↓ Skip to main content

Total staphylococci as performance surrogate for greywater treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Total staphylococci as performance surrogate for greywater treatment
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11356-017-9050-1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) are commonly used as water quality indicators; implying faecal contamination and therefore the potential presence of pathogenic enteric bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Hence in wastewater treatment, the most commonly used treatment process measures (surrogates) are total coliforms, faecal coliforms, Escherichia coli (E. coli), and enterococci. However, greywater potentially contains skin pathogens unrelated to faecal load, and E. coli and other FIB may grow within greywater unrelated to pathogens. Overall, FIB occurs at fluctuating and relatively low concentrations compared to other endogenous greywater bacteria affecting their ability as surrogates for pathogen reduction. Therefore, unlike municipal sewage, FIB provides a very limited and unreliable log-reduction surrogate measure for on-site greywater treatment systems. Based on our recent metagenomic study of laundry greywater, skin-associated bacteria such as Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, and Propionibacterium spp. dominate and may result in more consistent treatment surrogates than traditional FIB. Here, we investigated various Staphylococcus spp. as potential surrogates to reliably assay over 4-log10 reduction by the final-stage UV disinfection step commonly used for on-site greywater reuse, and compare them to various FIB/phage surrogates. A collimated UV beam was used to determine the efficacy of UV inactivation (255, 265 and 285 nm) against E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis, E. faecium, E. casseliflavus, Staphylococcus aureus, and S. epidermidis. Staphylococcus spp. was estimated by combining the bi-linear dose-response curves for S. aureus and S. epidermidis and was shown to be less resistant to UV irradiation than the other surrogates examined. Hence, a relative inactivation credit is suggested; whereas, the doses required to achieve a 4 and 5-log10 reduction of Staphylococcus spp. (13.0 and 20.9 mJ cm(-2), respectively) were used to determine the relative inactivation of the other microorganisms investigated. The doses required to achieve a 4 and 5-log10 reduction of Staphylococcus spp. resulted in a log10 reduction of 1.4 and 4.1 for E. coli, 0.8 and 2.8 for E. faecalis, 0.8 and 3.6 for E. casseliflavus and 0.8 and 1.2 for MS2 coliphage, respectively. Given the concentration difference of Staphylococcus spp. and FIB (3 to 5-log10 higher), we propose the use of Staphylococcus spp. as a novel endogenous performance surrogate to demonstrate greywater treatment performance given its relatively high and consistent concentration and therefore ability to demonstrate over 5-log10 reductions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 21 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 16%
Engineering 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 26 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#5,072
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,387
of 313,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#112
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.