresses and soil-specific characteristics,
such as pH and soil water content, along with virus-specific attributes, such as isoelectric point,
virus size and virus load, can impact subsurface movement of viruses (Schijven and
Hassanizadeh, 2000; U.S. EPA, 2003). Under certain conditions, viruses can migrate significant
distances. Studies have reported viruses being detected in groundwater samples more than 100 m
from known septic sources and in groundwaters from confined aquifers (Gerba and Bitton, 1984;
Bales et al., 1993; Borchardt et al., 2007; Locas et al., 2007).
5.2
Survival
As mentioned previously, viruses cannot replicate outside their host’s tissues and
therefore cannot multiply in the environment; however, they can survive in the environment for
extended periods of time. Early experiments investigating the survival of enteric viruses reported
survival times ranging from 28 to 188 days (Rhodes et al., 1950; Wellings et al., 1975; Stramer
and Cliver, 1984).
Survival depends on numerous factors, including, but not limited to, virus-specific
characteristics, the presence of other microorganisms and the characteristics of the water, such
as pH, temperature, turbidity and ultraviolet (UV) light levels. Some of these factors have been
characterized. Temperature effects on survival rates have been defined for many enteric viruses
(Yates et al., 1985; U.S. EPA, 2003). In general, as the temperature increases, the survival time
decreases. Exposure to UV light also shortens the survival time of viruses. Other parameters,
such as microbial activity, are less well characterized. It has been suggested that bacteria and
protozoa can inactivate waterborne viruses, especially in surface waters. Inactivation may be the
result of enzymatic activity destroying viral capsid proteins or predation (Herrmann and Cliver,
1973; Pinheiro et al., 2007). In either case, the amount of inactivation is dependent on the
microbial ecology and is currently not well understood. Conversely, survival of viruses can be
prolonged by factors such as the presence of sediments to which viruses can readily adsorb.
The survival rate varies between types of viruses. Enteric viruses of concern for
waterborne transmission are generally non-enveloped viruses. They are generally more resistant
to environmental degradation compared with enveloped viruses. Comparisons between enteric
viruses also show variability, with adenoviruses potentially surviving longer in water than other
enteric viruses, such as HAV and polioviruses (Enriquez et al., 1995).
Enteric virus survival rates also differ from survival rates for protozoa and bacteria.
In the environment, enteric viruses have been reported to be more resistant to environmental
degradation than bacteria and some protozoa (e.g., Giardia) (Johnson et al., 1997). Survival
of viruses through drinking water treatment processes also differs from survival of bacteria and
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
12
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
protozoa. For example, enteric viruses have been detected at low levels (i.e., 1–20/1000 L) in
treated drinking water free of coliform bacteria in 100-mL samples (Payment, 1989; Gerba and
Rose, 1990; Bitton, 1999; Payment et al., 2000; Ehlers et al., 2005). The survival of enteric
viruses, and consequently presence in drinking water, can result from the absence of treatment
(for many groundwater sources) or from insufficient treatment for the level of virus in the source
water (Payment, 1989; Payment and Armon, 1989; Gerba and Rose, 1990; Payment et al., 1997;
Bitton, 1999).
5.3
Exposure
Enteric viruses are transmitted via the faecal–oral route. Vehicles for transmission can
include water, food (particularly shellfish and salads), aerosols, fomites (inanimate objects, such
as door handles that, when contaminated with an infectious virion, facilitate transfer of the
pathogen to a host) and person-to-person contact. Poor hygiene is also a contributing factor to the
spread of enteric viruses. In addition, the high incidence of rotavirus infections, particularly in
young children, has suggested to some investigators that rotavirus may also be spread by the
respiratory route (Kapikian and Chanock, 1996; Chin, 2000). There is also some evidence that
noroviruses can be spread by contact with vomitus (Marks et al., 2003). For many of the enteric
viruses discussed above, outbreaks have occurred both by person-to-person transmission and by
common sources, involving contaminated foods, contaminated drinking water supplies or
recreational water.
5.4
Waterborne illness
Exposure to enteric viruses through water can result in both an endemic rate of illness in
the population and waterborne outbreaks. Endemic rates of enteric illness are difficult to measure
or estimate. In Canada, there are roughly 1.3 episodes of enteric illness per capita per year
(Majowicz et al., 2004; PHAC, 2007). This estimate includes gastrointestinal illnesses caused by
all types of enteric pathogens, not just enteric viruses, and includes all sources of transmission.
The numerous routes of transmission and the highly infectious nature of enteric viruses make it
difficult to determine what proportion of the endemic enteric illness is specifically related to
drinking water sources.
Waterborne outbreaks caused by enteric viruses have been reported in Canada, and these
viruses are a common cause of outbreaks worldwide. Some of the viral agents responsible for
these outbreaks have only recently been identified (Craun, 1986, 1992; Fields et al., 1996;
Payment and Hunter, 2001). The true prevalence of viral-related waterborne outbreaks in
Canada and worldwide is unknown. In Canada, between 1974 and 2001, there were 24 reported
outbreaks and 1382 confirmed cases of waterborne illness caused by enteric viruses (Schuster et
al., 2005). Ten of these outbreaks were attributed to HAV, 12 were attributed to noroviruses and
2 to rotaviruses (O’Neil et al., 1985; Health and Welfare Canada, 1990; Health Canada, 1994;
INSPQ, 1994, 1998, 2001; Boettger, 1995; Health Canada, 1996; Beller et al., 1997; Todd and
Chatman, 1997; Todd and Chatman, 1998; De Serres et al., 1999; Todd et al., 2001; BC
Provincial Health Officer, 2001). There were also 138 outbreaks of unknown aetiology, a
portion of which could be the result of enteric viruses, and a single outbreak that involved
multiple viral pathogens. Of the 10 reported outbreaks attributed to waterborne HAV, 4 were
due to contamination of public drinking water supplies, 2 were the result of contamination of
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
13
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
semi-public supplies1 and the remaining 4 were due to contamination of private water supplies.
Only 4 of the reported 12 waterborne outbreaks of norovirus infections in Canada occurred in
public water supplies, and the remainder were attributed to semi-public supplies. Both rotavirus
outbreaks arose from contamination of semi-public drinking water supplies.
In the United States, between 1991 and 2002, 15 outbreaks and 3487 confirmed cases
of waterborne viral illness were reported. Of these, 12 outbreaks and 3361 cases were attributed
to noroviruses, 1 outbreak and 70 cases were attributed to “small round-structured virus” and
2 outbreaks and 56 cases were attributable to HAV (Craun et al., 2006). During this period,
77 outbreaks resulting in 16 036 cases of unknown aetiology were also reported. It is likely that
enteric viruses were responsible for a significant portion of these outbreaks (Craun et al., 2006).
Prior to 1991, outbreaks associated with rotavirus contamination had also been reported
(Hopkins et al., 1984).
Waterborne outbreaks of noroviruses and HAV occur worldwide (Brugha et al., 1999;
De Serres et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2001; Boccia et al., 2002; Anderson et al., 2003;
Carrique-Mas et al., 2003). A study on waterborne outbreaks in Finland (1998–2003) found, for
the samples analysed for viruses, that the most prominent virus was norovirus (Maunula et al.,
2005). Groundwater sources are also frequently reported to be associated with outbreaks of
noroviruses and HAV (Häfliger et al., 2000; Maurer and Stürchler, 2000; Parchionikar et al.,
2003).
Major waterborne epidemics of HEV have occurred in developing countries (Guthmann
et al., 2006), but none has been reported in Canada or the United States (Purcell, 1996; Chin,
2000). Astroviruses and adenoviruses have also been implicated in drinking water outbreaks,
although they were not the main cause of the outbreaks (Kukkula et al., 1997; Divizia et al.,
2004). However, astrovirus RNA in tap water was correlated with an increased risk of intestinal
disease in a study in France (Gofti-Laroche et al., 2003). The development of new detection
methods to determine the agent responsible in the numerous outbreaks of unidentified aetiology
could potentially link these viruses to outbreaks (Martone et al., 1980; Turner et al., 1987;
Hedberg and Osterholm, 1993; Gray et al., 1997; Kukkula et al., 1997, 1999; Lees, 2000).
5.5
Relationship to indicator organisms
Monitoring for enteric viruses still suffers from methodological and interpretation
limitations inherent to pathogen detection (Medema et al., 2003; Payment and Pintar, 2006).
These limitations include the necessity to concentrate large volumes of water, the need for
specialized laboratory equipment and highly trained personnel and the cost of analysis, as well
as determining which pathogens to test for, given the multitude of pathogens that may be present,
which can vary over time and space. As such, routine monitoring for enteric viruses is currently
not practical. Instead, indicator organisms that can be routinely monitored are used to indicate
faecal contamination and the potential presence of enteric viruses. Commonly used indicators
include bacteria, such as E. coli, enterococci and Clostridium perfringens spores, and viruses
1
For the purposes of this document, a semi-public water supply system is defined as a system with a
minimal or no distribution system that pro vides water to the public from a facility not connected to a public supp ly.
Examples of such facilities includ e scho ols, persona l care home s, hotels and restaurants. The definition of a sem ipublic supp ly may vary between jurisdictions.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
14
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
of bacteria (i.e., bacteriophages). Total coliforms can also be used, not as indicators of faecal
pollution, but to provide general water quality information, especially in groundwater sources
(Locas et al., 2007). Non-microbial indicators, such as faecal sterols, caffeine or chloride, have
also been used in research studies to indicate faecal contamination (Borchardt et al., 2003; Peeler
et al., 2006; Shah et al., 2007; Hussain et al., 2010), however further research on routinely using
these indicators is still needed.
There are many published studies investigating the relationship between the various
indicator organisms and the presence of enteric viruses in treated drinking water, surface water
and groundwater. Determining a relationship between pathogens and faecal indicators has some
inherent difficulties, foremost because of methodological differences related to the volumes of
water analysed. For indicator organisms, usually 100-mL sample volumes are tested, whereas for
pathogens, tens to hundreds of litres of water are concentrated, and then a portion of this volume
is analysed. Even with these limitations, faecal indicators have been found to be useful for
indicating the potential presence of enteric viruses in various water sources. The most
appropriate indicator (or indicators) will depend on whether they are being used to provide
information on virus presence in groundwater or surface water sources or as indicators of
removal or inactivation of viruses by treatment processes and treated drinking water quality.
5.5.1
Treated drinking water
The indicator organisms routinely monitored in Canada as part of the multi-barrier
“source-to-tap” approach for verifying drinking water quality are E. coli and total coliforms.
The presence of E. coli in drinking water indicates recent faecal contamination and the potential
presence of enteric pathogens, including enteric viruses. Total coliforms, however, are not faecal
specific and therefore cannot be used to indicate faecal contamination (or the potential presence
of enteric pathogens). Instead, total coliforms are used to indicate general water quality issues.
Further information on the role of E. coli and total coliforms in drinking water quality
management can be found in the Guideline Technical Documents on E. coli and total coliforms
(Health Canada, 2006a,b). As mentioned previously, the survival of bacteria and viruses differs
in the environment and through treatment processes. As a result, although the presence of E. coli
indicates the potential presence of enteric viruses, the absence of E. coli does not necessarily
indicate that all enteric viruses are also absent. However, if a multi-barrier, source-to-tap
approach is in place and each barrier in the drinking water system has been controlled to ensure
that it is operating adequately based on the quality of the source water, then E. coli and total
coliforms can be used as part of the verification process to show that the water has been
adequately treated and is therefore of an acceptable microbiological quality.
Other faecal indicators that may be used to verify the adequacy of treatment include
enterococci, Clostridium perfringens spores and various bacteriophages (somatic coliphages,
F-specific RNA coliphages and phages of Bacteroides). As enterococci and Clostridium
perfringens spores are both bacterial indicators, they suffer from the same limitations as E. coli,
in that their survival and response to treatment processes differ from those of enteric viruses.
The concentration of these indicators in source waters can also be much lower than the
concentrations of E. coli and total coliforms, making them less useful than E. coli and total
coliforms for routinely verifying treatment processes. Bacteriophages, since they are viruses
(of bacteria), have survival rates that are more similar to those of enteric viruses, and they are
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
15
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
often used as surrogates for enteric viruses for determining treatment efficiencies. However,
their concentrations in source waters are generally insufficient to make them useful for verifying
treatment adequacy on a routine basis.
5.5.2
Surface water sources
Several studies have investigated the relationships between indicator organisms and the
presence or absence of human enteric viruses in surface water sources. Escherichia coli and
Clostridium perfringens have been found to be associated with the presence of enteric viruses in
surface waters that are impacted by human faecal pollution (Payment and Franco, 1993; Payment
et al., 2000; Ashbolt et al., 2001; Hörman et al., 2004). Bacteriophages have also been found to
be associated with the presence of enteric viruses in some studies (Skraber et al., 2004; Ballester
et al., 2005; Haramoto et al., 2005), but not in others (Hörman et al., 2004; Choi and Jiang,
2005). Both correlations to coliform bacteria (Haramoto et al., 2005) and lack of correlations to
coliform bacteria (Skraber et al., 2004; Ballester et al., 2005; Choi and Jiang, 2005) have also
been observed. Based on these studies, it is evident that no one faecal indicator can be used to
indicate enteric virus presence in all surface water sources. The most suitable indicator or
indicators will depend on the surface water source and its site-specific faecal pollution inputs.
Although not used for routine monitoring, targeted studies can also be carried out to determine
enteric virus concentrations directly, as opposed to using indicator organisms.
5.5.3
Groundwater sources
Microbial indicators normally used to indicate faecal contamination of a water source,
such as E. coli, do not necessarily migrate through the subsurface or have a survival rate in the
environment comparable with that of enteric viruses. Several recent studies have investigated
the usefulness of E. coli and total coliforms for indicating enteric virus contamination of
groundwater sources.
The presence of any of the indicator organisms in a groundwater source is a good
indication that the source may be at risk of faecal contamination and potentially adversely affect
human health. In a study by Craun et al. (1997) on groundwater consumption, it was found that
the presence of coliforms correlated very well with the presence of viral gastroenteritis. However,
the absence of indicators may not necessarily indicate the absence of enteric viruses. A study of
private wells in the United States found that 8% of the wells tested by PCR were positive for one
or more enteric viruses, however, none of the contaminated wells contained indicators of faecal
contamination (i.e., E. coli, enterococci, coliphages) and only 25% of the virus impacted wells
were positive for total coliforms (Borchardt et al., 2003). Several other studies conducted in the
United States have also reported that they found no link between the detection of an indicator
organism and the detection of enteric viruses in a groundwater sample (Abbaszadegan et al.,
1998, 2003; Borchardt et al., 2004) with approximately 15 % of samples testing positive for
enteric viruses in the absence of indicators (Abbaszadegan et al., 2003). However, some studies
observed that upon repeat sampling, if a site tested positive for pathogens it usually tested
positive, at some point in time, for one of the microbial indicators (Lieberman et al., 2002;
Abbaszadegan et al., 2003). A study on Canadian groundwater quality that monitored 23
municipal wells with a history of acceptable bacteriological quality found that wells that
underwent repeat monitoring (122 samples collected from 16 wells) tested positive in a small
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
16
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
number of samples (7/122 samples). Indicator organisms were detected in 4 of the 16 wells,
while enteric viruses were detected in only 1 of the 16 wells. However, the positive site for
enteric viruses was not one of the sites positive for indicator organisms (Locas et al., 2008). An
additional study investigating several groundwater aquifers in various countries determined that
using a combination of a bacterial indicator and a bacteriophage was more useful for assessing
groundwater contamination than using only bacterial indicators (Lucena et al., 2006). Based on
these studies, ongoing routine monitoring with bacterial indicators in combination with
bacteriophages (in some instances), and using data collected from sanitary surveys and
vulnerability assessments, can be used to provide a useful assessment of enteric virus presence in
groundwater sources.
6.0
Analytical methods
6.1
Detection of enteric viruses
Pathogen detection still suffers from methodological and interpretation limitations
(Payment and Pintar, 2006). These limitations include the necessity to concentrate large volumes
of water, the need for specialized laboratory equipment and highly trained personnel and the cost
of analysis, as well as determining which pathogens to test for, given the multitude of pathogens
that may be present, which can vary over time and space. Therefore, routine monitoring of
drinking water for enteric viruses is currently not practical.
Although not used for routine monitoring purposes, detection of enteric viruses in source
water samples can be used as a tool to evaluate risks that may be associated with using a specific
raw water source and to ensure that appropriate treatment is in place. As well, during outbreak
investigations where epidemiological evidence indicates that drinking water could be the source
of infection, testing for enteric viruses can provide invaluable data to researchers and public
health authorities.
Standard methods for enteric virus recovery and detection have been published (U.S.
EPA, 1996, 2001c; APHA et al., 1998; ASTM, 2004). These methods have been validated and
can be used by laboratories with the capacity to monitor for enteric viruses. The following
sections provide an overview of these methodologies along with information on recent
advancements in virus detection that have been used in research settings.
6.1.1
Sample concentration
Enteric viruses are generally present in small numbers in faecally contaminated water; as
such, 10–1000 L of water may need to be filtered to concentrate the pathogens to a detectable
level.
Two methods of filtration have traditionally been used for initial virus concentration:
filtration by adsorption and filtration by size exclusion (ultrafiltration). Adsorption filtration can
employ electropositive filters, such as those prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Information Collection Rule for the recovery of viruses from water (U.S. EPA,
1996), negatively charged filters (Beuret, 2003; Fuhrman et al., 2005; Villar et al., 2006) or
nitrocellulose membranes (Hsu et al., 2006). At ambient pH, most enteric viruses are negatively
charged; therefore, they are captured by electropositive filter media. To adsorb viruses using
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
17
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
negatively charged filter media, a cation such as magnesium chloride needs to be added to the
sample, and the pH of the sample may need to be adjusted to an acidic pH. Since the viruses
adsorb to the filter media, they must subsequently be eluted from the filter using an alkaline
solution that alters the surface charge of the viral particles so that they will elute back into
solution. Eluents commonly incorporate beef extract, glycine, tryptose phosphate buffer and/or
sodium hydroxide into the solutions (Katayama et al., 2002; Hörman et al., 2004; Brassard et al.,
2005; Villar et al., 2006). Size exclusion methods, such as ultrafiltration, are independent of pH
and have the advantage of not requiring an elution step (Olszewski et al., 2005). Ultrafiltration
does have some disadvantages. Because of the small size of viruses, the filter pore size must be
extremely small and can become clogged. Typically, only approximately 20 L of water can be
filtered at one time (Griffin et al., 2003), although volumes up to 100 L are being used in some
laboratories (Linquist et al., 2007). Ultrafiltration is also less cost- and time-effective than
adsorption filtration (Fong and Lipp, 2005). There is some work ongoing investigating the use
of ultrafiltration for the simultaneous recovery of protozoa, bacteria and viruses, which could be
advantageous from an economical, and potentially time-saving, perspective (Morales-Morales
et al., 2003; Hill et al., 2005).
The initial concentration of the water sample is usually followed by a secondary
concentration step, reducing the sample volume to 1–2 mL, to produce a concentrate sufficient
for detection of viruses. Secondary concentration methods include organic flocculation,
polyethylene glycol precipitation and ultracentrifugation.
6.1.2
Detection methods
Following concentration of the sample, detection methods for the enteric viruses are used.
In general, virus detection methods have recovery efficiencies around 50% (Payment et al.,
2000). The most commonly used detection methods include cell culture methods and polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) methods, or a combination of both methods.
Historically, cell culture was the most widely used technique for the detection of viruses,
and it is still the best method for determining the occurrence of infectious viruses in water. The
ability to detect infectious viruses in environmental samples is important for predicting health
risks to the public. However, not all enteric viruses can be readily detected by cell culture. Some
enteric viruses do not produce a clear cytopathogenic effect, which is necessary for visual
detection. This can underestimate the concentration of viruses in a sample. For other enteric
viruses, such as some noroviruses, successful use of cell culture has only recently been
accomplished using new three-dimensional cell culture techniques (Straub et al., 2007). While
some viruses grow rapidly in a few days, most cell culture assays require several weeks to
confirm negative results and to detect slow-growing viruses. In addition, plaque assays may
underestimate virus concentration since, as mentioned previously, not all viruses produce a clear
cytopathogenic effect. Other reasons for underestimation include aggregation of viruses in a
sample, resulting in an individual plaque being infected with more than one virus (Teunis et al.,
2005); the inability to maintain the cell monolayer for sufficiently long periods for some slowgrowing viruses to produce a visible plaque; and the presence of fast-growing enteric viruses,
which can lead to an underestimate of the concentration of slow-growing viruses (Irving and
Smith, 1981; Fong and Lipp, 2005).
PCR-based detection methods have been developed for most of the key enteric viruses of
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
18
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
concern for waterborne transmission. Recent improvements in technology have also made what
is now known as real-time or quantitative PCR (q-PCR) the PCR method most often used for
detection and quantitation of enteric viruses. It should be noted, however, that quantitation using
q-PCR is not yet very precise and is reliant on materials that are currently not routinely available.
Also, direct comparison of q-PCR results with cell culture results is not possible. PCR detection
methods have some advantages over cell culture methods: they are rapid (results within 24 h),
highly sensitive and, if properly designed, very specific, in comparison with cell culture. The
main disadvantages of PCR-based methods are that they are unable to determine if the viruses
are infectious and they are subject to inhibition by common environmental compounds, such as
humic and fulvic acids, heavy metals and phenolic compounds (Fong and Lipp, 2005). Inhibitors
can be removed from the samples, but this requires additional processing and results in loss of
sensitivity. Knowing if a virus is infectious is important from a public health perspective to
determine if there is a public health concern. For example, a recent study looking at adenoviruses
in a water source was unable to find infectious virus using cell culture, but approximately 16% of
the samples tested positive for the presence of adenoviruses using q-PCR (Choi and Jiang, 2005).
These limitations need to be considered when interpreting PCR results.
Methods integrating cell culture and PCR make it possible to shorten the processing time
(compared with cell culture alone) and to detect infectious viruses. Cell culture methods can also
be combined with immunological methods to improve virus detection. Integrated methods have
been reported to be both sensitive and specific, including for those viruses that are difficult to
assay using conventional cell culture, such as adenoviruses and rotaviruses (Payment and Trudel,
1993; Jothikumar et al., 2000; Hurst et al., 2001; Payment, 2001, 2007; Reynolds et al., 2001;
Greening et al., 2002; Ko et al., 2003). An additional advantage of combining cell culture with
immunological or molecular methods is improvement in the sensitivity of the assay, as the
infected cells amplify the quantity of virus, providing more target material for detection.
6.2
Detection of viral indicators
Methods for the detection of viruses in water are not practical for routine monitoring, and
therefore various surrogate parameters (i.e., indicators) have been proposed to evaluate water
treatment efficiency or to indicate the presence of enteric viruses in water (Deere et al., 2001;
WHO, 2004). The indicators proposed to date include E. coli, total coliforms, enterococci,
Clostridium perfringens spores and bacteriophages.
6.2.1
E. coli
Escherichia coli is the microbial indicator that is used most often for determining faecal
contamination of water sources. Further information on detection methods for E. coli is provided
in the Guideline Technical Document on E. coli (Health Canada, 2006a).
6.2.2
Total coliforms
Total coliforms, although not an indicator of faecal contamination, are useful as an
indicator of overall water quality. Further information on detection methods for total coliforms
is provided in the Guideline Technical Document on total coliforms (Health Canada, 2006b).
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
19
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
6.2.3
Enterococci
Enterococci can be used to indicate faecal contamination and indirectly indicate the
presence of viruses (U.S. EPA, 2000; Ashbolt et al., 2001). Standardized methods for the
detection of enterococci in water have been published (APHA et al., 1998; U.S. EPA, 2002a,b).
Commercial kits for the detection of these indicators are also available.
6.2.4
Clostridium perfringens
Clostridium perfringens spores are indicators of both recent and past faecal
contamination, but they are not as numerous as coliforms in faeces or contaminated water.
Clostridium perfringens spores are also used as indicators of treatment efficiency. Standardized
detection methods for C. perfringens have been published (ASTM, 2002; HPA, 2004).
6.2.5
Bacteriophages
Three types of bacteriophages are generally used as indicators: the somatic coliphages,
male-specific F-RNA bacteriophages (also referred to as F-specific coliphage) and Bacteroides
phages (i.e., phages infecting Bacteroides fragilis, B. thetaiotaomicron and Bacteroides strain
GB-124). In the United States, standardized methods for the detection of somatic and malespecific coliphages have been developed (U.S. EPA, 2001a,b). The International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) has also published standardized methods (ISO 10705 series) for the
detection of bacteriophages (Mooijman et al., 2001, 2005).
7.0
Treatment technology
The multi-barrier approach is the best approach to reduce enteric viruses and other
waterborne pathogens in drinking water. Since available analytical methods make it impractical
to routinely monitor for microbial pathogens in treated drinking water, the focus should be on
characterizing source water risks and ensuring that effective treatment barriers are in place to
achieve safe drinking water. Source water protection measures to minimize faecal contamination,
especially control of domestic and sanitary sewage, should be implemented where feasible.
Source water quality should be characterized in terms of the concentrations and
variability of waterborne pathogens and faecal indicators. Some means of achieving this are
routine analysis for microbial pathogens and/or faecal indicators in source water; and sanitary
surveys and/or source tracking, to identify potential sources of human and animal faecal
contamination. In order to understand the full range of source water quality, data should be
collected during normal conditions as well as during extreme weather or spill/upset events (e.g.,
spring runoff, storms). For example, the flooding of sewage collection and treatment systems
during heavy rainfall events can lead to sudden increases in enteric viruses and other microbial
pathogens in the source water.
Generally, minimum treatment of supplies derived from surface water sources or
groundwater under the direct influence of surface waters should include adequate filtration (or
technologies providing an equivalent log reduction credit) and disinfection. Recent published
information has shown the presence of enteric viruses in some groundwaters that were
considered to be less vulnerable to faecal contamination (i.e., those not under the direct influence
of surface waters) (Abbaszadegan et al., 1998, 1999; Borchardt et al., 2003, 2004; Locas et al.,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
20
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
2007). As a result, it is recommended to ensure adequate treatment of all groundwaters to
remove/inactivate enteric viruses, unless exempted by the responsible authority. In the case of
small systems, technologies classified as residential scale may be used to achieve a 4-log
reduction of enteric viruses, depending on the capacity requirements of the system. Although
they may be classified as residential scale, many of them have a rated capacity for volumes
greater than that of a single residence. Specific guidance on technologies that can be used in
small systems should be obtained from the appropriate drinking water authority in the relevant
jurisdiction.
Once the source water quality has been characterized, pathogen removal/inactivation
targets and effective treatment barriers can be established in order to achieve safe finished
drinking water. To optimize performance for removal of microbial pathogens, the relative
importance of each barrier must be understood. Some water systems have multiple redundant
barriers such that failure of a given barrier still provides adequate treatment. In other cases, all
barriers must be working well to provide the required level of treatment. For these systems,
failure of a single treatment barrier could lead to a waterborne disease outbreak.
The removal of enteric viruses from raw water is complicated by their small size and
relative ease of passage through filtration barriers. However, viruses are effectively inactivated
through the application of various disinfection technologies individually or in combination, at
relatively low dosages. In most cases, a well-operated conventional treatment plant should be
able to produce water with a negligible risk of disease transmission. Options for treatment and
control of viruses are discussed briefly in this document; however, more detailed information is
available in other references (U.S. EPA, 1991; Health and Welfare Canada, 1993; AWWA,
1999b; Deere et al., 2001; Hijnen et al., 2004, 2006; LeChevallier and Au, 2004; Medema et al.,
2006).
7.1
Municipal scale
In general, all drinking water supplies should be disinfected, and a disinfectant residual
should be maintained throughout the distribution system at all times. In addition to primary
disinfection, treatment of surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface
waters should include physical removal methods, such as chemically assisted filtration
(coagulation, flocculation, clarification and filtration) or technologies providing an equivalent log
reduction credit. It is essential to achieve the physical removal and disinfection targets prior to
the first consumer in the distribution system. Adequate process control measures and operator
training are also required to ensure the effective operation of treatment barriers at all times (U.S.
EPA, 1991; Health and Welfare Canada, 1993; AWWA, 1999b).
Treatment technologies should be in place to achieve a minimum 4-log (99.99%) removal
and/or inactivation of enteric viruses. With this level of treatment, a source water concentration
of 1 virus/100 L can be reduced to 1 × 10!4 virus/100 L, which meets the population health
target of 10!6 disability adjusted life year (DALY)/person per year (see Section 8.0 for a detailed
discussion of the DALY). However, raw water could have a much higher virus concentration and
therefore require additional treatment for removal/inactivation in order to produce safe drinking
water.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
21
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
7.1.1
Level of treatment necessary
The level of treatment needed is based on the known or estimated concentration of
pathogens in the source water. For example, a source water concentration of 1 virus/100 L would
be reduced to 1 × 10!4 virus/100 L using a 4-log (99.99%) removal/inactivation process. A source
water with higher virus concentrations will require greater removal/inactivation in order to meet
an acceptable level of risk in the treated drinking water. Table 1 indicates the overall level of
treatment required for a range of source water virus concentrations resulting in an acceptable
level of risk of 1 × 10!6 DALY/person per year.
Table 1: Overall treatment requirements for virus log reduction as a function of approximate
source water concentration to meet a level of risk of 1 × 10!6 DALY/person per year)
Source water virus concentration
Overall required treatment reduction for viruses
(no./100 L)
(log10)
1
4
10
5
100
6
1000
7
Where possible, source water virus concentrations should be characterized based on
actual water sampling and analysis. Such characterization should take into account normal
conditions as well as event-based monitoring, such as spring runoff, storms or spill events.
Testing results should also take into account recovery efficiencies for the analytical method
and pathogen viability in order to obtain the most accurate assessment of infectious pathogens
present in the source water. In many places, source water sampling for enteric viruses may not be
feasible and the potential risk from enteric viruses may be estimated using a combination of
sanitary surveys, comparison with other source waters, indicator organisms or related research
studies. Because it is difficult to analyse for viruses, regular monitoring of indicator organisms
and source water characteristics can be a practical solution for assessing the need for treatment
adjustments. However, given the uncertainty of such estimates, engineering safety factors or
additional treatment reductions should be applied in order to ensure production of
microbiologically safe drinking water.
The overall treatment requirements can be achieved through one or more treatment
steps involving physical removal and/or primary disinfection. The virus log reductions for each
separate treatment barrier can be combined to define the overall reduction for the treatment
process.
7.1.2
Physical removal
The physical removal of viruses can be achieved by clarification and filtration processes.
Clarification is followed by a filtration process. Some filtration systems, however, are used
without clarification (direct filtration). Viruses in the water can be either free flowing or particle
associated, and their adsorption depends on a number of factors, such as the isoelectric point and
hydrophobicity of both the virus and of the particle (Templeton et al., 2008). The isoelectric point
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
22
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
is the pH at which the virus has no net electrical charge and varies among different viral species.
The association of virus with particles plays a role in both the physical removal and the
disinfection/inactivation of the virus.
The addition of a chemical coagulant to the raw water produces flocs that adsorb the
particle-associated viruses. These flocs are then removed from the water using gravity
sedimentation, a sludge blanket or dissolved air flotation. Studies have shown virus removal
ranging from 1.1 to 3.4 log for the clarification process only (coagulation, flocculation and
sedimentation steps) (LeChevallier, 1999; Hijnen et al., 2004).
The granular media filter is traditionally the most common type used. Treatment systems
using coagulation, flocculation, clarification and rapid sand filtration are often referred to as
conventional treatment. Studies have shown virus removal of 0.1–3.8 log for the filtration only.
Combining these process steps together, conventional filtration is given a credit of 2.0-log
physical removal of enteric viruses (Table 2). A greater log removal of enteric viruses is possible
using conventional filtration with optimization of the treatment for turbidity and particle removal
(Xagoraraki et al., 2004).
Table 2: Virus physical removal credits for various treatment technologies meeting the turbidity
limits established in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
Treatment barrier
Virus removal credita (log10)
a
b
Conventional filtration
2.0
Direct filtration
1.0
Slow sand filtration
2.0
Diatomaceous earth filtration
1.0
Microfiltration
No creditb
Ultrafiltration
Demonstration and challenge testing; verified by direct
integrity testing
Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
Demonstration and challenge testing; verified by
integrity testing
Values from the Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 1999), p. 6-3.
Microfiltration membranes may be eligible for virus removal credit when preceded by a coagulation step.
Membrane filtration by microfiltration does not provide an ultimate physical barrier to
viruses because of the size of the pores, which range from 0.1 to 10 µm. However, several
studies have demonstrated that viruses can be removed to a 4-log level when a coagulation
process precedes microfiltration (Zhu et al., 2005a,b; Fiksdal and Leiknes, 2006). Ultrafiltration
membranes have pore sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 µm and can reject viruses. A review of
several studies indicates that ultrafiltration membranes typically remove viruses to greater than a
3-log level (AWWA, 2005). Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes are typically
considered to be non-porous and represent a physical barrier to viruses. Because any breach in
the integrity of the membranes would allow viruses to pass through the filter, direct integrity
testing should be conducted during the filter operation for ultrafiltration membranes. Currently, it
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
23
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
is not possible to conduct direct integrity testing for nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
membranes without disrupting production for an extended period of time. However, indirect
integrity testing is required on a continuous basis, and direct integrity testing should be
performed on a regular basis.
It is important to note that many treatment processes are interdependent and rely on
optimal conditions upstream in the treatment process for efficient operation of subsequent
treatment steps. For example, coagulation and flocculation should be optimized for particles
to be effectively removed by filtration. Filters must be carefully controlled, monitored and
backwashed such that particle breakthrough does not occur (Huck et al., 2001), and filter
backwash water should not be recirculated through the treatment plant without additional
treatment subsequent to coagulation, flocculation and clarification (Medema et al., 2006).
Slow sand filtration can also be effective, with physical removals in the range of
0.9–3.5 log for viruses (Hijnen et al., 2004). Several factors can negatively affect the removal of
viruses by slow sand filtration, such as cold water, higher hydraulic loading and decreased sand
depth. A 1-year monitoring study of three full-scale riverbank filtration facilities reported an
average male-specific and somatic bacteriophage reduction of 2.1 log and 3.2 log, respectively
(Weiss et al., 2005).
7.1.2.1 Physical log removal credits for treatment barriers
Drinking water treatment plants that meet the turbidity limits established in the
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada, 2003b) can apply the
estimated physical removal credits for enteric viruses given in Table 2. These log removal credits
are based on the mean or median removals established by the U.S. EPA (1999) as part of the
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual and the Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Alternatively, log removal
rates can be established on the basis of demonstrated performance or pilot studies. The physical
log removal credits can be combined with the disinfection credits to meet overall treatment goals.
For example, if an overall 4-log (99.99%) virus removal is required in a given water supply and
conventional filtration provides 2-log removal, then the remaining 2-log reduction must be
achieved through another barrier, such as disinfection.
7.1.3
Chemical disinfection
Chemical disinfectants commonly used for treating drinking water include chlorine,
chloramine, chlorine dioxide and ozone. Disinfection is typically applied after treatment
processes that remove particles and organic matter. This strategy helps to ensure efficient
inactivation of pathogens and minimizes the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs). It
is important to note that when describing microbial disinfection of drinking water, the term
“inactivation” is used to indicate that the pathogen is no longer able to multiply within its host
and is therefore non-infectious, although it may still be present.
7.1.3.1 Water quality characteristics
Physical characteristics of the water, such as temperature, pH and turbidity, can have a
major impact on inactivation and removal of pathogens. For example, inactivation rates increase
2- to 3-fold for every 10°C rise in temperature. When temperatures are near 0°C, as is often the
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
24
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
case in winter in Canada, the efficacy of disinfection is reduced, and an increased disinfectant
concentration or contact time, or a combination of both, is required to achieve the same level
of inactivation.
The effectiveness of some disinfectants is also dependent on pH. When using free
chlorine, increasing the pH from 6 to 10 reduces the level of virus inactivation by a factor of
8–10 times (see CT tables in Appendix B). However, a recent study by Thurston-Enriquez et al.
(2005a) reported that chlorine dioxide was 1.9 and 19.3 times more effective at pH 8 than at pH 6
for adenovirus type 40 and feline calicivirus (used as a surrogate for norovirus), respectively.
Similar findings have been reported for other enteric viruses using chlorine dioxide (Alvarez
and O’Brien, 1982; Moss and Olivieri, 1985). pH has been shown to have little effect on virus
inactivation efficiency of ozone, although a higher pH will impact ozone stability and therefore
increase ozone demand.
Reducing turbidity is an important step in the inactivation of viruses and other
microorganisms. Chemical disinfection may be inhibited because protection of viruses and
other microorganisms can occur within the associated particles. Negative impacts of particleassociated viruses on disinfection processes have been demonstrated in several studies
(Templeton et al., 2008). The effect of turbidity on treatment efficiency is further discussed in the
Guideline Technical Document on turbidity (Health Canada, 2003b).
7.1.3.2 CT concept for disinfection
The efficacy of chemical disinfectants can be predicted based on knowledge of the
residual concentration of disinfectant, temperature, pH and contact time (AWWA, 1999b). This
relationship is commonly referred to as the CT concept, where CT is the product of “C” (the
residual concentration of disinfectant, measured in mg/L) and “T” (the disinfectant contact time,
measured in minutes). Generally, CT objectives are determined in controlled laboratory studies.
In treatment facilities, the residual concentration is usually determined at the exit of the contact
chamber rather than using the applied dose or initial concentration, to account for disinfectant
decay. To account for the mixing hydraulic of the contact chamber, the contact time “T” is
typically calculated using a T10 value, such that 90% of the water meets or exceeds the required
contact time. The T10 values can be estimated based on the geometry and flow conditions of the
disinfection chamber or basin. Hydraulic tracer tests, however, are the most accurate method to
determine the contact time under actual plant flow conditions.
Complete CT tables for 2-log, 3-log and 4-log inactivation of viruses can be found in
Appendix B. Some selected CT values are presented in Table 3 for 4-log (99.99%) inactivation
of enteric viruses using chlorine, chloramine, chlorine dioxide and ozone. The CT values
illustrate the fact that chloramine is a much weaker disinfectant than free chlorine, chlorine
dioxide or ozone, since much higher concentrations and/or contact times are required to achieve
the same degree of virus inactivation. Consequently, chloramine is not recommended as a
primary disinfectant. Free chlorine is the most common chemical used for primary disinfection
because it is widely available, is relatively inexpensive and provides a residual that can be used
for maintaining water quality in the distribution system. For example, a moderate chlorine
concentration of 0.5 mg/L with 15-min contact time can achieve greater than 4-log virus
inactivation at 20°C (Table 3). Ozone is another strong disinfectant for virus inactivation, as
noted by the low CT values required for 4-log inactivation. However, ozone decays rapidly
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
25
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
after being applied during treatment and cannot be used to provide a secondary disinfectant
residual. Although ozone and chlorine dioxide are effective disinfectants, they are typically
more expensive and complicated to implement, particularly in small treatment systems.
CT values for 99.99% (4-log) inactivation of enteric virusesa by various
disinfectants at 5°C and 20°C (pH 6–9)
CT values for 99.99% (4-log) inactivation
Table 3:
a
Temperature
(°C)
Free chlorine
(Cl2)
Chloramine
(NH2Cl)
Chlorine dioxide
(ClO2)
Ozone
(O3)
5
8
1988
33.4
1.2
20
3
746
12.5
0.5
Based on studies using HAV (with the addition of a safety factor, ), with the exception of the CT values for ozone
which are based on poliovirus 1 (U.S. EPA, 1991)
7.1.3.3 Chemical resistance of different viruses
Research studies involving several enteric viruses have shown varying levels of resistance
to chemical disinfectants (Engelbrecht et al., 1980; Payment et al., 1985; Hoff, 1986; Sobsey et
al., 1988; Payment and Armon, 1989; U.S. EPA, 1989; AWWA, 1999a,b; Thurston-Enriquez et
al., 2003a, 2005a,b). Table 4 presents CT values from various research studies for 2-log (99%)
inactivation of several viruses using various chemical disinfectants. In these studies, HAV was
found to be more resistant to chemical inactivation using chlorine dioxide and ozone than other
types of viruses. For free chlorine disinfection, HAV was shown to be consistently more resistant
than rotavirus and adenovirus 40; however, the susceptibility of coxsackievirus B5 and
poliovirus 1 varied significantly between studies. Further research on the inactivation of these
viruses is needed. As a result, virus disinfection targets and guidance tables of CT values have
been based on HAV (U.S. EPA, 1991).
Comparison of CT values from research studies for 99% (2-log) inactivation of
selected viruses by various disinfectants at 5–15°C
CT values for 99% (2-log) inactivation
Table 4:
Virus
Poliovirus 1a,b,c
Rotavirus
c
d
Hepatitis A virus
Coxsackievirus B5
e,f
Adenovirus 40
a,b,d
Free chlorine
(Cl2)
pH 6–7
Chloramine
(NH2Cl)
pH 8–9
Chlorine dioxide
(ClO2)
pH 6–7
Ozone
(O3)
pH 6–7
1.1–6
768–3740
0.2–6.7
0.1–0.2
0.01–0.05
3806–6476
0.2–2.1
0.006–0.06
0.7-1.18
428-857
<0.17 - 2.8
0.5
1.7–12
550
n.a.
n.a.
0.02–2.4
360
0.25
0.027
n.a. = not available
a
Engelbrecht et al. (1 980 ); b Paym ent et al. (1 985 ); c Ho ff (198 6); d Sob sey et al. (1988 ); e Thurston-Enriq uez et al.
(2003a , 200 5a,b); f Cromeans et al., (2010)
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
26
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
7.1.3.4 Disinfection by-products
In addition to microbial inactivation, chemical disinfection can result in the formation of
DBPs, some of which may pose a human health risk. The most commonly used disinfectant,
chlorine, reacts with naturally occurring organic matter to form trihalomethanes and haloacetic
acids, along with many other halogenated organic compounds (Krasner et al., 2006). The use of
ozone and chlorine dioxide can also result in the formation of inorganic DBPs, such as bromate
and chlorite/chlorate, respectively. When selecting a chemical disinfectant, the potential impact
of DBPs should be considered. Where possible, efforts should be made to minimize the
formation of these DBPs without compromising the effectiveness of disinfection. The issues of
DBPs are further discussed in the Guideline Technical Documents on trihalomethanes (Health
Canada, 2006c), haloacetic acids (Health Canada, 2008), bromate (Health Canada, 1998) and
chlorite and chlorate (Health Canada, 2008).
7.1.4
Ultraviolet light disinfection
UV light disinfection is considered an alternative method of disinfection. UV dose,
usually called fluence, is expressed in millijoules per square centimetre (mJ/cm2), which is
equivalent to milliwatt seconds per square centimetre ([email protected]/cm2). UV light is usually applied
after particle removal barriers such as filtration in order to prevent shielding by suspended
particles and allow better light penetration through to the target pathogens. Several recent
studies have examined the effect of particles on UV disinfection efficacy, and most have
concluded that the UV dose–response of microorganisms is not affected by variations in turbidity
up to 10 nephelometric turbidity units (Christensen and Linden, 2002; Oppenheimer et al., 2002;
Mamane-Gravetz and Linden, 2004; Passantino et al., 2004). However, the presence of humic
acid particles and coagulants has been show to significantly affect UV disinfection efficacy, with
lower inactivation levels being achieved (Templeton et al., 2005). Further research is needed to
better understand the effect of particles and coagulants on microbial inactivation by UV light.
7.1.4.1 UV resistance of viruses
Several studies have investigated the inactivation of enteric viruses using UV light
(Chang et al., 1985; Arnold and Rainbow, 1996; Meng and Gerba, 1996; AWWA, 1999b; U.S.
EPA, 2000; Cotton et al., 2001). Studies have shown that adenoviruses are much more resistant
to UV disinfection compared with other enteric viruses (Cotton et al., 2001; Thurston-Enriquez
et al., 2003b; Nwachuku et al., 2005). A relatively high UV dose of 152 mJ/cm2 was required for
a 4-log (99.99%) inactivation of adenovirus 40 in buffered demand-free water. In contrast, a
recent study (Linden et al., 2007) obtained 3-log inactivation of adenovirus 40 by use of a
polychromatic source at fluence of approximately 30 mJ/cm2 and wavelength of 220 nm and 228
nm. A 4-log inactivation of rotavirus was achieved using a mean UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2. Table 5
lists typical UV dosages required to achieve a 4-log (99.99%) inactivation for various types of
enteric viruses. A more detailed table of UV doses for multiple log reductions of various viruses
is presented in a study by Chevrefils et al. (2006).
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
27
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Table 5: Comparison of typical UV dose requirements (mJ/cm2) for 1-log (90%), 2-log (99%), 3log (99.9%) and 4-log (99.99%) inactivation of various enteric virusesa
Virus
1-log
2-log
3-log
4-log
Hepatitis A virus
4.1–5.5
8.2–13.7
12.3–22
16.4–29.6
Coxsackievirus B5
6.9–9.5
13.7–18
20.6–27
36
4.0–8
8.7–15.5
14.2–23
20.6–31
7.1–10
14.8–26
23–44
36–61
58
100
143
186
Poliovirus type 1
b
Rotavirus SA-11
Adenovirus
a
Adapted from M alley et al., (2004 ); Chevrefils et al., (2006 ); Hijnen et al., (2 006 ); U.S. EPA (2006 c).
b One study (Malley et al., 2004) reported 3-log and 4-log rotavirus inactivation required greater than 40 mJ/cm 2.
It appears that double-stranded DNA viruses, such as adenoviruses, are more resistant
to UV radiation than single-stranded RNA viruses, such as HAV (Meng and Gerba, 1996). The
mechanisms for this higher resistance are not totally understood. The resistance may occur as the
result of the physical or chemical properties of the viruses or repair of the UV-induced damage
either by the virus or with the help of host cell enzymes (Shin et al., 2005). Because of their
high level of resistance to UV treatment and because adenoviruses cause illness in children
and immunocompromised adults, adenoviruses have been used by the U.S. EPA as the basis
for establishing UV light inactivation requirements for enteric viruses in the LT2ESWTR.
Accordingly, the LT2ESWTR requires a UV dose of 186 mJ/cm2 to receive a 4.0-log credit
for viral inactivation (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
For water supply systems in Canada, a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 is commonly applied, often
in combination with chlorine disinfection or other physical removal barriers (MOE, 2006). This
dose is considered to be protective of human health because most enteric viruses are inactivated
at a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2. However, a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 would provide only a 0.5-log
inactivation of adenovirus but the addition of free chlorine can provide additional log removal
credit. In a laboratory study, Baxter et al. (2007) found that a concentration of 0.22 mg/L of
chlorine with 1 minute of contact time in a demand-free water, provided a 4-log inactivation of
adenovirus.
For drinking water sources considered to be less vulnerable to human faecal
contamination, the responsible authority may choose an enteric virus such as rotavirus as the
target organism (i.e., as found in Table 5) to determine the required UV dose. Where a system
relies solely on UV disinfection for pathogen control and the source water is known or suspected
to be contaminated with human sewage, either a higher UV dose such as that stated in the
LT2ESWTR or a multi-disinfectant strategy should be considered.
7.1.5
Multi-disinfectant strategy
A multiple disinfectant strategy involves using two or more primary disinfection steps
to meet treatment objectives. For example, UV light and free chlorine are complementary
disinfection processes, which can inactivate protozoa, viruses and bacteria. UV light is highly
effective for inactivating protozoa and bacteria (but less effective for some viruses), whereas
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
28
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
chlorine is highly effective for inactivating bacteria and many viruses (but less effective for
protozoa). In some treatment plants, ozone may be applied for taste and odour control, followed
by chlorine disinfection. In such cases, both the ozone and chlorine disinfection could potentially
be credited towards meeting the minimum of 4-log reduction for enteric viruses while meeting
taste and odour treatment objectives.
Site-specific assessments of drinking water supplies should be carried out in order to
determine the most appropriate treatment strategy based on the source water quality, including
the organisms of concern. For example, utilities using surface water or groundwater under the
direct influence of surface water will need to treat source waters for all three types of organisms
(protozoa, viruses and bacteria) and therefore may need to consider the use of a multidisinfectant strategy. Groundwater from sources less vulnerable to faecal contamination, on the
other hand, may need to be treated only for the presence of enteric viruses, and therefore a multidisinfectant strategy would not be necessary. When determining whether a multiple disinfectant
strategy is required to meet overall treatment objectives, the contribution from any physical
removal treatment process also needs to be considered. Specific guidance on disinfection
requirements should be obtained from the appropriate drinking water authority in the relevant
jurisdiction.
7.2
Residential scale
Various options are available for treating source waters to provide high-quality pathogenfree drinking water. These include filtration and disinfection with chlorine-based compounds or
alternative technologies, such as UV light. These technologies are similar to the municipal
treatment barriers, but on a smaller scale. In addition, there are other treatment processes, such
as distillation, that can be practically applied only to small or individual water supplies. Most
of these technologies have been incorporated into point-of-entry devices, which treat all water
entering the system, or point-of-use devices, which treat water at only a single location—for
example, at the kitchen tap.
The use of UV light has increased owing to its availability and relative ease of operation.
However, scaling or fouling of the UV lamp surface is a common problem when applying UV
light to raw water with moderate or high levels of hardness, such as groundwater. UV light
systems are often preceded by a pretreatment filter to reduce scaling or fouling. A pretreatment
filter may also be needed to achieve the water quality that is required for the UV system to
operate as specified by the manufacturer. In addition, the regular cleaning and replacement of the
lamp, according to manufacturer’s instructions, are critical in ensuring the proper functioning of
the unit. Alternatively, special UV lamp-cleaning mechanisms or water softeners can be used to
overcome this scaling problem.
Health Canada does not recommend specific brands of drinking water treatment devices,
but it strongly recommends that consumers look for a mark or label indicating that the device has
been certified by an accredited certification body as meeting the appropriate NSF International
(NSF)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. These standards have been
designed to safeguard drinking water by helping to ensure the material safety and performance
of products that come into contact with drinking water.
For example, NSF/ANSI Standard 55 (Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems) provides
performance criteria for two categories of certified systems, Class A and Class B. UV systems
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
29
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 55 Class A are designed to deliver a UV dose at least equivalent
to 40 mJ/cm2 in order to inactivate microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, Cryptosporidium
oocysts and Giardia cysts, from contaminated water. As such, UV systems certified to
NSF/ANSI Standard 55 Class A can provide 4-log reduction for most viruses (Table 5) and are
suitable for this use. However, it must be noted that they are not designed to treat wastewater
or water contaminated with raw sewage and should be installed in visually clear water. It is
important to note that systems certified to NSF Standard 55 Class B are designed to deliver a
UV dose at least equivalent to 16 mJ/cm2 and cannot provide 4-log reduction for most viruses
(Table 5). Class B systems are intended for a drinking water supply that is already disinfected,
tested and deemed acceptable for human consumption.
Reverse osmosis membranes have a pore size smaller than the viruses and could provide
a physical barrier to them. Currently, the NSF/ANSI standard for reverse osmosis systems does
not include a claim for virus reduction; as a result, reverse osmosis units cannot be certified to
this standard for virus reduction.
Certification organizations provide assurance that a product or service conforms to
applicable standards. In Canada, the following organizations have been accredited by the
Standards Council of Canada (www.scc.ca) to certify drinking water devices and materials as
meeting the appropriate NSF/ANSI standards:
•
Canadian Standards Association International (www.csa-international.org);
•
NSF International (www.nsf.org);
•
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (www.ul.com);
•
Quality Auditing Institute Ltd. (www.qai.org);
•
Water Quality Association (www.wqa.org); and
•
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (www.iapmo.org).
8.0
Risk assessment
The adoption of a risk-based approach, such as a multi-barrier approach, is essential to
the effective management of drinking water systems (CCME, 2004). This approach should
include assessment of the entire drinking water system, from the watershed/aquifer and intake
through the treatment and distribution chain to the consumer, to assess potential impacts on
drinking water quality and public health.
Current drinking water guidelines encourage the adoption of a multi-barrier approach
to produce clean, safe and reliable drinking water. Numerous indicators, such as indicator
microorganisms, turbidity and disinfectant residuals, are used as part of the multi-barrier
approach to determine the quality of the treated drinking water. For example, E. coli and total
coliforms are bacteriological indicators that are routinely used to verify the microbiological
quality of drinking water. Although indicators are an important aspect of a multi-barrier
approach, they do not provide any quantitative information on pathogens or the potential disease
burden associated with drinking water of a given quality. It is important to note that even water
of an acceptable quality carries some risk of illness, although it is extremely low.
QMRA is gaining acceptance as part of a multi-barrier approach. QMRA is a process
that uses source water quality data, treatment barrier information and pathogen-specific
characteristics to estimate the burden of disease associated with exposure to pathogenic
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
30
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
microorganisms in a drinking water source. The benefit of using a QMRA approach is that
assessments can be carried out by each water system to provide site-specific information:
•
to understand how changes in the source water quality can impact the microbiological
quality of the drinking water being produced;
•
to look at the adequacy of existing control measures, given site-specific variations;
•
to investigate potential improvements in microbiological drinking water quality with
additional treatment barriers or optimization of existing treatment barriers; and
•
to help establish limits for critical points in the treatment system.
Site-specific variations should include the potential impact of hazardous events, such as
storms, contamination events or the failure of a treatment barrier. When interpreting the results
from a QMRA, the following should be considered:
•
The quality of the data obtained from a QMRA is dependent on the quality of the input
data.
•
There can be a high level of uncertainty associated with some data (e.g., source water
quality data and pathogen removals by treatment systems).
•
Assumptions are made in QMRA that may not accurately reflect the condition of the
water system and/or individual exposure to pathogens at every point in time (see
Section 8.3.4).
Because of these limitations, QMRA should not be used to try to estimate levels of illness
in a population resulting from a particular water system. Rather, the disease burden estimates
produced from a QMRA are useful for site-specific system evaluations as part of a multi-barrier
approach to safe drinking water.
8.1
Health-based targets
Health-based targets are the “goal-posts” or “benchmarks” that have to be met to ensure
the safety of drinking water. In Canada, microbiological hazards are commonly addressed by two
forms of health-based targets: water quality targets and treatment goals. An example of a water
quality target is the bacteriological guideline for E. coli, which sets a maximum acceptable
concentration for this organism in drinking water. Treatment goals describe the reduction in
risk to be provided by measures such as treatment processes aimed at reducing the viability or
presence of pathogens. Treatment goals assist in the selection of treatment barriers and should
be defined in relation to source water quality. They need to take into account not only normal
operating conditions, but also the potential for variations in water quality and/or treatment
performance. For example, short periods of poor source water quality following a storm or a
decrease in treatment effectiveness due to a process failure may in fact embody most of the risk
in a drinking water system (Gale, 2002; Medema et al., 2006). The wide array of microbiological
pathogens makes it impractical to measure for all of the potential hazards; thus, treatment goals
are generally framed in terms of categories of organisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses and protozoa)
rather than individual pathogens. The health-based treatment goal for enteric viruses is a
minimum 4-log reduction and/or inactivation of viruses. Many source waters will require a
greater log reduction and/or inactivation to maintain an acceptable level of risk.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
31
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
8.2
Acceptable levels of risk
The burden of disease estimates calculated during a risk assessment should be compared
with a reference level of risk—that is, a level of risk that is deemed tolerable or acceptable. This
comparison is needed to understand the public health implications of the disease burden estimate
and to set health-based treatment goals.
Risk levels have been expressed in several ways. The World Health Organization’s
(WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO, 2004) use DALYs as a unit of measure
for risk. The basic principle of the DALY is to calculate a value that considers both the
probability of experiencing an illness or injury and the impact of the associated health effects
(Murray and Lopez, 1996a; Havelaar and Melse, 2003). The WHO (2004) guidelines adopt 10!6
DALY/person per year as a health target. The Australian National Guidelines for Water
Recycling (NRMMC-EPHC, 2006) also cite this target. In contrast, other agencies set acceptable
microbial risk levels based on the risk of infection and do not consider the probability or severity
of associated health outcomes. For example, the U.S. EPA has used a health-based target of an
annual risk of infection of less than 1/10 000 persons (10!4) (Regli et al., 1991).
For comparison, the reference level of 10!6 DALY/person per year is approximately
equivalent to an annual risk of illness for an individual of 1/1000 (10!3) for a diarrhoea-causing
pathogen with a low fatality rate. For an illness with a more severe health outcome, such as
cancer, 10!6 DALY/person per year is approximately equivalent to a lifetime additional risk of
cancer over background of 10!5 (i.e., 1 excess case of cancer over background levels per
100 000 people ingesting 1.5 L of drinking-water per day containing the substance at the
guideline value over a 70-year life span). QMRA is a useful tool in estimating whether a drinking
water system can meet this health target, as current disease surveillance systems in developed
nations such as Canada are not able to detect endemic illness at such a low level.
The risk assessment in this Guideline Technical Document estimates the disease burden
in DALYs. There are several advantages to using this metric. DALYs take into account both the
number of years lost due to mortality and the number of years lived with a disability (compared
with the average healthy individual for the region) to determine the health impact associated with
a single type of pathogenic organism. The use of DALYs also allows for comparison of health
impacts between different pathogens and potentially between microbiological and some chemical
hazards. Although no common health metric has been accepted internationally, DALYs have
been used by numerous groups, and published, peer-reviewed information is available. The
WHO (2004) reference level of 10!6 DALY/person per year is used in this risk assessment as
an acceptable level of risk.
8.3
Quantitative microbial risk assessment approach
QMRA is an approach that uses mathematical modelling and relevant information from
selected pathogens to derive disease burden estimates. QMRA follows a common approach in
risk assessment, which includes four components: hazard identification, exposure assessment,
dose–response assessment and risk characterization.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
32
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
8.3.1
Hazard identification
The first step of QMRA is hazard identification, a qualitative process of identifying
hazards to the drinking water system or to human health, such as microorganisms, toxins or
chemicals. The enteric viruses of most concern as human health hazards in Canadian drinking
water sources include noroviruses, rotaviruses, hepatitis viruses, enteroviruses and adenoviruses.
The presence and types of enteric viruses in a given drinking water source are variable.
Therefore, it is important to identify all potential sources and events, regardless of whether they
are under the control of the drinking water supplier, that could lead to enteric viruses being
present at concentrations exceeding baseline levels, on a site-specific basis. Human faeces and,
in some instances, urine are the main sources of enteric viruses, which may originate from point
sources of pollution, such as municipal sewage discharges, or from non-point sources, such as
septic systems. In addition to the potential sources of contamination, it is necessary to consider
whether the presence of enteric viruses is continuous, is intermittent or has seasonal pollution
patterns and how rare events, such as droughts or floods, will impact the enteric virus
concentrations in the source water.
Although all enteric viruses of concern need to be identified, risk assessments do not
usually consider each individual enteric virus. Instead, the risk assessment includes only specific
enteric viruses (reference pathogens or, in this case, reference viruses) whose characteristics
make them a good representative of all similar pathogenic viruses. It is assumed that if the
reference virus is controlled, this would ensure control of all other similar viruses of concern.
Ideally, a reference virus will represent a worst-case combination of high occurrence, high
concentration and long survival time in source water, low removal and/or inactivation during
treatment and a high pathogenicity for all age groups. Numerous enteric viruses have been
considered as reference viruses, including adenoviruses, noroviruses, and rotaviruses. None of
these viruses meet all of the characteristics of an ideal reference virus. Adenoviruses represent a
worse-case for inactivation during treatment when using UV, however, they are less prevalent in
the population than noroviruses or rotaviruses. Noroviruses, although they are a significant cause
of viral gastroenteritis in all age groups, have no published dose-response model currently
available. Rotaviruses are a common cause of infection in children, have the possibility of severe
outcomes and a dose–response model is available, however, rotaviruses are more susceptible to
treatment than some other enteric viruses. As no single virus has all the characteristics of an ideal
reference virus, this risk assessment incorporates the key characteristics of rotavirus, with the CT
values based on HAV and poliovirus (U.S. EPA, 1999) as the best currently available
disinfection information for enteric viruses commonly found in surface water and groundwater
sources.
8.3.2
Exposure assessment
Exposure assessments provide an estimate (with associated uncertainty) of the occurrence
and level of a contaminant in a specified volume of water at the time of the exposure event
(ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption). The principal route of exposure considered in
this risk assessment is consumption of drinking water. To determine exposure, the concentration
of enteric viruses and the volume of water ingested need to be known or estimated. Exposure
can be determined as a single dose of pathogens ingested by a consumer at one time or the total
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
33
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
amount over several exposures (e.g., over a year).
Drinking water is not usually monitored for enteric viruses. Therefore, to determine
exposure, the concentration of the reference virus in the source water needs to be measured
or estimated. Measurements, as opposed to estimates, will result in the highest-quality risk
assessment. Short-term peaks in virus concentration may increase disease risks considerably
and even trigger outbreaks of waterborne disease; thus, seasonal variation and peak events
such as storms should be included in the measurements or estimates. Once the source water
concentrations are determined, treatment reductions are calculated to determine the concentration
in the finished drinking water. This risk assessment assumes that any viruses that were not
removed or inactivated during treatment are still capable of causing infection and illness.
For the volume of water ingested, it is important to consider only the unboiled amount of
tap water consumed, as boiling the water inactivates pathogens and will overestimate exposure
(Gale, 1996; Payment et al., 1997; WHO, 2004). In Canada, approximately 1.5 L of tap water are
consumed per person per day. However, approximately 35% is consumed in the form of coffee
or tea (Health and Welfare Canada, 1981). The elevated temperatures (boiling, or near boiling)
used for making coffee and tea would inactivate any enteric pathogens present. Therefore, for
estimating risk from pathogenic organisms, this risk assessment uses an average consumption
of 1 L of water per person per day for determining exposure. This estimate is similar to
consumption patterns in other developed nations (Westrell et al., 2006a; Mons et al., 2007).
The WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality also suggest using an estimate of 1 L for
consumption of unboiled tap water (WHO, 2004).
8.3.3
Dose–response assessment
The dose–response assessment uses dose–response models to estimate the probability of
infection and the risk of illness after exposure to the reference virus. The probability of infection
(Pinfection) for this risk assessment is calculated using a dose–response model for rotavirus. The
rotavirus dose–response data are well approximated by the beta-Poisson model (equation 1)
(Haas et al., 1999):
Pinfection . 1 – (1 + d/$)!"
(1)
where:
"
$
d
=
=
=
0.265
0.4415
estimated dose per day
The beta-Poisson model describes mathematically the distribution of the individual
probabilities of any one organism to survive and start infection, where " and $ are parameters
describing the probability of infection. The approximation of the beta-Poisson model becomes
poor, and therefore should not be used, at small values of $ or when the estimated dose d is large.
The " and $ parameters are derived from dose–response studies of healthy volunteers and may
not adequately represent effects on sensitive subgroups, such as immunocompromised persons,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
34
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
young children or the elderly (Ward et al., 1986). An individual’s daily dose of organisms is
estimated using the information from the exposure assessment. An individual’s yearly probability
of infection is estimated using equation 2. For this risk assessment, it is assumed that there is no
secondary spread of infection.
Pinfection/year = 1 ! (1 ! Pinfection)365
(2)
Not all infected individuals will develop a clinical illness. The risk of illness per year for
an individual is estimated using equation 3:
Risk of illness = Pinfection/year × S × I
(3)
where:
Pinfection/year
S
I
=
=
=
the probability of infection per year obtained from equation 2
the proportion of the population susceptible to infection
the proportion of individuals that develop symptomatic illness
after infection
The fraction of the population that is susceptible to infection and illness varies with the
type of enteric virus being considered. For rotavirus, the population susceptible to infection is
generally confined to young children. Based on Canadian data, this represents approximately 6%
of the population (Ministry of Finance, 2003a,b). However, as this risk assessment uses rotavirus
as a representative of all enteric viruses that may be present in drinking water, including those to
which greater proportions or most of the population may be susceptible (e.g., norovirus), 100%
of the population is assumed to be susceptible to infection. Not all infections result in
symptomatic illness. Based on U.S. data, 88% of individuals will develop symptomatic illness
after infection with rotavirus (Havelaar and Melse, 2003).
To translate the risk of illness per year for an individual to a disease burden per person,
the DALY is used as a common“metric” that can to take into account diverse health outcomes.
The key advantage of the DALY as a measure of public health is cited as its aggregate nature,
combining life years lost (LYL) with years lived with disability (YLD) to calculate the disease
burden. DALYs can be calculated as follows:
DALY = YLD + LYL
(4)
where:
YLD =
LYL
=
the sum of the [(outcome fraction) × (duration) × (severity weight)] for
each health outcome contributing to morbidity
[(life expectancy) ! (age at death)] × severity weight
For rotavirus, the health effects vary in severity from mild diarrhoea to more severe
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
35
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
diarrhoea and potentially death. The disease burden of gastroenteritis resulting from infection
with rotavirus in drinking water is 8.46 DALYs/1000 cases (8.46 × 10!3 DALY/case) (Table 6).
Table 6: Disease burden calculation for rotavirus (DALYs/case)
Outcome
Health outcome
fractiona
Duration of illnessb
d
e
DALYs/case
Morbidity
(YLD)
Mild diarrhoea
Bloody diarrhoea
0.50
0.49
0.01918 (7 days)
0.01918 (7 days)
0.067
0.39
6.43 × 10!4
3.67 × 10!3
Mortality
(LYL)
Death
0.0001
Life expectancyd;
age at deathe
1
4.15 × 10!3
8.46 × 10!3
Disease
burden
a
Severity
weightc
Macler and R egli (19 93); b Havelaar and Melse (2003 ); c Murray and Lo pez (1996 b).
Life expectancy for Canadian pop ulation = 78.4 years (Health Canada, 2003a).
Age at de ath is the mean weighted age of the po pulation (assuming no difference in fatality rates between ages)
= 36.88.
Using this disease burden (DALYs/case) and the risk of illness per year in an individual,
the disease burden in DALYs/person per year can be estimated:
Disease burden (DALYs/person per year) = Risk of illness × Disease burden
(DALYs/case)
(5)
where:
Risk of illness
Disease burden (DALYs/case)
=
=
the value calculated from equation 3
8.46 × 10!3
8.3.4
Risk characterization
Risk characterization brings together the data collected or estimated on pathogen
occurrence in source water, pathogen removal or inactivation through treatment barriers,
consumption patterns to estimate exposure and pathogen dose–response relationships to estimate
the burden of disease. Using this information, the potential disease burden associated with the
specified drinking water system can be calculated. An example of a disease burden calculation is
provided in Figure 1. This calculation has been presented as a point estimate; however, the
calculation was done using a mathematical model that included probability functions with
associated uncertainties (Appendix C). The calculated disease burden can then be compared with
the acceptable risk level to determine if the drinking water being produced is of an acceptable
quality. If the disease burden estimate associated with the drinking water does not meet the
acceptable risk level, QMRA can then be used to calculate the level of treatment that would be
required to meet the acceptable health risk target (10!6 DALY/person per year).
For example, as shown in Figure 1, when source waters have a mean concentration of
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
36
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
approximately 1 rotavirus/100 L and the treatment plant consistently achieves at least a 4-log
reduction in virus concentration, the burden of disease in the population would meet the
reference level of 10!6 DALY/person per year (1 case/1000 people per year). A source water
concentration of 1 rotavirus/100 L of water is relatively low. It generally represents groundwater
sources and relatively pristine surface water sources. Many surface water sources will have virus
concentrations on the range of 1–100 viruses/L of water (100–10 000/100 L). These levels
require a much greater log reduction to meet the acceptable disease burden.
Figure 2 shows that a source water with a mean concentration of 10 rotaviruses/L of
water (1000 rotaviruses/100 L of water) would require the treatment plant to consistently achieve
at least a 7-log reduction in virus concentration to meet the acceptable reference level of risk.
Consequently, the health-based treatment goal of a 4-log reduction of enteric viruses is a
minimum requirement. A site-specific assessment should be done to determine what level of
enteric virus reduction is needed for any given source water. Monitoring, as opposed to
estimating, enteric virus concentrations in source water will result in the highest-quality risk
assessment. However, if measurements are not possible, estimated concentrations may be based
on perceived source water quality. Information obtained from sanitary surveys, vulnerability
assessments, and information on other water quality parameters, such as indicator organisms, can
be used to help estimate the risk and/or level of faecal contamination in the source water. It is
important to consider, as part of the site-specific assessment, events that can significantly change
source water quality, such as hazardous spills or storms. These will have an important impact on
the treatment required, and including variations in source water quality will provide the best
estimate of the risk in a system. Understanding and planning for the variations that occur in
source water quality create a more robust system that can include safety margins. It is also
important to take into consideration the level of uncertainty that is inherent in carrying out a
QMRA to ensure that the treatment in place is producing water of an acceptable quality. A
sensitivity analysis using a QMRA model such as the one described in Appendix C can also
help identify critical control points and their limits.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
37
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Figure 1: Example of a risk assessment under specified conditions. The calculation is presented
as a point estimate; however, the calculation was done using a mathematical model that included
probability functions with associated uncertainties.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
38
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Figure 2: Treatment requirements to meet an acceptable level of risk of 10!6
DALY/person per year based on 1 L consumption.
8.4
International considerations
QMRA is increasingly being applied by international agencies and governments at all
levels as the foundation for informed decision-making surrounding the health risks from
pathogens in drinking water. WHO, the European Commission, the Netherlands, Australia and
the United States have all made important advances in QMRA validation and methodology
(Staatscourant, 2001; WHO, 2004; NRMMC-EPHC, 2006; Medema et al., 2006; U.S. EPA,
2006a,b). With the exception of the U.S. EPA, these agencies and governments have adopted an
approach that takes full advantage of the potential of QMRA to inform the development of health
targets (i.e., acceptable levels of risk or disease) and site-specific risk management (e.g., Water
Safety Plans, as described in WHO, 2004). Building on the WHO work, the European
Commission’s Microrisk project has published an extensive guidance document that establishes
methods and a strong science basis for QMRA of drinking water (Medema et al., 2006).
The Netherlands and the U.S. EPA provide two examples of QMRA-based regulatory
approaches. In the Netherlands, consistent with the WHO approach, water suppliers must
conduct a site-specific QMRA on all surface water supplies to determine if the system can meet
a specified level of risk. Dutch authorities can also require a QMRA of vulnerable groundwater
supplies. In contrast, recent regulatory activity in the United States has seen the U.S. EPA assess
the health risks from waterborne pathogens through QMRA and apply this information to set
nationwide obligatory treatment performance requirements (U.S. EPA, 2006a,b). In general,
drinking water systems must achieve a 4-log removal or inactivation of enteric viruses to address
risk from enteric viruses (U.S. EPA, 2006a). To address risk specifically from Cryptosporidium,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
39
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
drinking water systems must monitor their source water, calculate an average Cryptosporidium
concentration and use those results to determine if their source is vulnerable to contamination
and requires additional treatment. Water systems are classified into categories (“bins”) based
on whether they are filtered or unfiltered systems; these bins specify additional removal or
inactivation requirements for Cryptosporidium spp. (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
Health Canada and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water
have chosen the same approach as WHO (2004), providing QMRA-based performance targets as
minimum requirements, but recommend the use of a site-specific QMRA as part of a multibarrier source-to-tap approach. The QMRA approach offers a number of advantages, including
1) the ability to compare the risk from representative groups of pathogens (e.g., viruses, protozoa,
bacteria) in an overall assessment; 2) the transparency of assumptions; 3) the potential to account
for variability and uncertainty in estimates; 4) the removal of hidden safety factors (these can be
applied as a conscious choice by regulatory authorities at the end of the process, if desired);
5) the site-specific identification of critical control points and limits through sensitivity analysis;
and 6) the clear implications of system management on a public health outcome.
9.0
Rationale
There are more than 140 types of enteric viruses known to infect humans that are excreted
in the faeces and sometimes urine of infected persons and animals and are potentially found in
both surface water and groundwater sources. Enteric viruses are responsible mainly for acute
illnesses, although some links to chronic illnesses have been made. Many of these viruses cannot
be cultured, and their occurrence in water varies in time and space. At any given time, one virus
type may be more prevalent than another in the sewage from a community and affect the source
water quality in communities downstream. The best means of safeguarding against the presence
of hazardous levels of enteric viruses in drinking water are based on the application of the multibarrier approach, including source water protection and adequate treatment, as demonstrated
using appropriate physicochemical parameters followed by the verification of the absence of
faecal indicator organisms in the finished water.
The large number of enteric viruses, the temporal and spatial variations in enteric virus
occurrence and methodological limitations make it impractical to routinely monitor for these
organisms, and therefore a water quality target, such as a maximum acceptable concentration,
for enteric viruses in drinking water is not established. Instead, the protection of public health is
accomplished by setting health-based treatment goals.
To set health-based treatment goals, the level of risk deemed tolerable or acceptable
needs to be determined. The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water has
chosen this acceptable level of risk as 10!6 DALY/person per year, which is consistent with the
reference level adopted by WHO (2004). This is a risk management decision that balances the
estimated disease burden from enteric viruses with the lack of information on the prevalence
of these pathogens in source waters, limitations in disease surveillance and the variations in
performance within different types of water treatment technologies.
Although all enteric viruses of concern need to be identified, risk assessments do not
usually consider each individual enteric virus. Instead, the risk assessment includes only specific
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
40
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
enteric viruses (reference pathogens or, in this case, reference viruses) whose characteristics
make them a good representative of all similar pathogenic viruses. It is assumed that if the
reference virus is controlled, this would ensure control of all other similar viruses of concern.
Rotavirus has been selected as the reference virus for this risk assessment because of the
prevalence of infection in children, the possibility of severe outcomes and the availability of a
dose–response model.
A source water concentration of 1 rotavirus/100 L of water generally represents
groundwater sources and relatively pristine surface water sources. In Canada, many surface
water sources will have virus concentrations on the range of 1–100 viruses/L of water
(100–10 000/100 L). The QMRA approach used in this guideline demonstrates that if a source
water has a mean concentration of approximately 1 rotavirus/100 L, a water treatment plant
would need to consistently achieve at least a 4-log reduction in virus concentration in order to
meet the reference level of 10!6 DALY/person per year. Thus, a minimum 4-log reduction and/or
inactivation of viruses has been established as a health-based treatment goal. A jurisdiction may
allow a groundwater source considered less vulnerable to faecal contamiantion to have less than
the recommended minimum 4-log reduction if the assessment of the drinking water system has
confirmed that the risk of enteric virus presence is minimal. Many source waters in Canada may
require more than the minimum treatment goal to meet the acceptable level of risk.
QMRA can be used on a site-specific basis to evaluate how variations in source water
quality may contribute to microbiological risk and to assess the adequacy of existing control
measures or the requirement for additional treatment barriers or optimization. In most cases, a
well-operated treatment plant employing effective coagulation, flocculation, clarification,
filtration and disinfection achieving a sufficient CT value should produce water with a negligible
risk of infection from enteric viruses. Where possible, watersheds or aquifers that are used as
sources of drinking water should be protected from faecal waste.
10.0 References
Abbaszadegan, M., Stewart, P.W., LeChevallier, M.W. and Gerba, C.P. (1998). Application of PCR technologies for
virus detection in groundwater. American Water W orks Association, Denver, Colorado (Report N o. 90740 ).
Abbaszadegan, M., Stewart, P. and LeChevallier, M. (1999). A strategy for detection of viruses in groundwater by
PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 65(2): 444–449.
Abbaszadegan, M., LeChevallier, M. and Gerba, C. (2003). Occurrence of viruses in US groundwaters. J. Am. Water
Works Assoc., 95: 107–120.
Alvarez, M.E. and O’Brien, R.T. (1982). Mechanisms of inactivation of poliovirus by chlorine dioxide and iodine.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 44: 1064–1071.
Amvrosieva, T.V., Titov, L.P., Mulders, M., Ho vi, T., Dyakonova, O.V., Votyakov, V.I., Kvacheva, Z.B., Eremin,
V.F., Sharko, R.M., Orlova, S.V., Kazinets, O.N. and Bogush, Z.F. (2001). Viral water contamination as the cause of
aseptic meningitis outbreak in Belarus. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health, 9(3): 154–157.
Anderson, A.D., Heryford, A.G., Sarisky, J.P., Higgins, C., Mo nroe, S.S., Beard, R.S., Newport, C.M., Cashdollar,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
41
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
J.L., Fout, G.S., Robb ins, D.E., Seys, S.A., Musgrave, K.J., Medus, C., Vingé, J., Bresee, J.S., Mainzer, H.M. and
Glass, R.I. (2003 ). A waterbo rne outbreak of N orwa lk-like virus amon g snow mob ilers— W yoming, 2001. J. Infect.
Dis., 187: 303–306.
APH A, AW W A and W EF (199 8). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th edition.
American Public Health Association, American Water W orks Association and Water Environment Fed eration,
Washington, DC.
Arnold , W.R. and R ainbow, A.J. (1996). Ho st cell reactivation of irradiated ad enovirus in U V-sensitive Chinese
hamster ovary cell mutants. Mutagenesis, 11(1): 89–94.
Ashb olt, N.J ., Grabow , W .O.K . and S nozzi, M . (200 1). Ind icators of microbial water quality. In: W ater quality:
Guidelines, standards and health—A ssessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease.
L. Fewtrell and J. Bartram (eds.). IWA P ublishing, London, U K, on behalf of the World H ealth Organization,
Geneva.
AST M (2002). AST M D5 916 -96: Standa rd testing metho d for d etection and enum eration of Clostridium perfringens
from water and extracted sediments by m embra ne filtration. American So ciety for Testing and Ma terials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ASTM (2004). ASTM D244-92: Standard practice for recovery of enteroviruses from waters. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
AW W A (1991). Guidance manual for compliance with the filtration and disinfection requirements for public water
systems using surface water sources. American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
AW W A (1999 a). Waterborne pa thogens. AWW A M anual of Water Practices M4 8. American W ater Works
Association, Denver, Colorado.
AW W A (1999 b). Water quality and treatment: A handboo k of community water supplies. McG raw-Hill, New Y ork,
New Y ork.
AW W A (2005). Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes for drinking water. AWW A Manual of Water
Practices M53. American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
AW W A (2006 ). Waterborne pathogens. AW W A M anual of Water Practices M4 8. American W ater Works
Association, Denver, Colorado.
Bales, R.C., Li, S., Maguire, K.M ., Yahya, M.T. and G erba, C.P. (1993). M S-2 and poliovirus transport in porous
media: Hydrophobic effects and chemical perturbations. Water Resour. Res., 29: 957–963.
Ball, J.M., Tian, P., Zeng, C.Q .Y., M orris, A.P. and Estes, M .K. (1 996 ). Age-dependent diarrhea induced by a
rotaviral nonstructural glycoprotein. Science, 272: 101–104.
Ballester, N.A., Fontaine, J.H. and Mo rgolin, A.B. (2005). Occurrence and correlations between coliphages and
anthropogenic viruses in the Massachusetts Bay using enrichment and ICC-nPCR. J. Water Health, 3: 59–68.
Baxter, C.S., Hofmann, R., Templeton, M.R ., Brown, M. and And rews, R.C. (2007). Inactivation of adenovirus
types 2, 5, and 41 in drinking water by UV light, free chlorine, and monochloramine. J. Environ. Eng., 1: 95–103.
BC Provincial Health Officer (2001). Report on the health of British Columbians. Public Health Officer’s annual
repo rt 200 0: Drinking water quality in British Co lumbia— The pub lic health p erspe ctive. M inistry of H ealth
Planning, Victoria, British Columbia.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
42
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Beller, M ., Ellis, A., Lee, S., D rebo t, M., Jenkerson, S ., Funk, E ., Sob sey, M ., Simmons, O ., Mo nroe, S., And o, T .,
No el, J., Petric, M ., Mid daugh, J. and Sp ika, J. (1997 ). Outbreak of viral gastroe nteritis due to a contam inated well.
J. Am. Med. Assoc., 278: 563–568.
Beuret, C. (200 3). A simple metho d for iso lation of enteric viruses (noroviruses and enteroviruses) in w ater. J. V irol.
Methods, 107: 1–8.
Bitton, G. (1999). W astewater microbiology. 2nd edition. Wiley-Liss, New Y ork, New Yo rk.
Bloch, A.B., Stramer, S.L., Smith, J.D., Margolis, H.S., Fields, H.A., McKinley, T.W., Gerba, C.P., Maynard, J.E.
and Sikes, R.K. (1990). Recovery of hepatitis A virus from a water supply responsible for a common source outbreak
of hepatitis A. Am. J. Public Health, 80: 428–430.
Boccia, D., To zzi, A.E., Cotter, B., Rizzo, C., Russo, T., Buttinelli, G., Caprioli, A., Marziano, M.L. and
Ruggeri, F.M . (200 2). W aterborne outbreak o f Norwalk-like gastroenteritis at a tourist resort, Italy. Emerg. Infect.
Dis., 8: 563–568.
Bo ettger, B . (199 5). K aslo waterborne disease outb reak. B .C. H ealth D is. Surveill., 4: 122 –12 5.
Bo fill-Mass, S. and Giro nes, R. (200 3). Role of the environm ent in the transmissio n of JC virus. J. N eurovirol.,
9(Suppl. 1): 54–58.
Bo n, F., Am bert-B alay, K., Giraudon, H., K aplon, J., Le G uyader, S., P omm epuy, M., Gallay, A., Vaillant, V.,
de Valk, H., Chikhi-Brachet, R., Flahaut, A., Pothier, P. and Kohli, E. (2005). Molecular epidemiology of
caliciviruses detected in sporadic and outbreak cases of gastroenteritis in France from Dec ember 199 8 to February
2004. J. Clin. Microbiol., 43(9): 4659–4664.
Borchardt, M.A., Bertz, P.D., Spencer, S.K. and Battigelli, D.A. (2003). Incidence of enteric viruses in groundwater
from household wells in Wisconsin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69: 1172–1180.
Borchardt, M .A., Haas, N.L. and Hunt, R.L. (2004). Vulnerability of drinking-water wells in La Crosse, Wisconsin,
to enteric-virus contamination from surface water contributions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 70: 5937–5946.
Bo rchardt, M .A., Bradb ury, K.R., Gotkowitz, M .B., Cherry, J.A . and P arker, B.L. (200 7). H uman enteric viruses in
groundwater from a confined bedrock aquifer. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41: 6606–6612.
Brassard , J., Seyer, K., Ho ude, A., Sima rd, C. and Trottier, Y.L. (2005 ). Concentration and detection of hepatitis A
virus and rotavirus in spring water samples by reverse transcription-PCR. J. Virol. Methods, 123: 163–169.
Brown, C.M ., Cann, J.W., Simons, G., Fankhauser, R.L., Thom as, W., Parashar, U.D. and Lewis, M.J. (2001 ).
Outbreak of N orwa lk virus in a Carib bean island resort: App lication o f molecular d iagnostics to asc ertain the vehicle
of infection. Epidemiol. Infect., 126: 425–432.
Brugha, R., Vipond, I.B., Evans, M.R., Sandifier, Q.D., Roberts, R.J., Salmon, R.L., Caul, E.O. and Mukerjee, A.K.
(1999). A community outbreak of foodborne small round structured virus gastroenteritis caused by a contaminated
water supply. Epidemiol. Infect., 122: 145–154.
Candy, D.C.A. (2007). Rotavirus infection: A systemic illness? PLoS Med., 4(4): e117
(doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.004 0117).
Carrique-Mas, J., Andersson, Y., Petersén, B., Hedlund, K.O., Sjögren, N. and Giesecke, J. (2003). A No rwalk-like
virus waterborne community outbreak in a Swedish village during peak holiday season. Epidemiol. Infect., 131:
737–744.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
43
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Carter, M.J. (2005). Enterically infecting viruses: Pathogenicity, transmission and significance for food and
waterborne infection. J. Appl. Microbiol., 98: 1354–1380.
Caul, E.O. (1996). Viral gastroenteritis: Small round-structured viruses, caliciviruses and astroviruses. Part II: The
epidemiological perspective. J. Clin. Pathol., 49: 959–964.
Caul, E.O., Ashley, C .R., Darville, J.M . and B ridger, J.C. (1 990 ). Gro up C rotavirus associated with fatal enteritis in
a family outbreak. J. Med. Virol., 30: 201–205.
CCME (2004 ). From source to tap: G uidance on the multi-barrier a pproach to safe drinking water. Produced jo intly
by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water and the CCME W ater Quality Task Group.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environm ent, W innipeg, M anitob a. Ava ilable at:
www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mba_guidance_doc_e.pdf
Chang, J.C., Ossoff, S.F., Lobe, D.C., Dorfman, M.H., Dumais, C.M., Qualls, R.G. and Johnson, J.D. (1985). UV
inactivation of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 49(6): 1361–1365.
Cheetham, S., Souza, M., McG regor, R., Meulia, T., Wang, Q. and Saif, L.J. (2007). Binding patterns of human
norovirus-like particles to buccal and intestinal tissues of gnotobiotic pigs in relation to A/H histo-blood group
antigen expression. J. Virol., 81: 3535–3544.
Cherry, J.D . (1992 ). Enteroviruses: P oloviruses (Poliomyelitis), Coxsackieviruses, Echoviruses, and En teroviruses.
In: Textbo ok of Ped iatric Infec tious D iseases. Vols 1 and 2. 3 rd edition. R.D . Feigin (e ds). W . B. Saund ers Co.,
Philadelphia, Pe nnsylvania.
Chevrefils, G., Caron, É., W right, H., Sakamoto, G., P ayment, P., B arbeau, B . and Cairns, B . (2006 ). UV dose
required to achieve increm ental log inactivation of bac teria, protozo a and viruses. J. Int. UV Assoc. (IU VA ) News,
8: 38–45.
Chia, J.K.S. and Chia, A.Y. (2008). Chronic fatigue syndrome is associated with chronic enterovirus infections of the
stomach. J. Clin. Pathol., 61: 43–48.
Chin, J. (2000). Control of communicable diseases manual. 17th edition. American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC.
Choi, S. and Jiang, S.C. (2005). Real-time PCR quantification of human adenoviruses in urban rivers indicates
genome prevalence but low infectivity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 7426–7433.
Christensen, J. And Linden, K. (2002). New findings regarding the impacts of suspended particles on UV
disinfection of drinking water. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Water W orks Association,
New Orleans, Louisianna. June 16–20.
Clemente-Casares, P., Pina, S., Buti, M ., Jardi, R., Ma rtin, M., Bo fill-Mas, S. and G irones, R. (20 03). H epatitis E
virus epidemiology in industrialized countries. Emerging Infect. Dis., 9: 448–454.
Cook, N., Bridger, J., Kendall, K., Gomara, M.I., El-Attar, L. and Gray, J. (2004). The zoonotic potential of
rotavirus. J. Infect., 48: 289–302.
Cotton, C .A., Linden, K .G., Schmelling, D.C., Bell, C. and Landis, H. (2001 ). The d evelopm ent of the UV dose
tables for LT2ESWTR implementation. First International Congress on Ultraviolet Technologies, Washington, DC.
Cox, P., G riffith, M., A ngles, M ., Deere, D. and F erguso n, C. (2005 ). Concentration o f patho gens and ind icators in
animal faeces in the Sydney watershed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 5929–5934.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
44
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Craun, G.F. (1986). Waterborne diseases in the United States. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Craun, G.F. (19 92). W aterborne disease outb reaks in the U nited S tates of A merica: Causes and prevention. W orld
Health Stat. Q ., 45: 192– 199 .
Craun, G.F., Berger, P.S. and Calderon, R.L. (1997). Coliform bacteria and waterborne disease outbreaks. J. Am.
Water Works Assoc., 89(3):96–104.
Craun, M.F., Craun, G.F., Calderon, R.L. and Beach, M.J. (2006). Waterborne outbreaks reported in the United
States. J. Water Health, 4: 19–30.
Cromeans, T.L., Kahler, A.M. and H ill, V.R. (2010 ). Inactivation of adenoviruses, enteroviruses, and murine
noroviurses in water by free chlorine and monochloramine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 76(4): 1028–1033.
Deere, D ., Steven s, M., Davison, A., Helm , G. and D ufour, A . (200 1). M anagement strategies. In: W ater quality:
Guidelines, standards and health—A ssessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease.
L. Fewtrell and J. Ba rtram (eds.). IW A Publishing, London, United K ingdo m, on beha lf of the W orld Health
Organization, Geneva.
De Serre s, G., Cromeans, T .L., Levesque, B., Brassard, N., B arthe, C ., Dionne, M ., Prud ’homme, H ., Paradis, D.,
Shapiro, C.N., Nainan, O.V. and M argolis, H.S. (1999). M olecular confirmation of hepatitis A virus from well water:
Epidemiology and public health implications. J. Infect. Dis., 179: 37–43.
Divizia, M ., Gab riell, R., D onia, D ., Ma caluso , A., Bosch, A., Guix, S., Sa nchez, G., V illena, C., Pinto, R.M .,
Palo mbi, L., Buo nuom o, E., Cenko, F., Leno, L., Be beci, D. and B ino, S. (2 004 ). W aterborne gastroenteritis
outbreak in Albania. Water Sci. Technol., 50: 57–61.
Dorner, S.M ., Anderson, W.B., Gaulin, T., Candon, H.L., Slawson, R.M., Payment, P. and Huc k, P.M. (2007 ).
Pathogen and indicator variability in a heavily impacted watershed. J. Water Health, 5: 241–257.
Ehlers, M.M ., Grabow, W .O.K. and Pavlov, D.N. (2005). Detection of enteroviruses in untreated and treated
drinking water supplies in South Africa. Water Res., 39: 2253–2258.
Engelbrecht, R.S., Weber, M.J., Salter, B.L. and Schmidt, C.A. (1980). Comparative inactivation of viruses by
chlorine. Ap pl. Environ. Microb iol., 40(2): 249– 256 .
Enriquez, C.E., Hurst, C.J. and Gerba, C.P. (1995). Survival of the enteric adenoviruses 40 and 41 in tap, sea, and
waste water. Water Res., 29: 2548–2553.
Estes, M.K. and K apikian, A.Z. (2007). Rotaviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 5th edition. D.M. Knipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Fauquet, C.M., Mayo, M.A., Maniloff, J., Desselberger, U. and Ball, L.A. (2005). Virus taxonomy. Eighth report of
the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 853–857.
Field, P.R., Mu rphy, A .M., Gibson, H .B. and Rennie, T .F. (19 68). An outbreak of gastro-enteritis asso ciated with
echovirus type I. Med. J. Aust., 1(1): 9–11.
Fields, B.N ., Knip e, D.M . and H owley, P.M . (eds.) (1 996 ). Fields virology. Vo ls. 1 and 2. 3rd edition. LippincottRaven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Fiksdal, L. and Leiknes, T. (2006). The effect of coagulation with MF/UF membrane filtration for the removal of
virus in drinking water. J. Memb. Sci., 279: 364– 371.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
45
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Fiore, A.E. (2004). Hepatitis A transmitted by food. Clin. Infect. Dis., 38: 705–715.
Fong, T . and Lipp , E.K. (20 05). Enteric viruses of humans and anima ls in aquatic environm ents: Health risks,
detection, and potential water quality assessment tools. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., 69: 357–371.
FSA (2000). A report of the study of infectious intestinal disease in England. Food Standards Agency, HMSO,
London, United Kingdom.
Fuhrman, J.A., Liang, X. and Noble, R.T. (2005). Rapid detection of enteroviruses in small volumes of natural
waters by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 4523–4530.
Gabba y, Y.B ., Borges, A.A., Oliveira, D .S., Linha res, A.C ., Ma scarenhas, J.D.P ., Barardi, C .R.M ., Simões, C.M .O.,
W ang, Y., Glass, R.I. and Jiang, B. (2008). Evidence for zoono tic transmission of Group C rotaviruses among
children in Belém, Brazil. J. Med. Virol., 80: 1666–1674.
Gale, P. (1996). Developments in microbiological risk assessment models for drinking water. A short review. J.
Appl. Bacteriol., 81: 403–410.
Gale, P. 2002. Using risk assessment to identify future research requirements. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 94:
30–38.
Geldreich, E.E . (199 0). M icrob iological quality of source wa ters for water sup ply. In: D rinking W ater M icrob iology,
Ed G.A. McFeters. Springer-Verlag, New York pp 3–31.
Gerba, C.P. and B itton, G. (1984). M icrobial pollutants: Their survival and transport pattern to groundwater. In:
Groundw ater pollution microbiology. G. Bitton and C.P. Gerba (ed s.). John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork, New Yo rk.
pp. 65–88.
Gerb a, C.P. and Rose, J.B . (1990 ). Viruses in source and drinking w ater. In: Drinking water m icrobiology: Progress
and recent developments. G.A. Mc Feters (ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York, N ew York.
Gerba, C.P., Rose, J.B. and Singh, S.N. (1985 ). Waterborne gastroenteritis and viral hepatitis. Crit. Rev. Environ.
Control, 15: 213.
Giles, J.P., Liebhaber, H ., Krugman, S. and Lattimer, C . (1964 ). Early viremia and viruria in infectious hepatitis.
Virology, 24: 107–108.
Glass, R.I., Kilgore , P.E. and Holm an, R.C. (19 96). T he epidemiology of rotavirus diarrhea in the U nited States:
Surveillance and estimates of disease burden. J. Infect. Dis., 74: S5–S11.
Gofti-Laroche, L., Gratacap-Cavallier, B., Demanse, D., Genoulaz, O., Seigneurin, J.M. and Zm irow, D. (2003). Are
waterborne astroviruses implicated in acute digestive morbidity (E.M.I.R.A. study)? J. Clin. Virol., 27: 74–82.
Goyal, S.M. and Gerba, C.P. (1979). Comparative adsorption of human enteroviruses, simian rotavirus, and selected
bacteriophages to soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 32: 241–247.
Gray, J.J., Wreghitt, T.G., Cubitt, W.D. and E lliot, P.R. (1987). An outbreak of gastroenteritis in a home for the
elderly associated with astrovirus type 1 and human calicivirus. J. Med. Virol., 23: 377–381.
Gray, J.J., Green, J., Cunliffe, C., Gallimore, C., Lee, J.V., Neal, K. and Brown, D.W . (1997). Mixed geno group
SRSV infections among a party of canoeists exposed to contaminated recreational water. J. Med. Virol., 52(4):
425–429.
Greening, G.E., Hewitt, J. and Lewis, G.D. (2002). Evaluation of integrated cell culture-PCR (C-PCR) for
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
46
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
virological analysis of environmental samples. J. Appl. Microbiol., 93: 745–750.
Griffin, D.W ., Donaldson, K.A., Paul, J.H. and Rose, J.B. (2003). Pathogenic human viruses in coastal waters. Clin.
Microbiol. Rev., 16: 129–143.
Guthmann, J.P., Klovstad, H., B occia, D., H amid, N., Pinoges, L., Nizou, J.Y ., Tatay, M., Diaz, F., M oren, A.,
Grais, R.F., Ciglenecki, I., Nicand, E. and Guerin, P.J. (2006). A large outbreak of hepatitis E among a displaced
population in Darfur, Sudan, 2004: The role of water treatment methods. Clin. Infect. Dis., 42: 1685–1691.
Haas, C.N., Rose, J.B. and Gerba, C.P. (1999). Quantitative microbial risk assessment. John Wiley, New York, New
York.
Häfliger, D., Hübner, P. and Lüthy, J. (2000). Outbreak of viral gastroenteritis due to sewage contaminated drinking
water. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 54: 123–126.
Halbur, P.G., Kasorndorkbua, C., Gilbert, C., Guenette, D., Potters, M.B., Purcell, R.H., Emerson, S.U., Toth, T.E.
and Meng, X .J. (20 01). Com parative pathogenesis of infection in pigs with hepatitis E viruses recovered from a pig
and a human. J. Clin. Microbiol., 39: 918–923.
Hamano, M., Kuzuya, M., Fujii, R., Ogura, H., Mori, T., Nakayama, T., Yuen, E., Katayama, K., Mitsunobu, Y.
and Inoue, K. (1 999 ). Outbreak of acute gastroenteritis cause d by human group C rotavirus in a primary sc hool.
Jpn. J. Infect. Dis., 52: 170–171.
Haramo to, E., K atayam a, H., O guma , K. and O hgaki, S. (2005). App lication o f cation-coated filter metho d to
detection of noroviruses, enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and torque teno viruses in the Tamagawa river in Japan.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 2403–2411.
Havelaar, A. and Melse, J.M. (2003). Quantifying public health risk in the WH O Guidelines for Drinking-water
Quality: A burden of disease approach. Rijkinstituut voor Volskgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, Netherlands
(RIVM Report 73430102 2).
Health and W elfare C anada (19 81). Tapwater consumption in Canada. Environm ental H ealth D irectorate, H ealth
Protection Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health and Welfare Canada (1990). Foodborne Disease in Canada, 10-year summary 1975-1984. Health Protection
Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health and Welfare Canada (1993). Water treatment principles and applications: A manual for the production of
drinking water. Canadian W ater and W astewater Asso ciation, Ottawa, On tario.
Health Canada (1994). Foodborne and waterborne disease in Canada, Annual Summary 1987. Health Protection
Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (19 96). Foo dbo rne and waterbo rne disease in Canada, Annual Sum maries: 198 8–1 989 . Hea lth
Protection Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (1998). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Supporting documentation—Brom ate.
Health Protection Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (2003a). Arthritis in Canada, An ongoing challenge. Ottawa. Cat.# H39-4/14-2003E.
Health Canada (20 03b ). Guidelines for Canad ian Drinking W ater Q uality: Sup porting do cumentation— Turbidity.
W ater Quality and Health Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
47
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Health Canada (20 06a ). Guidelines for Canad ian Drinking W ater Q uality: Guideline Technica l Document—
Escherichia coli. W ater Q uality and Health Bureau, Hea lthy Environm ents and Consumer Safety Bra nch, H ealth
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (2006b). Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document—Total
coliforms. Water Quality and Health Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (20 06c ). Guidelines for Canad ian Drinking W ater Q uality: Guideline Technica l Document—
Trihalom ethane s. W ater Q uality and Health Bureau, Hea lthy Environm ents and Consumer Safety Bra nch, H ealth
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (20 08a ). Guidelines for Canad ian Drinking W ater Q uality: Guideline Technica l Document—
Haloacetic acids. Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Sa fety Branch,
Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Health Canada (20 08b ). Guidelines for Canad ian Drinking W ater Q uality: Guideline Technica l Document— Chlo rite
and chlora te. W ater, Air and C limate C hange Bureau, Hea lthy Environm ents and Consumer Safety Bra nch, H ealth
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hedb erg, C.W. and O sterholm, M.T. (1993). Outbreaks of food-borne and waterborne viral gastroenteritis. Clin.
Microb iol. Rev., 6(3): 99– 210 .
Herrmann, J.E . and C liver, D.O. (1 973 ). Degradation o f coxsackievirus type A 9 by p roteo lytic enzym es. Infect.
Immun., 7: 513–517.
Hijnen, W.A., Bee rendonk, E., Smeets, P. and Med ema, G.J. (2004). Elimination of micro-organisms by drinking
water treatment processes— A review. 1st ed ition. Kiwa N .V. W ater Research, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
Hijnen, W .A., Beeren donk, E.F. and M edema, G .J. (20 06). Inactivation credit of U V radiation for viruse s, bacteria
and protozoan (oo)cyst in water: A review. Water Res., 40: 3–22.
Hill, V.R., Polacyzk, A.L., Hahn, D., Narayanan, J., Cromeans, T.L., Roberts, J.M. and Amburgey, J.E. (2005).
Development of a rapid method for simultaneous recovery of diverse microbes in drinking water by ultrafiltration
with sodium polyphosphate and surfactants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 6878–6884.
Ho ff, J.C. (19 86). Inactivation of m icrob ial agents by chemical disinfectants. U.S . Environm ental P rotection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH (Report No . EPA/600 /S2-86/067).
Hollinger, F.B. and Emerson, S.U. (2007 ). Hepatitis A virus. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 5th edition. D.M . Knipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ho pkins, R .S., Ga spard , G.B ., Williams, F.P ., Jr., Karlin, R.J., C ukor, G. and B lacklow, N.R. (1984 ). A co mmunity
waterborne gastroenteritis outbreak: Evidence for rotavirus as the agent. Am. J. Public Health, 74: 263–265.
Hörm an , A., Rimhanen-F in ne, R ., M au nu la, L ., V on B onsdorff, C ., Torvela , N ., H eikinhe imo, A . a nd Hä nninen, M.
(2004). Campylobacter spp., Giardia spp., noroviruses, and indicator organisms in surface waters in southwestern
Findland, 2000–2001. Appl. Environ. Micriobiol., 71: 87–95.
HP A (2004 ). Enumera tion of Clostridium perfringens by membrane filtration. National Standard Method W 5 Issue
3. Health Protection Agency, London, United Kingdom . Available at: www.hpa-standardmethods.org.uk/
pdf_so ps.asp
Hsu, B.M ., Chen, C.H ., Kung, C.M ., Wan, M .T. an d Shen, S.M . (200 6). Evaluatio n of enterovirus recovery in
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
48
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
surface water by different adsorption and elution procedures. Chemosphere, 66: 964–969.
Huck, P.M., Emelko, M.B., Coffey, B.M., Maurizio, D. and O’Melia, C. (2001). Filter operation effects on pathogen
passage. American W ater Works Re search Foundation, Denver, CO (R eport No. 908 74).
Hurst, C.J., Knudsen, G.R., McInerney, M.J., Stetzenbach, L.D. and Walter, M.V. (2001). Manual of environmental
microbiology. American Society for Microbiology Press, Washington, DC.
Hussain, M.A., Ford, R. and Hill, J. (2010). Determination of fecal contamination indicator sterols in an Australian
water supply system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 165: 147-157.
Hutson, A.M., Atmar, R.L., Marcus, D.M. and Estes, M.K. (2003). Norwalk virus-like particle hemagglutination by
binding to H histoblood group antigens. J. Virol., 77: 405–415.
Ikeda, R.M ., Kondracki, S.F., Drabkin, P .D., B irkhead, G.S. and Morse, D .L. (19 93). Pleurodynia amo ng foo tball
players at a high school. An outbreak associated with coxsackievirus B1. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 270(18): 2205–2206.
INSP Q (199 4). Bilan des maladies d’origine hydrique signalées dans les directions régionales de la santé publique
du Québec en 1991 et 1992. July 1994. Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Quebec City, Quebec.
INS PQ (1998). Bilan des éclosions de malad ies d’origine hyd rique signalées dans les directions ré gionales de la
santé publique du Québec en 1993, 1994 et 1995. March 1998. Institut national de santé publique du Québec,
Quebec City, Quebec.
INS PQ (2001). Bilan des éclosions de malad ies d’origine hyd rique signalées dans les directions ré gionales de la
santé publique du Québec en 1998 et en 1999. July 2001. Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Quebec
City, Quebec.
Irving, L.G. and Smith, F.A. (1981). One-year survey of enteroviruses, adenoviruses, and reoviruses isolated from
effluent at an activated-sludge purification plant. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 41: 51–59.
Jaykus, L. (2000). Enteric viruses as “emerging agents” of foodborne disease. Irish J. Agric. Food Res., 39(2):
245 –25 5.
Jiang, B., Dennehy, P.H., Spangenberger, S., Gentsch, J.R. and Glass, R.I. (1995). First detection of group C
rotavirus in fecal specimens of children with diarrhea in the United States. J. Infect. Dis., 172(1): 45–50.
Jiang, S.C. (2006). Human adeno viruses in water: Occurrence and health implications—a critical review. Environ.
Sci. Technol., 40(23): 7132–7140.
Jiang, X., Espul, S., Zhong, W.M., Cuello, H. and Matson, D.O. (1999). Characterization of a novel human
calicivirus that may be a naturally occurring recombinant. Arch. Virol., 144: 2377–2387.
Johnson, D.C ., Enriq uez, C .E., Pepp er, I.L., D avis, T .L., Ge rba, C .P. and Rose, J.B. (1 997 ). Survival of Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, poliovirus, and Salm one lla in marine waters. Water Sci. Technol., 35: 261–268.
Jothikumar, N., Paulmurugan, R., Padmanabhan, P., Sundari, R.B., Kamatchiammal, S. and Rao, K.S. (2000 ).
Duplex RT-PCR for simultaneous detection of hepatitis A and hepatitis E virus isolated from drinking water
samples. J. Environ. Monit., 2(6): 587–590.
Kang, G., Kelkar, S.D., Chitambar, S.D., Ray, P. and Naik, T. (2005). Epidemiological profile of rotaviral infection
in India: Challenges for the 21st century. J. Infect. Dis., 192: S120–126.
Kap ikian, A.Z. and C hanock, R.M . (1996 ). Rotaviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 2. 3rd edition. B.N . Fields,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
49
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
D.M. Knipe and P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kapikian, A.Z., Estes, M.K. and Chanock, R.M. (1996). Norwalk group of viruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1.
3 rd edition. B.N. Fields, D.M. Knipe and P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Kasorndo rkbua, C., Opriessnig, T., Huang, F.F., Guenette, D.K., Thomas, P.J., Meng, X.J. and H albur, P.G. (2005).
Infectious swine hepatitis E virus is present in pig manure storage facilities on United States farms, but evidence of
water contamination is lacking. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 7831–7837.
Katayama, H., S himasaki, A. and O hgaki, S. (2002). Dev elopment of a virus c oncentration method and its
application to detection of enterovirus and Norwalk virus from coastal seawater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 68:
1033–1039.
Kee, F., McElroy, G., Stewart, D., Coyle, P. and Watson, J. (1994). A community outbreak of echovirus infection
associated with an outdoor swimming pool. J. Public Health Med., 16(2): 145–148.
Ko, G., Cromeans, T.L. and Sobsey, M.D. (2003). Detection of infectious adenovirus in cell culture by mRNA
reverse transcription–PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69(12): 7377–7384.
Krasner, S.W., W einberg, H.S., Richardson, S.D., Salvador, J.P., Chinne, R., Sclimenti, M.J., Onstad, G.D. and
Thruston, A.D., Jr. (2006). Occurrence of a new generation of disinfection byproducts. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40:
7175–7185.
Kukkula, M., Arstila, P., Klossner, M.L., Maunula, L., Bonsdorff, C.H. and Jaatinen, P. (1997). Waterborne
outbreak of viral gastroenteritis. Scand. J. Infect. Dis., 29(4): 415–418.
Kukkula, M., M aunula, L., Silvennoinen, E. and Von Bonsd orff, C.H. (1999). Outbreak of viral gastroenteritis due
to drinking water contaminated by Norwalk-like viruses. J. Infect. Dis., 180(6): 1771–1776.
LeChevallier, M.W. (1999). Committee report: Emerging pathogens—viruses, protozoa, and algal toxins. J. Am.
Water Works Assoc., 91(9): 110–121.
LeChevallier, M.W . and Au, K.K. (2004 ). Water treatment and pathogen control: Process efficiency in achieving
safe drinking water. IWA P ublishing, London, U nited Kingdom, on behalf of the World H ealth Organization,
Geneva.
Lees, D. (2000). Viruses and bivalve shellfish. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 59(1–2): 81–116.
Lenaway, D.D., Brockmann, R., Dolan, G.J. and Cruz-Uribe, F. (1989). An outbreak of an enterovirus-like illness at
a community wading pool: Implications for public health inspection programs. Am. J. Public Health, 79(7):
889–890.
Lennon, G ., Cashman, O., Lane, K ., Cryan, B. and O ’Shea, H. (2007 ). Prevalenc e and characterization of enteric
adenovirus in the South of Ireland. J. Med. Virol., 79: 1518–1526.
Lieberma n, R.J., S hadix, L.C., N ewport, B .S., Frebis, C.P ., Mo yer, M .W .N., Sa fferman , R.S., Stetler, R.E ., Lye, D.,
Fout, G.S. and Dahling, D.R. (2002). Microbial monitoring of vulnerable public groundwater supplies. American
Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
Linden, K. G., Thurston, J., Schaefer, R. and Malley, J.P., Jr. (2007). Enhanced UV inactivation of adenoviruses
under polychromatic UV lamps. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 73: 7571–7574.
Lindesmith, L., Moe, C., Marionneau, S., Ruvoen, N., Jian, X., Lindblad, L., Steward, P., Lependu, J. and Baric, R.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
50
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
(2003). Human susceptibility and resistance to Norwalk virus infection. Nat. Med., 9: 548–553.
Linquist, H.D., Harris, S., Lucas, S., Hartzel, M., Riner, D., Rochele, P. and Deleon, R. (2007). Using ultrafiltration
to concentrate and detect Bacillus anthra cis, Bacillus atrophaeus subspecies glob igii, and Cryptosporidium parvum
in 100-liter water samples. J. Microbiol. Methods, 70: 484–492.
Locas, A., Barthe, C., Barbeau, B., Carrière, A. and Payment, P. (2007). Virus occurrence in municipal groundwater
sources in Quebec, Canada. Can. J. Microbiol., 53(6): 688–694.
Locas, A., Barthe, C., Margolin, A.B., Payment, P. (2008). Groundwater microbiological quality in Canadian
drinking water municipal wells. Can. J. Microbiol., 54: 472-478.
Lönnrot, M ., Korpela, K., Knip, M ., Ilonen, J., Simell, O., Korho nen, S., Savo la, K., M uona , K., Sim ell, T.,
Ko skela, P . and H yöty, H. (200 0). Enterovirus infection as a risk factor for be ta-cell auto immunity in a pro spectively
observed birth cohort: The Finnish diabetes prediction and prevention study. Diabetes, 49: 1314–1318.
Lucena, F., Ribas, F., Duran, A.E., Skraber, S., Gantzer, C., Campos, C., Morón, A., Calderón, E. and Jofre, J.
(2006). Occ urrence of bacterial indicators and bacteriophages infecting enteric bacteria in groundwater in different
geographical areas. J. Appl. Microbiol., 101: 96–102.
Macler, B.A. and Reg li, S. (1993). U se of microb ial risk assessment in setting US drinking water standard s.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 18: 245–256.
Majow icz, S.E ., Doré, K., Flint, J.A., E dge, V.L., Read , S., Bu ffett, M.C ., Mc Ewe n, S., M cNab, W .B., Stacey, D .,
Sockett, P. and Wison, J.B. (2004 ). Magnitude and distribution of acute, self-reported gastrointestinal illness in a
Canadian community. Epidemiol. Infect., 132: 607–617.
Mäkelã, M.J., Puhakka, T., Ruuskanen, O., Leinonen, M., Saikku, P., Kimpimäki, M., Blomqvist, S., Hyypiä, T.
and Arstila, P. (1998). Viruses and bacteria in the etiology of the common cold. J. Clin. Microbiol., 36(2): 539–542.
Malley, J.P ., Ballester, N.A., M argolin, A.B ., Linden, K.G ., Mo fidi, A., B olton, J.R., Crozes, G., Cushing, B .,
Mackey, E., Laine, J.M. and Janex, M. (2004). Inactivation of pathogens with innovative UV technologies. AWWA
Rese arch F ound ation and A merican W ater W orks A ssociation.
Mam ane-Gravetz, H. and Linden, K.G. (2004 ). Impact of particle aggregated microbes on UV disinfection.
Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Water Quality Technology Conference. San Antonio, TX,
November 14–18.
Marks, P.J., Vipond, I.B., Regan, F.M., Wedgwood, K., Fey, R.E. and Caul, E.O. (2003). A school outbreak of
Norwalk-like virus: Evidence for airborne transmission. Epidemiol. Infect., 131: 727–736.
Martone, W.J., Hierholzer, J.C., Keenlyside, R.A., Fraser, D.W., D’Angelo, L.J. and Winkler, W.G. (1980). An
outbreak of adenovirus type 3 disease at a private recreation center swimming pool. Am. J. Epidemiol., 111(2):
229 –23 7.
Matson, D.O. (2004). Caliciviruses and hepatitis E virus. In: Textbook of pediatric infectious diseases. Vols. 1 and 2.
5th edition. R.D. Feigin, J.D. Cherry, G.J. Demmler and S.L. Kaplan (eds.). Saunders Co., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Mattison, K., Shukla, A., Cook, A., Pollari, F., Friendship, R., Kelton, D., Bidawid, S. and Farber, J.M. (2007 ).
Human noroviruses in swine and cattle. Emerging Infect. Dis., 13(8): 1184–1188.
Maunula, L., Miettinen, I.T. and V on Bo nsdorff, C. (2005). Norovirus outbreaks from drinking water. Emerging
Infect. Dis., 11: 1716–1721.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
51
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Maurer, A.M . and S türchler, D. (2 000 ). A waterbo rne outbreak of sm all round structured virus, Campylobacter and
Shig ella co-infections in La Neuveville, Switzerland, 1998. Epidemiol. Infect., 125: 325–332.
McIntosh, K., Kap ikian, A.Z., Turner, H.C., Hartley, J.W., Parrott, R.H. and Chanock, R.M . (1970).
Seroepidemiologic studies of coronavirus infection in adults and children. Am. J. Epidemiol., 91(6): 585–592.
Medema, G ., Loret, J.-F., Stenström, T.-A. and A shbo lt, N. (ed s.) (2006). Qua ntitative microb ial risk assessment in
the water safety plan. April 2006. European Union Microrisk Project. Report for the European Commission under
the Fifth Frame work Pro gramme, T heme 4: E nergy, environment and sustainab le development.
Med ema, G.J., Payment, P., Dufour, A., Robertson, W ., Waite, M., Hunter, P., Kirby, R. and Andersson, Y. (2003).
Safe drinking water: An ongoing challenge. In: Assessing microbial safety of drinking water: Improving approaches
and methods. A. Dufour, M . Snozzi, W. Ko ster, J. Bartram, E. Ronchi and L. Fewtrell (eds.). IWA Publishing,
London, United Kingdom, on behalf of the World Health Organization and the Organisation for Economic Coope ration and D evelo pme nt.
Melnick, J.L. (1996). Enteroviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 3rd edition. B.N. Fields, D.M. Knipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mena, K.D ., Gerba, C .P., Haas, C .N. and R ose, J.B. (2 003). Risk assessment of waterborne coxsackievirus.
J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 95: 122–131.
Ménd ez, E. and Arias, C.F. (2007). Astroviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 5th edition. D.M. Knipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Meng, Q.S. and Gerba, C.P. (1996). Comparative inactivation of enteric adenovirus, poliovirus, and coliphages by
ultraviolet irradiation. Water Res., 30: 2665–2668.
Meng, X .J., Dea, S., Engle, R.E., Friendship, R., Lyoo, Y .S., Sirinarumitr, T ., Urairong, K., W ang, D ., Wong, D .,
Yoo, D., Zhang, Y., Purcell, R.H. and Emerson, S.U. (1999). Prevalence of antibodies to the hepatitis E virus (HEV)
in pigs from countries where hepatitis E is common or rare in the human population. J. Med. Virol., 59: 297–302.
Ministry of Finance (2003a). Census Highlights Fact Sheet 1. O ffice of Economic Policy, Labour and D emo graphic
Analysis Branch, Ontario Ministry of Finance, Toronto, Ontario.
Ministry of Finance (2003b ). Census Highlights Fact Sheet 2. O ffice of Economic Policy, Labour and D emo graphic
Analysis Branch, Ontario Ministry of Finance, Toronto, Ontario.
MO E (2006). Procedure for disinfection of drinking water in Ontario (as adopted by reference by Ontario Regulation
170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act). Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, Ontario (PIBS 4448e01;
www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4448e01.pd f).
Moe, K. and Shirley, J.A. (1982). The effects of relative humidity and temperature on the survival of human
rotavirus in faeces. Arch. Virol., 72: 179–186.
Mo ns, M.N., Van der W ielen, J.M.L., Blokker, E.J.M ., Sinclair, M.I., Hulshof, K.F.A.M ., Dangendorf, F., Hunter,
P.R . and M edema, G .J. (20 07). Estima tion of the consump tion of cold tap water for m icrob iological risk assessment:
An overview of studies and statistical analysis of data. J. Water Health, 5(Suppl. 1): 151–170.
Mooijman, K.A., Bahar, M., Contreras, N. and Havelaar, A.H. (2001). Optimisation of the ISO-method on
enumeration of somatic coliphages (draft ISO 10705-2). Water Sci. Technol., 43(12): 205–208.
Mooijman, K.A., Ghameshlou, Z., B ahar, M ., Jofre, J. and H avelaar, A.H . (200 5). Enume ration o f bacteriophages in
water by different laboratories of the Euro pean U nion in two interlaboratory comparison studies. J. V irol. Metho ds,
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
52
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
127: 60–68.
Mo rales-Morales, H.A., Vidal, G., Olszewski, J., Rock, C.M., Dasgupta, D., Oshima, K.H. and Smith, G.B. (2003 ).
Optimization of a reusable hollow-filter ultrafilter for simultaneous concentration of enteric bacteria, protozoa, and
viruses from water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69: 4098–4102.
Moss, C.I. and O livieri, V.P. (1985 ). Disinfecting capab ilities of oxychlorine com pounds. A ppl. E nviron. M icrob iol.,
50: 1162–1168.
Mounts, A.W., Ando, T., Koopmans, M., Bresee, J.S., Noel, J. and Glass, R.I. (2000). Cold weather seasonality of
gastroenteritis associated with Norwalk-like viruses. J. Infect. Dis., 181: S284–287.
Murray, C.J.L. and Lopez, A.D. (eds.) (1996a). The global burden of disease: A comprehensive assessment of
mortality and d isability from disease, injury and risk factors in 199 0 and projected to 20 20. H arvard School of Public
Health, Cambridge, MA (Global Burden o f Disease and Injury Series, Vol. 1).
Murra y, C . a nd Lo pez, A . (1 99 6b ). G lo bal health sta tistic s. H arvard Sc hool of Public He alth, C ambridge , M A
(Glo bal B urden of D isease and Injury Series, Vol. II).
Nairn, C., Galbraith, D.N., Taylor, K.W. and Clements, G.B. (1999). Enterovirus variants in the serum of children at
the onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Med., 16: 509–513.
Nakajima, H., Nakagomi, T., Kamisawa, T., Sakaki, N., Muramoto, K., Mikami, T., Nara, H. and Nakagomi, O.
(2001). Winter seasonality and rotavirus diarrhoea in adults. Lancet, 16(357): 1950.
NRM MC -EPH C (2006 ). Australian guidelines for water recycling: Managing health and environmental risks
(Phase 1). Natural Resource M anagement M inisterial Counc il, Enviro nment Pro tection and H eritage Council,
Australian Health Ministers Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Nwachuku, N. and Gerba, C.P. (2006). Health risks of enteric viral infections in children. Rev. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol., 186: 1–56.
Nwachuku, N., Gerb a, C.P., Oswald, A. and Mashadi, F.D. (2005 ). Comparative inactivation of adenovirus
serotyp es by U V light disinfectio n. Appl. Environ. Microb iol., 71: 563 3–5 636 .
Oishi, I., Yam azaki, K., K imoto , T., M inekaw a, Y., U tagawa, E., Y amazaki, S., Inouye, S., Grohm ann, G .S.,
Monro e, S.S., S tine, S.E ., Carcamo , C., Ando, T . and G lass, R.I. (1 994 ). A large outb reak o f acute gastroenteritis
associated with astrovirus among students and teachers at schools in Osaka, Japan. J. Infect. Dis., 170: 430–443.
Olszewski, J., Winona, L. and Oshima, K.H. (2005). Comparison of 2 ultrafiltration systems for the concentration of
seeded viruses from environmental waters. Can. J. Microbiol., 51: 295–303.
O’Neil, A., Richen, D. and Lundrie, P.A. (1985). Waterborne epidemic of acute infectious non-bacterial
gastroenteritis in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Public Health, 76: 199–203.
Opp enheimer, J., Gillogly, T., Stolarik, G. and Ward, R. (2002 ). Comparing the efficiency of low and medium
pressure ultraviolet light for inactivation o f Gia rdia m uris and Cryptosporidium parvum in water with low and high
levels of turbidity. Procee dings of the Annual Confere nce of the Am erican W ater W orks Asso ciation. New Orleans,
LA, June 16–20.
Pallansch, M. and Roos, R. (2007). Enteroviruses: Polioviruses, coxsackieviruses, echoviruses, and newer
enteroviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 5th edition. D.M. Knipe and P.M. H owley (eds.). Lippincott Williams and
W ilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
53
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Palombo, E.A. and Bishop, R.F. (1996). Annual incidence, serotype, distribution and genetic diversity of human
astrovirus isolates from hospitalized children in Melbourne, Australia. J. Clin. Microbiol., 34: 1750–1753.
Parchionikar, S.U., Willian-True, S., Fout, G.S., Robbins, D.E., Seys, S.A., Cassady, J.D. and Harris, R. (2003).
Waterborne outbreak of gastroenteritis associated with norovirus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69: 5263–5268.
Parrino, T .A., Schreiber, D.S., Trier, J.S., Kap ikian, A.Z. and Blac klow, N .R. (1977 ). Clinical immunity in acute
gastroenteritis caused by the Norwalk agent. N. Engl. J. Med., 297: 86–89.
Passantino, L., Malley, J., Knudson, M., Ward, R. and Kim, J. (2004). Effect of low turbidity and algae on ultraviolet
disinfection performance. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 96: 128–37.
Paym ent, P. (198 9). Elimination of viruses and bacteria during drinking water treatm ent: Review of 10 years of d ata
from the M ontréal metro politan area. In: Biohazards of drinking water treatment. R.A. Larso n (ed.). Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. pp. 59–65.
Payment, P. (1991). Fate of human enteric viruses, coliphages, and Clostridium perfringens during drinking-water
treatment. Can. J. Microbiol., 37: 154–157.
Payment, P. (1993). Viruses in water: An underestimated health risk for a variety of diseases. In: Disinfection
dilemma: Microbiological control versus by-products. W. Robertson, R. Tobin and K. Kjartanson (eds.). American
Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado. pp. 157–164.
Paym ent, P. (200 1). Cultivation of viruses from enviro nmental samples. In: Manual of enviro nmental microbiology.
2nd edition. C.J. Hurst, R.L. Crawford, G.R. Knudsen, M.J. McInerney and L.D. Stenzenbach (eds.). American
Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Payment, P. (2007). Cultivation and assay of animal viruses. In: Manual of environmental microbiology. 3rd edition.
C. Hurst, R. Crawford, J. Garland, D. Lipson, A. Mills and L. Stetzenbach (eds.). American Society for
Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Payment, P. and Armon, R. (198 9). Virus removal by drinking water treatment processes. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ.
Control, 19: 15–31.
Paym ent, P. and Franco , E. (1993 ). Clostridium perfringens and somatic coliphages as indicators of the efficiency of
drinking water treatment for viruses and protozoan cysts. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 59(8): 2418–2424.
Payment, P. and Hunter, P. (2001). End emic and epidemic infectious intestinal disease and its relation to drinking
water. In: W ater quality: Guidelines, standards and health—Assessment of risk and risk management for waterrelated infectious disease. L. Fewtrell and J. Bartram (eds.). IWA P ublishing, London, United Kingdom, on behalf of
the World Health Organization, Geneva.
Paym ent, P. and M orin, É . (199 0). M inimal infective dose o f the OSU strain of p orcine rotavirus. Arch. V irol.,
112: 277–282.
Paym ent, P. and P intar, K. (200 6). W aterborne patho gens: A critical asse ssmen t of methods, results and data
analysis. Rev. Sci. Eau, 19: 233–245.
Payment, P. and Trudel, M . (1993). Method s and techniques in virology. Marcel Dekker, New Y ork, New Yo rk.
Paym ent, P., T rudel, M., Sattar, S.A ., Springthorpe, V .S., Sub rahmanyan, T.P ., Gregory, B .E., V ajdic, A.H.,
Blaskovic, P., Guglielmi, I.J. and Kudrewko, O. (1984). Virological examination of drinking water: A Canadian
collaborative study. Can. J. Microbiol., 30: 105–112.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
54
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Payment, P., Tremblay, M. and T rudel, M. (1985). Relative resistance to chlorine of poliovirus and coxsackievirus
isolates from environmental sources and drinking water. Appl Environ. Microbiol. 49(4): 981–983.
Payment, P., Siemiatycki, J., Richardson, L., Renaud, G., Franco, E. and Prévost, M. (199 7). A prospective
epidemiological study of gastrointestinal health effects due to the consumption of drinking water. Int. J. Environ.
Health Res., 7: 5–31.
Payment, P., Berte, A., Prevost, M., Ménard, B. and Barbeau, B. (2000). Occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms
in the Saint-Lawrence River (Canada) and comparison of health risks for populations using it as their source of
drinking water. Can. J. Microbiol., 46: 565–576.
Paym ent, P., P lante, R. and C ejka, P . (200 1). Remo val of ind icator bacteria, hum an enteric viruses, Giardia cysts
and Cryptosporidium oocysts at a large wastewater primary treatment facility. Can. J. Microbiol., 47(3): 188–193.
Peeler, K.A., Opsahl, S.P. and Chanton, J.P. (2006). Tracking anthropogenic inputs using caffiene, indicator
bacteria, and nutrients in rural freshwater and urban marine systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40: 7616-7622.
Percival, S., Chalmers, R., Embrey, M., Hunter, P., Sellwood, J. and Wyn-Jones, P. (2004). Hep atitis E virus (HEV).
In: Microbiology of waterborne diseases. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 427–431.
PHAC (2007). Enteric disease: A major public health concern in Canada. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario (www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/c-enternet/ed-me-eng.php).
Pina, S., Puig, M., Lucena, F., Jofre, J. and Girones, R. (1998). Viral pollution in the environment and shellfish:
Human adenovirus detection by PCR as an index of human viruses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 64: 3376–3382.
Pina, S., Buti, M., Jardi, R., Clem ente-Casares, P ., Jofre, J. and Girones, R. (20 01). G enetic analysis of hepatitis A
virus strains recovered from the environment and from patients with acute hepatitis. J. Gen. Virol., 82: 2955–2963.
Pinheiro, M.D.O., Power, M.E., Butler, B.J., Dayeh, V.R., Slawson, R., Lee, L.E.J., Lynn, O.H. and Bols, N.C.
(2007). Use of Tetrahym ena therm oph ila to study the role of pro tozoa in inactivation o f viruses in water. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol., 73: 643–649.
Purcell, R.H. (1996). Hepatitis E virus. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 3rd edition. B.N. Fields, D.M. K nipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ram achandran, M ., Gentsch, J.R ., Parashar, U .D., Jin, S., W ood s, P.A., Holmes, J.L ., Kirkw ood , C.D ., Bisho p, R.F .,
Greenberg, H.B., Urasawa, S., Gerna, G., Coulson, B.S., Taniguchi, K., Bresee, J.S., Glass, R.I. and The National
Rotavirus Strain Surveillance System Collaborating Laboratories (1998). Detection and characterization of novel
rotavirus strains in the United States. J. Clin. Microbiol. 36(11): 3223–3229.
Raphael, R.A., Sattar, S.A. and Springthorpe, V.S. (1985a). Long-term survival of human rotavirus in raw and
treated river water. Can. J. Microbiol., 31: 124–128.
Rap hael, R .A., Sattar, S.A. and S pringthorp e, V.S . (198 5b). Rotavirus co ncentration fro m raw water using po sitively
charged filters. J. Virol. Methods, 11: 131–140.
Regli, S., Rose, J.B., Haas, C.N. and Gerba, C.P. (1991). Modelling the risk from Giardia and viruses in drinking
water. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 83: 76–84.
Reynolds, K.A., Gerba, C.P., Abbaszad egan, M. and Pe pper, I.L. (2001). ICC/PCR detection of enteroviruses and
hepatitis A virus in environmental samples. Can. J. Microbiol., 47: 153–157.
Rhodes, A.J., Clark, E.M., Knowles, D.S., Goodfellow, A.M. and Donohue, W.L. (1950). Prolonged survival of
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
55
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
human poliomyelitis virus in experimentally infected river water. Can. J. Public Health, 41: 248–254.
Roivainen, M., Alfthan, G., Jousilahti, P., Kimpimäki, M., Hovi, T. and T uomilehto, J. (1998). Enterovirus
infections as a possible risk factor for myocardial infarction. Circulation, 98: 2534–2537.
Rotbart, H.A. (1995). Human enterovirus infections. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
Sano, D., Matsuo, T. and Omura, T. (2004). Virus-binding proteins recovered from bacterial culture derived from
activated sludge by affinity chromatography assay using a viral capsid peptide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70(6):
3434–3442.
Sattar, S.A. (1978). Viruses. In: Water and health. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Schijven, J.F. and Hassanizadeh, S.M. (2000). Remo val of viruses by soil passage: Overview of modeling,
processes, and parameters. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 30: 49–127.
Schuster, C.J., Ellis, A.G., Robertson, W .J., Charron, D.F., Aramini, J.J., Marshall, B.J. and Med eiros, D.T. (2005).
Infectious disease outbreaks related to drinking water in Canada, 1974–2001. Can. J. Public Health, 96: 254–258.
Scipioni, A., Daube, G. and Thiry, E. (2000). Contamination of food and water by human pathogenic viruses. Ann.
Med. Vet., 144(4): 207–221.
Sedmak, G., B ina, D., Ma cDonald, J. and Couillard , L. (20 05). Nine-year stud y of the occurrence of cultura ble
viruses in source waters for two drinking water treatment plants and the influent and effluent of a waste water
treatment plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (August 1994 through July 2003). App l. Environ. Microbiol. 71(2):
1042–1050.
Sekla, L., Stakiw, W., Kay, C. and Vanbuckenhout, L. (1980). Enteric viruses in renovated water in Manitoba.
Can. J. Microbiol., 26: 518–523.
Shah, V.G., Dunstan, R.H., Geary, P.M., Coom bes, P., Roberts, T.K. and Nagy-Felsobuki, E.V. (2007). Evaluating
potential app lications of faecal sterols in distinguishing sources of faecal contamination from mixed faeca l samples.
Water Res. 41: 3691-3700.
Shin, G., Linden, K.G. and Sobsey, M.D. (2005). Low pressure ultraviolet inactivation of pathogenic enteric viruses
and bacteriophages. J. Environ. Eng. Sci., 4: S7–11.
Skraber, S., Gassilloud, B. and G antzer, C. (2004). Comparison of coliforms and coliphages as tools for assessment
of viral contamination in river water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 70: 3644–3649.
Smith, H.J., Reporter, R., Rood , M.P., Linscott, A.J., Mascola, L.M., Hogrefe, W . and Purcell, R.H. (2002).
Prevalence study of antibody to ratborne pathogens and other agents among patients using a free clinic in downtown
Los Angeles. J. Infect. Dis., 186: 1673–1676.
Sobsey, M.D., Fuji, T. and Shields, P.A. (1988). Inactivation of Hepatitis A virus and model viruses in water by free
chlorine and monochloramine. Wat. Sci. Tech. 20(11/12): 385–391.
Staatscourant (2001). Dutch Drinking Water Decree. January 9, 2001.
Steyer, A., Po ljšak-P rijatelj, M ., Barli…-Maganja, D. and M arin, J. (2 008 ). Human, porc ine, and bovine rotavirus in
Slovenia: Evidence of interspecies transmission and gene reassortment. J. Gen. Virol., 89: 1690–1698.
Stram er, S.L. and C liver, D.O. (1 984 ). Sep tage treatments to red uce the numb er of bacteria and p olioviruses. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol., 48: 566–572.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
56
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Straub, T.M., Höner zu Bentrup, K., Orosz-Cochlan, P., Dohnalkova, A., Mayer, B.K., Bartholomew, R.A., Valdez,
C.O ., Brucker-L ea, C.J., Gerba, C .P., Ab baszadegan, M . and N ickerso n, C.A . (200 7). In vitro cell culture infectivity
assay for human noroviruses. Emerging Infect. Dis., 13: 396–403.
Subrahmanyan, T.P. (1977). Examination of sewage and sewage sludge for enteroviruses. Environmental Protection
Service, Environment Can ada, Ottawa, On tario (C anad a–O ntario A greem ent Re search Report No. 52).
Taylor, L.H., Latham, S.M. and W oolhou se, M.E . (2001 ). Risk factors for human disease em ergence. P hil. Trans.
R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 356: 983–989.
Templeton, M.R., Andrews, R.C. and Hofmann, R. (2005). Inactivation of particle associated viral surrogates by
ultraviolet light. Water Research. 39: 3487–3500.
Templeton, M.R., Andrews, R.C. and Hofmann, R. (2008). Particle-associated viruses in water: Impacts on
disinfection processes. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(3): 137–164.
Teunis, P.F.M., Lodder, W.J., Heisterkamp, S.H. and de Roda Husman, A.M. (2005). Mixed plaques: Statistical
evidence how plaque assays may underestimate virus concentrations. Water Res., 39: 4240–4250.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J. And G erba, C.P. (2003a). Chlorine inactivation of adenovirus
type 40 and feline calicivirus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69(7): 3979-3985.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J., Riley, K. and Gerba, C.P. (2003b ). Inactivation of feline
calicivirus and adenovirus type 40 by UV radiation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 69(1): 577–582.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J. and Gerba , C.P. (2005a). Inactivation of enteric adenovirus and
feline calicivirus by chlorine dioxide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71: 3100–3105.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J. and Gerba , C.P. (2005b). Inactivation of enteric adenovirus and
feline calicivirus by ozone. Water Research, 39: 3650–3656.
To dd, E .C.D . and C hatma n, P. (1 997 ). Annual sum maries of foodbo rne and waterbo rne disease in C anad a. He alth
Protection Branch, Health Canada, Polyscience Publications Inc., Morin Heights, Quebec.
Todd, E.C.D. and Chatman, P. (1998). Annual summaries of foodborne and waterborne disease in Canada,
1992–1993 . Health Protection Branch, Health Canada, Polyscience Publications Inc., Laval, Quebec.
To dd, E .C.D ., Chatm an, P. and R odrigues, V . (200 1). Annual summaries of foodborne and waterb orne disease in
Canada, 199 4–1 995 . Hea lth Pro ducts and F ood Branch, H ealth Canad a, Po lyscience Publications Inc., Laval,
Quebec.
Turner, M ., Istre, G.R., Beauchamp, H ., Baum, M. and A rnold, S. (1987). Comm unity outbreak of adenovirus
type 7a infections associated with a swimming pool. South. Med. J., 80(6): 712–715.
U.S. EPA (1989). Part V, Environme ntal Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142. National Primary Drinking
W ater Regulatio ns: Filtration; disinfection; turbidity; Giardia la mb lia; viruses; Leg ionella, and heterotrophic
bacteria; Final rule. Fed. Regist., 54: 27485–27541.
U.S. EPA (1991). Guidance manual for compliance with the filtration and disinfection requirements for public water
systems using surface water sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (1996). ICR microbial laboratory manual. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC (E PA/600 /R-95/178; www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/icrmicro.pdf).
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
57
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
U.S. EPA (1999). Disinfection profiling and benchmarking guidance manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC (E PA/815 /R-99/013).
U.S. EPA (2000). Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142. N ational Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule: Proposed rule. Fed. Regist., 65(91): 30193–30274.
U.S. EPA (2001a). M ethod 1601 : Male-specific (F+) and somatic coliphage in water by two-step enrichment
procedure. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (R eport EPA /821-R-01-030).
U.S. EPA (2001b). Method 1602: Male-specific (F+) and somatic coliphage in water by single agar layer (SAL)
procedure. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (R eport EPA /821-R-01-029).
U.S. EPA (2001c). Manual of methods for virology. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Pro tection Agency, W ashington, D C (E PA -600 /4-84 /013 ).
U.S. E PA (2 002a). Me thod 11 06.1: E nterococ ci in water by mem brane filtration using mem brane-entero coccusesculin iron agar (mE-EIA). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
(EPA -821-R-02-021).
U.S. EPA (2002b ). Method 16 00: Enterococci in water by membrane filtration using membrane-enterococcus
indoxyl- $-D-glucoside agar (mEI). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
(EPA -821-R-02-022).
U.S. EPA (2003 ). Movement and longevity of viruses in the sub surface. U.S. Environm ental P rotection Agency,
W ashington, DC (EPA /540/S-03/500).
U.S. EPA (2006a). 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground W ater
Rule. Final rule. Fed. Regist., 71(2 16): 655 73– 656 60.
U.S. EPA (2006b ). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced S urface Water Treatment
Rule. Final rule. Fed. Regist., 71(3 ): 653 –70 2.
U.S. EPA (2006c) Ultraviolet disinfection guidance manual. EPA 815 -R-06-007, Office of ater, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Vaidya, S.R ., Chitam bar, S .D. and Arankalle, V.A . (200 2). Polymerase chain reaction-based prevalence o f hepatitis
A, hepatitis E, and TT viruses in sewage from an endemic area. J. Hepatol., 37: 131–136.
Van Heerden, J., Ehlers, M.M., Heim, A. and Grabow, W.O.K. (2005). Prevalence, quantification and typing of
adenoviruses detected in river and treated drinking water in South Africa. J. Appl. Microbiol., 99: 234–242.
Villar, L.M., de Paula, V.S., Diniz-Mendes, L., Lampe, E. and Gaspar, A.M.C. (2006). Evaluation of methods used
to concentrate and detect hepatitis A virus in water samples. J. Virol. Methods, 137: 169–176.
Vinje, J., Hamidjaja, R.A. and Sobsey, M.D. (2004). Development and application of a capsid VP1 (region D) based
reverse transcription PCR assay for genotyping of genogroup I and II noroviruses. J. Virol. Methods, 116: 109–117.
W ard, R.L., Bernstein, D., Young, D.E., Sherwood , J., Knowlton, D.R. and Schiff, G.A. (1986). Hum an rotavirus
studies in volunteers: Determination of infectious dose and serological response to infection. J. Infect. Dis., 154:
871–880.
W eiss, J.W ., Bouwer, E.J., Aboytes, R., LeChevallier, M.W., O’M elia, C.R., Le, B.T. and Schwab , K.J. (2005).
Riverbank filtration for control of microorganisms. Water Res., 39: 1990–2001.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
58
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
W ellings, F.M., Lewis, A.L., Mountain, C.W. and Pierce, L.V. (1975). Demonstration of virus in groundwater after
effluent discharge onto soil. Appl. Microbiol., 29: 751–757.
W estrell, T., Andersson, Y. and Stenström, T.A. (2006a). Drinking water consumption patterns in Sweden. J. Water
Health, 4(4): 511–522.
W e stre ll, T ., Teu nis, P ., V an d en Berg , H ., L odde r, W ., K ete la ars, H ., Ste nström, T.A . a nd de Roda Husman, A.M.
(2006b). Short- and long-term variations of norovirus concentrations in the Meuse river during a 2-year study period.
Water Res., 40: 2613–2620.
WH O (2003). SARS virus detection and survival in food and water: Setting a research agenda. WHO W orkshop,
Madrid, Spain, May 2003.
W HO (2004 ). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Vol. 1. 3rd edition. Wo rld Health Organization, Geneva.
W old, W.S.M . and Horwitz, M.S. (2007). Ad enoviruses. In: Fields virology. Vol. 1. 5th edition. D.M . Knipe and
P.M. Howley (eds.). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
W u, J.C., Chen, C.M., Chiang, T.Y., Sheen, I.J., Chen, J.Y., Tsai, W.H., Huang, Y.H. and Lee, S.D. (2000). Clinical
and epidemiological implications of swine hepatitis E virus infection. J. Med. Virol., 60: 166–171.
Xagoraraki, I., Harrington, G.W ., Assavasilavasukul, P. and Standridge, J. (2004). Removal of emerging waterborne
pathogens and pathogen indicators. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 96(5): 102–113.
Yates, M .V., G erba, C.P. and K elly, L.M . (198 5). V irus persistence in groundwater. Appl. E nviron. M icrob iol.,
49: 778–781.
Yayli, G., Kilic, S. and Ormeci, A.R. (2002). Hepatitis agents with enteric transmission—an epidemiological
analysis. Infection, 30: 334–337.
Zhang, M., Zeng, C.Q.Y., Morris, A.P. and Estes, M.K. (2000). A functional NSP4 enterotoxin peptide secreted
from rotavirus-infected cells. J. Virol., 74: 11663–11670.
Zhu, B ., Clifford, D.A. and C hellam, S. (20 05a ). Virus remo val by iro n coagulation –microfiltration . W ater Res.,
39: 5153–5161.
Zhu, B., Clifford, D.A. and Chellam, S. (2005b). Comparison of electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation
pretreatment for enhanced virus removal using microfiltration membranes. Water Res., 39: 3098–3108.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
59
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Appendix A: List of acronyms
ANSI
C
CT
American National Standards Institute
residual concentration of disinfectant
product of residual concentration of disinfectant (C) and disinfectant contact
time (T)
DALY
disability adjusted life year
DBP
disinfection by-product
DNA
deoxyribonucleic acid
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
HAV
hepatitis A virus
HEV
hepatitis E virus
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (U.S.)
LYL
life years lost
NSF
NSF International
PCR
polymerase chain reaction
QMRA
quantitative microbial risk assessment
q-PCR
quantitative polymerase chain reaction
RNA
ribonucleic acid
SARS
severe acute respiratory syndrome
T
disinfectant contact time
UV
ultraviolet
WHO
World Health Organization
YLD
years lived with disability
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
60
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Appendix B: CT values for inactivation of viruses
Table B-1: CT values for inactivation of viruses by free chlorine ([email protected]/L), based on HAV
(U.S. EPA, 2006a)
Log inactivation
2
Temperature (°C)
3
4
pH 6–9
pH 10
pH 6–9
pH 10
pH 6–9
pH 10
0.5
6
45
9
66
12
90
5
4
30
6
44
8
60
10
3
22
4
33
6
45
15
2
15
3
22
4
30
20
1
11
2
16
3
22
25
1
7
1
11
2
15
Table B-2: CT values for inactivation of viruses by chloramine ([email protected]/L), based on HAV
(AWWA, 1991; U.S. EPA, 2006a)
Log inactivation
2
3
4
#1
1243
2063
2883
5
857
1423
1988
10
643
1067
1491
15
428
712
994
20
321
534
746
25
214
356
497
Temperature (°C)
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
61
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Table B-3: CT values for inactivation of viruses by chlorine dioxide ([email protected]/L), based on HAV
(pH 6–9) (AWWA, 1991; U.S. EPA, 2006a)
Log inactivation
2
3
4
#1
8.4
25.6
50.1
5
5.6
17.1
33.4
10
4.2
12.8
25.1
15
2.8
8.6
16.7
20
2.1
6.4
12.5
25
1.4
4.3
8.4
Temperature (°C)
Table B-4: CT values for inactivation of viruses by ozone ([email protected]/L), based on poliovirus 1
(AWWA, 1991; U.S. EPA, 2006a)
Log inactivation
2
3
4
#1
0.9
1.4
1.8
5
0.6
0.9
1.2
10
0.5
0.8
1
15
0.3
0.5
0.6
20
0.25
0.4
0.5
25
0.15
0.25
0.3
Temperature (°C)
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
62
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
Appendix C: QMRA model
Mathematical models have been developed as a means to quantitatively assess the
potential microbiological risks associated with a drinking water system, including the potential
risks associated with bacterial, protozoan, and viral pathogens. These models have been
developed by international organizations (Smeets et al., 2008; Teunis et al., 2009), as well as by
groups within Canada (Jaidi et al., 2009). QMRA models have also been used to estimate the
potential health risks through other routes of exposure (Mara et al., 2007; Armstrong and Haas,
2008; Diallo et al., 2008). Although some of the assumptions vary between models (i.e., the
choice of reference pathogen, or selection of dose–response variables), all are based on the
accepted principles of QMRA, that is: hazard identification; exposure assessment; dose–response
assessment; and, risk characterization.
A QMRA model was developed by Health Canada as part of the risk assessment process
for enteric pathogens in drinking water. This probabilistic model explores the potential disease
burden, with associated uncertainty, for user-defined scenarios for a drinking water system. The
model includes user inputs for the virological quality of the raw water source and the specific
treatment train (defined in terms of filtration, and disinfection approaches). For drinking water
systems where data is lacking for the above parameters, the model includes values from
published literature and from expert opinion as a starting point for the assessment. For source
water quality, the model provides users with the choice of four categories: category A
(0.1 rotaviruses/100 L), category B (1 rotavirus/100 L), category C (10 rotaviruses/100 L), and
category D (100 rotaviruses/100 L). Water sources that are category A or B for enteric viruses are
assumed to have very little human faecal contamination. These may be groundwater sources or
protected surface water sources were there is very limited human activity on the watershed. As
the level of human impacts increase in a watershed, the source water quality may fall into
category C or D. The enteric virus concentrations are expressed in number of rotaviruses per
volume of water because the QMRA model uses the key characteristics of rotavirus, with the CT
values based on HAV and poliovirus, for the risk calculations. These source water quality
estimates were developed only be used within the context of the QMRA model for evaluating the
impacts of variations in source water quality on the overall microbiological risks. It should be
noted that although a source may be category A for enteric viruses, it may have a different source
water quality category for bacterial or protozoan pathogens. For treatment processes, the model
uses a range of literature values to more accurately represent the range of effectiveness of
treatment methodologies.
The QMRA model uses this exposure information, along with the dose–response
model and the DALY calculations for rotavirus, to estimate the potential disease burden (in
DALYs/person per year) for the site-specific scenario information. The quality of the outputs
from the QMRA model are dependent on the quality of the information that is input into the
model. Measurements, as opposed to estimates for exposure levels, will result in a higher quality
risk assessment output. Even with high quality exposure data, the QMRA model requires
numerous assumptions that introduce uncertainty into the assessment:
•
It is assumed that the distribution of viruses in water is random (Poisson). However, it
is likely that the viruses are not randomly distributed but rather occur in clusters, either
loosely associated with each other or tightly bound to or within particles (Gale, 1996).
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
63
Enteric Viruses (March 2011)
•
•
•
•
Such clustering means that most consumers will not be exposed, but a small portion will
be exposed to one or more viruses. This model does not account for clustering and will
therefore underestimate the probability of exposure and infection.
Treatment efficiency is modelled based on data in published literature for various
treatment processes, which may be an under- or overestimate of the performance at a
specific site. Also, treatment efficiency data are derived using laboratory-adapted strains
of viruses, which may not respond to treatment processes in exactly the same manner as
the viruses present in source water.
Until methods to identify infectious human enteric virus particles become practical for
routine monitoring, it is desirable, from a health protection perspective, to assume that all
human enteric virus particles detected in source waters are infectious to humans unless
evidence to the contrary exists. As well, the dose–response experiments used single
laboratory strains; therefore, it is unknown whether organism age, prior environmental
exposures or strain type influences infectivity. Furthermore, the experiments are
conducted on healthy humans or laboratory animals and do not consider the immune
status or secondary transmission in the exposed population (e.g., vulnerable populations).
The current risk assessment model assumes that errors caused by overestimating viability
are at least partially counterbalanced by virus recoveries, which have been shown to be
reasonably efficient (approximately 50%) during the detection procedure.
The model assumes a daily consumption of unboiled tap water of 1.0 L/person. In a
population, there will be a distribution of tap water consumption that is not represented
by this point estimate.
The model is based on risks associated with source water contamination and does not
consider potential contamination within the distribution system.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document
64
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement