Top 5 Water Contaminants
Waterborne
microbial contaminants, once thought to be under control, are attracting
renewed attention. An awareness of the presence of previously undetected
microbial contaminants in drinking water is increasing. By developing
an improved methodology for testing for viruses in water, a University
of Arizona microbiologist is contributing to this expanded awareness Kelly
A. Reynolds, University of Arizona Department of Soil, Water and Environmental
Science, developed a method capable of quickly and precisely detecting
low levels of enteric viruses in large volumes of water concentrates,
thus overcoming limitations of previous testing strategies.
Her method is considered a major breakthrough in detecting viruses in
drinking water. Viruses are not easily detected. Often present in water
in very low numbers, viruses still can pose a health risk since it takes
only one virus in a water system to infect a person with a waterborne
disease. (Bacteria are different. Some require only 10, but usually the
infectious dose is closer to 1,000.) A challenge in testing for viruses
therefore is to be able to detect very low levels of viruses in very large
water volumes.
Since
human viruses generally occur in very low numbers in the environment,
water samples need to be concentrated before analysis. The conventional
methods for virus detection that are then applied rely on animal cell
cultures. Water sample concentrates are added to culture flasks containing
monkey or human cells that support virus growth. The cells are then observed
for periods of a few days to weeks to detect signs of cell destruction
indicating virus growth. The advantage of cell culture is that it detects
only infectious strains of viruses and can test large sample volumes,
after concentration. Cell culture, however, can require long periods of
time. Some strains of enteric viruses may need two weeks of growth for
preliminary results, with confirmed results possibly requiring as long
as three weeks or more. Also some strains of viruses, although growing
in cells, do not show any visual signs of cell destruction and therefore
go undetected.
Examples
of such viruses, called noncytopathogenic viruses, are certain strains
of rotavirus and hepatitis A. The limitations of cell culture have prompted
scientists to turn to molecular detection methods to routinely monitor
for viruses. The distinct nucleic acid sequences of different organisms
can be differentiated at the genetic level, and molecular methods can
detect the presence of a pathogen's genetic material (RNA or DNA). The
most commonly used molecular method, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
can quickly detect enteric viruses, with only 24 hours needed for definitive
results. In many respects, PCR is more effective than conventional cell
culture and has proven to be a rapid, sensitive, specific and inexpensive
method for detecting viruses.
Molecular
methods, however, also have shortcomings. Their detection sensitivity
often is decreased by inhibitory compounds often present in environmental
concentrates. False negatives can result. Also, PCR does not distinguish
between noninfectious and infectious virus particles, thus complicating
interpreting a PCR positive result and its implication to public health.
It is within this context i.e., in response to the limitations of both
cell cultures and molecular methods that Reynolds developed the integrated
cell culture/PCR method to routinely monitor for infectious enteric viruses.
ICC/PCR retains many of the advantages of both conventional cell culture
and molecular methods but without their limitations.
Dangerous Water Contaminants
After
adding sample concentrates to cell culture flasks, Reynolds applies PCR
on the cell culture medium. By applying PCR to the medium, lengthy incubation
times are unnecessary because PCR is capable of detecting low levels of
virus growth in the cell culture. If PCR were not used, results would
be delayed until visual signs of cell destruction become apparent. Further,
by integrating the molecular method with cell culture, PCR results are
more reliable. No confusion exists about whether a PCR-detected virus
is infectious or not since only infectious viruses develop in the cell
culture. All viruses detected by ICC/PCR then are infectious and results
are available in 24-48 hours, compared to days or weeks required by cell
culture alone.
Also, ICC/PCR overcomes the effect of PCR inhibitory compounds that otherwise
could lead to false negative results and is able to detect noncytopathogenic
viruses e.g., certain strains of rotavirus and hepatitis A that grow
in cells without visual signs of cell destruction. With improved, viable
virus detection sensitivity and reduced assay times, ICC/PCR is the future
for effective environmental virus monitoring. Even with samples that are
suitable for direct PCR amplification monitoring, having low inhibitory
compounds and sufficiently high levels of target organisms, subsequent
use of ICC/ PCR would aid evaluation of the viable nature of the target,
with minimal cost and time involvement.
The
implications of the ICC/PCR method will gain importance as water quality
testing increasingly includes more frequent monitoring of viruses. Also
the method will serve to evaluate the effectiveness of various water treatment
and disinfection methods concerned with removing or inactivating human
enteric viruses. |