Depth and Well Type Related to Groundwater Microbiological Contamination
by
, and
Nayara Halimy Maran
1, 
Bruno Do Amaral Crispim
1,
Stephanie Ramirez Iahnn
2,
Renata Pires de Araújo
3,
Alexeia Barufatti Grisolia
1,3 and
Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira
2,3,* 1
Faculty of Exact Sciences and Technology, Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, MS 79804-970, Brazil
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, MS 79804-970, Brazil
3
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Science, Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, MS 79804-970, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(10), 1036; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13101036
Submission received: 25 June 2016
/
Revised: 14 September 2016
/
Accepted: 14 September 2016
/
Published: 21 October 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Aquatic Microbial and Chemical Contaminants of Concern and Their Impact on Human Health)
Abstract
:Use of groundwater from private wells in households has increased considerably, owing to a better cost/benefit ratio than that of water provided by local utilities for a fee. However, this water is usually untreated, which makes it a vehicle for diseases. Thus, monitoring this water is necessary to ensure its integrity and quality. We aimed to evaluate the physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters of untreated groundwater drawn from different types of wells, and the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of the bacteria isolated from this water. Wellwater samples were collected in two Brazilian cities. Although physical and chemical parameters of the water were suitable for drinking, Escherichia coli was detected in 33% of the samples. E. coli contaminated 65% of dug wells and 10.25% of drilled wells. Many bacteria isolated were resistant to multiple antibacterial agents, including β-lactams. Microbial contamination of this water was related to the well depth, and was more common in dug wells, making this water unfit for human consumption. Consumption of such contaminated and untreated water is a public health concern. Thus, individuals who regularly use such water must be alerted so they may either take preventive measures or connect to the water distribution system operated by local utilities.
1. Introduction
Water can be a major route for spreading disease, especially among children, the elderly, and immunocompromised patients [1,2]. Diarrhea is the most common disease associated with the intake of water contaminated by pathogens through the fecal-oral route [3]. According to the World Health Organization [4], approximately 600,000 children die from diarrhea related to lack of water, sanitation, and hygiene. Contaminated water can cause bacterial infections, outbreaks [5], or serious damage to health, as well as social and economic losses [6]. Water contamination by multidrug-resistant microorganisms is also a concern, as this is a source of the spread of antimicrobial resistance [7].
According to the Brazilian National Water Agency [8], 86% of Brazilian cities are supplied by sources managed by municipal utilities tasked with supplying water to the city. Of this total, 44% use groundwater as their source, and 56% use surface water. Even if there is a municipal water supply network in these regions, residents sometimes use groundwater from individual wells for consumption. This is due to the low cost of well construction, ease of access to groundwater and, mainly, because there are no fees for groundwater use.
Consumption of groundwater and well drilling without suitable conditions increase the vulnerability to contamination, related either to anthropogenic or to natural activities. Degradation and contamination of groundwater are related to the depth and the type of well [9,10], to the presence of waste dumps and cemeteries, to improper well maintenance or abandonment, and to the use of septic tanks [11,12].
The lack of groundwater quality monitoring and of regulations governing the drilling of wells result in the population consuming water that lacks proper treatment. Consumption of water without adequate quality control is a public health concern, because it is often a vehicle for spreading disease. This study aimed to evaluate microbiological parameters of groundwater used for human consumption as they relate to well characteristics, and the antimicrobial susceptibility profile of the bacteria isolated.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Well Types
Caarapó and Itaporã, located in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, where agropastoral activities are prevalent, have tropical climates and are situated above the Guarani Aquifer. Caarapó (Latitude: −22.6298; Longitude: −54.8253; 22°37’47”S, 54°49’31”W, elevation 470.2 m) has an estimated population in 2015 of 28,437 inhabitants, and a population density of 12.33 inhabitants/km2 [13]. The geology of the area includes the formation Serra Geral, a Mesozoic unit with basaltic rocks, and the Caiuá formation, comprising sandstone rocks, which are very porous and easily disintegrated [14]. Itaporã (Latitude: −22.0821; Longitude: −54.7889; 22°4’56”S, 54°47’20”W, elevation 350.3 m), with 22,896 inhabitants estimated in 2015, and a population density of 15.79 inhabitants/km2 [13], is in the Serra Geral geological formation.
The cities of Caarapó and Itaporã are supplied with treated water from artesian wells, and these systems are managed by municipal utilities. However, some households, often inhabited by older residents, choose to use water drawn from private wells, due to the residual chlorine taste in the treated water, with the belief that the quality of well water is superior, and, especially, to avoid paying fees.
The homes included in this study were selected with the help of local health workers and the criteria for choice were the wells whose groundwater was used for drinking. From July to October 2014, water samples from 66 domestic wells, 36 in Caarapó and 30 in Itaporã were collected and analyzed.
The wells were classified into either drilled wells or dug wells. A dug well is manually dug, with a diameter of about 1 m, and is popularly known as a caipira, cacimba, rudimentar, or amazonas (Figure 1A). A drilled well is made with machines or hand tools. The water is drawn by an external or submerged pump (Figure 1B).
2.2. Physico-Chemical Analyses
The physico-chemical analyses were carried out on location. Temperature and pH were measured with a multiparameter probe YSI Professional Plus (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, OH, USA). Turbidity analysis was conducted with a portable turbidimeter (Policontrol), and chlorine and fluorine were measured by the colorimetric technique Alfakit [15].
2.3. Microbiological Analyses
Water samples were collected in sterile 500 mL glass bottles containing 0.5 mL of 1.8% sodium thiosulfate (Alfakit). For drilled wells, the water outlets were previously disinfected with 70% alcohol (v/v), and the water pump was turned on to draw water for 5 min before collection [15]. In dug wells, sample collection was carried out by submerging the glass bottle into the well [16]. Samples were transported under refrigeration (4 °C) and microbiological analysis was performed within 8 h of collection.
Total coliforms and E. coli were determined to be present or absent using Colilert [17] chromogenic and fluorogenic substrate, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The spread-plate method was used for counting heterotrophic bacteria: samples were inoculated onto Plate Count Agar (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, IND), either undiluted or at a 10−1 dilution, in duplicate, and were incubated at 35 ± 0.5 °C for 48 ± 2 h [18].
For yeast investigation, 100 mL of water sample was filtered through a cellulose ester membrane (Millipore 0.45 μm) in a pre-sterilized filtration assembly, then was placed on Sabouraud agar surface (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, IND)with 50 mg/mL chloramphenicol, incubated at 37 ± 0.5 °C, and examined daily for seven days [19].
2.4. Identifying Heterotrophic Bacteria and Testing for Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Three colony-forming units (CFU) with different morphological characteristics from each PCA plate were selected and plated on blood agar (Newprov, Pinhais, PR, Brazil) and incubated at 35 ± 0.5 °C, to obtain pure cultures. After 24 ± 2 h they were Gram stained and a bacterial suspension McFarland 0.5, was prepared for identification with the VITEK 2 COMPACT (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) automated system, in duplicate at two different times.
Gram-positive organisms were identified with the AST-105 card (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France), and resistance profile was determined with AST-P585 (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France). For Gram-negative bacteria identification, AST-NG cards (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) were used, and AST-N239 (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France) was used for determining antimicrobial resistance profile. The reliability threshold for identifying microorganisms was above 97% [20] and 16 standard antimicrobial agents were used for evaluating the resistance profiles.
For Gram-positive bacteria isolates, the antimicrobials used were: ampicillin (0.5, 4, 8, 32 μg/mL), benzylpenicillin (0.125, 0.25, 1, 2, 8, 64 μg/mL), ciprofloxacin (1, 2, 4 μg/mL), clindamycin (0.5, 1, 2 μg/mL), erythromycin (0.25, 0.5, 2 μg/mL), fusidic acid (0.5, 1, 4 μg/mL), gentamicin (8, 16, 64 μg/mL), linezolid (0.5, 1, 2 μg/mL), moxifloxacin (0.25, 2, 8 μg/mL), norfloxacin (0.5, 1, 4 μg/mL), oxacillin (0.5, 1, 2 μg/mL), rifampicin (0.25, 0.5, 2 μg/mL), teicoplanin (1, 4, 8, 16 μg/mL), tigecycline (0.25, 0.5, 1 μg/mL), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (2/38, 8/152, 16/304 μg/mL), and vancomycin (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 μg/mL). For Gram-negative isolates: amikacin (8, 16, 64 μg/mL), ampicillin (8, 16, 64 μg/mL), ampicillin/sulbactam (4/2, 16/8, 32/16 μg/mL), cefepime (2, 8, 16, 32 μg/mL), cefoxitin (8, 16, 32 μg/mL), ceftazidime (1, 2, 8, 32 μg/mL), ceftriaxone (1, 2, 8, 32 μg/mL), cefuroxime (2, 8, 32 μg/mL), ciprofloxacin (0.5, 2, 4 μg/mL), colistin (4, 16, 32 μg/mL), ertapenem (0.5, 1, 6 μg/mL), gentamicin (4, 16, 32 μg/mL), imipenem (1, 2, 6, 12 μg/mL), meropenem (0.5, 2, 6, 12 μg/mL), piperacillin/tazobactam (2/4, 8/4, 24/4, 32/4, 32/8, 48/8 μg/mL), and tigecycline (0.75, 2, 4 μg/mL). Bacteria resistant to two or more antimicrobials were classified as multidrug resistant.
3. Results
3.1. Physico-Chemical Parameters
Of the 66 wells tested (see in Supplementary Materials Table S1), 60 had acidic water (pH below 6.5), and only two wells had turbidity values greater than 5.0 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units). Free residual chlorine and fluorine were detected in six and 17 water samples, respectively, but within values suitable for consumption (Table 1).
3.2. Isolated Microorganisms and Antibiotic Resistance
Total coliforms contaminated 67% of the samples and E. coli, 33%. Itaporã had E. coli contamination in 50% of the wells, and Caarapó in 19.4% (Table 2).
The amount of microorganisms varied according to well depth. In wells up to 5 m deep, 90% showed contamination by total coliforms, 60% by E. coli, 70% by yeast, and 20% of wells displaying a heterotrophic bacteria count greater than 500 CFU/mL (Table 3).
Six Gram-positive and 39 Gram negative were isolated from all the wells analyzed and those with antimicrobial resistance are listed in Table 4, with the greatest resistance to β-lactams displayed by bacteria.
4. Discussion
Physico-chemical parameters are essential for monitoring the treatment of drinking water in distribution systems [21,23,24], but no control standards exist for private wells. The low pH observed in these samples may be due to the Latossol soil of these regions, which is acidic [14,25], and which may cause corrosion of the water-conducting pipes [21].
The high temperature of some samples favors microorganism growth and alters their organoleptic characteristics, such as taste, odor, and color [21,22]. Elevated levels of turbidity may be caused by suspended particles, or by the very nature of the rocks [26], or due to improper pipe maintenance, which is a problem for consumers using well water.
The residual chlorine detected in wells results from the addition of sodium hypochlorite at 2.5% (25,000 ppm) by health workers in an attempt to perform water treatment, but without any specific criteria. As a result, the improper use of chlorine fails to protect residents from groundwater contamination, as the appropriate course would be to perform the treatment after extracting the water, which is not what residents are being instructed to do.
The fluorine concentration in the samples was low, as reported in other studies [27,28] and the fluorine present may originate from the type of rock (Latossol) in the region [29]. The importance of determining fluorine content must be stressed, as the intake of high concentrations of this substance can stain the teeth and, in severe cases, cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, whereas, if present in water at appropriate amounts, it helps to prevent dental caries [23].
Microbiological contamination of water can result in disease transmission [21]. The presence of E. coli in 33% of the wells was similar to contamination rates reported in other studies [30,31]. However, 67% of dug-type wells had E. coli contamination. Factors such as diameter of the well opening [9], contact buckets, submerged motor pumps, and anthropogenic activities may have favored the contamination of dug wells. In addition to these factors, these wells (which are up to 5 m deep) are more susceptible to contamination due to their proximity to the soil surface.
The city of Itaporã had a higher number of dug wells because the water table is shallower there than in Caarapó, which had the highest number of drilled wells, indicating a deeper water table. Thus, we found that a shallower well depth and the use of dug wells correlates with greater microbiological contamination of groundwater (Table 2 and Table 3).
The detection of heterotrophic bacteria may indicate contamination [21,32]. Yeast has the ability to adhere and form biofilms in the pipes and hoses of pressure pumps used in households for groundwater extraction, producing substances that can cause unpleasant tastes and odors [24]. Even though the WHO 2011 recommendation does not require analysis of heterotrophic bacteria and yeast, our survey showed that these microbes displayed behavior similar to total coliforms and E. coli, where shallower wells increase the possibility of microbial contamination.
The proportion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and multi-drug resistance (>2 antibiotics) phenotypes in this search were 26.7% and 64.4%, respectively. Among the antibiotics tested, 91.1% of resistance belongs to β-lactams. This result indicated that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in water suggest the presence of pathogenic organisms that may spread infection among groundwater consumers [16], especially affecting children, the elderly, and immunocompromised people. Comparatively, other studies in surface water and wastewater treatment plants also detected the presence of microorganisms resistant to antibiotics [33,34]. Studies suggest that the selection of resistant microorganisms occurs because of human waste that is released into the natural environment, causing a serious ecological problem [33].
Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter spp., Serratia spp., Chromobacterium violaceum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter spp., which were isolated in this analysis, have also been observed in similar studies [16,31]. These microbes, identified in well water, are indeed relevant, as they are related to nosocomial agents.
The antimicrobial resistance profiles of the isolates were similar to those of microorganisms isolated from clinical samples [35,36,37] and the environment-hospital-environment dissemination of these microorganisms should be considered. The presence of E. coli in water indicated the existence of contamination from sewage, which could increase the chance that antibiotic-resistant pathogens could be transmitted via this route [38]. The presence of bacteria resistant to first- and second-line drugs, such as β-lactams, in drinking water can aggravate the condition of immunocompromised patients by limiting therapy options, as infections develop more rapidly in these patients. Human activity can cause the spread of resistant microorganisms, potentially resulting in the dissemination of multidrug-resistant agents in hospitals, the community, and the environment, and thus is considered a public health problem [7].
5. Conclusions
The physico-chemical measurements did not preclude water consumption according to the WHO. Regarding microbiological conditions, contamination is directly related to the use of dug and shallow wells.
Microbiological data in this study indicate that, besides E. coli, disturbing antimicrobial-resistant bacteria were also present. This finding highlights the need for sanitation improvements in order to prevent microorganism contamination, including immediate intervention through public health policies related to preventing contamination, and deployment of control plans for regulating the quality of water from private wells, including disabling wells whose conditions are improper.
Furthermore, the population consuming water from wells should take preventive measures, such as boiling the water, using water purifiers, or connecting to the local utility’s water distribution system, in order to avoid health risks.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/1036/s1, Table S1: Description of the characteristics of the 66 wells tested.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the National Health Foundation of Brazil (FUNASA), the National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES), and the Development of Education, Science and Technology of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul (FUNDECT) for financial support, and to the Microbiology Laboratory of the University Hospital (HU/UFGD) and the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD) for logistics support.
Author Contributions
Alexeia Barufatti Grisolia, Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira, and Bruno do Amaral Crispim conceived and designed the experiments; Nayara Halimy Maran, Renata Pires de Araújo and Bruno do Amaral Crispim performed the experiments; Stephanie Ramirez Iahnn, Renata Pires de Araújo and Nayara Halimy Maran analyzed the data; Alexeia Barufatti Grisolia, Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira, Bruno do Amaral Crispim, Nayara Halimy Maran, and Stephanie Ramirez Iahnn wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Freeman, M.C.; Trinies, V.; Boisson, S.; Mak, G.; Clasen, T. Promoting household water treatment through women’s self help groups in rural India: Assessing impact on drinking water quality and equity. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e44068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Risebro, H.L.; Breton, L.; Aird, H.; Hooper, A.; Hunter, P.R. Contaminated small drinking water supplies and risk of infectious intestinal disease: A prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Preventing Diarrhoea through Better Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Exposures and Impacts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities; GLAAS: Barnsley, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Breitenmoser, A.; Fretz, R.; Schmid, J.; Besl, A.; Etter, R. Outbreak of acute gastroenteritis due to a washwater-contaminated water supply, Switzerland, 2008. J. Water Health 2011, 9, 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Emmanuel, E.; Pierre, M.G.; Perrodin, Y. Groundwater contamination by microbiological and chemical substances released from hospital wastewater: Health risk assessment for drinking water consumers. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wellington, E.M.; Boxall, A.B.; Cross, P.; Feil, E.J.; Gaze, W.H.; Hawkey, P.M.; Jhonson-Rollings, A.S.; Jones, D.L.; Lee, N.M.; Otten, W.; et al. The role of the natural environment in the emergence of antibiotic resistance in gram-negative bacteria. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agência Nacional de Águas Brazil (ANA). Atlas Brasil: Abastecimento Urbano De Água; Panorama Nacional/Agência Nacional de Águas; Engecorps/Cobrape: Brasilia, Brazil, 2010.
- Hynds, P.; Misstear, B.D.; Gill, L.W.; Murphy, H.M. Groundwater source contamination mechanisms: Physicochemical profile clustering, risk factor analysis and multivariate modelling. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2014, 159, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Azizullah, A.; Khattak, M.N.K.; Richter, P.; Häder, D.P. Water pollution in Pakistan and its impact on public health—A review. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 479–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasil MMA. Águas Subterrâneas um Recurso a Ser Conhecido e Protegido; CRIO: Brasília, Brazil, 2007.
- Jimmy, D.H.; Sundufu, A.J.; Malanoski, A.P.; Jacobsen, K.H.; Ansumana, R.; Leski, T.A.; Bangura, U.; Bockarie, A.S.; Tejan, E.; Lin, B.; et al. Water quality associated public health risk in Bo, Sierra Leone. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Cidades. 2010. Available online: http://www.cidades.ibge.gov.br/xtras/home.php (accessed on 3 May 2015).
- Pereira, J.G.; Comar, V.; Macedo, G.Z. Atlas Dos Recursos Hídricos Superficíais do Territorio da Grande Dourados; Editora da UFGD: Dourados, Brazil, 2012; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
- American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mukhopadhyay, C.; Vishwanath, S.; Eshwara, V.K.; Shankaranarayana, S.A.; Sagir, A. Microbial quality of well water from rural and urban households in Karnataka, India: A cross-sectional study. J. Infect. Public Health 2012, 5, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. Colilert Test Kit. 2012. Available online: https://www.idexx.com/pubwebresources/pdf/en_us/water/colilert-18-pkg-insert.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2014).
- Silva, N.; Junqueira, V.C.A.; Silveira, N.F.A.; Taniwaki, M.H.; Santos, R.F.S.; Gomes, R.A.R. Manual de métodos de análises microbiológicas de alimentos e água. Ed Varela 2010, 4, 624. [Google Scholar]
- Ishida, K.; Ueda-Yamaguchi, M.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Dias Filho, B.P.; Yamada-Ogatta, S.F.; Nakamura, C.V. Performance of methods for identification of yeasts isolated from bottled water: High prevalence of Candida parapsilosis. Semina: Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde 2013, 34, 205–214. [Google Scholar]
- Clinical and Laboratory, Standards Institute. M100-S24 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, Twenty-fourth Informational Supplement; Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, AB, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 1–541. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez Castillo, F.Y.; Avelar González, F.J.; Garneau, P.; Márquez Díaz, F.; Guerrero Barrera, A.L.; Harel, J. Presence of multi-drug resistant pathogenic Escherichia coli in the San Pedro River located in the State of Águas Calientes, México. Front. Microbiol. 2013, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria 2.914, de 12 de Dezembro de 2011. Dispõe Sobre os Procedimentos de Controle e Vigilância da Qualidade da Água para o Consumo Humano e Seu Padrão de Potabilidade; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2011. Available online: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/2011/prt2914_12_12_2011.html (accessed on 5 March 2014).
- World Health Organization. Guías Para la Calidad del Água Potable; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 1–98. [Google Scholar]
- Spera, S.T.; Reatto, A.; Correia, J.R.; Silva, J.C.S. Características físicas de um latossolo vermelho-escuro no cerrado de Planaltina, DF, submetido à ação do fogo. Pesqui. Agropec. Bras. 2000, 35, 1817–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scorsafava, M.A.; de Souza, A.; Stofer, M.; Nunes, C.A.; Milanez, T.V. Avaliação físico-química da qualidade de água de poços e minas destinada ao consumo humano. Rev. Inst. Adolfo Lutz 2010, 69, 229–232. [Google Scholar]
- Cazotti, C.A.; Francisco, K.M.S.; Gomes Filho, D.L.; Presta, A.A.; Moimaz, S.A.S. Fluorine content in water of shallow wells. Biosci. J. 2012, 28, 494–499. [Google Scholar]
- Ogbu, I.S.I.; Okoro, O.I.O.; Ugwuja, E.I. Well waters fluorine in Enugu, Nigeria. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2012, 3, 96–98. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gwala, P.; Andey, S.; Nagarnaik, P.; Ghosh, S.P.; Pal, P.; Deshmukh, P.; Labhasetwar, P. Design and development of sustainable remediation process for mitigation of fluorine contamination in ground water and field application for domestic use. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 488, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arnold, M.; Vanderslice, J.A.; Taylor, B.; Benson, S.; Allen, S.; Johnson, M.; Ansong, D. Drinking water quality and source reliability in rural Ashanti region, Ghana. J. Water Health 2013, 11, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Odeleye, F.O.; Idowu, A.O. Bacterial pathogens associated with hand-dug wells in Ibadan City. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2015, 9, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, S. Heterotrophic bacteria in drinking water distribution system: A review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 6087–6137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delgado-Gardea, M.C.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Zavala-Díaz de la Serna, F.J.; Eroza-de la Vega, G.; Nevárez-Moorillón, G.V.; Pérez-Recoder, M.C.; Sánchez-Ramírez, B.; del Carmen González-Horta, M.; Infante-Ramírez, R. Multidrug-resistant bacteria isolated from surface water in Bassaseachic Falls National Park, Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, J.J.; Hu, H.Y.; Lu, S.Q.; Li, Y.; Tang, F.; Lu, Y.; Wei, B. Monitoring and evaluation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria at a municipal wastewater treatment plant in China. Environ. Int. 2012, 42, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gupta, N.; Hocevar, S.N.; Moulton-Meissner, H.A.; Stevens, K.M.; McIntyre, M.G.; Jensen, B.; Kuhar, D.T.; Noble-Wang, J.A.; Schnatz, R.G.; Becker, S.C.; et al. Outbreak of Serratia marcescens blood stream infections in patients receiving parenteral nutrition prepared by a compounding pharmacy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 59, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Montagnani, C.; Cocchi, P.; Lega, L.; Campana, S.; Biermann, K.P.; Braggion, C.; Pecile, P.; Chiappini, E.; de Martino, M.; Galli, L. Serratia marcescens outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit: Crucial role of implementing hand hygiene among external consultants. BMC Infect. Dis. 2015, 15, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, C.F.; Liu, J.W. Investigation and containment of an outbreak of healthcare-associated infections caused by Serratia marcescens in a liver surgical ward and a surgical intensive-care unit at a medical centre. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2015, 48, S85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, A.; Bordalo, A.A. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria isolated from drinking well water available in Guinea-Bissau (West Africa). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 106, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Types of wells analyzed. (A) Picture of a dug well; (B) Picture of a drilled well.
Table 1.
Physico-chemical parameters of groundwater from private wells in the cities of Caarapó and Itaporã, MS, Brazil (2014).
| Physico-Chemical Parameters | Caarapó | Itaporã | Total n = 66 | Reference Values | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dug n = 10 | Drilled n = 26 | Dug n = 17 | Drilled n = 13 | |||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| pH | <6.5 | 7 | 70 | 25 | 96 | 16 | 94 | 12 | 92 | 60 | 91 | 6.5–8.5 * |
| 6.5–8.5 | 3 | 30 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 9 | ||
| Temperature | 15.1–24 °C | 7 | 70 | 6 | 23 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 8 | 19 | 29 | 24.2 °C ** |
| >24 °C | 3 | 30 | 20 | 77 | 12 | 71 | 12 | 92 | 47 | 71 | ||
| Turbidity | ≤5.0 NTU | 10 | 100 | 26 | 100 | 16 | 94 | 12 | 92 | 64 | 97 | ≤5.0 NTU * |
| >5.0 NTU | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Chlorine | <0.1 mg/L | 8 | 80 | 24 | 92 | 16 | 94 | 12 | 92 | 60 | 91 | ≤5.0 mg/L * |
| 0.1–1.25 mg/L | 2 | 20 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 9 | ||
| Fluorine | <0.1 mg/L | 7 | 70 | 17 | 65 | 16 | 94 | 9 | 69 | 49 | 74 | ≤1.5 mg/L * |
| 0.1–0.65 mg/L | 3 | 30 | 9 | 35 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 31 | 17 | 26 | ||
Table 2.
Number of wells positive for total coliforms and E. coli in the cities of Caarapó and Itaporã, MS, Brazil (2014).
| Microorganisms | Caarapó | Itaporã | Totals * | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dug n = 10 | Drilled n = 26 | Total n = 36 | Dug n = 17 | Drilled n = 13 | Total n = 30 | |||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Total Coliforms | 10 | 100 | 7 | 27 | 17 | 47.2 | 16 | 94 | 7 | 54 | 23 | 76.6 | 40 | 67 |
| E. coli | 6 | 60 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 19.4 | 12 | 71 | 3 | 23 | 15 | 50 | 22 | 33 |
* Contamination present in 100 mL sample [21].
Table 3.
Relationship between well depth and contamination with total coliforms, E. coli, heterotrophic bacteria, and yeast.
| Depth | Total Number of Wells | Total Col. * | E. coli * | Heterotrophic ** | Yeast * | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| ≤5 m | 10 | 9 | 90 | 6 | 60 | 2 | 20 | 7 | 70 |
| >5–10 m | 19 | 15 | 79 | 9 | 48 | 2 | 11 | 10 | 53 |
| >10–15 m | 16 | 10 | 63 | 6 | 38 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 50 |
| >15 m | 21 | 6 | 28 | 1 | 5 | - | 5 | 24 | |
| Total | 66 | 40 | 60 | 22 | 33 | 5 | 8 | 30 | 45 |
n = wells number; * Presence in 100 mL of water; ** Counts above 500 colony-forming units. Interpretation according to Resolution 2914/2011 Brazil.
Table 4.
Antimicrobial resistance and identification by the VITEK system of 45 bacteria isolated from well water.
| Microorganism | N | β-Lactams | LI | MA | QU & FL | AM | OX | AN | SU & PR | GP | |||||||
| Gram positive | P | OXI | CM | E | CIP | NOR | MXF | GM | LNZ | RA | SXT | TEC | VA | ||||
| Staphylococcus epidermidis | 1 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | S | |||
| Staphylococcus hominis ssp. | 2 | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | S | |||
| Staphylococcus saprophyticus | 1 | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | S | |||
| Staphylococcus warneri | 2 | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | I | R | I | S | |||
| Gram negative | N | β-lactams | FU | QU & FL | AM | GC | |||||||||||
| ETP | AM | SAM | FEP | FOX | CAZ | CRO | CXM | IPM | MEM | TZP | CS | CIP | AN | GM | TGC | ||
| Acinetobacter haemolyticus | 4 | - | R | R | S | R | I | R | R | S | S | R | S | R | S | S | - |
| Acinetobacter lwoffii | 1 | - | R | S | S | R | I | R | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | - |
| Aeromonas hydrophila | 2 | - | - | - | S | - | S | S | - | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | - |
| Chromobacterium violaceum | 1 | - | - | - | S | - | S | R | - | I | - | R | R | S | S | S | - |
| Citrobacter freundii | 2 | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Citrobacter sedlakii | 1 | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Enterobacter asburiae | 2 | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Enterobacter cloacae complex | 2 | S | R | R | S | R | S | S | R | S | S | S | - | S | S | I | - |
| Enterobacter gergoviae | 1 | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | R | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Klebsiella oxytoca | 1 | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Klebsiella pneumoniae spp. | 1 | S | R | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | - | S | S | S | - |
| Kluyvera intermédia | 1 | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | R | - | R | S | S | - |
| Ochrobactrum anthropi | 1 | - | - | - | S | - | R | R | - | S | S | R | S | R | S | I | - |
| Pantoea spp. | 1 | - | - | - | S | - | S | S | - | S | S | - | - | S | S | S | - |
| Pseudomonas aeroginosas | 5 | - | R | R | S | R | S | R | R | S | I | S | S | S | S | S | R |
| Pseudomonas putida | 1 | - | - | - | S | - | S | I | - | S | S | I | S | S | S | S | - |
| Ralstonia mannitolilytica | 1 | - | - | - | S | - | S | S | - | R | I | R | R | S | S | R | - |
| Serratia marcescens | 10 | S | R | R | S | R | S | S | R | I | S | S | R | S | S | S | - |
| Sphingomonas paucimobilis | 1 | - | - | - | I | - | R | I | - | S | S | S | R | R | S | S | - |
R—Resistant, I—Intermediate, S—Susceptible—Interpretation according to the CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Manual Standards Institute) 2014; N—number of bacteria isolated. Group of Antibiotic = LI: Lincosamides, MA: Macrolides, QU & FL: Quinolones & Fluoroquinolones, OX: Oxazolidinones, AM: aminoglycosides, AN: ansamycins, GP: Glycopeptides, SU & PR: sulfonamides & Primidinas, GC: glycylcyclines, FU: Fusidanas, PO: Polymyxins; Antibiotic = P: Penicillin, AM: Ampicillin, OXI: oxacillin, SAM: Ampicillin/Sulbactam, FEP: Cefepime, FOX: Cefoxitin, CAZ: Ceftazidime, CRO: Ceftriaxone, CXM: Cefuroxime, ETP: Ertapenem, IPM: Imipenem, MEM: Meropenem, TZP: Piperacillin/Tazobactam, CM: Clindamycin, E: Erythromycin, CIP: Ciprofloxacin, MXF: Moxifloxacin, NOR: Norfloxacin, LNZ: Linezulide, GM: Gentamicin, AN: Amikacin, RA: Rifampicin, TEC: Teicoplanin, VA: Vancomycin, SXT: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, TGC: Tigecycline, FA: Fusidic acid, CS: Colistin.
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Maran, N.H.; Crispim, B.D.A.; Iahnn, S.R.; Araújo, R.P.d.; Grisolia, A.B.; Oliveira, K.M.P.d. Depth and Well Type Related to Groundwater Microbiological Contamination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13101036
AMA Style
Maran NH, Crispim BDA, Iahnn SR, Araújo RPd, Grisolia AB, Oliveira KMPd. Depth and Well Type Related to Groundwater Microbiological Contamination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016; 13(10):1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13101036
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaran, Nayara Halimy, Bruno Do Amaral Crispim, Stephanie Ramirez Iahnn, Renata Pires de Araújo, Alexeia Barufatti Grisolia, and Kelly Mari Pires de Oliveira. 2016. "Depth and Well Type Related to Groundwater Microbiological Contamination" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 10: 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13101036
APA StyleMaran, N. H., Crispim, B. D. A., Iahnn, S. R., Araújo, R. P. d., Grisolia, A. B., & Oliveira, K. M. P. d. (2016). Depth and Well Type Related to Groundwater Microbiological Contamination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(10), 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13101036
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
