Comparative Removal of Poliovirus, Rotavirus SA11 and MS2 Coliphage by Point-of-Use Devices used to Treat Drinking Water and Water Disinfectants: A Review

IF 4.1 2区农林科学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Food and Environmental Virology Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1007/s12560-024-09609-z

Samendra P. Sherchan, Charles P. Gerba, Sherif Abd-Elmaksoud

{"title":"Comparative Removal of Poliovirus, Rotavirus SA11 and MS2 Coliphage by Point-of-Use Devices used to Treat Drinking Water and Water Disinfectants: A Review","authors":"Samendra P. Sherchan, Charles P. Gerba, Sherif Abd-Elmaksoud","doi":"10.1007/s12560-024-09609-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Test protocols have been developed to test water treatment devices/systems for use for treating drinking water that are used at the individual and home level to ensure the removal of waterborne viruses. Current test procedures call for the use of poliovirus type 1 and/or rotavirus SA11. Recently we suggested that selected coliphages could be used as surrogates for poliovirus for testing of point-of-use (POU) water treatment devices, however, rotavirus was not used in those studies. The purpose of this review was to compare studies of POU devices which were tested with poliovirus type 1, simian rotavirus SA11 and coliphage MS2 to determine if the behavior of rotavirus SA11 was significantly different. In addition, an attempt was made to compare the relative resistance of these viruses by various disinfectants used to treat drinking water. In all cases SA11 was removed to an equal or greater degree than poliovirus. SA11 was found to be less resistant to halogens, although one study found it to be more resistance to chloramines than poliovirus and MS2. Based on this review, use of coliphages for testing POU devices appear justified. Additionally, data on chloramines for these viruses would be useful to determine if rotavirus is more resistant than poliovirus and MS2.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":563,"journal":{"name":"Food and Environmental Virology","volume":"16 4","pages":"433 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and Environmental Virology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-024-09609-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Test protocols have been developed to test water treatment devices/systems for use for treating drinking water that are used at the individual and home level to ensure the removal of waterborne viruses. Current test procedures call for the use of poliovirus type 1 and/or rotavirus SA11. Recently we suggested that selected coliphages could be used as surrogates for poliovirus for testing of point-of-use (POU) water treatment devices, however, rotavirus was not used in those studies. The purpose of this review was to compare studies of POU devices which were tested with poliovirus type 1, simian rotavirus SA11 and coliphage MS2 to determine if the behavior of rotavirus SA11 was significantly different. In addition, an attempt was made to compare the relative resistance of these viruses by various disinfectants used to treat drinking water. In all cases SA11 was removed to an equal or greater degree than poliovirus. SA11 was found to be less resistant to halogens, although one study found it to be more resistance to chloramines than poliovirus and MS2. Based on this review, use of coliphages for testing POU devices appear justified. Additionally, data on chloramines for these viruses would be useful to determine if rotavirus is more resistant than poliovirus and MS2.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用点设备处理饮用水和水消毒剂去除脊髓灰质炎病毒、轮状病毒 SA11 和 MS2 Coliphage 的比较：综述。

已制定了测试协议，用于测试个人和家庭饮用水处理装置/系统，以确保去除水传播病毒。目前的测试程序要求使用脊髓灰质炎病毒 1 型和/或轮状病毒 SA11。最近，我们建议在使用点 (POU) 水处理设备的检测中使用选定的肠道病毒作为脊髓灰质炎病毒的替代物，但这些研究中并未使用轮状病毒。本综述旨在比较使用 1 型脊髓灰质炎病毒、猿轮状病毒 SA11 和大肠杆菌 MS2 测试 POU 设备的研究，以确定轮状病毒 SA11 的行为是否有显著差异。此外，还尝试比较了这些病毒对用于处理饮用水的各种消毒剂的相对耐受性。在所有情况下，SA11 的去除率都与脊髓灰质炎病毒相当或更高。研究发现，SA11 对卤素的抵抗力较弱，但一项研究发现它对氯胺的抵抗力高于脊髓灰质炎病毒和 MS2。综上所述，使用大肠杆菌检测 POU 设备似乎是合理的。此外，有关这些病毒的氯胺数据将有助于确定轮状病毒是否比脊髓灰质炎病毒和 MS2 更耐药。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Food and Environmental Virology ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-MICROBIOLOGY

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

2.90%

发文量

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： Food and Environmental Virology publishes original articles, notes and review articles on any aspect relating to the transmission of pathogenic viruses via the environment (water, air, soil etc.) and foods. This includes epidemiological studies, identification of novel or emerging pathogens, methods of analysis or characterisation, studies on survival and elimination, and development of procedural controls for industrial processes, e.g. HACCP plans. The journal will cover all aspects of this important area, and encompass studies on any human, animal, and plant pathogenic virus which is capable of transmission via the environment or food.